Why e-sangha is starting to get on my nerves

[mat black]

I didn't mean to say one shouldn't study under a teacher. But the world does need people to carry tradition on I guess...

It is necessary for people to carry on certain traditions or practices. Some are very good for this world and those in it, even though it may not be obvious or apparent to us.

 

For example:

"Shakyamuni Buddha proclaimed the Shurangama Mantra in order to protect of all of us who have brought forth the initial resolve to study the Way; to aid us in attaining samadhi; to help us be at peace in body and mind; and to keep us out of trouble. Therefore we should never forget this Dharma. We should recite and uphold the Shurangama Mantra with single-minded sincerity. By doing so we are helping to perpetuate the Buddhadharma, to keep the Proper Dharma long in the world."

- Hsuan Hua

[Josh Young]

You mentioned that you have a book on Buddhism but not one of a primary source...does that mean you've never actually read what the Buddha taught? Just curious....

Maybe, I don't know.

 

I have read and own the following:

The Diamond sutra.

The Shurangama sutra

The Dhammapada

and the Teachings of Buddha put out by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai.

 

I have also read and own many vedic texts.

 

ralis,

You have keen insight in my opinion.

 

LostMonk, I hope I did not actually claim I follow Buddhas teachings.

I love them very much, Thanks for the link.

 

I do not follow,

so i follow no teaching.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Haha, your ego is a great type of guy...so says your other ego...

 

 

My other ego?

 

Humbling yourself to a great teacher...hmm...sounds dangerous!

 

It's never dangerous if your teacher is a great teacher with very high realization. It's more dangerous to continually bow to ones own pride and attachment to self and one's self created ideation.

 

"New age" has its pitfalls, but IMHO you shouldn't get so caught up in tradition. Perhaps the vajrayana school has had its masters...but what school doesn't? And master of what? Their own sect? Figures...

 

Masters of the different states of meditation, masters of how to pass the teachings, masters of their own mind and body. Vajrayana has masters that even to this day attain the body of light or "Jalus"... look it up. Vajrayana is a very special type of lineage. You have to understand the tradition deeply and experientially. Otherwise your like a leaf blowing in the wind following one's own karmas and passions. The Buddhas purpose was to set up a tradition. So was Padmasambhavas purpose as such in Tibet to bring Vajrayana in full to Tibet. I find that people who don't follow a tradition of enlightened masters think they get somewhere but have very little progress. Of course, there are those who are like that who follow a tradition as well.

 

I didn't mean to say one shouldn't study under a teacher. But the world does need people to carry tradition on I guess...

 

Very much so...

Edited July 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I do not follow,

 

 

Ah the prideful way's of the western ego permiates the world through TV and movies. Of course your follow your own limited perceptions without fail.

[Unconditioned]

Ah the prideful way's of the western ego permiates the world through TV and movies. Of course your follow your own limited perceptions without fail.

 

And judge other's according to our own limits, no?

[Vajrahridaya]

Associating the term Hindu at the time of the Buddha is incorrect. The use of the term Hindu is absent in early Indian literature. That term only applied historically to people living along the Indus river and did not apply to a set of spiritual practices or religion.

 

Your ideology around a "deeper realization" only can be stated as a contrasting argument of Buddhism vs. Hinduism. A naive argument at best. Until you realize both paths, you have no basis with which to compare. Your arguments are no more than expressions of religious fundamentalism at best. In other words "my religion is better than yours".

ralis

 

I am well aware of the history of the term Hinduism. I was meaning his meditation teachers of the forest traditions that followed the yogas and intense meditation traditions that were known of then.

 

My argument is based upon both textual and experiential. They are far from naive as I am well studied and experienced in the Advaita and Non-Dual Shaivite traditions. I don't feel that I have to list my cridentials though.

 

Buddhism is in fact more clear about the goal (goaless goal, whatever you want to call it), it's more clear about the methods, it's more clear about how one is when enlightened and it's more clear about how the cosmos cycles than any branch of Hinduism, as the term applies under our current view point. Buddhist cosmology is clearly enlightened and doesn't fall under the trap of eternalism or nihilism like Hinduism does.

 

Buddhism never makes the naive excuse... "It's Gods Will". Advaita Vedanta and Shaivism do. Of course they break it down, but eventually it just comes down to... "It's all just Gods Will". Which is naive according to Buddhism.

 

And judge other's according to our own limits, no?

 

Yes, anyone who doesn't believe in the after life or rebirth beyond this body, or consciousness beyond the body has little insight both logically and experientially. Also one who is prideful enough to think they understand something without studying under the guidence of a realized master of the tradition is fooling themself and doesn't have the merit. So, they should work on the merit and study under a great teacher.

[Lucky7Strikes]

BAH! These arguments are incredibly fruitless.

 

Some are meant to carry on the tradition, and others are meant to go their own paths. Aren't you on the Taobums to learn as well?

