The answer lies in the India/Nepal/Tibet Himalaya Regions afterall.. and definitely NOT in china/taiwan..

[C T]

I think I did.

 

With the word "this" I meant that all great cultivation needs great cultivators, rituals or not. I could have been more clear with it, sorry. It is quite possible for a tantrayana practicioner, to be lazy, as it is for practicioners in other lineages. Thus, it isn't defacto more responsible in my opinion. I am thankful for the main part of your post.

 

Mandrake

Its the willingness to be more open, more inclusive, clearly demonstrated here by this gentleman, that makes coming to TTBs worthwhile. its also some quality that is clearly seen in the more mature adepts of other traditions as well, of which we are so fortunate to find here in this forum. I can name a few off hand, but there is really no necessity to indulge in such an obvious undertaking.

 

The idea that Vajrayana practitioners are above reproach, or that the practice is somehow more superior, is a wrong one, and if that was implied in what was written, then its me who should be offering apologies.

[Aaron]

Yes, you will escape the conditions of being human, whether is be through death and re-birth into another stream of expression or through realization of the subtler nature of everything, including yourself through self transcendence, you will.

 

Even the Buddha, while appearing as a human said, "I have transcended the conditions of being human. I am neither a god or a human, I am awake" I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's the gist of it.

 

So, practice more deeply and realize more clearly.

 

 

Hello Vaj,

 

I think you can believe whatever you want, but I don't think Buddha ceased to be human. He may have seen behind the illusion of self, but he did not cease to be human. I think what he points at, is that he is enlightened so he no longer is chained to the illusory existence, he has broken through. I don't think he literally means he is no longer human. If he did, then he was wrong, but he was human, so he can be wrong.

 

I love it when you disagree with people and they say, practice more deeply and realize more clearly. I say this too, but only when I want to piss people off. One thing I'm sure of is that I've practiced more than I needed too. I just don't believe the same as you do, it's as simple as that.

 

If you ask a Zen Roshi, "was Buddha human?" I'm sure they'd answer, "what does it matter if he was human?"

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

This is what some Buddhists feed naive people and in this case so called Westerners. Westerners have an ego problem according to enlightened Buddhists? Therefor all Westerners have an ego problem? How do enlightened Buddhists determine and by what criteria, who has an ego problem and who doesn't? Tibetan Buddhists don't have an ego problem? Where is the dividing line between East and West?

 

Generalizations are not nuanced, you are correct. The West in general is about individual identity. This doesn't mean that every single person is like this, but if you look at your history in school, it's about me, me, me in the West. In the East it's more about family and the family religion, this is a generalization. Both have good and bad sides to them. The East can learn a lot from Western industrialism, though it's gone hyper corrupt at this point, and the West can learn a lot from Eastern familial standards and spirituality, which can also be just as corrupt. You ralis, really choose what you focus on though... it seems to be the negative. There is no line, both hemispheres of the brain are needed for enlightenment, just as wisdom from both hemispheres of the Earth, like a big brain, are needed...

 

Seems to me this projection comes from an entitled arrogant mindset which most likely refers to white Europeans and descendants of. Further, does it include the Native Americans of which I am a descendant of? African Americans?

 

There were all sorts of Native Americans, plenty were war like, much like in Africa, as far as generalizing tribes goes... of course there were individuals within these tribes who's nuanced life styles and mind styles we'll never know, and plenty of the tribes existent in the history of the Americas have wisdom which can be learned from. There have been meetings between the Dalai Lama and the Natives of New Mexico with shared wisdom, even words of similar meaning and sound. It's not so black and white and I apologize if my generalizations seem to convey a clinging to any absolute dichotomy, because I really don't... it's all relative. Dependent origination/emptiness, remember?

 

Thank goodness, I'm not that stupid.

 

Speak for yourself Vajraji! I am really tired of the worn out rhetoric that has been projected upon anyone not conforming to Buddhist standards.

 

I'm not tired of your anti-buddhist stance myself. I think it's ok, much like what CowTao has stated. As I said, keep doing a good job of playing your cards...

 

But in general, Westerners have a hard time bowing to one another. Not that humility is limited to such actions, as plenty in the East do it as an empty dogma, and of course have plenty of issues with clinging. I'm merely using a generalization as an example, not as an absolute, because remember... there is no absolute self, thus there is no absolute generalization that covers all aspects. Life is far too complicated for that. But, what is it, do you want me to write a detailed book in every single post? Unpacking every single one of the concepts I use as a relative example of something or other?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

I think you can believe whatever you want, but I don't think Buddha ceased to be human. He may have seen behind the illusion of self, but he did not cease to be human. I think what he points at, is that he is enlightened so he no longer is chained to the illusory existence, he has broken through. I don't think he literally means he is no longer human. If he did, then he was wrong, but he was human, so he can be wrong.

