Yesterday I took the #2 bus up Sunset to the Arclight theater in Hollywood to see the documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief*. There are already numerous articles on the movie all over the Interwebs. The most succinct one I’ve found is on the Los Angeles Magazine website. Salon.com also has a very good interview with author Lawrence Wright, whose book inspired the film.
There wasn’t much in the film that I’d never heard before about Scientology. I knew they had boatloads of money. If you live in Los Angeles you’re constantly confronted with large, prominent reminders of just how much property the church of Scientology owns. In fact, the Arclight theater is just a few blocks away from the gigantic Scientology center that was once the Cedars of Lebanon hospital seen in the Three Stooges’ Oscar nominated film Men in Black.
Cedars of Lebanon in the days when the Three Stooges were there.
I knew John Travolta and Tom Cruise were members and that the church allegedly used information gathered in their “auditing” sessions as a way of blackmailing members who want to leave. What’s amazing is that the church is now apparently trying to prove this allegation is true by using information presumably gathered during these sessions to mount a smear campaign against the ex-Scientologists who appear in the film.
I also knew their theology was based on a really bad sci-fi story concocted by founder L. Ron Hubbard, who started his career as a pulp science fiction writer. I saw it all on that one South Park episode. The movie gives you a few more details about the story of Xenu the Galactic Overlord that the South Park episode omits.
Which is basically what I got out of the film; stories I’d heard before only this time with a lot more detail.
Since I’m working on starting my own cult here in Los Angeles, I was watching the film with an eye on what to do and what not to do. Actually, I hope my proposed center doesn’t turn into a cult and I don’t think it will as long as I’m around. But you never know where things will go.
Lots of people these days like to point out that the wacky theology of places like the Church of Scientology or the Mormons is not that much crazier than stuff you can find in the Bible, the Torah, and similar writings revered by other mainstream religions including Buddhism. This is a good point, I think.
It seems to me that in this life you often have to choose your delusions. You need to decide which set of crazy ideas works best for you. To me, it makes the most sense to believe in things that are rational and provable. But then you have to wonder if you are really capable of judging.
For example, I believe in science. I’m typing these words on a very sophisticated piece of equipment that exists because lots of people in the past experimented with things in the physical world to see how they actually worked. They developed theories and tested them to see if they fit the facts. Theories that didn’t fit the facts were discarded. Even the ones that did fit the facts were only accepted provisionally until such time as flaws were discovered, at which point those theories were either discarded or modified.
But there are limits to how far we can trust this stuff. Scientology is supposedly intended to bridge the gap between science and theology. The organization has developed a whole slew of machinery that is supposed to prove that their theories are correct. And many claim that these machines do exactly what they say they do. Those e-meters look pretty hokey to me. But I am unqualified to test those machines, so I can’t really say for certain.
In any case, I choose not to follow Scientology because their particular set of delusions do not appeal to me. Their vision of the ideal person looks to me like a big Type-A douchebag with lots of money and a thirst for control. That’s not who I aspire to be. But I can see that if you do aspire to be that kind of person, Scientology can probably help you achieve that.
But then I ask myself, is Zen any less delusional? I certainly think it is. Rather than believing in Xenu the Galactic Overlord, John Smith and his disappearing tablets, Jesus Christ rising from the dead, or even the various marks that supposedly proved Buddha was, if not precisely divine, at least a superior human being, Zen Buddhists don’t have any standard set of required beliefs.
Yet I had a certain degree of faith that my teachers were not lying to me. I felt something from them. Some kind of inner peace that had come as the result of their sitting practice. Just like someone who comes to Scientology because they want to be as rich and powerful as Tom Cruise, I started doing zazen because I wanted to feel the kind of inner peace my teachers seemed to possess.
After more than thirty years of working with this practice, I haven’t had any reason to doubt its effectiveness. Though I have had plenty of reasons to doubt my own understanding of it. I’m not really sure why it works. I know that zazen practice alone can’t keep a person from being an asshole, that it doesn’t cure cancer, that it can’t save your relationships or net you a six figure income. Even so, it has made every single aspect of my life better.
I’m sure John Travolta would tell me the same thing about Scientology. I’m not precisely sure why, though, but I know I wouldn’t believe that.
– – –
*If you have HBO and can record the movie when it plays there on March 29th and you want to send me that recording, please let me know.
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 3, 2015 Pomona, CA Open Door 2 Yoga 6 pm 163 W 2nd St, Pomona, California 91766
April 24-26, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY ZEN & YOGA RETREAT
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Registration is now open for our 3-day Zen & Yoga Retreat at Mt. Baldy Zen Center April 24-26, 2015. CLICK HERE for more info!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
I need your money way ore than Scientology does. So send your donation intended for them to me instead!
“Nice to see you, Anon.”
Nice to see you too, g!
Arguing on the Hardcore Zen blog…
Edit your post to spell “Torah” correctly… or you’ll look like a moron. Unless, of course, you’re referring to 1/3 of the title of the movie about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Edit your comment to spell “harbour” correctly… or you’ll look like a moron. Unless of course you’re A merkin.
I don’t know if I can manage to cut through all the static and noise (and cruel jibes aimed at children with down syndrome… for fuck sakes, GC) but anyway here it goes, into the void:
I think there’s one substantive difference between Zen Buddhism – at least Zen Buddhism as practiced by Mr. Warner – and Scientology. That is, Scientology makes a lot of big and very specific promises about what it can deliver to dedicated practitioners – wealth, fame, prestige, enviable romantic partners, ect. It is essentially a factory for feeding both into and off of people’s most narcissistic desires (I won’t go so far to say they promise to fulfill any desire. They seem to focus on the sorts of things that are intrinsically valued in dominant American culture. So, sexy wife and plum roles in Hollywood blockbusters, yes; the brutal slaughter of personal enemies, no. This may explain why the institution has managed to survive and thrive despite the obvious lunacy of it’s doctrines).
Zen Buddhism, on the other hand, doesn’t promise anything. Or would it be more accurate to say it promises nothing? Which makes me wonder if that might not be a good working definition of a “religion” – a promise making organization (and yes, I realize many ostensibly secular organizations would fall under that definition. All private business , certainly, and most political parties and charities too). This touches in some ways all the controversy surrounding how to define Buddhism, as religion, philosophy, “spiritual practice” or whatever. I won’t get into how certain institutions which almost everyone defines as “religious” fit into this rubric – i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, I mean – but it’s obviously something to ponder on given all these make one very big promise. Except to acknowledge that some would argue, in that, they are essentially no different than any other cult or sleezy batshit enterprise like Scientology (I’d personally beg to differ. But like I said, too massive a topic for a comments thread)
All that being said, Brad’s concern that his own nascent organization might develop into something crazy and corrupt are not entirely unfounded. It would not be the first time an venture ended up promoting the very things it started out eschewing. But given the fact that Brad’s organization is being built, from the ground up, on an entirely different foundation is a good sign that it has the potential to produce something better than an enormous ugly building full of weird machinery and weirder celebrities. I think the world has enough of those.
Cruel jibes?
Hi Shade,
That’s a thoughtful response you’ve made–one of the few to actually try and substantively tackle the questions I and Zafu (and I believe SH) also have posed in various ways.
I like much of what you say differentiates Zen from other religions. And to a large extent, I’d agree. But where you state: “Zen Buddhism, on the other hand, doesn’t promise anything. Or would it be more accurate to say it promises nothing?”
I tend to disagree. The notion that there is a cause of suffering and a way to cease suffering based on the practice of meditation (and the practice of following the precepts amongst other activities) is certainly a promise.
And enlightenment might be held up as one of the biggest promises of all, despite Brad’s protestations to the contrary. Whether it’s simply a misunderstanding or not, there is certainly a large body of literature and discussion out there in the Zen/Buddhist sphere that states something along the lines of:
If you meditate and practice long and hard enough, you eventually will come to be able to see the truth about who and what you are (or aren’t) and to apprehend reality directly. This will cause you to lessen or cease your suffering (as well as the suffering of others to some extent).
So I would tend to disagree that the religion makes no promises. It’s promises perhaps are less onerous than something obvious like Scientology, but the promises are still there–and that’s why its still a religion, I would say.
