It is true that New Age trends have emphasized Lovey Dovey self-esteem building and in some cases, they've provided an excuse for lazy Buddhists to stagnate outright. But the flaw is not in what these gurus teach, but what they fail to teach.
There is Buddha potential in all of us, however dormant, and the goal of Buddhism is to awaken it. Even saying "We are all already Buddhas" is not a new concept. There is a koan that I may not be quoting verbatim, but essentially goes: "What is Buddha? Three pounds of Burlap." There's Buddha in everything, it's just a matter of realizing the potential. What the New Agers fail to do is instill a sense of responsibility in people. Trying to love yourself without any feeling of obligation to improve yourself or act compassionately towards others is, well,...stupid and shallow. One Zen master (I forgot which one) gathered his students and told them, "You are all perfect just the way you are...and you could use some improvement." The New Agers neglect the latter, whilst others beat themselves up and neglect, ignore, or fail to grasp the former. Either way, the "sit down and shut up" style of instruction just won't work here. The Japanese are a highly disciplined people, and from birth, they are instructed to be obedient to authority. Americans are the polar opposite. Place value judgments on the difference if you wish, but it's a fact. A purely Japanese style of instruction simply won't work here. Americans are hell bent on Free Will. Either they will use that to make excuses for themselves and hold back their practice, or they will use it drive themselves forward on the Bodhisattva path, but they will not be whipped forward. At best, you can expect them to be gently shoved. That's just the way it is. Sprocket > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) > From: Alex Bunard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Knowledge > > Rod, > > I will put an end to your suffering right now: > > Right this moment, as we speak, you are incapable of > perceiving true suchness. With me so far? So long as > you cannot perceive suchness, you need to listen to > the beings who can. Abandon your own understanding > of > what is the 'right motivation', your own > understanding > that 'you are already a Buddha', etc. All these are > completely wrong. And they are completely useless. > > Focus on the teaching, and on the practice. Don't > try > to be too smart for your own good. Don't go with the > newfangled theories proposed by the latter day gurus > (the "I'm okay, you're okay" drivel). > > Learn all you can about Two Truths. Therein lies the > keys of being able to perceive unborn suchness. > > Once you get there, then we can talk. > > Alex > > > --- Rod Scholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alex, > > > > I hesitate to dismantle your ideas by pointing out > > their fallacies, but they are so glaring it is > > tempting. But I once spent an hour doing that for > > you when you first arrived, to which you missed > the > > post due to self-involvement, or just ignored it. > > Either way, I recevied your message. However, > > you've stated your erroneous approach so > succinctly, > > the oppurtunity would be a shame to ignore: > > > > I'm glad you state your position on suffering, > > buddhahood and practice so clearly, Alex. Do you > > see that the way you describe it, Buddhahood is a > > goal to be acheived by practice, and thus the > > practice is motivated? This is not 'right > > motivation'. You are already a Buddha. If the > > criteria for buddhahood was 'eliminated suffering' > > as you say, than to check for dharma transmission > > one could simply whack the applicants thumb with a > > hammer! "In summer we sweat." Non-attachment to > > suffering will let it fall away as I think you > know. > > But I think you then expect it not to arise due > to > > this non-attachment. When one can let it fall > away, > > one can also let it arise. > > > > When you call my posts "ad hominem" attacks, it is > a > > funny accusation. It is indicative of what I > think > > you fail to see. The use of any ideas or > knowledge > > is NOT to form a good idea, or logical idea, or > even > > a consistent idea, to which to conform one's > > behavior. Behavior supercedes ideas, and makes > > ideas (not the other way around). Thus it is your > > behavior by which you are judged. Indeed, it was > by > > behavior that you said you'd judge the better > > teacher when they come along (you used > 'complaining > > less' as a criteria). Thus any post which failed > to > > be somewhat 'ad hominem' would be caught up in > > ideas, rather than the immediate. > > > > Rod Scholl > > > > ===== > No karma was produced during the composition of this > letter > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:52:34 -0500 (EST) > From: "carlos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Knowledge > > > It is my view that we are forgetting that the "right > view" of life > can not be obtained by any amount of meditation > unless one's mind go > over the edge (stop duality) and lives for some time > on the other > shore, it doesn't have to be complete awakening. > As I understand, meditation is very good because it > gives us > understanding of how our mind works, what is the > importance of a > thought, and because "doing meditation is to the > mind as going to > the toilet is to the body" (Suzuki Roshi). > One can not get "Right view" unless one's ego stop > controlling and > one can experience it. > Someone made popular the said " if you find the > Buddha on the road > kill him" ,it means that if one finds so appealing > the Dharma and > Buddha that becomes all that one wants to be with, > one is mistaking > the finger by the moon and one should kill it in the > same way that > one kills a thought during meditation. > As I understand , to practice with the expectation > of obtaining > something prevents one of obtaining it, because it > means that one > has not given up control. > > Metta > > Carlos > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:18:17 -0800 (PST) > From: Alex Bunard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Knowledge > > --- carlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is my view that we are forgetting that the > "right > > view" of life > > can not be obtained by any amount of meditation > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/hjtSRD/3MnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
