Robed-up farm animals?

There are those who argue that the OBC is inherently oppressive, harmful and cult-like. On the other hand, if we accept that institutional issues can be acknowledged, addressed and challenged in the OBC, we are still left with the fact that OBC Monks are not necessarily any wiser or better at keeping the precepts than lay people like me - and I'm certainly no great Buddhist example.

To me the fact that the OBC has issues simply reflects the fact that it is a human institution. The Truth which that institution exists for is beyond the limitations of the culture and individual people who make up the OBC. For me Real Training goes beyond the OBC, the question is whether the OBC is useful, and so far it still seems useful to me.

Here's a thought: Since the Truth is universal, and the Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha's Enlightenment is the Dharma of all existence, would it really matter if the OBC priesthood were replaced by robed up farm animals?

What do you think?


In Gassho

Hello Vetaculoo

Agreed with everything until the robed up farm animals but it doesn't take much for me to miss the point.

Hummm. speaking of robed up farm animals, some people can behave badly with misplaced bravery provided by robes or even a psudomyn.

Note # If you are bigger than me, an active OBC monk in the closet who needs the cover, a farm animal with fashion aspirations or if that is really your name, I sincerely apologize.

Howard,

Thanks for your comment (no, I'm not a priest or farm animal).

I'm not trying to imply that OBC monks are 'no better than farm animals' but rather that there is teaching everywhere and looking to farm animals for teaching may be more sensible than endulging unsustainable idealistic notions of 'wise and compassionate' monks.

My question is, if the OBC were to replace the entire priesthood with robed up farm animals - would it really matter?

Best post I've read on here so far! Not entirely certain if you're right, but.....I like it!!!!!!!

The trouble with farm animals is that, like the monks (in the hypothetical paradigm held by some on this forum [perhaps me too - not sure yet]), they have become institutionalised and are completely reliant on their farmer-guru. So these animals would be no better at dharma instruction. No worse, perhaps, but no better.

With wild animals it's a different story. Once I saw an old fox looking at me in the forest. Its red fur was flecked with grey and in the dim light of sunset it had a silver sheen. It looked right into my eyes for what seemed an eternity and then it kind of curled up its lip in amusement, shrugged its shoulders and walked disdainfully off. Even though its brain didn't have a frontal lobe (perhaps because of this?) I think it had more wisdom than any [banned term] sapiens sapiens, in costume or not, could ever dream of.

EDIT: haha the banned term was the genus indicator of our species (h omo).

glorfindel wrote:

The trouble with farm animals is that, like the monks (in the hypothetical paradigm held by some on this forum [perhaps me too - not sure yet]), they have become institutionalised and are completely reliant on their farmer-guru.

Right.

glorfindel wrote:

So these animals would be no better at dharma instruction. No worse, perhaps, but no better.

I dunno. I think I would be more at ease, knowing I could only hear "baa-aaa" or a nice "mooo-oo" from the robed ones, instead of those sly trick-sy messages about my training being second-rate. Perhaps a farm animal would find me lacking, too, but if I can't understand its speech, it's done no harm

Now I have a bee in my bonnet about finding a cow somewhere to train with. You know, just sit down next to in the field, and have a heart/mind to heart/mind exchange. A goat would be out of the question, chickens too. If anyone knows a cow who is accepting new students, please let me know.


[Edited to say: this was cheeky I know. I'm sorry if I've given offense. I will play the sugar donut card, as in I had two for breakfast today with my three coffees. Look out.]

A zen monk called Isan, who raised cattle, would say to his monks that in two hundred years, at the front gate of the monastery he would be reborn as a cow. He said that on the side of the cow would be written, 'This is monk Isan'. He would say:

"If you call it a cow, it's monk Isan. If you call it monk Isan, it's a cow. What will you call it?" http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/The_Blue_Cliff_Record%2C_Case_24

An extract from 'The Song of the Jeweled Mirror Samadhi' (Translated by Toshu John Neatrour, Sheng-yen, and Kazu Tanahashi):

以有下劣　寶几珍御
For those whose ability is under the mark, a jeweled footrest and brocaded robe.

以有驚異　狸奴白牯
For others who still can manifest wonder there's a house cat and cow.


See also: http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Enlightenment/osho_on_lakshmi_cow_ramana.htm

Loved the links, Vetaculoo, thank you. A good cow story goes straight to my heart, always has.

On the subject of enlightened Bovinae; it is perhaps no coincidence that all cows chant the sacred syllable- albeit backwards.

Thus

OOOOmmmmmmmm

becomes

MMMMMoooooooooo


Studies into the respective evolutionary timeframes of Bovinae and Hominidae would suggest that the moo-cows' interpretation of the syllable is older and therefore, in all likelihood, closer to the original sound.

My suggestion is this:
The OBC immediately drop the churchy singalongs and Moo-along instead with our four-legged sangha-buddies.

Moo-along.

On one level mooing along sounds fine, but pigs share equally in the Buddha Nature and I have yet to hear one moo. An OBC endorsement of mooing in this context might implicitly diminish or undermine the Buddha Nature of pigs who, through no fault of their own, lack a fully developed mooing capacity. It would thus be important to emphasise that all farm animals in the OBC are equal but some (e.g. those with mooing capacity) are more equal than others.

Perhaps unlike Lakshmi the cow (see above link), most farm animals do not seem to have the genuine capacity to train in Buddhism - at least to the same level as humans. I could be wrong but don't most Buddhist sources seem to suggest that training in Buddhism requires being human?

On one level all things teach, but on another level there are clearly those within recognised lineages and institutions such as Sotoshu or the OBC who are specifically qualified to teach Zen Buddhism.

Replacing human Buddhist teachers (who are (at the very least outwardly) making an effort to follow the Buddha's teaching) with farm animals is just silly.

The following song, entitled 'Pig's in Zen' was originally performed by Jane's Addiction. It was written by Eric Avery, Perry Farrell, David Navarro and Stephen Perkins. As I hope you will see, simply mooing along would not convey the same level of meaning:


Pig's in Zen


Pig's in the mud
When he tires
Pig's in zen
Pig's in zen
Pig is nude
Unashamed
Pig's in zen
Pig's in zen

Talkin bout the pig
The pig
The pig - uh
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pig
[banned term] pig

Pig mounts sow
When he's wound
Pig's in zen
Pig's in zen
Pig eats [banned term]
But only when he hungers
Pig's in zen
Pig's in zen

Talkin bout the pig
The pig
The pig - uh
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pig
[banned term] pig

Oh, I know about war
But I just wanna [banned term]
I know about pain and suffering and being cold
But I just wanna [banned term]

The pig is led to the slaughter
Pig is led to the slaughter
This he says
Is the price some pay
For a simple life
How he feels
Thats proof for him
Pig's in zen

Talkin bout the pig
The pig
The pig
The pig
The pig
The pig
[banned term] pig
The pig - uh
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pig


or:


Moo moo moo moo

Moo moo moo
Moo moo moo
Moo moo moo
etc. (you get the idea)

vetaculoo wrote:

The following song, entitled 'Pig's in Zen' was originally performed by Jane's Addiction. It was written by Eric Avery, Perry Farrell, David Navarro and Stephen Perkins. As I hope you will see, simply mooing along would not convey the same level of meaning:

Good old Perry Farrell causing a rumpus even on the OBC connect forum. But since one of the Buddhist precepts admonishes stealing Mr Farrel is hardly a reliable source of Dharma since he was "caught stealing once when (he) was ten."

But having said that, I'm sure Mr Shakyamuni, in his princely days, would often simply take things when he wanted them and didn't want to pay for them. Perhaps .Maitreya is indeed among us in the form of Farrel and his piggy shenanigans.

And as for pigs, there are too many squealers among them for them to toe the dharmic line.

