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.
kathodos.com
Inc88
Explorer
in Philosophy
Hello all, the webmaster from the website ive posted in the title made a series of videos earlyer this year. He says what hes doing is trying to go back to the presecular core of Buddhism to uncover the original teachings of the Buddha. His videos are very dry, difficult to follow at times, and i cant help but watch with skepticism and was curious about what other more knowledgeable people on the website think of the info hes trying pass on.
0
Comments
My main focus tho is on the points he makes about Buddhism. I agree with Rebecca, he doesn't seem like the kind of person id like to spend extended periods of times with but he seems genuine in his objective and seems to have the sources and the intelligence to present a (how should i say this...) closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.
The problem i have is, while im still learning about Buddhism, i lack the knowledge to take whats hes saying and compare it to see how accurate what he says is. I am curious what someone on this website that has studied the the pali canon and any other teachings would have to say about this.
-Is this information correct and significant?
-Is this information generally known but i myself just haven't stumbled upon it yet?
-Or is this information something people that truly devote themselves to the Buddhas teaching discover on their own naturally
-Orrrr is he incorrect and just a nut lol
Buddhism has nothing to do with any kind of racism. Call me prejudiced, but that's enough for me to go elsewhere for Buddhist material.
It's not just about having clever theories.
I can't find the Jewish problem link, but it's worth investigating. I based what I said on watching his video and a quick scan of the site. If he's talking racist then obviously the guy is a no no.
There's a link to something even worse on his blog. Above this caption is a picture of an ape wearing a gold chain.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ON BUDDHISM not racism...if your pride is too much to look past the possible racism then DONT POST ON THIS TOPIC AGAIN...im talking to you PrairieGhost and anyone elce viewing this that cant help another human learn a little truth in this world
************This being my 1st interaction with members (2) on this website RebeccaS seems to be the only one that wants to say anything about the topic i specifically want to talk about (thank you). Otherwise my experience on this site has been a HUGE headache and if this is what im going to get for wanting to have my 1st intellectual discussion, about the Buddhist topics this man shares, then ill be sure to never visit this site again and warn people, that think about joining, of the type of people that are members(not all) and the unwilling attitude(of some) to help another is their quest for knowledge******
(No good)
Anyway, the website itself isnt my focus for this discussion(him being the webmaster of the site is the only way i can identify him other then his youtube) but of the video i posted and his follow up videos. There's no form of racism in his videos but it is a little uneasy/alarming how he does talk down to those of lesser intellect and of the various school of Buddhism.
What he says makes sense and by what he says he devoted his time to translating the early Buddhist texts and was able to uncover the subtleties in the language itself. The ideals he shares are new to me but theres a difference between new to ME and new in a larger picture. Ive only been studying Buddhism for about a year and i know there is much more for me to learn. I easily can separate right from wrong but with this i need to know if this is a case of misinterpretation or discovery / true Buddhism or possible misguidance.
Anyone that can give me their time to watch the videos and share their knowledge on Buddhism at the time of the Buddhas life i thank you
---i feel as tho i need a scholar for this lol----
(unfortunately i dont live near / close enough to any Buddhist schools where i can easily learn)
The site says "The Tathagata (Buddha) teaches only Aryans (arya), ...not puthujjana (inferior, profane)" [Majjhima Nikaya 2]-Gotama Buddha "
The problem here is that Majjhima Nikaya 2...does not even say that...
What it really says is "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see."
Somehow the person twisted this to interpret it as "The Buddha only teaches the first kind of people"
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of other references in the Canon of the Buddha teaching the second kind...
The site also says "Theravada, the perverse dogma of the annihilationists, was born from the womb of Mara (evil)."
That is complete nonsense!... This person is completely misguided. If you want to learn about "true Buddhism", don't go to that person.
The best source for the Pali Canon and commentary, explanation, etc. is http://www.accesstoinsight.org
http://www.buddhanet.net/ is good too.
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person [puthujjana] — who has no regard for noble ones [ariya], is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma [ariyadhamma]..." (Brackets are mine.]
By comparing everything that they have in common, I suppose one could potentially get a clearer picture of what 'presecular' Buddhism might have looked like, but even that will be coloured somewhat by the knowledge and bias of the translators. This brings me to my next qualm, which is that I disagree with many of his translations and interpretations, many of which I feel are based on outdated scholarship.
