Meditation Teacher Lodro Rinzler Rebrands Buddhism To Deal With Drinking And Sex

[sabaijai]

Meditation Teacher Lodro Rinzler Rebrands Buddhism to Deal with Drinking and Sex

Attired in jeans and bowties, the atypical guru Lodro Rinzler teaches 20- and 30-something acolytes in New York how to use the religion in everyday life—even in bars and the bedroom.

by Allison Yarrow | February 11, 2012 4:45 AM EST

“No teacher said the best way to create inner change is to be a prick to yourself.”Buddhistspiritual practice, the 29-year-old Rinzler isn’t your typical guru—he delivers dharma in jeans, a madras bowtie and de rigueur hipster frames. Today is session three of the five-week lunch-hour course, “Meditation in Everyday Life,” at the New York Shambhala Center. The 16 mostly 20- and 30-something students are seated on dark blue cushions, wearing office buttondowns or yoga pants. They have sharp-angled haircuts, leather work satchels, and tattoos.

The tactic that’s earned him an audience outside the practicing Shambhala Buddhist community is that he applies meditation techniques to modern temptations often perfected on college campuses—drinking in bars and one-night-stands. While the benefits of meditationhave crept into the scientific mainstream in recent years, Rinzler believes ancient teachings continue to be misunderstood by outsiders who see them as “hippie stuff.” Hence the slick wardrobe of bow ties and fitted jeans. He’s rebranding the practice for a new millennium, starting with himself.

Having sampled like tapas a handful of Buddhist meditation traditions, I am admittedly no expert, but Rinzler’s session is far less lecture and more dialogue than I’ve seen before. The afternoon I’m in his class, he encourages students to share their experiences of “what comes up on the cushion.” He uses the word “gentle” unself-consciously and often. As in: Meditation is an exercise in being gentle to yourself, or, tell your crazy colleague when he’s screaming at you that you’re going to get very, very gentle with him. It’s surprisingly reminiscent of modern, Oprah-fied talk therapy for a tradition that dates back to 563 BC.

In that vein, Rinzler authors a weekly column on Huffington Post and he has a new book, The Buddha Walks Into a Bar: A Guide to Life for a New Generation. The column, What Would Sid Do, offers an “honest look at what meditators face in the modern world,” reminding readers that “before Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) attained enlightenment he was a confused 20-and 30-something looking to learn how to live a spiritual life.”Rinzlerasks how to engage mindfully in such activities. He says many Buddhists are “wonderful drinkers and lovers,” but that these things take practice. Presence achieved by turning inward can be applied to any action from brushing teeth to taking shots.

Since it was early afternoon, Rinzler gave me a crash-course in “right drinking” over a pot of Chrysanthemum tea. The first step is to know your intention: Is the drinking celebratory or to eliminate sorrow? Next, he says, taste the thing. You’ll drink better, he says, shirking the inferior sauce. As in silent meditation, he recommends observing your mind while consuming the beverage and labeling ideas or feelings that come up. And lastly, he advises knowing your limits, qualifying that he drinks less than he used to. “I try not to get to that point where I would say things that cause harm.”

This philosophy is a natural extension of the eccentric Shambhala tradition in which Rinzler grew up. Shambhala has a “more wild reputation among American Buddhists,” according to one practitioner, ever since it was imported by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche in 1970. He famously slept around and led mindful sake-drinking workshops that relaxed some, while making others vomit. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche knew his students would drink and have sex, and so does Rinzler, so rather than dissuade, he’s arming them with tools to do it mindfully and supporting their journeys, stumbles and all.

Rinzler is what some in the movement lovingly—and a little jealously--call a “dharma brat”—kids raised Buddhist in the west by white convert parents. Rinzler spent a silent month at a remote monastery where he shaved his head and donned compulsory robes, because he says his folks, who converted from Judaism, thought he might get a great college essay out of it. He has since taken a nonsectarian approach. In the 10 years he’s been teaching, he’s founded a Buddhist residence at an old fraternity house at Wesleyan University, and was the executive director of a center in Boston. He’s been at the Shambala Center since 2008.

“At least he’s being genuine,” he said.

Source: The Daily Beast

[huli]

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

[Jawnie]

This guy is a complete charlatan. This, from the article, is completely wrong: "before Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) attained enlightenment he was a confused 20-and 30-something looking to learn how to live a spiritual life." During those years, the soon-to-be Buddha was a scholar, intellectual, and someone accomplished in all worldly arts and skills. He was not a lost 20-30 something.

This guy, whatever he calls himself, is just trading on his self-confidence and golden tongue to get laid.

[rockyysdt]

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

If he's able to motivate people in the right direction, isn't that a good thing?

Sometimes, to get people started on the path, it can be about packaging and presentation.

I often observe false preconceived ideas which are strongly held, when the word "Buddhism" is mentioned.

I wonder what percentage of Thai Visa members spend time in or contribute to the Buddhism sub forum?

You can attempt to demystify preconceptions, but people will always revert back to their conditioned memory by association.

When contact occurs (sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, and mind), we believe we think, but due to a lack of awareness we simply recall a preconditioned memory which we associate with specific external stimuli.

So, instead of investigating, assessing and interpreting what is actually occurring, our beliefs/conditioning lock us into a rigid/fixed view.

Accepting Buddhism is almost an impossibility by the majority due to attachment to their conditioned beliefs.

Conversely, many of those who are attracted to Buddhism, might do so due to similar fixed/rigid preconditioning.

Hopefully for many, the initial reason for accepting Buddhism will be altered over time from actual experience developed by practice.

I observe work colleagues on a daily basis who have fixed opinions on dozens if not hundreds of subjects.

The more opinionated they are the greater is their attachment, and the shallower is their awareness.

When two cross paths argument and conflict is the result.

Isn't reaching out by people such as Lodro Rinzler to those who would normally be dismissive of Dharma a compassionate act?

Compassion is that which makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. It crushes and destroys the pain of others; thus, it is called compassion. It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed. - The Buddha.

Edited February 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

If he's able to motivate people in the right direction, isn't that a good thing?

Sometimes, to get people started on the path, it can be about packaging and presentation.

I often observe false preconceived ideas which are strongly held, when the word "Buddhism" is mentioned.

You can attempt to demystify preconceptions, but people will always revert back to their conditioned memory by association.

When contact occurs (sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, and mind), we believe we think, but due to a lack of awareness we simply recall a preconditioned memory which we associate with specific external stimuli.

So, instead of investigating, assessing and interpreting what is actually occurring, our beliefs/conditioning lock us into a rigid/fixed view.

Accepting Buddhism is almost an impossibility by the majority due to attachment to their conditioned beliefs.

I wonder what percentage of Thai Visa members spend time in or contribute to the Buddhism sub forum?

Isn't reaching out to those who would normally be dismissive of Dharma a compassionate?

[huli]

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

If he's able to motivate people in the right direction, isn't that a good thing?

Sometimes, to get people started on the path, it can be about packaging and presentation.

I often observe false preconceived ideas which are strongly held, when the word "Buddhism" is mentioned.

You can attempt to demystify preconceptions, but people will always revert back to their conditioned memory by association.

When contact occurs (sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, and mind), we believe we think, but due to a lack of awareness we simply recall a preconditioned memory which we associate with specific external stimuli.

So, instead of investigating, assessing and interpreting what is actually occurring, our beliefs/conditioning lock us into a rigid/fixed view.

Accepting Buddhism is almost an impossibility by the majority due to attachment to their conditioned beliefs.

I wonder what percentage of Thai Visa members spend time in or contribute to the Buddhism sub forum?

Isn't reaching out to those who would normally be dismissive of Dharma a compassionate?

According to the Four Noble Truths, desire is the basis for suffering, and escape from desire is the path to avoid this suffering. Teaching this is "The Right Direction", and nothing else. There is an easily observed desire to take intoxicants and have sex in many people. I would agree that it is possible to drink an alcoholic drink on occasion or have non-harmful sex in lay people, but, let's face it, the urge or desire to drink to heedlessness, and lust after novel sex is more the norm. This is the issue when teaching Buddhism, in any era. There is intense desire associated with these activities in this man's audience.

False preconceived ideas, attachment to conditioned beliefs, lack of awareness, and rigid views certainly do make accepting Buddhism difficult. It has always been thus. That's why it is important to meditate and understand Buddha's teachings.

This reaching out by this individual does not sound like dharma at all, and in this case could hardly be called compassionate.

[rockyysdt]

This reaching out by this individual does not sound like dharma at all, and in this case could hardly be called compassionate.

Just wandering why you form that opinion H?

A cursory look at what he teaches appears to involve "awareness" a major plank of the 8 fold path.

• how to engage mindfully in such activities
  
• know your intention
  
• observing your mind
  
• being gentle to yourself
  
• presence
  

Why l thought Rinzla is compassionate is that if his work encourages awareness.

This has the potential to steer listeners towards the path and ultimately reduce suffering their suffering.

Edited February 26, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

This reaching out by this individual does not sound like dharma at all, and in this case could hardly be called compassionate.

Just wandering why you form that opinion H?

A cursory look at what he teaches appears to involve "awareness" a major plank of the 8 fold path.

• how to engage mindfully in such activities
  
• know your intention
  
• observing your mind
  
• being gentle to yourself
  
• presence
  

Why l thought Rinzla is compassionate is that if his work encourages awareness.

This has the potential to steer listeners towards the path and ultimately reduce suffering their suffering.

True, awareness is a major component of the 8-fold path, as are right action, right speech, and etc.

Encouraging awareness seems fine and noble, but doesn't it matter, awareness of what? One could apply the 5 noted bullet points to anything, outrageous examples being murder or some kind of corruption. Just because he preaches awareness is not enough, IMO, to say he represents a valid Buddhist viewpoint.

This is why I say, Rocky, that, in my opinion, he misses the mark.

[Jawnie]

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

If he's able to motivate people in the right direction, isn't that a good thing?

Sometimes, to get people started on the path, it can be about packaging and presentation.

I often observe false preconceived ideas which are strongly held, when the word "Buddhism" is mentioned.

I wonder what percentage of Thai Visa members spend time in or contribute to the Buddhism sub forum?

You can attempt to demystify preconceptions, but people will always revert back to their conditioned memory by association.

When contact occurs (sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, and mind), we believe we think, but due to a lack of awareness we simply recall a preconditioned memory which we associate with specific external stimuli.

So, instead of investigating, assessing and interpreting what is actually occurring, our beliefs/conditioning lock us into a rigid/fixed view.

Accepting Buddhism is almost an impossibility by the majority due to attachment to their conditioned beliefs.

Conversely, many of those who are attracted to Buddhism, might do so due to similar fixed/rigid preconditioning.

Hopefully for many, the initial reason for accepting Buddhism will be altered over time from actual experience developed by practice.

I observe work colleagues on a daily basis who have fixed opinions on dozens if not hundreds of subjects.

The more opinionated they are the greater is their attachment, and the shallower is their awareness.

When two cross paths argument and conflict is the result.

Isn't reaching out by people such as Lodro Rinzler to those who would normally be dismissive of Dharma a compassionate act?

Compassion is that which makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. It crushes and destroys the pain of others; thus, it is called compassion. It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed. - The Buddha.

Telling people to just "pay attention" or "be aware" while drinking and having sex is NOT Buddhist teaching. It is the classic 'everything is everything' nonsense. There a plenty of people in the world who are not Buddhist will tell you drinking and having sex will make you feel better about yourself and the world, but it is a samsaric path and it in not directly related to leading people to Buddhism. Sure, if you throw talk about Buddhism in with it, people with think about Buddhism. You can talk about Buddhism more effectively by living the teachings by keeping vows and actively working at subduing the passions.

I've been around a lot of Buddhist masters in my life and read a lot of basic Buddhist texts and books. I have NEVER heard a authentic teacher advocate drinking as a dharma practice and none have ever recommended recreational sex as a dharma practice. It is nonsense.

[rockyysdt]

Conversely, many of those who are attracted to Buddhism, might do so due to similar fixed/rigid preconditioning.

Telling people to just "pay attention" or "be aware" while drinking and having sex is NOT Buddhist teaching. It is the classic 'everything is everything' nonsense. There a plenty of people in the world who are not Buddhist will tell you drinking and having sex will make you feel better about yourself and the world, but it is a samsaric path and it in not directly related to leading people to Buddhism. Sure, if you throw talk about Buddhism in with it, people with think about Buddhism. You can talk about Buddhism more effectively by living the teachings by keeping vows and actively working at subduing the passions.

I've been around a lot of Buddhist masters in my life and read a lot of basic Buddhist texts and books. I have NEVER heard a authentic teacher advocate drinking as a dharma practice and none have ever recommended recreational sex as a dharma practice. It is nonsense.

Isn't everyone being a little harsh?

Shouldn't one need to attend one of his sessions before judging his work?

I don't think Renzla is advocating drinking at all.

Reading the blog, it appears Renzla is realistic and understands most live with attachments which can involve sexual matters as well as intoxicants.

Rather than preach abstinence, he's suggesting that those engaged in such things should reflect/investigate.

Unawakened beings will always be tempted to sensual pleasure.

Practicing awareness, concentration, and metta eventually reveals the harm one can do to oneself and others.

Without such direct experience, directing one to give up sexual liasons and alcohol consumption is like saying "thou shalt not".

My path has been slow but didn't begin with, "Buddhism is the way and l will strictly follow its rules".

I was attracted to the therapeutic benefits of deep meditation in order to overcome physical issues.

This led to many small steps leading to many doors and eventually the source.

If we were to tell people that they must refrain from alcohol and sexual experimentation they would laugh at us.

On the other hand if one teaches the beginnings of mindfulness and investigation, then one is giving people the tools with which to discern the impact of their actions.

The eightfold path is detailed and very comprehensive.

There is no better guide.

Repackaging some of the messages to sell the practice to those who are closed minded is acceptable in my opinion.

I don't believe the Buddha was seeking fame, but rather was more interested in spreading the word.

Awareness is fundamental and critical to all practice.

If Renzla can get people interested in awareness I tip my hat to him.

I think one can learn Dharma from authentic sources such as from a Master of Theravada, but the vast majority in the West are joining many local Sanghas.

In many respects these Sanghas, free from cultural influence, are providing the resources and knowledge to encourage practice of the path.

Many of these groups have daily guest speakers who present Dharma through their own personal experiences.

This is what the Buddha did.

He spoke, using the language of the time and his personal experience.

These groups have a common focus to promote awareness in others (compassion - metta).

These speakers may not always be correct, but then there have always been differences of opinion beginning from the time of the Buddhas death.

The often opposing lineages, are but one example of such differences.

You can talk about Buddhism more effectively by living the teachings by keeping vows and actively working at subduing the passions.

If you attempt to subdue sexual passions (mind) you have attachment.

Subduing mental formations and feelings involves as much attachment as does succumbing.

My understanding is that a healthy male whose body is awash with testosterone will experience considerable thoughts and feelings of a sexual matter.

Those with low testosterone levels probably won't have an issue.

The teaching I was given was to observe such thoughts and feelings without attachment, but never try to subdue them.

Subduing them is more a Christian thing.

One observes them as if a cloud floating by and they will soon drift away.

Where people make the mistake is that they act on their thoughts (attached).

If one jumps in at the deep end and makes vows, then one has a lot of work ahead of themselves to be genuine.

Non Monastics on the other hand, through regular practice, will naturally become better at remaining unattached.

Succumbing to attachment is easy for the unawakened, but one should work at keeping the precepts as best they can.

Edited February 27, 2012 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

Another article on Rinzler and his approach.

Unconventional Buddhist makes meditation relatable

http://www.browndail...27#.T1St-4cgd2A

[rockyysdt]

This guy is a complete charlatan.

The additional link supplied by Sabaijai further supports positive things about Rinzla's presentations and ability to relate to younger people.

Quote:

• Rinzler's book is about "how to integrate Buddhism into a college student's life" and life in general
  
• 
  
• College is a time for "figuring out who you are," he said, and "meditation can give another perspective to that."
  
• 
  
• Rinzler may be more "relatable" to students than the "more traditional Zen master,
  
• 
  
• Rinzler said he believes it is the intention behind one's actions that is most important.
  
• 
  
• Engaging in behaviors such as drinking, then looking to see if these acts are "escapes" or "ways to connect with others" allows one to see which to "cultivate" or "cut out" of one's life, he said.
  
• 
  
• Buddha was able to recognize the "potency of the moment" through meditation just as other people can do,
  
• 
  
• Buddhism was a "gradual process" of finding a balance in engaging with the atmosphere around him, he said.
  
• 
  
• For those facing a difficult time meditating or suffering laziness, Rinzler recommended reminding oneself of the intention behind meditation. He urged students to consider practicing with a group and to "just sit" and practice discipline. Discipline is "often perceived in a negative way" but actually has a "sense of virtue," he said.
  

Edited March 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Probably everyone who reads this forum has a healthy interest in Buddhism, real Buddhism. It is quite a wonderful philosophy and religion that can fascinate a person. It bothers me when people in America, who have never heard about real Buddhism, get suckered into Rinzler's supposed teaching.

Anyone can come up with platitudes about being aware, being mindful, being kind to yourself, etc etc. However, the core Buddhist tenets are not hidden or debatable and, indeed, Buddha did give mankind the 4 Noble Truths, with the key concepts being suffering, dukkha, its cause, selfish desire, and it's relief, the 8-fold path. I think it is reasonable to use these 4 Noble Truths as a measure if Rinzler is teaching Buddhism, or not.

Since the pursuit of drinking and sex is so well established in NY, would it not be appropriate to point out to his audience the mixed bag of effects that come along with such a lifestyle? Drinking, usually to excess, and lusting after novel sexual trysts which can consume one's attention, are clearly not permanently wonderful, and to notice this is the beginning of true Buddhism. Is this what Rinzler teaches? No, it is not.

Buddha also left 5 precepts for lay people that are basic to advancing on the Buddhist path. Intoxicants and sex are two of these precepts. If a person does not follow these precepts, his mind will be disturbed and unlikely to have any true insight. When drinking makes a person heedless, and then do things he wouldn't otherwise, or be less than aware of what is actually going on, it violates the precept. Yet this state is the very purpose of drinking in this NY crowd. As for sex, Buddha did not forbid it to lay people and if a person has a willing of-age partner where no one is harmed, well, maybe that is OK. But being consumed by lust all the time is just the penultimate in selfish desire, and to point this out would be the Buddhism with the Noble Truths. Is this what Rinzler teaches about drinking and sex? No, it is not.

Comparing this individuals teachings with the Noble Truths and the 5 Precepts, there is nothing to justify the belief that he is teaching Buddhism.

We know that he was raised in the Shambala tradition of drinking and sex, and he was probably conditioned to say what he does. We know that he wrote a book, which puts a Buddha image on the cover alongside bottles of alcohol. We know he gives (only) 2 classes a week, yet will go on a 24 city tour to sell his book, and he "makes a living" off of Buddhism. He is doing a lot of self-promoting. Does he seem like an authentic Buddhist teacher?

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

It is understandable that Buddha's teachings would be gradually forgotten or corrupted over time. In the present case, it is obvious that Kinsler represents exactly that.

In my humble opinion.

Edited March 8, 2012 by huli

[rockyysdt]

Probably everyone who reads this forum has a healthy interest in Buddhism, real Buddhism. It is quite a wonderful philosophy and religion that can fascinate a person. It bothers me when people in America, who have never heard about real Buddhism, get suckered into Rinzler's supposed teaching.

Anyone can come up with platitudes about being aware, being mindful, being kind to yourself, etc etc. However, the core Buddhist tenets are not hidden or debatable and, indeed, Buddha did give mankind the 4 Noble Truths, with the key concepts being suffering, dukkha, its cause, selfish desire, and it's relief, the 8-fold path. I think it is reasonable to use these 4 Noble Truths as a measure if Rinzler is teaching Buddhism, or not.

