Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dark Zen - Questions
buddhafoot
Veteran
This has come up a couple of times and I was wondering if some of our more learned individuals could take the time to describe what they feel are the differences.
There does some to be some arguments between the two as to what should be happening when one meditates. A lot of meditation that is taught is focused on our breathing. But, there are also some practices of meditation where a person thinks on those that they know (and that they do not know) with a "loving-kindness" mentality.
How is this so different from Dark Zen meditation? Non-Dark Zen meditation is mostly about letting go and being aware of the moment while Dark Zen seems to be more focused on finding something within us.
There does seem to be some references regarding our "buddha-mind" that is supposedly back up by suttas (Mahâparinirvâna).
Anyone that could provide some information would be appreciated.
-bf
There does some to be some arguments between the two as to what should be happening when one meditates. A lot of meditation that is taught is focused on our breathing. But, there are also some practices of meditation where a person thinks on those that they know (and that they do not know) with a "loving-kindness" mentality.
How is this so different from Dark Zen meditation? Non-Dark Zen meditation is mostly about letting go and being aware of the moment while Dark Zen seems to be more focused on finding something within us.
There does seem to be some references regarding our "buddha-mind" that is supposedly back up by suttas (Mahâparinirvâna).
Anyone that could provide some information would be appreciated.
-bf
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dark Zen claims that all existing Buddhist traditions are both mistaken and evil, and that only AE and his few hangers on truly understand Zen, which is ironic because their woeful ignorance of even the basics of Zen are legendary. Ken Wheeler's website at one time had pictures of corpses, and called for the rape and murder of Buddhist nuns and monks, particularly those of the Theravadin and Vajrayana traditions. For more information, here is one of the Dark Zen websites:
THE ONLY WEBSITE DEDICATED TO ORIGINAL BUDDHISM" (SIC)
Which contains such section titles as:
"Why modern Buddhism is truely a joke religion"
"BUDDHISM, A DEAD RELIGION"
and, "Why is modern "Buddhism" such a magnet for evil and foul peoples?"
And here are a couple of relevant threads on yet another board where Dark Zen caused so much trouble that they were eventually banned, a pattern that they tend to repeat, moving onto another forum where they are unknown, until they are eventually banned again:
Dark Zen - What is it?
Dark Zen
Mr. Hollingworth has been active until recently on Beliefnet's Buddhism Debate forum (he appears to be on an "imposed vacation" from that facility at present, owing to "misadventure" with the management thereabouts.)
You can expect a certain amount of controversy, excitement, and considerable hijacking of topics, if past behavior is any indicator. A lot of veiled attack stuff. Then again, people sometimes do change...:rolleyesc
Much appreciated.
-bf
Actually the Buddha accepted the principle of the atman. He said, in fact:
And in Mahayana Buddhism, of which Zenmonk in a professor, self or atman is understood as follows:
Again,
They do, however, provide the energy that keeps Siddhartha Gotama spinning in his grave.
Claim but no evidence. How about another claim—feel in that claimy mood?
And now the bad news:
Certainly the Buddha taught the self...was an illusion. No one is saying that the body is the self.
Loka Sutta
(Surveying) the World
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only.
I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Awakened -- staying at Uruvela by the banks of the Nerañjara River in the shade of the Bodhi tree, the tree of Awakening -- he sat in the shade of the Bodhi tree for seven days in one session, sensitive to the bliss of release. At the end of seven days, after emerging from that concentration, he surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw living beings burning with the many fevers and aflame with the many fires born of passion, aversion, and delusion. Then, on realizing the significance of that, he on that occasion exclaimed:
This world is burning.
Afflicted by contact,
it calls disease a "self."
By whatever it construes [things],
that's always otherwise.
Becoming otherwise,
the world is
held by becoming
afflicted by becoming
and yet delights
in that very becoming.
Where there's delight,
there is fear.
What one fears
is stressful.
This holy life is lived
for the abandoning of becoming.
Whatever priests or contemplatives say that liberation from becoming is by means of becoming, all of them are not released from becoming, I say.
And whatever priests or contemplatives say that escape from becoming is by means of non-becoming, all of them have not escaped from becoming, I say.
This stress comes into play
in dependence on all acquisitions.
With the ending of all clinging/sustenance,
there's no stress coming into play.
Look at this world:
Beings, afflicted with thick ignorance,
are unreleased
from delight in what has come to be.
All levels of becoming,
anywhere,
in any way,
are inconstant, stressful, subject to change.
Seeing this -- as it's actually present --
with right discernment,
one abandons craving for becoming,
without delighting in non-becoming.
From the total ending of craving
comes fading & cessation without remainder:
Unbinding.
For the monk unbound,
through lack of clinging/sustenance,
there's no further becoming.
He has vanquished Mara,
won the battle.
Having gone beyond all levels of being,
he's Such.
The Buddha taught that the five skandhas or aggregates were essentially an illusion of which the self is not a part.
Tell us, then, what this pericope means. (He should read "being beset by contact, it speaks as to self of ill health [rogam vadati attato].)
I have the commentary to this section on my lap--you may give us your spin, then I will tell you what the Atthakatha says.
Don't stay here too long, they say I have a powerful spell over the helpless. Don't read this:
Om amogha vairocana mahamudra mani padma jvala pravartaya hum
Certainly. "It calls dis ease a 'self'.", points to thoughts identification with sensation. As pointed out in The Sermon At Rajagaya, "The senses meet the object.....so through the contact born of sense and object, the mind originates and with it the ego, the thought of self." The Buddha was not talking about an idea, but a perception in which the observer comes into being at the end of the perception, to end the perception. You can substitute the word 'realization' for perception if you like.
Your turn.
Dark Zen: We have a different view of sangha. For us, sangha is made up of those who have experienced the Buddha's true Dharma. These beings have become a witness to his pure teaching—or the same, the dark principle.
Question: So, this is not a community then, am I right?
Dark Zen: Let's say that it is a community of like minds. In the Avatamsaka Sutra it tells us to “observe the Buddha's power of energy” which is his true Dharma. In observing it, we at once become members of his sangha.
(From: 'The Basis of Dark Zen', Interview with Dark Zen.)
So the honest answer is NO....They don't appear to have the courage of their own beliefs, for if they did then surely an On-line sangha of their own would be the natural enviroment for these extreme views to be aired and discussed? Instead they choose, often it appears, by "Stealth", to invade other Forums where they propagate their warped views. This is in my view akin to being a "Parasite", not however one that intends to live symbiotically with it's host but one that over time, has the potential to cause harm if left un-checked.
The commentary says it is about being in the grip of wrong view to wit one takes the khandha-pentad to be the self (the pentad is here pretty much the psycho-physical body). By no means is this a refuation of the self. One, in the tenth Sutta of the Nada chapter of the Udana, has mis-taken the khandha-pentad to be "mine is this" thus selfing the khandha as it were.
The PTS translation is as follows (you will note no mention of self in the sense you mean it).
Actually the answer is a resounding YES if you are spiritually clued in.
The term 'hindu' as it is currently used is a Western invention. It is actually a Persian word. There has never been any 'per se' Hindus in India (Sindus in Sanskrit). In my opinion, and from the literature I have read, Westerners have, for the most part, hijacked Buddhism twisting it into something strange to meet their needs. In the process, they have divided Indian religion into Buddhist vs Hindu. This is quite crazy. Even modern day Hindus fall for this nonsense.
Simon, i was with you all the way until the diaspora bit (though i can guess)
The term is a Western invention. The unfortunate thing is that it has stuck. There is no Hindu church like the Catholic church.
The Upanishads, which Westerners consider to be 'Hindu works' show as much rebelliion towards the Karmins (ritualizers) as did the Jains (who are earlier) and the Buddhists. Like the Jains and the Bauddha, they accepted the notion of karma; that man by rituals is unable to escape his misdeeds.
Even more interesting, in respect to the Upanishads, according to Dr. Nakamura, "the Samyutta-nikâya can be traced to the Brhadâranyaka-upanishad.
I hasten to add that the term “Buddha” is not uncommon either in so-called Hindu works. Sages in the Upanishads were called “Buddhas”. Jain sages were called “Buddhas”. In the Buddhist Suttanipâta a “Buddha” just meant an “excellent ascetic”, nothing more.
"The word Hinduism was coined by the Muslim scholar Alberuni in the 11th century C.E. and while its appropriateness to describe the dominant system of religious belief in the India of his time (and of ours) is unquestionable, its use to describe the oldest religious beliefs in India (some scholars even applying the term to describe the pre-Aryan civilization represented by the Harappan culture), is clearly suspect. In this respect the practice of the earlier scholars to use the term "brahmanism" to designate the system which prevailed amongst the Aryan invaders before the Buddha's time, and to confine the word "Hinduism" to designate the system which was synthesised in the Bhagavadgîta, a work compiled centuries after the Buddha, which became the foundation of almost the whole of later Hinduism, could be commended."
- Dr V.A.Gunasekara
Modern Hinduism didn't actually exist until comparatively recently. Neither Buddhism or Jainism are part of Hinduism though Buddhism certainly has influenced modern Hinduism. For example the Advaita Vedanta school itself was largely a reaction to the Buddhist teachings made famous by Nagarjuna. It's a common misconception, fueled by some who should know better, many who don't, and fundamentalist Hindus that promulgate the myth for their own purposes, that it's a far more ancient religion than it actually is. This link explains the position of Buddhism with regards to Hinduism and, more accurately, to the Brahminic culture that existed before Hinduism at the time of the Buddha:
Hinduism in Buddhist Perspective - Dr. V.A.Gunasekara
May I also point out that the term "Christ", meaning "Anointed One", is used in many places in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Hebrew describes a person anointed with consecrated oil, the first of whom is David.
There appears to be a similar need among followers to ascribe uniqueness to their founding figures, as if springing out of nowhere. At the same time, they need to be connected to the most venerable traditions. Thus, there may be many christs but one Christ, many buddhas but a unique Buddha.
1 buddha a. awakened (lit. & fig.), completely conscious, enlightened; m. the Enlightened One, the Buddha, E. of Gautama of the Cakya tribe.
Hinduism, Hindooism:
Thich Nhat Hanh, ironically, gives us a pretty typical Western prejudicial view of Buddhism contrasting it with so-called Brahmanism.
"From the intellectual standpoint, it [Buddhism] rigorously rejected the concept of I (Atma), which is the very heart of Brahmanism" (Zen Keys, 33).
What Lindtner, et al., are trying to say is that the Buddha did not reject the Self; he only rejected our habit of linking the Self with anything whatsoever. Indeed, by definition, the Self is itself (attano idanti sakam) and by entailment, not other than itself. If it were other it would not be itself! And here is the crux of the problem. We attach to the 'other' which is not ourself. Thus attached to what we are not (an-atma), we are carried along by the torrent of samsara.
It is also a mistake to take the Self as the signified, in which case it would be a view. It is only a signifier which puts to the signified, namely, our Buddha-nature.
And when I was a little girl in Italy, my mother took my elder brother and me to a 'Luna Park' (Funfair) where they used to sell hard, gnarled chunks and lumps of chocolate, called 'Carbone'...."Coal"... That too, was full of crystallised fragments of sugar and as hard as a jimmy... it would take ages to eat one... kind of like a hard 'gobstopper' but better!
This is no longer available in Italy.....I think, unfortulately, the Tooth Police got their way....!! :mad:
Here we are faced with two choices. Either we are to read the above erringly as the affirmation of sensory consciousness or we can read it correctly in which we are to understand that we are not, at the deepest level of our being, even this consciousness.
If we choose the former, then we must accept our doom, viz., many lives of sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, etc. On the other hand, if we can extricate ourselves from identifying with consciousness (and the other aggregates) we have a clear path to nirvana and eventual Buddhahood.
I rather hoped it would feature a scene of Juliette Binoche in a bath of chocolate but unfortunately I ended up disappointed !!
Me too!
Now, what the hell is a "jimmy"???
In the states, if you've got a hard jimmy, you put a jimmy-hat on it before you do anything with it.
These colloquialisms are killing me.
And making me laugh.
-bf