Q.  Someone in there is lying and getting away with it (most of the time). The lie is that there is a permanent self existing. It's so sneaky though. It doesn't come right and say 'Hi, I'm permanent."  That would be easy to defeat. It objectifies our biological self when we are very little (2 yrs old?), and defenseless! Our parents and relatives reinforce this conceptualizing, so does everyone we come in contact with as we grow up. We become conditioned to it , addicted to it. We take it for reality.

A.  This is the same story line. "Bad, bad brain," said St. Joey Ramone. Practicing straightforward seeing, we don't add faces or names to what arises before us.

Q.  Something in the act of conceptualizing (maybe that 'craving' thing Buddha was talking about) implies a permanence.

A.  More projection. Let craving sit right on your tongue as your mind races like red flame toward its intended objects. Its impermanence will drive you wild.

Q.  IMO it is the physical nature of conceptualizing that makes us unconsciously think an idea is permanent. It's like a default setting. But that's ok from the 'species continuation' program's point of view, because a permanent self might be very good for species continuation. A permanent self is a great carrot.

A.  Self doesn't need an incentive program to arise. It is more motivated than any insurance salesman. Things, "the world," arise so the off-balance fictitious self will have something to lean against. Fictitious self-existence provides the raison d'etre for everything else, and is not the tool of other things.

When fictitious self subsides and upright awareness expresses itself, appearances are gone as well, along with fictitious selfhood.

Q.  American Buddha and Arch Stanton are just opposite extremes.  Buddhists should avoid extremes.

A.  Arch and Ambu are not opposite ends of the concept of authority. I know you think Arch means, "kiss the floor," and Ambu means "not on your life," but that is the very real difference between someone who has deified an unworthy principle and someone who has found a principle worthy of protection above all others.

Just as the mathematician must defend the "extreme view" that zero equals nothing, absolutely nothing, and would never compromise by saying that sometimes zero might just contain the tiniest fraction of something, otherwise all of mathematics would collapse, so Ambu maintains that all ideas must be judged solely on their merits and never on their origins. This is not an extreme view -- it is rational hygiene. Abandon it, and you lose the level against which to judge. Grasp at an idea because you love the speaker, and you blind yourself to its faults. Reject an idea because you hate the speaker and you blind yourself to its virtues.

The question isn't whether one has a "balanced" attitude, but whether one is seeing what is right in front of our face. Balanced "views" arise only when one is consuming reality in filtered versions. When you see it directly, you don't necessarily agree with anyone's view. You agree with reality, about which it may be impossible to say anything much.

Q.  What do you mean when you say the mind is "tautological."   Tautology means a needless repetition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence; redundancy.

A.  That's the grammatical definition of tautology.  The logician's definition is the one Ambu is using. In formal logic, a tautology is a statement that "is always true." Another aspect of tautologies is this: "the truth value of the statement is independent of the value of the input variable."  This is to say, regardless of what you input, the statement is structured so that it remains true.

In this sense, the mind is tautological, because regardless of what "variables" (appearances) are "input" (arise in) the mind, there is no alteration of their original nature. If there is perfect reflection of the original principle then there is no deviation.

Here's a thought. If you look in a mirror, you see only one image of yourself. This is "true" functioning of the mirror, because there is only one of you. The mirror always reflects one image. But if you look in two mirrors, one in front of you, one in back, then you see an infinite sequence of you. Actually, of course, the sequence is not infinite, because if you could catch up with the light rays bouncing off your face at light speed, you would eventually get to a mirror in which there was no image showing. The first mirror always has one more face in it than the second one, right?. You would have eclipsed the endless replication, which is actually an ongoing process taking place in time. The ongoing replication of images would cease if you removed one of the mirrors. Likewise, if you turned off the light, all the images would disappear. It is also interesting to note that, while one mirror shows one face (the truth), two mirrors show a rapidly-proliferating number of faces (not the truth), but they also let you see the back of your head (which is not normal). If you want to see the back of your head, using two mirrors (calculative thought that continues from now into the future) is helpful, but if you want to count how many of you there are today, one mirror is best.

