Part One

It is a long time now since I departed the world of organised Buddhism (and pretty much anything else thus 'organised'). I cut any formal ties almost twenty years ago, and had been elegantly distancing myself from the whole scene for a good decade beforehand. Nevertheless, we cut threads on different levels, and what may appear to be independence well-established in many ways will still reveal a lingering attachment in the deepest layers of ones psyche.

My life seems littered with disappointments, and every disappointment belies an attachment, an unsevered thread. We feel disappointed because we expect something to happen, and it doesn't do so. The person isn't who we thought or assumed they are, and it affects us personally. Without those cords still connecting us, there would be no disappointment; merely a sense of who or what that person or group of people is, with no personal emotion involved. They are who they are, end of story.

I take full responsibility for every disappointment I may feel. It's a symptom of my own unresolved attachments, and nothing to do with the person or persons concerned. They live as they feel fit, end of story.

But having said that..... 

A fair deal of this disappointment focusses around Buddhists and Buddhism, at least those with whom I am familiar in the western world. I have friends, good friends, who are Buddhists, and I have good friends who were once formally Buddhist but who, like me, have left that behind. It is not so much the individuals in whom the disappointment is invested, but more the organised and public face presented to the world by Buddhism in the modern west.

When I got properly involved in Buddhist life in the mid and late 1970s, it could reasonably be called 'alternative' and a bit cutting edge. There was a clear sense of dissatisfaction with the conventional world - not just in a religious or spiritual sense, but generally - and some of us at least were determined to build a life that was healthier, and in Buddhist terminology more aligned with wisdom and compassion.

I spend little time around it; but a scan of what I see of Buddhism today reveals next-to-none of these more alternative and countercultural attributes. I see little of depth, nothing that will truly challenge the bases of an extraordinarily sick and dumb society all around us. Rather than majoring on total liberation, it too often appears preoccupied with modern programmes that are considered by the uncritical and the scared as 'positive' and 'progressive'.

The Buddhist organisation in which I once took part makes a big thing of 'inclusiveness', and how you are welcome whatever your sexual preferences, gender inclinations this week, or whether you wish to identify as a hamster for the forthcoming retreat. It also hosts bizarre things such as events and retreats for 'people of colour'. Yes, folks, you are all welcome, even if.......

It seems to have passed them by that a focal meditation in traditional Buddhism is called 'metta bhavana', which is translated as 'development of universal loving-kindness'. That is all you need. It contains the lot. While, conversely, relating to people on the basis of their 'identity' serves to achieve the opposite, by focussing on elements in an individual's life that are passing, ephemeral. More in keeping with Buddhist philosophy is the notion of just blowing up identity altogether. It's a trap, a mind-fuck, that's all. Think about it for a minute, for crissake!

 

Part Two

It was early in 2022 (I think) when I met up several times with an old friend of mine from my Buddhist days. I hadn't seen him for a long time, but we immediately hit it off, and it was a true pleasure.

A significant aspect to our conversations for me was that, despite his being quite sceptical about some of what I had to say about the bug scare, which was still big at the time, and the deeper workings of the world in general, we had an open, full and, dare I say it, intelligent discussion about everything. He asked me serious questions, which provided genuine food for thought.

I remain extremely grateful for these conversations. He was literally the one and only person during the convid period, aside from those who like me considered it all a controlling and programming fraud, with whom I had a proper discussion. The norm had become, for me and others I knew, the appearance, if you dared to raise a serious doubt, of 'the wall'. This consisted of a long silence on the phone, probably followed by a change of the subject. And if you didn't get the wall, you would be subject to attack, insult, ad hominem accusations, aggression, the lot. 'You are behaving irresponsibly and will kill granny.' I exaggerate not. So for these rare moments of sanity, I am very grateful to this old friend.

Anyway - and to the point! - we also discussed the state of Buddhism in the modern western world, and specifically Buddhism as communicated in the organisation in which I was once a devoted participant. My friend amusingly suggested that it was like wanting Trungpa without the bad bits. That is to say, something of a sanitised version of Buddhadharma; or, as said about Jung's 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections' after some of his (female) followers got hold of it ready for publication, it has been 'auntified'.

(Check out Chogyam Trungpa if you are unfamiliar with him. A pivotal figure in the development of Buddhism, especially Tibetan, in the west, and an interesting guy....)

So in modern times, in Islington and Camden Town, Buddhism presents as nice and smiley, but with the rough, sharp edges rounded out. While Buddhism, as I attempted to live it, was very much about edges: living on the edge, and looking to the rough sharp edges as the hiding place of real wisdom, of gnosis.

A couple of years down the road from these meetings with my friend, I tentatively propose that Buddhism has moved on further. Formalised Buddhism no longer wishes for Trungpa without the unacceptable bits. It doesn't want Trungpa at all! Crazy wisdom, consigned to the dustbin of wilful amnesia.

Should Buddha return to this planet today - and to do so would be a test of his Bodhisattva spirit - I suspect that he might be puzzled by much of what passes as his teachings. A good deal of it he would fail to recognise at all. I don't know whether a Buddha is capable of feeling pissed off, but if he is, then he should be truly pissed off about what has happened.

In general, it seems to have been forgotten that the kernel, the aim, of Buddhist practice is to get the hell out of here. 'Unsatisfactory' is the rather polite translation made of how Buddhism regards normal worldly existence. 'Rubbish' or 'sheer trash' might be more appropriate nowadays.  

'Nirvana' is a word commonly used for enlightenment in many Buddhist traditions. There is 'Nirvana with remainder', which is enlightenment as experienced during the course of ones life. 'The remainder' is the vestiges such as the physical body which continue to function regardless: unconditioned mind in a conditioned body, as it is sometimes expressed.

But then there is also 'Nirvana without remainder'. This is enlightenment as it manifests at death, often called Parinirvana. Which is to say that you're gone, finished, totally, right out of this place. Good riddance.

All over the world, Buddhists celebrate Parinirvana Day as one of the main festivals in the Buddhist calendar. This is the day when the occasion of Buddha's physical death is remembered. Few seem to realise the deeper significance of it, and its implications. The aim, the goal, if we can speak in those terms, is to leave, to get out. This place is not a good one to stick around in. Bye bye; quite literally.

From this perspective, all the stuff about Buddhism improving 'this life' is tosh. In similar vein, there is somewhere in the Buddhist texts (I am unable to remember the source) where Buddha states that anyone who is not enlightened is mad, or words to that effect. I used to think 'Steady on, Buddha, that's taking it a bit far'. But nowadays I do not hesitate to agree.

 

Buddhist teachings are pretty good on the 'What' and the 'How': this is existence, this is how it works, and this is the remedy. See basic Buddhist formulations such as the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, writings on the vicious state of samsara in the Tibetan traditions, and so forth.

But when it comes to that other big question - 'Why?' - it seems to be a different matter. The texts dismiss the question as irrelevant, or change the subject, or go hide behind a bush. So why would you dodge a question as fundamental as this? It makes me a bit suspicious. Maybe someone knows more than they are letting on. Maybe the answer is not very nice or acceptable....

All of which leads us back to the topic of topics, life on planet Earth as a trap. Maybe - just maybe - there were some more advanced Buddhist yogis, who knew the truth, but weren't going to spill the beans. They would help the occasional individual to leave, but weren't going to upset the applecart too much.

Or maybe the trap was not in existence to the same degree of thickness and density 2,500 years ago that it is today. This is a view supported by quite a number of people from a variety of perspectives. Or maybe they really didn't know.

 

Part Three

A few minutes of sober reflection is all it needs to crystallise a litany of 'Whys' and 'How Comes' about life on planet Earth.

How come life here remains so difficult for so many people, despite that much-vaunted technological progress and scientific learning? How come such vast swathes of the population in Africa, Asia etc still struggle like mad simply to survive? 

How come things just don't seem to improve, regardless of who is supposed to be in charge? Why will most people who were around then tell you that life in the 1990s was happier, more relaxed, than it is today? How come peoples' freedoms have been steadily eroded rather than expanded? Why do so many people feel increasingly out of control of their own lives? 

How come each day presents itself as an avalanche of fears, anxieties, and conflicts like never before? Why do wars that are readily-preventable continue to pop up on a regular basis? How come lessons don't seem to be learnt?

This is looking at things from the perspective of human life. Extending the viewpoint, it is sadly observed that planet Earth is a killing field, pure and simple. Almost without exception, survival means killing or harming another being in order to steal their energy. Some people idealise nature, but this is erroneous. Most animals live in a state of constant watchfulness, if not fear and anxiety. One false move and you'll be lunch for a lurking predator. And even those who are nearer the top of the food chain experience plenty of food insecurity: will I find a big enough animal to kill today, or will the family go hungry? It's vicious out there.

Vegans are not exempt. Experiments make clear that, despite lacking a central nervous system, plants still respond when threatened, or when they perceive danger approaching. 

The list goes on, but hey, we've got other fish to fry (see what I mean?)

'That's just the way things are.' This is no excuse. It means absolutely nothing. It simply describes the particular state of affairs in this place. Is it inevitable? Is it possible for life to go on in any other way than this cruel and brutal not-so merry-go-round? It seems clear to me that things can indeed proceed in very different ways, but life on this planet is stuck in a rut, or in a groove on one of those old vinyl records. It's like being stuck in hell, but unable to see the way out. Or, sadly for most people, being blind to the reality of being in a kind of hell in the first place.

This place is a killing field, not by accident. It is a killing field because it is designed that way; it is intended to be so. The notion will sound ridiculous to most people. But give it five minutes free of preconceived ideas about what life is and is not, and suddenly everything begins to make sense.

This place is not 'natural' at all. It is a simulation, or a matrix. The first in 'the Matrix' series of films gives a rough-and-ready impression. It is a copy, a dirty copy, from an original mould, one which was indeed natural and beautiful. That it is 'natural' and 'the only way' are simply assumptions. 

This conclusion is explored in multiple places, but it is nothing new. Some of the Gnostic texts from 2000 years ago describe just this, with the demiurge, the false pretend god, and his robotic minions (today we would call them AI), running the shit-show. The aim? Harvesting the energy of the beings caught in this infernal realm, especially low vibrational emotional energy like - surprise, surprise - fear and anxiety. This provides the power to keep the whole thing running.

Add in the cycle of reincarnation, which is a trap and a trick to keep souls returning and donating their energy. And there you have it. 

The matrix of human life on planet Earth continues to become more insane by the day. Humanity is being attacked like never before, the goal being total containment, achieved especially through merging human energy with AI, to render them indistinguishable to the new kind of hybrid entity who is already in process of being 'created'. 

This is what I mean by 'the takeover'. Actually, I haven't written much about what I originally intended at all!

And meanwhile, the demon from hell has just taken up public office....

To be continued.......

 

Images: 5 of Cups, Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot; Chogyam Trungpa, Buddhist; Reincarnation cycle/ soultrap