 

Vajrahridaya, where do you study in New York City? At "Kundrolling"? Perhaps I'll visit when I feel I am ready.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[ralis]

I am well aware of the history of the term Hinduism. I was meaning his meditation teachers of the forest traditions that followed the yogas and intense meditation traditions that were known of then.

 

My argument is based upon both textual and experiential. They are far from naive as I am well studied and experienced in the Advaita and Non-Dual Shaivite traditions. I don't feel that I have to list my cridentials though.

 

Buddhism is in fact more clear about the goal (goaless goal, whatever you want to call it), it's more clear about the methods, it's more clear about how one is when enlightened and it's more clear about how the cosmos cycles than any branch of Hinduism, as the term applies under our current view point. Buddhist cosmology is clearly enlightened and doesn't fall under the trap of eternalism or nihilism like Hinduism does.

 

Buddhism never makes the naive excuse... "It's Gods Will". Advaita Vedanta and Shaivism do. Of course they break it down, but eventually it just comes down to... "It's all just Gods Will". Which is naive according to Buddhism.

Yes, anyone who doesn't believe in the after life or rebirth beyond this body, or consciousness beyond the body has little insight both logically and experientially. Also one who is prideful enough to think they understand something without studying under the guidence of a realized master of the tradition is fooling themself and doesn't have the merit. So, they should work on the merit and study under a great teacher.

 

 

Your arguments are absolutely anthropocentric and dogmatic. Your ability to engage in a realistic discourse is limited. Limiting this discourse by using textual arguments, so called enlightened masters and defining other belief systems as inferior to your own.

 

Humans that adopt restricted belief systems impede evolutionary progress. In general, have humans progressed from the dogmatic (religious) view of earth as the center of the known universe? I think not. The same human centered points of view are still radically clung to. Circular religious arguments prove nothing.

 

ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

Edited July 13, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Josh Young]

It is true, this has not been very productive.

 

If someone were enlightened how would they act?

 

How would they treat others?

 

What would they say and how would they say it?

 

Would they argue?

 

Would they judge others?

 

Why must sharing information and opinions be a contest of right and wrong?

Why must there be conflict with difference of opinion?

 

Everyone here is representing who they are, how they think etc.

Let the truth of this be the single truth we can all agree to.

[Vajrahridaya]

BAH! These arguments are incredibly fruitless.

 

Some are meant to carry on the tradition, and others are meant to go their own paths. Aren't you on the Taobums to learn as well?

 

Vajrahridaya, where do you study in New York City? At "Kundrolling"? Perhaps I'll visit when I feel I am ready.

 

I've never come across any really fully enlightened teacher who just went his own ego's way. I don't feel that many of these new agers including Krishnamurti and Eckhart are examples of highly realized. Just, yes... some direct experiencing on their part. Eckhart has a nice sense of peace about him that's palpable. I feel Ramana Maharishi and Nisgaradatta as well as some others could have gone further too.

 

You are self entitled though... so be it.

 

Yes, I sometimes practiced at Kundroling. You will need transmission from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche or permission from a senior teacher in order to practice in that space though. ChNNR does give free transmissions during special periods throughout the year on live webcast. Of course in person is easier to really make a connection to the transmission especially for a first timer. This is how Vajrayana is done as it is secret mantra vehicle.

 

I have just today moved to Florida though to live.

 

 

 

Your arguments are absolutely anthropocentric and dogmatic. Your ability to engage in a realistic discourse is limited. Limiting this discourse by using textual arguments, so called enlightened masters and defining other belief systems as inferior to your own.

 

Humans that adopt restricted belief systems impede evolutionary progress. In general, have humans progressed from the dogmatic (religious) view of earth as the center of the known universe? I think not. The same human centered points of view are still radically clung to. Circular religious arguments prove nothing.

 

ralis

 

Yes, I am limited to the "Right View" according to Buddhas.

 

I have in this life subscribed to the idea that all paths lead to the one supreme truth, and passionately followed that path, with much deep experience to support this subjective outlook. But, I realized that this was a samsaric view which leads merely to falling into an unconscious oneness formless bliss state at the end of the cosmic cycle, to become a latent potentiality of ignorance for the next cosmic cycle.

 

Your so called non-dogma, all paths are equal is a dogma that does not recognize dependent origination and the deep complexity that is the cosmos. Not all roads lead to Rome.

 

Ciao

 

 

If someone were enlightened how would they act?

 

 

 

I've found that sometimes in ways that completely contradict our concepts. Sometimes by just ignoring you, or being wrathful because your coming at them with a loaded gun as an ego, or sometimes they just hit you with a stick and say get out of here. Or sometimes they pat your head and say... "can you make me some tea". Then they tell you a story that makes you cry like the universe is caving into a vast ocean of love, like a radiant sun dropping over a hot and wet horizon.

 

 

 

Ugh..

 

 

Deep blue is a very serene color, isn't it? One can just meditate and loose onself through that color. It's not firey, it's not opaque, it's not blinding... it's very... aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.

[Josh Young]

To make things far two simple:

There are those who think they know things

and there are those who know they don't

Edited July 14, 2009 by Josh Young