Real Buddhism is in the discourses of the Buddha

 The Buddha was an original genius who uncovered the mysterious, heretofore, concealed Dharma in contrast with worldly reality (samsara).   

“The Dharma obtained by me is profound, of deep splendor, difficult to see, difficult to understand, incomprehensible, having the incomprehensible as its scope, fine, subtle, the sense of which can only be understood by the wise” (Catusparisat Sûtra).

Buddhism, hence, pertains to what the Buddha taught in his discourses along with others who were his disciples who had won nirvana.  If someone claims to teach Buddhism and it is not in the discourses or stongly implied, how can it be Buddhism?

His awakening went beyond our common, sensory perception and experience.  The Buddha’s Dharma did not manifest in any all-too-human form which made it exceedingly difficult to realize.  Nevertheless, the Buddha taught mortals of their supramundane origin that they might awaken to it and attain the immortal (nirvana).  

The path the Buddha taught was not a decent by means of discriminating consciousness or even its suppression, but an ascent which involved hyper subtle introspection or dhyâna. (“Those who enter the path and practice meditation (jhâyino) are released from the bonds of Mara”, Dhammapada 276).

This Buddhism, which is found in the discourses of the Buddha, is not the same Buddhism that is being disseminated today in temples and Dharma centers.  It is a counterfeit teaching of Buddhism than is alien, in every way, to the early discourses.  By such a negative path no illumination is attained because none is believed possible.  There is only this mundane world that ends in suffering and death—no beyond or transcendent.

Even a beginner should be able to see that what I am saying is true.  How much is secular Buddhism really Buddhism, for example?  Very little, because secular Buddhism is almost completely stripped of the Buddha’s discourses.  Does it ever quote this passage and agree with it?

“And because there is indeed a world beyond, the view of anyone that there is not a world beyond, it is a false conception of his” (M. i. 402).

Even in Zen, especially Dogen’s Zen, there is very little of the Buddha’s discourses (Mahayana) given attention to.  Certainly, central to Dogen’s teaching is not the realization of Buddha Mind but, instead, zazen as if to suggest that zazen was the practice of Buddhas!  It was not.

Everywhere one looks at modern day Buddhism, the discourses of the Buddha are almost entirely ignored.  What is taught, instead, is some twisted, false representation of Buddhism that is almost incoherent, as if to suggest the Buddha delighted in teaching a kind of obscurant wisdom.  We find this especially in the teachings of nihilistic emptiness which the Buddha did not teach.  Neither did the Buddha teach there was no âtman nor did he teach that the âtman was an illusion.  In the discourses, he taught the opposite.  He told us, instead, to abandon desire for what is not the âtman (S. iv. 49) which, by default, tells us that the âtman is our refuge!

 

Comments

[Ungern Sternberg]

Methexis: Evola wasn't a fascist but rather believed in the traditional order of hierarchical monarchical states as existed in almost every civilization prior to the French Revolution. He wrote plenty of material criticizing fascism. I don't agree with Evola on every single stance he has, but I don't have a problem with his political positions and indeed agree with a good many of them.

The Traditionalist school's view on the transcendent convergence of spiritual traditions is quite different from the view of Theosophy and the New Age, both of which the Traditionalists had disdain for (or at least the former among the older generations of Traditionalist thinkers since what we know as the New Age hadn't really begun.) To understand the difference in their position I suggest reading the works of the authors mentioned.

In any case, I'd disagree that Buddhism is uniquely superior to every other spiritual tradition, though it certainly is among the ones I respect most if not the one I respect the most. I would also disagree with the idea that other sages of the world, especially for example various Hindu sages, didn't grasp the same Truth as various Buddhist sages. Though since you are a Buddhist it is a natural sentiment to hold your tradition as the ultimate, so I can respect that.

[Methexis]

Urgern Sternberg: Evola was an fascist and a racist - you have no problem with that aspect of his writings?

And to throw all sages in one basket is a mistake ... as if they were all the same ... that's New Age Theosophic bologna.

Buddha is unique and the non-Buddhist paths, even though they are noble, wise, many times profound, are all provisional paths and only the Buddha-Dharma is final and ultimate.

[Don]

Thanks Zennist. Looking forward to your blog posts every day.

[Fun Timez]

How would a secular buddhist poem go?

Don't do anything
You're already perfect
Thanks for the $20

[thezennist]

What I meant by an original genius is that the Buddha was self-taught (Ariyapariyesana Sutta). He found the way without a teacher (he said whom should I declare as my teacher?). He said he had no master.