 

I feel you need to go deeper into the experiential meaning of emptiness, simply based upon what you have stated as your assessment. The Buddha while being human, showed that the human capacity is that of self transcendence, revealed through many examples of creative human ways of self improvement and the ability to acclimatize to drastic change. Exemplified in the human capacity to manifest living arrangements in very harsh climates all over the world, which other types of beings could not create due to a lack of capacity for self transcendence. The highest examples of this lay in the human ability to transcend the 5 senses and even the chemicals of the brain through spiritual cultivation. The Buddha indeed did transcend being human, while enacting as a human being to inform other human beings of their highest potential as human beings. It's human beings alone on this earth that can transcend being human while seemingly being human at the same time. You will just say, "that's just being human" and I'll say... sure you are right, to a certain extent. But, I will also ask, "what is a human?" When Scientists don't even know what all this is as of yet and are constantly changing their theories about reality and are constantly deepening their understanding of our human history. "Human" is just a name that "humans" have chosen for themselves, which doesn't really say much about what we truly are, as we are really just a collection of the elements and each individual is so different that some die from penicillin and others are healed by the very same. Seriously, when the vast majority of humans don't even know what it is to be human, even the most esteemed scientists, why doubt that a human such as Gotama the Buddha transcended the concept through awareness inversion? The same potential for ignorance is the same potential for wisdom, just like yin and yang, darkness and light. I do believe when the Buddha said, that he had transcended the conditions which kept him bound as a human, that he was right... here's the quote.

 

Was the Buddha a human being?

 

A brahmin called Dona encountered the Buddha shortly after his enlightenment and, struck by the Buddha’s serenity, asked him:

 

“Sir, are you a god?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you an angel?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you a yakkha?

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you a human being?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“When asked, ‘Are you a god?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ When asked, ‘Are you an angel?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin..’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ When asked, ‘Are you a human being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ Then what sort of being are you?”

 

“Brahmin, the defilements by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a god: those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palm tree stump, no longer subject to future arising. The defilements by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be an angel… a yakkha… a human being: those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palm tree stump, no longer subject to future arising.

 

“Just as a blue or red or white lotus born in water, grows in water and stands up above the water untouched by it, so too I, who was born in the world and grew up in the world, have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me, brahmin, as a Buddha.” (Buddha means awake)

 

I love it when you disagree with people and they say, practice more deeply and realize more clearly. I say this too, but only when I want to piss people off. One thing I'm sure of is that I've practiced more than I needed too. I just don't believe the same as you do, it's as simple as that.

 

If you ask a Zen Roshi, "was Buddha human?" I'm sure they'd answer, "what does it matter if he was human?"

 

Aaron

 

I'm sure you are not correct due to your lack of study, which is fine. I would just say, "study more." Why does that piss you off? I don't say what I say to piss people off and I am surprised at times when people are pissed off by what I say. As I don't get pissed off by the same things. Again, I guess it's my ignorance of the ways of most people that make this so. Not that I'm that transcendent at all, there are just other things that piss me off, but not saying, "study more or go deeper in meditation," as I will always say, "Yes, I agree!"

 

But yes, study more and go deeper into contemplation and meditation. As this assumption of yours, I am sure you are incorrect. No big deal, I've been incorrect about many things in my life.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

Generalizations are not nuanced, you are correct. The West in general is about individual identity. This doesn't mean that every single person is like this, but if you look at your history in school, it's about me, me, me in the West. In the East it's more about family and the family religion, this is a generalization. Both have good and bad sides to them. The East can learn a lot from Western industrialism, though it's gone hyper corrupt at this point, and the West can learn a lot from Eastern familial standards and spirituality, which can also be just as corrupt. You ralis, really choose what you focus on though... it seems to be the negative. There is no line, both hemispheres of the brain are needed for enlightenment, just as wisdom from both hemispheres of the Earth, like a big brain, are needed...

 

The west isn't about individual identity at all. I'm not sure where you learned that, but you missed the greater message. The west is about nationalistic identity. You identify with your country or your culture and in so doing develop a patriotic bond towards that country. The Pledge of Allegiance is an excellent example of this. You are only encouraged to be yourself, so long as you work within the acceptable confines of society.

 

There were all sorts of Native Americans, plenty were war like, much like in Africa, as far as generalizing tribes goes... of course there were individuals within these tribes who's nuanced life styles and mind styles we'll never know, and plenty of the tribes existent in the history of the Americas have wisdom which can be learned from. There have been meetings between the Dalai Lama and the Natives of New Mexico with shared wisdom, even words of similar meaning and sound. It's not so black and white and I apologize if my generalizations seem to convey a clinging to any absolute dichotomy, because I really don't... it's all relative. Dependent origination/emptiness, remember?

 

You need to read up more on your native american cultures as well. In fact very few Native American tribes were warlike simply for the sake of violence. The coup stick comes to mind. I think there are very few similarities between Buddhism and the shamanistic religions of the Native Americans.