Ah yes, the big E… that is the one big promise that attached to Zen Buddhism and probably, still, the number one pull of the practice, at least in the U.S. The one that Brad downplays in a big way. In some ways this isn’t so different a goal than the more worldly prizes offered by The Scientologists, or alternately, the commercial bastardization of various Asian spiritual traditions that have been circulating in the west since the 1960s. That is, in so far as people come to the Zendo having a very specific idea of what enlightenment entails, usually from inspired by a description in a book that reads somewhere between a drug trip and a cartoon (i.e. the aptly named “enlightenment porn”). The kind of people who lose interest as soon as they realize that offer isn’t on the table, and what is being offered will take many years of dedicated application to achieve.
The other big promise made by Zen, which you mention hear and which I think Brad isn’t quite so squeamish about, is of course, Nirvana, the cessation of suffering. And though the two goals are clearly related there’s a marked difference in emphasis. The former represents something to be won, which the latter represents something to be lost. Which is why I think the people who come to the Zendo seeking Nirvana as opposed to Enlightenment tend to have led harder lives and be more emotionally scarred. Another (cute) way to put it: people who are trying to get something vs. people who are trying to get away from something. It’s interesting to speculate how much tension among Zen practitioners, personal or doctrinal, arises when these two groups come toe to toe.
(I have a sneaking suspicion the Nirvana seekers are more likely to stick with the long and sometimes onerous work required to get where their going, simply because they’re more likely to already be well schooled in disappointment and anguish.)
Anyway, the point of all this blather is – yes, my take here on what Zen does or does not promise is, indeed, reductive and oversimplified. I knew that from the start but it’s hard not to oversimplify on the comments section of a blog and maintain any kind of brevity.
ps. apologies for all the typos in that reply. Trust they’re not so bad anyone reading can’t work out the necessary corrections.
Anon108’s experience is that argumentation “merely serves to upset and inflame people.” I suppose this is possible, but I find it highly unlikely. Obviously, argumentation can be productive. It’s also true that it may only upset and inflame people, of course. This being the case, the case of Anon108’s experience is an extreme case. Where has she been living all her life that she’s never observed a fruitful end to heated disagreements? Having come from such an extreme environment, is his experience of much value to us?
In the quotation he posted, there are no reasons given for why the recluse Gotama abstains from wrangling argumentation, nevertheless Anon108 “thinks the words are true.” This seems to only mean that Anon108 believes Gotama abstained from argumentation. Why does he believe that? Because it’s written in a sutra? Does he believe everything written in such documents? If so, why? It is easy to jump to the conclude that he values something (meaning perhaps, in a word) more than he values truth.
*conclusion
I thought that Zafu had more going on than simply being a troll out to mess with people, and I think this longer comment proves that. I think it would be nice to have more fleshed out comments along these lines from you, Zafu.
I really like what you said here:
“This seems to only mean that Anon108 believes Gotama abstained from argumentation. Why does he believe that? Because it’s written in a sutra? Does he believe everything written in such documents? If so, why? It is easy to jump to the conclude that he values something (meaning perhaps, in a word) more than he values truth.”
Because this goes once more to the heart of what makes Buddhism no different from other religions. It’s based on the acceptance of the dead, unprovable old documents that state something completely unknowable about an old dead guy.
He was a master, enlightened, perfect, etc. etc.
I think the idea that it’s not very healthy to argue in circles could be brought back to the golden rule–do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, nobody likes to be picked apart, so if you are mean and pick others apart, it might not go well for you.
Is it so amazing that the Buddha said what he said, if he even said it? And as Zafu states, how do we know he actually lived up to what he said? Many religious figures and political figures say great stuff and then live completely differently behind closed doors.
We’re all very aware of that fact, but our deep need to believe something makes us overlook our own bias in our own beliefs and how we perceive truthiness in our sacred cows but not anyone else’s.
How could it not fail, he doesn’t believe in anything. It’ll be readily corrupted by anyone who comes along, because there are no core values or purpose. Assuming that ‘realizing profound insight into the nature of reality’ is of no value and therefor purposeless.
Gniz, when you get the chance, read the stuff I said about memory… I’m interested in your response.
Here’s how I would redefine the 4 noble truths:
1. Dukkha is clinging to declarative memory as if it has a self-defining quality. All experience is within working memory, that can get consolidated into decalarative memory. The feeling of closeness to declarative memory is Dukkha. The truth of life is Dukkha.
2. Dukkha originates from “conditioning”, or in more modern scientific terms “experience-dependent plasticity”. We are taught, since children, our declarative memory defines who we are.
3. We can train ourselves not to cling to declarative memory as self-defining.
4. The truth of the path is realized once declarative memory is seen entirely impersonally.
There you go.
Also, Lankavatara Sutra argued this… too…
Moreover, I gave you a link showing how our feeling of the present is proportional to the amount of lessening the grip of declarative memory.
Whether that has any deeper metaphysical meaning is difficult to say….
One possibility is that memory may be localized in a holographic field of some sort.
The question of whether declarative memory is entirely reducible to brain activity is good one. We know it definitely depends on brain activity for its existence, but the question of whether it is reducible (i.e., identical to the brain processes themselves) is up to debate. Procedural memory definitely is reducible, but I’m not sure if the remembrance of an idyllic or depressing event from childhood is identical to internal states of the brain, even though it may depend on it for its existence.
I reposted what I told you here with more citations:
http://www.ligotti.net/showpost.php?p=112325&postcount=4
I use random forums for a bounce back.
“All experience is within working memory, that can get consolidated into decalarative memory or procedural memory*”
However, procedural memory is not really what bothers us.
Hi SH,
I did read your posts and liked what you said quite a bit. You’re clearly a well read and well studied person who goes across wide varieties of interests and fields.
I like the idea of a multi-disciplined approach to the nature of consciousness.
And I also basically agree with your concept of memory and how our identification with memory is part of what makes us suffer. But it’s so, so complicated.
I’ve often thought that from a purely survival perspective, becoming “enlightened” or unidentified with the memories surrounding who we are might not actually be in anybody’s best interests. Wanting to survive, to live and to be attached to my body, experiences and sense of self, is a large part of how I continue to strive to survive, and how people as a whole continue.
If we were all to suddenly become dis-identified in such a way, I wonder if our ability to survive and thrive would plummet. These tendencies are hardwired into us for a reason, me thinks.
My feeling nowadays is that “acceptance” of these facts could allow us to suffer a bit less within the suffering. As in, yeah, I am going to be terrified of death and old age and decay because it’s the natural state of my circumstances, and thus there’s nothing wrong with me for feeling these feelings.
Kind of simple, and i think we don’t like simple. We want a way out, a secret doorway to take us out of this circumstance, but I’m less and less sure that a door exists, or that if it exists–it’s even a good thing to open that door.
gniz,
I think if we reinterpret the debate Jains and Buddhists had in this context, we can make sense of it a lot.
The Jains were the types to completely disidentify with their declarative memory and go to the woods to fast and meditate until death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana
However, the Buddhists accept the “Middle Way” which is about tapering our attachments to declarative memory when necessary, as a way to no longer be afflicted by too much suffering.
What I’ve noticed in big expansive fields is when I come to feel inseparable from them or an awe, there is no retrieval of declarative memory processes…
I rather like to be picked apart, which is why I took exception to Alan’s claim that I’ve received good and pointed critiques in this blog. There have been plenty of personal attacks of course, which I only mind when they distract excessively from the subject.
Fair enough, Zafu. But I did ask you on the other page about meditation and whether or not you feel that any kind of self-examination can lead to a realistic or helpful appreciation of reality, of the kind that Buddhism promises.
Whether or not you agree with the promise of enlightenment or the end of suffering, I’d be curious to hear your take on meditation, particularly mindfulness, of which many studies have validated the usefulness of.
To be clear, Buddhism promises the cessation of suffering, not just something that can lead to a realistic or helpful appreciation of reality. This promise is largely what defines Zen Buddhism as a religion. Without this promise it’s not Buddhism.
I believe meditation and mindfulness are very useful. I believe that I’ll benefited from them.
Buddhism can’t end your suffering. As long as you are alive, you’ll suffer. Since I am not Buddhist I usually don’t worry too much about the exact rules or promises of Buddhism. I don’t know if it was ever intended to be a lie or a promise though, I think that it’s likely been repeatedly interpreted by people who have never seen into their real selves in a way they can currently remember and therefore have greatly distorted it all in hopes of getting help with the one thing that nobody could ever really help them with, knowing themselves. I firmly believe we are on our own on that one, and there’s no teachers when it comes to enlightenment.
To me, I think that the whole “cessation of suffering” simply means that when you remember your real self again, you are all good.
