Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Samana Johann]

It's amazing how basic grave misperception work...

Since when is a child innocent? To the amount other remember, or since monday? It's wouldn't take birth, an innocent and awakened One.

Further, since perception and memory are merely lost, a baby-boy is usually used as a synonym for grave foolishness, stupidity.

Zen has no inspiration toward awakening, but by nature rejects any wisdom and prefers to become "a flower, tree...", Asaññasattāna (perception-/mindless being).

Ven. Aṅgulimāla met those past fruits ripping after his Awakening.

The inner conflict is nothing else as not willing to give up house, stand, sensuality (romantic), and because of this what ever fantastically ideas are developed: Hornbach.

If there are those aware of the depth of romantic (Mara), then on finds them right behind the Sublime Buddha.

Maybe another read helps to read things more proper: The Buddha via the Bible: How Western Buddhists Read the Dhamma.

No serious religion has ever praised and romanticism, since hardly any doesn't see the lure and danger right there, even if not really aware what's going on.

But today the Marxists are eager to work on what fits into the world of trade and consume and of course pleasing for everyone. You'll fall for it...

Btw., just if meeting one, it's not so that friend is a proper addressing for one gone forth, good Brahman. Seeing a worthless beggar, has it's reason by not knowing, but understandable. Seeing such equal is a clear sign of lacking sny usefull discrimination and will just flow down the currency, interdependend...

[Stoppelmann]

It's amazing how basic grave misperception work...

Since when is a child innocent? To the amount other remember, or since monday? It's wouldn't take birth, an innocent and awakened One.

Further, since perception and memory are merely lost, a baby-boy is usually used as a synonym for grave foolishness, stupidity.

Zen has no inspiration toward awakening, but by nature rejects any wisdom and prefers to become "a flower, tree...", Asaññasattāna (perception-/mindless being).

Ven. Aṅgulimāla met those past fruits ripping after his Awakening.

The inner conflict is nothing else as not willing to give up house, stand, sensuality (romantic), and because of this what ever fantastically ideas are developed: Hornbach.

If there are those aware of the depth of romantic (Mara), then on finds them right behind the Sublime Buddha.

Maybe another read helps to read things more proper: The Buddha via the Bible: How Western Buddhists Read the Dhamma.

No serious religion has ever praised and romanticism, since hardly any doesn't see the lure and danger right there, even if not really aware what's going on.

But today the Marxists are eager to work on what fits into the world of trade and consume and of course pleasing for everyone. You'll fall for it...

Btw., just if meeting one, it's not so that friend is a proper addressing for one gone forth, good Brahman. Seeing a worthless beggar, has it's reason by not knowing, but understandable. Seeing such equal is a clear sign of lacking sny usefull discrimination and will just flow down the currency, interdependend...

The problem with the very pragmatic logic of Buddhist teaching, is the fact that the society that uses its precepts as the basis for life tends towards a more impersonal participation, which people living in Japan, for example, notice when they come from the West. There are other factors of course, but life has many facets that cause an emotional response, with people feeling close and connected to people close to them, having worries about safety and security, or concern when they experience rejection. The restriction of such emotions make living in a society very severe, which is probably why many people choose those things that trigger sensory pleasure, they get absorbed in an activity, seek a relaxed atmosphere where they can feel at peace, and try to find acceptance and mutual affection. Of course, we can say that these things are illusionary, and that their importance is overblown, but like joint lubricants, it makes movement easier.

It occurred to me that when I took up nursing, facing illness, the decay of old age, and death on a daily basis, the precepts of the Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path enabled me to hold a distance to that suffering and give my empathy a margin, whilst engaging in soothing the discomfort of the patients. It didn’t help me to engage with my wife, son, or our friends, or to accompany them in their trials and struggles. That was when I discovered Jack Kornfield, one of the first Americans, along with Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, to greatly popularize Vipassana in the West and couch practice as a viable, accessible possibility for the common person. He studied with Achaan Chah, one of the great luminaries of our time. I have been told that his training was certainly authentic, even if he may sometimes voice the teaching in ways that can be easily understood by everyday people.

His book, “A Path With A Heart” from the 1990s, was very influential in my life, he taught me to “Let go of the battle. Breathe quietly and let it be. Let your body relax and your heart soften. Open to whatever you experience without fighting.” It will be his Ph.D. in clinical psychology that influences his concern for people and led him to write “A Guide Through the Perils and Promises of Spiritual Life.” It was a revelation to experience, “When the stories of our life no longer bind us, we discover within them something greater. We discover that within the very limitations of form, of our maleness and femaleness, of our parenthood and our childhood, of gravity on the earth and the changing of the seasons, is the freedom and harmony we have sought for so long. Our individual life is an expression of the whole mystery, and in it we can rest in the center of the movement, the center of all worlds.”

