As according to the Buddha’s teaching in the Kalama Sutta, we should have wise enquiry for the truth, and beware of blindly subscribing to unfounded hearsay, both online or offline. As long as not yet fully enlightened, not everything said by well known persons, even teachers with wide followings, has 100% guarantee of being always correct.
Below is a true case study, as carefully summarised and analysed. The actual sources of information are not shared here as their links might further mislead readers. This was written not to slander anyone, but to address an important matter rationally and factually, without favour, to safeguard the Dharma and to protect fellow Buddhists.
A teacher on 22.12.2011 spoke online with grave and conclusive certainty that there will be 3 days of darkness from 21.12.2012 onwards, that the world will enter the ‘zero dimension’ before going into the ‘fourth dimension’, that there will be much destruction and death, that technology (including modes of transport like planes, ships and cars) might fail, that there might be no electricity and gas, returning us to olden times. He held some papers as he spoke, and says this information is from the most authoritative report, from NASA.
11 days later, on 02.01.2012, he takes back ALL his words above in a vague manner. He says there is lots of information (news) on disasters out there, that there is no need to bother, that they are not reliable, that whatever they are about, they are not important at all, that their origins are unknown, that there is no need to believe this and that, that to bother about such information is to practise Buddhism wrongly, that we should transform the environment with our minds instead, that if you want to, you can take a look at the information, that if you don’t want to, there is no need to at all.
1 day later, on 03.01.2012, he says that he received information that NASA is denouncing many 2012 hoaxes, which have no scientific proof, that this implies asking us not to believe them. He says, ‘Is there reason? We hear this to be reasonable. Why? The environment changes with the mind. If we all do not think about it, this matter will not be there. If you go and think about it, it will come.’
Here is a deeper analysis of problems with the above proclamations:
1. NASA did not say the above, that he first claimed on 22.12.2011. What NASA says can be seen at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html There goes the so-called most authoritative report, right down the drain. Also, what is this zero to fourth dimension darkness and end of technology prediction, that was not even explained scientifically, even as a plausible theory?
2. He should openly apologise to his followers who became worried over his openly said words, and apologise for putting words in NASA’s mouth. The unnecessary panic and harm caused by his words is hard to measure indeed. Given his relatively high profile, can we imagine how many might lose faith in Buddhism and other Buddhist teachers generally as a result? He should explain for his mistakes properly. There are some who might become depressed and contemplate drastic ‘measures’ like suicide too.
3. He had taught much over the last few years on impending 2012 problems. When he simply said recently, there is no need to bother about such information, how do his followers know which past information not to bother about any more? Does this include what he said before, and now? Which is the baby to keep and which the bathwater to throw out?
4. As he said that lots of information out there is unreliable and is unimportant in such a certain way, why did he rely on and spread such unreliable and unimportant information with certainty in the first place? How do we know if future information from him on this (or other subjects) will be reliable or important, since he said there is no need to bother about ‘such information’ out there? Is he the only reliable source of information? If he is, he would not had said what is unreliable in the first place. He should simply unequivocally say what he said earlier about 2012 was unreliable, especially from the perspective of the truly reliable and authoritative source that he wrongly referenced earlier – NASA!
5. It is irresponsible to say there is no need to bother about all information (news). Without information, how do we become informed of community and worldwide problems, such as the climate crisis and the misfortune of other beings, so as to do what is needed? Without information, how can anyone who heard his seriously wrong claims have rectified information? It is also wrong to make a sweeping statement that all information out there is not reliable, not important, or with unknown origins. E.g. NASA is reasonably reliable. In fact, isn’t this why he made statements with reference to NASA, albeit mostly inaccurately so far? With timely and appropriate information on various matters in the world, many problems can be avoided too – such as allaying panic due to 2012 hoaxes.