Their dharma is a load of bull.......and so, back to cows....

Novices in a rare moment of rest.

After a week of cowish chanting the novices were feeling rather hoarse.

LOL! You're funny, Dude. Thanks for the comic relief

Diana wrote:

LOL! You're funny, Dude. Thanks for the comic relief

aaaw ty

great conversation!

But isn't it obvious? All those farm animals are born "robed-up"!!! You can't add anything on top of that..

Where does that leave us?

Baaa

Black and silky ear
folded
damp nostril just twitching.
A monk
In a dog’s body sits
And smells
the mammoth
That walked through here
Just after the last
Ice age.

jt 4.11

Then one day the Novice was expelled from the temple....................

[Admin note: objectionable image removed...]

Hey admin, why are you ruining our thread?

Each day after I perform my toilet-task I gaze proudly into the lavatory. Not once have I found what I saw there "objectionable"

In this case I contend that the objection is a product of the objectors mind rather than a quality of the object concerned.


But to cater to this lameness I will do another picture with the "poop" edited out.

(Sorry about triple posting).

Then one day the Novice was expelled from the temple.......

glorfindel wrote:

Hey admin, why are you ruining our thread?

Each day after I perform my toilet-task I gaze proudly into the lavatory. Not once have I found what I saw there "objectionable"

In this case I contend that the objection is a product of the objectors mind rather than a quality of the object concerned.


But to cater to this lameness I will do another picture with the "poop" edited out.

This is not a matter of "Zen", just good manners in polite company. I can't guarantee that your edited version will be allowed to stay up either.

glorfindel wrote:

Hey admin, why are you ruining our thread?

Each day after I perform my toilet-task I gaze proudly into the lavatory. Not once have I found what I saw there "objectionable"

In this case I contend that the objection is a product of the objectors mind rather than a quality of the object concerned.


But to cater to this lameness I will do another picture with the "poop" edited out.

I agree with Isan that your original image was less than appropriate.

However, I think that you and your robed-up friends have some important points to make.

It also seems to me that while you may be close to accepting your own poop, it sounds like you are not there quite yet, since you are still flushing rather than composting!

In the Humanure Handbook, Joseph Jenkins makes the point that human excrement is not a waste material but a valuable resource that ought to be composted, so that its abundant nutrients can be returned to the soil to maintain fertility for growing food--rather than using it, as we do, for the apparent purpose of polluting our drinking water!

As we continue to deplete resources in general, cheap fossil fuels, and the mineable phosophorus in particular that industrial agriculture depends on--our very survival may come to depend on the proper composting of one of our most valuable resources. To actually accomplish this requires recognizing the fact that what we find culturally objectionable, as you say, "...is a product of the objectors mind rather than a quality of the object concerned."

Joseph Jenkins goes into considerable detail on the science of safely and effectively composting humanure, and then using it for food-growing (while never passing up the opportunity for humor). I've used his system, with equal success, for years.

And so, coming back to your posted image, I would have to agree with the notion of bowing to everything that passes through, and the whole of existence. But, if anyone tells you to bow to it--to any "it"--run like a horse!

lol. Glad to hear you compost your beautiful-brown-gifts-for-mother-earth Kozan. I would but I don't really have the right set-up at the moment. I have trouble keeping my standard compost heap from dominating the garden.

Isan I think your concepts of "polite" and "manners" exemplify the point I made about "objections".

In other parts of this forum people have discussed a story about J.K. (possibly) pooping on a carpet. Also, there has been much discussion about having to bow to the "poopy" behaviour of zen masters. I thought I would parody this. I felt that the "naaay" of the novice gave a clue that the image was not gratuitous but communicative.


EDIT: just an afterthought: why might the edited version be objectionable? I'm not being sarcastic btw, just authentically don't know why the edited image could be considered for muting.

EDIT2: Didn't the image even get a smile? I am considering linking this thread to REDDIT so we can see what the opinion of the whole internet is. Imagine the traffic OBCC would get!!

glorfindel wrote:

Isan I think your concepts of "polite" and "manners" exemplify the point I made about "objections".

In other parts of this forum people have discussed a story about J.K. (possibly) pooping on a carpet. Also, there has been much discussion about having to bow to the "poopy" behaviour of zen masters. I thought I would parody this. I felt that the "naaay" of the novice gave a clue that the image was not gratuitous but communicative.

In the future if you would like to feel more confident that something you post will not be perceived as "gratuitous" please add some commentary to that effect.

As to previous discussions revolving around "poop" there is a difference between language and images, with the latter having a greater potential to be objectionable. I found the comment about JK pooping on a carpet objectionable, however it was not accompanied by an image and in that instance I felt it was better to challenge the author instead of removing the post. That was a judgment call.

Last I do not want to be privy to your personal doings in the lavatory. My notion of manners and being "fecal-phobic" are not the same thing.

How very terse Isan!

I get it about the original. But the edited version? and the comments?

I think it is more offensive to tell stories about J Kennet's...ummmm.... stuff(?) for the sole reason of character assassination than to make funny cartoons about "stuff" in order to communicate some important ideas.

I feel that the cartoon pretty much sums up everything that has been said on this forum about the dangers of Guru yoga.


I will put the image and other humurous comments to the world to see whether, outside this subdued atmosphere of religiosity, the humour:offend proportion achieves 99:1 as I suspect it will.

EDIT: good idea to tag some of my posts with a warning.

glorfindel wrote:

I get it about the original. But the edited version? and the comments?

I think it is more offensive to tell stories about J Kennett's...ummmm.... stuff(?) for the sole reason of character assassination than to make funny cartoons about "stuff" in order to communicate some important ideas.

I feel that the cartoon pretty much sums up everything that has been said on this forum about the dangers of Guru yoga.


I will put the image and other humorous comments to the world to see whether, outside this subdued atmosphere of religiosity, the humor:offend proportion achieves 99:1 as I suspect it will.

EDIT: good idea to tag some of my posts with a warning.

The admins decided that your edited image be allowed to stay up. As I've already suggested if you wanted to have a discussion about the dangers of Guru yoga it would have been better to include a statement along those lines together with your image. I would still have wanted you to edit it, but it would have been more clear that you weren't just indulging in potty humor. While I feel it's an exaggeration to say the atmosphere here is one of "subdued religiosity", there has been an effort hold the conversation to a certain standard.

I really thought the image was self explanatory!

1 Master tells slave-monk to do something weird.

2 Slave-monk says no (what else CAN a horse say?).

3 Master kicks slave out of temple.

Just say 'no' kids.



You know a joke has failed when you have to write essays on its meaning........


Thank you to admins for keeping edited image up. I've not linked this thread in Reddit yet but I have done an offline survey of two people, so far the score is:

glorfindel 2 : Admins 0

Well, what else WOULD your mum and girlfriend say? They've got to take your side in this

I am writing an academic treatise on manners and will send everyone some people a properly stapled copy when complete.

It was a carefully selected random survey. It is pure coincidence that my girlfriend ended up in the poll. And it's about the first time she ever has been in favor of my activities. Is it normal for girlfriends to agree with their partners? That would flabbergast me.

I didn't include my mother in the survey as it would bias the results in favor of the OBCC admins. She is old and does not think clearly. Though in recent years her views have melted a bit so it is possible, just possible, that she could vote correctly.

I'd be interested in scanning the thesis that is sure to discuss the culture specific nature of manners.

This is not a matter of "Zen", just good manners in polite company.

Spot on in both counts. Miss manners takes Zen to the mat again.

Anyone else concerned by those other threads where talk of rape and other heinous manipulations fly by with nary a blink?

Good manners in polite company is a marvelous description of how a plethora of blindness was not, is not and perhaps will never be heartfully examined within the OBC. The social lubricant that maintains the order above the stickier ground of doubt. Such a tenacious conditioning.

Now that we have a site to smooze in safeguarded from Glorfindals childishly offending OBC/OBC connect mirrorings, I can return to some serious spiritual snoozing...

Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along.

Howard wrote:

This is not a matter of "Zen", just good manners in polite company.

Spot on in both counts. Miss manners takes Zen to the mat again.

Anyone else concerned by those other threads where talk of rape and other heinous manipulations fly by with nary a blink?

Good manners in polite company is a marvelous description of how a plethora of blindness was not, is not and perhaps will never be heartfully examined within the OBC.

Now that we have a site to smooze in safeguarded from Glorfindals childishly offending OBC/OBC connect mirrorings, I can return to some serious spiritual snoozing...

Turn off the lights as you leave.

Dude, I've read that ten times, and I still can't work out whose side you're on.


Which, in my view, is totally to your credit.

Hey Glorfindel


A zafu pilot with a "side" is flying blind.

The OBC became a sieve that collectes some and excluded others. This has nothing to do with zen and had everything to do with comfort & identity.


Good manners in polite company is also just about comfort & identity.


Each moment is just another a binary choice between freedom or identity. We always know which is which. Those that say they don't know which is which just don't realize that the wide grey area between those two choices is just the identity that we've already chosen.
This choice also exists for organizations like the OBC or the OBC Connect. We get what we choose.

What choices do you think arose from this cartoon?

I'm planning to split the thread so that Vetaculoo's original topic is not lost. To my surprise, I think I do have more to say on his question -

Since the Truth is universal, and the Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha's Enlightenment is the Dharma of all existence, would it really matter if the OBC priesthood were replaced by robed up farm animals?

Hey Lise

It's completely understandable that you could have more to say on Vetacuoo's question.

Truth being universal? Buddhas Dharma of all existence? Oh we must be a well travelled group.

Another religion's words for God's on our side, which Buddhists recite with equal certainty. It's a "our Dharma is the widest". Just another identity builder which my zafu says is best left unfed.

If Vetacuoo's own career or calling got replaced by robed up farm animals, what would really matter to him would probably have little to do with the philosophical universality of truth.?

Howard wrote:

Truth being universal? Buddhas Dharma of all existence? Oh we must be a well travelled group.

Another religion's words for God's on our side, which Buddhists recite with equal certainty. It's a "our Dharma is the widest".

For those who have been on the receiving end of this, it is strange, no question. And to hear "our tradition is the best - the best of the best", from people who claim to teach non-discrimination - it is rubbish.

I have no use for the idea that some peoples' idea of "Buddhist truth" must, in their view, serve as a blueprint for how all other sentient beings should live their lives. How arrogant is that - how prideful.

I have decided it would not matter if OBC monks, or any other flavour, were replaced by robed-up farm animals. What helps us is what comes from within us, not without. People in robes aren't closer to any "truth" than the rest of us; their knowledge and judgment are not necessarily more advanced. No intermediary is needed, between ourselves and the infinite.

glorfindel wrote:

Didn't the image even get a smile?

:-) It got one from me, G...but then I am old and do not think clearly. (There go my chances of a good reputation... )

vetaculoo wrote:

Here's a thought: Since the Truth is universal, and the Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha's Enlightenment is the Dharma of all existence, would it really matter if the OBC priesthood were replaced by robed up farm animals?

What do you think?

Who would have helped the spiritually struggling me of 1972 if the Buddhist Society or Throssel Hole had simply been livestock-pasture? I'm glad there was someone around who spoke my language and pointed the way...and I wouldn't want to pull up the gangplank now just 'cos I'm on board. Obviously, if there's too much bull, one might prefer a neigh-neigh here, snorrrk-snorrrk there, here a puk, there a moo, and everywhere an arf-arf, but I've just got around to reading the winter Journal of the OBC in English, and I think it's pretty good (and a lot better than what I've just written here!) (-: