Welcome Visitor !

It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:45 am
Pathway:  Board index Resources Zen Links & Contacts Blogs

Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Gregory Wonderwheel on Sun May 05, 2013 5:29 am

Here's my most recent post at my blog, Turning the Wheel of Wonder.

I suppose a person could fill up all their time trying to chase around all the philosophers and spiritual speculators who are working on the project of "naturalizing" the Buddha Dharma into Western frames of reference. This project of Buddhist Naturalization is basically a project engaged by people who know Buddha Dharma only from Buddhist books read from within the framework of Western philosophy. I put Jay Garfield and Owen Flanagan in this category, along with Stephen Batchelor who appears to be a failed practitioner who is overcompensating his personal failure by joining the Naturalization movement in an attempt to denature the Buddha Dharma and turn it into a Western form of philosophy.

Western philosopher and darling of the liberal Marxist community, Slavoj Žižek is among the Buddhist "Naturalizers" and not so long ago gave a talk at the University of Vermont on “Buddhism Naturalized.”



Adrian J. Ivakhiv has blogged his response at Zizek v. Buddhism: who’s the subject? Ivakhiv's critique of Žižek is well intentioned but lacks determination and seems more supportive than clarifying about the fundamental problems with Žižek specifically and the naturalization movement generally. Though Ivakhiv's blog "Immanance" is focused on a non-dualist understanding, he seems to have lost focus on the non-dual in his response to Žižek, and Ivakhiv seems to me more than a little bit enchanted with the "Naturalization" project.

First, Ivakhiv is mistaken to say “Buddhism and Žižek’s Lacanianism are, in crucial respects, philosophical kindred spirits.” It is just not so. From the outset, Žižek’s critique of Buddhism can be dismissed because it is based on Lacan’s Freudianism. Ivakhiv erroneously states that both Buddhism and Žižek “posit an emptiness or gap at the center of us humans” but Buddhism posits no such thing. The “emptiness” that is a gap at the center of something else, like the hole in a donut or the empty bowl of the tea cup, is not in any way, shape, or form the emptiness that Buddhism speaks of. Or to put it another way, the Lankavatara Sutra defines seven kinds of emptiness and the emptiness that is a “gap at the center” of something is the most mundane definition of emptiness that is equated with ignorance, not with the Buddha Dharma.

Ivakhiv says, “But if reality — not just human but all reality — is the ongoing production of subjectless subjectivity, or what, in process-relational terms I have called subjectivation-objectivation, then subjectless subjectivity is always already active, not merely passive.” But it is not necessary to use such cumbersome terms as “subjectless subjectivity” or “subjectivation-objectivation,” when we say as Buddhists that reality is the activity of Dharma or the activity of Mind or the activity of Buddha-Nature or the activity of emptiness (sunyata) and mean the same thing. Whether that “Other” or that “It” is called Dharma, Mind, Emptiness, Buddha-Nature, Tahtagata, True Suchness, or any of the hundreds of other more colorful terms including such creative attempts as “subjectivation-objectivation,” it is the activity of that which is already active before we have a thought about it.

Therefore, Ivakhiv is right on target to “acknowledge that the world is always already in (affective-semiotic) motion, and that we, moving beings, are affected on a preconscious level by the in-motionness that is always at work around us.” There is a Zen koan on this very point. It is Case 75 from the collection called “The Record of the Temple of Equanimity” (A.K.A. “The Book of Serenity”).

***
75. Ruiyan’s Constant Principle 瑞巖常理

Ruiyan asked Yantou, “So what is the root’s constant principle?”
Tou said, “Activity!”
Yan said, “At the time of activity what’s it like?”
Tou said, “One does not see the root’s constant principle.”
Yan stood still thinking.
Tou said, “If you agree, then you have not yet escaped the sense organs and dusts. If you don’t agree, you immediately sink into endless birth and death.”
***

This problem of a perceived necessity to either agree or disagree is the trap of logical thinking from which philosophers and Freudians like Lacan and Žižek are unable to extricate themselves.

This inability to extricate oneself from the polarized force-field of logically determined philosophical thinking leads Žižek to posit an “irreducible gap between ethics (understood as the care of the self, as striving towards authentic being) and morality (understood as the care for others, responding to their call).” From the view of the Buddha Dharma, the polarization of opposites into irreducible gaps is the hall mark of delusion. If there is an “irreducible gap between subjective authenticity and moral goodness (in the sense of social responsibility)” then it is one that the logical philosopher has created, not one imposed by the authenticity that transcends the subjective-objective polarity.