It was said by Mahasiddha Saraha (long may his name be heard among mortals) that "to the fool who squints, one thing is seen as two."

Since the mind is tautological, it generates a reflex of whatever it has been presented. Since the mind is not flat, but multidimensional, it can generate its own "second mirror" effect, which gives rise to the endless echoes of thought that we perceive as "mental perturbation." By abandoning attachment to the reflexive images that arise in profusion, we gradually resolve all the fragmented mirrors of mind into the single mirror of the now moment. This would be like inhaling all of the light rays back into your face, or dissolving all the mirrors into a single sheet of quicksilver. In the now moment all appears in its true form, with the mind reflecting its inherent perfection and noplace for multiple images to replicate.

Allowing the mind to recoalesce around its single tautological nature reminds me of a favorite analogy -- watching the reflection of the moon in water, when the water's surface becomes smooth, the many fragments of light coalesce into a single sphere. I like the analogy because the water reminds me of our body, made of water, and the image of the moon reminds me of thought, clear and bright. When our liquid body breathes at peace, the tides of our inner seas become regular and level. Then, as the surface becomes smooth with the regular rhythm of the deeper waters, there is great clarity, and the moon shines complete on the surface of the depths. Then a fish leaps up, shattering the moon, and we watch it all come together again.

Q.  What is missing in America is the Buddhist tradition of wandering yogins, monks, forest begging monks, and hermits.  It seems there just aren't enough Buddhists to support these practices. If there were a few towns with large numbers of Buddhists, they could mark their properties in some way, and it would be possible for the monks, nuns and yogis who follow the forest tradition to come beg for their meals.  They could also support some settled hermits.  But at present, I don't think non-Buddhist America is ready for this.  The Mt. Shasta, California, and Ashland, Oregon location is quite rural, much of the land is hilly or mountainous and in national forest, and there are many remote pieces of inexpensive property that Buddhists could purchase for hermits, which are already attracting a number of Buddhist centers, so that might be a good place to establish those traditional practices. 

There would also have to be something else available. In India, monks often used to move into shelter during the rains. In the Mt. Shasta area, it would be important to provide shelter to wandering Buddhists during the winter months - winter replacing the rains in the tradition. But spring, summer and fall would be a good time for monks, nuns and yogis to wander from center to center, or live in special campgrounds in the forest established by groups of Buddhists. With enough Buddhists in the area, there would be enough houses to go to on begging rounds.

With enough Buddhist population, an informal New Nalanda might also be possible. By that I mean a loose association of Buddhist scholarly and scientific programs of various centers in the area. The centers could probably share some library facilities, and there could be bus service linking them.

A.  I think the idea of being able to check out from society and get totally into the environment sounds great. Have you ever tried it? I've spent a few years out in the woods, and there's nothing like getting used to the outdoors, just being able to work all day in the drizzle and fog, drinking hot coffee and running a chain saw, gathering wood and loading a truck. Fixing machines in the rain. It's all good.

When I was young and had lots of energy, I was lucky. I blew it living out in the country. I didn't blow it in all in a skyscraper or an office. I even traveled in the East, went to Afghanistan, India, etc.

Being able to wander and get lost in a distant world is a good thing. Meet crazy Indian people and wander around barefoot in multi-thousand year old cities with so-called ascetics everywhere, bodies bobbing in the river, piles of **** everywhere. It's all good.

I'd like to be tough enough in my old age after the old gal's gone, to wander off into the woods finally one snowy evening when it doesn't matter anymore and just park my failing ass and get one last blanket of snow. Can't beat mother nature for doing the old systems shutdown. Better than Kevorkian or any of the other needle-operators.