It’s nice to see you actually engage in discussion and thought a little bit, Zafu, rather than just bleeting and telling everyone they are lost in lies or whatever. 😉 It’s shuts people down when you do that, and since that is obvious, it gives the impression you have stopped learning and are only here to teach, which would be what a “zen master” might do haha
I haven’t said that anyone is lost in lies. Not explicitly anyway.
Yes, Zafu. I sensed we were more in agreement than not, based on your brief assertions.
It’s true. Buddhist religion promises results based on certain activities, but there’s no proof it can deliver even a fraction of what it advertises.
The thing is, I think the promise is based on simply misguided opinions based on very old experimentation and then the hagiography that accompanied those old experiments.
The tools for contemplation are wonderful, and clearly they have benefit. But in that time, in that place, individual humans put those tools and the results into a framework that was wildly exaggerated and confused.
Our need to create heroes and elaborate belief systems, and to try and over explain things that we don’t understand has tainted the wonderful tool of meditation and mindfulness to make it into something beyond its capabilities…imo, of course.
The religious aspects also have value I believe. Meaning, to put it in one word, is a powerful and essential thing. It can be used to great benefit, and as history has shown many times, it can be used for terrible detriment.
Maybe the difference between it being a benefit or detriment is simply being aware of it. A large part of that could be not denying it’s power over us.
If declarative memory is not entirely localized in the brain, I think that would explain rebirth. In this life we are constantly being reborn as we moment-to-moment identify with declarative and working memory on what to do next, but if declarative memory is not entirely localized in the brain then it can causally influence the next rebirth, after death, even when it is not identify with. Since there is identification of it, there is no awareness of how it causally influences the next rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions.
Noble Laureate Henri Bergson gave good arguments on how declarative memory may not be stored in the brain entirely.
I’m not sure if there were Pali and Sanskrit words for declarative memory, but it seems Karma refers to the same thing. The cause and effect relationships are held in memory to perpetuate more causes and effects as enacted by the body…
It’s a very difficult question once we look question the ontological status of consciousness and personal memories.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#4
Since there is no identification with it*
Shit, now I’m feeling kind of uneasy.
I want the answer to fucking Hard Problem of Consciousness and how declarative memory relates to the brain.
Dammit. I don’t accept reductionism because the retrieval of an idyllic or depressing event from childhood is not identical to internal states of the brain, even though it may depend on it for its existence.
Hey SH,
I get it. But I find it personally of more interest to examine the feelings of unease that accompany the not knowing. On the one hand, that’s likely the same feeling that could spur you to doing the hard research and study and experimentation to prove more about how memory works.
But it’s going to come, imo, through studying the neurology, the biology, the function of the mind through primarily scientific means rather than the internal investigation of meditation. That’s how it seems to me.
Meditation, so far, for me–is more to do with relaxing the internal nervous system, lowering heart rate, blood pressure, de-activating fight/flight. It’s been shown to do this, and I think it’s a huge piece to use in the battle against the insanity present in the world and myself. But I am not sure that meditation can accurately be used to make definitive statements on the nature of human consciousness. At least, not on its own.
I actually think it’ll come through physics intersected with consciousness at this point.
Everyone is going to be like, “WTF,” when it’s shown that the ” human brain works with computations that are in a superposition of different quantum states at the same time”. That would mean Roger Penrose, eminent physicist, is correct. Roger Penrose is pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
Meditation may be somewhat overrated in regard to stress management. Mindfulness might be more useful, if it can help us be more aware of what we can and cannot control.
Hi Zafu. The studies seem to indicate that meditation is a very good tool for managing stress, pain, etc etc. Perhaps its not a perfect tool, its not a magic bullet. There, I would agree.
I’ve probably done more breathing and stress reduction type meditation than most, and I’d say that even though my results have been profound, I’ve been underwhelmed with my results based on the amount of effort and time it took me to see them.
So in a way I do agree that its overrated, but thats based on the expectations we bring to it. Meditation is one tool to be used, in my opinion, in conjunction with self-introspection, creativity, perhaps talk therapy and exercise.
Actually, running’s probably one of the best things I’ve ever found, at least as powerful if not more in terms of immediate effect.
But I do believe that mindfulness has the possibility of opening our eyes to our habitual patterns in ways that can bear powerful fruit. The issue is that much of its effect depends on whether we are honestly willing to see the realities. And since most of us are not, the tool itself becomes less than useful.
I find meditation to be an excellent way to understand how your mind works. That’s the real benefit as far as my life and practice goes. 🙂
I recently listened to a lecture series by Robert Sapolsky. He’s done extensive stress research and his findings concur with yours. He found that meditation was effective, but to a much lesser degree than running, for example.
Sounds like his research would be wasted on you (you’ve made the discoveries yourself) but it is fascinating. And he explains the biology, more or less, behind it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky
Dude, some of the most stressed out people I have ever known have been meditating for decades!
I agree, Mindfulness might be more useful for stress reduction. Brad, who LOVES to say that he have been mediating for 30 years, often writes about losing his temper or he complains a lot about things he hates. The dude could clearly use a Mindfulness retreat, perhaps witting next to Anderson Cooper haha.
Hey, justly, that’s funny. Yeah, it would make sense that a lot of meditators are very stressed. In one regard, the more stressed you are, the more likely you might be to turn to meditation. Since you are struggling more than the average person.
My wife, for instance, has never meditated and is much naturally less stressed than myself. But I came into my adulthood incredibly stressed and needed to find ways to work through and deal with my incapability of coping well.
So for her, meditation is probably less necessary. She’s actually helped me find other coping stress relievers such as taking time to do pleasant things like watching a dumb movie or lying in bed reading etc when I am stressed, as opposed to enforcing a meditation regime.
So much of this is about how/when/why we use tools. They are not magic, they have times and places and with meditation, if we are rough and hard and unforgiving on ourselves, meditation can perhaps even worsen the primary condition.
Sitting***
God, how could you run a blog with an active comments section and not allow edits?
Agreed. They changed your name to justly on me, and I couldn’t change it back.
🙂
What makes me stressed is the existential crisis in dealing with these deeper questions.
In some ways, I like Albert Camus more than Jean Paul Sartre. Camus realized how difficult metaphysical or scientific questions be given the provisional nature of it all. However, he still realized life is cold and indifferent to our sufferings, hence his Myth of Sisyphus. I also like his fiction such as The Plague and The Stranger a lot. Sartre has a stilted way of writing that Camus didn’t have.
Hey SH,
Yup, its stressful. Is the universe cold and indifferent? See, I’m not sure that it is. But at the same time, it’s not always a cuddly teddy bear, that’s for sure.
Your real self is not cold and indifferent at all.
It’s cliche to say this, but it’s like waves on water man. The wave crashes and dies (awe poor wave), but the ocean is still wicked stoked!
I don’t as yet feel that this is an answerable question. My observation of the world, from my perspective, is that there is both beauty, compassion and love–and also deep pain, horror and suffering in equal measure. But unfortunately not everyone gets equal doses of these two polarities.
As for whether life is primarily benign or loving vs indifferent and cold (or actively even)–I tend to think neither. To me, life seems to be beyond those polarities, while also encompassing them.
Thus, my own eventual death might in fact be violent and horrible (and hopefully over quickly). But that does not mean that life is horrible and violent always. Just maybe for me, unluckily.
As for the nature of my “true self”, I feel this is a question that cannot currently be answered with the knowledge possessed at this time in the world. Individuals may have guesses or theories and some may even be correct–but if they are, they can’t prove it or know it for a certainty, imo.
(actively evil***)
It won’t ever be an answerable question that you can share with another person.
Nobody can prove this to anyone else. This is way a teacher can’t teach enlightenment. All you can do is know yourself.
The answer is there for each of us, and as the saying goes, if it could be said then everyone would have already told their brother.
You, right here, are everything. All of it. You got it. It feels like this. I’m not wrong 😉
One must IMAGINE Sisyphus happy.
By the way, they have an insulting name for people like me that primarily believe meditation is beneficial for stress reduction, etc. They call it bonpu zen, which many use in a derogatory fashion.
But truly, a reduction in anger and stress is a reduction in suffering. The problem is, Buddhism promises more than that and simply doesn’t deliver on any level. All we need to do is observe Buddhists en mass to see that they have not achieved any of the profound and absurd claims that are apparent throughout the religion.