 

Also I think this deification of the Dalai Lhama is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Once a man is viewed as infallible, then who watches him? Who ensures he is doing what is right? I brought this up in another thread and people said that I should be banned, there is evidence to support that the Dalai Lhama is aware of the abuse of children in monasteries in Tibet and Nepal, yet he has made no public comments about this abuse. The only comments he has made in the past are to those cases that have arisen in the West. I think it is entirely unlikely, having grown up in the monasteries, that he would be unaware of practices, that by all accounts have been going on for centuries. (The terms for the abusers and abused have actual names within the monastic community, yet it's not going on?) I think it is more than likely that the Dalai Lhama is keeping this covered up. I think anyone who can step back and view this impartially will have no problem seeing this, yet because of his status and his apparent "enlightenment" people refuse to accept that he may have done something wrong.

 

 

Thank goodness, I'm not that stupid.

 

Everyone can be that stupid. It just takes ignorance, the inability to see other peoples view points because you believe your own is without fault.

 

 

I'm not tired of your anti-buddhist stance myself. I think it's ok, much like what CowTao has stated. As I said, keep doing a good job of playing your cards...

 

I don't see Ralis as anti-buddhist at all. He is just stating facts, that anyone who approaches Buddhism impartially can see. He is not attacking Buddhism, but rather the ideology and corrupt nature of religion, which is evident within Buddhism as well.

 

But in general, Westerners have a hard time bowing to one another. Not that humility is limited to such actions, as plenty in the East do it as an empty dogma, and of course have plenty of issues with clinging. I'm merely using a generalization as an example, not as an absolute, because remember... there is no absolute self, thus there is no absolute generalization that covers all aspects. Life is far too complicated for that. But, what is it, do you want me to write a detailed book in every single post? Unpacking every single one of the concepts I use as a relative example of something or other?

 

This is perhaps the most offensive comment in my opinion. Why do you say Westerners have a hard time bowing? Are you saying all Westerners or just certain ones? I know plenty of people who have no problem bowing.

 

As far as the concepts you use, they aren't your own concepts, you are just repeating what can be found in the numerous sources of Buddhist suttras and texts. I think that's the problem with most of the Buddhists on this site, their arguments are always based on the same texts, much like a Christian's is based on the Bible. Any deviation from those texts is blasphemous, to say that reality may be different is a lie. There is no compromise.

 

Ironically I can understand many things, including why the Dalai Lhama says nothing about certain things. I don't necessarily think he is evil or a bad man, he is simply a man who must make decisions within the moral constraints of society. If he says one thing, he risks losing support which he desperately needs. It's as simple as that.

 

In the end you can say one thing over and over until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean it's true. In this case it just means you're well-versed in the dogma of the Buddhist religion.

 

With that said, I like you, you're passionate and still possess the naivete of youth, which is a good thing, because you can still see the possible, something many of us old-timers (and middle-age timers) have a problem with.

 

Aaron

Edited June 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I feel you need to go deeper into the experiential meaning of emptiness, simply based upon what you have stated as your assessment. The Buddha while being human, showed that the human capacity is that of self transcendence, revealed through many examples of creative human ways of self improvement and the ability to acclimatize to drastic change. Exemplified in the human capacity to manifest living arrangements in very harsh climates all over the world, which other types of beings could not create due to a lack of capacity for self transcendence. The highest examples of this lay in the human ability to transcend the 5 senses and even the chemicals of the brain through spiritual cultivation. The Buddha indeed did transcend being human, while enacting as a human being to inform other human beings of their highest potential as human beings. It's human beings alone on this earth that can transcend being human while seemingly being human at the same time. You will just say, "that's just being human" and I'll say... sure you are right, to a certain extent. But, I will also ask, "what is a human?" When Scientists don't even know what all this is as of yet and are constantly changing their theories about reality and are constantly deepening their understanding of our human history. "Human" is just a name that "humans" have chosen for themselves, which doesn't really say much about what we truly are, as we are really just a collection of the elements and each individual is so different that some die from penicillin and others are healed by the very same. Seriously, when the vast majority of humans don't even know what it is to be human, even the most esteemed scientists, why doubt that a human such as Gotama the Buddha transcended the concept through awareness inversion? The same potential for ignorance is the same potential for wisdom, just like yin and yang, darkness and light. I do believe when the Buddha said, that he had transcended the conditions which kept him bound as a human, that he was right... here's the quote.

 

Was the Buddha a human being?

 

A brahmin called Dona encountered the Buddha shortly after his enlightenment and, struck by the Buddha’s serenity, asked him:

 

“Sir, are you a god?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you an angel?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you a yakkha?

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“Are you a human being?”

 

“No, brahmin.”

 

“When asked, ‘Are you a god?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ When asked, ‘Are you an angel?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin..’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ When asked, ‘Are you a human being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahmin…’ Then what sort of being are you?”

 

“Brahmin, the defilements by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a god: those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palm tree stump, no longer subject to future arising. The defilements by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be an angel… a yakkha… a human being: those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palm tree stump, no longer subject to future arising.