Then again, I might just find myself freezing my ass off, hightailing it back to my cabin, pouring out shots of whiskey and throwing kerosene in the wood stove to get the fire going faster. Teach myself a damn good lesson. Find out if you're ready to die -- give it a try!

Q.  Can one be a good cop and a Buddhist? A policeman's job is to make people uphold the laws. If the law says a beggar can't stand someplace, he has to make them move.  It is not up to him to decide whether the law is just or not. There are other places to question that. There are many ways to do things. You can apply compassion in whatever you do. For instance, you don't have to beat someone when you arrest them, but you arrest them. You can have a confrontational and antagonistic attitude or you can be helpful and cooperative.

A.   I think that the view expressed above is a bit wooden. My brother's a prosecutor, and I was one for a little over a year. We've talked a lot about the ethical issues faced by prosecutors. He's against the death penalty (Roman Catholic), so he became exclusively a misdemeanor prosecutor -- he's turned his focus on DUII, domestic violence, and lately, putting slumlords out of business. Not all crime involves the underclass.

I avoided doing drug prosecution, but I've known lots of people who do that work. Mostly, my criminal work has been defense work, and I'm sure Ariel would back me up in saying that when I moved to suppress the admission of heroin as evidence, knowing it belonged to my client and that he was guilty of trying to sell it to people, simply on a "technicality," that was the job I was supposed to do. As a practical matter, when I got drug dealers lower sentences through skillful litigation and negotiation, I felt I was saving us all money, because more time in jail costs us all a lot more cash.

We have too many police and not enough teachers. We have a mental health establishment that seems to thrive on projecting pathology on what is often just a case of growing up too fast in bad company. Judges with little knowledge of therapy force people to attend therapy for every type of antisocial behavior. The criminal justice system is primarily for the oppression of the underclass through fine, fees, and jail time. We would be safer if the number of prisons were cut to a quarter of what they are, and the funds were redirected to job programs to rebuild the infrastructure and employ small time drug dealers who, statistics show, usually are poor men who hold regular jobs and work their off hours making a few extra dollars to buy necessities for their families.

So before we get off saying that these jobs need to be done, I suggest we ask if that is correct. I needed to do my work, and most lawyers, judges, court clerks, jail guards, etcetera need to do their work for one simple reason -- to pay our own bills. That doesn't mean it's good work, or important, or ethical, or "Buddhist." If it's a dirty job, first question whether anyone has to do it.

The question is where we draw the line. And how we can obtain power to change the existing social order, which perpetuates injustice and oppression at home and around the world.

Remember that old slogan, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" How about "What if the offered great jobs oppressing humanity and nobody wanted them?"

Whether to carry a gun, use a gun, threaten to use a gun, etcetera. These are important questions for the man in the field who already has the dirty job. By all means, train and advise that person to be peaceful, wise, and do their job with compassion. There's way too many citizens murdered by police. But again, maybe we need to look a little more widely at the problem. Is Hollywood to blame in part for the bloodshed that fills the cities? I dare you to say no. Are arms makers responsible for the profligate murder of civilians in Afghanistan? Double dare ya'. Rising obesity even in poor nations is a world problem. Do we blame McDonalds and their suppliers? I think we have to, in order to reshape the world into a human-friendly habitat, which it currently is not.

My goal is to convince people that goodness is practical. I often find that if we immediately start talking abstractions, like whether a Buddhist can pull the trigger in a crunch, we fail to address issues that present themselves much more routinely, like whether a Buddhist should work a job that they personally, directly, feel is not good for other people.

I have faced this in strange contexts that in fact are so strange I will not discuss them. But suffice it to say that the enormity of the karmic effects that could result from one's solitary actions can literally chill your bones. And yet, we say we are powerless.

In truth, we are not powerless, but we become frightened of suffering consequences such as loss of social stature, money, and companionship. We barter a great deal to keep these. How can we barter the value of having an extra $20,000 a year against the satisfaction of doing a job that you really think is making the world a better place? Well, we have to, and we do.

I think our world improves incrementally every time someone encourages another to do something beneficial at material cost to themselves. By saying, "Hey, I'll still love you without a sports car," a lover may make it possible for someone to take a job in a free clinic, distributing medicines and treating people who are really suffering, instead of doing face lifts for celebrities. When it becomes sexy to help an old lady across the street, and a turn-on to be with a guy who gives cash to street people, then the world is coming along. We'll be on our way to widespread reform when a governor like Davis can say, "I'm granting clemency because the electorate believes that the State of California can show mercy," instead of keeping the unjustly imprisoned behind bars in order to garner the cruel and stupid vote. The wildfire of good government will be well on its way when people in the positions of Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat collapse weeping into each other's arms and swear to end the bloodshed, whatever the cost to their careers. And everyday acts of heroism will become commonplace, as people speak up to expose the wrongs they have committed, so that they can be remedied. Courage in facing up to consequences will become commonplace as we replace retribution with healing, and the bitter satisfaction of vengeance is replaced by dedication to create better times for all.

Q.  I have a friend who has taken Buddhist refuge vows and now wants to be initiated in the Yoruba tradition which participates in animal sacrifice. I believe she is misguided in the notion that one can be both "Buddhist" and "Yorubic." Any thoughts on this? pro or con both welcome.

Reminds me of that story Ram Dass put in his Be Here Now book:
A guru gives his disciple a chicken and says, "Go kill it where nobody sees."
Two days later, the guy comes back. He's still got the chicken, alive.
The guru says, "What's up with that? I told you to take the chicken and kill it where nobody sees."
The student leans forward and whispers, frowning at the chicken cradled in his arms, "But everywhere I go, the chicken sees!"

Q.  What is this authoritarianism in Buddhism of which you speak?

A.  I went through and extracted various nuggets of wisdom from all of my brethren and sistren, which they have so skillfully deployed to rebut my sharpest barbs against authoritarianism. Initially starting out with a list of 83 deadly rebuttals, I ended up categorizing them into a flaming fistful of reactionary wisdom. Never again be left undefended when unexpectedly assailed by a sharp-witted anti-authoritarian. You too can stand tall, knowing that you are packing a Doctrinal Defender argument, neatly classed for swift deployment.

I have listed the different categories of rebuttals below under general group headings. Obviously, some would fit under more than one category, so ingenious are they.

"It's Bigger Than All That"

This seems to be the biggest category. It's a general purpose put down, coming right out of the gate, a long look down the snoot at a miserable insect that just has no idea how blooming wonderful this whole damn spiritual circus is. Can equally be deployed as a brutal rebuff to a newbie or a deft snub against seasoned adversaries. If you're ever at a loss for words when caught consorting with authoritarian henchmen, fall into this self protective crouch -- perhaps affecting surprise that your adversary just doesn't understand how blooming wonderful this whole damn spiritual circus is.

• Enslavement to Buddhist authority, or any other authority, is the least of my concerns because for the most part I am a total slave of my mind. Just when I think perhaps I have made some progress and liberation is close at hand I only discover that I only built a bigger and more beautiful jail.
• You are mixing political ways of organizing society, in which we are obviously all equal and have rights, with the process of transmiting fundamental understandings of truth, which is a totally different matter.
• Abusive authority is part of the tradition: Naropa//Tilopa. Zen practitioners getting hit with a stick, or slapped with a shoe over the head.
• If we have faith in the Buddha, all of our experiences will be purified.
• All of our experiences are equally illusory.
• We voluntarily choose to lose our freedom in order to gain a higher freedom.
• This is the ignorant thinking of the five skandhas.
• The teacher is not here to facilitate a consensus.
• Freedom is impotent to address our important spiritual issues.
• Humiliating yourself is part of getting rid of your ego.
• We have to suspend our judgment when it comes to having faith in the doctrine.
• Maybe you're not ready for the "radical" path of enlightenment.
• We can't apply rational criteria to the choice of a guru.
• Empowerment is necessary to confer the divine state and give permission to practice.
• Temper tantrums and whims of guru are manifestations of divine play.
• Vain gossip causes harm to others.
• Bliss will only prevail when you develop peace and love.
• Buddhism is about an invisible reality, not a materialistic reality.
• Let's "move beyond" the simple black-white issues presented here on to something more positive.