However, to simply state that Buddhism has managed to come up with one of the best stress reduction tools, one of the best contemplative tools of all time–isn’t enough for these religious folks. They need to lay claim to the truth of the universe as well, and the truth of human consciousness. I think that is a big overreach, but understandable with the human need to believe and explain at all costs.
Yeah, every religion seems to promise the answers, but the deeper we get into it they say, “Don’t know… but look at how much better off you are now!”
Arguably the Advaita Hindus are worse in this aspect in that when push comes to shove, they still deny the reality of suffering?
Read this. It’s disgusting and vile:
“Question: There is suffering and bloodshed in East Pakistan [Bangladesh] at the present moment [1973]. How do you look at it? How does it appear to you, how do you react to it?
Nisargadatta: In pure consciousness nothing ever happens.”
Some real schizophrenic bullshit, don’t you agree?
http://www.inner-quest.org/Nisargadatta_Awareness.htm
“Question: Please come down from these metaphysical heights! Of what use is it to a suffering man to be told that nobody is aware of his suffering but himself? To relegate everything to illusion is insult added to injury. The Bengali of East Pakistan is a fact and his suffering is a fact. Please, do not analyse them out of existence! You are reading newspapers, you hear people talking about it. You cannot plead ignorance. Now, what is your attitude to what is happening?
Nisargadatta: No attitude. Nothing is happening.”
It’s just a bunch of fakes. Money is moving it all, I tell you.
I wouldn’t mind having some of Brad’s money *grits teeth*.
Just a bunch of fakes masquerading that they think they’ve gotten everything figured out, but the questions are so complex that they’re naive. But in reality, most of them are cognizant of that naivity, but just go with it for the green.
Complex questions to life is just a hobby. I pity the zen fools that memorize every little fucking level of consciousness they can read about thinking that is getting them closer to finally “getting it”.
The caveman’s enlightenment is the same as the greatest “thinkers” in the world, and it is all right here.
This is of course just my opinion. I know I am a fool 😉
Haha, Yes SH, I feel your frustrations and am largely in agreement. Hope you’re joking about Brad’s money though–dude is broke and admits it freely.
As for the attitude about “nothing happens in consciousness” I also find it to be bullshit. But then I see a dude like Ramana Maharshi and it seemed he did try to live that (based on all accounts). Whether he did or didn’t isn’t of much use to me. It’s a perspective I don’t share.
At some level, it may be true that nothing happens–from a certain perspective. I don’t find that to be a valuable perspective for me, in my own life. I agree that it seems cold and delusional.
However, the flip side of it is that I do think it’s most important to try and take care of my own side of the street. I feel everyone has a role on the stage of life–some bigger and some smaller. If you are President of the US, you have a larger role to play and so you have different things to take into account with the affect you have on others.
But I am a small player on a small stage, so for me, taking care of my close relationships and not worrying as much about the larger political landscape as much, knowing that much of what I can do is limited by geography and knowledge and my ability to know what can be done to help.
Its enough for me to do my best in my very small circle of friends and family–and I rarely do so well even there.
When it comes to war, pain and suffering of huge groups of people, it becomes very difficult to know what is right.
I couldn’t help but laugh the last time I witnessed that tactic. But I do remember a time when I bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I’m with you- we are householders, give us a break!
justlui, do you play any video games?
I don’t, but I built a very shabby one in Unity once haha. I wish I did, I am always amazed by how badass they are, but I haven’t played myself for years. I should though, I am missing out on some serious art/entertainment by skipping gaming these days.
Check out the video game Planescape: Torment. It’s the best video game ever. It has amazing dialogue.
Here’s some good dialogue from it:
You see a man, standing stock still. He isn’t moving a muscle. On closer examination, it appears that he isn’t even breathing — just standing. His eye sockets are empty holes in his face. Contained within their bounds is a flat gray light that seems to dance with possibility. Looking into the sockets, the eerie, empty feeling of a limitless void shivers through you, as if you had gazed into a sliver of eternity. The head slowly swivels toward you (you notice that no muscles appeared to move under his skin as he turns), and he speaks in a pure, bell-like tone: “Well met, wanderer. You have forgotten again, haven’t you?”
“Do you know me, stranger?”
As he opens his mouth, you get that feeling of eternity again — inside his mouth, you see no tongue, no teeth. It’s almost as if this man were a shell surrounding an illimitable expanse. “I have spoken with you before, and always you forget. Your endless quest to discover yourself ends always in your amnesia. You draw close to the truth and recoil. Let us hope that you have the strength to endure your existence.”
“What do you know of me? How do you know this?”
“I know that you, like a fly, rise up from the wreckage of your old shell, buzz about for a time, and curl up and die at the window of truth. You bumble about the pane, seeking the light without any plan to your actions, and fall exhausted when you fail. You alight on others to feed from them for a time, and move on with no regard to them. I have watched you come here and listened to your words, and watched you move away no wiser. Will you learn from your mistakes, seeker?”
“Who are you?”
“I am O.” For some reason, when he speaks his name, it sounds like he’s speaking of much more than a single letter — as if the speaking of his name contained untold possibilities and nuances. No human tongue could ever create such a sound.
“What sort of a name is that?”
“It is my name. It is the name of a portion of eternity. I am a letter in the divine alphabet. Understanding me leads to understanding existence. I am writ in the true names of half of everything. My being encompasses truth. I am mathematic, organic, metaphysic.”
“So what does that mean?”
“The divine alphabet is writ in the name of everything that exists, from the seed at the hearts of the elemental planes to the core of the Great Beyond. My brothers/sisters” (a single word translates into the two in your mind) “and I reach across all that is, was, or ever shall be. We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable.”
“Tell me about the Great Beyond.”
“You would not understand. No mortal possibly could. It is beyond the powers of comprehension of all but the most powerful of powers, and once they understand, they move beyond the veil of mortal comprehension. I can explain it no more than that. Perhaps, sometime, you will understand.”
“So what are you doing here?”
“Why, I am watching the ebb and flow of mortality.”
“And what do you see?”
“You mortals are like wasps. You build your lives/nests from the slimmest of branches, and when the wind shakes your home/life free, you seek to sting the wind to death. Instead of realizing your foolish mistakes, attempting to repair the damage you have caused yourselves, and learning from your experience, you bring harm to any who have the misfortune to blunder near you in your time of pain and distress. My advice to you — and to all mortals: Stop acting like an insect and start acting sentient.
Cool thanks! I will check it out. Watch now I will get hooked haha
Zafu, you said upthread:
“Meaning, to put it in one word, is a powerful and essential thing. It can be used to great benefit, and as history has shown many times, it can be used for terrible detriment.”
I think the distinction here is between “meaning” vs “belief.”
What is wrong with giving meaning to life, to events, relationships? I don’t see a problem with establishing my own personal sense of meaning.
But when it turns to belief–which is also perhaps necessary–this is when it appears to become potentially dangerous. Once I create a rigid belief or belief structure, I start to try and protect it and fight against those who disagree.
I’ve seen that in myself all the way from interpersonal disputes between myself and family members who believed something different about a difficult family situation, and how my belief created anger at others disagreeing with me.
And I’ve seen it on a larger scale with religions, politics, etc.
But I don’t see an issue with meaning that is separated from rigid belief structures.
Meaning is essential for us, in my opinion. I can’t imagine Sisyphus happy. It’s like trying to imagine being the only person left on earth and still being motivated to make art or something.
I was just thinking out loud that being aware of our need for meaning may help to prevent us from being used by it.
“But then I ask myself, is Zen any less delusional? I certainly think it is.”
“After more than thirty years of working with this practice, I haven’t had any reason to doubt its effectiveness.
I certainly have no idea if that’s true but I’m starting to wonder if Zen isn’t the most delusional of all group practices. I don’t understand why anyone should think that thirty years of it has more to do with any acquired wisdom than thirty years of life experience as an musician or butcher for that matter. It’s the thirty years more than the zen me thinks.
Wow great comment, Harlan.
Personally I find that those of us that are willing to question (or throw away) zen and all it’s teachers and teachings are likely practicing zen in a very honest way.
That’s why I like Zafu’s and SH’s presence here. Keep up the good work, fuckers!
Harlan, great point. So difficult to separate time spent on the planet from time spent doing a particular thing. Did the activity (praying, reading, playing guitar, eating ice cream, studying ancient texts, psychoanalysis) create the wisdom or the so-called “benefits”, or is simply being alive enough?
There is a specialness that stinks when it comes to religious in-group behavior, as well as the self-congratulatory back slapping of any in group. We “get it” and everyone else is still being a dummy.