Žižek also asserts that “the authenticity of the Self is taken to the extreme in Buddhist meditation, whose goal is precisely to enable the subject to overcome (or, rather, suspend) its Self and enter the vacuum of nirvana.” Incredulously, Ivakhiv agrees, “yes, this is part of Buddhism.” Actually this is not a part of Buddha Dharma. The goal of Buddhist meditation is not “to enable the subject to overcome (or, rather, suspend) its Self and enter the vacuum of nirvana.” There are so many things wrong with that one line characterization of the goal of meditation, not least of which is that it posits a “subject” overcoming a “Self.” Then there is the pitifully inane description of nirvana as a vacuum. Sadly, Ivakhiv lets this slide with a tepid agreement.

Fortunately, Ivakhiv rebounds off the ropes when he states, “Žižek’s critique sounds to me not so much as a critique of Buddhism’s philosophical core, which I think he hasn’t adequately grasped.” Though, there is no need for Ivakhiv to be so tentative about it. Žižek plainly doesn’t grasp or realize the core of the Buddha Dharma, and he can only perceive those aspects of Buddha Dharma that he can see through his polarized eyeglasses of philosophical Marxist Freudianism. Thus, Žižek sees only a perverted and twisted view of the Buddha Dharma that is his own attempt at naturalization which he has created.

However, Ivakhiv falls back onto the mat with a knock out punch to himself when he then asserts that there is virtue to Žižek’s critique of Buddhism. Ivakhiv says, “Subjectivity is only possible because of our condition of separation, the very gap that underlies our suffering,” but is that so? I don’t think so. Subjectivity is not “because of” the delusion of separation: subjectivity is the condition of the delusion of separation. Subjectivity is exactly the delusion of a “gap.” Apparently because Ivakhiv can’t see this identity of separation, subjectivity, and gap, he posits a false dichotomy between “eliminating that gap” and “recognizing that the gap is one we share will all manner of other gapped, broken, suffering (because groundless yet ground-seeking) others.” Thus Ivakhiv and Žižek seem to share the notion that subjectivity is irreducible and that we are forever bound to stay within our delusion of subjectivity and the only distinction is whether we acknowledge that we share it with everyone else or not.

This error toward subjectivity leads Ivakhiv to say, “A Buddhist who works only to eradicate suffering in him or herself is, I agree, a Buddhist that does little for a world full of suffering. (But is such a person really practicing Buddhism?)” The answer to the latter question is, yes, such a person is a Buddhist of the Two Vehicles, yet still is very much a Buddhist. But the premise is mistaken. A Buddhist who works only to eradicate suffering in him or herself IS INDEED a Buddhist who does a great deal for a world full of suffering. Only a person who believes in the literalization or reification of “the gap” would imagine that such a person were not contributing toward eradicating a world full of suffering. If Ivakhiv can’t see this, then he has not seen the full vision of Buddha-Knowing (buddhajnana), the realization of which is the purpose of Buddhas coming to manifestation in the Buddha worlds.

_/|\_
Gregory
Why you do not understand is because the three carts were provisional for former times, and because the One Vehicle is true for the present time. ~ Zen Master 6th Ancestor Huineng
User avatar
Gregory Wonderwheel
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3933
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby jiblet on Sun May 05, 2013 2:22 pm

Gregory Wonderwheel wrote:Here's my most recent post at my blog, Turning the Wheel of Wonder.

I suppose a person could fill up all their time trying to chase around all the philosophers and spiritual speculators who are working on the project of "naturalizing" the Buddha Dharma into Western frames of reference. This project of Buddhist Naturalization is basically a project engaged by people who know Buddha Dharma only from Buddhist books read from within the framework of Western philosophy. I put Jay Garfield and Owen Flanagan in this category, along with Stephen Batchelor who appears to be a failed practitioner who is overcompensating his personal failure by joining the Naturalization movement in an attempt to denature the Buddha Dharma and turn it into a Western form of philosophy.

[...]


(With apologies to Gregory for not addressing the issues in the rest of his post) -

Of course, reasons can be supposed why people understand Buddhism in different ways; why there have always been different Buddhisms.

