My Nights at a Buddhist Cult Compound
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2024
- Donate by PayPal - hardcorezen.info/donate
My Patreon page - www.patreon.com/user?u=4874189
LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN audiobook - www.audible.com/pd/Letters-to...
My other audiobooks - www.audible.com/search?keywor...
My blog - hardcorezen.info
Write me at bw@hardcorezen.info
After 30 years of irregular Buddhist practice I’ve become very leery of attending any “Buddhist conference.” 🤷♀️
I should have been more leery too! But, then again, If I had been more leery I wouldn't have had this good stuff to write about!
@@HardcoreZenthat’s true 😅
Glad you are there to bring back stories so we don’t have to 😂
My parents moved to a cult influenced by Theosophical ideas in the Midwest when they were both about 20 years old, in the late 70s.
The cult disbanded before I was born, but I grew up in the little town the cult built. It is in a very isolated rural area, but is laid out like a suburb. My parents, especially my mom, have been lifelong spiritual seekers. This is probably the reason I am a Buddhist, and not something else.
This is not because the cult taught Buddhism--it didn't and didn't claim to; the Buddha was entirely unmentioned and the explanation of karma was somewhat different than any Buddhism I'm familiar with. It was very much a dualistic philosophy and had a concept of ascended masters, as you would expect from Theosophical influence, but its masters were figures from the Judeo-Christian tradition (and indeed, the American Founding Fathers). The primary one was Christ who was also known as Melchizedek. There were seven claimed planes of existence, from Physical at the lowest to Celestial at the highest. Reincarnation as anything lower than an (albeit extremely unfortunate) human being was seen as impossible, while karma was seen as immutable. Fear of evil beings dwelling on the astral plane,. as well as Christ's power to deter them when invoked, was taught. Meditation was generally decried as opening the self to evil influences--only one form of meditation was suggested (closed-eyes meditation on the color violet) but, by and large, the cult was not about practice; it was about ideas and real-world achievements. It was clearly dualistic and focused on creating an ideal society on earth. There were many prophecies about events in the 1970s through 2000s, none of which came true and which essentially doomed the organization.
Thank you
Instead of online dating, I’m starting a cult. Thanks for the tips Brad! 👍🏼
You should give Shogun a second chance imo
I lived in Boulder in the 1980s, and wanted to study with Trungpa, but was turned off by all the booze. Apparently, they had their own chapter of AA. The local paper carried stories about them renting big houses for orgies and wrecking them.
He was an incarnation of Dombi Heruka, the mahasiddha who became enlightened when he drank 12 gallons of liquor in one night. So it fit. He also was in constant pain from the car accident.
You would have been a great friend to have at college :)
I had few friends in college. People thought I was a downer to be around.
Sometimes I miss the comfort of church, of knowing that I could go pretty much anywhere in America and find the same denomination with the same rituals and probably at least a nice man or woman as the priest. I miss that kind of confidence. But all the same too many large churches have sheltered plenty of heinous activities as well. I think that one of the "problems" facing Buddhism is that it is not in the mainstream in America. That means on the one hand that it can reach people who might be left outside of mainstream traditions, but on the other it can act as a magnet for grifters who find it easy to sway a number of people without having to at least toe an institutional line or answer to a bishop. Those things create problems of their own, but I think that all of us in the "fringe" American religious world do wisely to watch teachers and organizations very carefully. And perhaps that has a value of its own that one misses if one is more "comfortable" in one's tradition.
I too see the great... convenience and belonging that could be possible if I could somehow convince myself that Christianity fit me enough. But there are too many problems with it.
I couldn't teach my daughters that Christian tenets are literally true because it seems like lying. I believe the Christian worldview is needlessly psychologically harmful, at least if you believe in less than universal salvation. The idea of God's omnipotence is challenging as well, giving rise to the problem of evil, and the fact that the Christian God's promises are less compassionate even than the bodhisattva vows...
Then there's America's butt-ugly Political Christianity, obviously the big ghastly evangelical-right wing collusion that makes the religion seem farcical and preaches the legislation of morality. But there's also Liberation Theology and left-wing churches that believe that libertarian or conservative politics are evil and un-Christian by nature, and that somehow we can just write off or explain away the regressive teachings of the Bible, despite the fact that Christian sin is defined as disobedience to God's law, not something rooted in harm or effect...
For being a religion that says "His kingdom is not of this world", Christians are very much of this world and they seem to have so little willingness to look inside themselves, even discounting meditation as selfish and not God-centered enough, rather than seeing meditation as a useful tool in being a little bit less of a stupid a*hole.
What you aren't told is that a child is MORE likely to be sexually abused in the public school system than by a Catholic (or other religious) priest. It's not difficult to research this. The best study done about this is by Charol Shakeshaft. who says that “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” Yet because of media bias, you are being led to believe that such activity is worse among religious people when in reality, it's a problem everywhere where children are involved. If you look up Shakeshaft's report, she details how such abuse is covered up by the school, why teachers aren't reported a majority of the time, and so forth.
My mother taught me the same, stay away from the churches, its a politics and evil hiding under the cloak of holiness. Let your body be your temple, pray in secret, people who publicly pray will be ignored.
