Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Amsterdam. But No Hamsters. Damn!

NOTE: The email address I had for the Nijmegen event before was wrong. It has now been corrected.

This is a photo of me in front of a porno shop in Helsinki owned by the father of the lead singer of HIM. Note the HIM logo in the window.

I arrived in Amsterdam last night and am now safely ensconced in a secret location near the German border. Below are the events I'll be doing while stationed in this location. First I will undertake a dangerous and highly secretive border-crossing into Germany under cover of night (or possibly by train in the morning) for a talk in the city of Wuppertal. Then I will attempt to return the Netherlands under heavy enemy fire, crouching to avoid the barbed wire for a day of Zenning in Nijgemen. Here is the schedule and pertinent contact info:



GERMANY
•June 12, 2010 - Wuppertal "talk and zazen afternoon" from 1 to 6 p.m. Talk from 1 to 2 p.m. 6-8 € for the talk or 20-25 € for the whole day info at http://yoga-schlossluentenbeck.de/seminare/zazentag.html

HOLLAND
•June 13, 2010 - Zazenkai in Nijmegen 9am - 5 pm - Kapelruimte, Erasmusiaan, Nijmegan. Contact: hannyvandeweerdt@gmail.com

As always, the full schedule of my tour can be found at http://web.me.com/doubtboy/Site/BookTour_2010.html.

The Internet Gods are being bitchy and refuse to allow me to update my page at the moment. But the only important thing missing right now is that the first upcoming date is in Wuppertal, Germany. I left out the name of the city, so that on the current version I just appear to be doing a gig in "Germany" without any specific location (though there is a webpage listed where you can get that info).

Of course, as an American, I am inclined to believe that Germany is a city somewhere near Australia (also a city) and that they drink lots of beer there and dress in yak fur while using giant axes to fight off packs of ravenous wolves. Holland is where lesbians come from.

Some have asked why there's no event planned in Amsterdam. That, my dear Grasshopper, is a tale in itself.

The folks who invited me to The Netherlands did set up a day of Zen for me at a Zen place in that sinful city of hash smoking and prostitution. However, it turned out that the Zen place was run by a dharma heir of Genpo Roshi. I didn't know this until I posted my recent piece of criticism about Big Mind®. That's when the folks who were setting things up told me.

I said I was a little apprehensive about running a Zazen-kai at the place but that I would still do it. I told the folks who were organizing the event, though, that they ought to tell the people who run the center about who they were dealing with (i.e. me, a person who is known to hate Big Mind®). I had no intention whatsoever of using the event as any kind grandstanding tirade against Big Mind®. I'd have just done my normal thing, which people who've seen me live and in-person can assure you, is rarely* any kind of forum for Big Mind® bashing.

My understanding is that the aforementioned dharma heir himself was not too fussed about my using his place (I could be mistaken, I'm just relating what I was told, please don't take what I'm saying here as authoritative concerning his opinions). But some of the folks who go there thought it was just horrid that someone who so disrespected Mr. Genpo would be allowed to set foot in their space. As a result the people who had arranged the Zen day for me -- and not the folks from the Zen center in question or its teacher -- canceled the event so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.

This is an interesting example of how an idea can control people in much the same way a domineering and authoritative leader can do so, thus allowing the leader himself to seem above such things. Which is my way of saying that while Genpo Roshi himself does not appear to have given any orders to his followers to ban me from Amsterdam, the results have turned out quite the same as if he had. In other words the idea that I might offend someone succeeded in barring me from a place to run a standard-issue zazen-kai in Amsterdam. I'm not barred every place in town, certainly. But in the real world you don't have access to every place in town. And when you set something up & it gets canceled at the last minute it's hard to get something else together. This is something the folks who complained about me understood.

Now please understand me. It is their place. They have every right to decide who can and cannot use it, for any reason they choose. They owe no one any explanations. Absolutely none. If Genpo wanted to run a Big Mind® thing at a place I owned I would certainly say "No." If, on the other hand, he wanted to give a talk or run a standard zazenkai there, I would probably have no problem with that. I say "probably" here because I do not have such a space to offer Mr. Genpo or anyone else. So this is purely hypothetical. Problems like this are a big part of why I do not have any permanent Zen center of my own.

In the end the zazenkai I'm running in Nijmegen is actually filling up so fast it helps make up for the lack of a venue in Amsterdam. We're already way over the number of expected sign-ups and quickly nearing capacity for the space that has been rented (so sign up soon if you want to come). Even so, I do not attract anywhere near the crowds that Mr. Genpo does when he hosts an event in The Netherlands. I am told he gets literally thousands of people at his Big Mind® events and retreats here. I don't even get a tenth of that.

Which is to be expected. Fantasy sells. Excitement sells. The promise of Enlightenment sells. Actual Zen practice is hard to sell. And that's a fact.

I mention this not because I'm jealous of Mr. Genpo's popularity. If you want to assume that I am, I can't stop you from assuming that. I'm saying it to point out that I am just a little lap dog yapping at a line of tanks here. Nobody really cares much what I think, which is why I'm not weeping big tears whenever someone makes a comment about how awful it is that I would dare criticize such an eminent master. What I say about Big Mind® will make no difference at all to Mr. Genpo's bank account. There's no need to worry about him. It's just me expressing my opinion to an audience that in his world counts as "nobody" (i.e. you nice folks)**. And, by the way, I am right.

I've explained what I feel about Big Mind® enough already. So I'm not gonna do that again. If you think you can get Enlightened just like Buddha in a single day for a bunch of money, I can't help you very much anyhow. I would prefer not to have to deal with people who entertain those kinds of fantasies.

And I also want to point out that my problem is with Big Mind® and how it presents Zen in a deceitful way, not with how Genpo and his lineage practice when they aren't doing Big Mind®. Being a strict Soto guy I'll admit I also have some minor quibbles about that, too. But those I consider to be relatively unimportant and not worthy of discussion. It's when you try to dishonestly sell Zen as spiritual fast food that you incur my impotent and largely meaningless wrath.

Anyway, a couple people are trying to set up a small scale talk or some such thing in Amsterdam on Thursday. I'll keep you posted as to whether that happens.

Oy! Can you believe it took me all God damned day to write this piece of shit? I really need to get going. My host said there's a cool heavy metal shop nearby that I just have to see! Bye!



FOOTNOTES

*The word "rarely" here equals never, ever.

**I was told once by someone who knows about the spiritual celebrity business that I "don't even show up on the radar" as far as the "big boys" are concerned.

235 comments:

1 – 200 of 235   Newer›   Newest»
Mumon said...

Have you been to the Port of Amersterdam?

Was Jacques Brel right?

Mumon said...

Amsterdam....Amsterdam...I was first

Mumon said...

And...on topic...

The promise of Enlightenment sells.

Sure does; many mentioned it at the Portland Buddhist Festival.

It reminds me of the Monty Python "nudge nudge" sketch. At some point I was tempted to speak up indignantly, "Excuse me, are you insinuating something?" But I kept my mouth shut...it wasn't my venue.

Frank said...

"I was told once by someone who knows about the spiritual celebrity business that I "don't even show up on the radar" as far as the "big boys" are concerned."

Gudo was just yanking your chain..

Fregas said...

Once again your down to earth honesty and rationality are refreshing in a world of "spiritual fast food" and religious extremism. Let it be known that there are other reasonable people out there that do listen to people like you and don't fall for the scams, people who are willing to put in the hard work that is true spiritual practice.

I think you hit the nail on the head that the people looking for that kind of quick fix can't be helped anyway.

Just as an aside, I first got into meditation thru a book called "The Calm Technique" by Paul Wilson which has some practices similar to zen. In it he assures the reader there are no quick fixes and that the hard work and discipline involved is part of the REASON meditation works.

Yay real zen!

Blake said...

Hey Brad! I've been thinking of starting the Big Butt method and thought you could help?

Jinzang said...

I like Big Mind and I can not lie
You other Zen students can't deny
That when Genpo comes to town and sits us down
And has us talk in that other voice
I got not choice
But satori
Cuz it's Genpo who does it for me
So you fools can keep staring
At walls while you're wearing
That kesha
I won't miss ya
I'll be screwing your sister
While you be sitting there
With your knees in the air
And Brad talk the book he
wrote I'll be getting the nookie

info said...

I am a member of the center in Amsterdam where you were scheduled to speak. The mentioned dharma-heir and my teacher is Nico Tydeman. He's cool, and although he's a dharma-heir of Genpo, Genpo's influence is relatively small. We pretty much do our own thing here.
I think your speculations about how there's some informal mechanism at work here keeping you from the center is a bit paranoid. I don't know who decided to cancel. Heck, I don't even know who organised it in the first place. As I mailed you, the event was announced as cancelled in the newsletter of the center without further explanation. Nobody asked my opinion, that's what I know for sure though. Instead of a 20-minute bike-ride this would mean a 1,5 hour car-trip to Nijmegen. The talk there costs Eu. 20 on top of that. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's worth it. No offense, buddy.

Anonymous said...

Brad, man, B-rad! Come on! Collect Internet donations so you can go on a Big Mind retreat. Heck, if I had enough dough I'd pay for you to have the big 1 on 1 with Gempo. What a thing it would be. HCZ readers sponsor Brad Warner to attend a Big Mind retreat. Then you could write a very detailed and insightful article about your experience, point by point. Maybe even film a sock monkey interview with the Big Man. By taking pot shots from a distance you're just coming off as a little yap dog - scared and hesitant. The context undermines your message. Go meet Genpo Roshi then tell us what you think. If you choose to respond to this suggestion, please don't just knock it. How might this actually be helpful?

proulx michel said...

Info, read Brad's post more attentively. He specifically states that it is not the people so much as the ambience that such things create which causes the problem.

info said...

And where does he state that, specifically?
"This is an interesting example of how an idea can control people in much the same way a domineering and authoritative leader can do so, thus allowing the leader himself to seem above such things. Which is my way of saying that while Genpo Roshi himself does not appear to have given any orders to his followers to ban me from Amsterdam, the results have turned out quite the same as if he had. In other words the idea that I might offend someone succeeded in barring me from a place to run a standard-issue zazen-kai in Amsterdam."[....]
"And when you set something up & it gets canceled at the last minute it's hard to get something else together. This is something the folks who complained about me understood." Seems about people, not ambiences, these sentences. Also, his last sentence suggests that people complained about Bradhad some hidden agenda - sounds pretty paranoid to me! ....I am not defending Genpo (couldn't care less about the guy),or the people who are supposed to have complained about Brad coming (like I said, I never heard anything). But Brad's writing breathes that there is some Let's-sabotage-Brad-kinda scheme going on in the "ambience" where I practice. And that's nonsense, period. Maybe Brad should have his tours organised by people who are not put off so easily.

info said...

By the way, Brad, did you know that your books are in our library? No public burning as of yet...

gniz said...

Hey Info, don't you think it strange then that the event was cancelled with "no explanation" given? You supplied no reasonable explanation either, other than it just wasn't worth it. To who?

To the people who set it up? Was there not enough interest? Then why not just state that (even though it would seem unlikely, given that people usually go through with these things even when attendance is minimal)?

108 the merciless said...

Info: What, do don't think Buddhists have hidden agendas? Someone put the screws to Brad because they don't like him much. It seems likely that that someone told Genpo or one of his flunkies about who was going to speak at Kanzeon and they made some calls and killed the thing. They might have even waited to the last minute to do it. It waddles and quacks.

108 the merciless said...

That should read, You don't think Buddhists (can) have hidden agendas..

Anonymous said...

Brad writes "I'm not important."

People react: "What makes you think you're important enough to say you're not important?"

Oh, brother.

Doesn't this joke usually have a couple of rabbis in it?

Ran K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
info said...

That's the great thing about conspiracy-theories: you can never prove they are NOT true.
Meanwhile, some of you are living in downright scary realities...the last pockets of resistance before Genpo and and his sinister Z.P.E.C.T.R.E-organisation take over the few remaining free Zendo's....I wish you all the luck in your brave fight.

108 the merciless said...

info: Here's the thing.. Genpo is making lots of money now. It just makes sense that he would not want some little schmuck from Ohio coming into one of his places and talking shit about him. It could affect his bottom line. Canceling Brad is good business if not good Buddhism..

Petteri Sulonen said...

@info: then why was he cancelled? Things like this don't just happen for no reason.

You're in a position to find out. I (a complete bystander) would be very curious to know. Until then, you can hardly blame people for speculating, given the very public dispute between Brad and Dennis.

Anonymous said...

Wha-da-ya head for the nearest porn shop in every town ya land in? Doesn't your hand ever get tired?

Brad Warner said...

Jinzang, that is genius!

Brad Warner said...

Info, I'm not saying there was any conspiracy involved. There doesn't need to be. That's the beauty of it.

I've heard good things about Nico. And as I said, Nico did not cancel the event. It was canceled by the people who organized it for me.

I did not mention that a second event in Nijmegen was also canceled for similar reasons. It was to be held at a different place in the same lineage. In that case the event was moved to another location.

Whether Genpo is actually behind any of this, I don't know. But I hope he is. Maybe I'm bothering him. Good. Maybe he'll stop swindling people. But probably not.

Big Mind® is the single worst thing that's happened to Zen since it came to the West, bar none.

Brad Warner said...

...even worse than my books! And that's saying something!

Seeker said...

Ran K.:

I'm still quite fresh a student to the whole Zen thing, so I may be talking utter nonsense. Can't keep myself silent, sorry.

But: The problem starts when one insists for oneself that this Zen thing has to be good for something. Become a better person. Get enlightened. Become a Buddha. Become infallible. Gain magical abilities. Hover ten centimetres above the ground in the air.

The goal of Zazen is just sitting. Nothing else. One may do a myriad things during Zazen, however that is not the goal. Just like the Buddha himself: he just sat there, looked at the things around him, looked at the universe. He was completely free. (And not because his goal was to be free)

I think that Zen is not a method to uncover the mysteries of Life and the Universe. Zen is not a method to empower yourself. Zen is not a method to merge into the divine essence of being. These things may be consequences (maybe), but they are not the goal. The goal is to just sit, here, now. So, Zazen is indeed good for nothing. Why should you do it? You should not. In other words, there is no external dictate for you to do Zazen. People get happy in many ways.

... Sorry that I seem to reiterate thoughts of other people, in a kind of mangled way. The problem is that this whole matter is clear, but not so simple.

People have thoughts, and raise these thoughts to goals, then to gods. The thoughts get so material to them, they base their actions on them. But it is often near impossible to them to let these thoughts go once they become obsolete or don't quite fit. Or just to consider these thoughts in a harsh, realistic manner.

One such thoughts is: "Every of one's actions has to have a clearly defined goal". It's generally a good thought, because it's useful in most circumstances to think about what you want to achieve with a certain action.

But what about when the goal of an action is not that obvious? Should you still perform that action? And what about the consequences of the action that you did not think of? Should you not do anything anymore because your actions may have unintended, bad consequences?

The reason for this argument is not to make one not do anything anymore, but to point out that the generally good thought of "Every of one's actions has to have a clearly defined goal" has weaknesses and hidden properties, blurry areas so to speak, that make it unfit for a general maxime of life. So, I believe that for this reason, Zen literature is highly critical of this thought. There are many such "traps" in the workings of a mind that Zen philosophy tries to steer people around or keep them out of.

Mumon said...

If this is where Buddhism leads - what is the good of Buddhism?

It's not where Buddhism leads...
To suppose that is where "Buddhism leads," is another form of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

anon #108 said...

I'd like to share my thoughts.

Brad wrote, "...the people who had arranged the Zen day for me -- and not the folks from the Zen center in question or its teacher -- canceled the event so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.

I thought, "OK. A shame, but understandable, I guess. Reasonable of Brad to appreciate and clarify that".

Brad the wrote, "This is an interesting example of how an idea can control people."

And I thought, "Oh - he's making a bigger point. I wonder what it is." Brad didn't elaborate.

Brad then wrote, "And when you set something up & it gets canceled at the last minute it's hard to get something else together. This is something the folks who complained about me understood."

I thought, "That sounds a little paranoid...but possible. They didn't cancel the gig though."

Three different reactions from Brad...I thought.

Mumon said...

Seeker:

I think that you've got what you're supposed to be doing during zazen with the reasons why one would do zazen at all.

Despite what some, such as Shunryu Suzuki wrote about zazen, I don't believe that this in any way encompasses the Soto view.

You're in the right neighborhood as far as diagnosing the problem is concerned, though, which is bound up in the Four Noble Truths.

Harry said...

Hi Brad,

If you demonize someone in an unreasonable way (i.e. judgment based on reactions to your own values and not having actually met the person... you seem to have a 'virtual' impression of Genpo), and if you tell them 'Fuck you!' in an inherently unreasonable way, then there may just be unreasonable effects.

You've heard of the laws of cause and effect, right?

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not gloating at the loss of your gig, but, suck it up like a big boy, whining about it makes you look pretty foolish after all your hard man talk IMO.

See you in Belfast, where we were always reasonable and respectful in our dealings with each other!

Regards,

Harry.

Seeker said...

Hello Mumon,

Thanks! It would be interesting to me if you could even clarify a bit: Which area of the soto view is different? And, if you may, what concrete relation do you see to the Four Noble truths?

Anonymous Bob said...

"Big Mind® is the single worst thing that's happened to Zen since it came to the West, bar none."

The rhetoric is escalating..

CAPTCHA : sheetstk : I kid you not

Oldish Newbies said...

To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts...

My reading of Brad's post on the matter of the event getting cancelled and an 'idea' controlling people:

Some folks have gotten something into their heads (call it an idea) and pass it on or amplify it by, in this instance complaining to others with some affinity to the complainers, and then those others feel it best to cancel said event.

Of course as Harry has pointed out, it can be reasonably claimed that Brad's polemics against Big Mind have helped to amplify the matter also and maybe reinforced whatever we are understanding as the 'idea' that controls folk.

I don't get the impression that Brad is or w unaware of that there would be consequences - forseen and unforseen - from his polemics or the style in which they were delivered. I seems that he's constantly adjusting the volume control on the amp.

I'm the happy owner of two new kittens - Saphie and Nansen. Nansen has suddenly found the leap to get into the bin where all sorts of bad crap lie in wait. I'm going to have to get a cover for it pretty sharpish. But I found myself barking at him quite severely about an hour back, after he was leaping up there again and I'd put some broken glass in.

I should've thought about that before hand. Nevertheless, my bark scared both kittens enough that they've stayed away from the bin they were getting more obsessed about - for now at least.

It occurred to me that I'd been saying 'no' to the kits too nicely. Next time they get near some danger they've got a chance to leg it - I think maybe I've bruised some Kit-idea into them that might prove useful for another occasion.

I'll give them some ham and a stroke later to reinforce the other kit-idea they have of me. But I couldn't help feeling a little bruised by the anger in my bark that shot up a little too acidically. I'm working on that.

Wouldn't the world be so much easier if we all just walked around with our hats or somesuch on our feet, instead?

To quote Butters from South Park: Do you know what I am saying?

Anonymous said...

Brad said:
"my impotent and largely meaningless wrath"

Ah, yes, the power of ambience...

john e mumbles said...

re; Petteri at 1:59 PM: "the very public dispute between Brad and Dennis."

I think its a dispute Brad has with (Genpo) Dennis, not Genpo with Brad. Has he ever responded to Brad (trolls on this comment section claiming to be him don't count)? Not to my knowledge. I may be wrong, but this seems to be a one-sided "dispute."

& What the FUCK is a "Heavy Metal shop"???

&& Jesus Christ, Jinzang, how embarrassing.

Oldish Newbies said...

Johon e mumbles said: "I may be wrong, but this seems to be a one-sided "dispute."

Then it would probably be better to characterise that Brad is mainly making people aware of the situation, rather than having a dispute. It seems that folk want to characterise it as a dispute for obvious reasons.

I can't tell you how much I want England to win on Saturday, and how pissed I'll be if they don't, and I'll probably feel a bit anti-yank for a while too if they beat us US! I love the World Cup.

The Rinz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anon #108 said...

Hi oldish newbies,

To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts...