But to suggest that the "naturalizing movement" in Buddhism is the result of ignorance ("engaged by people who know Buddha Dharma only from Buddhist books read from within the framework of Western philosophy") or personal failings (of "a failed practitioner who is overcompensating his personal failure") is not only to dismiss and very likely misrepresent a significantly varied group (if it can usefully be called a group) of intelligent, sincere people whose lives have been enriched by one or another form of Buddhist practice and/or theory, but is also to ignore what is to my mind an obvious truth: what the Buddha taught has been received and passed on in different, very often contradictory, ways from the moment it left his lips.

I see the diversity of Buddhist practice and theory as an indication of its breadth and depth – a reflection of the breadth, depth and variety of humanity itself - rather than an indication of the shortcomings of certain of its adherents, admirers and practitioners. I don't see what's gained by doing that.

Which is not to say that all forms and expressions of Buddhism are to be uncritically accepted by every self-identified Buddhist. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head. You pays your money. You takes your choice.
Last edited by jiblet on Mon May 06, 2013 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jiblet
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun May 05, 2013 4:19 pm

Dear Gregory,

I've had thoughts and concerns along these lines, too. In fact, I left the field of (Western) philosophy after I met my Shifu and had the first Ch'an retreat with him three months later.

But I've had thoughts, too, along the lines that the Buddha Dharma had BETTER turn into a Western form of philosophy in the West. And if it does not, it is sunk, and so is the West.

But Buddha Dharma cannot turn into a Western philosophy that is structured and practiced like Western philosophies of the past, or even of the present. The Denaturers may (might) do as they will to force it into another mold, but even as they try, their mold of choice is changing. Even they cannot hold on to the form of that jelly-mold; the mold itself is made of jelly. That's one of the revelations of Buddha Dharma, emphasized as the doctrine of Impermanence. And just as (Western) Science has modified and diversified Western philosophy profoundly, and continues to do so at an ever accelerating rate, Buddha Dharma is modifying and we can venture a guess that it will continue to modify Western philosophy. The reverse might happen somewhat also, but it may just be that we have to accept that as "natural". Or we may even have to raise an appreciation of "When in Rome, ...", etc. But let's not forget what our Dalai Lama says, that Buddha Dharma passes from one warm hand to another, or -- as I would say -- one warm heart to another. So, it's up to the individual, and to our Buddhist Dharma institutions, to be behind it and to give it a push, in ways that suit.

The dithering and mixing in the sort of aqueous solution around the edges is just where it dissolves into the general population. That diluted component is helpful to those finding the traces and making the transition to the concentrated and more pure core. We've already seen this operate and function in the 1960s, when manifestations and exposure of the Buddha Dharma were pretty polluted, in more ways than two or three. There may be cartoon versions; and comic book versions; progressing to the "illustrated-novel" version; and then the usual standard popularizing texts; then personal study and practice with a teacher and sangha, etc., maybe just as it's always been done.

Buddha Dharma cannot just be "Photo-Shopped" into the West, into Western culture.

We'll have to do a long job ourselves of organic digestion, and assimilate what nourishes, and, sorry, excrete those forms that for us are insoluble fiber. But the nutritional needs and even digestive juices will change as the body does, over hundreds, and thousands, of years. I'm optimistic, and I am confident that Nature knows best.

I remember what Alan Watts once said. I heard this in one of his many recorded talks over 40 years ago. Public concern about the US involvement in Vietnam then pervaded everywhere and everything, and was one of the things powerfully uppermost in everyone's consciousness. Watts said that, in 100 years or so, this would not be the case. Instead, what people would remember about this time, he said, is that it was the time when the West made contact with Buddhism (and I add, "and vice versa"). Of course, it made contact in the West much earlier, through translated writings, but teachers were coming now, when Watts spoke, in greater and greater numbers.

I think even Christianity was not turned into "a Western form of philosophy", and is still a Middle-Eastern accretion. And as long as a mystical wing remains in Christianity, in the form of circles of people practicing Christian Contemplation, and variations of "Centering Prayer", I think it will remain able to provide its practitioners an intimacy with the mind and mentality of its Founder, and not survive solely as a school of doctrine and dogma. I have hopes for the same for Buddha Dharma here!

Thank you for the stimulating post and video. All best,

--Joe

Gregory Wonderwheel wrote:
...joining the Naturalization movement in an attempt to denature the Buddha Dharma and turn it into a Western form of philosophy.

Last edited by desert_woodworker on Sun May 05, 2013 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The abundance of Nature is not a matter of its 'providing' ". -- William James, c. 1901.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 2321
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Chrisd on Sun May 05, 2013 5:10 pm

Hi Gregory. Thank you for taking the time to comment on the "naturalization".
You said:

“posit an emptiness or gap at the center of us humans” but Buddhism posits no such thing. The “emptiness” that is a gap at the center of something else, like the hole in a donut or the empty bowl of the tea cup, is not in any way, shape, or form the emptiness that Buddhism speaks of. Or to put it another way, the Lankavatara Sutra defines seven kinds of emptiness and the emptiness that is a “gap at the center” of something is the most mundane definition of emptiness that is equated with ignorance, not with the Buddha Dharma.


and on your site:

"By the emptiness of mutuality which is non-existence is meant that when a thing is missing here, one speaks of its being empty here." Then the Buddha says about this kind of emptiness, "This is the lowest form of emptiness and is to be sedulously put away."
_/|\_
Gregory


I have recently heard a teacher explain it like that, emptiness being a thing missing.
The teacher was not really a Zen teacher in my opinion, but calls himself this.

How does Buddhism define emptiness then? Apparently in the sutra you mentioned there are seven kinds? Maybe you could share?
Chrisd
 
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Kojip on Sun May 05, 2013 8:09 pm

Hmmm... according to Merriam-Webster “denature” means..

:to deprive of natural qualities: as

a: to make (alcohol) unfit for drinking (as by adding an obnoxious substance) without impairing usefulness for other purposes

b: to modify the molecular structure of (as a protein or DNA) espe
ally by heat, acid, alkali, or ultraviolet radiation so as to destroy or diminish some of the original properties and especially the specific biological activity



Applied to the Buddhadharma I'd say it has been denatured when the heart of practice/realization is referred to in any terms other than “cessation of suffering”. The Noble Silence around that realization is a great place to park deeply held views, usually of an Eternal Self in some form, or some form of materialism... or even just the endless finessing of views. I read Batchelor long ago and had the sense at the time that he was expressing a materialism. Maybe it would look different if read today. How can Buddhism be reduced to philosophy when all the ideas are skillful means and practice is direct, experiential, and inherently ineffable?

Gassho, Richard
User avatar
Kojip
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Carol on Sun May 05, 2013 8:54 pm

Kojip wrote: Applied to the Buddhadharma I'd say it has been denatured when the heart of practice/realization is referred to in any terms other than “cessation of suffering”. The Noble Silence around that realization is a great place to park deeply held views, usually of an Eternal Self in some form, or some form of materialism... or even just the endless finessing of views.


I think that's half the story, Richard. As the Heart Sutra says: "There is no suffering, no cause, no cessation, and no path." Leaving that realization out of Buddhism is, for me, a denatured half-truth, a concretization of suffering as a "thing" that exists and can cease.

When both are true -- the two truths -- this very suffering, the existence of experience/awareness of separation, resistance and heartache, and the "ineffable" luminous awareness of non-separation, boundlessness, love.
Practitioners who cultivate the personal realization of buddha knowledge dwell in the bliss of whatever is present and do not abandon their practice.
~Lankavatara Sutra
User avatar
Carol
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 10155
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:52 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun May 05, 2013 8:55 pm

One of the notions I came up with a long time ago when I was beginning formal practice seems a little trite now, and is definitely not a full characterization, but I think I was on to something. I'll just state it, then back away from it with a minimum of comment. I'll put the full thought in quotation marks, just as I used to consider it:

"Western philosophy describes what is noted when the mind is moving;
Eastern philosophy (say, Buddhadharma) describes what is noted when the mind is not moving."

Today, I'd add or substitute something about there being no mind, in the second line.
I'd leave the first line intact.

Of course I'm wrong in the second line, as at least Yogacara treats the mind from the point of view of delusion.

--Joe
"The abundance of Nature is not a matter of its 'providing' ". -- William James, c. 1901.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 2321
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Kojip on Mon May 06, 2013 1:08 am

Carol wrote:


I think that's half the story, Richard. As the Heart Sutra says: "There is no suffering, no cause, no cessation, and no path." Leaving that realization out of Buddhism is, for me, a denatured half-truth, a concretization of suffering as a "thing" that exists and can cease.


Hi Carol

The Heart Sutra says suffering is empty, and emptiness is suffering. Because suffering is empty, there is suffering, otherwise there would be no suffering.
I am not denying the two truths. I am talking about how Buddhism is unique in not sending grasping minds down a gyre by speculating about an Ultimate Reality, and instead uses the qualifiers of suffering/non-suffering... That's all.