6. If all Buddhists should shut ourselves from all information, how do we become active Bodhisattvas in engaging the world with compassion and wisdom skilfully? There is a limit to how much we can transform the environment with our limited mind transformation. If it is so easy to do so, this world will be a Pure Land instantly for everyone already. Why would there be the need to warn of disasters like he did? If we should just shut ourselves from all information, why did he share the wrong information with others in the first place, which he now takes back? Shouldn’t he had shut himself from the hoaxes in the first place?
7. He often said he doesn’t read newspapers or watch the news because there is no need to. Yet he kept talking about ‘news’ of 2012 in a misguided manner recently. His 22.12.2011 announcement was especially ‘significant’ because he claimed it was officially (sic) from NASA, that it is of special concern. Yet, he says he doesn’t know where it is really from 11 days later. Without more explanation, he just says it, like other information, is of no concern. How many might have heard of only his first or earlier announcements of an ‘impending disaster’ but not the second ‘corrective’ one? Out of compassion and wisdom, he should clarify more clearly and openly.
8. Unfortunately, this is not the first time he made ambiguous and misleading statements about an ‘impending disaster’ that is proven not true. As mentioned, may all be careful when listening to anyone, including teachers. Again, not all teachers are always right. In fact, few teachers are always right, as few are totally enlightened. In this recent case, if the information was passed to him by deluded followers, and that he believed and shared the information wrongly, he should just admit so to clear the air. He could had ironically victimised himself and others by blocking proper objective channels of information in the first place, as in point 7 above. Teachers’ delusions are ironically often created and sustained by their deluded students, but they themselves are always responsible too, for trusting unsound sources without sound discernment. Worse still, is pride and delusion that prevents proper apology for one’s grave mistakes.
9. On 03.01.2012, he still fails to apologise for his years of 2012 rumour-mongering despite knowing NASA’s official stance. He simply says that there are many unscientific hoaxes, but does not say directly that what he has been saying on 2012 belongs to the same category, that he had been hoaxed into being a hoaxster too. He had been asking countless to believe conclusively in 2012 hoaxes, and now he simply says there is no need to believe them at all, that this is reasonable. That makes him unreasonable all along in rumour-mongering. He also sneaks around the issue by saying NASA implied that not thinking about a coming disaster is the way to avert it, as if the disaster is still a possibility. NASA has never said this, while giving this perspective is using NASA’s name to cover his mistakes. If this principle works 100%, he is totally guilty for making his followers keep thinking and worrying at length about a coming disaster in the recent years – that could have led to a real disaster. He should had not said anything about 2012 in the first place in any case then? Saying that simply not thinking about something will not make that thing come true is simplistic. For instance, we do not need to think of death but everyone unenlightened still dies some day, and just thinking about not dying does not make us immortal.
It cannot be said once and for all, that this episode of the 2012 hoax fueled by the said teacher has come to an end for good, as he might flip his words incoherently again, as above? Although he is seen as a good teacher by some, he is also known for generating major contentious Dharma issues in the eyes of other respectable Buddhist teachers, such as the popularisation of a compiled (and thus heavily edited) so-called ‘sutra’ not approved by any Buddhist Patriarch in history, that continues to cause needless division in the Buddhist community. Such a text cannot be said to be actual words of the Buddha, even if somewhat aligned in principle. In his 02.01.2012 talk, he again tells his followers not to doubt this so-called ‘sutra’, that it is the best, that if it is doubted, one might miss the opportunity to reach their spiritual goal in this life. This is untrue because it would mean that no one else reached their spiritual goals by relying on the orthodox version of the sutra, which the last great Patriarch used too.
Despite respect for whatever good he has done, partially due to the above (and other issues not easy to detail here), it is now hard to respect his character, which seems to lack true contrition and repentance in speech and action for his mistakes. The only way he can regain respect from appalled fellow Buddhists is to realise and resolve his mistakes openly and clearly as soon as possible. (Previous contentious issues have been politely sent to his organisations for clarifications years ago, but replies are still in want.)
- DharmaProtector
Related Article:
Buddhist Questions & Answers on 2012
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2011/12/buddhist-questions-answers-on-2012