Now, he could be called a romanticist, because his teaching definitely doesn’t have the kind of blunt pragmaticism that I have sometimes encountered, but it was a book that my wife could access, even though he also speaks of the dangers of “corruption of insight” in which “students become stuck in positive states, trying to maintain them, grasping the clarity, power, or peace, using them to reinforce their subtle sense of being one who is awake, accomplished, free.” He also quotes Viktor Frankl, Catherine Ingram, Thic Nhat Hanh, Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Stan Grof, Thomas Merton, Ram Dass, Ken Wilbur, Thomas Moore, and Joseph Campbell. Dante, Shakespeare, Rumi, Rilke, all are quoted in his book. His teacher taught him that “The dharma, the True Path, is like an underground water. Any time we dig we will find it there.”

As a last point, the paper you linked says that Buddha taught that life is a river to cross, not something to get involved in, but we can’t help get involved if we are to live a compassionate life, the point is, what Hermann Hesse writes in Siddhartha, “Realization slowly blossomed, slowly matured in Siddhartha, the knowledge of what wisdom actually is, what the goal of his long search was. It was nothing but a readiness of the soul, an ability, a secret art, to be able to think, feel and breathe the thought of unity at any moment, in the midst of life. Slowly this blossomed in him, radiated from Vasudeva's old babyface: harmony, knowledge of the eternal perfection of the world, smile, unity.”

[Gertie]

Right, the poem which asks the meaningful question is the later response to the poem which which has the answer. That's odd, unsettling. It makes the certainties of Pre-Lapsian Innocence look cloyingly naive in the face of the actual world of Experience we're thrown into. Where we somehow have to resolve a reality of lambs and tigers co-existing, or indeed us ourselves being both as we move imperfectly through life.

It's the question the Genesis story grapples with. Innocent children in a perfect state of being, willfully tasting the fruit of Experience as we all must, and dealing with a real life of suffering and existential angst, where there be monsters, and Heaven's tears are spears. The Genesis story re-infantilises us as naughty children throwing away the perfect answers to be found at the core of our creation, and suffering the consequences. God can't be wrong, so we must deserve it. And if we re-submit ourselves we'll be rewarded with a new promised land.

I think that, as you suggest, the prelapsarian innocence is akin to childhood, and the story is an allegory for the process we all go through – perhaps prolonged in the modern day due to sheltered childhood and early adulthood – but if God is the ground of being, then it isn’t a case of not being wrong, it is just as it is. It is simply a fact that as soon as you know the difference between good and evil, you are projected into a world that suddenly seems different, challenging, and dangerous.

Interestingly, DT Suzuki compared the story to the story of Buddha leaving the palace, having confronted illness, old-age, and death. Gautama goes on a search for a way out of the dilemma of suffering, and through his trials he finds no solace, until his sits beneath the Bodhi tree. The legend has it that the answer was the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path. Very pragmatic and attractive for that reason – but there are Buddhist texts which contain anecdotes, parables, and stories that illustrate the challenges and triumphs of individuals as they strive to incorporate the Eightfold Path into their lives. These narratives emphasize the human struggle with desires, attachments, ignorance, and the difficulties of adhering to the noble principles of the path.

One well-known example is the story of Aṅgulimāla, important particularly within the Theravāda tradition. He was a notorious bandit and murderer who encountered the Buddha. Aṅgulimāla decided to change his ways and become a monk under the Buddha's guidance. As he practiced the Eightfold Path, he faced inner and outer challenges, including dealing with the consequences of his past actions and controlling his violent impulses. Despite these struggles, he persevered and eventually attained enlightenment.

A completely different narrative centres around the lay disciple Visakha, also known as Migāramāta, who was a wealthy aristocratic woman who was renowned for her generosity. She followed the Eightfold Path diligently but faced difficulties in maintaining her composure when dealing with family conflicts. Through the teachings and guidance of the Buddha, she learned to cultivate Right Speech and Right Mindfulness to handle her emotions more skillfully.

The Dharma is not only the explicit teachings given by the Buddha in discourses and sutras, but also the implicit teachings found in stories, parables, and narratives. The biblical narrative is made to seem a historic lineage, but is, as you are probably aware, an anthology of stories, parables, and narratives as well. It is in regarding them as a record of historic lineage that people go wrong. What I am getting at is that religious narratives are always about this struggle, and the paradox of sentience in a brutal world and a cold universe. It is only that the biblical tale tells how it goes desperately wrong very soon with Cain and Abel.

Buddhism has some narratives that touch upon themes of jealousy, conflict, and their consequences, even though these stories often emphasize different moral lessons and take different contexts compared to the biblical story. But one example from Buddhist literature is the story of Devadatta, who was a cousin and disciple of the Buddha, who became jealous of the Buddha's popularity and sought to surpass him in influence and leadership within the monastic community. He conspired against the Buddha and attempted to take control of the Sangha (Buddhist monastic community) through divisive actions. It is different, I know, but I want to show that the cultures have similarities, despite being very different.

In the days of Romanticism, Lord Byron's poetic drama "Cain,” reimagines the story of Cain and Abel in a dramatic and introspective manner. Byron's Cain is a rethinking of the biblical narrative, exploring the psychological turmoil of Cain and the existential questions surrounding good and evil, guilt, and the human condition. William Wordsworth's poem "The Brothers," tells the story of two brothers, Edward and Luke, who have grown apart due to jealousy and misunderstanding, and explores the complexities of sibling relationships, the consequences of jealousy and resentment, and the potential for reconciliation and redemption.

Many Romantic writers explored complex psychological themes and moral dilemmas, drawing on a range of cultural and religious references, including elements from the Bible and other religious narratives. Their works are examples of how Western Romantic writers engaged with universal themes and human experiences, sometimes drawing inspiration from biblical narratives or creating their own narratives that touch on similar ideas of conflict, jealousy, and redemption. The already mentioned Hermann Hesse also delved into themes and narratives that resonate with elements of biblical stories and explored deeper philosophical and spiritual themes in his works. His novel “Siddhartha” explores themes of self-discovery, spiritual enlightenment, and the individual's quest for meaning and inner peace. "Demian," also delves into psychological and philosophical themes and explores the inner conflict and development of its protagonist, Emil Sinclair, as he grapples with questions of identity, morality, and the struggle between good and evil.

I think that our friend is just not aware of the depth of Romanticism, deeming it pre-Marxist and emotional.

Blake isn't saying that, he doesn't have the answer, he's not claiming enlightenment. The poignancy of Tyger lies in the grappling and carrying on. This is the poignancy of the human condition, and it invites understanding, care and courage. Not the simplistic Enlightened perfection, that's not the answer to the question for Blake, the questioning is the answer.

William Blake approached themes and subjects related to biblical narratives in a very unique and visionary manner and was deeply influenced by his spiritual beliefs. He had a complex relationship with both traditional Christianity and his own mystical and esoteric interpretations of the Bible. He wrote numerous paradoxical and provocative aphorisms, poems, and made engravings that challenged traditional notions of good and evil, heaven and hell.

Of course, "The Tyger," contemplates the experience of the enigmatic and dual nature of creation, drawing inspiration from the biblical image of the tiger and exploring the mysteries of existence and the divine. As you say, "The Tyger" serves as a complementary piece to "The Lamb," and together they explore the contrasting aspects of creation and the divine, pondering whether the same benevolent creator who made the gentle Lamb also forged the powerful and fearsome tiger.

The simple answer is yes, but that doesn’t satisfy the pious heart, and so the creationists come up with a prelapsarian world in which they once lived together in peace, and it was the moment of the “Fall from Grace” that made our world paradoxically cruel and yet beautiful. They imagine a reinstatement of that innocence, but the point of enlightenment is to synthesise wisdom of experience with the regained innocence of the child, which sounds very much like nirvana.

That's not what nirvana is tho.

Re The Romantics, you could say Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Ballads is something of a Romantics Manifesto, a response to the scientific/reason based Enlightenment which Modernists thought would solve everything.   It places Art as a constructive corrective which can capture something of humanity which resonates in a way which pragmatism can't capture.  And for the Romantics of that time (in Britain at least, the French were a bit more hands on!), this is about getting back to being  attuned with nature, and our own natures,  in the face of alienating urbanisation and industrialisation.  And Good Art, in his view, is about 'recollections in tranquility' , which is akin to your point.

Then again, other Romantics relish bathing in the immediacy of sensory experience, for better or worse.  Keats was the outstanding Romantic poet imo, and he talks about experience, for better or worse, as the vivid, bursting stuff of life.  He rebutts the dis-interest, dis-connection of what I see as the de-humanising, and ironically self-abnegating  self-absorption of  the path to Nirvana -

Ode to Melancholy final stanza -

''She dwells with Beauty—Beauty that must die;

And Joy, whose hand is ever at his lips

Bidding adieu; and aching Pleasure nigh,

Turning to poison while the bee-mouth sips:

Ay, in the very temple of Delight

Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine,

Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue

Can burst Joy's grape against his palate fine;

His soul shalt taste the sadness of her might,

And be among her cloudy trophies hung.''



Now Keats also says ''Beauty is Truth, and Truth Beauty'' - that for us Art is Truth.  But I think that goes too far. It's a reaction which dismisses anything of value from The Enlightenment. This 'qualiative' aesthetic side of our humanity which science doesn't capture isn't all there is to being human.  Both the pragmatic/mundane /profane as well as the aesthetic/feeling/numinous aspects of our nature are real, and important. It's all part of us and it all matters. 

On the third hand, Buddhist dis-engagement from what it is to be fully human, and considering that to be a superior Enlightenment can be terribly dangerous and callous. And there is no opening for correction for those who consider themselves specially Enlightened or in receipt of special revelation, because these are immutable truths beyond human understanding or concerns.   When you start treating religious beliefs, art, spirituality or any dogma as Enlightened and beyond correction, it's so easy to let your biases rule and condescendingly dismiss all other paths.

[Stoppelmann]

They imagine a reinstatement of that innocence, but the point of enlightenment is to synthesise wisdom of experience with the regained innocence of the child, which sounds very much like nirvana.

That's not what nirvana is tho.

Of course, I should have qualified the statement by saying that their aspiration sounds like trying to attain nirvana.

Re The Romantics, you could say Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Ballads is something of a Romantics Manifesto, a response to the scientific/reason based Enlightenment which Modernists thought would solve everything. It places Art as a constructive corrective which can capture something of humanity which resonates in a way which pragmatism can't capture. And for the Romantics of that time (in Britain at least, the French were a bit more hands on!), this is about getting back to being attuned with nature, and our own natures, in the face of alienating urbanisation and industrialisation. And Good Art, in his view, is about 'recollections in tranquility' , which is akin to your point.

Poetry as “a natural delineation of human passions, human characters, and human incidents,” rather than a pragmatic explanation, is also the method of mythology, and in an old book written in “olde German” (“Sütterlin” was introduced in 1911, so not so old) I found a comment that went along the lines that the stories of the OT were like a vehicle in which you boarded and went for a journey, experiencing all the strange and wonderful things, and learning as it were by experiencing the feelings that are provoked by the stories, but then getting off and once again engaging with real life, all the wiser for the experience.

The same is said for the theatre experience, in which the play presented on the stage is another world, normally separated from the audience, with which one may emotionally participate, and then return to real life on exiting the theatre. Darkening the auditorium and lighting the stage adds to that experience, which is obviously also the cinema experience. Knowing the difference between the presentation (or better representation) and real life is an important part of differentiating illusion from reality, which modern cinema seems to try to prevent.

Poetry, especially romantic poetry, tends to put a magnifying glass to nature and human experience, and sometimes sounds like the experiments in the last century with psychotropic drugs, but without such additives, they bring the brightness of colours, the beauty of the breeze blowing through daffodils, the posture or demeanour of a beautiful woman, of composure in a moment, or the realisation of an approaching danger to our attention. Attention is what seems to be the point, and as Iain McGilchrist points out, this focal attention and its verbal expression are linked in the left hemisphere but appreciated in the right hemisphere.

Expressionism emerged as an art movement in the early 20th century, long after the Romantic era had ended, but they seem to have reached back to that time and there are some thematic and philosophical similarities between Expressionism and certain aspects of Romanticism. As a response to the rapid industrialization, urbanization, and societal changes of the time, expressionist artists sought to convey intense emotions, subjective experiences, and the inner psychological states of their subjects. Both Expressionist and Romantic artists sought to convey intense emotions and inner states through their works, which seems necessary to contradict the dullness of everyday life, where attention is reduced to the gogglebox.

But that is the aspect that I always find important, increasing our attentiveness rather than reducing it, opening our horizons rather than restricting them. Attentiveness is also the intention of mindfulness, albeit increasing the ability to observe without intervening. Erich Fromm explained the difference between to have and to be with a story of a wallflower that is admired by a passerby and picked, thus killing the plant. The more thoughtful person digs the plant out and replants it to preserve it. The mindful person leaves the plant where it is and has pleasure in knowing it is there. One could add, the poet and the artist reproduce the plant in their poetry or art.

Then again, other Romantics relish bathing in the immediacy of sensory experience, for better or worse. Keats was the outstanding Romantic poet imo, and he talks about experience, for better or worse, as the vivid, bursting stuff of life. He rebutts the dis-interest, dis-connection of what I see as the de-humanising, and ironically self-abnegating self-absorption of the path to Nirvana -

Ode to Melancholy final stanza -

''She dwells with Beauty—Beauty that must die;
And Joy, whose hand is ever at his lips
Bidding adieu; and aching Pleasure nigh,
Turning to poison while the bee-mouth sips:
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine,
Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue
Can burst Joy's grape against his palate fine;
His soul shalt taste the sadness of her might,
And be among her cloudy trophies hung.''

I agree, and Keats describes embracing sadness and melancholy as an integral part of human experience, which is the lot of right hemisphere orientated people, whose perception is usually prudently far-sighted and holistic:
"No, no, go not to Lethe, neither twist
Wolf’s-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine;"

If you break down the first lines of the poem, Keats is advising against seeking forgetfulness or escape through the waters of Lethe, which is a reference to the river in Greek mythology whose waters were believed to cause forgetfulness and oblivion. He also advises against using Wolf's-bane to create a poisonous wine, implying that seeking escape through self-destructive means is not a solution to melancholy. In other lines, by referencing Greek mythology, Keats advises against embracing death or darkness as a way to deal with melancholy and numerous other known practises do not provide genuine solace or understanding.

But he also cautions against seeking darkness or melancholy for too long ("shade to shade") as it may lead to a lethargic state that obscures the true depth of one's sorrow and prevents genuine emotional growth, instead embracing it as part of the human experience can lead to a more authentic and profound understanding of oneself and the complexities of human emotions. Rather than seeking superficial or self-destructive escapes, Keats advocates for facing and grappling with one's emotions in a more conscious and awake manner. It is this attentiveness that I find compelling, ‘As a man is, so he sees’, wrote William Blake.

Attention is not just another cognitive function. Attention is how our world comes into being for us. The altered nature of attention can appear to abolish parts of the world, collapse time and space, eviscerate emotion, and render the living inanimate. It is a profoundly moral act.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 106). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem that McGilchrist speaks of is that our being attentive needs a broader context, and just paying attention might do the damage spoken of above. That is why when the object of attention is passed on, it must be done so in a holistic way, encompassing the complexity of existence, and the best way to do that has been via poetry or poetic language. Jane Hirshfield writes, “The root of “spirit” is the Latin spirare, to breathe. Whatever lives on the breath, then, must have its spiritual dimension— including all poems, even the most unlikely.”

Now Keats also says ''Beauty is Truth, and Truth Beauty'' - that for us Art is Truth. But I think that goes too far. It's a reaction which dismisses anything of value from The Enlightenment. This 'qualiative' aesthetic side of our humanity which science doesn't capture isn't all there is to being human. Both the pragmatic/mundane /profane as well as the aesthetic/feeling/numinous aspects of our nature are real, and important. It's all part of us and it all matters.

"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” — that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Keats is here reflecting on the seemingly everlasting nature of an urn's beauty compared to the fleeting existence of human life. As generations age and pass away, the urn will endure, a symbol of timeless art and beauty, even in the midst of other sorrows, as a friend to humanity. Keats then imagines the urn speaking to humankind, conveying a profound truth that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," encapsulating the essence of the urn's significance and its enduring appeal.

This final line suggests that the message of beauty and truth is all that human beings need to know on earth. Keats elevates the aesthetic experience and appreciation of art to a higher understanding of essential truths, transcending the transient nature of human existence by means of its unique ability to evoke profound emotions, engage the intellect, and offer insights into the human condition and the nature of existence. Of course, art allows for subjective experiences, and what constitutes a profound truth for one person may differ for another.

On the third hand, Buddhist dis-engagement from what it is to be fully human, and considering that to be a superior Enlightenment can be terribly dangerous and callous. And there is no opening for correction for those who consider themselves specially Enlightened or in receipt of special revelation, because these are immutable truths beyond human understanding or concerns. When you start treating religious beliefs, art, spirituality or any dogma as Enlightened and beyond correction, it's so easy to let your biases rule and condescendingly dismiss all other paths

Yes, I agree, although I think that Johann means well, as do most adherents. I have said before that I believe that we needed the poetic investigation to get beyond what prose can say, which is why throughout history, poets and other creative individuals have often been subject to oppression by religious institutions, including the church. This oppression was often driven by several factors, including the desire to control the dissemination of ideas and maintain religious orthodoxy.

“You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting –
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.”
― Mary Oliver

[Samana Johann]

It's amazing how basic grave misperception work...

Since when is a child innocent? To the amount other remember, or since monday? It's wouldn't take birth, an innocent and awakened One.

Further, since perception and memory are merely lost, a baby-boy is usually used as a synonym for grave foolishness, stupidity.

Zen has no inspiration toward awakening, but by nature rejects any wisdom and prefers to become "a flower, tree...", Asaññasattāna (perception-/mindless being).

Ven. Aṅgulimāla met those past fruits ripping after his Awakening.

The inner conflict is nothing else as not willing to give up house, stand, sensuality (romantic), and because of this what ever fantastically ideas are developed: Hornbach.

If there are those aware of the depth of romantic (Mara), then on finds them right behind the Sublime Buddha.

Maybe another read helps to read things more proper: The Buddha via the Bible: How Western Buddhists Read the Dhamma.

No serious religion has ever praised and romanticism, since hardly any doesn't see the lure and danger right there, even if not really aware what's going on.

But today the Marxists are eager to work on what fits into the world of trade and consume and of course pleasing for everyone. You'll fall for it...

Btw., just if meeting one, it's not so that friend is a proper addressing for one gone forth, good Brahman. Seeing a worthless beggar, has it's reason by not knowing, but understandable. Seeing such equal is a clear sign of lacking sny usefull discrimination and will just flow down the currency, interdependend...

The problem with the very pragmatic logic of Buddhist teaching, is the fact that the society that uses its precepts as the basis for life tends towards a more impersonal participation, which people living in Japan, for example, notice when they come from the West. There are other factors of course, but life has many facets that cause an emotional response, with people feeling close and connected to people close to them, having worries about safety and security, or concern when they experience rejection. The restriction of such emotions make living in a society very severe, which is probably why many people choose those things that trigger sensory pleasure, they get absorbed in an activity, seek a relaxed atmosphere where they can feel at peace, and try to find acceptance and mutual affection. Of course, we can say that these things are illusionary, and that their importance is overblown, but like joint lubricants, it makes movement easier.

Zen and Mahayana aren't the Buddhas way, by older culter-thieves. They have no interests in gaining wisdom by definition, as such would block their aspirations to become Sublime Buddhas by themselves. Highly dangerous sects!
Zen is a pure householder tradition void of Bhikkhus, but merely a priest /Brahman school without Vinays. Yet good in trade...

It occurred to me that when I took up nursing, facing illness, the decay of old age, and death on a daily basis, the precepts of the Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path enabled me to hold a distance to that suffering and give my empathy a margin, whilst engaging in soothing the discomfort of the patients. It didn’t help me to engage with my wife, son, or our friends, or to accompany them in their trials and struggles. That was when I discovered Jack Kornfield, one of the first Americans, along with Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, to greatly popularize Vipassana in the West and couch practice as a viable, accessible possibility for the common person. He studied with Achaan Chah, one of the great luminaries of our time. I have been told that his training was certainly authentic, even if he may sometimes voice the teaching in ways that can be easily understood by everyday people.

The secound large group of western occupying and fakes, are former monks. People returning to the low life in this tradition, are strongly 'disregarded', the Buddha called them to 'will cheat, on and on' to justify their failures... The whole western 'Buddhism is occupied by 'loser', who of course, not seldom, hardly oppose the monks and the Sangha, as good as never lead people to meet them. And not so out of reasons, 90% of western 'successful' Buddhism, is also firm in the hand of the Brahmans of this days: Jewish... well known as Jewel dealer... big business!

Worthy to note that the 2600 hears old sripts are void of "former-monk" teachings and stories, as they are simply seen as having died off. Yet it can be that such comes to mind, and re-ordain.

It's total clear that one leaving the holly life did not really found real faith and would always cheat and teach biased, corrupt, not to speak that if weak, would be ashamed... yet they even go for being public stars! Wrong has reasons, but reasons can be traced by those not totally stump by householder-equanimity.

Ven. Ajahn Chan's teachings are actually for those firm on the path, for monks. A western common mind can nothing but get all wrong. It's broadly beloved, because it seems like Zen-like developing of what the Sublime Buddha called Hausholder-equanimity.

Good Brahman would, actually do, run away, if frontal Ajahn like taught.

His book, “A Path With A Heart” from the 1990s, was very influential in my life, he taught me to “Let go of the battle. Breathe quietly and let it be. Let your body relax and your heart soften. Open to whatever you experience without fighting.” It will be his Ph.D. in clinical psychology that influences his concern for people and led him to write “A Guide Through the Perils and Promises of Spiritual Life.” It was a revelation to experience, “When the stories of our life no longer bind us, we discover within them something greater. We discover that within the very limitations of form, of our maleness and femaleness, of our parenthood and our childhood, of gravity on the earth and the changing of the seasons, is the freedom and harmony we have sought for so long. Our individual life is an expression of the whole mystery, and in it we can rest in the center of the movement, the center of all worlds.”

"we" teachings are clearly hints of seeking companions and winning arguments.

But if liking real teaching directly, good Brahman can start with:

Mit dem Dhamma in der Welt leben (Atma translated a lot into German, yet not prove readed, the access, btw., is hardly censured by western "Buddhists")

Now, he could be called a romanticist, because his teaching definitely doesn’t have the kind of blunt pragmaticism that I have sometimes encountered, but it was a book that my wife could access, even though he also speaks of the dangers of “corruption of insight” in which “students become stuck in positive states, trying to maintain them, grasping the clarity, power, or peace, using them to reinforce their subtle sense of being one who is awake, accomplished, free.” He also quotes Viktor Frankl, Catherine Ingram, Thic Nhat Hanh, Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Stan Grof, Thomas Merton, Ram Dass, Ken Wilbur, Thomas Moore, and Joseph Campbell. Dante, Shakespeare, Rumi, Rilke, all are quoted in his book. His teacher taught him that “The dharma, the True Path, is like an underground water. Any time we dig we will find it there.”

As a last point, the paper you linked says that Buddha taught that life is a river to cross, not something to get involved in, but we can’t help get involved if we are to live a compassionate life, the point is, what Hermann Hesse writes in Siddhartha, “Realization slowly blossomed, slowly matured in Siddhartha, the knowledge of what wisdom actually is, what the goal of his long search was. It was nothing but a readiness of the soul, an ability, a secret art, to be able to think, feel and breathe the thought of unity at any moment, in the midst of life. Slowly this blossomed in him, radiated from Vasudeva's old babyface: harmony, knowledge of the eternal perfection of the world, smile, unity.”

Again, if Herman Hesse leads one to seek for the real, knowing, it misses the heartwood, than it has done something good, at least for oneself, of course not for householder Hesse, who simply lived from sharing Romances...

[Stoppelmann]

Zen and Mahayana aren't the Buddhas way, by older culter-thieves. They have no interests in gaining wisdom by definition, as such would block their aspirations to become Sublime Buddhas by themselves. Highly dangerous sects!
Zen is a pure householder tradition void of Bhikkhus, but merely a priest /Brahman school without Vinays. Yet good in trade...

I find it sad that you make such a sweeping commentary, especially since the perfection you seek disregards the lessons that humankind has learnt over the millennia since Buddha and seems to want people to revert to living like people did at that time. I have shown numerous times how the Romantics analysed the world they lived in and how modern Buddhists in the West have used these examples to illustrate where our society is going wrong. And still, all you can do is say they are ‘highly dangerous.’

There is no reverting to those times, unless perhaps humanity manages to decimate itself and destroy what civilisation they have, which would be an opportune moment to adopt such a lifestyle. We have to live in the present, which seems to me a deeply Buddhist recognition, and it is a central focus in the practice of mindfulness and meditation. Don’t you emphasize the importance of being fully present and aware in each moment, as it is considered essential for attaining insight, wisdom, and liberation from suffering? So we interpret the teaching into the present, using a multitude of impressions gained since then to illustrate the point.

The secound large group of western occupying and fakes, are former monks. People returning to the low life in this tradition, are strongly 'disregarded', the Buddha called them to 'will cheat, on and on' to justify their failures... The whole western 'Buddhism is occupied by 'loser', who of course, not seldom, hardly oppose the monks and the Sangha, as good as never lead people to meet them. And not so out of reasons, 90% of western 'successful' Buddhism, is also firm in the hand of the Brahmans of this days: Jewish... well known as Jewel dealer... big business!

Worthy to note that the 2600 hears old sripts are void of "former-monk" teachings and stories, as they are simply seen as having died off. Yet it can be that such comes to mind, and re-ordain.

It's total clear that one leaving the holly life did not really found real faith and would always cheat and teach biased, corrupt, not to speak that if weak, would be ashamed... yet they even go for being public stars! Wrong has reasons, but reasons can be traced by those not totally stump by householder-equanimity.

Ven. Ajahn Chan's teachings are actually for those firm on the path, for monks. A western common mind can nothing but get all wrong. It's broadly beloved, because it seems like Zen-like developing of what the Sublime Buddha called Hausholder-equanimity.

Good Brahman would, actually do, run away, if frontal Ajahn like taught.

I read Jack Kornfield saying that while Ajahn Chah's approach could be seen as strict and disciplined, it was also balanced with warmth, compassion, and a deep understanding of the individual needs and capacities of his disciples. He was known for using skilful means to guide and inspire his students, tailoring his teachings to meet each person's unique temperament and circumstances. Ajahn Chah's teachings continue to have a profound impact on practitioners around the world, both within and outside the monastic context. Many of his Western disciples have gone on to establish monasteries and meditation centres, spreading his teachings and the Thai Forest Tradition worldwide. His emphasis on simplicity, mindfulness, and ethical conduct remains an enduring aspect of his legacy, and considering the extreme opposite convictions that we are confronted with, calling the interpretation of his teaching into a lay environment as ‘highly dangerous’ seems hyperbole and counterproductive.

But if liking real teaching directly, good Brahman can start with:

Mit dem Dhamma in der Welt leben (Atma translated a lot into German, yet not prove readed, the access, btw., is hardly censured by western "Buddhists")

I am very thankful to you for making the book available, and your work on translating the text. Interestingly it begins with “Making the Heart Good,” just as Jack Kornfield starts his “A Path With A Heart” with the fundamentals. Maybe you should make a comparison because it seems to me at this early stage that Jack has interpreted this teaching into a Western context. I am a German speaker but English is my mother tongue, so I am happy with the English translation.

Again, if Herman Hesse leads one to seek for the real, knowing, it misses the heartwood, than it has done something good, at least for oneself, of course not for householder Hesse, who simply lived from sharing Romances...

Sad to hear your criticism voiced once again about someone who has had a positive influence on millions of people, especially with his book Siddhartha. While there have always been critics of "Siddhartha," it remains an essential piece of literature that has inspired readers to contemplate profound philosophical and spiritual questions. As with any influential work, opinions on "Siddhartha" may vary, but its enduring popularity and impact on readers cannot be denied.
Thomas Mann expressed his admiration for the novel's depth and spiritual insights, recognizing it as a significant literary achievement. Romain Rolland admired the novel's portrayal of the protagonist's inner journey and the quest for self-realization. And many of Hesse's fellow writers and intellectuals from the early 20th century recognized the novel's literary merits and its relevance in addressing existential and spiritual questions at a time between two wars, when nationalism and hate were ravaging Europe.

Hesse, however, said himself that the Indian garb is “only a dress”, or a disguise. In reality, he said, the work is closer to Laozi than to Buddha in terms of its meaning. Hesse repeatedly emphasized that this, like all of his works, is European poetry depicting the thoughts and needs of a European person. Hesse's works are “biographies of the soul” like hardly any other poet, presenting the intellectual and spiritual development of the author in ever new variations, dressed in different robes. There was no pretence, but rather an open criticism of the European mindset.

He wrote to Fritz Gundert, a German missionary, linguist, and scholar, who is known to have had a significant influence on Hermann Hesse, particularly during Hesse's time in India, “Of course, the Indian Brahmanic part is only a dress, and Siddhartha does not mean a Hindu, but a human being, however, the 'dress' here is more than a costume.” Hesse was a poet and not a philosopher, and any attempt to extract a philosophical or religious system from his books comes to nothing. His was a finger pointing at the moon, if you like.

[Samana Johann]

Truth is always regard as sad for romantics, good Brahman, as they wish to hold on lure and illusion. Should it happen that good Brahman once finds enough reason to leave home/sand, goes out, he will soon see that truth is actually only something enemy for the ignorant and blind.

As long as good Brahman just picks up things from everywhere to maintain his desired identification he will not be able to find firm faith, like somebody would never know the taste of something never tried before. It will be always just fake with just known and available ingredients, Hornbach-Wisdom.

[Samana Johann]

Truth is always regard as sad for romantics, good Brahman, as they wish to hold on lure and illusion. Should it happen that good Brahman once finds enough reason to leave home/sand, goes out, he will soon see that truth is actually only something enemy for the ignorant and blind.

As long as good Brahman just picks up things from everywhere to maintain his desired identification he will not be able to find firm faith, like somebody would never know the taste of something never tried before. It will be always just fake with just known and available ingredients, Hornbach-Wisdom.

(although my person isn't very skilled in languages in formal ways, he would nevertheless recommend the transl. stuff, since many translater neither understand SEAsian cultur not the Dhamma, and wrongs and stumps, had been compensated, so to penetrate right. Further it's total improper and highly corrupt to sell Dhamma, as well as thinking that it could be attained by traders and consumer ways. The english translations shared are also clean and not corrupted, yet still more 'consumer-friendly'.)