(recycled from the forum of DBU, 2007; Photo: Vajraspanner, wikipedia.de)
Nydahl I had seen some years ago on television by Alfred Biolek, but never personally met, so I looked curiously at me as some posts on youtube.com. I was startled the first time on teachers and students second (in parentheses below the minute, to which my comments ) Belong.
Ole Nydahl speaks of monks and nuns who had nothing to do with sex "or that AT teachers want to do nothing" (1:45). This formulation is psychologically interesting, I will spare myself, but one interpretation, and leave it to the viewer. Anyway, it's usually a way to sneak that lack of knowledge about the human condition (which may be a lack of training) the following errors: "A yogi should always have the power, otherwise it is unusable." The right question is: it creates a life "without sag phase" (4:00) My grade: 1) Everyone has weaknesses, including a "Yogi". 2) What is a word choice when it comes to people, "usable"?
And now it was not further vewunderlich that with the really important things (the above should make an already suspicious but, if one wants to entrust Nydahl as a student), so content, Buddhists outside the horror can come.
The Karma speech
Nydahl said that everything that was not already, could be changed (1:50). WHERE is the claim in the scriptures? I simply ask you: Did you also feel that it is so? Before I play the karma doctrine, as I know it, here (it includes changeable as unchangeable events) I call just to die. No one can, even if it is not just dying to escape the dying. Such a proposition is nonsense, and someone who is not even an agnostic would pray formally, that the Buddhist doctrine does not contain such nonsense. But it is clear why Nydahl speaks thus: Because it is a dream of people who really influence everything in the form of omnipotence to. They fail, of course, every day: When all the rolls are baking, the train is late, etc. Continuously there are things that are just not altered. Man is, as far as external conditions, also very much a pawn of forces beyond his control.
As of 4:45
defined Nydahl Karma (the full badge that makes out karma ") with four indicators: recognize the situation, feel the urge to act, and act - SATISFACTION (" satisfaction ") about the result. The point is that karma "negative" effect. Interestingly, he starts from 13:00 on the killing in order to explain these four characteristics. Even at 13:20 he calls "abortion," abortion as an example - and hopelessly bogged down, without it quite remarkable. Because he does say that it is better to adopt children, but at the same time he confirmed that there lacks a satisfaction (which would indeed mean exactly that the karma does not produce fully would). Those objectives are already clear that "satisfaction" not suitable to explain the concept of karma. Consider a woman who was raped and aborts the child. Let other hand, an abortion the child because they will not give up their freedoms. Let us assume that both are somewhat at the end of abortion satisfied ("happy"). Do you think really, they would create the same karma, just because the four are provided by Nydahl said properties? Another example I remember from the interview of a Mafia godfather, has been written about in the press. This murderer was able to establish that he felt no guilt and no remorse. He felt at all undischarged, just his job, so felt no satisfaction. Well, do you mean loud Nydahl, he has made no special karma?
at 20:00 Nydahl says that there is no collective Karma, Karma bring people in individual circumstances with such people, would like the Karma. I ask you: Why were then destroyed in human history, large parts of Volkgsruppen (Jews, Armenians, Tutsis, etc.) - in other words: Collective? Does this for all the people who died in Nazi Germany or Pol Pot, who had done so because of their bad karma? Anne Frank was so such a lousy karma? But since (see above) everything that is not done yet, can be changed, why she could not escape their fate? Yet another logical contradiction, and what outsiders would not now believe that Buddhism is a very depraved ethics must, if he thinks that the perpetrators would have had a better karma than the victim. If, as a Buddhist karma doctrine so narrows, we should by all those good people will spit on the basis of blind greed for power lost (as in many dictatorships).
WO stands in the tradition that there are only individual karma, but if the individual ego and empty?
But Nydahl says: "the moment we die everybody's MIND is out there experiencing its own fruits "(21:15). WHAT IS EVERYBODY'S (individual) mind? This is the only one of the critical issues that were not deleted from the youtube comment forum below the film article. Nydahl A supporter responds to the question - in characteristic style Nydhals - what was to be born again if there is no ego. Yes, the ego is the cause for rebirths, but there were also those who promise abgäben and want to help others and would be reborn so
And there we have the last, crucial contradiction: no promise to help every wish one could exist without ego joke now. Sure, it must be so, because without ego, no rebirth. On the other hand, we may conclude from this that all who wish to be reborn, their egos have not just overcome. Why should we accept this as a Buddhist teacher? You have not understood the essence of the doctrine: the letting go of all that non-attachment. That is why they are born again of the same reasons as everyone else (if you believe in it).
0 comments:
Post a Comment