« The absolute finality of death is not so certain | Main | Attâ is âtman »

August 20, 2013

Comments

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

David Hickerson:

Just recently one moderator at NewBuddhist who was communicating with another said that in one month he banned 40 people. That's over one a day. I was banned recently from FreeSangha because, from what I can gather, Zenmar is still hated - in this case by an angry little moderator who can't control his rage. And why is Zenmar so disliked? I have no idea - just guesses. Incidentally, Grand master Lu and Zenmar were the two main guys that the now defunct E-Sangha moderators were on the look-out for.

More information just came in. FreeSanga moderators and sychophants are saying that the criticism of this blog is unjustified. One of moderators says:

"No, it wasn't justified, but it told us a lot about Songhill's motivation and intent --- he not only lied to everyone about his true identity, but it sealed his fate when it came to his membership here. Actually, we were made aware of it shortly after it was posted on his blog, that's how we knew he was actually Zenmar."

So it appears that Songhill was really banned from FreeSangha for his "motivation and intent." Daja vu, E-Sangha.

Reading the comments here, I'm saddened to read that it seems to be a common perception that these forums (not just FreeSangha) are biased against the religious side of Buddhist thinking.

That said, I haven't gotten that "secular" vibe from any of these forums, save for one very small one I'm on (with something like 10 members). Even there, I've been pretty well welcomed and never censored / moderated for my more religious approach.

I hope you can choose to let go of any ill-will you may harbor against those who you think have wronged you. Please be well, friend.

"Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them."

;-) Be mindful!

We do not easy see our on dark places.

(Everybody loves his self, some more some lesser, so don't do what you don't like your self: Don't blame censure mechanism if you do your self)

An unbiased view:

"However, Zenmar's thesis is that Dark Zen is the principle of all Zen Buddhism, and any particular teacher, school, or tradition of Zen is authentic only insofar as he/she/it actually grasps the principle of Zen and is attempting to express it for the benefit of students.  All else is accessory and subject to suspicion. This is an interesting thesis, because it is thus not that only the teachings of Zenmar are legitimate--any teaching from anyone can be legitimate.  Zenmar is certainly suspicious of any tradition of Zen whose basis is "conventional," meaning you become a teacher by learning to think and talk like and please your teacher rather than by grasping the "dark principle".    Zen after all is about introspection rather than mimesis or worse sangha politics.  This critical approach goes way back and is not merely unique to Zenmar.  The distinction of Zenmar and perhaps his biggest problem in the realm of opinion as to legitimacy is that he does not have that conventional transmission and so his understanding appears by the standards of conventional tradition to be illegitimate--no teacher gave him the seal of approval (nonetheless, one Zen teacher wrote an interesting review of Zenmar's book).  There really is no easy way of saying whether it is or not legitimate short of whether you find it individually helpful or in agreement with your findings (or, often, your teacher's), but fortunately --and this is a big relief-- he hasn't built a cult around his philosophy, and neither have those who have found themselves in sympathy with it.  There is at this point no organization, no membership, no location, and no official process of authorization whereby a "Dark Zen" stamped lineage would be established. 

What other commentary can I give?  I have a positive reading of Dark Zen teaching, but the above really represents my opinion on it.  I can't speak for Zenmar, anybody interested in Dark Zen, or his/their critics.  I can only speak for myself."

I let this comment pass because I want the reader to see how paranoid and deluded some Buddhists are who pretend to be Buddhists but are really secularists who are trying to undermine true Dharma (saddharma).

And why was Songhill permanently kicked off of FreeSangha, a newer version of E-Sangha? Surprisingly, it was for posting Dr. Donald Hoffman's paper entitled "Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem" which if you have not read it, is about as close to the Lankavatara Sutra as it gets. Apparently, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

The topic was scrubbed and Songhill was subsequently banned. Zennists who follow this site know there is a cold war going on in Buddhism between secular Buddhists and true Buddhists. Incidentally, such a war has been going on in Thailand much longer between Theravada self-deniers and Theravadins of the Dhammakaya Foundation who assert that nirvana is the attâ/âtman.

I predict that Buddhism will eventually split into two warring sides and never the twain shall meet—nor should it ever meet because there is just one Buddhism and one path. Buddhism is not for those who assert the preeminence of matter over spirit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo