Find content
Male
Posted
huli, on 2012-03-08 09:29:55, said:
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.
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.
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
Posted