 

“Just as a blue or red or white lotus born in water, grows in water and stands up above the water untouched by it, so too I, who was born in the world and grew up in the world, have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me, brahmin, as a Buddha.” (Buddha means awake)

 

 

 

I'm sure you are not correct due to your lack of study, which is fine. I would just say, "study more." Why does that piss you off? I don't say what I say to piss people off and I am surprised at times when people are pissed off by what I say. As I don't get pissed off by the same things. Again, I guess it's my ignorance of the ways of most people that make this so. Not that I'm that transcendent at all, there are just other things that piss me off, but not saying, "study more or go deeper in meditation," as I will always say, "Yes, I agree!"

 

But yes, study more and go deeper into contemplation and meditation. As this assumption of yours, I am sure you are incorrect. No big deal, I've been incorrect about many things in my life.

 

 

So here it is again, the classic Buddhist defense, "study more."

 

I would recommend you study something different, because what you're studying may have made you blind. Ignorance isn't just not knowing, but the state of believing that you know.

 

Aaron

Edited June 1, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

The west isn't about individual identity at all. I'm not sure where you learned that, but you missed the greater message. The west is about nationalistic identity. You identify with your country or your culture and in so doing develop a patriotic bond towards that country. The Pledge of Allegiance is an excellent example of this. You are only encouraged to be yourself, so long as you work within the acceptable confines of society.

 

 

I find that to only be partially true, but so is any generalization.

 

You need to read up more on your native american cultures as well. In fact very few Native American tribes were warlike simply for the sake of violence. The coup stick comes to mind. I think there are very few similarities between Buddhism and the shamanistic religions of the Native Americans.

 

Actually I grew up near a Pueblo reservation and I also know much of Navaho secret spiritual traditions through direct contact. The Tibetans and the Navahos even have very similar dress codes for some reason, with lots of Turquoise and braids, and even in the style of garb.

 

There are many similarities between Tantric Buddhism and Navaho systems, though plenty are lost and were never really written down, as the teachings were passed down through word of mouth more. But, the shashumna nadi along the spine was known by both as well as the moon and sun sides, etc.

 

Also I think this deification of the Dalai Lhama is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Once a man is viewed as infallible, then who watches him? Who ensures he is doing what is right? I brought this up in another thread and people said that I should be banned, there is evidence to support that the Dalai Lhama is aware of the abuse of children in monasteries in Tibet and Nepal, yet he has made no public comments about this abuse.

 

Public comments and trying to stop it are two different things. He is physically limited while enacted as a human being. Only the mind transcends being human while being human, that doesn't mean as much that a person as a human can do all things at once, no individual mind stream can, even as a high level god. As I said, one needs to study dependent origination/emptiness some more and ascertain it's internal meaning.

 

The only comments he has made in the past is to those cases that have arisen in the West. I think it is entirely unlikely, having grown up in the monasteries, that he would be unaware of practices, that by all accounts have been going on for centuries. The terms for the abusers and abused have actual names within the monastic community, yet it's not going on? I think it is more than likely that the Dalai Lhama is keeping this covered up. I think anyone who can step back and view this impartially will have no problem seeing this, yet because of his status and his apparent "enlightenment" people refuse to accept that he may have done something wrong.

 

Oh yeah? What would you do? What do you know exactly of what he has tried or not tried to do, you are making assumptions based upon what you have heard in public. He is not the soul controller of the universe, good and bad things have happened and will continue to happen, regardless of whether there are Buddhas here or not.

 

 

Everyone can be that stupid. It just takes ignorance, the inability to see other peoples view points because you believe your own is without fault.

 

Ok... then treat life as a mirror of your own faults.

 

 

I don't see Ralis as anti-buddhist at all. He is just stating facts, that anyone who approaches Buddhism impartially can see. He is not attacking Buddhism, but rather the ideology and corrupt nature of religion, which is evident within Buddhism as well.

 

Not within the teachings, only within individuals. Just like individuals within Shamanistic traditions, I can name plenty of names within the Purivian tradition that corrupt the teachings in upstate NY and Mass. Individuals are individuals, that's it. As well the lack of clarity produced by these traditions can be to blame as well. Buddhism produces a huge amount of clarity, but there will always be individuals that don't get it.

 

This is perhaps the most offensive comment in my opinion. Why do you say Westerners have a hard time bowing? Are you saying all Westerners or just certain ones? I know plenty of people who have no problem bowing.

 

If you didn't read my other posts here on this thread, I would understand this comment. Only a vast majority, not all Westerners. Like any generalization, it's not a complete view.

 

As far as the concepts you use, they aren't your own concepts, you are just repeating what can be found in the numerous sources of Buddhist suttras and texts. I think that's the problem with most of the Buddhists on this site, their arguments are always based on the same text, much like a Christian's is based on the Bible. Any deviation from those texts is blasphemous, to say that reality may be different is a lie. There is no compromise.

 

That's your view, but you are not talking about me. It took lots of opening up from other more Eternalistic views before becoming Buddhist, by opening up to Buddhist debates. Before Buddhism, I believed much like you. I have lots of experience to go on, including years of hours per day meditation and chanting, past life experiences, other world travels, astral projection, psychic experiences, whatever... all just deeper levels of illusion of course, but still... deepening levels of awareness as well. From form level samadhis to formless level samadhis.

 

Ironically I can understand many things, including why the Dalai Lhama says nothing about certain things. I don't necessarily think he is evil or a bad man, he is simply a man who must make decisions within the moral constraints of society. If he says one thing, he risks losing support which he desperately needs. It's as simple as that.

 

Sure, he was a political leader for many years and socially limited by that role. He has dropped that role recently though. I didn't know his depth of wisdom and realization until I saw him meditate though... he's deeper than you think.

 

In the end you can say one thing over and over until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean it's true. In this case it just means you're well-versed in the dogma of the Buddhist religion.

 

With that said, I like you, you're passionate and still possess the naivete of youth, which is a good thing, because you can still see the possible, something many of us old-timers (and middle-age timers) have a problem with.

 

Aaron

It took a lot for me to be Buddhist. I suffered through a huge amount of disillusionment having been raised Hindu under Eternalistic and Universalist ideals, thinking all paths come from a static singular source or undefinable will beyond reach, and will return to it. The Buddha taught dependent origination/emptiness, which is different from independent origination/consciousness. Most paths assume their conscious spiritual experiences reify a super consciousness behind everything, Buddhism does not and seems to be the only one that does not.

 

I do not determine wisdom by a persons physical lifetime. My body is 36 though.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

So here it is again, the classic Buddhist defense, "study more."

 

I would recommend you study something different, because what you're studying may have made you blind. Ignorance isn't just not knowing, but the state of believing that you know.

 

Aaron

 

I have in fact studied all the worlds main traditions and some fringe traditions. From Taoism to Hinduism, to mystic Christianity. I've told you this before... but I guess you don't remember.

 

I can name hundreds of autobiographies that I've read, I read fast though, and I meditated deeply on all of them, had blissful experiences that revealed various truths to me. All these traditions that I studied have great wisdom in them, but none as deep or as clearly put as the Buddhadharma. The Buddha himself taught for 45 years and actually created the tradition that is still maintained, a tradition that was the largest religion in the world for 1,000 years, larger than any of the other traditions ever have been. With the most succinct teachings and a great influence to other places of the world through the silk road.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[gendao]

It took a lot for me to be Buddhist. I suffered through a huge amount of disillusionment having been raised Hindu under Eternalistic and Universalist ideals, thinking all paths come from a static singular source or undefinable will beyond reach, and will return to it. The Buddha taught dependent origination/emptiness, which is different from independent origination/consciousness. Most paths assume their conscious spiritual experiences reify a super consciousness behind everything, Buddhism does not and seems to be the only one that does not.

Hindu IDO says that everything is just a different reflection ultimately of an original object. Hence, the ultimate natue is this object (where the buck stops).

 

Buddhist DO says that everything is just a reflection of another reflection...with no original object. Hence, nature is ultimately empty (the buck never stops anywhere). "Emptiness" here does not mean that there are no reflections - just that it is empty of any original object (that is NOT the reflection of something else)..

 

That is how I view both theories now, although I have not really deeply contemplated each yet.. The actual reality might transcend both somehow, I dunno..?

Edited June 1, 2011 by vortex

[lifeforce]

Vaj is right and everyone else is wrong..........again !!

I'm having deja-vu. Or did this happen on these forums before, many times.

[Simplicity Rules]

D.P. (again... Its happening quite a lot lately, not sure why)

 

 

Perhaps too much of preaching and little practice? Or practice does not embody what is being preached? Action that is not harmonious because of clinging to concepts dear to oneself that is causing imbalance to mindful and skillful action - for there is a need to be defensive towards everything that does not accept your concept of Buddhism? Openness that is directed only towards what one's experience validates and not towards the other side of it, which, obviously is not correct or imperfect because that is not my 'experience' (or even belief?) Or simply diversion leading to inattention caused by all this give me a Buddhist high-five thing going on here? Every small action has a cause and examining it is never a worthless activity - says the oldest tantra, the Guhyasamaja, which is really the first meditation the Tantra taught.

 

Oh all this .. may be, may be not.

 

Metta

Edited June 1, 2011 by Simplicity Rules

[C T]

Perhaps too much of preaching and little practice? Or practice does not embody what is being preached? Action that is not harmonious because of clinging to concepts dear to oneself that is causing imbalance to mindful and skillful action - for there is a need to be defensive towards everything that does not accept your concept of Buddhism? Openness that is directed only towards what one's experience validates and not towards the other side of it, which, obviously is not correct or imperfect because that is not my 'experience' (or even belief?) Or simply diversion leading to inattention caused by all this give me a Buddhist high-five thing going on here? Every small action has a cause and examining it is never a worthless activity - says the oldest tantra, the Guhyasamaja, which is really the first meditation the Tantra taught.

 

Oh all this .. may be, may be not.

 

Metta

Perhaps!

[alect]

I am detecting massive amounts of spiritual arrogance in this thread

[lifeforce]

I am detecting massive amounts of spiritual arrogance in this thread

 

This is something that is happening on an all too frequent basis unfortunately.

It's a shame really, because there is a lot of good stuff in these forums.

[StoneHead]

I can name hundreds of autobiographies that I've read, I read fast though, and I meditated deeply on all of them, had blissful experiences that revealed various truths to me.

 

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

[goldisheavy]

So the Ten Commandments are inherently hurtful?

 

Yes!! Very much so! Lots of tension was created in society and blood spilled thanks to those very commandments!! I am shocked you're asking about such an obvious example of evil.

 

Hmmm... If the non-dogmatic version is of equal benefit as the dogmatic version... then why change the version?

 

What I meant to say was this. The dogmas cause harm, so the dogmatic phrasing causes harm. However besides the dogmatic phrasing, there is some message. That message might be beneficial in a non-dogmatic setting. So when I say "equal benefit" I mean we preserve whatever is beneficial in the message and cut out the non-beneficial dogma.

 

For example, if 10 commandments were renamed 10 training precepts, a huge benefit to the entire world would result. Alternatively they could be named 10 guidelines, or 10 general principles. All those are much better than commandments.

 

Then when you get down to the commandment messages, they can be made better by making them more general and less specific.

 

Here is an example that mixes humor and seriousness:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

 

What gets me, is if you consider yourself a nobody, knowing nothing really, why does your body resist the practice of pranaming to a teacher?

 

I don't consider myself being nobody or knowing nothing. That's an absurd position to take. If I knew nothing, I wouldn't even know what pranaming was, just think about it. So obviously you're exaggerating there. I am somebody and I know something. Start there.

 

Or to anybody for that matter? If all beings, even so called, "enemies" are really saying nothing essentially and are nobody really... what harm can a nobody get from bowing to another nobody, or anybody to everybody for that matter?

 

Because emptiness doesn't equate to nothingness. You yourself said so and I agreed. Did you forget? Or do you want me to dig up the post where you elucidate on emptiness being different from nothing?

 

I'm not that enlightened yet. I also get benefit from the idea of possibly benefiting others. I get high off talking to others about what has benefitted me, just by relaying the experiences through recalling the experiences.

 

That's perfectly fine. Just try not to close doors for people. Show them the door you enjoy using without putting locks or graffiti on the competing doors.

 

But, if you are going to close some doors, then make a logical argument for it and make it reasonable. If you can last longer than two second in a debate, maybe your point has merit.

[ralis]

 

 

I can name hundreds of autobiographies that I've read, I read fast though, and I meditated deeply on all of them, had blissful experiences that revealed various truths to me. All these traditions that I studied have great wisdom in them, but none as deep or as clearly put as the Buddhadharma. The Buddha himself taught for 45 years and actually created the tradition that is still maintained, a tradition that was the largest religion in the world for 1,000 years, larger than any of the other traditions ever have been. With the most succinct teachings and a great influence to other places of the world through the silk road.

 

Why not frame your narrative in the first person. It remains your opinion only and is not shared by everyone.

 

What basis in fact do you have to claim that Buddhism was the largest religion for 1000 years. You have claimed that extensive written records were not available during the Buddha's time and yet you continue to make outrageous claims.

[Aaron]

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

I love that story... I wasn't aware that it was Nan-in, my version only mentioned a master and a learned scholar.

 

Aaron

[RiverSnake]

The only thing holding this debate together seems to be semantics. We all have personal preferences...Vaj likes Buddhism, that's great, i like Taoism and also have a lot of respect for Buddhism.

 

 

Stop being prickles

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Hindu IDO says that everything is just a different reflection ultimately of an original object. Hence, the ultimate natue is this object (where the buck stops).

 

Buddhist DO says that everything is just a reflection of another reflection...with no original object. Hence, nature is ultimately empty (the buck never stops anywhere). "Emptiness" here does not mean that there are no reflections - just that it is empty of any original object (that is NOT the reflection of something else)..

 

That is how I view both theories now, although I have not really deeply contemplated each yet.. The actual reality might transcend both somehow, I dunno..?

 

Right Vortex, that's a very good synopsis. Both traditions are non-dual, but one is qualified by a monist idealism and the other is not. I like the way you said that.

 

Buddhism has no "actual reality", meaning there is no absolute truth, and that's it's absolute truth. It's all relative according to Buddhism. Hinduism and all monist faiths and monotheism's or paths that qualify a substance behind everything see that all is relative except a singular subsuming self existing essence that is both Alpha and Omega.

 

Of course the experience is not the words, it's the constant awareness of emptiness that makes awareness luminous, free from stain, free from confinement and uncompounded.

[Vajrahridaya]

Every small action has a cause and examining it is never a worthless activity - says the oldest tantra, the Guhyasamaja, which is really the first meditation the Tantra taught.

