I think I am beginning to see to whom modern forms of Buddhism, which includes Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, have their appeal. It is to people who are carrying a lot of emotional baggage and don’t know how to handle it in the example of anger, being easily ticked-off or irritated by someone’s remarks which they find offensive. At other times they sink into some kind of emotional funk or a depression requiring meds.
Such people, by the way, might be from a well-educated, middle-class family but apparently their education proves inadequate because they keep doing stupid things being unaware of how much of their so-called decisions and reasoning really stem from their emotional baggage which involves some kind of personality disorder.
In addition, compounding the matter, they tend to be agnostics or atheists which is just another way of saying that they are uncomfortable with religion and metaphysics which might explain why they drift, politically, to the direction of Marxism which has neither regard for religion nor metaphysics (Marx, in his early years, was a Satanist).
What is the prognosis for people like this who could eventually make up the majority of Buddhist practitioners? I don’t see it as being all that good because too many Buddhist organizations have not seen the danger that these kind of people pose because many of these organizations tend to be led by these kinds of people or people who are in sympathy with them and not the demands of the Dharma.
It is really dark days for Buddhism when someone like Ed Brown, a Zen priest of good standing who I met many years ago, was recently barred from SFZC because someone falsely claimed that he spoke of having an erection. This is just the tip of the iceberg in which Buddhism is being gradually taken over by personality disorder types.
Still I continue to find much in the words of the Buddha that paint a much different picture of Buddhism that if it were laid out the way it was presented at the time of the Buddha, might be very upsetting to most of today’s Buddhists. Statements like this, for example, help to unlock more about karma (P., kamma) and why it is important to understand and not dismiss.
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition [abhisañcetayitaṃ], as something to be felt” (SN 12:37).
We are, so to speak, makers or willers of our future life. Our birth in this life is not a haphazard affair but one previously willed out. And we are still doing it, putting ourselves into danger by neglecting our spiritual life, being hooked on the flesh—our old kamma.
Aryeh: Richard Wurmbrand's book, Marx & Satan.
Posted by: TheZennist | November 21, 2018 at 06:03 PM
"Marx, in his early years, was a Satanist"
No, he wasn't. Where did you get that from?
Posted by: Aryeh | November 20, 2018 at 04:22 PM
dave b:
Iwamoto Yutaka claims that over 50% of the Buddha’s disciples were of Brahmanic origin and over 25% were of Ksatriya origin.
Posted by: TheZennist | November 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM
My study of Buddhism has primarily been the Pali Suttas, although I've tried unsuccessfully to get through Huangpo and Bodhidharma and the Lotus Sutra and Lankavatura and even Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra...so far the only Mahayana sutras I've been able to get through are the Purland Sutras. So in my understanding of Buddhism being primarily influenced by the Pali material, I notice there is a lot of talk of clans and good families. Even in the Lotus Sutra, bhikku is replaced by "sons of good families"...so I read in an article and noticed in one chapter. So it was never intended for the atheist dregs of society. Converts were intended to come from Brahmanas and those non-brahmanas who bought into Brahmanism, were raised with it in good families. So today, the only real Buddhist convert can be an ex-Christian or ex-Muslim, not an atheist.
Posted by: dave b | November 16, 2018 at 03:48 PM
Many self-proclaimed Buddhists in the West actually have their refuge in liberal or left-wing politics above and beyond their refuge in dharma teachings. Point out any disparity between dharma and liberalism and you will quickly see what they prioritize. Years ago there was a controversy around some comments made by Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, who said that Buddhism is not democratic. Stop the presses - all the normally sycophantic and unquestioning brown noses who worship Tibetan lamas as incarnate gods suddenly started looking around for a different incarnate god, one more willing to play the game and validate their pre-existing politics. This is America, buddy, we didn't bring you here to mess with our most cherished beliefs, just tell us we're primordially pure and take our money.
Posted by: Jack | November 14, 2018 at 03:36 AM