Ego is present when and wherever an identity label is self-applied, right, left, center or anywhere else on any spectrum. It's the narcissism, the sense of entitlement, and most of all the victimhood mentality that is so damaging. CRT/DEI posits that justice is impossible and the world is an evil place, where racism is the source of ever…
Ego is present when and wherever an identity label is self-applied, right, left, center or anywhere else on any spectrum. It's the narcissism, the sense of entitlement, and most of all the victimhood mentality that is so damaging. CRT/DEI posits that justice is impossible and the world is an evil place, where racism is the source of every ill. Who wouldn't be miserable if they believed that? The authors miss the larger point. These unhappy people know full well that they're unhappy. They revel in it. They choose to be miserable because of the sense of romantic nobility they believe their suffering imparts to them. Having once been a Catholic, I understand how people (mis)use their own suffering, turning it into a proof of their own spiritual purity. It's sick, masochistic, and totally ego driven. I see some skeptics on here about Tolle. I get it it. I'm not into the woo-woo either, but having read his books, I can attest that they do contain wisdom, mainly because they are grounded in the established traditions of both Western psychology and Buddhism, not simply some claptrap made up by the author, as is so much in the self-help business world.
Buddhism is foolish clap trap. And there is no coherent monolith that is “western psychology”. And even while Buddhism is foolish clap trap, Eckart Tolle is not “grounded in Buddhism”— modern authors often just allude to Buddhism as a source of authority for their own made up garbage, even if Buddhism is garbage too. Because lots of people have a naive reverence for it.
Our “egos” are a prime motivator for all of us. No one is exempt. Except for perhaps people with a brain illness. I don’t think Tolle has a brain illness; he is either a charlatan or has a profound lack of self-awareness. Maybe both.
Some "Buddhist" ideas are claptrap, certainly. Nihilism and solipsism can both find justifications in ancient Buddhist texts, and both are clearly nonsensical worldviews.
However, there is also a great deal of valuable insight in Buddhist teachings and practices. This is a culture which has existed for over 2500 years. Many brilliant individuals have contributed to Buddhist scriptures, including some alive today.
Before dismissing all of Buddhism as "claptrap", I highly recommend you read Mathieu Ricard's little book, Happiness - just to give one example.
Matthieu Ricard? The former king of Tibet’s personal servant and translator? The guy who for decades enabled the manipulative predator Sogyal Rinpoche?
I would not imagine someone who could be “happy” while behaving like Ricard did would be well positioned to understand happiness - or at least my own. Perhaps if I were some peculiar class of sociopath who could live contentedly without deep personal attachments in a cave while delusional worshippers ritually fed me, I’d look into his book. Although I’ve read the works of other frauds, so maybe I’ll pick up a used copy and read it out of curiosity some day.
Foundational Buddhism is sufficiently homogenous to judge it as a monolith. Just as Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Islam. Or Mormonism. The distinct ideology that is found in the foundation of Buddhism is claptrap. Certainly everything said by any writer or philosopher that has expressed fealty to the Sith Lord Gotama isn’t claptrap. Just like not everything a Christian has written is claptrap. But it’s not meaningfully relevant in judging that Christian ideology is irrational and evil. I don’t care about the opinions of every random person in the past 2000 years who claims to represent the “true” Christian ideology. I suspect your opinion of “Buddhism” is probably as relevant to understanding Buddhism as a Mormon’s opinion of Christianity is to understanding Christianity.
One thing I’ll point out is that Buddhism didn’t first discover / invent / practice “meditation.” Even from Buddhist scriptures it’s clear that Gotama, or whoever invented Gotama, acquired their techniques of meditation from non Buddhists. Albeit it ultimately doesnt matter who first practiced meditation techniques, just like it doesn’t matter who first practiced whistling. But these days since Buddhism so often is associated with meditation, it’s a valuable thing to point out. Various forms of meditation are things some Buddhists do, not what Buddhism is. Just like how Hitler painted.
The biggest evils and horseshittery of Buddhism is found in its ethics, psychology, and eschatology.
And no one alive today has contributed to Buddhist scriptures. Just like no one alive today has contributed to Christian scriptures. I’d consider that an elementary classification flaw of what Christian or Buddhist “scripture” is, simply motivated by personal reverence. And no “brilliant” individuals contributed to either if we are to judge simply by the content of the scriptures, unless we are just using the word “brilliant” to refer banally to people who likely have an above average iq or show some sort of creativity, and it could apply to people, say, like Joseph Goebbels. Do you think “brilliant individuals” contributed to Nazi ideology? Do you affirm Joseph Goebbels was “brilliant”? Or are you just expressing a foolish reverence for Buddhism?
And the assumption you have made that I have judged Buddhism as claptrap without investigating it significantly is false. My judgement of Buddhism as claptrap rests on a comprehensive investigation—reading original scriptures and sympathetic authors throughout history, and related political and historical literature. An investigation more thorough than the ideology requires or deserves before one could reasonably declare it claptrap. I am a curious spirit.
Jeffrey, I don't know whether you are "some kind of sociopath", but you do seem a little hasty to rush to harsh judgments of other people about whom you clearly know very little.
Interestingly, one of the key messages of Buddhism is that it's possible to overcome that tendency to harshly judge people without evidence; indeed, by doing that, you also might stop harshly judging yourself, and that in turn might lead to greater personal happiness, leading in turn to a certain degree of gratitude, which tends to manifest as a greater interest in being kind and helpful towards others.
Some forms of Buddhism don't practice meditation at all; the Santi Asok sect in Thailand is one example of a very traditional, quite extreme form of Buddhism that bases practices on physical work rather than meditation. Others focus intensely on meditation; the Forest Monk tradition of Ajahn Chah being one good example.
Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today. I mentioned Matthieu Ricard - a thoroughly decent man, who you are welcome to try to smear and insult by association with various other people, if you wish.
You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.
You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like.
But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)
So before a lecture on not judging people harshly you imply that I may be some type of sociopath because I harshly judged someone you like? Did you learn that hypocrisy from studying Buddhism?
We clearly have different sentiments on Matthieu Ricard. The notion I have no evidence on his behavior — or lack thereof — is a bizarre assumption. He has already admitted to “regretting” it on his blog. Quite a long time after he engaged in it. The difference between him and I doesn’t seem to be the evidence, but the moral gravity. He feels hollow apologetics is sufficient. I do not.
It’s important to harshly judge people — especially when there is adequate justification to do so. Assuming a person doesn’t do the same thing as the person being harshly judged, a person neednt worry about judging themselves for it. And while people often times judge themselves excessively and too harshly, and can even be a manifestation of a brain illness, judging ourselves is *sometimes* part of the way non sociopaths can change and become better people. Some people actually don’t judge themselves harshly enough, such as Matthieu Ricard. That may sometimes be good for *their* “happiness”, but then again, much misery has come to others from people
with lots of power not judging themselves when they should — and people not judging people with lots of power when they should.
“ Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today.”
Certainly there isn’t, except for the particular people who have decided to embrace that literature and call it “Buddhist scripture”, such as yourself. You are welcome to do so. And I am welcome to call that irrational.
“ You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like”
Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve studied Buddhism; I wouldn’t be surprised if I have studied it more than you. And I will continue to insult it. It’s deserved. Just like Scientology deserves to be insulted. And Nazism. Do you have a problem with insult in general or just of what you worship?
“ But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)”
I cannot say I regret studying Buddhism anymore than I can say I regret studying Nazism. Again, I am a curious spirit.
“ You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.”
Great Buddhist teachers is a bit of an oxymoron, like Great Nazism teachers. Not all Buddhist teachers are horrible people, but preaching Buddhism is bad. Why don’t you want to read insults about the people you grovel? Sounds like “attachment” to me. You are failing at what your beloved teachers perniciously preach. Either you should futilely practice more or abandon the quixotic quest. I am guessing your devotion to the foolishness is way too strong for the latter, thus I will hypothesize you will proudly continue to eat your own face.
I was making a statement of my belief, which was opposed to your belief. And your aggressive response provides some evidence for mine being true. Thanks. I’ll have fun with it.
“Misanthropic rant” — “attention-seeking troll”. How easy it sometimes is to to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who preach against “the ego”.
It is actually “ego transcending” philosophies that are “misanthropic”, such as that of Tolle and Buddhism — displaying a deep disparagement of basic elements of the nature of the vast majority of humans. Only something inhuman could resemble the soul that they exult.
As for attention seeking—I do indeed have a need for loving and respectful attention from other humans. From you specifically, though, I do not. Your disrespectful attention may not provide for my needs, but it does serve as some evidence for that argument you were looking for.