Well, no. There’s nothing so special about zennies, buddhists, scientists, christians, etc. But whereas Brad and other zen buddhists talk about not being special, it is a rare person who simply isn’t trying or believing themselves to be special.
Most folks give themselves lots of credit, and give credit to those they deem as similar to themselves, while refusing to see that we are all mostly playing the same game of belief and meaning making.
The hard part is not to throw out the things that actually do increase wisdom and maturity and lessen suffering and anger and hatred.
Meditation is just one tool in an arsenal of things that can help to achieve those ends. The understanding of how and why and when meditation works is better described by those outside of the close-minded religious institutions wherein the practice was born.
Here’s a good article that gets into the dynamics of the in- and out- group:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
“So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. If you want to know who someone in former Yugoslavia hates, don’t look at the Indonesians or the Zulus or the Tibetans or anyone else distant and exotic. Find the Yugoslavian ethnicity that lives closely intermingled with them and is most conspicuously similar to them, and chances are you’ll find the one who they have eight hundred years of seething hatred toward.
What makes an unexpected in-group? The answer with Germans and Japanese is obvious — a strategic alliance. In fact, the World Wars forged a lot of unexpected temporary pseudo-friendships. A recent article from War Nerd points out that the British, after spending centuries subjugating and despising the Irish and Sikhs, suddenly needed Irish and Sikh soldiers for World Wars I and II respectively. “Crush them beneath our boots” quickly changed to fawning songs about how “there never was a coward where the shamrock grows” and endless paeans to Sikh military prowess.”
Yes, SH, basically the in-group is anyone who is strategically helpful or aligned with ME–and the out-group is anyone I find to be unhelpful to what I want to achieve or is aligning in opposition to my beliefs/achievements.
Whether they are speaking the “truth” or not, if they align against my personal interests–they are out–thus wrong, not to be tolerated or accepted.
Your treatment on this blog is a good example of that dynamic, because you represent a differing viewpoint.
Gniz, some of the treatment SH/CosmicBrainz has received on this blog is a good example of that and worth pointing out. We can all do with some support. But SH/CosmicBrainz has also used that point of view as an excuse for riding roughshod over a great deal of patient and often painstakingly generous engagement. Moreover, many posters behaviour towards him is a result of having done what you have done in this thread over a longer period of time.
Mumbles commented a while back that he could see why you and I would align ourselves with Zafu and SH. He seemed very obviously inclined to being a nasty fucker at the time, but I don’t think what he saw made me beyond reproach, even if perhaps he glossed a little unfairly, but understandably, over another boring old post of mine.
Indeed. I know a Zen practitioner or two who are very wise, in my estimation. But I’ve come to realize that they would most likely have been just as wise, perhaps even more so, had they taken a different road. Likewise, I’ve seen some Zen masters who appear to be complete fools, and I think they would most likely be fools had they taken a different road.
Also, it would be so great to hear Brad or other prominent Buddhist teachers/masters discuss “doubt”, admit to doubting the practice, its applications and usefulness.
To me, doubt is one of the great antidotes to the madness of rigid belief, and yet so rarely is it discussed in earnest amongst religious teachers of any stripe. Sure, someone might mention it in order to explain it away.
But I mean really talking about profound doubt, operating on a day-to-day basis, so that we can continue to re-examine and reassess our assumptions about what works and why it works.
In all my years of breathing meditation, I never had a string of time of any great length where I was certain it was a completely useful practice. I always, always, always had doubt about its effectiveness at the same time that I continued practicing.
Even now, although I can say I feel that my meditation benefited me, I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t despite my practice that I’ve gotten to the place where I currently feel happier, less stressed, less angry, etc.
The Hua Tou practice is good generating “Great Doubt”::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Tou
I like it more than sitting meditation in all honesty.
“To practice Hua Tou, one concentrates on the phrase, initially repeating it silently with a questioning and open mind and then thinking about “Who” or “What” is generating the Hua Tou, this brings about “Great Doubt”.[8]”
zafu wrote (Hi zafu!) :
Anon108’s experience is that argumentation “merely serves to upset and inflame people.” I suppose this is possible, but I find it highly unlikely. Obviously, argumentation can be productive. It’s also true that it may only upset and inflame people, of course. This being the case, the case of Anon108’s experience is an extreme case. Where has she been living all her life that she’s never observed a fruitful end to heated disagreements? Having come from such an extreme environment, is his experience of much value to us?
No, it’s not my experience that argumentation “merely serves to upset and inflame people.” That’s why I made a point of repeating, throughout what I wrote, the phrase “…argue like that“, referring to the very specific forms of arguing that the piece I quoted is concerned with (go back and check it if you fancy). I wrote what I wrote having experienced an adverse reaction to the butt-hurt posturing that’s taken up a lot of time and space in this comment section recently.
But yes, even “You don’t understand. I understand,” “You’re doing it wrong. I’m doing it all right, “Now what you got, fool?” type conversations can lead to happy endings. This comment section’s seen a lot of that over the years and I’ve often been all for it. Perhaps I’m getting old.
In the quotation he posted, there are no reasons given for why the recluse Gotama abstains from wrangling argumentation, nevertheless Anon108 “thinks the words are true.” This seems to only mean that Anon108 believes Gotama abstained from argumentation. Why does he believe that? Because it’s written in a sutra? Does he believe everything written in such documents? If so, why? It is easy to jump to the conclude that he values something (meaning perhaps, in a word) more than he values truth.
You’re right, no reason is given for abstaining from that kind of argumentation. An oversight in much of the canon, I think. Buddha always wins (it’s clear he spent much of his life ‘arguing’). That’s why I said why I believed the words to be true – they fit my my experience. I value skillful expressions of views that give meaning to my experience, whoever’s responsible for them.
Apropos of which – I don’t believe I’m on an constant search for meaning in my life (that may be a lie), but I’ve got not a problem with it when I find it. Much of what’s presented as ‘Buddhism’, including much of what the Buddha hisself allegedly taught, doesn’t mean much to me at all, BTW.
But quite a lot of it does. (Make sense, that is.)
“The nature of reality is unknowable and our best option is to posit some kind of ultimate frame of reference that is part of a larger, possibly recursive system that we won’t bother discussing.”
That’s what is meant by the saying “Turtles all the way down”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
I think Nagarjuna’s “no fundamental ground” ontology gets at that, but I’m not sure…
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
**BLINK**
See what happens, Zafu, when you also engage constructively and not blink past the potential for constructive dialogue, when you acknowledge others’ words in a way that doesn’t encourage folk to blink past your contributions? You get some acknowledgement! Hurray! I was genuinely interested to see you do that with others words on a good few occasions. One can’t always rely on the comfort of strangers for the manner and content of our own lies to be respected. I can learn from that, for sure – or rather allow myself to be reminded of it.
I recall making a protracted effort with An3drew a couple of years back when most other commenters had given up, taking a stance very similar to Gniz’s. I wrote a lot of words last year trying to engage with Cosmic Brainz. And there have been times when others have made the effort to engage with numbnuts me, similarly. That’s not always going to happen. My own approach has not always been conducive to this kind of process.
Zafu: “I rather like to be picked apart, which is why I took exception to Alan’s claim that I’ve received good and pointed critiques in this blog. There have been plenty of personal attacks of course, which I only mind when they distract excessively from the subject.”
Sorry, Zafu, from my experience of reading your posts and the responces and reactions to them, these last months, the above reads like a dollop of disingenuous narcissism. Also, “good and pointed critiques” don’t just come packaged to suit what you think they should amount to and don’t have to involve one’s words being picked apart.
Alan is a different (and frequently saner) poster than I by the way.
You know I was kidding. My not ‘blinking past’ Anon108’s comments and responding to them the best I could resulted in what? Let’s face it, that so called blink was the best you could come up with to try substantiating your critiques towards me. Pathetic.
Lol, you don’t need a stance. You only need to see past your ego, and your attachment to religious beliefs. Religious folk always respond defensively when their precious beliefs are questioned. They can’t help themselves. Their attachment is what makes them so easily manipulated. Odd, for a practice that is ‘supposed to’ free sentient beings from their attachments. They shouldn’t call Zen Masters Zen Masters, they should call them Puppet Masters.
So comments like, “You nasty time wasting troll…” might be a good and pointed critique, but because I expect good and pointed critiques to be at least marginally rational I fail to recognize their good and pointedness?
I’m an idiot, I’ll give you that, but I can still recognize a rational thought. And again, your example of ‘blinking past’ was pathetic.