Oh...by 'thoughts' you thought I meant judgements.

Sorry to disappoint.

Anonymous Bob said...

It always surprises me when we can find enough interested people in this country to suit up a team.

CAPTCHA : ingridas :I kid you not

Mumon said...

Seeker:

I'll take the easy one first...

The goal of the Soto Zen lineage (not the formal Sotoshu - let's not go there) as a Buddhist school is the same as any other Buddhist school: the transcendence of dukkha, often rendered as "suffering."

This may be aided with the practice of zazen, which, in the Soto school shikan taza indeed "has no goal," as you said.

what concrete relation do you see to the Four Noble truths?

The 2nd. The cause of suffering/dukkha is attachment. Wanting to get in any circumstance, even if what you get is the desire to get nothing.

(Hint: If you're practicing zazen and you're actively trying to practice without a goal...that too may be turned into a goal.)

But for the real, branded Soto-lineage answer, please depend on Ven. Warner and his dharma siblings; I'm a Rinzai guy myself.

But I would be surprised if Brad were to give an answer that is completely different than what I'm saying.

anon #108 said...

At the moment the gentlemen of England are engaging the gentleman of Bangladesh in a Test cricket series.

Against this titanic struggle what possible importance could a game of kick-about have?

Jinzang said...

Nobody denies Genpo is a Buddha.

What? Genpo is NOT a Buddha. Neither is Brad. There are many levels of understanding. Satori, kensho or whatever you call it is just the first step on a long journey. I can't say what level either of the guys are at (certainly beyond my level) but I'm sure it falls far short of Buddha's. Let's not deify some very human teachers and then we won't be disappointed when they demonstrate they are only human.

I recall that the Dalai Lama was asked his opinion on how many have attained the Buddha's level since he died and he said about 1400, and most of them shortly after the Buddha's death, when the dharma was most potent.

Oldish Newbies said...

To #108

I read your post and expected further comment, which may have included judgements or not.Your post read like someone concealing their judgements.

I doubt very much that you were sorry to disappoint me. You don't have to be so brittle, you know.

To Rinz

Bring it on! Rooney's so pent up, your back four are going to be wetting themselves after 10mins. Ingerland, Ingerland, Ingerlaaand - come on!!!

Jinzang said...

Jesus Christ, Jinzang, how embarrassing.

I like Dogen and I can not lie
All you Rinzai students can't deny
When you ask yourself if stupid dog
Is a buddha or not
or that stupid frog
Who went plop
just stop
And watch your mind ...

anon #108 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anon #108 said...

Your post read like someone concealing their judgements.

Really not, ONs. If you read carefully, I think you'll find plenty of evidence of judgement in my thoughts - if that's what your looking for.

I doubt very much that you were sorry to disappoint me. You don't have to be so brittle, you know.

Back atcha ;)

Jinzang said...

Big Mind® is the single worst thing that's happened to Zen since it came to the West, bar none.

Have to think that the sex scandals in the 80's were much, much worse.

anon #108 said...

Hi Jinz,

What? Genpo is NOT a Buddha. Neither is Brad. There are many levels of understanding. Satori, kensho or whatever you call it is just the first step on a long journey..."

NOW you're talking!

So a Buddha is someone who has attained a state of insight/awareness/understanding denied to all but a very very few?

That's not my understanding of buddha. FWIW, it's not Dogen's understanding either, as I understand him. In fact, I wonder if such people have ever existed.

...On second thoughts, there undoubtedly have been individuals who have achieved, or been gifted with levels of understanding I will never achieve - I'm thinking of great scientists, philosophers and artists. I also imagine there have been some very content people throughout history...and some very wise people, very many of whom will never have practised meditation or heard of Buddhism.

So what can it be - this Buddha level of ultimate enlightenment that maybe only 1400 people shortly after the Buddha's death enjoyed?

The Buddha-ism that means something to me, and works for me, is a far more ordinary, everyday business, and no less wonderful. But that's just me. Mileage clearly varies.

pinoybuddhist said...

"I like Big Mind and I can not lie
You other Zen students can't deny
That when Genpo comes to town and sits us down
And has us talk in that other voice
I got not choice
But satori
Cuz it's Genpo who does it for me
So you fools can keep staring
At walls while you're wearing
That kesha
I won't miss ya
I'll be screwing your sister
While you be sitting there
With your knees in the air
And Brad talk the book he
wrote I'll be getting the nookie..."

bppp bsssh bppp bppp bsssh bsssh bppp bsssh bppp... (I'm beat-boxing)

Oldish Newbies said...

To #108

Of course I'll read things into what you write, especially when you decide to give a partial account of your thoughts.

After all, I don't think I'm straying too far when I read "Three different reactions from Brad...I thought" and feel the writer has some opinion on the matter he's not sharing.

I paid sufficient attention to your post. And if I'm off the mark you can clarify.

It's the writer's job to take care of the implicature he generates and not resort to insulting the reader. Hence requests for further clarification in discussions.

I do find the dharma battle attitude in responding a little tiresome. With sincere respect, and I'm not just referring to your posts, like a kind of passive aggressive bitchiness - a sort of flip-side to say, Stephanies overt displays.

Maybe I should have underlined the 'so' in brittle. You strike me, at times, to be very brittle.

john e mumbles said...

Way to go Jinzang. Looks like you've started a trend. There's only one M&M and he made a terrible movie (no, Vanilla Ice doesn't count), If Buddhist rappers were even a remote possibility, your Karmapa would've busted a potent rhyme by now...

My brother-in-law left the States today for Africa. Hope he finds "enlightenment" at the "soccer games."

mountaintop_oyster said...

Oiii WTF?
I come back here after a few months and find troll gniz is Brad's buddy and his old fanboy Harry is raking him over the coals! Is this like the twilight zone or what?

Zenleo said...

You are doing well Brad... Just a normal Punk Rock Buddhist! Who needs corporate Zen amyway? Small business Zen is much better.

anon #108 said...

Hi again, ONs,

...like a kind of passive aggressive bitchiness - a sort of flip-side to say, Stephanies overt displays.

I hear that you react negatively to something about the way I write, how I express myself. No surprise, then, that I react to your 'style' similarly. Never having met, there seems to be something about each other we don't like. I'm guessing the mirror principle may be at work, and we may simply be recognising aspects of ourselves in each other.

I quite often write in a style I think is witty - even funny. If it comes over as smug or worse, an attempt at 'dharma-battle', that's a shame...for me. It's just my idea of cute.

Re my "thoughts" post, however, I do think you misread it - I mean read into my intentional refusal to condemn or support Brad's comments on the gig cancellation something disingenuous. I can only promise you that what I wrote is what I honestly thought. No more nor less. I had no condemnation, or passive/aggressive innuendo in mind.

You strike me, at times, to be very brittle.

Guilty.

anon #108 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anon #108 said...

PS, ONs -

You suggested I might clarify the 'implicature' of my post. So -

I finished the post with this:

Three different reactions from Brad...I thought.

That summary was meant to suggest that Brad's reaction to the gig cancellation was confused, inconsistent. That, if anything, was my conclusion, my judgement. If I didn't hammer the point, that was because I also wanted to make a more general point (in response to the criticisms of 'info') about the tendency to rush to judgement on blogs; to analyse and assess, then approve or dismiss others behaviour. I listed my reactions and presented them as just that: reactions/thoughts.

Who knows why, but that's the observation I chose to make, and that's the way I made it.

Oldish Newbies said...

To #108

What I found disingenuous was not your original on Brad's post.

When I wrote:

"After all, I don't think I'm straying too far when I read "Three different reactions from Brad...I thought" and feel the writer has some opinion on the matter he's not sharing."

I was, in other words pointing out that of course you were intentionally refusing to comment either way; that your post was written in such a way as to lead a reader to think you had thoughts on the matter you weren't disclosing. There was therefore no need to insult me by suggesting I read properly next time, after having also implied in a manner I took as zen-condescension, that I was merely reading myself into your text.

Just because you didn't make any written judgements, doesn't mean that you haven't given a strong impression that you had some you weren't sharing.

It is your response to my posts which I found disingenuous and insulting. And it is in your responses to criticism that I was referring to when I was talking about the dharma battle style and passive aggressive and so on and Stephanie etc.

For example, you say you are trying to be witty or cute when you write. But if you also admit to being brittle, doesn't that suggest that you may also often respond through annoyance and arrogance and mask it through your writing strategies?

I bristle at insults like anyone and try mostly to be open and direct when I respond in disagreement: your last post felt much more sincere and was sort of a relief to read even if I had issues with what was written: you were being a more open writer clarifying your point rather than resorting to, say, a barbed cuteness.

I don't think there's a need to use the 'mirror principle' to explain that when you insult someone they may come back and say you can be insulting - the form of which may be overt or covert. One could as easily speculate that one reacts negatively to manifestations of aspects one doesn't have or hasn't developed.

Either way, the leap into terminology may be to the point.

And I think this is a bug-bear for me: I read someone like Stephanies posts over time and find her to be increasingly articulate and studied, yet at heart the same drama seems to keep unfolding in her posts, with ever more deft, self-justifying strategies, to a point I have often found painful to read. In fact I stopped reading the comments section for a while when she was posting and others seemed to be baiting her. I don't know her, but that's what comes across in her posts.


cont...

Oldish Newbies said...

It seems that there is a tendency towards getting zen intellectually that outstrips the practice muscle, and that that intellectual facility keeps trying to mask the gap between another little 'breakthrough' and a large need to over-estimate that breakthrough. And then others get insulted with ever more zen-like showy disclaimers or justifications.

Others however, whatever style they choose, often write in a more direct and open way when responding to real or imagined challenges, and they are often the ones who have been practising for some years. And if not, their playfulness is more manifestly playful. I'm not against being playfully 'zen' per se. I'm referring to responses made to other posters.

Often, there seems to be a good deal of intellectual show in responses, with faux zen humility or double-faux 'I can say fuck off too like Brad' thrown in, or an ironical 'I've just out-zenned the fool' nod and wink to others maybe the writer feels on a par with.

And less honest or sincere disclosure to even the scales. And that seems a shame considering the way Brad presents Zen in his posts and books.