Ego is present when and wherever an identity label is self-applied, right, left, center or anywhere else on any spectrum. It's the narcissism, the sense of entitlement, and most of all the victimhood mentality that is so damaging. CRT/DEI posits that justice is impossible and the world is an evil place, where racism is the source of every ill. Who wouldn't be miserable if they believed that? The authors miss the larger point. These unhappy people know full well that they're unhappy. They revel in it. They choose to be miserable because of the sense of romantic nobility they believe their suffering imparts to them. Having once been a Catholic, I understand how people (mis)use their own suffering, turning it into a proof of their own spiritual purity. It's sick, masochistic, and totally ego driven. I see some skeptics on here about Tolle. I get it it. I'm not into the woo-woo either, but having read his books, I can attest that they do contain wisdom, mainly because they are grounded in the established traditions of both Western psychology and Buddhism, not simply some claptrap made up by the author, as is so much in the self-help business world.
Buddhism is foolish clap trap. And there is no coherent monolith that is “western psychology”. And even while Buddhism is foolish clap trap, Eckart Tolle is not “grounded in Buddhism”— modern authors often just allude to Buddhism as a source of authority for their own made up garbage, even if Buddhism is garbage too. Because lots of people have a naive reverence for it.
Our “egos” are a prime motivator for all of us. No one is exempt. Except for perhaps people with a brain illness. I don’t think Tolle has a brain illness; he is either a charlatan or has a profound lack of self-awareness. Maybe both.
There is no coherent monolith that is Buddhism.
Some "Buddhist" ideas are claptrap, certainly. Nihilism and solipsism can both find justifications in ancient Buddhist texts, and both are clearly nonsensical worldviews.
However, there is also a great deal of valuable insight in Buddhist teachings and practices. This is a culture which has existed for over 2500 years. Many brilliant individuals have contributed to Buddhist scriptures, including some alive today.
Before dismissing all of Buddhism as "claptrap", I highly recommend you read Mathieu Ricard's little book, Happiness - just to give one example.
Well worth anybody's time.
🙂🙏
Matthieu Ricard? The former king of Tibet’s personal servant and translator? The guy who for decades enabled the manipulative predator Sogyal Rinpoche?
I would not imagine someone who could be “happy” while behaving like Ricard did would be well positioned to understand happiness - or at least my own. Perhaps if I were some peculiar class of sociopath who could live contentedly without deep personal attachments in a cave while delusional worshippers ritually fed me, I’d look into his book. Although I’ve read the works of other frauds, so maybe I’ll pick up a used copy and read it out of curiosity some day.
Foundational Buddhism is sufficiently homogenous to judge it as a monolith. Just as Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Islam. Or Mormonism. The distinct ideology that is found in the foundation of Buddhism is claptrap. Certainly everything said by any writer or philosopher that has expressed fealty to the Sith Lord Gotama isn’t claptrap. Just like not everything a Christian has written is claptrap. But it’s not meaningfully relevant in judging that Christian ideology is irrational and evil. I don’t care about the opinions of every random person in the past 2000 years who claims to represent the “true” Christian ideology. I suspect your opinion of “Buddhism” is probably as relevant to understanding Buddhism as a Mormon’s opinion of Christianity is to understanding Christianity.
One thing I’ll point out is that Buddhism didn’t first discover / invent / practice “meditation.” Even from Buddhist scriptures it’s clear that Gotama, or whoever invented Gotama, acquired their techniques of meditation from non Buddhists. Albeit it ultimately doesnt matter who first practiced meditation techniques, just like it doesn’t matter who first practiced whistling. But these days since Buddhism so often is associated with meditation, it’s a valuable thing to point out. Various forms of meditation are things some Buddhists do, not what Buddhism is. Just like how Hitler painted.
The biggest evils and horseshittery of Buddhism is found in its ethics, psychology, and eschatology.
And no one alive today has contributed to Buddhist scriptures. Just like no one alive today has contributed to Christian scriptures. I’d consider that an elementary classification flaw of what Christian or Buddhist “scripture” is, simply motivated by personal reverence. And no “brilliant” individuals contributed to either if we are to judge simply by the content of the scriptures, unless we are just using the word “brilliant” to refer banally to people who likely have an above average iq or show some sort of creativity, and it could apply to people, say, like Joseph Goebbels. Do you think “brilliant individuals” contributed to Nazi ideology? Do you affirm Joseph Goebbels was “brilliant”? Or are you just expressing a foolish reverence for Buddhism?
And the assumption you have made that I have judged Buddhism as claptrap without investigating it significantly is false. My judgement of Buddhism as claptrap rests on a comprehensive investigation—reading original scriptures and sympathetic authors throughout history, and related political and historical literature. An investigation more thorough than the ideology requires or deserves before one could reasonably declare it claptrap. I am a curious spirit.
Jeffrey, I don't know whether you are "some kind of sociopath", but you do seem a little hasty to rush to harsh judgments of other people about whom you clearly know very little.
Interestingly, one of the key messages of Buddhism is that it's possible to overcome that tendency to harshly judge people without evidence; indeed, by doing that, you also might stop harshly judging yourself, and that in turn might lead to greater personal happiness, leading in turn to a certain degree of gratitude, which tends to manifest as a greater interest in being kind and helpful towards others.
Some forms of Buddhism don't practice meditation at all; the Santi Asok sect in Thailand is one example of a very traditional, quite extreme form of Buddhism that bases practices on physical work rather than meditation. Others focus intensely on meditation; the Forest Monk tradition of Ajahn Chah being one good example.
Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today. I mentioned Matthieu Ricard - a thoroughly decent man, who you are welcome to try to smear and insult by association with various other people, if you wish.
You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.
You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like.
But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)
So before a lecture on not judging people harshly you imply that I may be some type of sociopath because I harshly judged someone you like? Did you learn that hypocrisy from studying Buddhism?
We clearly have different sentiments on Matthieu Ricard. The notion I have no evidence on his behavior — or lack thereof — is a bizarre assumption. He has already admitted to “regretting” it on his blog. Quite a long time after he engaged in it. The difference between him and I doesn’t seem to be the evidence, but the moral gravity. He feels hollow apologetics is sufficient. I do not.
It’s important to harshly judge people — especially when there is adequate justification to do so. Assuming a person doesn’t do the same thing as the person being harshly judged, a person neednt worry about judging themselves for it. And while people often times judge themselves excessively and too harshly, and can even be a manifestation of a brain illness, judging ourselves is *sometimes* part of the way non sociopaths can change and become better people. Some people actually don’t judge themselves harshly enough, such as Matthieu Ricard. That may sometimes be good for *their* “happiness”, but then again, much misery has come to others from people
with lots of power not judging themselves when they should — and people not judging people with lots of power when they should.
“ Certainly there are a great many people contributing to Buddhist scriptures today.”
Certainly there isn’t, except for the particular people who have decided to embrace that literature and call it “Buddhist scripture”, such as yourself. You are welcome to do so. And I am welcome to call that irrational.
“ You are under no obligation at all to study Buddhist practices or teachings, and you are welcome to continue insulting them if you like”
Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve studied Buddhism; I wouldn’t be surprised if I have studied it more than you. And I will continue to insult it. It’s deserved. Just like Scientology deserves to be insulted. And Nazism. Do you have a problem with insult in general or just of what you worship?
“ But in my experience, most people who take the time to study Buddhism don't seem to regret it; I know I don't. :-)”
I cannot say I regret studying Buddhism anymore than I can say I regret studying Nazism. Again, I am a curious spirit.
“ You may also have heard of some other great modern Buddhist teachers; I won't give you any more names, because I don't really want to read any more of your baseless insults about them.”
Great Buddhist teachers is a bit of an oxymoron, like Great Nazism teachers. Not all Buddhist teachers are horrible people, but preaching Buddhism is bad. Why don’t you want to read insults about the people you grovel? Sounds like “attachment” to me. You are failing at what your beloved teachers perniciously preach. Either you should futilely practice more or abandon the quixotic quest. I am guessing your devotion to the foolishness is way too strong for the latter, thus I will hypothesize you will proudly continue to eat your own face.
I don't see an argument here, just a misanthropic rant from another attention-seeking troll. Have fun with that.
I was making a statement of my belief, which was opposed to your belief. And your aggressive response provides some evidence for mine being true. Thanks. I’ll have fun with it.
“Misanthropic rant” — “attention-seeking troll”. How easy it sometimes is to to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who preach against “the ego”.
It is actually “ego transcending” philosophies that are “misanthropic”, such as that of Tolle and Buddhism — displaying a deep disparagement of basic elements of the nature of the vast majority of humans. Only something inhuman could resemble the soul that they exult.
As for attention seeking—I do indeed have a need for loving and respectful attention from other humans. From you specifically, though, I do not. Your disrespectful attention may not provide for my needs, but it does serve as some evidence for that argument you were looking for.