Taboo against the transcendent

Looking during a slick Buddhist magazines in a bookstore a couple of blocks away from where we live we am inclined to hold which a dumbed down, mediocritized version of Buddhism is winning a day, contra Buddhism according to a Buddha.

Granted, which looking during a little aspects of Buddhism intellectually is difficult even for trained academicians, there should not be so most dumbed down as well as mediocritized Buddhism circulating in a marketplace place. (People have been not which stupid!)

I confess, which we dont have a great answer to explain this phenomenon. The usually thing which has recently crossed my thoughts as a likely explanation is that, somehow, selling a conceptual is a taboo. It would be like going back in a time appurtenance to a Victorian era trying to sell Playboy magazines, hoping to have a fortune.

Along with a sole banned just mentioned, we would include a example of publications as well as research about people who have been abducted by interdimensional or extraterrestrial beings, psychedelic drug culture, shamanism, gnosticism, out of physique as well as near genocide experiences, past lives, pick healing strategies, etc. we realize which this is an odd assortment of subjects though we hold which while these subjects have their followers, they have been treated, some-more or less, as taboos in a open marketplace place of ideas as well as by a mainstream media (MSM). Therefore, we should not be astounded (but we am!) which Buddhism sole in a slick magazines, with a corporate look, have been significantly bowdlerized in which a component of a conceptual has been possibly expunged or altered.

But because a banned opposite a conceptual which we hold to be a box with Buddhism today? This is a difficult bulb to crack. The problem positively has a origin in a common, bland collective essence this most is obvious. Looking into a collective essence it is not without fear, as well as concomitant this fear, a drive to keep all simple, safe, as well as control! lable, o n top of all human. This is a perspective of anthropocentrism, which male is a magnitude of all thingsthere is zero higher. In alternative words, transcendence is unfit because there is zero aloft than man. But Buddhism denies this. The Buddha never claims to be a humanhe is aloft than even a god (A. ii. 37).

While complicated Buddhism likes a Buddhas all-too-human a fact stays which Buddhas have been not tellurian as well as their teachings call for a transcendence of all which is tellurian as well as godly. So a banned opposite a conceptual will remain, some-more or less, as prolonged as tellurian audacity holds sway.