Since the pursuit of drinking and sex is so well established in NY, would it not be appropriate to point out to his audience the mixed bag of effects that come along with such a lifestyle? Drinking, usually to excess, and lusting after novel sexual trysts which can consume one's attention, are clearly not permanently wonderful, and to notice this is the beginning of true Buddhism. Is this what Rinzler teaches? No, it is not.

Buddha also left 5 precepts for lay people that are basic to advancing on the Buddhist path. Intoxicants and sex are two of these precepts. If a person does not follow these precepts, his mind will be disturbed and unlikely to have any true insight. When drinking makes a person heedless, and then do things he wouldn't otherwise, or be less than aware of what is actually going on, it violates the precept. Yet this state is the very purpose of drinking in this NY crowd. As for sex, Buddha did not forbid it to lay people and if a person has a willing of-age partner where no one is harmed, well, maybe that is OK. But being consumed by lust all the time is just the penultimate in selfish desire, and to point this out would be the Buddhism with the Noble Truths. Is this what Rinzler teaches about drinking and sex? No, it is not.

Comparing this individuals teachings with the Noble Truths and the 5 Precepts, there is nothing to justify the belief that he is teaching Buddhism.

We know that he was raised in the Shambala tradition of drinking and sex, and he was probably conditioned to say what he does. We know that he wrote a book, which puts a Buddha image on the cover alongside bottles of alcohol. We know he gives (only) 2 classes a week, yet will go on a 24 city tour to sell his book, and he "makes a living" off of Buddhism. He is doing a lot of self-promoting. Does he seem like an authentic Buddhist teacher?

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

It is understandable that Buddha's teachings would be gradually forgotten or corrupted over time. In the present case, it is obvious that Kinsler represents exactly that.

In my humble opinion.

Hi Huli.

I enjoy debate and the sharing of information.

Sometimes my posts can come across in a heated, or confronting manner, but that is far from my intention.

If l do come across in a negative way then perhaps we can put it down to conditioning, attachment and poor level of practice.

I respect your position regarding Rinzler but just thought I'd pose a couple of questions.

What specific things does Rinzler teach which you find corrupting?

If it's to do with alcohol consumption and improper sexual conduct, I haven't read anywhere where Rinzla actually promotes it.

It's just that he acknowledges its consumption and asks those who are involved to investigate.

I must say, I have always been against profiting from Dharma.

There are many books on Buddhism widely available for sale across the world.

Is it possible Rinzla channels profits into Buddhist teaching and/or charitable works?

If we were to cast doubt upon him shouldn't this be investigated first?

Many Buddhists are in two minds whether Buddhism should be promoted, or offered only to those who seek.

For me, turning those who would normally be close minded is a worthy thing with huge potential to reduce suffering in the world.

Edited March 8, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It is understandable that Buddha's teachings would be gradually forgotten or corrupted over time. In the present case, it is obvious that Kinsler represents exactly that.

In my humble opinion.

I also thought that Rinzla, as a teacher won't get you to "awakening".

My personal path didn't begin with the Buddha.

It started with Dr Ainslie Meares.

He didn't really teach Buddhism.

He focused on the therapeutic benefits of deep meditation.

One could say his teachings were corrupted, but they were the spark/initial interest which set things in motion.

My path progressed from there.

I began to be more interested in meditation.

I spent time with TM and then began to research and study different types of meditation from various sources.

Some of these sources involved Buddhist teachings.

From there l came across the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path.

I began to understand the importance of a good teacher.

I've since felt that many, including forum members here have been guides and teachers on my path.

It's been said that when one is ready, a teacher, skilled to take you to the next level, will present.

The most important thing is to maintain ones regular practice.

My personal experience tells me that the biggest danger is to fall into ones old habits and become averse to practice.

There are many things in life which tempt us from the path.

When I read of Rinzla I recognized one who can inspire and motivate.

Sure he's not orthodox and his teachings will only take you so far.

But then, once the interest has been sparked, your next teacher/inspiration, along the path, is just around the next bend.

Once one makes oneself open to awareness one will eventually be drawn to Dharma.

There are millions who will live life immersed in delusion, lacking any level of awareness.

One can say that this is due to their Karma.

I don't believe in fatalism (destiny).

Any inspiration which awakens one into thinking outside of a conditioned state is worthwhile in my opinion.

Edited March 8, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It is understandable that Buddha's teachings would be gradually forgotten or corrupted over time. In the present case, it is obvious that Kinsler represents exactly that.

In my humble opinion.

In terms of corruption, from where can be draw true certainty?

Is it from Theravada, cobbled together by the interpretations of Buddhagosa in the 5th century, resulting in a religion?

Is it from the Mahayana tradition, which after 500 years, added a tapestry of rites & rituals, many, extrapolations of early texts?

Is it from contemporary Asian & Eastern Monasticism, heavily colored and inseparable from culture?

Or is it from modern day scholars versed in Sanskrit & Pali languages, who are discovering many inaccuracy's which may have corrupted the Buddhas original teachings?

Apart from the framework of the 4 noble truths & 8 fold path, l suspect that the only way one will ever know is from practice and actual experience.

In order to commence such a path don't we need those who can inspire?

Edited March 8, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

Of recent times I've been listening to a scholar, John Peacock, on the subjects of "Buddhism before Theravada" & "Metta as a Path to Awakening".

John is currently Director of Master of Studies at Oxford University.

He has practiced for 25 years as an ordained Monk, half of which was as a Theravada Monk in Thailand & the rest of the time in the Tibetan tradition.

His work in translating the very early texts of the Buddha has revealed much mis interpretation.

Interestingly, he paints a picture of the Buddha being a jovial character who presented in a light hearted manner, and far from being serious person.

From Johns illustration, I'd say the Buddha would accept Rinzlas reference to a nickname.

Also, the Buddha never referred to himself as Buddha.

He was referred as Bagwan and another respectful title which eludes me for the moment.

Due to Buddhagosas translations in the 5th century Buddhism was given a religious flavor (a word not known during the Buddhas time).

Hence:

• Bhikkhu , translated as Monk, gives a monastic, religious flavor. The actual translation is Beggar/Sharer. This captures the essence of a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni as one who collects alms food, and who shares surplus food and shares the Dharma in return.
  

• Vihara is translated as a Monastery (residence of monks living in seclusion, bound by religious vows). Far from this illusion, a Vihara is simply a residence or dwelling place of Bhikkhus/Bhikkhunis.
  

Monks and Monasteries give a religious flavor.

Subtle meanings can give a completely different flavor/meaning to what the Buddha was actually teaching.

This religious flavour possibly explains why Western Buddhists might take exception to the notion of being disrespectful to the Buddha.

Edited March 8, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

Of recent times I've been listening to a scholar, John Peacock, on the subjects of "Buddhism before Theravada" & "Metta as a Path to Awakening".

John is currently Director of Master of Studies at Oxford University.

He has practiced for 25 years as an ordained Monk, half of which was as a Theravada Monk in Thailand & the rest of the time in the Tibetan tradition.

His work in translating the very early texts of the Buddha has revealed much mis interpretation.

Interestingly, he paints a picture of the Buddha being a jovial character who presented in a light hearted manner, and far from being serious person.

From Johns illustration, I'd say the Buddha would accept Rinzlas reference to a nickname.

Also, the Buddha never referred to himself as Buddha.

He was referred as Bagwan and another respectful title which eludes me for the moment.

Due to Buddhagosas translations in the 5th century Buddhism was given a religious flavor (a word not known during the Buddhas time).

Hence:

• Bhikkhu , translated as Monk, gives a monastic, religious flavor. The actual translation is Beggar/Sharer. This captures the essence of a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni as one who collects alms food, and who shares surplus food and shares the Dharma in return.
  

• Vihara is translated as a Monastery (residence of monks living in seclusion, bound by religious vows). Far from this illusion, a Vihara is simply a residence or dwelling place of Bhikkhus/Bhikkhunis.
  

Monks and Monasteries give a religious flavor.

Subtle meanings can give a completely different flavor/meaning to what the Buddha was actually teaching.

This religious flavour possibly explains why Western Buddhists might take exception to the notion of being disrespectful to the Buddha.

Hi Rocky,

Thanks for replying to my post.

I think you make many good points. I do agree that any teaching, Buddhist or otherwise, that emphasizes the content of consciousness rather than a revelatory religious belief, is a step in the right direction, at least. Maybe some of Rinzler’s students will get some kind of a positive start from him in this respect.

Like you, I also think there is value in actively spreading Buddhist thought in the world. In America, there is little awareness of it, and I also think it has a great potential to help people. I wouldn’t say to preach it, just to expose people to it. I think that tourists to Thailand should also be told more about real Buddhism when they visit the temples. Open their minds a little anyways.

Regarding Rinzler, and your question for me, it is not exactly that what he says is corrupting, but the lack of attention to basic Buddhism, the 4 Noble Truths, as I said previously. He does not teach turning away from selfish desire, detachment, disillusion, the existence of ignorance, or that kind of thing, so I call his teaching a corruption of Buddhism, more for the lack, than anything. Maybe corruption means a false teaching and this is more of missing the point.?

Which brings up the interesting role of words, and it relates to many of your points. What is Buddhism? Is it whatever someone says it is? Or does it need to include the Noble Truths? What is religion? If there is no God, but a complete world view, is it still a religion? Is Buddhism a religion, or does this just depend on what we mean by religion?

Were the Hindus of Buddha’s time a religion? Why do you say they were not? They had plenty of gods.

I think John Peacock is real interesting too. I listened to some of his audio tapes a while back and I probably ought to listen to some more. I think you must have mentioned him in a prior post on this forum. Someone did anyways.

However, a couple of his impressions that you mention, seem rather specious. Especially to say that Buddha was not a serious person, but was more of a jovial kind of guy. Buddha spent like 45 years traveling and spreading his teaching to the best of his considerable ability when he was already a rich prince. If he was a jovial guy, why wouldn’t he just stay home and party?

Lastly, I’m no expert, but I understand that Buddha referred to himself often as the “Tathagata”. One translation of this from the Sanskrit or Pali is “one who has found the truth” (thanks Wikipedia). He may not have used the term “Buddha”, per se, but there was no question in his mind that he was, in fact, enlightened.

I hope you don’t find my comments contentious, Rocky. I think our discussion of Rinzler has been a lot of fun. I have been persuaded that he might be doing some good, even if I still have reservations. I think this kind of dialogue is ideal for this Buddhist Forum.

[rockyysdt]

Which brings up the interesting role of words, and it relates to many of your points. What is Buddhism? Is it whatever someone says it is? Or does it need to include the Noble Truths? What is religion? If there is no God, but a complete world view, is it still a religion? Is Buddhism a religion, or does this just depend on what we mean by religion?

Were the Hindus of Buddha’s time a religion? Why do you say they were not? They had plenty of gods.

I think John Peacock is real interesting too. I listened to some of his audio tapes a while back and I probably ought to listen to some more. I think you must have mentioned him in a prior post on this forum. Someone did anyways.

However, a couple of his impressions that you mention, seem rather specious. Especially to say that Buddha was not a serious person, but was more of a jovial kind of guy. Buddha spent like 45 years traveling and spreading his teaching to the best of his considerable ability when he was already a rich prince. If he was a jovial guy, why wouldn’t he just stay home and party?

Lastly, I’m no expert, but I understand that Buddha referred to himself often as the “Tathagata”. One translation of this from the Sanskrit or Pali is “one who has found the truth” (thanks Wikipedia). He may not have used the term “Buddha”, per se, but there was no question in his mind that he was, in fact, enlightened.

I hope you don’t find my comments contentious, Rocky. I think our discussion of Rinzler has been a lot of fun. I have been persuaded that he might be doing some good, even if I still have reservations. I think this kind of dialogue is ideal for this Buddhist Forum.

Yes. Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

In early texts he was referred to as Bagawan (simple term of respect or Lord), and, as you've indicated, he referred to himself as Tathagata, "one who has found the truth".

The word Buddha was never used in the Pali texts and has been added centuries later in a mythological way.

He alludes to the fact that when one is free of self, as a consequence one becomes compassionate towards others.

The difference between self and another disappears.

Compassion diminishes the self.

I'll come back to you about my description of the Buddha.

I need to refer to my source for his exact description.

In terms of what is Buddhism.

The early texts are painting a picture of a luminary who is trying to get people to think outside of their heavily indoctrinated lives which were deeply locked into an elaborate religious belief system.

He did this, not by denying it (a very dangerous practice), but by framing his teaching around the thinking of the day.

Things like reducing Devas to below the level of enlightenment/nirvana, which played into the hands of the deeply religious.

It played into the hands of those who believed in Gods,but which subtly made a mockery of Gods, by diminishing their status.

He basically taught that one can be free from greed, aversion & delusion (religious belief amongst other things) through awareness as well as the other practices in the eight fold path.

The early texts are suggesting that Buddhism is a practice which will yield liberation/awakening and that this isn't a superhuman metaphysical experience but a liberation from the influence of greed, aversion & delusion and an unlocking of the human potential to live in an expanded proactive manner free from the fetters of ego.Buddhism

Edited March 26, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Yes. Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

In the Dona Sutta, Dona asks the Buddha if he is a Deva (god) or a Yakkha (demon) or a Gandhabba (semi-divine being) or a Manussa (human being). The Buddha answers, no, tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇā’ti - I am awake. Awakened One = Buddha.

[rockyysdt]

Yes. Siddhārtha never referred to himself as the Buddha.

In the Dona Sutta, Dona asks the Buddha if he is a Deva (god) or a Yakkha (demon) or a Gandhabba (semi-divine being) or a Manussa (human being). The Buddha answers, no, tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇā’ti - I am awake. Awakened One = Buddha.

Hi Camerata.

It depends on which version you refer to. There are a number of translations.

In another, the Buddha merely states that he knows that attachment and desire are the sources of the skandhas (the constituents of individual existence) and through that knowledge he has ended suffering.

Quote: Thus, though the Mahāsānghikas are known to have espoused a form of docetism, the version of the Dona-sutta used does not imply that the Buddha is a transcendental being in human form, while the version preserved in Pali may be open to that interpretation.

Edited March 26, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Well, to put it in perspective, all versions other than the one attributed to the Maha Sangha have the Buddha saying "I am awake." According to your Wikipedia quote, the Mahasanghikas believed that the physical body is an illusion. In fact, as I posted a few years ago, the Maha Sangha was the forerunner of Mahayana - they were the group who fell out with the more conservative ("Hinayana") sects because they wanted to lower the bar for arahantship. So their version of the Canon is not one I'd go to when looking for "authentic" Dhamma.

In any case, the Buddha's attainments were by definition transcendental, that is "beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief," but not IMO supernatural. When Ajahn Chah had an experience (I assume reaching sotapanna or a higher level) something like the cosmos dissolving around him and taking him with it, he said, "Suddenly, I was thinking differently from everyone else and they were thinking differently from me." I think that's at least part of what it means to be awake - it's transcendental but not supernatural or divine.

[rockyysdt]

Well, to put it in perspective, all versions other than the one attributed to the Maha Sangha have the Buddha saying "I am awake."

Please don't view my comments as positioning myself as an expert.

Unfortunately the downside of quoting John Peacock as that he's not available to me for questions an elaboration.

John indicated, that after many years of thorough study of the Buddhas early works he would look at the frequency of quotes/references made.

If he found conflicting references which were either rarely quoted, appearing in later translation, or appeared to be misinterpreted in translation, he would lean towards the frequently quoted references, especially if they reappeared in many different Suttas.

An example is that in many early texts he was referred to as Bagawan (simple term of respect or Lord), and referred to himself as Tathagata, "one who has found the truth".

How many early works are there which reflect the Buddha calling himself or being referred to as the Buddha?

Does "I am awake = Buddha"?

Can "I am awake" also = "one who has found the truth"?

Edited March 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

If he found conflicting references which were either rarely quoted, appearing in later translation, or appeared to be misinterpreted in translation, he would lean towards the frequently quoted references, especially if they reappeared in many different Suttas.

And yet you (and he?) lean towards the one version of a sutta that doesn't contain "I am awake" against the four others that do. You can't have it both ways.

One thing I learned from reading Indian Buddhism is that you have to have a consistent system for research, and that whatever system you devise will never be perfect. From memory, what A.K. Warder did was to take the five earliest versions of the scriptures and assume that if three or more agreed then the text was likely authentic early Buddhism.

There are quite a few quotes in the scriptures that only occur once in the entire text (i.e. the reference to the future Buddha and the Buddha's exhortation to his disciples to spread the teachings) and there are others that seem inconsistent with the Buddha's main message (i.e. him saying in the Mahaparinibbana sutta that visiting the site of his relics will be beneficial to followers). But without evidence to the contrary, a scholar just has to accept them - perhaps provisionally and with reservations - as genuine rather than throwing them out to fit some preconceived notion.

I don't really see what difference it makes if people called the Buddha "Buddha" or not. To me it doesn't imply a supernatural or divine being (or a conspiracy to make the Buddha appear divine), but to someone else it might. It certainly does in Mahayana.

Has Peacock had any books published or peer-reviewed articles printed on Buddhism? It seems he wrote a book last year but it hasn't been published or at least is unavailable anywhere. Otherwise, I can't find anything except mp3 talks. Scholars like Gombrich live to uncover some new spin on the scriptures (he wrote a paper about how Angulimala was a Saivite!) so I would have thought if Peacock was coming up with a whole lot of new translations and interpretations it would have caused an uproar in academia.

[rockyysdt]

And yet you (and he?) lean towards the one version of a sutta that doesn't contain "I am awake" against the four others that do. You can't have it both ways.

I was thinking that "I am awake" = "one who has found the truth", rather than = "I am Buddha".

I was also thinking that the one that I leaned towards was the earlier work and not later Chinese translations.

I think Peacock has based his interpretations around the earliest works of the Buddha and not later reinterpretations and translations.

He contends that the early works are the ones most likely to be closer to what the Buddha was teaching.

So if one uses the rule of the general flavor of the teachings and/or writing which comes up a number of times in different Suttas, it would be derived from references in the earliest works.

I believe three of the five versions you're referring to were later Chinese interpretations.

Until or unless we awaken, then I suppose it might be academic.

Is it important whether he was called or referred to himself as the Buddha?

Loosely, no, but if it is wrong, what else is wrong, or misleading in terms of what the Buddha was actually teaching us.

What is important, and espoused by Peacock, is not to accept versions and interpretations without investigating them.

It would be a very unfortunate thing, if not catastrophic, if a Buddhist were to devote their life to incorrect practice or belief.

John Peacock has uncovered many misinterpretations suggesting that all (with the exception of the 8 fold path) is worth reviewing or keeping an open mind.

I think that's what the Buddha suggested and would have wanted us to practice.

Perhaps accepting Buddhagosa interpretations comes down to belief, and a closed mind, which leads us in the opposite direction of awareness.

Edited March 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

The word Buddha was never used in the Pali texts and has been added centuries later in a mythological way.

Do you have a primary source for that notion?

Buddha is simply the past participle of budh "to awake, know, perceive," thus "Awakened".

The Pali Nikayas -- the most complete existing early Buddhist canon -- use the word Buddha extensively as an attribute of Gotama the teacher. Search any collection of the Nikayas for "awakened" (if reading an English translation) or "buddha" if you can read Pali.

Does it really matter what the teacher was called, whether Bhagwan, Tathagatha or Buddha? The personage takes on the same mythological quality no matter what.

No matter which language you choose, there are no guarantees that those who wrote it down, did so accurately, whether in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, etc.