"It Works, That's Why"

This is a pretty huge category, also perhaps, overused because Americans are so practical. We just want to get the job done, okay, get enlightened, get home in time for supper. It's a button-down, business-like category that will make you look like a schoolmarm if you use it too often. So be careful, at the risk of becoming terminally uncool.

• It is not an option to rebel against authority.
• Control is necessary; otherwise we won't grow.
• People need "more rules," not less.
• Some people benefit from being regimented. It is skilful means.
• Humiliating yourself is part of getting rid of your ego.
• It is beneficial to apply various forms of friendly persuasion, peer pressure, righteous indignation, and shunning, for the benefit of your dharma brethren.
• The guru-disciple relationship is essential.
• Use various analogies: the student is a sick patient; the guru the doctor. The student is clay; the guru is the potter.
• Erratic or abusive practices are sometimes used by Eastern masters to stop the rational mind and allow enlightenment to enter.
• Worship is not for the guru's sake but for the student's.
• Devotional practices rely upon community standards and a sense of self that we need to develop in the United States.
• Perhaps we can regulate ourselves with standards of ethical conduct, and still derive the greatest benefit from the religious group while minimizing the risk of exploitation.
• We need to develop a genuine understanding of the dharma to address and alleviate our fears.
• The scriptures and the teachers are the prime sources of religious authority.
• It is a waste of time to carry tales about others.
• Don't give scope for ill feelings and worthless talk.
• Many important persons are Buddhists.
• Buddhist organizations sponsor a lot of charity activities.
• It does some people a lot of good.

"Shutup!"

This is a very popular category, probably because you don't have to be very smart to deploy these zingers. Take you right back to gradeschool.

• Just get over it!
• That's the way the system works! Complaining about it is just a waste of time.
• If you doubt the traditional system, it's because you are of poor character and life experience.
• Don't sow discord.
• You're going to vajra hell with that kind of attitude.
• You just don't understand how it all works.
•  Don't harbor any undesirable thoughts.
• Vain gossip causes harm to others.
• Your information is false propaganda, gossip and misleading information.
• These ideas are advanced by negative-minded individuals.
• Your arguments have no foundation. They are hearsay.
• It's traditional.
• Only those who observe silence are good people. Silence fosters purity. We should observe silence at all times.
• Your information isn't impartial, because it is subject to your own biases.
• You're mean!

"This is Much Better Than Anything We Have in the West "

This category capitalizes on the inherent sense of inferiority that Americans feel when faced with saintly looking Easterners in colored robes. They didn't grow up with it, they don't know how it works, and you can tell them anything and they'll buy it. This is basically your Texas oil scheme in the spiritual patch. Grab a piece and hang on, because this stuff will sell!

• It is the level of co-dependence and dysfunction in our society that creates the possibility for abuse in the Buddhist system.
• The exclusively rational, intellectual approach to life has made Westerners feel alienated.
• Western thought is a dangerous obstacle to spiritual knowledge, so we must reject scientific inquiry to be rid of duality and domination.
•  A guru goes beyond the boundary of control which many Americans adhere to.
•  Americans are not comfortable with spiritual explorations into unknown and irrational realms.
• The anti-cult movements have presented a distorted view of Eastern spiritual religions which brings to the fore Americans' deepest fears and imaginings: mind control, total negation of reality, and allegiance to a human being rather than God.
• We are ethnocentric and have a fear of weakening our cultural foundations.
• Working with a guru can be one of the most sublime experiences of one's life.
• Ignorance is on the rise with the progress of science.
• All the trials and tribulations faced in this world are due to the so-called developments in science and technology.
• The Internet is poisoning the village environment, which is the epitome of peace and love. Don't spoil the village atmosphere by imitating the city culture.
• Bliss will only prevail when you develop peace and love.
• Buddhism is beyond democracy.

"One Bad Apple"

Everybody remembers this song by Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five, "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl." You may recall that our grandparents had a different take, believing that indeed one bad apple would ruin the entire lot, and I dare say they had more experience with barrels of apples than our glad-handed friend. Be that as it may, the argument has numerous adherents, as the following quotes will show.

• While scandals do come from some Buddhist groups, many others provide a necessary, wonderful service.
• People make mistakes.
• Not everyone had your [bad] experience.
• Your experience is unique.

"Assumption of Risk"

This is a legal term for "you had it coming." As in, "you had it coming breaking your neck flying down that hill on that snowboard like that." As in, "well, when you dress like that, what did you expect, he may be a priest but he's only a man!" The assumption of risk theory makes your average church yard look more dangerous than a toxic dumpsite, since you went there with your faith in your hands, you idiot, just asking to be taken for a ride. The problem with the assumption of risk defense is its excessive candor, but aside from that drawback, is a very useful first strike strategy.

• You were offered the chance to investigate and inquire. You had a chance to stay or leave.
• The teacher provides the necessary philosophical and practical guidance, but the student is still responsible for his or her own practice and development.
• Let the buyer beware.
• We have to take personal responsibility for whatever happens to us.
• If you had a real problem you'd take it to court.

"Gurus are Special People"

This category is very large, and seems to comprise quite a bit of the heavy timber in this structure. These are tautologies at their best, solid to the core, because of their unitized construction. You can rely on these phrases, because they depend upon nothing.

• The Buddhist leaders are representatives of the Buddha.
• The student must have faith in the guru no matter what action the guru takes.
• It's our fault, not the guru's.
• The greater the devotion, the more blessings one receives.
• The guru is a form of Buddha's presence, presenting the divine in a manner people can relate to.
• The guru-disciple relationship offers the possibility of tremendous spiritual growth, healing, and a powerful change in outlook.
• We can't apply rational criteria to the choice of a guru.
• Veneration is necessary, because a guru embodies divine power, and is capable of bestowing grace.
• A guru is the only person who can dispel darkness with his vast knowledge.
• The guru is a source of revelation, interpreting and influencing the tradition's development.
• True knowledge can only be obtained through a teacher.
• The guru is a spiritual guide leading the disciple to Absolute Reality, the nature of Being.
• The relationship between a guru and his students is heart to heart and is prompted by selfless love.
• Gurus are above the ethical laws that apply to everyone else.

"We'll Side With the Majority After All"

There's only one quote in this category, but it's so important, it needs it's own. I wanted to call this "consensus redux," to encapsulate the notion that, however much a movement rejects consensus decision-making, when it lacks the power of the majority, once it can invoke the authority of widespread acceptance, it will immediately do so.

•  If the system was bad, why has it survived all of these years? A lot of people couldn't be wrong.

"Jar Jar Speaks"

Sometimes things are put forward in a manner so beeble-bumbled that they have to be dedicated to the God of inarticulateness, which for me is Jar Jar Binks. Here you go.

• Authoritarianism/Anti-Authoritarianism is part of the "first tier thinking" which occurs before the revolutionary shift in consciousness where "being levels" emerge.

That pretty much wraps it up. If you're still here with me, thank you. I will try to think up some rebuttals to these rebuttals, but just right now I'm feeling a powerful urge to regret my apostasy and engage in some full-scale repentance and ice-cream eating.

Answer 2:

AmBu's flaming fistful of reactionary slogans were these:

"It's Bigger Than All That"(So why are you so small-minded?)
"It Works, That's Why " (But don't ask me to prove it!)
"Shutup!"(It's for your own good.)
"This is Much Better Than Anything We Have in The West" (You lose out on so much when you don't bow to the superior ones.)
"One Bad Apple" (don't spoil the whole bunch, girl!)"
"Assumption of Risk" (You were the one who got on her knees, so why are you whining about being oppressed?)
"Gurus are Special People " (And if you don't know why, just shutup!)

To these classic defensive slogans, used by uptight Buddhists to silence dissent outwardly (and their own fears inwardly), we need to add one more:

"A Person of Known Origins Can Never Be an Authority"

Originally pointed out by Jesus of Nazareth, who responded to local criticisms by observing that "a prophet hath no honor in his own country," this wry observation has been hammered into a rule of universal application. As a result, spiritual adulation can be lavished upon any ham-brained, be-robed individual of Mongolian extraction with enough moxie to sit on a throne while acting (pick one or more: profound, benign, whimsical, attentive, subtly threatening, or humorously avaricious). While they eventually may lose stature when they lurch drunkenly at a pair of mammaries attached to some hapless devotee (Sogyal), or engage in too many tall tales and blatant solicitations for cash (Kusum Lingpa), still they will be treated as authorities, because of the corollary rule, which is:

"Regardless of Other Characteristics, You Continue To Be An Authority So Long as You Are So Recognized by an Authority"

This rule means that, until the Pope says to kick the guy out, the pervert priest can still say Mass and continue to defile the bodies and spirits of the young. Until actually ousted and defrocked, any authority can continue to exploit their position.

This rule is so powerful that we can even make gold out of clay -- witness the tulkufication of Catherine Burroughs and Steven Segal, and the trail of self-stuck idiots that Kusum Lingpa has left in his train by haphazardly recognizing anyone who gives him the right ass-kissy vibe as the reincarnation of some heretofore unknown Tibetan saint. And despite all of Burrows' Leona-Helmsley-style antics and the very absurdity of Segal's posturing as a spiritual guide, until their "recognition" is withdrawn by Pednor Rinpoche, they will continue to collect accolades from the faithfools.

Examining the implications of these two rules, we see a third:

"Western People Who Don't Buy Authoritarian Hierarchy Can Never Say Anything Valid"

First, since they are western, they can't self-authorize,
So they need to be recognized by an authority,
But since they reject authorities, they will never obtain such a recognition,
Therefore, nothing they say will ever have any validity to the true faithfool,
Because faithfools only evaluate ideas based on the identity of the speaker, and never on their merits.

Having gone through this analysis with respect to any speaker, a true faithfool can safely stop his ears once it is clear the speaker has no authority.

However, there is one last rule every good faithfool should keep in mind, to avoid dissing your own kind:

"Any Statement By a Personl Who Professes Faith in Authority is Presumptively Valid"

Aha, you were waiting for this one, weren't you? This is why it is worth having a "Free Tibet" bumpersticker, or otherwise announcing your alliance with the authorities. To gain the benefit of the rule, simply append to any damn thing you say, the following: "I speak not from my own knowledge, but simply in repetition of what the gurus have declared -- it's all in the teachings -- I have nothing to add that hasn't been said before." Then you will sound as smart as Namdrol, and that ain't bad for a simple faithfool.

WARNING: This line of argument has been provided as a service to those persons dedicated to living inside a safe, authorized belief system, so that they will not be tempted to open their minds and inhale a new thought that could be poisonous to their entire world view and result in the waste of many hours of devotion, meditation, and self=abasement.  By running through the analysis in advance, you will not be caught unprepared.  The workings of the machinery have been revealed only because I know that the faithful will not be shaken by any of the hokey sarcasm that fills the interstices of the argument, and so that the devoted faithfool can be ready for the sorry-ass attacks that will come from those stupid anti-authoritarians.