 

Oh all this .. may be, may be not.

 

Metta

 

It's interesting that you would quote a Buddhist Tantra which validates CowTao's position after saying all that?

CowTao is far less preachy than I am, that's for sure.

[Aaron]

Of course the experience is not the words, it's the constant awareness of emptiness that makes awareness luminous, free from stain, free from confinement and uncompounded.

 

And therein lies the rub. One would think that if this was true, then we would not have "enlightened" monks, who have received their transmission molesting children. One would think that you would not find them committing suicide. One would think you would not have them arguing about money to go to the movies, of course these are just the few examples that pop up off the top of my head, there are many more.

 

My belief is that there is no freedom from stain, only the illusion of a freedom that exists within yourself, that you believe is no self. Hence, the enlightened are never free of vice, nor of humanity, rather they have only achieved an intellectual understanding of a topic to the point that they can convince those around them of their exalted status.

 

In the end Buddhism is an illusion within an illusion. A truth within a lie. It only works so long as you believe it, once you stop, it all crumbles away, like mirrors in a fun house.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes!! Very much so! Lots of tension was created in society and blood spilled thanks to those very commandments!! I am shocked you're asking about such an obvious example of evil.

 

Again, your view is very extreme. How is it "evil?" Obviously the blood being spilt had nothing to do with following the 10 commandments, which have, "Thou shalt not kill/murder" as one of them.

 

I would agree with you that some of them are kind of silly, like the whole not carving an image of anything that is in heaven, etc. But seriously, the blood spilt between waring nations had nothing to do with the 10 commandments, it had everything to do with Man's lust for power and prestige. Another Commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors shit." If that was followed, these people wouldn't have taken over other countries, raped and pillaged, etc.

 

I don't see your correlation between Evil and the 10 commandments which are basically moral.

 

 

 

 

What I meant to say was this. The dogmas cause harm, so the dogmatic phrasing causes harm. However besides the dogmatic phrasing, there is some message. That message might be beneficial in a non-dogmatic setting. So when I say "equal benefit" I mean we preserve whatever is beneficial in the message and cut out the non-beneficial dogma.

 

Sure, when you are intelligent enough to think in such a manor, but some people just don't have that capacity and need the blinders for the sake of focus and development. When some people think outside of the box, they actually get lost, I've seen this. I think we are reaching a time on Earth where we can definitely drop many of the Dogmas, thus we have the proliferation of Dzogchen that's supposed to happen according to prophecy? Anyway, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche say's as long as you have an understanding of Rigpa, and the direct experience, it doesn't matter what tradition you practice because you'll do it all better, with more awareness of inter-dependence, thus virtue arises naturally and flexibly.

 

For example, if 10 commandments were renamed 10 training precepts, a huge benefit to the entire world would result. Alternatively they could be named 10 guidelines, or 10 general principles. All those are much better than commandments.

 

I agree, but at the same time, then certain people might be too lax about it, they would be like... "oh, whatever about that, that's not supported by any great Authority, they're not rules laid down by God that MUST be followed." Anyway, it all depends on individual capacities, as there are so many people and each one is different, even though there are group and cultural tendencies and biases. Every one of the worlds traditions had Dogmatic followers and then mystic lineages that have more of an understanding as you are presenting it.

 

I mean, there is this which reveals the mystic nature of what Jesus was on about. He was pretty basic, he was just like... "Love, Love, Love" and he knew that if you could do that, all virtues would arise automatically.

 

"The 10 Commandments - Christ's Summation in the New Testament

About 1,400 years later, the 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day: "

 

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40)."

 

 

Then when you get down to the commandment messages, they can be made better by making them more general and less specific.

 

Here is an example that mixes humor and seriousness:

 

{George Carlin Video}

 

 

Oh yup, I've seen this.

 

I don't consider myself being nobody or knowing nothing. That's an absurd position to take. If I knew nothing, I wouldn't even know what pranaming was, just think about it. So obviously you're exaggerating there. I am somebody and I know something. Start there.

 

Because emptiness doesn't equate to nothingness. You yourself said so and I agreed. Did you forget? Or do you want me to dig up the post where you elucidate on emptiness being different from nothing?

 

Haven't you read Nagarjuna? Sure, you are somebody that knows something on a relative level, not on an ultimate level. You don't inherently exist, neither does your knowledge. If you've really had transmissions from Buddhas in meditation, then you've definitely had formless jhanas in meditation where your identity with localized self awareness is blown out of the water. Why carry this pride of self? Haven't you learned anything from Buddhism? Confidence and self clinging pride are two different things.

 

That's perfectly fine. Just try not to close doors for people. Show them the door you enjoy using without putting locks or graffiti on the competing doors.

 

But, if you are going to close some doors, then make a logical argument for it and make it reasonable. If you can last longer than two second in a debate, maybe your point has merit.

 

That has never been my point. All paths arise due to the necessities of individuals at different times during their evolution, that doesn't mean they all lead to the same place, or come from the same intention. No need be attached to any path as ultimate, but it seems that Buddhism is the only one that has this view of relativity presented in a clear and straight forward fashion with traditions that are still preserved and widely available. Even the Buddha himself taught in many ways for different people, and didn't only teach the path to Nirvana, but paths to rebirth in a higher realm or a higher capacity. So, not all of his teachings were even Buddhadharma, some were just basic virtue building teachings like the Brahmaviharas. Of course, there are mystics in every tradition, with secret meetings and lineages with hard to find texts with very few copies of them being circulated. Yet, most reify a rooftop, as Vortex put it, "The Buck stops here." Buddhism does not. So, Buddhism is "self/Self" transcendent, other traditions are "self/Self" occupied.

 

I'm just presenting Buddhism, and how it differs from other traditions in it's basic and ultimate intentions.

 

People seem to go crazy when you don't say, "Oh, it's all one, it's all the same." But, that would be a monist idealism and not conducive to the intention of Buddhism as a tradition, this type of thinking actually destroys the tradition and makes it's intention convoluted and mushy.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[steve]

 

 

Buddhism has no "actual reality", meaning there is no absolute truth, and that's it's absolute truth. It's all relative according to Buddhism. Hinduism and all monist faiths and monotheism's or paths that qualify a substance behind everything see that all is relative except a singular subsuming self existing essence that is both Alpha and Omega.

 

Of course the experience is not the words, it's the constant awareness of emptiness that makes awareness luminous, free from stain, free from confinement and uncompounded.

Hi Vajrahridaya,

I'm relatively ignorant of the Buddhist sutras but something that I think is critical and often under-emphasized is that everything, including the concept of dependent origination is subject to this. That is, dependent origination is not Reality either, as you allude to with "the experience is not the words." Becoming attached to the concept of DO is no less a potential source of dukkha than attachment to the Hindu atman or anything else. Sometimes I get the impression that you are putting forth DO as if it were a description of Reality "according" to Buddhism and I think this is a misrepresentation. It may only be my misinterpretation of your words, but it is my impression. The only thing Buddha was truly concerned with and explained explicitly was suffering and a prescription to address it - not a doctrine, concept, or ideology to address the nature of Reality. The principle of DO is an exercise, a mindset, a prescription to lessen dukkha associated with an attachment to an explanation of Reality. But DO can easily become a concept to cling too and that is not its purpose. I love the paradox. It seems to me that subsequent teachers have over-emphasized Buddhist "explanations" or "concepts" to describe reality and I think that violates the spirit of the "thunderous silence" and emptiness.

[Vajrahridaya]

And therein lies the rub. One would think that if this was true, then we would not have "enlightened" monks, who have received their transmission molesting children. One would think that you would not find them committing suicide. One would think you would not have them arguing about money to go to the movies, of course these are just the few examples that pop up off the top of my head, there are many more.

 

My belief is that there is no freedom from stain, only the illusion of a freedom that exists within yourself, that you believe is no self. Hence, the enlightened are never free of vice, nor of humanity, rather they have only achieved an intellectual understanding of a topic to the point that they can convince those around them of their exalted status.

 

In the end Buddhism is an illusion within an illusion. A truth within a lie. It only works so long as you believe it, once you stop, it all crumbles away, like mirrors in a fun house.

 

Aaron

 

Even in such a great teaching and path as Buddhism, very few are actually Buddhas. So, to conflate the teachings of Buddhism with regular people who are merely Buddhist in name is not a revelation of wisdom, as most Buddhists are just Buddhists and not Buddhas, like %99. Also, Buddhism is not about destroying ones humanity, it's about seeing through it and utilizing the energy of the human capacity in it's highest ability. I agree that in any tradition, most monks should not be monks, are not ready to be monks, or should not think that they should be monks for their entire life. I see monkhood as a part of development, but not the goal of Buddhism at all. Even renunciation has to be transcended. One only practices renunciation in order to hone and channel the energies into other capacities within the body.

 

But, why do you choose bad monks as an example in your mind? Why not think of good monks, like the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh? These are good examples of monkhood in Buddhism. Also, in Vajrayana, a high level monk is supposed to start practicing sexual tantric methods that are highly powerful and deeply alchemical. You wouldn't know anything about that though, which is fine. Your perspective is merely revealing your lack of understanding, study and experience with Buddhism, nothing more, nothing less. I don't know why you would hold onto it as a self empowering holy grail though?

 

You and ralis share in something I call "negaception" Where your conception, reception and perception of something is embittered by the negativity of your personal experiences in life. Thus, there is not an objective and holistic view, as you perceive there to be only dark side everywhere. It's like flipping a coin and getting tails every single time. You justify this to yourself through your concepts, because it's how you are receiving the information as it's being interpreted through your senses in a convoluted way. It's a big negative self deception... "negaception."

 

It's clear you don't understand the teachings and don't care to, so be it. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya