Blues for Buddha

[Dan Rowden]

An article from the somewhat mysterious Jed McKenna:

Being critical of Buddhism isn't easy.

[deathnotewithurname]

Very interesting. It's a good thing I didn't even consider going to the Buddha side...

But how can one let go of the ego to become enlightened, especially when almost everything is geared to make us turn inward and be focused on it?

Hmmm...and how would one or another person know when they were enlightened? I'm not sure, but it seems like throughout history, those who claimed to be enlightened were persecuted, basically for going against mainstream ideology.

And why do some people who claim to have reached a high level of understanding kill themselves? Who the hell wants to be enlightened then?!

[Steven Coyle]

Uh, one can still have an ego and be enlightened. Now, the correct definition of the false self is another story...

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, so offer such a definition or an idea of how such a definition might be formulated.

[Steven Coyle]

Definition of the false self: Any belief which holds the subject and object as separate.

[Alex Jacob]

I have a dog. The dog is connected to me with a leash. I know 'I am not my dog'. But I cannot fully negate the dog, by letting him off the leash. My relation to my ego is exactly the same. I observe the dog and take no part in its ups and downs, likes and dislikes. That is enlightenment.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

But how can one let go of the ego to become enlightened, especially when almost everything is geared to make us turn inward and be focused on it?

I don't think you'd accept this as an argument from a nicotine addict. (Can you think of one I can't compare to drug use?)

Hmmm...and how would one or another person know when they were enlightened?

Since enlightenment requires the absence of delusions, I'm sure it would take an undeluded mind to recognize its own. A man trapped in delusion would have a hard time telling if an enlightened man was voicing delusions or truth.

And why do some people who claim to have reached a high level of understanding kill themselves? Who the hell wants to be enlightened then?!

Let's suppose they are enlightened. In that case, man is incapable of living with truth. If that's the true state of things, who the hell wants to live in that world -- enlightened or not?

Supposing they aren't enlightened: deluded people kill themselves all the time. There's no similar shock there.

[Steven Coyle]

More annoying than annoying: folks constantly redefining what enlightenment is to suit their needs. The epitome of this place...

D A M N !

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And why do some people who claim to have reached a high level of understanding kill themselves? Who the hell wants to be enlightened then?!

Let's suppose they are enlightened. In that case, man is incapable of living with truth. If that's the true state of things, who the hell wants to live in that world -- enlightened or not?

An easy answer to that would be: the few who are capable of "living with truth". And how could enlightened people 'want' something out of this world? They must know better by now; truth cannot be not willed, ultimately.

[divine focus]

And how could enlightened people 'want' something out of this world?

Everyone wants something. To get it, you have to find it where you are. If you're here, what you want must be here.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And how could enlightened people 'want' something out of this world?

Everyone wants something. To get it, you have to find it where you are. If you're here, what you want must be here.

True, someone, who, what and where you are, is always defined by desire. This is why it is said that when desire stills, the person disappears, thus gone and real depth can appear now effortlessly.

Even the appearance of wanting something: effortlessly! Still fundamentally different.

[Iolaus]

Conquering your passions, that is not nirvana.

Considering them as no affair of yours, that is nirvana.

(Quoted from a zen book)

[Renaissance]

I have a dog. The dog is connected to me with a leash. I know 'I am not my dog'. But I cannot fully negate the dog, by letting him off the leash. My relation to my ego is exactly the same. I observe the dog and take no part in its ups and downs, likes and dislikes. That is enlightenment.

I believe the Buddha would agree that it is impossible to get beyond the ego unless you can discipline the mind and silence the thoughts. So, talk all you like about enlightenment. If you do not make the effort to discipline the mind into single-minded concentration, in which the thoughts stop, you will never properly control the ego.

That takes more concerted effort than walking your dog. It took me YEARS of concerted effort to have that kind of mastery over my mind. I wouldn't be surprised if you have not even begun to concertely and consistently make that effort.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, by just "observing the dog" and "considering them as no affair of yours" one is not far beyond a mental disorder like depersonalization or some other so-called dissociative disorder. That is far from enlightenment although frequently witnessed with the ones involved in the subject matter and surely can help one to cope.

In a way such estrangement is fundamental to the state of mind of the common modern mind, to various degrees. But any process of enlightenment runs right in the opposite direction.

[Renaissance]

I have little doubt that the modern psychiatric world would diagnose the original Buddha to be mentally deranged and they would do their best to convince the Buddha that he was crazy for his discovered beliefs.

'What? You gave up being a prince, with a wife and child, and living in luxury to go out and fast, like a begger, in the forest? You're crazy!!!!'

Dan is of the stock of those who are certain what is delusional and what is not. Of course, the Western medical world would have diagnosed the original Buddha to be delusional. Of course they would!

As for Jesus they would say:

'What? You think God is speaking to you? You're a crazy schizophrenic! Here, take these drugs.'