I don’t think you are an idiot, Zafu. Maybe my blinking past point is pathetic; maybe I’ve touched a nerve there. I don’t think we’ll change our views on that one. Maybe we’re just a pair of narcissistic pricks. It’s good to be double-bound sometimes, don’t you think?
Baseless accusations are irritating, yes.
You want to show that they are not baseless. Simply show good and pointed critiques from comments past, or admit you’re a lier. How hard could that be.
What you believe, and what cult you belong to, is overrated, and it doesn’t protect you from dukkha.
I’ve known a few former Scientologist in my day. One was even LRon’s personal attendant. They weren’t such bad guys at all. Maybe because they left, but even so, it certainly didn’t ruin them for life. I’ve also known some former Zennies. Not bad either. But not appreciably better.
Who gives a flying fuck? Dukkha is the great leveler, the great teacher. It’s always there, no matter what you believe. You don’t have to believe in it and all, and it will still follow you around and mess with you just as much as gravity will. Trip and you shall fall.
Scientologists are stuck in dukkha, and so are Zennies. Big deal. Stop being so righteous about the minor differences, and claiming your dukkha is better and deserves more money. Now we have to pay for what life dishes out for free?
Dukkha has a bill to give you, and you won’t get out until you’ve paid the last penny. Don’t forget that.
Dukkha hella sucks, bro.
This, below, I think, touches on some of the currents of discussion.
INTERVIEWER
What does zazen do for the poetry? Do you feel that there is a relation there that helps somehow in the writing?
SNYDER
I was very hesitant to even think about that for many years, out of a kind of gambler’s superstition not to want to talk too much or think too much about the things that might work for you or might give you luck. I’m not so superstitious anymore, and to demystify zazen Buddhist meditation, it can be said that it is a perfectly simple, ordinary activity to be silent, to pay attention to your own consciousness and your breath, and to temporarily stop listening or looking at things that are coming in from the outside. To let them just pass through you as they happen. There’s no question that spending time with your own consciousness is instructive. You learn a lot. You can just watch what goes on in your own mind, and some of the beneficial effects are you get bored with some of your own tapes and quit playing them back to yourself. You also realize–I think anyone who does this comes to realize– that we have a very powerful visual imagination and that it is very easy to go totally into visual realms where you are walking around in a landscape or where any number of things can be happening with great vividness. This taught me something about the nature of thought and it led me to the conclusion–in spite of some linguists and literary theorists of the French ilk–that language is not where we start thinking. We think before language, and thought-images come into language at a certain point. We have fundamental thought processes that are prelinguistic. Some of my poetry reaches back to that.
INTERVIEWER
You’ve written that language is wild, and it’s interesting that, in your essays and in some of the poems, you track down words as though you’re hunting or gathering. But do you believe that language is more a part of nature than a part of culture?
SNYDER
Well, to put it quite simply, I think language is, to a great extent, biological. And this is not a radical point of view. In fact, it is in many ways an angle of thought that has come back into serious consideration in the world of scientific linguistics right now. So, if it’s biological, if it’s part of our biological nature to be able to learn language, to master complex syntax effortlessly by the age of four, then it’s part of nature, just as our digestion is part of nature, our limbs are part of nature. So, yes, in that sense it is. Now, of course, language takes an enormous amount of cultural shaping, too, at some point. But the structures of it have the quality of wild systems. Wild systems are highly complex, cannot be intellectually mastered–that is to say they’re too complex to master simply in intellectual or mathematical terms–and they are self-managing and self-organizing. Language is a self-organizing phenomenon. Descriptive linguistics come after the fact, an effort to describe what has already happened. So if you define the wild as self-managing, self-organizing, and self-propagating, all natural human languages are wild systems. The imagination, we can say, for similar reasons, is wild. But I would also make the argument that there is a prelinguistic level of thought. Not always, but a lot of the time. And for some people more than other people. I think there are people who think more linguistically, and some who think more visually, or perhaps kinesthetically, in some cases.
INTERVIEWER
Getting back to Buddhism for a second. For many poets, poetry is the religion of the twentieth century. And I’m curious what you get, in that sense, from Buddhism that you don’t get from poetry?
SNYDER
I had a funny conversation with Clayton Eshleman, the editor and poet, many years ago while he was still in Kyoto. Clayton was talking, at length and with passion, about poetry. And I said to him, “But Clayton, I already have a religion. I’m a Buddhist.” It’s like the Pope telling Clare Boothe Luce, “I already am a Catholic.” I don’t think art makes a religion. I don’t think it helps you teach your children how to say thank you to the food, how to view questions of truth and falsehood, or how not to cause pain or harm to others. Art can certainly help you explore your own consciousness and your own mind and your own motives, but it does not have a program to do that, and I don’t think it should have a program to do that. I think that art is very close to Buddhism and can be part of Buddhist practice, but there are territories that Buddhist psychology and Buddhist philosophy must explore, and that art would be foolish to try to do.
INTERVIEWER
So you mainly draw that line on ethical grounds?
SNYDER
Well, there’s ethics, there is philosophy, there is the spirit of devotion, and there is simply its capacity to become a cultural soil, a territory within which you transmit a way of being, which religion has a very strong role in. And then there is the other end of religious practice and Buddhist practice, which is to leave art behind. Which is to be able to move into the territory of the completeness and beauty of all phenomena. You really enter the world, you don’t need art because everything is remarkable, fresh, and amazing.
INTERVIEWER
So how do you keep writing?
SNYDER
Because you don’t want to live in that realm very much of the time. We live in the realm of forms, we should act in the realm of forms. Jim Dodge and I once went to a Morris Graves exhibit in Oakland, where he was arguing with me about this Buddhist position in regard to art. I was saying, “You don’t need art in a certain sense, Jim.” So he went to the Morris Graves exhibit looking at the Morris Graves paintings, and I went through it looking at the spaces between the paintings with as much attention, and pointing out wonderful little hairline cracks in the plaster, the texture of the light, and so forth. There is a point you can make that anything looked at with love and attention becomes very interesting.
Full interview: http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/1323/the-art-of-poetry-no-74-gary-snyder
Andy, Thanks for the Gary Snyder interview. Very enjoyable..
“Yes, SH, basically the in-group is anyone who is strategically helpful or aligned with ME—and the out-group is anyone I find to be unhelpful to what I want to achieve or is aligning in opposition to my beliefs/achievements.
Whether they are speaking the “truth” or not, if they align against my personal interests—they are out—thus wrong, not to be tolerated or accepted.
Your treatment on this blog is a good example of that dynamic, because you represent a differing viewpoint.”
Gniz, some of the treatment SH/CosmicBrainz has received on this blog is – perhaps – a good example of that and worth pointing out. We can all do with some support. But SH/CosmicBrainz has also used that point of view as an excuse for riding roughshod over a great deal of patient and often painstakingly generous engagement. Moreover, many posters behaviour towards him is a result of having done what you have done in this thread over a longer period of time.
Mumbles commented a while back that he could see why you and I would align ourselves with Zafu and SH. He seemed very obviously inclined to being a nasty fucker at the time, but I don’t think what he saw made me beyond reproach, even if perhaps he glossed a little unfairly, but understandably, over another boring old post of mine.
Hey Andy,
I have read most of Brad’s posts and a majority of the comments sections, although I admit to tiring at times of the comment spamming from a few posters (not naming names) and just disengaging after a bit.
Still, I’m not unaware of what you’re talking about in regards to SH and Cosmic Brains, etc.
None of us are above reproach, and I’m just as likely as anyone else to engage in “in group/out group” behavior and rigid belief protection, creation, etc.
So although I’m discussing it–let’s be clear–I also still do it, and am continuing that process even now, through these conversations in myriad ways.
I’m interested in the topic because I’ve noticed my own tendencies and am fascinated by it, as much as I’m fascinated by the observation of others (who I tend to view as out group dummies) doing the same, perhaps in bigger, stranger ways.
So lest you think I was just defending SH and not copping to my own bias–I cop to my bias and also acknowledge that its not all one-sided around here.
Two quotes I try to keep in mind are:
1) There are those struggling with their narcissistic tendencies, and those who aren’t. (Can’t recall where I read that, which I modified with the present continuous!) 2) “Realization is the state of ambiguity itself”. (Nishijima/Cross’s Dogen).
I thought you were coming from a worthwhile angle, Gniz. I wasn’t sure how much and for how long you’d been following the SH/Cosmic’s threads. I hope you keep popping in from time to time.