Don't forget when I wrote in my first post "To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts..." and then followed it up with some of my own views, I don't think that could be considered insulting or arrogant.

If you tease me at the start of your post with the words that imply you are going to share your views, and then intentionally withhold them, aren't you inviting readers to tease you back and suggest you give them - even if you claim to not have had any, later? You have been forthright before in your views.

I have enjoyed the studied aspect of some of your posts. I have for some time now decided to drop the books and just do the sitting for a good while, and as a consequence I find tid-bits of learning and views on Buddhist writing quite tasty these days. But what about the beginners mind and its open, direct generosity - even in disagreement.

Steph's labia said...

Leave me out of your juvenile meanderings!

Oldish Newbies said...

To #108

Here's your first response to me:

"Hi oldish newbies,

To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts...

Oh...by 'thoughts' you thought I meant judgements.

Sorry to disappoint."

You reinforced that position with:


" 'Your post read like someone concealing their judgements'

Really not, ONs. If you read carefully, I think you'll find plenty of evidence of judgement in my thoughts - if that's what your looking for."

And now you write:

"Three different reactions from Brad...I thought.

That summary was meant to suggest that Brad's reaction to the gig cancellation was confused, inconsistent. That, if anything, was my conclusion, my judgement."

That's what I took it as to begin with: an implicit criticism of Brad's post. It was why I wrote in my first post that I thought you were going to share what you had suggested. I wanted to understand what you found inconsistent and why, as I didn't see it the same way. And then found your responses disingenuous and condescending.

108 the merciless said...

"The misanthropy amongst the trolls (or troll) is undeniable, but misogyny? I don't think a bit of silly guy nudge-wink about tits and willies amounts to misogyny."

well #108.. there is a certain angry fixation on one of the few females brave enough to frequent this old boy's club. I'm not sure whether it's about self hatred or misogyny but I don't think it's just a silly guy thing. It's darker than that.

Petteri Sulonen said...

@JEM: Genpo did respond to Brad (through his publicist). That was what inspired Brad to make his famous sock-monkey video, as a matter of fact; it included the famous line "Genpo is a Roshi and you're not even a Sensei."

perruche-verte said...

"Genpo is NOT a Buddha. Neither is Brad."

Jinzang! Didn't Padmasambhava say it is a mistake to speak of Buddhas and sentient beings as if they were different?

Hip hop and ya don't stop!

Anonymous said...

psh, and they say there's an alarming over-abundance of white-people in zen...

wait...



--matt

anon #108 said...

Fair enough, ONs. That's a very clear and thorough explanation of how things look from your side, and I've given mine. Shall we call it quits :)?


Hi merciless,

Yes, I left Stephanie out - my bad. I realised after I posted my comment that the misogyny thing might apply much more to one or two folks' reaction to her than to the tit comments, but I chose not say anything further.

So, what I think about the Steph thing is...

I believe the reaction would be the same if she were a guy. She attracts just as much assent and approval as she does negativity and teasing...usually much more. As she's very articulate and very opinionated - often aggressively so - I'm not surprised. Other women do occasionally post here, but none, to my recollection, get the same 'treatment'.

You might be right that there's something 'darker' going on in the mind of the one(?) person who appears to chase her round the Buddhist blogoshpere stealing her ID and stuff. But I don't think it's necessarily misogyny. There again, I'm not sure I understand misogyny too well.

If some guys react to Steph's style and/or content particularly badly because she's a woman, then I'm left wondering whether that's just in the nature of the beast, just like it's the nature of this Zen blog to be overwhemingly male. If it is, I'm not sure what's achieved by pointing it out.

My overall feeling is, as I said earlier: I believe the reaction, both positive and negative, would be essentially the same if she were a guy.

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Does this mean that you will be meeting Jundo for "Tea and Zazen" when you are in Japan next month? Or are you suffering from small mind® too much to do that?

Anonymous said...

A "strict soto guy"? Ha! You do not even have the proper ceremonies. And you "know why you`re not running a center"?
Strange Buddhism you offer here, man.

Marinus said...

I must admit that Nijmegen is a much less punk rock 'n roll city than Amsterdam..
Pity for the folks in Amsterdam, but for me it's just a 5 minute bike ride now :)

Looking forward to it!

anon #108 said...

One last thought or three, ONs -

If you read this in a friendly, nudge-wink kinda style (I'll add a smiley this time), it's really not so bad:

"Hi oldish newbies!

To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts...

Oh...by 'thoughts' you thought I meant judgements.

Sorry to disappoint ;-)"


...As the disappointment you felt was (a part of) what I intended, I hoped you'd hear the last remark not as a snarky, dismissive insult, but as a kind of joke - a joke that might cause the penny, as I saw it, to drop.

Communication on the net, particularly when it involves humour/irony/sarcasm, can be tricky. This:

"To #108 - I thought your were going to share your thoughts..."

might also be read as a condescending, provocative comment. That was my initial reaction - but not what I concluded. I concluded that you simply didn't get it, my initial post (fwiw I still think that: it's not a bad thing to be confused, as Brad seemed to me to be. It doesn't require censure or further analysis). Hence my reply, made in the spirit of yours...as I heard it.

Nevertheless and whatever, you've made some very interesting points. ONs. And some downright daft ones. Joke!!!....kinda ;)

Thanks.

Oldish Newbies said...

Misogyny/Misandry

I think what we call hatred of the opposite sex derives from evolutionary necessities that are wired into our brains along with our propensity for tribalism.

I also think modern society not only finds it difficult to square the fact of our animal instincts, drives or tendencies with our cultural idealisms, but distorts them too.

We talk about mysogeny (less so misandry) as though it were a purely negative aspect of outmoded social values.

I think the highly personal and intimate nature of an individual's sexual make-up, along with long-standing cultural taboos about sex make it difficult for society to explore the way we relate to each other in his regards.

What can make us hot can also make us hurt, in other words; and the psycho-sexual drama playing out inside us all, often becomes sublimated into other areas where we relate to others.

It seems only recently that feminist discourse has come to terms with the way females collaborate and perpetuate what they would call patriarchal modes, and this along with greater criticism of the way western women in particular express themselves in relation to men and other women.

One feminist whose name I forget got a lot of stick for suggesting that women take responsibility for the way they express their sexuality - eliciting condemnations that she was playing into the hands of those who crudely exploit the "She was asking for it" mentality.

I think Buddhism has a really useful place in the debates.

I'm thinking of the idea, often put forward by Brad, that there is sense in which we are all in some way responsible for what happens to us, the reality that we find or have wrapped around us, so to speak.

I think that too often this is conceived of as denoting only an individual's conscious choices, but those choices derive also from common, collective tendencies, both evolutionary and cultural, and when we identify less with ourselves as discrete and separate functions of our own will and balance that sense with what informs it, we find common ground even in our differences. And a common sense of responsibility for the often equal, unjust, or often unfortunate situations we may fall prey to, situations that have much in common with those that we often get much satisfaction and happiness from.

By daft analogy, if a woman really gets off getting down on her knees and worshipping at the alter of manhood, then maybe some poor bloke, somewhere, is also going to get his bit off by a woman whipped by the high priest into revolt. So to speak. It's not so much that that poor bloke might have been a very respectful guy, but that guys and girls all share, say, a collective karma, through which said guy can come to terms with such a damaging assault - root out of a potentially woman hating cycle for the rest of his life.

In other words, if its likely that a Stephanie is going to get a kick from gnashing at blokes balls, through the opportunity provided by, in this instance, a male dominated zen discourse, then it's as likely some very wounded fella is going to come barking, foamy mouthed back and not let go of the panty-hose -- never mind the rest of us peeved by the real or imagined slights, snipping back.

In the slow burning melee, much gets thrown about and distorted and the old cliches get revived from all sides.

Maybe it would be better if all we started by assuming our mysogeny/misandry, and focussed on 'how' and not 'if' it were informing our views and relations. And how it can come to distort our views on things like zen.

I have found the notion of 'love' and 'hate' being in balance, not only a useful way to understand practice, but a useful frame for behaviour with regard to such things as sexism, racism and interpersonal dynamincs. Those love/hate, oftem joyously or obsessively tender-aggressive behaviours we lump under sex, I find ripe for that way of viewing/participating in things too.

Steph's Labia said...

Please don't call me STEPH!

Jinzang said...

If Buddhist rappers were even a remote possibility, your Karmapa would've busted a potent rhyme by now...

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Karmapa do a rap video some day, Until then, Trungpa Rinpoche's sons did a decent video,

Jinzang said...

Didn't Padmasambhava say it is a mistake to speak of Buddhas and sentient beings as if they were different?

I don't recall that specifically, but I'm sure he must have somewhere or other. All beings have the same nature, which gets labeled "buddha nature." Ordinary people do not see this nature, Enlightened teachers have a glimpse of it Fully enlightened beings are buddhas and see all of it. So from the standpoint of what we ARE, there is no difference. From the standpoint of what we UNDERSTAND, there is.

Jinzang said...

That's not my understanding of buddha. FWIW, it's not Dogen's understanding either, as I understand him. In fact, I wonder if such people have ever existed.

There are many, many levels of delusion and correspondingly many levels of enlightenment. When a distinguished teacher says they are not enlightened, it's not a humble act. They appreciate how much they have yet to understand.

Seeker said...

To Mumon:

I think you put my ramblings about "no goal" into the greater context of dukkha and the Four Noble Truths, which is an interesting thought, and I'm grateful for that.

It is not important to me that I stick closely to Soto, but I think it's vital to know exactly where these specific points of the schools are.

The transcendence of dukkha is a difficult thing... as "being alive" itself implies dukkha, it's easy to cross over to the realm of religion, by stating that the ultimate goal is to become a Buddha in life, who is alive but not affected by dukkha, however that would work. Indeed, I think that large areas of Buddhism see this as their ultimate destination, but I'm not there and have no clear view about that for now.

About the danger of attachment to "no goal" - true. Another danger is the swamp of "anything goes", by saying that if it's not good to have a narrow-minded goal, and if it's not good to have "no goal" as goal, the goal does not matter, so "whatever". This is equally false... :)

Thanks again for your answers!

ONs said...

To #108

There is a difference between what I wrote and what you wrote.

My "I thought you were going to share your thoughts..." doesn't contain clear prompts for you to feel I was being condescending or that I was being sarcastic. It was a statement of fact, whose tone implied light criticism, both reinforced by me following that up with my own thoughts on the matter, where you left it open.

After all, it was your post which ironically played with the idea that you were going to share (write) your thoughts, but then intentionally withheld them. My response might have irked you, but it was in keeping with someone sharing your original playful tone and was not disrespectful.

However, in your first response

"Oh...by 'thoughts' you thought I meant judgements.

Sorry to disappoint ;-)"

we have a sarcastic 'Oh' followed up by an arrogant and peevish tone in the assertion "you thought". This with the underlying allusion to zen insight in that sentence. Never mind the sarcastic signing off, sugared with a ":-)"

The points you have made later to clear things up/defend yourself, could have been made earlier. But you preferred to play your games.

That is why I responded to those prompts with:

"I read your post and expected further comment, which may have included judgements or not. Your post read like someone concealing their judgements.

I doubt very much that you were sorry to disappoint me. You don't have to be so brittle, you know."

Note that I'm being direct and sincere here - my last point about me doubting your 'sorry' being a call to quit the sarcasm.

But to no avail.

Your response to that:

"Your post read like someone concealing their judgements.

Really not, ONs. If you read carefully, I think you'll find plenty of evidence of judgement in my thoughts - if that's what your looking for.

I doubt very much that you were sorry to disappoint me. You don't have to be so brittle, you know.

Back atcha ;)"

"If you read carefully" is clearly condescending.

"I think you'll find plenty of evidence of judgement in my thoughts - if that's what your looking for" back up that previous condescension with an attempt at reasserting your zen understanding at my expense: the pretence at agreement followed by the about-turn in "- if that's what your looking for" (another example of more than just playfulness).

You aren't prompting me to feel you are being critically equitable and generous, you are prompting me to feel inferior in my reading skills and my zen outlook. You are sniping, yet leaving the back door open with insincere gestures of friendliness, so that you can get away with it and still come across as zenny.

You then end with a typically passive aggressive tactic (under the cloak of zen mirroring I imagine), by implying that my response to your condescension, my openly irritated, "you don't have to be so brittle, you know" equates to the act that made me irritated in the first place - ie you're being brittle too ONs, I'm just having a laugh.

Which is why I pointed out later that there was a difference between bristling because someone is being rude to you and bristling because you amplified a comment someone made so that it lead you to be rude in the first place.

cont...

Ons said...

To #108 cont...

Now you write:

"...As the disappointment you felt was (a part of) what I intended, I hoped you'd hear the last remark not as a snarky, dismissive insult, but as a kind of joke - a joke that might cause the penny, as I saw it, to drop."

Don't you think it's a tad arrogant? So you were intentionally teasing a reader into a 'disappointment', in order to set them up to show how said reader can fall into the trap of reading his own judgements into it, and that so you can, in all your superior wisdom, get the penny to drop for him?

Come on!

You were being an arrogant clever dick. And I was refusing to play passive-aggressive ball. I maintained that you were obviously concealing judgements, and later you admitted to concealing them. If you don't like that interpretation, then it is encumbant upon you to be straight forward and drop the clever games.

Yes, using sarcasm and irony and playing linguistic games can be tricky. That doesn't mean the way you play and the way I play amount to the same thing.

"I concluded that you simply didn't get it, my initial post (fwiw I still think that: it's not a bad thing to be confused, as Brad seemed to me to be. It doesn't require censure or further analysis)"

What was there not to get? You were intentionally not exploring further in a clever-clever manner, by throwing it open. In response, I did the opposite and made some open comments about the cancellation/idea thingy in which I outlined what I thought wasn't confusion in Brad's post. That tweaked your ego and you got bitchy and condescending - as you have done with others.

So you're trying to cling to the high ground by stating you still think I don't get it!

When you use irony, sarcasm and play games as you do, often folk aren't going to get it simply because those games have left a multiplicity of potential interpretations. That doesn't mean that the myopia is with the reader, who has asked for clarity, but with yourself, for assuming/claiming/implying what you write is of a grade that shows up the inadequacies of those who miss your point.

What happened to: "Fair enough, ONs. That's a very clear and thorough explanation of how things look from your side, and I've given mine. Shall we call it quits :)?" ??

What happened was that you haven't been sincere, as you weren't there, hence your desire to continue. And I happen to have enough time on my hands to not accept that insincerity. It's given me the brain work out I needed. I'm long in the tooth enough to know that stuff I write isn't going to change your attitude - and besides, that wasn't why I was writing.

I enjoyed standing my ground. For what it's worth in my last post on these comments - hence this biggy - I think if you keep at it, like Stephanie, there's that painful brick wall awaiting both of you.

Good luck - I needed it once.

anon #108 said...

Jesus, ONs, I tried.
I really did.

I'm just a bad person. Whatever.

Ran K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank said...

ONs.. I think you might be imagining some things..

Either that or I'm imagining that you're imagining things.

Anonymous said...

Three weeks into his personal search for his daughter in Nepal, Colorado lawyer Paul Sacco keeps running into this: The last trace of 23-year-old Aubrey Sacco was at a hotel a day after she began hiking in the Asian country in April.

Still, Paul Sacco plans to keep looking, buoyed by his belief that someone must have noticed the outgoing, 5-foot-tall artist and yoga instructor sometime after that. He also was given hope by the local Buddhist monks, who tell him they sense she's alive and still in Langtang National Park.

Over 200,000 Nepalese girls have been sexually trafficked to red light areas of India. In the 21st century, women, mostly from South America, Southeast Asia, and the former Soviet Union, are trafficked into the United States for sexual slavery. In some cases American citizens are tricked into becoming sex slaves. Today the United States State Department estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 women and girls are trafficked each year in the United States as sex slaves.

Dutchman Joran van der Sloot, long the prime suspect in the 2005 disappearance of a U.S. teen Natalie Holaway in Aruba, has confessed to killing a young Peruvian woman in his Lima hotel room.

Van der Sloot recently posed as a sex-industry scout claiming that he could get passports for Thai women and girls who think they are going to the Netherlands to work as dancers DutchNews.nl reported.

Van der Sloot made about $13,000 for every woman sold into prostitution in the Netherlands.

Ran K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ran K. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john e mumbles said...

Ran, your sloganeering is tired.

I have BVI (blind and visually impaired) friends and hang out and work with them every day and they get around nicely on their own, thank you, without anyone guiding them, including each other.

Your comments are unthoughtful, condescending, hateful, offensive, and decidedly non-PC.

You obviously need to educate yourself on these and other points before you post your ignorance here for all to SEE.

Harry said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFYBLwb3I84

captcha: wardio

Anonymous Bob said...

John e: I just want to make it clear that if I don't respond to your post that is not to be interpreted in any way.

Just so you know.

CAPTCHA : pater : I kid you not

Anonymous Bob said...

Harry.. Nice. I kid you not.

He said...

108's like: Just a couple of thoughts...
oldish newbies goes: Is that it? Not good enough.
108's like: Well, excuse ME!
oldish newbies: I BEG your pardon??!! How DARE you talk to me like that, you snotty prick. MORE!
108: That's all I got. Sowwy.
oldish newbies: LIES! I see your game. You think I don't know what you're up to???
108: B-but...I only meant...
oldish newbies: LIAR!!! Let me tell you a thing or two, young man....................
108's like: Oh dear.
mumbles goes: Good mornin! And while we're at it...Ran K, you non-PC piece of shit!
Harry's like: Sing Elton. Sing! Nurse! Happy pills!
Bob's like: Yeah...nice.

Anonymous said...

This is what zazen does to your brain? I'll stick to drugs.

Harry said...

Listen to Elton, drugs are not neccesary...CAN...YOU...FEEL...IT... like, TONIGHT...(the love, I mean).

captcha: tuders

(As in, 'tuder rose', the House of Windsor, 'Candle in the Wind', eh?, eh?... I kid ye notteth!)

Regards,

Harry.

Anonymous Bob said...

He: Yeah...nice.

gniz said...

The back and forth between Oldish Newbies and #108 has been kind of riveting. The two different conversational styles and the resulting "misunderstandings" have sort of been like watching Frazier vs Ali back in the day. Bobbing and weaving vs pure power and frontal assault.

It's interesting that when two people have some weird kind of chemistry--be it positive or negative--they are able to communicate at levels which most of us don't see or pay attention to.

Some of these levels may be imaginary to one or both parties, or they may exist. Oldish Newbies last post analyzing the whole back and forth was almost a work of art...and yet having corresponded with Anon 108 before many times, I somehow don't think he really intended all of that in his banter.

But then again, maybe sometimes it is in fact there and most people just don't care.

There are a lot of zennists who fancy themselves dharma combatants and try to show off their skills online. They kind of remind me of online "rappers" who write all their rhymes and do battle on the internet, which is really pretty ridiculous compared to the MCs that battle in clubs and on the street where you can actually judge their rhyming skills, vocal abilities, and charisma, as well as their speed of wit.

It's kind of the same here. Dharma combat or exchanged witticisms between Buddhists trying to show off their knowledge lose impact online to a large extent.

I mean, sometimes you even see people writing "..." to signify deep and meaningful silence...thats ridiculous. You cant be deeply silent in an online conversation had on a forum or blog comment section.

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, i enjoyed the conversation even if it did little to illustrate anyone's true understanding of zen or Brad's post. It was entertainment, which I think is just as important.

Anonymous said...

wow interpersonal conflict is so exciting guess that's why I keep coming here.

why is it so exciting?

captcha: sucks (yes, really!)

anon #108 said...

...I enjoyed the conversation.

Glad to have been of service, gniz :)

And glad you thought the conversation did little to demonstrate anyone's true understanding of zen. Whatever else I may've thought I was up to, it certainly wasn't that!

Oldish Newbiles said...

SEE!!!

That's just the kind of arrogant, condescending, insincere, manipulative, passive-aggressive clever-dick bullshit I'm talking about.

Good luck with that, 108.
You're gonna need it...you and your ball-buster girlfriend.

Hokai said...

@anon 108 and ON's : I think you should meet and drink a cup of tea together, maybe Brad and Jundo join in, not to forget Genpo, hey, we can invite Steph, maybe she brings a little girl power into the fight club. Or ...
lets do it with weapons...
man, I like this tough buddhists.

Allways interested in a fist fight,

Gerald

john e mumbles said...

ON: methinks you're just berating 108 for being himself, which he can't help being, its just his way. Would you rather he not comment at all? I mean, are you going to sit in wait shouting SEE! every time he writes something? Seems a bit obsessive & nit-picky to me.

Lay off or the poor boy might go back on the nod.

My berating of Ran, on the other hand, is perfectly justified, heh. ...Hmmnn, I've wondered before... do you suppose Ran and 108 are

the




same









person??!

Harry said...

I think this comments section consists of the voices of various aspects of one person, he being The Bradster, and that it needs BigMind (TM) to come in here and sort us conflicting inner demons out.

I am the Eggman, you are the Walrus: I hear you, Walrus, but I can't feel the love tonight... :-(

Regards,

Harry.

anon #108 said...

Thanks for the support, john e. Really. But I don't think "SEE!!! etc..." was ONs him/her/themselves. The nick is "Oldish Newbiles" - a bit of satire, I'm thinking.

SEE!!!

I seek fairness in all things - even in arrogant, condescending, insincere, manipulative, passive-aggressive clever-dick dharma combat.


But....Me




and Ran.......




the SAME PERSON???!!!

You go too far, my friend.

anon #108 said...

This walrus, Harry?

john e mumbles said...

Malcolm 108: Just funnin' ya, mate.
Ran is definitely his own man.... no, he's his own planet, illogically orbiting himself....

Had to try and lighten up this drag on the wheel of my good time's rollin.'

I'm with Harry, where's the love? Can't we all just get along? So this blog/comment section is really multiple-personality Brad the impaler playing with himself?? Sheeeeeeit.

anon #108 said...

Just funnin' ya, mate.

Me too, john e!

Can't we all just get along?

Yes, indeedy. Let's all grok together the multiplicity of the oneness of Universal Mind. May the rocket man transport us walruses (walri?) beyond the particular to the realm of the infinite and all-encompassing music of the spheres, wherein each melody is a thread in the eternally re-newing polyphonic tapestry of light and love.

Take it away Elton!
Take it away Barry!

Anonymous said...

Obedience, conformity, and the power of
Genpo Big Mind.

Anonymous said...

My berating of Ran, on the other hand, is perfectly justified..

no, not really mumbles.. You just don't like the guy since before you were born.

Anonymous said...

Enough already! Give us a break!

Anonymous said...

Who the fuck is Ray Griffin? What a stupid Douche-bag.

108 the merciless said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOoAOaJrWGI

chill babies..

john e mumbles said...

Hey Bernie/Jinzang, do you know (of) my old artist buds Blaster Al Ackerman, or Rupert Wondowlski, or Normals Bookstore et al up in Baltimore?

The Blaster is one of the Seven Secret Masters.

Li Bruno said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Brad,

Does this mean that you will be meeting Jundo for "Tea and Zazen" when you are in Japan next month? Or are you suffering from small mind® too much to do that?

Anonymous said...

Koan: what was your original face before becoming a big mind hater porno freak? HEHE

PS: the word verification was "dermon." I kid you not!!

Moon Face Buddha said...

Brad manages to blame HIS hosts cancellation of the event on the evil influence of Genpo.

WTF?

CynicalBoy said...

Oh no - it's Genpo
The Buddhists have gone crazy
Here we go again...

nitrocircus said...

YO!!!!

There is also a videoversion available of this comments section (I think Brad should change the name comments > WTF collective):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE4zF36dPxE


Pretty much says it all whats going on here or whooot?

Anonymous said...

@Oldish newbies

Wow.

Just because you can justify your reaction to 108's post with a word-by-word analysis doesn't make it right. It's just YOUR reaction. In YOUR head. When someone says "you don't get it" they don't have to mean you don't get the meaning of life, they just might mean you didn't hear what they said in the way they intended -- which you clearly didn't (yeah, sure, you think you did). When someone who says "I've said my last word" comes back and says another, how can they be trying to maintain the moral high ground? Just as likely they're giving it up, and know it. If anyone can push your buttons that easy you need to look within, bro. Misunderstandings happen -- even to intelligent people like you. Lighten up. Get over your righteous self.

R said...

read mumbles @ 10:58 pm.

I don't think it's worth an answer. (john e: “and what do you think this is?” … - well …)

Didn't know all the words but wouldn’t trouble my best friend on the web.

nitrocircus said...

Of course to make real impression you have to play the video on repeat mode so it goes on forever forever forever...

Anonymous Bob said...

Gniz wrote; "It's interesting that when two people have some weird kind of chemistry--be it positive or negative--they are able to communicate at levels which most of us don't see or pay attention to."

I was thinking about this and it seems to me that what happens is that people get an immediate impression from a post and then rather than letting it go as the brain fart that it really is, they grab on to it very tightly. They grab it because they want it to reinforce their false ideas about who they believe they are and who they imagine the writer to be. They don't see the post as action abstracted but as a real part of the person who wrote it. They want to respond to reinforce their own delusional ideas of themselves as a separate things. Obviously none of our thoughts are substantial. They become stories embellishing our imaginary selves. We habitually place ourselves in opposition to everything.

CAPTCHA : maidog : I kid you not

gniz said...

Hey Bob,

All I know is similar stuff happened between me and Mike Cross and I don't think it was to reinforce separateness, but rather, just a stylistic clash that happens. The same way two dogs sometimes meet and just don't like one another. Human just have an abundance of intellect to justify this "instant" dislike feature.

ANONYMOUS BOB said...

Hi Gniz, Yeah, it's complicated.. But When two dogs meet and don't like each other it usually isn't because of stylistic differences. It is usually because of things are neither one of them are too clear on. In other words it is subconsciously triggered and seems to have more to do with personality makeup than anything that was actually said.. Sometimes its instinctive territorial posturing like with your two dogs, but with internet chat it seems mainly to do with ego. Remember Brad's cartoon?

CAPTCHA : cuthero : I kid you not

By the way, I remember you were the first person to make note of the CAPTCHAs soon after they were introduced here.

Anonymous Bob said...

"All I know is similar stuff happened between me and Mike Cross and I don't think it was to reinforce separateness."

Well maybe so on your part.. but maybe not. I do remember MC having similar issues with many other bloggers. So my theory still holds with him. He was one guy who had a habit of always placing himself in opposition to others.

CAPTCHA : frest : I kid you not

Anonymous Bob said...

And come to think about it.. You weren't always the thoughtful, articulate, considerate voice that you are now. You were an ornery SOB blogger at one time.. I remember. Ha!

CAPTCHA : filthsavr : I kid you not

Anonymous Bob said...

CAPTCHA : iamawanker : I kid you not

Anonymous Bob said...

Nice Troll.. But always remember, You are a disturbed dude with a small penis.

CAPTCHA : andions : I date your Mom

Jinzang said...

do you know (of) my old artist buds Blaster Al Ackerman, or Rupert Wondowlski, or Normals Bookstore et al up in Baltimore?

Normal Bookstore, yes. Your buds, no.

Gabriel said...

A bunch of us decided to infuse a public place with the energy of peace, so we walked into a downtown Washington, DC bookstore and this is what happened. Hope you like it!

Frank said...

Gabriel: I felt the energy of peace even here on Brad's blog.

Crank it up! said...

O Fortuna,
just as the moon
Stands constantly changing,
always increasing
or decreasing;
Detestable life
now difficult
and then easy
Deceptive sharp mind;
poverty
power
it melts them like ice.

Fate—monstrous
and empty,
you whirling wheel,
stand malevolent,
well-being is vain
and always fades to nothing,
shadowed
and veiled
you plague me too;
now through the game,
my bare back
I bring to your villainy.

Fate, in health
and in virtue,
is now against me
driven on
and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour
without delay
pluck the vibrating string;
since through Fate
strikes down the strong,
everyone weep with me!

Moon Face Buddha said...

"Which is to be expected. Fantasy sells. Excitement sells. The promise of Enlightenment sells. Actual Zen practice is hard to sell. And that's a fact."

Actual Zen practice is hard to sell? Then stop treating it like a commodity!

gniz said...

"Actual Zen practice is hard to sell? Then stop treating it like a commodity!"

Have to admit, nicely said.

anon #108 said...

"What Brad said".
No.5 in an occasional series.

Surely Brad is using 'sold' metaphorically, as in 'promote'.

Or have I imputed incorrectly? It's easily done, I'm told.

anon #108 said...

SEE!!!

"What Brad said".
No.5 in an occasional series.


108 takes it on himself to be Brad's interpreter and spokesperson. Arrogant. Clever-dick.

Surely Brad is using 'sold' metaphorically, as in 'promote'.

Condescending. 108 thinks we don't know that - it's his job to explain it to us!

Or have I imputed incorrectly? It's easily done, I'm told.

Passive-aggressive snipe at those who unmasked his insincerity. Defensive too.

Grrr.

anon #108 said...

Sorry.
Couldn't resist.
I'll move on now.

anon #108 said...

Hey 108!

The whole "SEE!!!" follow up post was passive-aggressive/defensive. As was the post after that. As is this one.

WTF do you think you're playin at?!!

AND - - I thought you were "moving on".

Jeezus.

108 the merciless said...

Oh we all see through your bitter irony now #108.

anon #108 said...

Ain't life grand, merciless?

I mean that. Really.

Anonymous Bob said...

CAPTCHA : iammyownworstenemy : I kid you not

Anonymous Bob said...

Go away troll. I ain't got time for you now. Me and your Mommy are busy.. Know what I mean?

CAPTCHA : whersi : He probably doesn't

Mysterion said...

LOL

Mysterion said...

Life is a bean.

And herein dwell any number of bean sprouts.

Take it from a has bean, get a life.

Anonymous said...

Long time no comment, mysti.

When sitting, just sit.
When eating, just eat.
When posting on Brad's blog, just post on Brad's blog.

elivsexpressly said...

Anonymous Bob, you're a coward, not to mention the worst kind of troll.
Hiding in the dark place of the internet and talking about people's mothers? You must have the smallest dick in the world.

Anonymous Bob said...

That's bold talk troll. Your Mommy is proud.

And satisfied..

Elvisexpressly said...

Thanks for proving my point.

john e mumbles said...

Hmmmnn... this is the same Anon Bob who was not that long ago above saying:

"Sometimes its instinctive territorial posturing...but with internet chat it seems mainly to do with ego."

Guess this is the proof?

I mean, little dick yo Mama stuff? Seriously?

...& Anon said at 6:07..

And when commenting in the comments section: just poop on the commentators you disagree with.

Anonymous said...

This is like the CANNIBAL SANGHA®, with Brad as the head cannibal. All the members eventually end up biting and nibbling on each like rats in a cage of delusion.

Anonymous Bob said...

"I mean, little dick yo Mama stuff? Seriously?"

Hi John e. Yeah, seriously. These motherfucking trolls have little tiny dicks and I'm actually sleeping with all of their mothers. They know it's true. I decided to do that when I realized I wouldn't get very far by reasoning with them the way you reasoned with Ran K, who by the way seems perfectly sincere to me..

But just so you know, Some of the comments attributed to me were actually made by these tiny dick boys.. Do you believe that? That they could be that deceptive? What is the blogosphere coming to?

CAPTCHA : hotym : I kid you not

Ben's Ghost said...

here's a radical thought. a person once looked at a flowing stream and realized that it's energy could be harnessed using a water wheel. here we are, a bunch of fine fellows sitting around & typing keys on a keyboard. how could we capture the energy here, what's already happening, and put it to use - you know, to be helpful to people somehow?

*that's* hardcore! imho.

(trolls, slaggers, go on, but really, give it some thought.)

anon #108 said...

So it turns out that even intelligent, practising Zen Buddhists - a few regulars here must be - end up biting and nibbling on each like rats in a cage of delusion. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to realign our ideas of Buddhism to fit with reality, rather than try to adjust reality to fit with some idea of 'Buddhism'?

Anonymous said...

reality is an idea

john e mumbles said...

Rock on, Anon Bob, do what you feel you have to do...it just seemed that you weren't following your own logic in this....I was referring to what you wrote in response to an earlier statement by Gniz at 8:41 AM above:

"I was thinking about this and it seems to me that what happens is that people get an immediate impression from a post and then rather than letting it go as the brain fart that it really is, they grab on to it very tightly. They grab it because they want it to reinforce their false ideas about who they believe they are and who they imagine the writer to be. They don't see the post as action abstracted but as a real part of the person who wrote it. They want to respond to reinforce their own delusional ideas of themselves as a separate things. Obviously none of our thoughts are substantial. They become stories embellishing our imaginary selves. We habitually place ourselves in opposition to everything."

anon #108 said...

reality is an idea

Well yes, anon. Our ideas about reality are ideas. The concept 'reality' is an idea. But something real is occurring - other than, but including, my 'idea' of it. That's what I believe.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it make sense, then, to realign our ideas of Buddhism to fit with reality, rather than try to adjust reality to fit with some idea of 'Buddhism'?

Hmmm, perhaps it would make more sense to adjust how you are practicing Buddhism so that you are not so mean spirited as to bite others.

anon #108 said...

Fair point, anon.

Puts me in mind of little Suzuki's comment: "Each of you is perfect the way you are...and you can use a little improvement".

Anonymous said...

from anon 4:31

"Well yes, anon. Our ideas about reality are ideas. The concept 'reality' is an idea. But something real is occurring - other than, but including, my 'idea' of it. That's what I believe."

'Real' is an idea too. As is 'something' and 'other'.

'Concept', 'sign', 'referent' etc.

If ideas and concepts weren't mistaken, there could be no thought and no language generated in the first place.

Any attempt to align Buddhism with reality or reality with Buddhism, must therefore make sense. Necessarily mistaken sense.

This is why Buddhism is delusion is a sentence attempting to designate the fact as indivisible from enlightenment, but can't quite do it. for there can be no actual referent, no actual, no no: something is happening predicated on nothing is happening: something is nothing which is something.

I can only conclude, therefore, that any mistakes aren't mistakes: a mistaken conclusion.

So why post if it isn't to experience one's own 'takes' shaped into posts, to read(misread) oneself in re-takes, until it no longer takes?

Anonymous said...

anon 4:31

"We habitually place ourselves in opposition to everything." ...

...Maybe the only way, excepting complete silence to be right about something or someone. And whose to say complete silence is the correct form of action in all circumstances?

Before one tap of the keyboard and we are all self righteous.

I'm sure Guatama rippled his vocal chords now and again.

Anonymous said...

"Fair point, anon.

Puts me in mind of little Suzuki's comment: "Each of you is perfect the way you are...and you can use a little improvement".

And you frequent this comments section more than most, anon #108.

anon #108 said...

Hi anon 4.31,

I thought someone who'd thought little more about these things would correct me ;)

I'm not sure what your saying. but this is something I posted somewhere else some time ago (slightly edited). It might be relevant:

In the chapter from the Shobogenzo called KUGE, Flowers in space, Dogen takes these lines from the Shurangama sutra and, typically, turns them inside out:

It is like person who has clouded eyes
Seeing flowers in space
If the sickness of clouded eyes is cured,
Flowers vanish in space.


We assume that flowers in space are unreal; only a person with clouded, deluded vision will see them. Cure the "sickness", presumably by revealing/accessing our 'buddha-nature' or "enlightened mind", and our deluded conceptions and perceptions will vanish, leaving a sky cleared of 'imagined' problems and concepts. But Dogen writes -

"The idea that once flowers in space vanish they will never reappear is a small belief...If you only know flowers in space as something to get rid of, then you will never come to know the profound matter that follows from
flowers in space...[Some] understand that flowers in space exist only when eyes are clouded, and do not see the truth that it is flowers in space that cause clouded eyes to exist. Remember, as long as you are following the Buddha’s way, when your eyes are clouded, you realise your original nature, you realise something subtle, you are a buddha, a person of the three worlds,transcending the state of buddha. We should not be as stupid as to believethat clouded eyes are to be avoided and that reality is to be found somewhere else. That is a restricted view. If clouded eyes and flowerswere delusions, the person attaching to that wrong view must also be a delusion, and the attachment must be a delusion. If all is delusion, we can never establish anything true. If we cannot establish what is true, there is no way that we can assert that clouded eyes and flowers are delusions...


[and end of the chapter]: All events happen on the ground; that is where they unfold [ie in the real world of action, here and now, not only in 'space']. Just at this very moment there is a vast ground on which everything is unfolding; everything opens on this vast ground. The words “Throughout the whole of this land, there is no gate to our search for the truth” do not mean that, since there is no gate we are unable to look for the truth; they mean that when we look for the truth, there is no barrier. Flowers in space open on the ground, and this vast ground itself depends on the opening of flowers. The principle that we need to recognise is that both the ground and space are flowers in space unfolding."

anon #108 said...

And you frequent this comments section more than most, anon #108.

Very true, anon. Perhaps I should stop? But I choose to carry on for the time being. I do try to do better, and I think I'm learning from my efforts. But, you know...mistake after mistake. For which I apologise.

Anonymous said...

anon #108 scurries behind Dogen like a kid behind his dad!

If you've managed to put the effort into misinterpreting Dogen, why not have a go at what a poster has written?

Bah! What was I thinking about...

Well done #108, have a gold star.

Anonymous said...

you seem a slow learn

anon #108 said...

Very argumentative, aren't you, anon? Very mean-spirited. You must be the troll. I didn't realise. Another mistake!

There. You got the personal attack you were fishing for. Now do your worst. I'm off. Bye ;)

Ran said...

Seems to me Ben's Ghost asked a question and answered it himself: See his last four words.

And I believe I answered it better than that - see my Steiner quotes not so long ago.



But then that too won't do, - people have to get some idea about their own ignorance: - thinking that everyone is “entitled” to an opinion is true, - but just stupid. [- KWIM? - Hopefully.]

The great majority of humanity is ignorant - that is not questionable. [- Else than by YKW and why. - TI - the great majority of humanity.]



And to 108 – [4:29 am] intelligence is no boundary against ignorance. Certainly nor is “counting words”, as I quoted recently. Neither against stupidity. It is highly questionable what could one who does not even understand that contribute even here at the comment section.

No offence.

Fm but I see no reason why should I offend you.




And I don’t want to relate to the rest of the discussion since I’ve not read it in full, but A @ 9:75 [pm] is quite right. Not fully, (of course) not literally, - not about Brad, - but he does seem to capture some spirit, - from the little I’ve read.






_____
TI - That is.
fm - **** m*****s.

The Anti-troll Patrol said...

OK so there's anon the troll, who started in @5.09am....and there's a different anon @ 4.31am, right? And anon #108's Dogen thing was answering anon 4.31am's post made at 5.54am?? But anon the troll thought anon #108 meant the Dogen thing was for him, the troll, and not for anon @4.31am, posting @ 5.54am (which the troll probably didn't read, cuz anon #108 didn't interpret Dogen, but only the Shrangama part, which Dogen didn't write)???

Call yourselves SOMETHING, guys!

Ben's Ghost said...

To be offended with an "other" there must be a self from which to make this measurement. From limited exposure to Buddhist perspectives, I understand that this unexamined sense of self is really what is at issue. Focusing on others appears to be an unfruitful dead end, or at least a cul-de-sac in the long run. What is to be gained by winning an argument of words concerning the nature of an "other"? Victory at last over an unreasonable Father or Mother? Certainly argument and debate have a place in our cooperation as living beings. We need to share resources to keep the body alive. But when the focus of the argument shifts to issues of person or identity, is this not just delusion in full flame?

This is not quite the "can't we all just get along" message. More so, "what to we need to do together to get along ourselves?"

What can a blog full of disgruntled selves do to transform into a useful fire factory?

Jinzang said...

From trolling to meta-trolling. An accomplishment I've never seen on any other site.

SOMETHING said...

Yes it all gets rather muddled up trying to keep everyone straight. But it isn't important to. There are lots of trolls. They come and they go. It is unwise to offhandedly dismiss any voice here because it will continue to function, covertly and hotly for years to come if disrespected. Listen to the HCZ trolls vent their anger.. When they speak their nonsense, just smile and nod.

HCZ trolls said...

Well said, SOMETHING, - well said.

;) said...

What are you, though, anyway?

Brad the Impaler said...

But when the focus of the argument shifts to issues of person or identity, is this not just delusion in full flame?

What kind of suck-ass observation is that? You must be some fraudulent scumbag asswipe dickhead. Are you and buddha butt-buddies? Nevermind, just Fuck Off!

Ben's Ghost said...

Exactly! The shift in focus is from the message to the messenger. The message is left unattended.

We're all soaking in delusion of course. That's what makes 'us' possible.

Anonymous said...

I'm your mother, Mom.

SOMETHING said...

"Well said, SOMETHING, - well said. What are you, though, anyway?"

Anti-troll Patrol said "Call yourselves SOMETHING!"

So I did.

gniz said...

I sometimes get the feeling that "all" these trolls are like one or two guys at most...at least, when things get really crazy and you have like ten seemingly anonymous posters all arguing and talking to one another, all seeming to know who each one is.

I like it, it's just weird and I can't quite figure out what the hell is going on when that happens

The Rinz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous Bob said...

"What kind of suck-ass observation is that? You must be some fraudulent scumbag asswipe dickhead. Are you and buddha butt-buddies? Nevermind, just Fuck Off!"

You're slipping Troll.. Your anger sounds tired and weak. A little like I feel after spending the evening with your Mom.

CAPTCHA : mizat : I kid you not

john e mumbles said...

Yeah, gniz, I like it too, it often gives vitality and humor to this Blahg commentary. It gets kind of paranoid sometimes though when people (identified types like us'n) begin to think that its regulars under the guise of trolls trolling along, although of course thats possible. Those that don't always appreciate the troll activity often take themselves too seriously, in my opinion, as is revealed in the back and forth between the drones and the troll community.

It's all very entertaining, thanks everybody.

gniz said...

When I was actively doing the whole Reblogging BW thing, I tried to actually talk to the trolls, genuinely. This seemed to make them go away, kind of like shining a light on a cockroach or something. Not that I think Anon trolls are roaches, it's just the best example that came to mind.

Anyhow, the interesting thing about the anon trolls (who definitely differ from regular anons)is that they absolutely REFUSE to engage in legit conversation at any point. They just won't do it.

I wonder what that is, it doesn't really make sense and since they will never answer me, I guess I'm just left with that koan.

Anonymous Bob said...

Gniz said "I tried to actually talk to the trolls, genuinely. This seemed to make them go away, kind of like shining a light on a cockroach or something."

Two interesting notions G. One that trolls are like cockroaches and two that your conversation is like a shining light. Can either point be argued?

CAPTCHA : lodeness : I kid you not

gniz said...

Don't take me so darn literally, brother.

My point is that the really wacky trolls that seem to exist don't ever really clarify what their intention is with all the chaos. And when you really try to engage, they disappear.

I've never yet seen a "regular" poster such as yourself own up to suiting up as an anonymous troll and saying crazy shit just for fun.

So what do you think it is? I have no idea, personally. I would never bother coming on and saying random stuff to simply antagonize without even a slight attempt at real discussion.

Even back at my worst days of trolling, it was always predicated on genuine conversation, i just tended to want to argue a lot.

gniz said...

Sorry for all the "reallys" in that last post

Brad the Impaler said...

Ben's Ghost,
At least some of you understand irony.

gniz said...

Brad The Impaler,

You may have been being ironic, but there are quite a few (seemingly) anon posters that say stuff like that in all seriousness...or at least, they don't seem to be kidding around (like the one that constantly followed Stephanie around baiting her).

Hard to tell the difference sometimes!

Anonymous Bob said...

Sorry Impaler.. I should have guessed you meant the opposite of what you were saying.

Gniz, I have to admit I will say things just for the fun of it. Because it really is easier just to ignore the haters. But sometimes it's fun to engage. As for why they do what they do? I think they are just bored and are trying to stir up some excitement.

CAPTCHA : dolve : I kid you not

gniz said...

So Anonymous Bob, are you saying that occasionally you will suit up completely anonymously and so stuff like this:

"Anonymous said...

I'm your mother, Mom."

??

Anonymous Bob said...

G, No I wouldn't do that exactly..

But I might say I'm visiting some troll's mom when I might have already left.

CAPTCHA : reedstie : I kid trolls

Brad the Impaler said...

Brad The Impaler,
You may have been being ironic, but there are quite a few (seemingly) anon posters that say stuff like that in all seriousness...or at least, they don't seem to be kidding around


Everything I said has alread been said at some time on this blog in all seriousness. Who else would utter such harsh, cruel ad hominem attacks? Why does the emperor have no clothes?

Anonymous said...

I'm your Mother, Mom

I can't believe no one caught that one:

METHODS TO GENERATE BODHICITTA
7-Point Mind Training

1. Equanimity

2. Recognizing that all sentient beings have been (or at least could have been) my mother as I have lived innumerable lives.

3. Remember the kindness of your mother in this life, all she did for you, the problems she went through to take care of you.

4. Wishing to repay the kindness of her and all previous mothers.

5. Generate great love: may all mother sentient beings have happiness and the causes for happiness.

6. Generate great compassion: may all mother sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes for suffering

7. Generate bodhichitta: should give up all self-cherishing and egoism, and work to bring them happiness and release them from their suffering: therefore, may I become an omniscient Buddha, as he is the perfect doctor to cure the suffering of all mother sentient beings.

Anonymous said...

Hey Gniz/Aaron

I've posted under other names, both pseudo & the one my parents gave me. I'll reveal my full name if you reveal yours, but you go first.

What do you say? Isn't it time after all these years?

XYZ

gniz said...

Hey Anon,

It really isn't about people's names. Which is why I tried to make a delineation between "regular" anons and "trolling" anons. The trolling anons seem to exist solely to cause chaos and antagonize others, whereas most posters are here to have some kind of conversation.

Obviously there are degrees and gray areas, but I have the impression that there is at least a small percentage of folks who are not interested in engaging at all, other than to say mean-spirited things and confuse people.

I could be wrong, it's hard to get an answer from the bizarro trolls.

There are also people like me (and you), who are relatively anonymous but still basically engage, even if it is in a less than pleasant way.

Does that clear things up? Again, this has NOTHING to do with knowing people's real names, other than the fact that without anonymity, these trolls couldn't really exist at all. BTW, I'm happy they exist because they add some spice to things, even if they confuse me.

Sid said...

The fool thinks he has won a battle when he bullies with harsh speech,
but knowing how to be forbearing alone makes one victorious.

Anonymous said...

Gniz,

Very clear and a sharp observation. (Phew! I thought you might call my bluff ;)

Peace

Mysterion said...

Some of you are taking

a nony mouse postings too seriously.

An Anonymous posting is no more than a fart in an elevator. It's just there and you live with it - and nobody claims it.

The big difference between a fart in an elevator and a fart in church is that the fart in church is a universally welcome break in the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

193

Anonymous Bob said...

Gniz, I don't blame you for wanting to remain anonymous. I think you would be foolish to come out now. Most of the trolls are just amusing themselves with taking on various roles and blowing smoke. It's really not a big deal. But there are some seriously twisted (one)s who think it's fun to cyber-stalk people. Like the little dickhead who is bothering Stephanie. Using harsh speech on those guys is being way too nice.

CAPTCHA : hylanc : I kid you not

Anonymous said...

Anon Bob, darling, using harsh speech in any context is equivalent to throwing razor edged boomerangs. This said by one who has many, many scars and likely many more bleeding wounds to come.

gniz said...

Like I said, I'm definitely happy they exist because they make this place more interesting. There really aren't very many totally unmoderated places where people can express the full spectrum of sanity and insanity and somehow be tolerated and bizarrely--accepted.

I've always said that the openness of this place is a big part of why I believe Brad actually does understand "something" about Zen. I know from my brief correspondence with Brad that keeping this place open has perhaps resulted in some less than ideal situations for him. I definitely wouldn't do it if I was in his shoes.

Anonymous said...

I'm gonna write something now that I have no doubt I'll be roasted for here. Trollin' for trolls, once again! Come on buddies!

A big part of being "Buddhist" is all about learning how to take the hit while knowing it was delivered by someone who's having such a hard time that they can't bear it. Renunciation takes the hate out of the world.

But I'm a lover, not a fighter, you see...

Anonymous Bob said...

Anon, That's a lovely sentiment.. Stoically suffering abuse yourself is fine and your privilege. But what about women and children and the weak and the ill. In the real world they are all preyed on without protection. I agree to being civil with decent well-meaning people but if some person is deliberately trying to fuck up someone's day, they should be told in plain language that that isn't going to be tolerated. I think that you, me, everyone should let that be known, every time it happens. If a few plain phrases intimidate in that situation, all the better. Sometimes you have to draw a line.

Uku said...

Wow, Brad's blog is getting more famous of these comments than his own posts! Maybe the name should be Hardcore Comments?

I'm thinking that most of these trolls must be children so adults like Gniz etc. shouldn't be bothered of their comments. I'm also thinking what might this blog look like if it would be possible to write only with registrated nicks? Maybe then here would be Anon 1, Anon 2 etc. but at least people would know to whom they're writing. But like I wrote, most of these trolls must be little children so why bother to answer to their innocent but childish comments. If their parents let them rage in the internet... Well, that's not our problem but we can decide how we response. Probably now those anonymous trolls are writing that they're not kids but hey, prove it!

Yours,
Kindergarten Joe

Word verification: nonsurs

Anonymous said...

Bob, yes. I'm not smart enough to make the point I aspire to here. There's some sort of difference. It's something about the different between hating a person versus halting a behavior. But I'm way too up on a high horse right now.

Gniz, great point again. The freedom to express here is remarkable. Brad quietly scores truth points for me too, even while often appearing as a crotchety old bass-tard :)

gnite fellows.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 235   Newer› Newest»