Open Buddha

You sound like an East coaster man. :D

Hey, have you considered the possibility that values inherent in Buddhism attract people that you find distasteful?

>I’m not a Vegan
In many classic sutras Buddha suggests adherence to a vegetarian diet and the avoidance of killing and wearing animal products. Also, a consistent meditation practice can open one up to unexpected depths of sensitivity and compassion about meat consumption. I’ve seen this happen to many people, even friends engaged in meditation more or less secularly.

>I’m also not into (some) Lefty political causes or beliefs. I don’t speak softly.
Buddhism consistently conveys a pacifist ethic of universal love. And again, meditation can increase one’s sensitivity to these issues, particulary violence of all kinds; to humans, other animals and the planet. Wait until you get to your heart chakra. You will cry and cry I promise you. Oops, do I sound like a hippie? ;)

>I have a “real” job and don’t drift through life
Traditionally, one of the first steps in taking up a Buddhist lifestyle is “going forth” from the householders life to essentially be homeless, without the pride of a family and a career. Taking refuge only in the dharma and the sangha if you find one.

>I’m full of opinions
LOL! I think every book I’ve ever read on Buddhism touched on this, exactly how you’ve worded it, *full* with opinions, as being a distinct disadvantage on the Buddhist path. An obstacle so big it’s considered to occlude taking even the first step. Particularly in Zen, of course, I’m sure you’re familiar with the story of the overflowing tea cup.

>I don’t own a hacky sack
Dude! It’s well known that Buddha had a hacky sack and is said to have called it the fast track to enlightenment. :p

Hey Al,

Well, being a Boomer myself, I’m sort of looking over my shoulder here, but here goes. I mostly sympathize with what you’re saying here. The second reason I do Dzogchen is that it’s pretty explicit that no doctrine, attitude, hierarchy, moral code or anything else is absolute, and interfacing with things as they really are, both in their absolute and relative sense, and without reference to an external or internal script, is where it’s at. The first reason is that I got a good Direct Introduction from a really good Dzogchen teacher, and after that, working with anything else seems like a side track I don’t need.

Your objections here sort of remind me of a lot of reading I’ve been doing on the “philosophical” German music scene in the late 19th and early 20th century, where all these people were messing around with somewhat misconstrued Schopenhauer and very complex esthetic theory on the relationship between form and content. Then Strauss came along and scandalized people by messing around with somewhat misconstrued Nietzsche, and writing music about literary stuff and an opera about himself and his wife. People seemed to think that if they didn’t have some fixed, external, conceptual framework by which to understand everything, then they’d just have to regard all “metaphysics” as suspect, and declare that anything goes.

Buddhism refers to these alternatives as the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism, and says that we need to get beyond them, but there’s a lot of doctrinaire Buddhism that, by definition, isn’t beyond eternalism at all. And the big problem I have with the whole philosophical German music scene is that they were just too into their Zeitgeist and their own concepts to see all the possibilities, and I’m not seeing how doing the same kind of thing with Buddhist concepts and the consensual worldviews that get developed in Buddhist social scenes is any kind of improvement.

Although I do think that one’s practice needs to be based primarily on meditation rather than theories and concepts, we all deal with theories and concepts and have found many of them helpful, but in dealing with them with other people in Buddhist and other contexts, I’ve found the more freewheeling discussions with independent-minded folks who understand and enjoy critical thought much more useful and fun than discussions within some approved doctrinal framework, so I think you’re basically right, and tend myself to stay out of groups with committed, true believers, whether Buddhist or anything else.

W.B.

Sean,

You sound like an East coaster man. :D

Many have said this before. My natural home is probably New York or something.

Hey, have you considered the possibility that values inherent in Buddhism attract people that you find distasteful?

Yes but I have known plenty of Buddhists without these attributes. They are just much fewer and far between.

I’m not a Vegan

In many classic sutras Buddha suggests adherence to a vegetarian diet and the avoidance of killing and wearing animal products. Also, a consistent meditation practice can open one up to unexpected depths of sensitivity and compassion about meat consumption. I’ve seen this happen to many people, even friends engaged in meditation more or less secularly.

Which doesn’t have a lot to do with my point. Buddhism in Tibet and Japan is not Vegetarian. I didn’t mention “Vegetarian” in any case, I said “Vegan,” which is, as we both know another animal (heh) from a simple Vegetarian.

I’m also not into (some) Lefty political causes or beliefs. I don’t speak softly.

Buddhism consistently conveys a pacifist ethic of universal love.

Which, again, is not what I was speaking to. “Pacifistic ethic of universal love” is not the same as “Lefty political causes or beliefs.” It is interesting that you equate the two.

The “Left/Right” division in politics is both highly simplistic and extremely dualistic. You are either one or the other. I am not. There are aspects of the Left, the extreme Marxist Left, in fact, that I embrace. There are aspects of what is consiered the Right that I am embrace. There are things completely outside of either that I embrace as well.

I have a “real” job and don’t drift through life

Traditionally, one of the first steps in taking up a Buddhist lifestyle is “going forth” from the householders life to essentially be homeless, without the pride of a family and a career.

In which country do you see this? This is traditional if you take the Vinaya and become a monk. There is no requirement to do so. The Mahasiddhas, for example, were householders by and large and were not monks. Many of the great Tibetan Lamas, in history and alive today, are householders. They have wives and children.

The bit problem that I see is that there is an implicit assumption with many Buddhist practitioners that their personal political and cultural viewpoints are the norm and, of course, ALL Buddhists follow them, hence they are all Lefty Vegan Jobless Hacky Sack playing dudes.

>Buddhism in Tibet and Japan is not Vegetarian.

But Buddhism is from India, where the historical Buddha lived, and so the original, classic sutras that started it all are permeated with a vegetarian ethic. I agree that veganism, particularly let’s say “moral veganism” is more extreme but I don’t see it as fundamentally different. It just extends the compassion to include consuming other food products taken from animals bodies, arguably in inhumane ways. Also, veganism is clearly a superior choice to the standard American diet (SAD) let’s face it. It’s healthier, feels better and promotes a more settled mind. Even cures diabetes apparently http://www.rawfor30days.com/rawfor30daysgoogle.html. So not all vegans are doing it soley for skewed moral or political causes. Such as myself, my recent experiments in raw veganism are mostly for better health. Just two weeks in and I already notice a significant improvement in mood, energy and an increased depth and stability to my daily meditations. We’ll see what happens when I go back to Philly for Christmas though and someone starts fryin’ up a nice cheesesteak. doh!

>Pacifistic ethic of universal love” is not the same as “Lefty political causes or beliefs.”
>It is interesting that you equate the two.
>The “Left/Right” division in politics is both highly simplistic and extremely dualistic.

No, I agree with you. They are not the same. I personally don’t equate the two, I lean toward progressive libertarianism myself, but I don’t think it’s so hard to equate the two. I mean, immerse yourself in three good books on Buddhism, take up a daily meditation practice and then try to be really really pro George Bush. Is that even possible? Heh. I think naturally the inclination is to move AWAY from the right, which can seem like “toward the left” to the politically naive. I mean, not every, or even many, Buddhists are intellectuals you know, nor do I think they should expected to be. You are going for your PhD. You are an intellectually sharp guy. Most Buddhists, like most people I would venture, are not well read outside of their area of interest, in this case Buddhism and probably some new age thrown in. Political philosophy? Unlikely. So just put together this group of compassionate, sensitive, left leaning, somewhat fuzzy thinking people in a sangha, and you are basically going to end up with what you are saying you dislike. People with unsophisticated opinions that come off like people with unsophisticated opinions, kind of silly and pretentious. Anyway, I think you should speak up. Stir the pot a little. We should all get physically thrown out of a sangha once in our lives! :)

>The Mahasiddhas, for example, were householders by and large and were not monks.
>Many of the great Tibetan Lamas, in history and alive today, are householders. They have wives and children.

I personally don’t think that many of the modern Tibetan Lamas are enlightened at all. They are basically just priests in a traditon, not much different than, say, a married Luthern priest down the street. I also think a case could be made that nearly all of the *enlightened* mahasiddhas of the past were the ones that left home to do so. Marpa and Milarepa being the most famous I can think of and both did so. Even fratboy Virupa. (heheh) It just seems built in to the Buddhist path to leave your family and a tradional source of personal income to find and dedicate onself to a teacher. Post-enlightenment you can start your family, eat your meat, drink your beer and be a wild one if you are inclined. I see the West as so desperately wanting to rewrite these old traditions as having included the laymen’s life but I just don’t see it. I think it was more like “oh you want to be a part of this too? Pfft… ok there little guy, well here is a bunch of ritualistic mumbo jumbo stuff to do to keep you busy and out of trouble until your meditation breaks you open enough to come humbled and alone and desperate to the foot of a real teacher. Because that is step ONE”. I’m not saying I agree with this, don’t get me wrong, I just think this is the historical view, I think it’s embedded in the teachings, and I think it’s the attitude many lineaged teachers to this day have even if they don’t say it to white boys.

>The bit problem that I see is that there is an implicit assumption with many Buddhist practitioners that their personal political and cultural viewpoints are the norm and, of course, ALL Buddhists follow them

I know exactly what you are talking about here and I agree it’s annoying. I experience this aggravation from another angle, because I consider myself deeply deeply spiritual, but I don’t associate myself religiously with any one tradition at all and I really have a strong preference from thinking outside the box. I think free thinking has always been taboo though, and even more so in religious crowds, so I consider myself lucky because I think it’s more open than ever. But I’m sure you’ve gotten your share of strange looks trying to share concepts from the hermetic tradition with less intellectual followers of Buddhism. They are seen as diametrically opposed; “black magic” even. I’ve hit this with some of my Taoist buddies too, which is even stranger considering Taoism has such known roots in old magick and shamanism.

I dunno.

Hey, how do you do quotes like that? :)

buddhism is pretty much like the borg, expanding through cultures assimilating their past religious and magical practices. i actually find its philosophy rather repulsive and very nihilistic.

however, because of this method of expansion, it has integrated a ton of very practical esoteric technology, and i find it worth studying for this reason.

PMP,

I doubt that we have much to say to each other if you find Buddhism “rather repulsive.” I find it profound, much more so that the occultism and neopaganism that I’ve seen over the last 17 years.