One thing I have to point out is that on this site, a large volume of our visitors come looking for information on dealing with various forms of severe negative interference, and when I’m writing articles, I have to keep in mind that this is a large part of the demographic I’m addressing. I have had much success in raising my own quality of life on this front, and by considering and making use of the ideas and methods presented here, so have our visitors. I myself have little use for beliefs, which are unproven ideas by definition — I’m interested in results, and I get them. Likewise, I advise people in a similar position not to take my word for it — do what works, by your own definition, whether you find it here or anywhere else.

One of my biggest breakthroughs there has been in rejecting the ideas that there is no intrinsic Self, that the ego is inconsequential, that desires and cravings are inherently a source of suffering, and going with my own observations on the subject. I can tell you from experience that if something wants into your space, then convincing you that the distinction between it and yourself is an illusion, is one of the most common tactics to look for. Buddhism may not be “dangerous” for its practitioners, who may not have had these problems to begin with, and value the goals Buddhism aims for — but for those I’m writing for, there are times when you need all the resistance and self/other distinction you can get.

When one of the largest religions on earth presents all these ideas in one package, yes I’m going to name names, and no I’m not going to censor myself for the benefit of its members. I’m not writing for the religiously devout; I’m writing in large part for those, like myself, who found the abandonment of religion in all forms to be a necessary leap forward. Keeping in mind how seeing something stated bluntly in print can help a lot in dislodging any remaining vestige of an already consciously rejected idea that is still operating and influencing one’s experience, unseen, from the subconscious mind, that’s another factor that influences my writing style and the subject matter I’ll cover. Whether Buddhism is based on beliefs, practices or both is inconsequential, as either or both will influence the subconscious mind and energy body, taking one on a ride that may not be easily reversible once they find out where it’s actually going. If the basic premises don’t hold up to scrutiny, one doesn’t need to (and probably shouldn’t) take up the practices that are based on them, qualified teacher or not.

Your suggestion is duly noted. However, since “if you don’t like it, leave it alone” is another idea I’ve recognized as a source of much suffering, I’ll stick to calling ‘em as I see ‘em, as I wish someone had done for me years ago. Dismissing those who point out the flaws as if they must have been “playing with things they don’t understand” is the other cliche that usually comes up when Buddhism is critically scrutinized. You have been given ample opportunity to get across what it is you believe I’m misrepresenting, and I will leave this discussion and your link so others can decide for themselves. However, considering that this has, predictably, devolved into ad hominem and red herrings, I’ll close by saying “case in point” and continue on with the series.

I want to be clear that I am not interested in arguing about who is right or wrong here. I respect your perspective and do not wish to “convert” you. I’m just saying you are misrepresenting Buddhism. You can disagree with it all you like, but what you’ve done is set up a straw man version of Buddhism to knock down.

Further, I don’t especially care whether you agree with Buddhism, or even whether you understand it. However, it bothers me that you claim it is dangerous, since your claims are based on gross misunderstanding. If you don’t like it, just leave it alone.

Your essential misunderstanding seems to come from looking at Buddhism as a collection of “ideas” or “beliefs.” Ultimately, all ideas and beliefs are wrong, or at least imperfect, including Buddhist ones. Buddhism is more of a discipline than a belief system; the doctrines exist not to be “believed” in, but to set some parameters for the practice. And the practice enables one to realize oneself and existence and reality in a way that goes way beyond the merely intellectual or cognitive.

What is realized is not blankness, but the illusional nature of intrinsic self. The word “intrinsic” is critical. “Intrinsic self” is not existence, and to realize that intrinsic self is an illusion is not to shut down to total blankness, but to open up to a larger understanding of existence and self.

The way you explain enlightenment is, frankly, weird, and tells me that perhaps you have played with meditation or other Buddhist practice but never worked formally with a dharma teacher. This is a bit like trying to learn to swim without getting into water. However, this is not for everybody, and if it doesn’t interest you, that’s fine with me.

You say, “this very prevalent set of ideas will prove destructive if your aim is to develop along similar lines as myself.” Yes, no doubt that is true. I suggest you focus on writing about your own perspectives and development for those who wish to develop along similar lines as yourself and leave things you don’t understand alone.

FYI, I did a take on your post on my own blog, here:

http://buddhism.about.com/b/2009/08/22/same-old-idea.htm

My question is — if I disagree with the basic fundamentals, starting with the Four Noble Truths onward, and recognize that many of the basics would have derailed myself (and by extension, others who resonate with my direction) had I continued working with them… how far would you say I actually need to go, to be qualified to say “hey, heads up, this very prevalent set of ideas will prove destructive if your aim is to develop along similar lines as myself”?

I didn’t say Buddhists were necessarily nihilistic; I said UGK was, and I realize he wasn’t a Buddhist. I have read that Siddhartha aimed to instill compassion and other values in his followers before their awakening, because post-awakening this would not be possible. This is consistent with a subconscious mind which has become the whole person, minus an ego that could decide to evaluate, accept and incorporate some ideas and reject others.

I also didn’t say anything about Buddhism being “forcible.” I realize that when it’s done right relative to Buddhist ideals, it’s a very smooth process. This does not, however, make me any less wary of said process.

I’m pretty clear on the distinction between existence and identity. Oddly enough I actually started out embracing the idea that there was nothing inherent to identity, and I had no particular preference as far as existence was concerned, heh. I never called myself a Buddhist, but at one time I was pretty receptive to the basic premises, even if I took liberties in what I actually did with them. Assuming there was nothing inherent about “me” I figured I’d just toss out what was left of my ego and create an identity as I saw fit, taking it for granted that it was nothing permanent; just something to have fun with while it lasted and not take too seriously. Then I started poking around the spacetime continuum, and found that what I thought I “created” was part of a recognizable, continuous thread that spans every lifetime I’ve yet managed to connect with, all the way up to the Higher Self level. I didn’t tell him to keep existing and being me, I swear! Heh… but given that my penchant for sarcasm is part of said thread, if I were to have told him/me/them to stop so as to prove myself and Buddha correct about this whole “nature of reality” thing, he’d probably just tell me to stop being an ass.

Not meaning any disrespect, but this is something I’ve seen a lot in discussions involving Buddhism, whether I was involved or not. It’s something along the lines of “if you disagree with Buddhism, then what you’re disagreeing with isn’t Buddhism.” It’s a few steps up from “if you disagree with X religion, a swift beheading will straighten you right out,” I’ll give ya that… but I still have yet to see any sort of straight explanation of why this is not the case, especially considering that Siddhartha’s original teachings, before things evolved into sects and sub-sects and etc, don’t really seem all that complex.

Your car analogy makes me think of yogacara, which you might want to look up someday. But essentially what’s confusing you is that you conflate “identity” with “existence.” They aren’t the same thing. Identity is not existence; it’s an idea of existence.

If Krishnamurti had had proper guidance from traditional Buddhist meditation masters his experience probably would have been very different. The Theosophists meant well, but there was a lot they missed.

Actually I would be willing to argue that there is such thing as “inherentness,” although it also seems like the physical world is in the process of waking up to that understanding. That’s why the car analogy only goes so far — physical materials are basically interchangeable, but that appears to be a property of this world and those entities who are bound to it, that doesn’t hold up if you go a little way past the physical part of the spectrum. Some sources (which I resonate with) though, would say that the physical materials, the auto-maker, the archetype and the driver, all wanted that car to come into physical form on some level, and so to use those particular materials for anything else would be against their “nature.” There’s a lot more to that discussion that I’d like to elaborate on in the future, though of course this is an area where everyone needs to come to their own understanding.

The analogy breaks down at the point where you *can* use car parts for other things, but it seems you can’t use Self-parts interchangeably in the same way. I say this after past experiences of trying to integrate things that clearly didn’t “click” into place in the same way soul fragments do upon return, and probably confusing the hell out of some poor entity in the process. I agree that to integrate we have to realize we’re not what we think we are, but in my case my understanding of “I” has gotten both more expansive and more clearly well defined over time. I assume most who resonate with what I have to say on the subject are probably on a path similar to mine, or somewhere in the ballpark at least, and this post was intended to point out parts of Buddhism and other common belief systems that can be a major diversion from said path.

The part about “detachment” wasn’t necessarily meant to be a representation of what Buddhists believe or teach — it was meant as a statement about the effects of those and other teachings. Most specifically, prolonged silence and solitude, which is the MO of the archetypal monk, produces a literal detachment between the throat chakra and the others, which in turn produces many of the subjective effects associated with enlightenment. More broadly, after holding the beliefs of no-self, no-separation, etc. for a while, and observing the effects they were having on various parts of myself, and then likewise observing the effects of my current direction, this is my current understanding. The beliefs we hold cause the etheric body to respond, but in this case, these particular beliefs tend to anchor one’s focus somewhere around the crown chakra, while everything lower atrophies, release parts, connections detach and so forth. The inner voice(s) that Buddhism seeks to silence arises from subconscious self-aspects in my experience, and while observing them gives the observer aspect a lot of exercise, it doesn’t actually address the concerns of the other parts, which may well give up and go their own way to find satisfaction elsewhere. Eventually there’s nothing left to raise concerns, and the mind goes silent. So you’re right, it’s not fragmentation in the “violent, cracking” sense, but the effect is roughly the same. There are other experiences usually dubbed “awakening” that do come a lot closer to the image of being violently shattered, which aren’t overtly Buddhism-related. UG Krishnamurti comes to mind as someone who seems to have experienced a violent Kundalini awakening that sent all his parts flying, and he ended up with the perception of himself as a (very nihilistic) body, and not much else. All these examples will produce the experience of non-duality and nonexistence of the “I”, but is not something I recommend for the above reasons.

Thanks for the reply.

Then it isn’t a car, is it? If the car is taken apart, there is no car. If you think there is a car, it is because you cling to an idea of car. In other words, the pieces are a “car” only because you choose to perceive it as “car,” but in fact, there is no intrinsic “car nature” that lived inside those parts and which still exists, somewhere, detatched from car form and function. And someone else might look at the pieces and not see “car” at all, just a pile of parts.

“You’ve got detachment – the literal detachment of all one’s parts from their centralized location in the 3D world.”

This is a gross misunderstanding of Buddhist teaching, but I don’t blame you too much because this is a common gross misunderstanding. You might get a little closer to Buddhist teaching if you crossed out “detatchment” and substituted “grasping” or “clinging.” In Buddhist meditation practice one does not “detatch” from one’s parts. One meditates to dissolve the self-other dichotomy, and in realizing that this dichotomy is an illusory idea — something like your idea that “car” still exists after the car is taken apart — it is realized there is no separate, intrinsic “self” that inhabits the body any more than there is an intrinsic “car” that inhabits unassembled parts.

In Zen, we say that the practice is “no separation.” In order for there to be clinging, you need two things — a person to cling, and something to cling to. When nothing is really separate, then clinging itself is understood to be an illusion.

Your metaphor of cracking or fragmenting has no relevance in Buddhist experience. It’s more of a practice of absolute integration. But in order for there to be absolute integration, you have to realize that you are not what you think you are.

Some of what you say shows some insight, but your understanding of shunyata is flawed. It is not what you imagine it to be.