I've never seen so much disagreement about "what is Buddhism" as I have in online Buddhist communities. Everywhere I turn there is conflict, misunderstanding, and people proclaiming "this is not real Dharma, but I know what the real Dharma is".
I do however agree that a lot of folk seem to get into esoteric stuff like Tantra and Dzogchen very early before understanding basic things.
> Its conclusions stand in stark contrast to the fundamentals of Buddhist practice. It's message is confusion from an author who is not accomplished in practice but writes eloquently.
Some famous Buddhist teachers are a bit like this to me. Chogyam Trungpa, for example... I can't make head or tail of the man. Sometimes I think Crazy Wisdom is great, other times I think he's been a disaster for the spread of Buddhism to the West. I raise the spectre of CTR because the article we're discussing has a Crazy Wisdom feeling for me, and that's why I like it.
> I think it's unfortunate its gone to the front-page because it makes a mess of the dharma and communicates Buddhism as a mass of contradictions.
The whole Internet is a mess of contradictions regarding Buddhism. It is literally the worst place you can go to learn about what Buddhism really is, because the only way you learn properly is to trust a teacher by knowing them on some kind of personal level or teacher-student level.
For a tradition with such emphasis on sangha, practice, and lineage of teaching, it's ridiculous to submit to the thoughts of online Buddhists who you don't even know. I think this is a reason for all the disagreement; arguments are conjured up out of thin air with no reference to the actual practice of the person who says it.
I'm not saying the article is correct in all aspects, but rather that it goes beyond the trite and predictable criticisms of Western Buddhism, and for that alone it's more interesting than most articles. It raises anecdotes that I haven't much of before, it's slightly abrasive, and I like that.
> I encourage more people to go out and practice the way we have the teachings preserved not in Zen, not in Tibetan but early Buddhism, where we're closest to the teacher.
This is a very Western Buddhist attitude. In the Western tradition we love to get as close as possible to the primary canonical source when learning something, possibly because Western Buddhism tends to be quite dry and academic and admits very Protestant attitudes. I think a lot of Western Buddhists have this mistaken notion that Theravadans have some monopoly on what Real Buddhism actually is.
My most recent teacher said it doesn't matter whether you start out in Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan, or Theravada, just pick one and stick with it for a while otherwise you'll get your wires crossed and end up getting a jumbled message that is inconsistent with any sect. He acknowledged the desire for people to study early Buddhism as the "purest" form of Buddhism, but he said that IF you want to study early Buddhism or Theravada, then you need to stick with it. So, much like you're saying, yes the Theravada teachings are more direct and simpler, but maybe it's not necessary to start out with this form. Maybe it is, I don't know. I'll figure it out as I go along. But I don't disagree in principle.
Personally I like the simpler, warmer approaches to Buddhism, and I do often appreciate irrational, supernatural aspects when I encounter them. I do appreciate Theravada, not because it's the purest form, but because the practitioners I've met so far seem to be a bit warmer. Plus, Theravada is a bit more like, "do this, do that, keep it simple".
I've been very curious about Zen but I notice that a lot of Zen practitioners tend to deflect real-life problems into clever Buddhist aphorisms, which is just evasive and doesn't really engage with the world. Plus I don't really love meditation that much so maybe it's not for me. I'd prefer to do active physical exercise in my limited time (and when I'm not writing on HN) because I know this benefits my mind and body more than extended sitting. On the other hand, I like Alan Watts a lot, I think he had had a much more positive influence on Western Buddhism than CTR had. So AW a good, positive advertisement for Zen.
Pure Land sounds cool because I like chanting, but I like Nichiren chanting more (plus I met a lot of cool people in Nichiren circles). Tibetan Buddhist sanghas around where I live seem to be a bit, oh I don't know, I just can't really get into it.
I do however agree that a lot of folk seem to get into esoteric stuff like Tantra and Dzogchen very early before understanding basic things.
> Its conclusions stand in stark contrast to the fundamentals of Buddhist practice. It's message is confusion from an author who is not accomplished in practice but writes eloquently.
Some famous Buddhist teachers are a bit like this to me. Chogyam Trungpa, for example... I can't make head or tail of the man. Sometimes I think Crazy Wisdom is great, other times I think he's been a disaster for the spread of Buddhism to the West. I raise the spectre of CTR because the article we're discussing has a Crazy Wisdom feeling for me, and that's why I like it.
> I think it's unfortunate its gone to the front-page because it makes a mess of the dharma and communicates Buddhism as a mass of contradictions.
The whole Internet is a mess of contradictions regarding Buddhism. It is literally the worst place you can go to learn about what Buddhism really is, because the only way you learn properly is to trust a teacher by knowing them on some kind of personal level or teacher-student level.
For a tradition with such emphasis on sangha, practice, and lineage of teaching, it's ridiculous to submit to the thoughts of online Buddhists who you don't even know. I think this is a reason for all the disagreement; arguments are conjured up out of thin air with no reference to the actual practice of the person who says it.
I'm not saying the article is correct in all aspects, but rather that it goes beyond the trite and predictable criticisms of Western Buddhism, and for that alone it's more interesting than most articles. It raises anecdotes that I haven't much of before, it's slightly abrasive, and I like that.
> I encourage more people to go out and practice the way we have the teachings preserved not in Zen, not in Tibetan but early Buddhism, where we're closest to the teacher.
This is a very Western Buddhist attitude. In the Western tradition we love to get as close as possible to the primary canonical source when learning something, possibly because Western Buddhism tends to be quite dry and academic and admits very Protestant attitudes. I think a lot of Western Buddhists have this mistaken notion that Theravadans have some monopoly on what Real Buddhism actually is.
My most recent teacher said it doesn't matter whether you start out in Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan, or Theravada, just pick one and stick with it for a while otherwise you'll get your wires crossed and end up getting a jumbled message that is inconsistent with any sect. He acknowledged the desire for people to study early Buddhism as the "purest" form of Buddhism, but he said that IF you want to study early Buddhism or Theravada, then you need to stick with it. So, much like you're saying, yes the Theravada teachings are more direct and simpler, but maybe it's not necessary to start out with this form. Maybe it is, I don't know. I'll figure it out as I go along. But I don't disagree in principle.
Personally I like the simpler, warmer approaches to Buddhism, and I do often appreciate irrational, supernatural aspects when I encounter them. I do appreciate Theravada, not because it's the purest form, but because the practitioners I've met so far seem to be a bit warmer. Plus, Theravada is a bit more like, "do this, do that, keep it simple".
I've been very curious about Zen but I notice that a lot of Zen practitioners tend to deflect real-life problems into clever Buddhist aphorisms, which is just evasive and doesn't really engage with the world. Plus I don't really love meditation that much so maybe it's not for me. I'd prefer to do active physical exercise in my limited time (and when I'm not writing on HN) because I know this benefits my mind and body more than extended sitting. On the other hand, I like Alan Watts a lot, I think he had had a much more positive influence on Western Buddhism than CTR had. So AW a good, positive advertisement for Zen.
Pure Land sounds cool because I like chanting, but I like Nichiren chanting more (plus I met a lot of cool people in Nichiren circles). Tibetan Buddhist sanghas around where I live seem to be a bit, oh I don't know, I just can't really get into it.