I suppose one could be a teacher merely by comprehending and explaining the theory - but actual insight into self would necessarily free us from at least some selfish jerkiness.
Some. Yes. Not all, unfortunately.
True, yet the potential for self delusion around this is there. I was involved in the Andrew Cohen community in the 90s, around the time his good friend Ken Wilber rationalised jerky behaviour of a teacher as being crazy wise or 'rude boy'.. I had the good sense to get out once I saw the writing on the wall..
Bizarre thing was that part of Cohen's thing was decrying how other teachers had caused suffering by their abusive behaviour and the importance of being some kind of impeccable ethical exemplar. Needless to say, that's not what he's known for today haha
I think its true that there tend to be more enduring scandals around teachers who presented one way and then turn out another. That's an interesting insight I thought.
Regarding the coexistence of realisation and certain ongoing behaviours.., take a look at this quotation from Tripura Rahasya, an Advaita Vedanta text in the chapter Variety of Sages.
"109-12. The vasanas not inimical to realisation are not weeded out by the best class of Jnanis because they cannot seek new ones to crowd the old out. Therefore the old ones continue until they are exhausted and thus you find among them some highly irritable, some lustful and others pious and dutiful, and so on."
Basically realisation isnt prevented by certain vasanas and these residual vasanas are likely to continue after Realisation! Awakening is sudden, deliverance may be gradual 😉
I think a lot of the problems we've seen from teachers is that they became teachers too soon.. in Advaita Vedanta, the teachings I'm more familiar with, they talk about a period of Niddidyasana after Realisation wherein there is greater establishment and of course more likelihood of exhibiting the better qualities of awakened consciousness. Going straight into a teaching role at 30 after awakening, what do we really expect will happen haha
This is from Tripura Rahasya, in the chapter Variety of Sages. This is from the Advaita Vedanta tradition, but I think its still relevant.
109-12. The vasanas not inimical to realisation are not weeded out by the best class of Jnanis because they cannot seek new ones to crowd the old out. Therefore the old ones continue until they are exhausted and thus you find among them some highly irritable, some lustful and others pious and dutiful, and so on.
It clearly says that certain vasanas won't prevent realisation and will therefore continue afterwards, until they are burnt out. I think the problem is many of these teachers just start teaching too soon before being very established in awakened consciousness and before being very mature as human beings in general..
This is where I like the concept from Japanese Pure Land Buddhism that we're all "bombu", ordinary people. It's the idea that we have this residual selfish jerkiness that no effort of our own can really overcome, and that remains no matter how much we try to become a better person or some enlightened being.
I like the idea that any spiritual attainment is not the result of our effort or any action on our own part. We can clear the decks for it, perhaps, but we cannot cause the attainment to occur
@@michigandersea3485 maybe faith (in pure land, heaven, omnibelevolent gods, law of attraction etc) is the best that most of us can hope for - and it does seem helpful in mitigating the anxiety of the ubiquitous fear and desire of human experience. But that does not mean that insight into self is impossible, nor that there is no liberation in awakening.
TEN YEARS?! I can't be so old! I had to check that out, and it was published in 2019.
Oh sorry! The book was written as if all of the events in it had taken place in the same year. Actually many of them happened years before. So when I spoke I was thinking more of when the cult compound thing happened than when the book was published. I got mixed up!
Master brad 🙏🧎
trungpa was brilliant. western culture ate him alive. his books are still worth reading especially the earlies but not the shambala shit. book recommend: CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM by chogyam trungpa. 83 yo student of maurine stuart here. rest in present awareness. "don't mean shit." (mr natural zap comix). 19:34: "small is beautiful".
Charles Bukowski is an amazing author. He's truthful, brutal, and wise. But he's a notorious alcoholic (was one, he died) and he was a crazy person. I'm glad to have his body of work and not his habits, or lifestyle.
Is Trungpa getting A's in life, in your opinion? 🙃
I'm on zen reddit. People there are saying Dogen isn't zen! Please speak about this? I love Dont be a Jerk. If Dogen isnt zen I dont want it!
Thanks Brad. I can't quite define this, but it's what I call the 'golden rule' of bureaucracy.
Simply put, it's the point beyond which an organization of people, originally working together, ostensibly for The mutual benefit of both the public(customers?) and the original founding members, grows beyond a certain amount. Might be commercial or might be voluntary. After this the organization begins to become self serving and often internally factionalized, often becoming less functional to the public service side of the equation, which may have been it's foundational intention originally. That is, the product. It's probably inaccurate to enumerate this figure but let's say 100 people. An organization larger than this may lose a kind of internal integrity, whereby honest and functional communication, especially at a personal level, begins to break down. In particular, a Dharma group that relies on the supporting structure of the five precepts may be an example of this, if it grows too big, too fast as you were saying. The momentum for growth at any cost, may compromise integrity and productivity.
I've seen other groups, buddhist & not buddhist, smaller than 100, some just about 20? Or lees? With the characteristics Brad mentioned. It's a very good point i'm what you share, just I've seen that in very small groups, so maybe there's other things to consider? I don't know . Thanks for sharing your opinion 🙏
@@dre.v.8383 The number is just a guess and of course the influence of particular unhealed individuals has a lot to do with it. But the communication has more opportunity to weaken with increased numbers as a general rule. Recleansing our affirmations to follow the Noble Eightfold Path as our guide is generally the best way forward. Motivation based on Right View, in the case of a Dharma group, will show the way. Thanks for your comment.
@@johnhaller7017 Agree, thank you for your answer 🙏
This is an important dialog. We in the west often excuse ethical breaches because of our very well trained lemming brains. I think if people were honest, there would be very little difference between some of the more charismatic Western spiritual leaders and Eastern spiritual leaders. Would be very interested in your take on extremism From both East and West points of view.
CTR downing 2 40’s of OE!? 😂
Critical? Uh oh! Beware of Critical Anything.
Especially Belgians! :D
what about critical thinking?
I suspect you might of left angel zen center becouse
They wanted to enforce rules that I thought were unjust and stupid.
@@HardcoreZen sounds like a pretty good reason to leave any organization.
If a group has a Compound, it's a bit of a giveaway... ;}P>
.
Must ask; where's that cult at these days? Are they still kicking around?
I believe so.
A compound is like a Ferrari, if you have the means, you just get one.
This stuff is my pet peeve.
It’s really hard for white people to get into Buddhism authentically because, in order to have a preconceived affinity for it, we almost have to already be a hippy, mystical, spiritual type people. Because those of us who have such proclivities will naturally find the exotic imagery, language and culture of Buddhism stimulating.
But when such a person comes to Buddhism, that person is already stuck on the wrong track as to what Buddhism is really all about. And they will have to eventually let go of all that shit if they are going to grow there; if Buddhism is going to be anything more than (basically) a cult like experience.
I thank the universe every day that I felt uncomfortable my first time at a Buddhist temple. I did not identify with any of what I was seeing, hearing, experiencing there. I thought I was just going to learn to meditate. I would leave all the rest. But then what was really going there underneath the surface imagery, was something powerful, and it eventually reached out to me.
My point being, you get more out of Buddhism, the more you loose before, and while your there. And it saddens me greatly that there are those who would bother to go and grab a simple bucket of water, and forget to take the moon as well (that’s a proverb, not my words)
I'm not a Buddhist because I was a hippy or mystical. I'm a Buddhist because my parents were vaguely hippyish and joined a Theosophically-influenced cult before I was born, and continued to be spiritual seekers after it disbanded. They had nothing to do with Buddhism but I was exposed to Buddhist ideas through books they had as a teenager. I find the exotic trappings of Buddhism to be a general deterrent to me, if anything
VIVA ZIGGY.
CTR was an awesome wild man. Have you seen his confab with Krishnamurti?
I think I did but it was a long time ago.
@@HardcoreZen I really like both of them, in their own way, and I thought it was very interesting to see the interaction, although to be honest most of my Krishnamurti knowledge comes through David Bohm. If you do take a peek at it again check out the comments section for a real diversity of takes.
Who is CTR?
@@macdougdoug chogyam thrungpa rinpoche (sp?)
@@fhoniemcphonsen8987 thanks I'm a JK fan - so I'll go look for that confab (sp = shore patrol?)
Chogyam Trungpa always seems world-weary and bored as hell in any footage. He was clearly in the wrong business.
These religious and spiritual gurus Are typically worse than your average Joe.
Having that position is really hard on a person's decency
Chogyam Trungpa may have had kensho. But not satori. He may have realized Buddha nature, but that was just a glimpse. He never had satori or full enlightenment.
It irks when people continue to defend him and his so-called "crazy wisdom" and still call him a Buddha.
Would anyone entrust his own daughter or wife to be initiated and meditate alone with Trungpa? With the Buddha, I would, knowing my daughter or wife will not be abused . With Trungpa, never!
Key test:
Gautama vs Trungpa - who proved to be "really" enlightenend?
Sounds like you have “shiny eyes” for the “right” holy people.
Realized beings are still people, and just because someone experiences enlightenment. It does not take away all or even any of their flaws as a person.
@@dbuck1964 The Buddha taught the path not just to realization but moreso to full enlightenment. I would have not been Buddhist if the Buddha was Chogyam Trungpa. Siddhartha has been "the Buddha" because his life (not just talk) proved it before the world.
One (even you) can talk about realization (kensho) based on your experience but I would not consider you a Buddha (enlightened being) if after your talk and practice you fuck all your female students.
There is no such thing as a Buddhist Cult. It is either Dhamma or it is not Buddhism. I live in Taichung, Taiwan, and I can assure you that the orthodox schools here in Taiwan are very Dhamma-centered. There are however many religious cults that, like American cults, borrow bits and pieces from many religions to make a patchwork of “spiritualism”. But please do not call them Buddhists. Thank you. Namo Buddhaya.
you have kind of weird eyes too...kind of squinty!
My left eye is much much better than my right eye. I wear glasses mainly because my right eye is so bad although I hardly need them for the left eye. It makes me squinty.
@@HardcoreZen Oh yea... I thought you were high on grass or else enlightened as heck! ;)