Gassho Richard.
User avatar
Kojip
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Carol on Mon May 06, 2013 1:51 am

Kojip wrote:
Carol wrote:


I think that's half the story, Richard. As the Heart Sutra says: "There is no suffering, no cause, no cessation, and no path." Leaving that realization out of Buddhism is, for me, a denatured half-truth, a concretization of suffering as a "thing" that exists and can cease.


Hi Carol

The Heart Sutra says suffering is empty, and emptiness is suffering. Because suffering is empty, there is suffering, otherwise there would be no suffering.
I am not denying the two truths. I am talking about how Buddhism is unique in not sending grasping minds down a gyre by speculating about an Ultimate Reality, and instead uses the qualifiers of suffering/non-suffering... That's all.

Gassho Richard.


I think I understand how you see it. And I understand it differently. I do not see the suffering/non-suffering "qualifiers" as the core Buddhist teaching. I see that as an attention-grabber, an expedient means, to get us on the path of awakening. Awakening to what? We need not speculate about that, but we can have such experiences -- then try to describe it, inaccurately, but luminous all-pervading compassionate awareness without boundaries points the general direction.
Practitioners who cultivate the personal realization of buddha knowledge dwell in the bliss of whatever is present and do not abandon their practice.
~Lankavatara Sutra
User avatar
Carol
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 10155
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:52 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon May 06, 2013 2:05 am

Chrisd wrote:
and on your site:


"By the emptiness of mutuality which is non-existence is meant that when a thing is missing here, one speaks of its being empty here." Then the Buddha says about this kind of emptiness, "This is the lowest form of emptiness and is to be sedulously put away."
_/|\_
Gregory


I have recently heard a teacher explain it like that, emptiness being a thing missing.
The teacher was not really a Zen teacher in my opinion, but calls himself this.


How does Buddhism define emptiness then? Apparently in the sutra you mentioned there are seven kinds? Maybe you could share?


Perhaps the Lankavatara is of any use to you.
At that time again Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva made a request of the Blessed One. Tell me, Blessed One, how all things are empty, unborn, non-dual, and have no self-nature, so that I and other Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas might be awakened in the teaching of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and the absence of self-nature, and, quitting the discrimination of being and non-being, quickly realise the highest enlightenment.

Then the Blessed One said this to Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva: Now, Mahāmati, listen well and reflect well upon what I tell you.

Replied Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva, I will indeed, Blessed One. (74) The Blessed One said: Emptiness, emptiness, indeed! Mahāmati, it is a term whose self-nature is false imagination. Because of one's attachment to false imagination, Mahāmati, we have to talk of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and absence of self-nature. In short, then, Mahāmati, there are seven kinds of emptiness: (1) The emptiness of individual marks (lakshaṇa), (2) the emptiness of self-nature (bhāvasvabhāva), (3) the emptiness of no-work (apracarita), (4) the emptiness of work (pracarita), (5) the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable (nirabhilāpya), (6) the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable only by noble wisdom, and (7) the emptiness of mutuality (itaretara) which is the seventh.
-------------------------------
(7)
Again, Mahāmati, what is meant by the emptiness of mutual [non-existence]? It is this: when a thing is missing here, one speaks of its being empty there. For instance, Mahāmati, in the lecture-hall of the Mṛigārama there are no elephants, no bulls, no sheep, but as to the Bhikshus I can say that the hall is not devoid of them; it is empty only as far as they [i. e. the animals] are concerned. Further, Mahāmati, it is not that the lecture-hall is devoid of its own characteristics, nor that the Bhikshu is devoid of this Bhikshuhood, nor that in some other places, too, elephants, bulls, and sheep are not to be found. Mahāmati, here one sees all things in their aspect of individuality and generality, but from the point of view of mutuality (itaretara) some things do not exist somewhere. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of mutual [non-existence].

These, Mahāmati, are the seven kinds of emptiness of which mutuality ranks the lowest of all and is to be put away by you.

I could paste the whole thing but the spoiler tag doesn't function on this board but is'somewhere in "chapter two"
“Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with your role”
~Wei Wu Wei
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Kojip on Mon May 06, 2013 2:27 am

Carol wrote:
Kojip wrote:
Carol wrote:


I think that's half the story, Richard. As the Heart Sutra says: "There is no suffering, no cause, no cessation, and no path." Leaving that realization out of Buddhism is, for me, a denatured half-truth, a concretization of suffering as a "thing" that exists and can cease.


Hi Carol

The Heart Sutra says suffering is empty, and emptiness is suffering. Because suffering is empty, there is suffering, otherwise there would be no suffering.
I am not denying the two truths. I am talking about how Buddhism is unique in not sending grasping minds down a gyre by speculating about an Ultimate Reality, and instead uses the qualifiers of suffering/non-suffering... That's all.

Gassho Richard.


I think I understand how you see it. And I understand it differently. I do not see the suffering/non-suffering "qualifiers" as the core Buddhist teaching. I see that as an attention-grabber, an expedient means, to get us on the path of awakening. Awakening to what? We need not speculate about that, but we can have such experiences -- then try to describe it, inaccurately, but luminous all-pervading compassionate awareness without boundaries points the general direction.


Yes we do see it very differently. I feel if we lose sight of the Dukkhayana (yes I made that up), we loose sight of the very core of the Dharma. I feel very clear about that. Luminous all-pervading compassionate awareness is an atmospheric.

But , if we were to sit together where would these differences of view be? :)

Gassho
User avatar
Kojip
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon May 06, 2013 2:51 am

Kojip wrote: Dukkhayana (yes I made that up),


:lol2:
“Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with your role”
~Wei Wu Wei
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Kojip on Mon May 06, 2013 3:44 am

fukasetsu wrote:
Kojip wrote: Dukkhayana (yes I made that up),


:lol2:


la voilà
User avatar
Kojip
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby fukasetsu on Mon May 06, 2013 3:56 am

Kojip wrote:
fukasetsu wrote:
Kojip wrote: Dukkhayana (yes I made that up),


:lol2:


la voilà


"Funny" that I didn't have to say "it" and you still demonstrated your point (happy to be of inter-service btw)
“Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with your role”
~Wei Wu Wei
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Michaeljc on Mon May 06, 2013 5:00 am

But to suggest that the "naturalizing movement" in Buddhism is the result of ignorance ("engaged by people who know Buddha Dharma only from Buddhist books read from within the framework of Western philosophy") or personal failings (of "a failed practitioner who is overcompensating his personal failure") is not only to dismiss and very likely misrepresent a significantly varied group (if it can usefully be called a group) of intelligent, sincere people whose lives have been enriched by one or another form of Buddhist practice and/or theory, but is also to ignore what is to my mind an obvious truth: what the Buddha taught has been received and passed on in different, very often contradictory, ways from the moment it left his lips.


Congratulations Jiblet - this may be the longest sentence ever written throughout ZFI history :)X

m
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby jiblet on Mon May 06, 2013 9:50 am

Do you really think so, m? That would make me so proud! :)



Edit - I've made it a little bit longer ("ignore" in line 5 wasn't right).

But to suggest that the "naturalizing movement" in Buddhism is the result of ignorance ("engaged by people who know Buddha Dharma only from Buddhist books read from within the framework of Western philosophy") or personal failings (of "a failed practitioner who is overcompensating his personal failure") is not only to dismiss and very likely misrepresent a significantly varied group (if it can usefully be called a group) of intelligent, sincere people whose lives have been enriched by one or another form of Buddhist practice and/or theory, but is also to fail to understand the true significance of what is to my mind a clear fact: what the Buddha taught has been received and passed on in different, very often contradictory, ways from the moment it left his lips.
User avatar
jiblet
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Michaeljc on Mon May 06, 2013 10:29 am

You dont write RAP by any chance? :)
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby jiblet on Mon May 06, 2013 10:39 am

Michaeljc wrote:You dont write RAP by any chance? :)


Why? You got some spare cash you wanna invest in a strugglin artiste? ...I'll give it a shot :Thumb:
User avatar
jiblet
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Michaeljc on Mon May 06, 2013 11:17 am

Nah, it,s just that the above sentence might fit :tongueincheek:
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Another Example of Denatured Naturalized Buddhism

Postby Kojip on Tue May 07, 2013 3:06 am

fukasetsu wrote:
Kojip wrote:
fukasetsu wrote:
Kojip wrote: Dukkhayana (yes I made that up),


:lol2:


la voilà


"Funny" that I didn't have to say "it" and you still demonstrated your point (happy to be of inter-service btw)


Hi fukasetsu, Not sure I follow, but that wasn't a personal reference. La Voila was just referring to putting two words together to form a new one. Dukkhayana. Dukkha is the vehicle, and the axis, that is as bottomless and endless as the vows. It isn't a novel idea... the word probably isn't either.

Gassho. :)
User avatar
Kojip
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Next

Return to Blogs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 146 on Fri May 29, 2009 2:49 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests