Comment confusion on Tibetan buddhism
I have lost track of these comments, their dates, and their upgrading to post level. This link goes to the core of a set of considerations. I linked briefly to the critical text on the Dalai Lama, and have been critical of Chogyam Trungpa. But at this point I have moved on. I have no options in Tibetan buddhism, so that’s that. I was present at the start of the Boulder orgs but never had any place in that. I used to live in the woods near Boulder. With no opportunity to take a shower, entering the dharmadhatu to meditate isn’t an option. And I was such a vociferous enemy of sufis like E.J. Gold and thence Gurdjieff that I was better flipping the bird at the standard ashrams and tibetan buddhist orgs. I wasn’t welcome. The question of Chogyam Trungpa has gone on too long, for me, at least. I simply wave my hand, Fuck off, please, all of you. The suspicion of crypto-fascism in Tibetan buddhsim bids to be unfair in many ways, and a bullseye in one limited direction. It is a puzzle that may prove fatal to Tibetan buddhism, which is now no longer a Tibetan location at all.
So all this talk about teachers means nothing to me. They wouldn’t want anything to do with me, so, right on, goodbye.
It might help to review The shadow of the Dalai Lama, but I demurred the first time because, while I resonate with the critique given, I can’t reliably find out the basis of that critique: the facts are no really there in the text.
I think that the long quotations from Bazaz here tell us something, or ask a question: how did the revolutionary tradition of early buddhism become the reationary brand in Tibet. Tibetans just don’t speak for buddhism. What happened? Did Gautama abandon buddhism after the destruction of the Indian Sangha to the bodhissatwas and enter a final nirvana? The history still makes no sense. To be continued…
New Man, New Age, New Socialism 