Crowley Was Wrong about Buddhism
-
I've sat with some local Buddhists and loved everything they said except that "life is suffering."
It works as a perspective if the goal is detachment from everything that you give the power to make you suffer. But I can't get past the sense that this is merely a functional perspective to take toward that goal.
"Life is change" seems more factual and less of a value judgement, in line with the goal of doing one's Will (personal dharma?) with freedom, joy, and peace, without the lust of result.
Better, in my view: "Life is change. The lust of result is suffering."
But how much can one communicate simply to one's audience at once, considering their immediate, personal, spiritual needs versus the level of complexity of thought their education has allowed them to develop?
-
In short, when you have an Enlightened One being the source of a popular religion, there's always (seemingly) a simplification that takes place somewhere so that the people can more easily comprehend it. Go more deeply into it, and you'll find a discussion of a more complex nature, but on the surface, simplicity.
In my opinion, it's the difference between a religion that's for "the people" and "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!"
-
I read a lot of Thanissaro and Bikkhu Bodhi stuff ages ago (they're both great writers!), and I remember being particularly struck by Thanissaro's investigations into "nibbana" and the background Vedic ideas about fire. It really does put a very different light on the whole thing (it pretty much makes the original Buddhism non-dual like many subsequent forms more obviously were).
Generally, I think Crowley was probably wrong about a lot of things in some of the details (I've already commented on stuff relating to "Jnana", that he got via Vivekananda, in another thread), and bombastic with it; but overall his position is internally coherent, so it doesn't matter too much if some of his references to external systems are strictly-speaking inaccurate. Everyone was pretty inaccurate in those days, and Crowley was in part relying on then-contemporary academic stuff (e.g. Max Muller) just like everyone else. Over time, scholarship, and access to authentic Eastern traditions in their living form, has corrected a lot of earlier mistaken ideas.
But then on the other hand, Crowley was more accurate about some things then one might think (e.g. I remember you mentioning his true translation of "recollection" in a Los thread a while ago). That was probably due to his connection with Alan Bennett, who was presumably getting some accurate Theravada *practical *teaching - although who knows, perhaps Bennett was making the same theoretical/philosophical mistakes everyone else was making at the time.
-
@Bereshith said
"I've sat with some local Buddhists and loved everything they said except that "life is suffering...."
Better, in my view: "Life is change. The lust of result is suffering.""
Well said. Most the Buddhists I know seem to agree with Thanissaro.
-
@Bereshith said
"In short, when you have an Enlightened One being the source of a popular religion, there's always (seemingly) a simplification that takes place somewhere so that the people can more easily comprehend it. Go more deeply into it, and you'll find a discussion of a more complex nature, but on the surface, simplicity.
In my opinion, it's the difference between a religion that's for "the people" and "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!""
I thinks there's a good case to be made that in the passages where the Buddha gets all, "Be a lamp unto yourselves," and "Be your own refuge," etc..., he was disapproving of the Cult like qualities already apparent around his teachings, e.g., refuge in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha).
Enlightened does not mean perfect, as the Traditionalist Theravadins would have it. The Buddha's on record changing his mind, making mistakes, expressing anger, calling people names, etc....
-
@gurugeorge said
"I read a lot of Thanissaro and Bikkhu Bodhi stuff ages ago (they're both great writers!), and I remember being particularly struck by Thanissaro's investigations into "nibbana" and the background Vedic ideas about fire. It really does put a very different light on the whole thing (it pretty much makes the original Buddhism non-dual like many subsequent forms more obviously were)."
Amen.
@gurugeorge said
"Generally, I think Crowley was probably wrong about a lot of things in some of the details (I've already commented on stuff relating to "Jnana", that he got via Vivekananda, in another thread), and bombastic with it; but overall his position is internally coherent, so it doesn't matter too much if some of his references to external systems are strictly-speaking inaccurate. Everyone was pretty inaccurate in those days, and Crowley was in part relying on then-contemporary academic stuff (e.g. Max Muller) just like everyone else. Over time, scholarship, and access to authentic Eastern traditions in their living form, has corrected a lot of earlier mistaken ideas."
And amen.
@gurugeorge said
"But then on the other hand, Crowley was more accurate about some things then one might think (e.g. I remember you mentioning his true translation of "recollection" in a Los thread a while ago). That was probably due to his connection with Alan Bennett, who was presumably getting some accurate Theravada *practical *teaching - although who knows, perhaps Bennett was making the same theoretical/philosophical mistakes everyone else was making at the time."
Yes. I was impressed by this with Crowley, and I don't think Bennett was making a mistake. Thanissaro's latest book, Right Mindfulness, is an in depth textual analysis of why sati is better translated as "recollection" than "mindfulness." I'm kind of in the middle with Richard Gombrich and Gil Fronsdal who translate it as "awareness."
-
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.
What does it mean to follow a rule?"
How does this relate to OP? I'm not saying it doesn't--just not understanding it myself. Could you please explicate?
-
@landis said
"
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.What does it mean to follow a rule?"
How does this relate to OP? I'm not saying it doesn't--just not understanding it myself. Could you please explicate?"
Crowley was wrong about Buddhism.
How do i become enlightened?
I wasnt going to add this but here it is anyway..
Methods may happen, methods may not.. what happens simply happens, and whether someone practices a method or not is completely irrelevant. -
@chris S said
"
@landis said
"
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.What does it mean to follow a rule?"
How does this relate to OP? I'm not saying it doesn't--just not understanding it myself. Could you please explicate?"
Crowley was wrong about Buddhism.
How do i become enlightened?
I wasnt going to add this but here it is anyway..
Methods may happen, methods may not.. what happens simply happens, and whether someone practices a method or not is completely irrelevant."I absolutely agree. But to answer your question, rules are for orders that pledge to practice and pass on a particular method precisely as they have received it because they have found it to work.
Yet, one can become an enlightened Buddhist without being a monk. The same is true of Thelema.
-
"I absolutely agree. But to answer your question, rules are for orders that pledge to practice and pass on a particular method precisely as they have received it because they have found it to work.
Yet, one can become an enlightened Buddhist without being a monk. The same is true of Thelema."
yes..
Paradoxically, the attainment written and spoken of happens outside the doctrine. -
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.
What does it mean to follow a rule?"
"24. The idealist's question would be something like: "What right have I not to doubt the existence of my hands?" (And to that the answer can't be: I know that they exist.) But someone who asks such a question is overlooking the fact that a doubt about existence only works in a language-game. Hence, that we should first have to ask: what would such a doubt be like?, and don't understand this straight off.
-
One may be wrong even about "there being a hand here". Only in particular circumstances is it impossible. - "Even in a calculation one can be wrong - only in certain circumstances one can't."
-
But can it be seen from a rule what circumstances logically exclude a mistake in the employment of rules of calculation?
What use is a rule to us here? Mightn't we (in turn) go wrong in applying it? -
If, however, one wanted to give something like a rule here, then it would contain the expression "in normal circumstances". And we recognize normal circumstances but cannot precisely describe them. At most, we can describe a range of abnormal ones.
-
What is 'learning a rule'? - This.
What is 'making a mistake in applying it'? - This. And what is pointed to here is something indeterminate. -
Practice in the use of the rule also shows what is a mistake in its employment.
-
When someone has made sure of something, he says: "Yes, the calculation is right", but he did not infer that from his condition of certainty. One does not infer how things are from one's own certainty.
Certainty is as it were a tone of voice in which one declares how things are, but one does not infer from the tone of voice that one is justified."
Wittgenstein, On Certainty
-
-
@landis said
"
@chris S said
"As we like to think the objects of our understandings are independent from us in some way.What does it mean to follow a rule?"
"24. The idealist's question would be something like: "What right have I not to doubt the existence of my hands?" (And to that the answer can't be: I know that they exist.) But someone who asks such a question is overlooking the fact that a doubt about existence only works in a language-game. Hence, that we should first have to ask: what would such a doubt be like?, and don't understand this straight off.
-
One may be wrong even about "there being a hand here". Only in particular circumstances is it impossible. - "Even in a calculation one can be wrong - only in certain circumstances one can't."
-
But can it be seen from a rule what circumstances logically exclude a mistake in the employment of rules of calculation?
What use is a rule to us here? Mightn't we (in turn) go wrong in applying it? -
If, however, one wanted to give something like a rule here, then it would contain the expression "in normal circumstances". And we recognize normal circumstances but cannot precisely describe them. At most, we can describe a range of abnormal ones.
-
What is 'learning a rule'? - This.
What is 'making a mistake in applying it'? - This. And what is pointed to here is something indeterminate. -
Practice in the use of the rule also shows what is a mistake in its employment.
-
When someone has made sure of something, he says: "Yes, the calculation is right", but he did not infer that from his condition of certainty. One does not infer how things are from one's own certainty.
Certainty is as it were a tone of voice in which one declares how things are, but one does not infer from the tone of voice that one is justified."
Wittgenstein, On Certainty"
20 Years ago i had an Irish Wolfhound that would sit out the back and watch the moon.. Crazy dog.
-