Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.magick.tyagi Subject: KKeutzer: Real v Fake Buddhism (Was OMiNous 1.6) Followup-To: alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan Date: 15 Jan 1996 17:36:43 -0800 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 96 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <4devfb$kn1@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: <4bvlf1$fs2@news.acns.nwu.edu <4c1qet$t68@sundog.tiac.net> <4c2ccb$oo3@homer.alpha.net> <4c2cs5$d3f@news.acns.nwu.edu> <4cec2m$lni@homer.alpha.net> Reply-To: keutzer@synopsys.com (Kurt Keutzer) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.religion.buddhism:137 talk.religion.buddhism:15258 alt.philosophy.zen:5685 alt.magick.tyagi:6204 [from alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan: keutzer@synopsys.com (Kurt Keutzer)] [some editing for comprehension - tn] In article <4cec2m$lni@homer.alpha.net>, sari@ren.glaci.com (Trinlay Khadro) wrote: > Kurt Keutzer (keutzer@synopsys.com) wrote: > : As for diviniation - I'm not sure how that fits in with the OMiNous > : magazine but if you look at the amount of time senior teachers in Tibetan > : Buddhism spend doing "mo"s (a style of divination) it's clear they don't > : quite agree that divination is forbidden for a bodhisattva. > IMHO the core stuff, the basic concepts (Karma, emptiness, rebirth, etc) > stay the same throughout Buddhism. The viewpoint of karma espoused by Dogen is significantly different, I am told, than that of say the contemporary interpretation of karma in Tibetan Buddhism, for example. The viewpoint of Emptiness is radically different in different schools of Buddhism - as I am sure you are aware. I am told that the eminent S'ri Lankan monk Buddhagasa had a radically different viewpoint on rebirth. I think the second of these differences are the only ones that I could personally defend but the point is that there is hardly any topic on which there are not significant differences of interpretation among different Buddhist schools. > The New Age version, doesn't even stick to the Buddhist standard > on any of the basics. > If one is changing and "adapting" core beliefs it becomes something > NEW requiring a new lable. I can understand the viewpoint that a teaching must contain fundamental teachings of Gautama Buddha before something can rightfully be labelled Buddhism, but I wonder what teachings you feel constitute the fundamental teachings of Gautama Buddha? I know you said: ``karma, emptiness, rebirth'' but what specific viewpoints do you imply by these terms and are you saying that they are the same across all schools of Buddhism? > Otherwise it's false advertising... Minestrone soup starts with > Beef stock, but Adapts it. If one wanted Beef Stock, and opens a can > labled as such, and it has Minestrone soup in it. wouldn't that be > confusing? > All the forms of Buddhism have the same "Beef Stock", but > the New age keeps labling stuff "Beef stock derivative" when it has > no Beef stock anywhere in it... > or "Artificial beef flavoring". > It's as much a "truth in labling" (Cheese/Cheese type product) > issue as anything else, though at the core of THAT is a respect issue. > "If we slapp the lable "Tibetan Buddhism" on it, it will sell like hot > cakes." (at least untill some other tradition becomes a hot item) I'm not sure how long I'm going to last on this thread so let me get to the punch line before I forget what I was trying to point out. If there's one teaching that I believe that Buddha taught it is that of ``interdependent origination''; the Dalai Lama calls this Buddha's slogan. That teaching, as I understand it, is that all phenomena are interdependent and lacking of inherent existance. This includes the phenomena called Buddhism. Even a single consistent school of Buddhism does not exist from its own side but exists in dependence on the particulars of the teachings which in turn depend on language, consciousness etc. If we take the fuzzy phenomenon that we are loosely referring to as Buddhism then I doubt that we (i.e. the members of this newsgroup) will be able to agree even on a *conventional* basis of designation for the term ``Buddhism.'' Like the rest of you I am also disturbed when I see teachings that are dear to me mixed free-form with other traditions in such a way that the original meaning is lost. For example I attended a Sufi dance in which at the end they chanted: gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha and explained this as: ``let's go! let's go! let's all go! lets' all go to total unity together!.'' But if I'm honest with myself I see my disturbance in this case is not because I definitely understand Buddhism and these Sufi dancers don't. It is simply that their meaning deviates from the one that I have learned in the teachings I have attended regarding the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. > And what the HELL is "Tantric Buddhism"? I feel that I would be patronizing someone by the name ``Trinlay Khadro'' if I went into a discussion of the introduction of tantric practices into Buddhism. Perhaps you can clarify what is your question. Mangalam, Kurt PS rnam rtog bdud kyi rgalpo yin - conceptuality is the king of Mara -- To ensure my response CC all public replies to email (READ alt.magick.tyagi) (emailed replies may be posted) * http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html INTENTIONAL .SIG PROTEST: FUCK SHIT PISS COCKSUCKER MOTHERFUCKER TITS CUNT