Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Commentary and some guidelines

October 16th, 2014 · No Comments

http://darwiniana.com/2014/09/29/chopra-on-harris-ii-2/#comment-693758
Two comments today from NK which can get some comment…It is time for me to lay down some guidelines for anonymous commenters, of which NK is the third. I have often wondered about accesstoinsight and wanted some info, but I think i understand the situation now. Someone in Thailand must know who I am and wants to send someone to snoop. If that’s benign fine. They think I was an Arhant a ways back, and perhaps there is some wish to find defenders in the West.
I recount below the history of these commenters. In the James period I was always highly favorable toward buddhism, but lately I have started to be critical and this is making those people upset, perhaps. I am actually trying to save something of buddhism from disaster.
I really don’t tolerate spiky criticism of the type NK spat out today: the reason is simple: readers in Thailand thinking they see a deviation from dharma can get violently hostile. Spare me. To NK: you can link here but you have no right to try and set Hinayana orthodoxy here by starting a fight over anatta. That’s dangerous. This is not a buddhist blog and buddhists have no venue here at all.
That said, the Hinayana legacy is a great resource of ‘reserve dna’ for the great traditions of ‘buddhist’ type psychology. However, people are suffering a high noise factor because they are subject to so much material they can’t get consistent. We have sufi psychologies, occult tracts, Christian/Islamic soul canons, hindu varieties, yoga sutras, and the labyrinth of Tibetan confusion, and finally the Gurdjieff brand with an additional variant in Bennett. It is not possible to resolve this mess. All you can do is forget it, meditate for a while, and sometime later perhaps return to consider small doses of this chaos. People mixing all these things then confront the less popular but profound Hinayana and suddenly contract and stop listening. People need to give their minds a rest, and start over, if they so will, with Hinayana with a fresh mind. It might help. But the question of soul in Indic religions has gone through a classic Kantian antinomial struggle. You might consider Kant’s critique of antinomial reasoning to slip away from an irresolvable ‘soul’ dialectic.
I had a funny experience moving from Kant to Schopenhauer: reading the latter the core of all the Indic sutras suddenly seemed to make sense, a risky statement because Schopenhauer couldn’t find a method there. But the point is that spiritual psychologies usually fail to have a reality framework. The result is new age jargon and little understanding. Like Champollion trying to decipher hieroglyphics Schopenhauer gives you one clue (if you have some sense of Kant, which is more likely to confuse) and from there the work of understanding can proceed. I am stunned at how many times Nisargadatta makes statements that seem like they were taken from Schopenhauer. But, to be careful, his view is much different, finally, and moves toward a form of practice. You can’t get stuck thinking about philosophy, even Schopenhauer’s.
The same thing has happened again with Bennett: he has a truly dynamite spiritual psychology, but it rarely leads to practice, and nobody can translate his fantastic outline of Samkhya supercharged into practice. The best solution is to forget you read his book here. But these Westerners are laying a foundation for a new resolution of spiritual psychology. But in the nonce westerners should be careful to consider they are suffering semantic noise. Indians absorb an immense lore of spiritual imagery, lore, and archetypes, plus a crowd of yogis, swamis, fakirs and nearly enlightened beggars. The terms are often clear where westerners have no semantic connection with the root concepts. And the whole labyrinth is somewhat dubious in its complexity. The Wikipedia entry on non-dual Vedanta is almost incomprehensible to a Western beginner.
Schopenhauer taught me that the spiritual psychologies are going to die and resurrect in a future age, the passage to which is being strewn with confusing failures like Sam Harris’ muddle.
Meanwhile the Hinayana is a resource of great profundity, if the right materials in the right order can ever be your good fortune.

This is not a buddhist blog and I don’t have to distract myself with your propaganda. I have never commented for that matter on any of it.
Starting with “James” in about 2007 I had an accesstoinsight commenter who always attended to the content of this blog, with an occassional links to accesstoinsight. James was a genuinely warm and insightful commenter who often set up a discussion on evolution that could lead to posts in the main blog. He never tried to use this blog for buddhist propaganda. He had to move on finally. Later a second such commenter appeared. An obnoxious and manipulative asshole constantly linking to accesstoinsight and claiming to be James. I had to ban him because he to my stunned surprise was an outright racist, and started aggressive commenting with some really odious stuff. So forgive me if I don’t trust another anonymous ‘buddhist’.

Commenting anonymously is a luxury you may not deserve. I live in a world of jewish/sufi and Crowleyan black magicians who still attack me on a regular basis. And I suspect the same from Tibetans. The world of new age buddhism is under suspicion of fascist/nazi operators, now mostly defunct, but the appearance of hostility from an anonymous buddhist is grounds for selfdefense. In fact I can see you are harmless, but in the end the dark zone at accesstoinsight will end up being still another set of enemies. Fuck off all of you. I can and will reach enlightenment alone on a stealth path. You don’t have rights here if you are anonymous. And the people you stand in for are not to be trusted. They couldn’t even discipline a southern racist and let him associate their site with that, no comment, always anonymous.

You don’t worry me though, so what’s the difference.But I think it is time you moved on. We don’t need more accesstoinginsight links. Check the archives: there must be twenty megabytes of comment with those links. Enough’s enough.

nemo // Oct 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm

We can examine these comments as we go, but keep in mind that a person who is in meditation doesn’t think about the self and its mysteries.
It seems that we have no easy way to determine the nature of self, but we can reach enlightenment

Buddhists are forced to repeat the annatta doctrine but don’t usually understand it.

7 nemo // Oct 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm

I requested at the other blog some clarification of your connection to accesstoinsight.com: that site has shown a series of anonymous commenters often trying to promote that site.

8 NK // Oct 16, 2014 at 10:20 am

‘…but keep in mind that a person who is in meditation doesn’t think about the self and its mysteries.”

That is the whole point. The metaphysical nature of “self” is irrelevant to the issue of meditation. It is an inappropriate way to frame things.

As for trying to “promote” Accesstoinsight, I think that is a mischaracterization. If you want to understand the Indian tradition and early Buddhism, you’re going to have to study the early sources. Nobody is qualified to speak about this issue unless they’ve done that.

9 NK // Oct 16, 2014 at 10:21 am

And I’ve studied just about every contemplative tradition and know the issues inside and out.

10 nemo // Oct 16, 2014 at 11:25 am

This is not a buddhist blog and I don’t have to distract myself with your propaganda. I have never commented for that matter on any of it.
Starting with “James” in about 2007 I had an accesstoinsight commenter who always attended to the content of this blog, with an occassional links to accesstoinsight. James was a genuinely warm and insightful commenter who often set up a discussion on evolution that could lead to posts in the main blog. He never tried to use this blog for buddhist propaganda. He had to move on finally. Later a second such commenter appeared. An obnoxious and manipulative asshole constantly linking to accesstoinsight and claiming to be James. I had to ban him because he to my stunned surprise was an outright racist, and started aggressive commenting with some really odious stuff. So forgive me if I don’t trust another anonymous ‘buddhist’.

Commenting anonymously is a luxury you may not deserve. I live in a world of jewish/sufi and Crowleyan black magicians who still attack me on a regular basis. And I suspect the same from Tibetans. The world of new age buddhism is under suspicion of fascist/nazi operators, now mostly defunct, but the appearance of hostility from an anonymous buddhist is grounds for selfdefense. In fact I can see you are harmless, but in the end the dark zone at accesstoinsight will end up being still another set of enemies. Fuck off all of you. I can and will reach enlightenment alone on a stealth path. You don’t have rights here if you are anonymous. And the people you stand in for are not to be trusted. They couldn’t even discipline a southern racist and let him associate their site with that, no comment, always anonymous.

You don’t worry me though, so what’s the difference.But I think it is time you moved on. We don’t need more accesstoinginsight links. Check the archives: there must be twenty megabytes of comment with those links. Enough’s enough.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment