True Self

[Vajrahridaya]

Yu shld be aware tht when you make posts on a public domain forum, you are bound to have people disagree with you....especially when you make absolute statements.

We should try and remember that the truth is nt the personal fief of any one tradition...no matter how hard any religion tries to shout its proclamation f exclusivity

 

That's just not true for Buddhism, only for Hinduism is that true because Hindus believe that the Truth is a non-conceptual and formless ground of all being.

 

No need to deny this, because it's written all over the Upanishads and the Puranas.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Everything is the truth. And yet because it's all true, none of it is true. It's just so funny how perfect it is.

[Birch]

Oh it was asked for. Also, discussion and philosophizing as well as debating is all a part of Buddhist practice. So, I'll probably keep going with it since some people enjoy it. Of course, you, 3bob and Dwai are not a part of the enjoying group.

 

I'm not a big fan of the anti-intellectual, experiential excuse for ignorance, lacking the integrity to investigate deeper movement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Just love Monty Python!!

[ralis]

I try to avoid using buddhist technical terms too much. When I read people talk about this stuff, I can't help but think they're just repeating what they've heard and have no idea what they're saying, cuz they just keep using the same words. I try to EXPLAIN my ideas, rather than use words that have previously been used to describe them.

 

Our resident Buddhist preacher uses a style that is an attempt to dazzle his audience with arcane and profound terms, combined with a frozen narrative. A few arcane terms that are repeated ad infinitum, is a technique used in propaganda by authoritarian personalities. They offer no real teaching or experience that can be delineated in their own words.

[Marblehead]

Those who desire to debate should debate. ...

 

Post noted. I like what you said.

[Marblehead]

... only for Hinduism is that true because Hindus believe that the Truth is a non-conceptual and formless ground of all being.

 

No need to deny this, because it's written all over the Upanishads and the Puranas.

 

Well, I believe it to be so as well.

 

Even an untruth is a truth.

[dwai]

That's just not true for Buddhism, only for Hinduism is that true because Hindus believe that the Truth is a non-conceptual and formless ground of all being.

 

No need to deny this, because it's written all over the Upanishads and the Puranas.

 

Since there is no other there need not be any ground....there is only that one!

Everything is that...the apparent differences are relative only....

[dwai]

Everything is the truth. And yet because it's all true, none of it is true. It's just so funny how perfect it is.

Any framework can only describe a part of the truth....because the complete truth is beyond name and form

The dharmic traditions understand it better than others....but it seems like many prctitioners of these traditions are caught in their inherited biases and use these lenses (rigid categorical frameworks) to describe their experience of the truth!

 

Thats why the tathagata's exclusivity becomes more important than the tathagata's teachings...you get what i'm trying communicate?

[3bob]

Oh it was asked for. Also, discussion and philosophizing as well as debating is all a part of Buddhist practice. So, I'll probably keep going with it since some people enjoy it. Of course, you, 3bob and Dwai are not a part of the enjoying group.

 

I'm not a big fan of the anti-intellectual, experiential excuse for ignorance, lacking the integrity to investigate deeper movement.

 

"the enjoying group"...? VJ, you often make all sorts of assumptions about and discount the ways of other people as being more or less ignorant and thus less than your way; apparently doing so gives you great pleasure along with something to feed on? Btw, we have several folks here that follow the ways of Zen and other Buddhist schools but for some reason they don't carry on like you do with your attempted displays of total understanding, insights, knowledge, intellect, experience and deep investigations regarding various ways, and again some of which you tirelessly try to prove as being less than your way. So yes some of us don't enjoy your profound errors nor your misuse of Buddhism which I do happen to see as having some great teachings.

 

"May all Beings be happy" including you but not at the expense of smearing the ways of others.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

Since there is no other there need not be any ground....there is only that one!

Everything is that...the apparent differences are relative only....

 

Again, this is not conducive to Buddhahood, only long lived God realms and formless bliss realms. Such are the teachings of the Buddha.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhism which I do happen to see as having some great teachings.

 

All of which you need some guidance on. As you don't seem to understand them very well.

 

I think other teachings are fine and lead to fine places. Buddhism leads to Buddhahood. Theisms lead to God realms. The law of dependent origination reveals this, as your view so is your destination.

[TheJourney]

Any framework can only describe a part of the truth....because the complete truth is beyond name and form

The dharmic traditions understand it better than others....but it seems like many prctitioners of these traditions are caught in their inherited biases and use these lenses (rigid categorical frameworks) to describe their experience of the truth!

 

Thats why the tathagata's exclusivity becomes more important than the tathagata's teachings...you get what i'm trying communicate?

 

The complete truth is beyond name and form, and yet the complete truth IS name and form.

 

If i'm understanding you correctly, I certainly agree that many people who see the truth in buddhism and such get caught in the religion, thinking that it's absolute truth, and thus separate themselves from the truth.

 

As for your last statement, I don't understand what you mean about exclusivity being more important than the teachings. Unless you're saying that "what is" AKA everything is more important than any given teaching, for any given teaching is only one angle of the truth.

[ralis]

The complete truth is beyond name and form, and yet the complete truth IS name and form.

 

If i'm understanding you correctly, I certainly agree that many people who see the truth in buddhism and such get caught in the religion, thinking that it's absolute truth, and thus separate themselves from the truth.

 

As for your last statement, I don't understand what you mean about exclusivity being more important than the teachings. Unless you're saying that "what is" AKA everything is more important than any given teaching, for any given teaching is only one angle of the truth.

 

I was going to start a thread on exclusivity. I think I will.

[dwai]

The complete truth is beyond name and form, and yet the complete truth IS name and form.

 

If i'm understanding you correctly, I certainly agree that many people who see the truth in buddhism and such get caught in the religion, thinking that it's absolute truth, and thus separate themselves from the truth.

 

As for your last statement, I don't understand what you mean about exclusivity being more important than the teachings. Unless you're saying that "what is" AKA everything is more important than any given teaching, for any given teaching is only one angle of the truth.

 

name and Form is not the Complete Truth. Name and Form restricts it. The Tao that can be named is not the Real Tao...

 

What I meant by "exclusivity" being more important is an aberration of what should be, where rigid categorical frameworks lead to need for exclusivity.

so you did understand it quite well.

[TheJourney]

name and Form is not the Complete Truth. Name and Form restricts it. The Tao that can be named is not the Real Tao...

 

What I meant by "exclusivity" being more important is an aberration of what should be, where rigid categorical frameworks lead to need for exclusivity.

so you did understand it quite well.

 

Within any given thing is everything. That is why I say name and form is the complete truth. And yet it is not the complete truth, for the complete truth knows no bounds.

[dwai]

Within any given thing is everything. That is why I say name and form is the complete truth. And yet it is not the complete truth, for the complete truth knows no bounds.

 

But you have to strip away the name and form to get to it. That's why i disagree that the Complete Truth is the name and form.

[TheJourney]

But you have to strip away the name and form to get to it. That's why i disagree that the Complete Truth is the name and form.

 

lol. I don't think anything exists other than the complete truth. But whatever, it's just words anyways

[Vajrahridaya]

name and Form is not the Complete Truth. Name and Form restricts it.

 

That's dualistic, and a philosophy arising from the top down substantialist theory of all things come from one real thing.

 

This is why monist non-dualism will always have a slight duality inherent in it's understanding, making it an incomplete view defined by the Buddha as Eternalism, an extreme.

 

Pratitsamutpada has a different experience to offer.

[Marblehead]

You guys aren't losing your true self behind all the words, are you?

[TheJourney]

You guys aren't losing your true self behind all the words, are you?

 

It's impossible to lose. You can just create the illusion of losing your true self, but really no thing exists other than your true self.

[Marblehead]

It's impossible to lose. You can just create the illusion of losing your true self, but really no thing exists other than your true self.

 

I almost agree with that statement. I suggest that other things exist as well. (No, they are not independent nor are they eternal.)

[3bob]

All of which you need some guidance on. As you don't seem to understand them very well.

 

I think other teachings are fine and lead to fine places. Buddhism leads to Buddhahood. Theisms lead to God realms. The law of dependent origination reveals this, as your view so is your destination.

 

thus you elevate yourself and patronize other ways to sound flexible which you are not.

[Vajrahridaya]

thus you elevate yourself and patronize other ways to sound flexible which you are not.

 

Actually, for me, you are free to think that Theism leads to a higher place. It's just different is all I'm saying and yes, I think Buddhism is superior.

 

Your view designates your destination. As the law of dependent origination dictates.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

Actually, for me, you are free to think that Theism leads to a higher place. It's just different is all I'm saying and yes, I think it superior.

 

Your view designates your destination. As the law of dependent origination dictates.

 

 

The problem is that much of what you say on this forum is not accurate from every point of view in buddhism. Certainly not from the Dzogchen point of view, which is the definitive view of Vajrayana.