Thank you Corboy for sharing that article, which is very interesting and deserves further consideration.
The big problem I have with Moo's teachings about the 'pure self' is that he seems to be pointing towards a kind of nihilism, where nothing matters and people don't really even exist. I think it is causing vulnerable people to disassociate from themselves and enter into some kind of prolonged trance state, where they are very open to being exploited.
I think that mostly Buddhist teachings or Advaita Vedanta teachings in themselves are not harmful, but focusing on only certain aspects of the doctrines and disregarding other aspects of the teaching is giving people a very skewed perspective.
As the author Shayam Dodge wrote in the article:
Therefore, his philosophy is concerned with dissociating from the intellect, from the emotions, from the real world conditions of suffering in order to touch a greater truth.
I suppose the aim here is to take what you have learnt from being able to temporarily 'suspend' your emotional responses in deference to some kind of 'higher truth' and be able to apply that feeling of peace to everyday life.
For me this would mean that I might pause before I react instinctively with anger or with gratitude and observe my emotions. But I wouldn't throw away emotions all together, as though they are useless and unimportant. That would make me inhuman!
Perhaps some of these teachings are designed for monks who do not participate in the material world of everyday life and who just want to meditate in a cave for years on end?
But for a typical person who just wants to lead a good, harmonious life, some of these teaching are way too extreme?
I found an interesting article from the United Nations (of all places!) which does a pretty good job of explaining Buddhism, I believe:
[www.unhcr.org]
You can see from reading this article that Buddhism does advocate moral and ethical guidelines for leading a good life; such as 'refrain from sexual misconduct' (Moo if you are reading this- that means you too!!)
The big problem I have with Moo's teachings about the 'pure self' is that he seems to be pointing towards a kind of nihilism, where nothing matters and people don't really even exist. I think it is causing vulnerable people to disassociate from themselves and enter into some kind of prolonged trance state, where they are very open to being exploited.
I think that mostly Buddhist teachings or Advaita Vedanta teachings in themselves are not harmful, but focusing on only certain aspects of the doctrines and disregarding other aspects of the teaching is giving people a very skewed perspective.
As the author Shayam Dodge wrote in the article:
Therefore, his philosophy is concerned with dissociating from the intellect, from the emotions, from the real world conditions of suffering in order to touch a greater truth.
I suppose the aim here is to take what you have learnt from being able to temporarily 'suspend' your emotional responses in deference to some kind of 'higher truth' and be able to apply that feeling of peace to everyday life.
For me this would mean that I might pause before I react instinctively with anger or with gratitude and observe my emotions. But I wouldn't throw away emotions all together, as though they are useless and unimportant. That would make me inhuman!
Perhaps some of these teachings are designed for monks who do not participate in the material world of everyday life and who just want to meditate in a cave for years on end?
But for a typical person who just wants to lead a good, harmonious life, some of these teaching are way too extreme?
I found an interesting article from the United Nations (of all places!) which does a pretty good job of explaining Buddhism, I believe:
[www.unhcr.org]
You can see from reading this article that Buddhism does advocate moral and ethical guidelines for leading a good life; such as 'refrain from sexual misconduct' (Moo if you are reading this- that means you too!!)