While people like Mr. T.W. Rhys Davids, Mrs. C. A. F. Rhys Davids, etc. were pioneers in the field of early Pali to English translations, their understanding wasn't as accurate as it is today, in my opinion. For instance, Mrs. Rhys David's understanding of Buddhism was heavily influeneced by Theosophy, which in turn heavily influenced her translations of many key Pali terms and her interpretation of Buddhism as a whole. The same for F.L. Woodward, another pioneering and prolific translator, who was also a Theosophist and, at one time, the principal of the Buddhist Theosophical Society's Mahinda College in Sri Lanka. (Mr. Rhys Davids was apparently not a big fan of Theosophy, so his translations and interpretations were less influenced by Theosophy than his wife or Woodward; but they were still composed at the earliest stages of Western Pali scholarship.)
That in and of itself doesn't mean that their translations are incorrect, but I personally disagree with the extremely metaphysical and pro-self approach the webmaster himself takes, which in my opinion contradicts the Buddha's more pragmatic approach, as well as his blanket condemnation of Theravada as 'annihilationism.' For example, I agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a Theravadin, that "the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness" (No-self or Not-self?), noting that clinging to the view 'I have a self' is as much of a form of self view as 'I have no self,' and the Buddha clearly states that he can't envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, wouldn't lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair (MN 22).
In conclusion, I'm sympathetic to his goal of trying to uncover the heart of what the Buddha taught, and can appreciate some of his criticisms, such as those of the later Abhidhammika's (particularly the Sarvastivadin Abhidhammikas, who held a more realist position); but I find his Pali scholarship peculiar, the language on his site unnecessarily controversial and hateful (e.g., calling Bhikkhu Bodhi "Theravada’s ignorant mouthpiece" and "Mara's Right-hand Materialistic whore"), and I'd personally advise a healthy dose of skepticism when exploring his site and videos.
I would argue that the denial of self is the cardinal tenet of Theravada. But not all Theravadins subscribe to anattavada. The Dhammakaya Foundation is one such example. Other Theravadins have jumped ship also.
Turning briefly to the theory of self found in MN 22 which is attavada this particular theory, which the Buddha rejects, is: In this same Sutta the Buddha goes on to say that we are to regard each khandha this way: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ).
From my reading of MN 22, the Buddha is distancing himself from all theories of self, positive or negative. But I can appreciate the idea that the Buddha's teachings on anatta are negating what it isn't self in order to open us up to something permanent, lasting, eternal, and not liable to change.
However, I expect others here who are experts in the language can talk about these issues with more accuracy.
http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/translation.htm
While translations are, for the most part, following the grammar, many technical terms like jhâna (meditation) and sati (mindfulness), still elude translation. The commentarial literature can be useful, but not always. (Peter Masefield's translation of the Udana Commentary is very useful.)
I don't think one can back-engineer enlightenment by reading the entire Buddhist canon; nor is enlightenment possible without some help from the canonical literature. What, especially, helped me, was learning from a great and wise teacher that a direct intuition of pure Mind (also, luminous Mind) was necessary in order to decipher Buddhism adequately. His advice has proven to be a goldmine.
Incidentally, the reason why I like Tang and Song Chan literature and Tibetan Nyingma and Kagyu traditions is because they keep the home fires of the luminous Mind alive. Western teachers so under emphasize this that one has to wonder seriously if what they teach has any relevance to Buddhism.
Nobody's translations are perfect, but I definitely think some are better than others; and it goes without saying that my approach to, and understanding of, the teachings is heavily influenced by the sources I trust and how I interpret the information I have. The same with everyone else, I suppose, which is why I think discussions like this can be helpful in that they tend to expose us to new idea and perspectives that can potentially broaden our own understanding.
And to my ear at least, the guy who writes kathodos is singing out of tune.
But it looked as though I was arguing with you, so I changed it.
"I have encountered statements such as these literally hundreds of times, such as this reply I came across just yesterday: 'Of course I'm an atheist! Buddhism does not depend on idiotic Hindu superstitions.' Confirming yet again among so many other reasons why it has been said “were you to leave dung upon your doorstep would you expect aught but flies to appear before you?' Buddhism today is in name only, it attracts extremely miserable and depressed Atheists, and, in the West and Europe, Christian & Jewish malcontents/rejects. As one Indian philosopher and metaphysician had said: “Buddhism (modern) is an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at best pantheists. They congregate together at ‘dharma-centers’, which are little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all things spiritual.' "
Hmmmmm. I'm not an expert, but whatever he *is* practicing himself, tolerance and compassion are not a part of it.
But yeah... He seems like a bit of an asshole
As for reading material what would you guys and ladies recommend to me for the best Pali translations that don't have external influence from the translator themselves. I know there's a few websites but extended reading online hurts my eyes (even now) and id like a book so it can travel with me :]
As for translations, I personally like Thanissaro Bhikkhu's, many of which can be found online here or ordered in anthology format here. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya isn't bad, either.
who IS or SEEMS like a compassionate person on earth, haha
You can see it. You can feel it from them.
After those two, then check out everything about them.
It lets you have a pre-view of their view. Helps with
understanding, between student/teacher/learning.
No matter what liniage/school/tradition.
Learning/study is the same concept.
I say with confidence, Buddha would want you to consider
at least most things about any source. Yes, even him.
Study is the same as when we all were back in school.
It's a real pain in the ass to read, review, re-evaluate, find
the opposing opinion, read other peoples....then try to
figure it out, absorbe it. Agghhh! My mind is tired.
As usual, Jason gave some great resources, as do most
people on here. Buddha teaches that it's our responsability
to check and keep checking that we are practicing/training
and exposing ourselves skillfully. Whatever teachings you
like, can be found in book form, most of the time.
Then guess what? We transcend to a mind that does'nt
know/remember or even needed any/all this info in the first
place.
I'm sure there are plenty of them. It's the same with universal churches and yoga centers. Whenever you gather "spiritual" people together, chances are its just going to be one huge egocentric circle jerk. Obviously, not all places are like this, but as little as I know about Buddhist Sanghas, I'd bet money on it being the same kind of thing in a lot of places, particularly in the west.
Then there's the political "save the world" types who want you all to join hands and end hunger by sending good vibes to Africa. They think they're the saviours of mankind and carry themselves accordingly - usually aloof and dismissive. And they always lean to the extreme left politically, thinking we should all be socialists/communists/Marxists/hunter gatherers. It's a breeding ground for intellectual arrogance, unwashed hair and body modification.
Then there are the "foodies". They have weird diets and judge you because you don't only eat raw kale smushed up with seeds. They talk about "mother earth" and the "goddess" within.
And it's all incredibly fake. Fake smiles, fake happiness, faux-spiritual. Even the urban dictionary has an entry for people under "psuedo-spiritual". The types who write "bless all beings and sunshine, everything is perfect" statuses on their Facebook walls to show everyone how super spiritual they are, but they can't hold a relationship or a job.
There are numerous websites hosted by people who got out of those crowds, it's a really common phenomenon. www.spiritualhangover.wordpress.com (it's neglected now but the small amount of content there is great) and www.recoveringyogi.com to name a couple of my personal favorites.
I imagine it's the same in a lot of Buddhist circles. Political agendas, egocentricity, endless talk about "emptiness", fake smiles and fake people.
Because spirituality usually appeals to broken people. If we didn't feel broken in some way, we probably wouldn't have sought out healing paths in the first place. So there are a lot of broken people, sick people in spiritual groups. It's not weird or bad to acknowledge their presence because they (we) make up most of the community. I don't see why it would be any different because the group is specifically Budhdhist.
On average, centers tend to stray into the territory of being out-patient clinics but this is not surprising given the fact that Buddhism, to a large extent, has been psychologized. Out of this psychologized soil can easily grow sham Buddhism which ignores much of the Buddhist canon except for a few discourses.
Incidentally, one interesting thing Kathodos' brand of Buddhism does is offend many of the sham Buddhists who have not seriously studied the canon. On the negative side, the Kathodos guy needs to work on his writing and speaking skills, in addition to the fact that his translations also need work.
I don't tend to believe in any one religion because every organized religion seems so clearly self-serving to me, and has since I was about 10 years old. It's like when my kids invented "Gobooo Goo." it was a guy who would come over and break stuff if I (or one of them) didn't do what the other wanted. It was hilarious, and it was like a religion. "Mommy, make me brownies, or Gooboo Goo is coming for you!"
Since something is "un-provable"...how can you bother with it? If God wants my attention he will get it directly. It's hard when you are part of a religiously affiliated community, which I am. When I was young, I read the fable "The Emperor Has No Clothes", and I have pretty much been agnostic bordering on atheist ever since. But I love my family and continue with our traditions... does this make me a malcontent? I'm pretty happy overall. But I admit to having some psychological problems. The secular part of Buddhism has helped me with them to an extent.
I agree that there are too many people out there, looking for the benefits of "spiritual practice" without the actual *practice* part- they want to wear a crystal and feel better. Or maybe it looks cool to have a mandala bracelet. But there are also people willing to commit themselves to different way of living, different decision making, meditation- they are examining their lives with honesty, with introspection. While many others comfortably ensconced in the robes of their religion of origin, questioning nothing. They are not "malcontents", but blind believers... I'm not sure which is less desirable...
At least the people who are grasping at spiritual straws are grasping, and the people turning the "alternative" solutions are seeking, and trying. People are just trying to make themselves happy.
:rant:
But there is also a lot of mental illness. People are under the impression that "spiritual" people are the best people in the world, but most of the time, that's completely untrue. People getting offended or "confused" at someone pointing out that very blatant reality is a bit ridiculous to me.
Obviously I don't have to preface every statement I make with "I'm not talking about everyone" (a terrible habit I've gotten into recently) but in this case I'm talking about a majority, at least in my personal experience.
I've met far more mentally ill people than mentally well people. Everyone is trying to make themselves happy, but for an unaware mentally ill person, or, more accurately, any vulnerable person, the modern spiritual pathway can be a dangerous minefield.
The "spiritual" community is absolutely inundated with posers, false gurus and fake, fake people. People who are often desperately unwell. If you're in a vulnerable place in your life you can get taken in by it all.
I don't know why people prefer to deny it, it's staring us right in the face.
Highlighting the deeply unhealthy aspect of the "spiritual" community doesn't negate or oppose the existence of the healthy people who also make up the numbers.
But that person who touches you a bit too often at your spiritual group, makes a bit too much eye contact, tells you that "everything is perfect" while chewing on some seeds, calls herself a "goddess" and clearly hasn't washed her hair in days is probably someone who isn't doing so well on the inside. It's ok to be aware of that. It's also OK to avoid it.
While it's theoretically a positive that they're grasping at spiritual straws, the reality is that they're often not grasping spiritual straws, but bullshit straws.
A recent example comes to mind... I was browsing the forums of one of those star people moon child websites (indigo children I think they're called) and a woman was posting about some pretty concerning physical symptoms... From what she wrote it sounded like she might have a blood clot. But she wasn't calling a doctor, or even asking her community for help, she was boasting that she was exhibiting "signs of ascension" and her community supported her in this ridiculous (and downright dangerous) notion, and congratulating her on her progress.
Other examples include the repressing of emotions, huge amounts of denial and an army of narcissists encouraging people in delusional ideas and fantasies.
I think I kind of agree with the guy, but I'm not sure that I'd agree that it's necessarily a negative thing.
Yeah, if you want insight into the world of the spiritually sick just give those guys a google. But not right before you go to bed because some of it is plain freaky
It's just not the answer to every situation, IMHO. I see that a lot. And while I respectfully understand there are those out there who truly follow "the Way", there are a lot of people who are dismissing problems of others with the waive of their hand, making a cryptic comment about nothingness. While not as harmful as the "spiritual predators", who feed on people who need help, it's falls under the umbrella you are describing.
Its no picnic.
:banghead:
Oh shit... Unless you meant Jonestown. That's not funny. But it wouldn't surprise me if they went the same way if one of the aliens contacts one of the leaders or something (that's how they communicate, the "Galactic Federation of Light" and "Ashtar Command").
But yeah, spooky, right?! I read a load of their stuff a few months ago, watched some videos by "Lightworkers" and lurked their forums for a while... It's like, mind blowing. And I totally agree with you - it's evil.
'i am the expert on buddha...
all the buddhist schools are wrong...'
Oh no... no... I - I thought it was over... :eek: