Hear the one hand slow clapping, Buddhists.
A colleague of mine, showed me a video of her son acting Buddha in a play. He had to meditate for several hours before each performance. Such surety, such tranquility. Such a knowing smile. He did have an aura about him, the aura of certitude.
Buddhism is a soul eater. A Yog Sothoth. A Leviathan. A monster. A phtasm, a creature.
If one is a poet and says something like: "Life is a sacrifice of the heart." then no one should interpret this as a command to rip out a real heart. Or, when you say, as a poet,'"This is my body'" holding a piece of bread you are being powtic. You don't imply transubstantiation.
Was Buddha even a good poet? Buddhism castles the imagination and that makes it quite dangerous. It has its imagined defences and its real defenders.Their 'Dharma's' and 'Karmas' and Boddhis. And these are real weapons carried by real people. Because the imagination is real. As real as a sleeping dragon.
If I was making up stories about Siddharta I would say a Tamil teacher called Boghar stopped off at the palace on his way north and discoursed at table next to a Bodhi tree to Siddharta when pressed to do so.
Siddharta was the ultimate social climber, he wanted a rung up in the next world. Consequently Buddhism is a religion for limited people inclined to elitism - hat' Buddha nature.
Boghar had to go and Siddharta hadn't quite grasped the concept but saw the opportunity. But he was an awful intellectualiser. Full of unconvincing notions and abstractions he described a half understood experience of enlightenment clumsily and immediately set the rituals in motion.
Buddhism is religion for parvenus and snobs, based on the half realised and comically intellectualised concepts borrowed from a Tamil teacher.
Of course as time went by it gathered brain and momentum and verification. Buddha nature is exemplified by a smarmy knowing smile and spiritual, one-upmanship, but by compassion, but by unwarranted.condescension
What is it to be the mere exponent of a system? That there is valid insight or three inside that system is no difference. The slaves on a tireme ate real food. The river water that was damned and drowned towns and that was used to run great turbines was real water. The point is to create a phantom that captures enough poor souls so that they channel light through you and make a Japanese lantern.
Diogenes would have said to Buddha. 'Stand a little less between me and the sun.'
In the video of this mother's son he smiles and a demonic man tries to attack him, necklaces of thumbs stringing down and they are repelled by an invisible force. The demon repents, looking at Buddha's calm insouciance and converts.
There is something very very threatening about Buddha, He steps firmly in front of the light and implies that the light shines out of his fundamentals.
It is for love and humility and peace. But, if you don't accept strictures then the threats of consequences are terrible, all the way down to the most terrible and priests, intermediaries, take time to think up new levels of hell. How deeply sinister:
Someone you know. Proclaiming absolute love and service and peace...in return for your complete subjugation to them...or else you are voodooed to hell. Lovely!
It is time we dispensed with these old systems of thought. Philip Pullman tries (and fails) to give us a sense of the freshness we might have if we do. He fails, of course, because he is such a square. The new atheists were a breath of fresh air.
Imagine we are all suffering from a form of locked in syndrome, where washing through our comatose lives are all these bad dreams from consumerism to the dregs of the axis age religions, and we just want to wake up.
I think that we should consign all religious beliefs to literature. In an extreme case you might find someone who considers himself to be a Tolstoyist, for example (Tolstoyan) but to profess to be a follower of a writer is a step to far, it's stalkerish (in the modern parlance).
Time to wake up.
I love Dali's elephants. Look at this picture. Notice how the elephant is in front of the sun and a cathedral is on his back and through the window is the torso of a naked woman.
This halo is not a halo. So to speak.
A colleague of mine, showed me a video of her son acting Buddha in a play. He had to meditate for several hours before each performance. Such surety, such tranquility. Such a knowing smile. He did have an aura about him, the aura of certitude.
Buddhism is a soul eater. A Yog Sothoth. A Leviathan. A monster. A phtasm, a creature.
If one is a poet and says something like: "Life is a sacrifice of the heart." then no one should interpret this as a command to rip out a real heart. Or, when you say, as a poet,'"This is my body'" holding a piece of bread you are being powtic. You don't imply transubstantiation.
Was Buddha even a good poet? Buddhism castles the imagination and that makes it quite dangerous. It has its imagined defences and its real defenders.Their 'Dharma's' and 'Karmas' and Boddhis. And these are real weapons carried by real people. Because the imagination is real. As real as a sleeping dragon.
If I was making up stories about Siddharta I would say a Tamil teacher called Boghar stopped off at the palace on his way north and discoursed at table next to a Bodhi tree to Siddharta when pressed to do so.
Siddharta was the ultimate social climber, he wanted a rung up in the next world. Consequently Buddhism is a religion for limited people inclined to elitism - hat' Buddha nature.
Boghar had to go and Siddharta hadn't quite grasped the concept but saw the opportunity. But he was an awful intellectualiser. Full of unconvincing notions and abstractions he described a half understood experience of enlightenment clumsily and immediately set the rituals in motion.
Buddhism is religion for parvenus and snobs, based on the half realised and comically intellectualised concepts borrowed from a Tamil teacher.
Of course as time went by it gathered brain and momentum and verification. Buddha nature is exemplified by a smarmy knowing smile and spiritual, one-upmanship, but by compassion, but by unwarranted.condescension
What is it to be the mere exponent of a system? That there is valid insight or three inside that system is no difference. The slaves on a tireme ate real food. The river water that was damned and drowned towns and that was used to run great turbines was real water. The point is to create a phantom that captures enough poor souls so that they channel light through you and make a Japanese lantern.
Diogenes would have said to Buddha. 'Stand a little less between me and the sun.'
In the video of this mother's son he smiles and a demonic man tries to attack him, necklaces of thumbs stringing down and they are repelled by an invisible force. The demon repents, looking at Buddha's calm insouciance and converts.
There is something very very threatening about Buddha, He steps firmly in front of the light and implies that the light shines out of his fundamentals.
It is for love and humility and peace. But, if you don't accept strictures then the threats of consequences are terrible, all the way down to the most terrible and priests, intermediaries, take time to think up new levels of hell. How deeply sinister:
Someone you know. Proclaiming absolute love and service and peace...in return for your complete subjugation to them...or else you are voodooed to hell. Lovely!
It is time we dispensed with these old systems of thought. Philip Pullman tries (and fails) to give us a sense of the freshness we might have if we do. He fails, of course, because he is such a square. The new atheists were a breath of fresh air.
Imagine we are all suffering from a form of locked in syndrome, where washing through our comatose lives are all these bad dreams from consumerism to the dregs of the axis age religions, and we just want to wake up.
I think that we should consign all religious beliefs to literature. In an extreme case you might find someone who considers himself to be a Tolstoyist, for example (Tolstoyan) but to profess to be a follower of a writer is a step to far, it's stalkerish (in the modern parlance).
Time to wake up.
I love Dali's elephants. Look at this picture. Notice how the elephant is in front of the sun and a cathedral is on his back and through the window is the torso of a naked woman.
This halo is not a halo. So to speak.
Comments
Post a Comment