Periods of lucidity may occasionally occur, with or without pharmaceutical assistance, but keep in mind…
“Baseless accusations are irritating, yes.
You want to show that they are not baseless. Simply show good and pointed critiques from comments past, or admit you’re a lier. How hard could that be.”
Ha! You’re a funny guy, Zafu.
I’m a liar. My accusations are baseless. And I mean it.
Please quote me on that, whenever you feel like it.
I know. As I’ve said on several occasions, religious folk are forced to lie, they can’t help themselves.
Also, Andy, you mentioned your patient stance with Andr3w versus my stance with Zafu.
I think some of that happens when we feel a connection to, or an understanding of where the poster might be coming from, that others miss.
I was really impressed with how you actually seemed to comprehend what I’d mistaken for pure rambling spam. You spoke to Andr3w and drew out of him a fairly in depth discussion of his viewpoint, and I was just stunned. I thought he was like a bot just spamming the section or something…lol.
Similarly, Zafu’s brief snippets and rejoinders, though seemingly hostile, remind me a bit of my own impatience with “religious folk” around here in the recent past. Why someone might spend time on a Buddhist board like this when they aren’t Buddhist and don’t believe, is multifaceted, but I think it has to do with our own tendencies.
For instance, I have studied a lot of Buddhism and from some of Zafu’s little hints, it appears he/she has as well. Because there’s a natural draw to the religion, and perhaps some experience in it, we come to a place where we feel an affinity.
But then we also have issues or reservations about this group, this belief system. I think some of us take on the role of natural critic, a kind of curmudgeonly attitude about lots of stuff that others don’t necessarily find helpful or positive to the environment.
Zafu reminds me of myself in that way, though his/her style is different from mine. Still, beneath the harsh language, the dismissive tone, etc., I’ve found an unsurprising well of considered argumentation and a history that indicates a real willingness to study and engage around his or her actual experience and considered opinions.
Most wouldn’t bother engaging Zafu because they don’t relate to his/her reasons for being here, but I do, so I do. Any group I’m a part of, I’m likely to criticize first and foremost, lol.
Then there are other longstanding posters here that I would rather poke my eyes out than engage with, because I find their postings to be absurd, illogical, opaque and obtuse to the extreme. And yet others seem to find them valuable and interesting to talk to.
Go figure!
I agree with you on much of what you have said about Zafu and, as I’ve also said before, I also seen a great deal of worth in his viewpoints. Even at times, some value in the strategy. However, my experience with narcissists and my research on that and other so called ‘disorders’ (alongside dealing with my own developmental scars) leads me to be more skeptical and with perhaps a different frame of experiential reference. I’m sensitive, and sometimes overly sensitive, to certain patterns. I, for example, can sometimes fall into a kind of diplomatic, or corporate narcissism as a defense mechanism. The jury’s out, for me, on certain patterns. And, for sure, I’m not saying that Zafu is a monster malignant narc. But the hot-potato of intention etc., has a big input into how I relate.
Hey Andy,
I’m having a hard time with the diagnosis of Zafu as a narcissist, if that’s what you’re implying or stating. I mean, I can’t see how you could even remotely diagnose someone with that kind of personality disorder based on a few blog posts.
Just as others have speculated or baited SH with the notion that he’s “off his meds” and possibly schizo or paranoid or other issues…I mean, how on earth I would know, unless he’s stated it himself somewhere…?
No, no, no! Gniz.
I’m NOT diagnosing Zafu as a narcissist. I don’t see narcissism as a simple matter of diagnosis, based off shady DMV criteria, anyway. I much prefer to view narcissism as a universal human tendency for coping with the shit. I’m talking narcissistic patterns in certain contexts that help me decide how I relate or not etc. Please don’t think I’ve marked Zafu as some malignant narc.
I will say this, though: Due to my wife’s background, she is particularly vulnerable to a certain type of narcissistic persona. Based off a few, separate, seemingly benign conversations she reported with two apparently friendly co-workers (one her boss), I advised her to tread really carefully, the reasons for, and how things might turn out. Her boss subsequently was fired for his covert bullying of the women in the office, one of which was my wife, who almost lost her job. The other younger chappie is now in jail for five years for punching a guy into a coma and a life-long sentence of brain damage – all because someone teased him over his dress jacket. Once you’ve experienced certain patterns they become more obvious.
Brits are such drama queens.
Pushing buttons simply helps to separate the wheat from the chaff, within ‘Zen communities’. It’s particularly amusing in Zen circles, because Zen practitioners are ‘supposed to be’ beyond button pushing, and of course they have no beliefs, supposedly.
And when I say amusing I mean it in a completely trollish way.
It’s true that pushing buttons is one way to get a sense of someone’s disposition and whether certain claims they might be making (I don’t get angry, anger is an illusion born out of ego or some such nonsense) are true or false.
At the same time, pushing buttons past that point–and I don’t know who decides what that point is–seems cruel to an extent.
Also, pushing buttons happens naturally in the flow of any conversation, imo, so why force it? Using real opinions and concise language, as well as being vigorous in our approach, we will likely tend to rattle those cages without even trying.
If someone is going to expose themselves as a hypocrite, they’ll do it in the course of time, regardless of whether or not I intentionally push their buttons.
And finally, everyone has their buttons pushed, and everyone can get angry or have a bad moment. That doesn’t mean that they have nothing of value to offer–even the purest hypocrite can drop a few gems.
It seems to be the case that most engage me, so what does that mean in their relating to the reasons for my commenting here?
Yeah, I suppose I mean “engage” in honest conversation. I feel like I’ve seen quite a few people just troll you in return or do ad hominem attacks. That’s engagement, maybe, but doesn’t seem they believe anything genuine can come of it.
I definitely might be off base in my read on things.
But I feel like I’m engaging you because I truly think you’re someone who’s thought about this stuff and also studied it/practiced it to some degree, and so I’m honestly curious about your thoughts, going past the rhetoric that stirs people up.
There again, I’m doing the “in group” cool thing, asserting that I’m above others because I could see you weren’t just a dumb troll.
It never ends does it?
Emotional responses are honest and genuine. How could they not be. They are more honest than the lies they tell each other, like there are no beliefs in Zen Buddhism, or that Zen Buddhism is not a religion.
The reason I comment here is to show them that they are slaves to their belief system. They’re sheep, puppets and play things for the Zen master. Just look at this blog, Brad posts some religious drivel and the sheep lap it up and press the donate button. He tells them what he knows they want to hear, like there are no beliefs in Zen, so they’ll continue to press the donate button. They are like trained rats here. Does Brad actually think there are no belief is Zen? He’s not an idiot.
Have you ever read the http://www.shimanoarchive.com ? What better proof to show that Zen Masters are really Puppet Masters.
“The reason I comment here is to show them that they are slaves to their belief system.”
I think, as I’ve said before, that we all have a dangerous tendency towards hardening our beliefs into rigidity. Not just zennies but ALL of us, to differing degrees.
Not all of these folks even READ Brad’s books, nor do many of them pertinently discuss his articles. So saying they lap up his words is a bit of a stretch.
But the beliefs carried around in regards to Zen being different and special are certainly present here, as would be expected.
And how exactly is it that you know who’s pressing Brad’s donate button?
By the way, calling people sheep was a cliche thirty years ago. Or maybe fifty years ago? Might wanna try switching over to lemmings. Haven’t hear that one in awhile.
Insulting people is generally not an effective way of making anyone “see” anything or even give consideration to what you might have to say. Quite the opposite. You’re more likely to make them cling all the tighter to their “slavish” beliefs. Though if you don’t get more creative in your insults you’re more apt to bore people than offend them.
Just look at this blog, Brad posts some religious drivel and the sheep lap it up and press the donate button. He tells them what he knows they want to hear, like there are no beliefs in Zen, so they’ll continue to press the donate button. They are like trained rats here.
————————————————————————————————
That’s a rather large assumption your part – is it really true? Or is it just self-justification to engage in standard troll behavior? Is it your mission in life to go to “religious” blogs do save the sheep from their supposed “sheep behavior”?
I rather suspect the opposite of what you state is true – that as far as Brad is concerned, very few people actually click the Donate button. I know I haven’t.
And I think everybody here knows that Shimano is an egregious example to hold up as a template representing Zen teachers. Same for Joshu Sasaki for that matter. I don’t think Brad has even come close to the misdeeds of those fellas (at least not yet!)
You’ve also demonstrated that you can be drawn out (thanks Gniz and Andy) and have something resembling an intelligent discussion, but your default mode is just button-pushing and I think you know that. So good luck with the sheep-shearing and get a life.
I didn’t say that many people make donations, which would be the opposite of few, but he’s mentioned in the blog that some do. And why else would he spend the time to spout this religious drivel if there were no monetary reward. Doesn’t he have a life?
And yes, my mission is to save the puppets from the Puppet Master. Apropos, have you noticed his latest post where says that whoever talks about the fourth nobel truth doesn’t know what they’re talking about. He must be self-medicating, don’t believe him!
Remember, though, by Zafu’s own admission–he likes saying things like that (insults) to push buttons and test people’s responses.
Interesting conundrum. If he’s lying about his reasons for insulting people here, then Zafu is actually insulting people just to stir up reactions (trolling).
If he’s being truthful, than at least some of the time, he’s trying to push buttons to see who is full of crap and who might be trying to walk the Buddhist walk.
So, my next question to Zafu is this. Is everyone, by definition, a hypocrite who is on this blog and considers themselves a Buddhist? And other than showing people they are sheep–do you have any interest in engaging those who pass your “troll test” and show themselves to at least be possibly honest in their interactions with you?
It seems to me, that many times when someone tests or pushes buttons, they’re also hoping to find a person that passes the test. In other words, it almost would seem that you want to be proven wrong about Buddhists. That you hope somewhere, you’ll find the genuine article?
I could be wrong. Also, I don’t think the “enlightened” genuine article exists. But I think individuals have wisdom, even amidst their crazy beliefs and delusions, that can be of interest to explore without needing to belittle each other.
How could I know that? I must not be following your line of reasoning.
Actually I wasn’t being entirely honest about that. I tend to think of you, for instance, as more of a distraction. A welcome distraction.
I’m an idiot. I’ve plainly said as much on this page. But I’m not that much of an idiot.
There is a kind of Derridean mystery to all of this. It has some parallels with computer science topics too, like recursion…
‘The very condition of a deconstruction may be at work in the work, within the system to be deconstructed. It may already be located there, already at work. Not at the center, but in an eccentric center, in a corner whose eccentricity assures the solid concentration of the system, participating in the construction of what it, at the same time, threatens to deconstruct. One might then be inclined to reach this conclusion: deconstruction is not an operation that supervenes afterwards, from the outside, one fine day. It is always already at work in the work. Since the destructive force of Deconstruction is always already contained within the very architecture of the work, all one would finally have to do to be able to deconstruct, given this always already, is to do memory work. Yet since I want neither to accept nor to reject a conclusion formulated in precisely these terms, let us leave this question suspended for the moment.’
JACQUES DERRIDA
MEMOIRES FOR PAUL DEMAN
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1986
More Derrida quotes…
Who is it that is addressing you? Since it is not an author, a narrator, or a deus ex machina, it is an I that is both part of the spectacle and part of the audience, an I that, a bit like you, undergoes its own incessant violent reinscription within the arithmetical machinery. An I that functioning as a pure passageway for operations of substitution is not some singular and irreplaceable existence, some subject or life. But only rather moves between life and death, between reality and fiction. An I that is a mere function or phantom.’
JACQUES DERRIDA
DISSEMINATION
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1981
LA DISSEMINATION
EDITIONS DU SEUIL, 1972
http://www.derridathemovie.com/readings.html
I really think An3drew was onto something now…
Hey SH,
Interesting quote you referenced there (only a fraction of which I felt I understood).
I often think of it in terms of evolution, in that variety and competition is actually healthier than simply having only one “type” of anything. In other words, life is more robust if there are many different kinds of animals, plants, insects, etc. etc.
And it would also then follow that variety in terms of ideas and modes of behavior is healthier, in that it would create more varied systems of human development as well. If human beings all become too logical, too healthy, too enlightened, too progressive, too ANYTHING–humanity as a whole would become weakened, susceptible to stagnation.
And then it follows that within any particular framework (be it religious, political, a business, a family or a style movement) there would need to be those trying to critique an tear down that institution, that mode of behaving or thinking.
The deconstruction is part of the variation, a necessity to the survival of the whole. And so the more stable pieces are also necessary–the true believers, the moralists, the hard-headed scientists, the right wingers and left wingers. They are each necessary for variety, while there are also disruptive influences working within those spheres to challenge and perhaps ultimately change or destroy those frameworks.
In that sense, life is less interested in truth or even meaning than it appears to be interested in simple variety.
Thoughts?
A better way to state what I was getting at above:
From Wikipedia on Memes (memes being ideas that spread and change similar to genes)…
“Evolutionary influences on memes
Dawkins noted the three conditions that must exist for evolution to occur:[26]
variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements;
heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements;
differential “fitness”, or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another.
Dawkins emphasizes that the process of evolution naturally occurs whenever these conditions co-exist, and that evolution does not apply only to organic elements such as genes. He regards memes as also having the properties necessary for evolution, and thus sees meme evolution as not simply analogous to genetic evolution, but as a real phenomenon subject to the laws of natural selection. Dawkins noted that as various ideas pass from one generation to the next, they may either enhance or detract from the survival of the people who obtain those ideas, or influence the survival of the ideas themselves.”
What you say is true gniz… I mean biodiversity is a measure of am ecosystem’s health, correct?
Well… we have a kind of danger in relation to that. Amphibians make up a huge biomass of the ecosystem, but their biodiversity is dying out.
About 1-2 yr ago, my class had a conservation biologist come in talking about how amphibians EXCEPT caecilians (i.e., frogs & toads and salamanders & newts) are going extinct. They are not going extinct because of habitat destruction, pollution, human consumption, or climate change like most mammals are (e.g., leopards). They are going extinct because of a fungal disease that started spreading in the 1980’s. It’s a chytrid fungus called Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, and it was found in 1998. Lots of research shows it is invasive, but no one really understands how its mechanism or where it originated. Over 30% of amphibian species are recently extinct, and this means about 2100 are dying (IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment; Stuart et al,, 2004, Science). This is important because amphibians have MASSIVE biomass, and most of the ecosystems’ biomass comes from amphibians.
Since this is a fungal disease, vaccines will not work, and introducing antifugals to environment may damage the ecosystem. However, recently, some species of frogs and toads originally thought to be extinct were rediscovered in Costa Rica (tinyurl [DELETE SPACE] .com/ [DELETE SPACE] pqwh23d). Trying to figure out the mechanism of non-death for these species will be crucial (perhaps it is a specific sequence in the genome) because we originally thought they were dead? This can avoid the option of doing artificially selecting these extinct frogs and toads in tanks and releasing them into the wild, which could have bad repercussions.”‹
Here is more on what’s going on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_amphibian_populations
True believers and the like considered more stable? An extreme view is necessarily unstable, is it not?
I think that life is interested in life, or passing on genetic information. Truth and meaning can play a part in a successful and sustainable strategy for life, cooperation for mutual benefit. Monocultures don’t cooperate for mutual benefit, they are not sustainable, and they are not self-aware. But they lie to themselves believing they are all of these things.
Hey Zafu,
Let me clarify what I mean by “more stable.” Perhaps it would be better to say they are more rigid, less flexible, and thus have a kind of stability that is still necessary for the whole.
What would be deconstructed and what would mutate, if it wasn’t somewhat stable in the first place?
And of course, the rigid belief systems are actually in danger of not morphing or changing, which is why people and ideas that disrupt such systems are actually valuable.
But my theory is that the rigid systems have their own value–in that we also need the inflexible and rigid beliefs and organizations for the temporary stability they create within cultures and peoples, etc. The fact that this temporary stability becomes self-defeating is a problem that can be solved by deconstruction and disruption.
What you seem to be describing is a system that in not self-aware, and will be trapped in endless cycles of construction/stability/deconstruction.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe Brad’s LA project is doomed to failure, because by his own admission he doesn’t believe in anything. Core values are needed for a sustainable venture. In the absence of meaning selfishness may take over.
Gniz, I posted a response at 11.13/11.10 above, for clarification on the narc thing. I’m off to early snoozes now, so I may respond to anything of interest or a question or two tomorrow.
Sorry – 11:13/11:30
Yeah, I saw that Andy–thanks for the clarification btw.
Brad: “Even so, it [zazen] has made every single aspect of my life better.”
Yes, that sounds like Scientology. Ridiculous.
I am sure e.g. that is has made the state of your knees worse.