Saturday, May 23, 2009

New Buddha Erupts

File under: The Siddhi of PR

How does one go about becoming a buddha? Hire a good press agent:
Master Wan Ko Yee Recognized as the True Incarnation of H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III

WASHINGTON, April 9, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released by the International Buddhism Sangha Association...

According to the Venerable Long Hui, the publication of this precious book H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III announces to the entire world the news that a true Buddha has descended into the world. This incarnated Buddha is Dorje Chang Buddha (aka Buddha Vajradhara), who is the primordial and highest Buddha according to the lineage charts of all Buddhist sects. The entire name of this Buddha is H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III Holiest Tathagata Wan Ko Yeshe Norbu.
This is all one stinking heap of meadow pie to this nose.



At 5/24/2009 6:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Jody,

On the topic "What Enlightenment Reignites", it seems quite a few comments are not getting through.
I've heard from people I know, who are not getting their comments posted to your site.

Are you moderating comment more heavily than usual?

At 5/24/2009 6:53 PM, Blogger jody radzik said...

This is not a venue for attacking Stuart Resnick.

At 5/25/2009 5:09 PM, Anonymous ovajonaj said...

I was romantically imagining that Buddhism is more immune to high-priesthoodness, titleism, avatarism, incarnationism, and other ills of organized religion, than other religions.

Seems like i was wrong.

Maybe once upon a time it was, but apparently not any more.

Ah the plague of the "Christ returned" AKA "the Mahdi" AKA "the last and greatest Kalki Avatar" AKA "the incarnation of the primordial Buddha of the universe"...

At 5/25/2009 5:36 PM, Anonymous ovajonaj said...

This is what H.H. Buddha III has to say about himself and his Buddhiness:
(emphases mine)

If I said that I am Dorje Chang III , I would undoubtedly be expressing an unbridled form of “attachment to self” or egocentrism and would thereby be acting like an ordinary person. How could that be even slightly in accordance with the enlightened conduct of a Buddha?I agree wholeheartedly.

On the other hand, it would be even more serious if I said that I am not the incarnation of Dorje Chang. That would be the conduct of a demon rather than the conduct of an ordinary person. [...] It would mean denying the existence of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and the Buddha-dharma.It most certainly would not. Why?
It would only mean that whoever said he was one, was wrong. Nothing to do with "the existence of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and the Buddha-dharma".

It would undoubtedly be saying that those holy dharma kings, rinpoches, and eminent monks who issued recognition certificates and written congratulations are in fact not holy and therefore issued documents that contain false words and deceive living beings.Now we're talking! It would mean that, yes. Either deceiving other living beings, or themselves; not clear which, at this point. Still, nothing to do with the existence of the Buddhas and the Buddha-dharma etc.

If one denies the recognition certificates and written congratulations of those dharma kings and rinpoches, who are incarnations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, wouldn’t that be slandering the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas by claiming that they speak falsely? Now here we have a circular labeling i don't like very much. Who says they are incarnations of Buddhas? The one they say is the primordial Buddha himself. And probably themselves.
"They say i'm The One; and they are Buddhas, so they must be right"
"He says we are Buddhas; and he's The One, so he must be right".

Wouldn’t that be slandering those eminent monks by claiming that they speak recklessly and act irresponsibly toward living beings? That would be completely tantamount to labeling those dharma kings, rinpoches, and eminent monks as ordinary people or deceivers, which would mean that eminent monks and people of holy virtue do not exist.It would NOT mean that people of holy virtue do not exist. It would only mean that these "eminent monks" are not ones.

As such, how could there still be Buddhism and Buddha-dharma in this world?By sincere people sincerely practising Buddha's techings.

All in all, here (nor in the rest of his text) His Holiness Supreme Buddha III doesn't resolve the dychotomy of "i can't say i am and i can't say i'm not" in any way that would convince me he has Zen, or even some supreme wisdom. Basically,
to save "eminent monks" faces, he simply reverts back to (as he nicely put it) "expressing an unbridled form of 'attachment to self' or egocentrism that cannot be even slightly in accordance with the enlightened conduct of a Buddha".

Contrary to what he says about their "sacred certificates and written congratulations", if he simply said "You guys are wrong, i'm not the one. Think again." - he would have me thinking that perhaps they were right, and that he may actually be the one...

At 5/26/2009 1:06 AM, Anonymous ellen said...

'if he simply said "You guys are wrong, i'm not the one. Think again." - he would have me thinking that perhaps they were right, and that he may actually be the one...'

I can remember using exactly this kind of circular thinking years ago when trying to unknot a similar puzzle. Whether he's 'the one' or not 'the one' is a language trap and keeps you in black/white, either/or thinking, a closed system. (a closed system is a prerequisite for shutting down critical thought)

Had he said 'I am a buddha and so are you along with every other living thing on the planet' he would at least have presented an open system for the listener to think about and explore. He would then have something to teach.

At 5/26/2009 8:59 PM, Blogger yomamma said...

there's just no way you can understand all this shit, so I think it works in Jojo's favor.

At 6/06/2009 8:09 AM, Blogger yomamma said...

i can't say i am and i can't say i'm not"

Has anyone seen this Clark Rockefeller Con? he's a guy who has duped all kinds of people by saying he is a Rockefeller heir, and he uses this same logic. Dharma heir, Rockefeller heir, Dharma heir,Rocekfeller heir.......

At 6/17/2009 6:29 AM, Anonymous quackers said...

dont fancy listening to this new buddha, he sounds real confused.
talk about psycho babble!

ever heard of getting to the point dear buddhaji or is that the whole point, that there is no point to you?

the real buddha must be thanking his lucky stars that he came to this planet in the first place!

At 6/18/2009 1:04 AM, Anonymous buddhist amulet said...

Looking farword your post.

At 6/20/2009 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

buddhist amulet said...
Looking farword your post.

you sound seriously creepy,
buzz off you weirdo

admin shouldnt print comments from such creepy readers

this guy sounds like a whacked out cyber stalker

admin really need to do their job better by at least censoring creeps like these

noone writes comments to be creeped over by anyone else

its not on

At 7/05/2009 11:25 AM, Blogger Ram said...


The chinese government has taken keen interest in "Buddhism". They have co-opted various monks, established virtual "Rinponches" and even restarted some of the monasteries in Tibet.

Their interest? To make a sanitized version of Buddhism. Given their methods and means over the past 50 years, in politics and otherwise, it is not very far stretched to imagine they will start supporting fake Buddhas. Eventually, they will "uncover" the fakery, and reduce even further the practice of true buddism...

Why do that? If you know, there are only two actively practiced spiritual means in China nowadays: Buddism and Islam. They can't cope with the second, at least let us eliminate the first... There is too much "freedom", self-knowledge and other stuff that could make Buddhism popular in China again... After lots of money, people either want political power or self-knowledge...

I predicted several "enlightened" masters will arise in China in the coming years, all coming out of nowhere and with a party-aligned message. With great PR and tour schedule.

At 2/15/2010 7:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i just saw this guys website today and wrote to them explaining how archaic,religious and backward their interpretation of budhism is.Morals,fear,beliefs,SUPERnatural,kings and "enlightened" beings..a world of CONcept and promoted duality.Within 2mins i thought(and then read on this page)that the Chineese must hava hand in it....if i meet this "budha" i WILL kill him in with "one" really ever lived or died anyway...but still the universe plays....


Post a Comment

<< Home