yabyum24

The 'Spear of Destiny' may appear as part of the symbolism here because of its association with the Grail Legends and in particular that of Parsifal:

Thanks for that. It may well be the case.

I'm interested if anyone here can help clear up a puzzle which occurred this weekend. On visiting an original Tudor mansion house, I encountered two opposing frescos.

The first read "The wheel of fortune, whose ruler is ignorance". It depicted a buxom lady, lifting her long dress provocatively, whilst standing below a symbolic wheel. It reminded me of the famous opening sequence of Orff's Carmina Burana.

It also brought to mind the Tibetan Wheel of Life, powered by the three poisons, of which the chief one is ignorance.

Opposite this fresco was another which read "The Spear of Destiny, whose ruler is knowledge". This depicted a lady holding the orb of the earth above her in one hand with a pair of masonic looking callipers in the other

This I have no idea about. I'd like to dismiss up front any Hitler conspiracy stuff please, as I've waded through this material online. These frescos are very old and predate anything like that (obviously).

It is taught that both blood and water came from the pierced side of Christ - divine and human. But why should this spear's ruler be knowledge - and depicted as an obvious antidote to ignorance?

Why not just photocopy the stuff, It's faster... or scan it and put it online?

I have particularly came up against this rational elitism in the lay Thervada / vipassana crowd, the look of disbelief that you don't psychologize every single bit of the Dharma. Or the classic," Thervada is the purest model -insert rationalist- form of Buddhism , we don't resort to self mythologizing"

Absolutely.

5 minute Buddhist here...

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/five-minute-buddhist

Tut tut - another link. Bloody Ofsted.

If all else fails, tattoos and piercings seem to be an acceptable substitute.

No it isn't.

 

Discuss.

 

Rule: in your own words no links or quotes.

Agree, but I've seen it used as such on many occasions.

It runs a bit like this:

Belief in god = irrational superstition. Science is not irrational. Buddhism doesn't worship god, therefore science and Buddhism are both rational.

Karma and rebirth can both be (correctly) interpreted as events contained within this lifetime, thus dispensing of the last vestiges of something which could be construed as culturally accrued superstition.

Emptiness is confirmed scientifically, as we now have physics to explain that nothing is there which we think is there, including (by default) 'self'. The body being just a collection of cells, electrical impulses and so on - no more to it than that.

The way is now clear to follow a system which is exclusively concerned with lessening suffering within this life - a kind of therapy - as Buddha always intended it to be in the first place.

If questioned on the afterlife, the reply is "that which was never born in the first place cannot be said to die".

We thus arrive at (pretty much) the same place as modern science, which is both comforting and verifiable.

But is it really what Buddha taught?

“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.

This!

Seems to be the biggest "secret" in Buddhism today. Glad the author mentioned it.

Is it possible to view an object or a perception without grasping at it?

Yes, but in my experience, it's very hard and virtually impossible.

But, l'll first try to define what I think it is. When something appears to our consciousness we instantly apply a meaning to it . We subconsciously categorize it and assign a "value" to it.

This happens in meditation too. Something emerges and for a split-second we abide with no judgement in the immediate experience. Then something kicks in and we grasp at it, we take ownership of it, you can see this happening.

How to switch that off, I'm unclear because any conscious decision to do so, is fake and itself a kind of grasping, constructed event. It's like unexpectedly falling through the cracks in the pavement! It happens of itself but only fleetingly, before we push out our hands to stop the fall.

It's a reflex.

Just act like a Buddhist.

But we have been (well, on this thread at least).

Like a bunch of alcoholics in a brewery, making a documentary about kicking the booze, we've all managed to keep off it, at least whilst the cameras are still rolling...

but... but...

On a similar note what is it that craves? what is the craver?

As I see it, craving assembles 'self'. It is 'self' which perpetuates craving.

If there is no self (and I believe that there isn't)

Of course there is - who is holding this belief?

http://themindunleashed.org/2013/10/30-traits-of-empath.html

Good link. Much truth in that.

And I read this a few hours ago. I like his perspective on the existence and nonexistence of mind...

 

"There is mind, but it is not tangible or substantial. You cannot say that there is no mind because it is the basis of everything; it is that which experiences every possible thing. You cannot say really that there is a thing called mind, and yet at the same time you cannot say that there is no mind. It lies beyond both extremes of being and not being. That is why it is said, Not existent, since even a buddha does not see it; not nonexistent, since it is the basis of both samsara and nirvana."

When it comes investigating the aggregates in order to locate the consciousness, we may arrive at the conclusion that there is no separate consciousness which can be found. The best we can perhaps posit is that there is some kind of dependent relationship between the two - one upholds and makes possible the other. Some even claim that inability to find it amongst its basis is proof that it does not exist.

There is much truth in the first but the second position is entirely incorrect. The truth is that the lower schools are looking in the wrong direction. Consciousness will never be found amongst the aggregates because all aggregates are held within consciousness. It's like taking apart a TV in order to find the living room.

The prime division of pure consciousness into duality makes the arising of the aggregates (and all other objects of mind) a possibility. That's why the arisen product of the "self", its intellect and aggregates can never find consciousness. They are reflected within it, not the other way around.

This understanding is what takes emptiness away from the territory of nihilism or eternalism because all categories of existence or non existence are irrelevant in the unconditioned.

It's why I can't even be arsed to argue this stuff any more.

His name is Mak Tin Si and he has a Taoist (I'm not going to call it Daoist!) cult.

That dude's got a cult? Wow, cult leaders used to be charismatic and quite persuasive once upon a time.

So that's what a cult leader looks like nowadays? Man you can't even get brain washed with any class.

It's the hidden lady telling him what to say, I'd like to see. He's really wound up though and has several youtube vids.

Is it safe to give up all, including the Buddhas teachings?

As I understand it, they are a means to an end - not an end in themselves. You need the raft to cross the river but after that, there's no need to keep carrying it around.

The tenets have a personal use for some people, namely challenging innate assumptions about what we think we are. They can be exciting if studied amongst friends in a spirit of enquiry. If used to 'defeat' others or made into some kind of ontology, they become a poison and a hindrance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7G53lsJI2E

I just accepted that if they say something interesting its just a dead end, and I should just go somewhere else.

It doesn't need to be like that. I'm sorry that was your experience. I'm glad I started my investigation into Buddhism long before internet Buddhism & forums appeared. I loved what I found and the people I met. If I was a newbie now, trawling online, having read some forums etc. I would have probably been put off and never taken refuge.

As it happened, I had the luxury of studying under some great teachers. I spent two years intensively going through the tenets and did some in-depth study on the two truths before taking tantric empowerments and receiving in-depth teachings on them. All this without the internet.

Unfortunately, you can be berated by anyone online who chooses, on the slightest of pretexts. And you can't know the background or mental state of the individuals you meet online. It's not an issue if you are established in your practice but it's dire for newcomers to experience that.

you could add a subforum and label one as "The Argumentative Buddhist subforum" ,

and the other as the "Less Argumentative Buddhist subforum" with an appropriate mod for each.

I think we could have an argument about that

In any case, for the sake of all Buddhists who post here, please never choose a Buddhist mod.

If we really want high level Buddhist debate we should look for the real thing, not a Daoist internet chat room.

That said, a Daoist internet chat room is one of the few places that non-sectarian Buddhists can air some diversity of thought without being shot down in flames by a resident pack of sectarian pandits. If you think that what happens here is bad, you should experience the restrictive, (tough love? aka "idiot-compassion-free" ethos) of some dedicated Buddhist boards. That's why I avoid them nowadays.

Hardly an annexation by any standards, historic or modern.

Exactly. We have a direct parallel with the Falkland Islands. A population which are of British origin who want to remain with us. Argentina sees it as an annexation and demands the return of "its" territory, just because some conquistador once left his flag on it. Same thing. The Crimean population is not Ukranian, why should they be forced to be part of it?

Thanks Taomeow, it's good to have more information to balance out the western news media's spoon-feeding. It's not so pretty when you lift the stone and take a close look.

The hypocritical rhetoric of the last few days has been embarrassing to say the least. Way beyond the ususal political bullshit barometer. It's ridiculous.

Have you seen any Buddhist monk practice Ba Gua yet.

No. I've just seen David Carradine (R.I.P.) on my boxed set of Kung Fu DVDs, so I suppose that doesn't qualify.

I only see the need for one, as to my knowledge, there is really only one scale from dukkha to buddhahood.

God's not gonna give you a certificate for Buhhhahood is he? It's the competition - he doesn't like Buddha because Buddha didn't worship him!

You have to first be clear which certificate you want and then apply to the relevant authorities.