3 ms·

...I don't really want to hear about your religious beliefs, tbh, I've had a lifetime of it already, and I've decided you're all charlatans. Especially if you

...I don't really want to hear about your religious beliefs, tbh, I've had a lifetime of it already, and I've decided you're all charlatans. Especially if you unnecessarily revert to jargon when trying to explain your beliefs, you mention "tulku" four times, but define it zero times. This is indicative of in-group signaling.

denton-scratch 5y ago
May I suggest that you not read articles about Buddhist meditation then? Less still the comments? I sort-of supposed that nobody would read these comments if they weren't interested. I avoid articles about pay in the SF area, AI models, Tesla cars, and many other topics. If I read one by accident, I just move on - I don't post a comment whingeing that I'm not interested. I don't belong to an "in-group" here; I used to be a Buddhist, but I no longer profess any religion. The subject still interests me though; I devoted 40 years of my life to it, and unsurprisingly it has had quite an impact on me. For what it's worth, a tulku in Tibetan Buddhism is a re-incarnating lama. I realise that I used the wrong word; what I meant was "terton", which is a revealer of hidden teachings. Those hidden/revealed teachings are a specialty of a minority of Tibetan Buddhists - so an "in group", almost by definition. Tertons an interesting subject - if you happen to be interested in such things.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  Thanks for actually explaining your jargon.
- neonate 5y ago
  Why did you stop after 40 years? That's a long time, and most people wouldn't.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    A number of reasons. FWIW, I was trained in a Tibetan tradition. - I had from the beginning espoused a non-religious view of Buddhism. About 20 years in, my teacher stated that Buddhism was definitely religious, and that devotional practices like pujas were non-optional. I didn't like it, but if you take on a teacher, it behoves you to at least try to go along with the teaching - which I did. - I learned some things about Tibetan history that were the opposite of my earlier, naive beliefs. Pre-communist Tibet was not Shangri-La. - While I never practiced tantra, the tradition was tantric; I eventually learned some important things about tantra that I found unacceptably obnoxious. I can't go into detail, because I don't want to undermine anyone else's commitment to tantra. - The group that I had been involved with gradually changed, I became an outsider, and things got difficult. Friends in the group cut me off. - The behaviour of Buddhist nationalists in places like Myanmar and Srilanka towards non-Buddhist minorities appalled me - this was the tipping point. - I did my back in through long sitting sessions. The amount of my life that I had spent sitting was beginning to look like heavy expenditure for no obvious gain (I wasn't making much progress). These are my reasons; they don't apply to anyone else, and I don't deprecate Buddhism or Buddhists. I just gradually came to see that I'm no longer one of them. There is a great deal that I integrated from Buddhism. It remains the basis for my morality, and my world-view is still largely based on Buddhist thought. But I no longer do any kind of formal practice, and I don't identify as a Buddhist.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  the article is about mindfulness and many Buddhist commenters have said the article is not about Buddhism, it's about a perverted form of meditation, but you're here defending Buddhists hijacking that topic and saying that everybody else should move on... not throwing shade, just sayin.

denton-scratch 5y ago

May I suggest that you not read articles about Buddhist meditation then? Less still the comments? I sort-of supposed that nobody would read these comments if they weren't interested. I avoid articles about pay in the SF area, AI models, Tesla cars, and many other topics. If I read one by accident, I just move on - I don't post a comment whingeing that I'm not interested. I don't belong to an "in-group" here; I used to be a Buddhist, but I no longer profess any religion. The subject still interests me though; I devoted 40 years of my life to it, and unsurprisingly it has had quite an impact on me. For what it's worth, a tulku in Tibetan Buddhism is a re-incarnating lama. I realise that I used the wrong word; what I meant was "terton", which is a revealer of hidden teachings. Those hidden/revealed teachings are a specialty of a minority of Tibetan Buddhists - so an "in group", almost by definition. Tertons an interesting subject - if you happen to be interested in such things.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
Thanks for actually explaining your jargon.
neonate 5y ago
Why did you stop after 40 years? That's a long time, and most people wouldn't.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  A number of reasons. FWIW, I was trained in a Tibetan tradition. - I had from the beginning espoused a non-religious view of Buddhism. About 20 years in, my teacher stated that Buddhism was definitely religious, and that devotional practices like pujas were non-optional. I didn't like it, but if you take on a teacher, it behoves you to at least try to go along with the teaching - which I did. - I learned some things about Tibetan history that were the opposite of my earlier, naive beliefs. Pre-communist Tibet was not Shangri-La. - While I never practiced tantra, the tradition was tantric; I eventually learned some important things about tantra that I found unacceptably obnoxious. I can't go into detail, because I don't want to undermine anyone else's commitment to tantra. - The group that I had been involved with gradually changed, I became an outsider, and things got difficult. Friends in the group cut me off. - The behaviour of Buddhist nationalists in places like Myanmar and Srilanka towards non-Buddhist minorities appalled me - this was the tipping point. - I did my back in through long sitting sessions. The amount of my life that I had spent sitting was beginning to look like heavy expenditure for no obvious gain (I wasn't making much progress). These are my reasons; they don't apply to anyone else, and I don't deprecate Buddhism or Buddhists. I just gradually came to see that I'm no longer one of them. There is a great deal that I integrated from Buddhism. It remains the basis for my morality, and my world-view is still largely based on Buddhist thought. But I no longer do any kind of formal practice, and I don't identify as a Buddhist.
fsckboy 5y ago
the article is about mindfulness and many Buddhist commenters have said the article is not about Buddhism, it's about a perverted form of meditation, but you're here defending Buddhists hijacking that topic and saying that everybody else should move on... not throwing shade, just sayin.