Well, as long as I went and published the anonymous comment from the previous post, I should probably address it aside from just laughing at it (and just about every line made me laugh), because there actually are quite a few issues upon which the comment gives me the opportunity to clarify my personal perspective (read: super long post, not unlike my running commentary on the Craig's List suicide note from way back when).
I.
The biggest problem with the comment is this person, who I'll refer to as 'he', goes on and on without any knowledge of his target (me), and as a result he ends up imposing his view without having listened, and therefore what he says has no relevance in this particular forum and is not welcome. It also makes the overall tenor of the comment patronizing and condescending and arguably insulting (whether he was trying to be insulting, the jury (me) is still out).
When I was at Deer Park, I was a long-term guest, so sometimes short-term guests would open up to me because maybe they felt more parity with me as an ordinary Joe, whereas they may have felt more formal with the monks, and the most important thing for me to do was listen and understand their issue, and only respond if I really had something personal to say and an idea where they were coming from.
If there was something in my understanding or experience that I thought might help, I would offer it, but if not, I didn't pretend that I did and spew Buddhist doctrine. I also very, very rarely drew upon Buddhist doctrine in my responses because it was important for me to be personal.
If I went to a monastery and brought up the issues in this blog and got the answer this commenter posted, I would've turned around and walked out. And if someone came to me with an issue and I gave an answer, and that person turned around and walked out, I would have chalked that up as a big fail on my part.
So the first big thing to learn from this person is to listen deeply before offering your opinion. Even if this person's intentions were good, it was counter-productive. He may have been trying to help and offer some insight, but he instead ended up insulting me because he made assumptions and didn't bother finding out to whom he was commenting.
II.
He writes: I really wonder why you take a fatalistic attitude towards life.
I'm not sure from where that assumption of fatalism comes. My best guess is that I used the word "inevitable" in my personal description, and maybe there's logic in that, but by inevitable, I wasn't implying fate or destiny. He didn't know that because he didn't bother finding out. Anyway, if I have a fatalistic attitude towards life, it's because it's my choice.
He writes: If you are really practising Buddhism you would know this is unacceptable and incorrect.
I don't make any distinction between practicing Buddhism and living life. So I don't accept the implication of his "if", nor that there is "really practicing Buddhism" as opposed to "not really practicing Buddhism".
If he believes that I'm not really practicing Buddhism, that's his issue, not mine. It doesn't change my view. I might say that making a statement of what's unacceptable and incorrect is not really practicing Buddhism either, and I don't expect that to change his view either. But once you start drawing these lines, you're basically creating intolerance and painting Buddhism as something dogmatic, rigid and absolute.
I can also just as easily respond, "OK, I'm not". It's not a constant concept in my mind that I'm practicing Buddhism. I have no attachment to a claim that I'm really practicing Buddhism. I don't do anything because Buddhism tells me not to do it against how I go about my life according to my flawed nature.
I don't think Buddhism should define its practitioners, and I try not to let Buddhism define me. I think it's much more fruitful to be open to Buddhism being defined by its practitioners, and I define Buddhism according to what makes sense to me.
So I don't accept his statement on what's unacceptable or incorrect, and from my understanding, I don't think Buddhism has any comment on it either. Second lesson: beware of absolutes. There are none. Or very few.
III.
He writes: All life is sacred and thus you have no right to contemplate doing away with yourself.
The "all life is sacred" mantra of Buddhism is one of the most mindlessly abused by practitioners because it so easily allows people to take the high road, but it can also lead to arrogance and hypocrisy when applied dogmatically.
When you say "all life is sacred", that's all you have to say. That's all you should say unless you want to run into pitfalls like in this person's comment. For him "all life is sacred" = "I have no right to contemplate doing away with myself".
For me "all life is sacred" requires me to contemplate doing away with myself to get to the essence of what is sacred about it. I not only have the right, but it's my responsibility. The sacredness of life includes the dissolution of life. Life is the totality of life, death and, for Buddhists, reincarnation over multiple lifetimes.
I'm not sure I want to get into the conundrum of quality of life vs. metabolic life, either. "All life is sacred" doesn't mean just mindlessly preserving all forms of life, but accepting and respecting death as part of it, however death may come. And it will come.
I note that he stops at my right to contemplate doing away with myself, implying that he doesn't even need to mention that I have no right to actually do away with myself. I note that because I think that any meaning to someone actually committing suicide is just way beyond him. That's fine, many people can't make such a leap, and from what he writes, there's no reason to expect him to.
So yes, all life is sacred, but it certainly does not strip me of any rights to contemplate anything I want.
IV.
He writes: That is definitely not the way of Buddhism.
Again, Buddhism to me is life, it's the journey. There are no absolutes, there is no dogma. There is no "not the way of Buddhism". Buddhism isn't some exclusive doctrine. To me, everything is Buddhism. It's not even a "religion". Christianity is part of Buddhism, Islam is part of Buddhism, terrorism is part of Buddhism, because Buddhism is a contemplation of human life in its totality here on this planet and about the entire universe in its impermanence in general.
He writes: From what I can tell, you are just stirring in your own selfish concerns.
Isn't basically everyone stirring in their own selfish concerns?
Or maybe he's referring to that old tired blame game that people who commit suicide are "selfish". From what I've heard about reactions to suicides, those people are not only just as selfish, but even sadistic in feeling the person who committed suicide should have endured what was obviously unendurable just so that he or she didn't have to experience the pain of someone they knew committing suicide.
He writes: The way out is to rise above the outer surface of things by use of method, wisdom, and compassion.
Not bad, but I would personally modify it to read, "The way is to use method, wisdom, and compassion". There is no purpose for the way, there is just the way. And maybe faith in it.
As for the "way out", I don't subscribe to the idea of a "way out". I'm certainly not looking for a "way out". I'm just trying to understand and learn, and this is where my inquiry has always led. Semantically, I'm not thrilled with rising "above the outer surface of things", "above" perhaps suggesting superiority. "Beyond" is perhaps a better word, and to see beyond the surface of things and into the nature of things is, I think, a legitimate Buddhist pursuit.
V.
He writes: It is a known fact that people are happier when they dedicate themselves to things larger than their personal interest or relationships, towards activities that have an impact on a larger scale.
It's not a "known fact". It's not even a fact. It's easy to imagine a profile of a person who dedicates himself to things larger than his personal interest or relationships towards activities that have an impact on a larger scale and still be miserable.
I'll revert to Buddhist doctrine now to offer that becoming happier in general comes from rooting out the causes of suffering, i.e. attachment and desire, and understanding them.
He writes: That is what Buddhism is about.
Not really. It's a method and practice of engaged Buddhism, but it certainly isn't what Buddhism is about.
He writes: You need to ask yourself why are you not being authentic in your beliefs.
He's right! I do need to ask myself why am I not being authentic in my beliefs. My belief is that I need to commit suicide, that is my path, that is the meaning of my journey. So why am I not committing suicide?!
Unfortunately, I think by "beliefs" he's referring to Buddhist doctrine and dogma.
The attractiveness about Buddhism should be that it deals with real life, real people's lives, not dogma, not doctrine, not what someone else says or dictates. Buddhism gives suggestions towards some truth but requires personal verification. Buddhist doctrine says something, but demands people to find the truth in the doctrine for themselves.
If someone doesn't find it, then Buddhist doctrine is not offended. If someone doesn't find it, then Buddhist doctrine was not for them. Anyone who insists that Buddhist doctrine is some monolithic dogma that anyone can find if they really look at it from some (usually their) perspective is no better than the born-again Christian I met in law school who beseeched me to be more open-minded and see things her way.
VI.
He writes: It is useless to profess a philosophy that is counter to your own behavior and thoughts.
I'm really trying to take his comment seriously, but it is difficult because I can't stop laughing. As the level of his discourse degenerates, I have trouble maintaining mine. But I try.
I'm guessing that the philosophy he refers to is Buddhist dogma and doctrine that is monolithic and separate from the lives it purports to guide. I don't profess such a philosophy. I think it's useless to have a philosophy that is separate from one's own behavior and thoughts. A philosophy is one's own behavior and thoughts. If one's philosophy is counter to one's own behavior and thoughts, you're an idiot. And I am an idiot because I haven't killed myself yet.
He writes: There is nothing to be so despondent about.
I'm not sure where he got that I'm despondent about anything. My only guess is that he hasn't read enough and just assumed it. Ass U Me. D.
Pick yourself up and get over this ego-based negativity.
Ego-based negativity . . . okay, there's something there, but it has nothing to do with what he knows, just what he's assumed. As for picking myself up and getting over it . . . *stifling laughter* Aw shit, I just spit all over my computer screen. Degenerating.
He writes: Think positively in a progressive manner (not that lipservice that many do about being positive).
That's good, absolutely right; not sure he's got it, though.
Take positive action. Use affirmations. Participate in selfless acts for community or strangers.
All good. Good advice. If he really thinks it would change anything in my case, well, that's just ignorant. It ain't cool to be an ignorant Buddhist, yo.
Evolve your philosophy.
OK, no problem, anyone's philosophy should evolve; good generic advice. I'd like to see it on a t-shirt.
Find the heart of compassion that leads to true individuality, that in itself releases you from bondage that pulls you down.
Oh shit, I really can't stop laughing at this one. He speaks of leading to true individuality when all I read from him is mainstream dogma and doctrine, not individuality. Listening to this guy would be the bondage that pulls me down. Mm, bondage...
Have an experience of oneness (through deep meditation, but maybe you might need entheogens like salvia divinorum to kick start it at some level).
Um, OK. I just ordered some salvia divinorum entheogens from Amazon.com. Oneness should be here in a few days. Continuing degeneration.
That oneness is always there. Enlightenment is right here, right now.
Yes, the oneness is always there. Enlightenment is right here, right now. Tell me more, enlightened one.
Alright, that's it, I have to stop. The comment degenerates into preachy drivel that would open the floodgates of snark and sarcasm, and there's nothing to offer in snark and sarcasm. Except maybe entertainment and I'm not trying to entertain.
I guess in conclusion, I'm going to have to go on the offensive.
This person is a poor authority on Buddhism and I feel sorry for anyone he tries to touch with Buddhism and believes what he's saying. He's a hypocrite and would do himself a favor to reflect more deeply on the dogma he's expounding and throw it away. He expounds without offering any real insight. He needs to get to the point where he's suicidal. If he gets to that point and still expounds the same things, people will see his truth and sincerity. All I get is arrogant self-righteousness.
I'm sure he disagrees 100% with me (and my descent into sarcasm) and is likewise horrified and offended by my liberalistic view. And the wonderful thing is that's Buddhism.
