« Another taboo subject for Western Buddhists | Main | The Zen moment with Grace Jones & Lady Gaga »

May 26, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My Master told me;

"Finding yourself in a body, mired in darkness and ignorance, how do you expect the message of noble wisdom to be recieved? Answer and I will deny your delusion. Refrain and I will confirm your ignorance."

Fascinating. You are talking to deaf people about the nature of sound.

Even though I disagree with the majority of what's on your blog, I totally support your tacit war on American Buddhism, or "Pop Buddhism". Most of them are worse than non-Buddhists. They think "Sam Harris - Kill The Buddha" has the same meaning as Rinzai's statements, and that Buddhism is more or less the same as Secular Humanism. They think Buddhism is the "most scientific religion", meaning that it's the most appropriate to kiss science's ass ("Buddhism preached the same as science 2000 years ago! So it must be right, because it's similar to our science!" - thus spake their stupidity)... In truth, esp. American Buddhists are a strange blend of Christianity (dominant trait; that's why they stress "compassion", "kindness", "love" so much), science-worshipping and hippydom ("Zen of Big Lebowski" ...) - As far away I am from awakening, I feel sorry for these people's irreversible delusion, and I still hope one day they may see how profound the immense Sea of Buddhism is, and how they're playing with their own shadow.

As far as Pop Buddhists go, I don't know much about Brad Warner, so I can't say anything. But I liked that he answered "No" when asked if Buddhism is a form of Atheism. It's tempting to kiss science's ass and to gain people's approval by claiming it's the same as scientific secular humanism (human-worshipping and science-worshipping), or saying things like "Buddha was like a scientist of his age", or even "Buddhism is the most scientific religion" - these seemingly nice statements are the vilest attacks on Buddhism. One has to have clear vision to see this.

I've never read a book of Batchelor and probably never will, however I do not see a contradiction in awakening to the absolute, the Buddha or whatever term you want to use for it as described in the Udana or other scriptures, and B's statement. Maybe, B's intention was to use more modest and sober words. In the end, the canonical texts are failing, too.
I wouldn't want to take this all too serious. We don't awaken to Nibbana because we try so much, but regardless of trying. So even Batchelor might fall into the bottomless bucket wondering "what is this?!" or not wondering at all.

PS: I love your blog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo