fanatical Buddhists

[ralis]

Your right in the sense that I didn't make it clear enough. I apologize to people for misreading my intentions, due to my lack of clarity. I know what I was feeling when I made the remark. As I was considering all of us mental patients, said in jest. In a lightened up, non-serious kind of response to your ever so serious damning of my form of expressions.

 

Just doing what any good Buddha would do.

[Vajrahridaya]

His post never said anything about monism. It was clear to me what it meant.

 

Sure, you with your 30 years of Buddhist studies. But, that wouldn't be clear to someone with 30 years of Hindu studies, unless they were really into Ramanamaharishi, but even he veers towards more monist interpretations of "heart mind." According to Buddhist cosmology, this just leads to long lived Brahma realms. This is just traditional Buddhist views, which are expounded by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche in his SMS course. But not in his public talks, generally. Though he has said that one should really understand emptiness as exposed by Nagarjuna in a talk he gave in NYC. You say that he said the opposite to someone, which shows how flexible and sensitive he is to individual needs. At the same time, if you read his Precious Vase, he does say what he said in the public talk, that one should understand emptiness as expounded by Nagarjuna.

 

The thing you're not understanding is that it's not just having the experience of heart mind, it's understanding it in a way where that experience can be the catalyst for true liberation and genuine Buddhahood. Not just, "Oh, I have the experience beyond words" and then you quit the practice while referencing a subtle kind of pride, never clarifying anything, sitting back and sneering anyone that attempts to in a way that doesn't coincide with your deeply held formless concepts surrounding your precious, transcendent personal experience. How is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about ralis when you keep saying, "the experience is beyond words." But, liberation in Buddhism is never about having an experience and clinging to it as ultimate.

 

Sorry buddy, you might have studied Buddhism for 30 years, but you don't understand it.

[ralis]

Sure, you with your 30 years of Buddhist studies. But, that wouldn't be clear to someone with 30 years of Hindu studies, unless they were really into Ramanamaharishi, but even he veers towards more monist interpretations of "heart mind." According to Buddhist cosmology, this just leads to long lived Brahma realms. This is just traditional Buddhist views, which are expounded by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche in his SMS course. But not in his public talks, generally. Though he has said that one should really understand emptiness as exposed by Nagarjuna in a talk he gave in NYC. You say that he said the opposite to someone, which shows how flexible and sensitive he is to individual needs. At the same time, if you read his Precious Vase, he does say what he said in the public talk, that one should understand emptiness as expounded by Nagarjuna.

 

The thing you're not understanding is that it's not just having the experience of heart mind, it's understanding it in a way where that experience can be the catalyst for true liberation and genuine Buddhahood. Not just, "Oh, I have the experience beyond words" and then you quit the practice while referencing a subtle kind of pride, never clarifying anything, sitting back and sneering anyone that attempts to in a way that doesn't coincide with your deeply held formless concepts surrounding your precious, transcendent personal experience. How is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about ralis when you keep saying, "the experience is beyond words." But, liberation in Buddhism is never about having an experience and clinging to it as ultimate.

 

Sorry buddy, you might have studied Buddhism for 30 years, but you don't understand it.

 

 

I didn't ask your opinion as to whether I understand it or not.

[Vajrahridaya]

I didn't ask your opinion as to whether I understand it or not.

 

Ok, sorry.

[goldisheavy]

It is unchangeable, in the sense that the insight is permanent.

 

Insight is not permanent. If insight was permanent there is no way it could be developed or realized.

[Marblehead]

Insight is not permanent. If insight was permanent there is no way it could be developed or realized.

 

I don't know of any thing in the universe that is permanent.

[goldisheavy]

I don't know of any thing in the universe that is permanent.

 

Look harder.

[Apech]

Right, at this point the only way to talk about Buddhanature is through paradox, revealing it's middle point access between dichotomous thinking.

 

Isn't a dichotomous a giant extinct amphibian? Some of them had two brains, one in their head and one in their tail. So the middle point access will be somewhere round their tummy button, I suppose.

[3bob]

There are different philosophical schools in Tibetan Buddhism. Rantong (emptiness of self) assert the emptiness of everything while Zhentong (emptiness of other) asserts that Buddha Nature is ultimately real.

 

The issue here I think is that these are philosophical systems which support the View (i.e. emptiness) or if you like intellectual understandings of emptiness and/or the nature of reality. They are not the same as true inner realization through which actual direct insight into the nature of reality is achieved ... at this point philosophical wrangling stops. It is not possible to fully express reality in words. For instance there is a self and yet there is no self, buddha nature is empty and yet not empty ... and so on ...

 

Sounds like a smart cookie and a good egg.

[3bob]

It is unchangeable, in the sense that the insight is permanent. It is a Self in the sense that this insight is now the source of all expressions of a Buddha. It is the source of all in the sense that emptiness makes all things possible.

 

To equate it with ideas of monistic theism, or concepts concerning a creator god, would be erroneous. This is what happens when people take things out of context and apply their own meaning without the support of all the rest of Longchenpas works. Longchenpa also refutes wrong views. The problem with concepts many times is that they can be mis-read, or mis-understood if not contextualized properly, leading to a wrong view, or in this case a transcendental form of clinging, leading merely to "formless realm" realizations.

 

Longchenpa also refutes wrong views on the nature of mind and karma in the typical Buddhist fashion.

 

Your conditioned and attached response again; just ask yourself what if you are wrong since you are taking the stance of being right?

[thuscomeone]

Look harder.

You don't understand how absurd the implications of permanence would be.

[Vajrahridaya]

Insight is not permanent. If insight was permanent there is no way it could be developed or realized.

 

See, an example of misreading concepts. A Buddha has permanent insight into the nature of things, which makes him/her a Buddha. A Anuttarasamyaksambodhi Buddha does not waver from this insight that liberates. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be liberated and would be bound by the functionality of wavering impermanence.

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

Your conditioned and attached response again; just ask yourself what if you are wrong since you are taking the stance of being right?

 

I had to ask myself that very deeply in order to go from Hinduism, which is a perspective I was very well meditated in, to dependent origination/emptiness, just like the Buddha did. He pulled the rug from under substantialist non-duality interpretations of the experience of "heart-mind" long ago. Those perspectives as expressed in the Upanishads, which are mostly post Buddha by the way, and those views as expressed in the Vedas, even the cherished Rig Veda. It's all right there in the pali suttas.

 

One cannot find a permanent "Self standing eternal" neither individually nor universally. He actually said this. So, either he is wrong or he is right. You can pull quotes out of context all night long. I know due to direct glimpses, due to insight which transcends the view of Brahmayoga on the nature of experience itself.

 

You pull this quote out of context, not knowing what he means, I say what he means due to having studied Dzogchen and you fight with it. You can say all you want, but I'm correcting the point of view. Because, the perspective you hold about these words is not the perspective that liberates. It's not, "right view."

 

You are clinging to a non-conceptual transcendent as a self standing reality, a will beyond phenomena. It's very subtle, the difference is very deep, and it can be realized, it can be understood, you can cut through.

 

Lonchenpa himself talks about wrong views in his Great Chariot text and in his explanations on the nature of mind.

 

Why not ask yourself the very same question 3bob?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

See, an example of misreading concepts. A Buddha has permanent insight into the nature of things, which makes him/her a Buddha. A Anuttarasamyaksambodhi Buddha does not waver from this insight that liberates. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be liberated and would be bound by the functionality of wavering impermanence.

Here's my problem with this. It's clear that insight and wisdom liberate. But, if one constantly trys to maintain this insight, or a state of being insightful, isn't that making this insight into another permanent self to guard against impermanence? Isn't that the very tendency which is the cause of suffering, which we seek to eliminate in the first place?

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[ralis]

One cannot find a permanent "Self standing eternal" neither individually nor universally. He actually said this. So, either he is wrong or he is right.

 

 

What is not common knowledge outside the study of 'General Semantics' are the limitations placed in arguments such as what is written above. Aristotelian logic works only in a limited universe of two distinct possibilities. In the above case, the Buddha was either right or wrong. No other possibilities exist according to your logic. Clearly defined statements such as the above can only be categorized as absolutes and restricts all Buddhist teachings to a very narrow view of the phenomenal world.

[goldisheavy]

You don't understand how absurd the implications of permanence would be.

 

Keep looking. Not everything changes. Notice something that doesn't change? (hint: might want to check in with the Surangama Sutra for hints)

[goldisheavy]

Here's my problem with this. It's clear that insight and wisdom liberate. But, if one constantly trys to maintain this insight, or a state of being insightful, isn't that making this insight into another permanent self to guard against impermanence? Isn't that the very tendency which is the cause of suffering, which we seek to eliminate in the first place?

 

When insight becomes a habit, it doesn't require a huge energy output to be sustained. Still, even in this state it's not permanent. But it lasts indefinitely as long as you're intent on it.

[goldisheavy]

You don't understand how absurd the implications of permanence would be.

 

http://www.cttbusa.o...shurangama6.asp

 

I suggest reading the whole chapter, but if you're in a hurry (or just lazy), start with 2:41:

 

The Buddha told the great king, "By watching the ceaseless changes of these transformations, you awaken and know of your extinction, but do you also know that at the time of extinction there is something in your body which does not become extinct?

 

Buddha was the best troll.

[Vajrahridaya]

Here's my problem with this. It's clear that insight and wisdom liberate. But, if one constantly trys to maintain this insight, or a state of being insightful, isn't that making this insight into another permanent self to guard against impermanence? Isn't that the very tendency which is the cause of suffering, which we seek to eliminate in the first place?

 

If you have to try, you haven't realized it yet. for an Anuttarasamkyakasambodhi Buddha, trying to be a Buddha is something of the past. Speaking completely from the relative level that speech appears in.

[Vajrahridaya]

What is not common knowledge outside the study of 'General Semantics' are the limitations placed in arguments such as what is written above. Aristotelian logic works only in a limited universe of two distinct possibilities. In the above case, the Buddha was either right or wrong. No other possibilities exist according to your logic. Clearly defined statements such as the above can only be categorized as absolutes and restricts all Buddhist teachings to a very narrow view of the phenomenal world.

 

Dichotomies apply where necessary. That's relativity for you. You're over sensationalism of a view based upon what you think I've said is your own creation and has nothing to do with my intention. Again, you read your own limitations into my statement by re-contextualizing it. You are fanatical in this habit.

[ralis]

Dichotomies apply where necessary. That's relativity for you. You're over sensationalism of a view based upon what you think I've said is your own creation and has nothing to do with my intention. Again, you read your own limitations into my statement by re-contextualizing it. You are fanatical in this habit.

 

Your response is one of not being able to defend your own limited logic. If you are going to use limited Aristotelean based logic then you must follow it to a logical conclusion. In this case you have limited the alleged sayings of the Buddha by claiming Buddhism offers an unlimited view while writing in strict logical parameters that are defined by yes/no, right/wrong etc. which is contradictory to an unlimited view.

 

I submit there may be unlimited possibilities in the cosmos. To prescribe limitations based on primitive language constructs will never produce real freedom.

[Vajrahridaya]

Your response is one of not being able to defend your own limited logic. If you are going to use limited Aristotelean based logic then you must follow it to a logical conclusion. In this case you have limited the alleged sayings of the Buddha by claiming Buddhism offers an unlimited view while writing in strict logical parameters that are defined by yes/no, right/wrong etc. which is contradictory to an unlimited view.

 

Actually no, because potential is unlimited, it also manifests as limited.

 

It's like the concept of Shiva in Trika Shaivism. Shiva is so unlimited that shiva manifests limitation out of being unlimited, otherwise Shiva would be limited to formless concepts of unlimited.

 

I submit there may be unlimited possibilities in the cosmos. To prescribe limitations based on primitive language constructs will never produce real freedom.

 

You are wrong, as the experience can be referenced to, and can be realized through reading the words that arise from a state of realization, thereby transcending the form of the words and revealing directly the meaning they are pointing to. Just because you've never experienced this yourself, doesn't mean that others have not or cannot. I also say and have many times here, it all depends upon how one internalizes the concepts. I understand that clinging to a supreme self existent that is beyond the phenomenal world as per Vedantin dictation is not the same meaning as intended by Longchenpa. This is why sincere unpacking of concepts have to be done. You cannot just quote a scripture out of context and expect everyone to understand what it means. For instance, what if I were to quote, "I and my father are one" from the Bible? What would you think? What does that mean? Can you see that if this is not unpacked, it can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings? What... does Jesus mean, one in intention, one as in physically one substance, one as in metaphysically one substance? What does Jesus mean? I would say one in intention personally, though from a monist point of view, they would be one in metaphysical substance as well. You will have to read everything else he has said, meditated on the meaning and have come to a realization, then you can re-read the statement and have an eye opening experience of his intention in saying it and become one with it.

 

I have done the practices, I have had the experiences, I have done the inquiry into the nature of these experiences, and I have also done the inquiry into my intentions for inquiry.

[xabir2005]

Btw, all Buddhists do not agree on everything about Buddhism or use terms the same way!! For instance: (copied from Wikipedia)

 

"...Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the great Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, repeatedly exalts not the non-self but the self and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality:[53]

 

"the pervasive Lord" (vibhu)

"Buddha-Self"

"the beginningless Self" (anādi-ātman)

"the Self of Thusness" (tathatā-ātman)

"the Self of primordial purity" (śuddha-ātman)

"the Source of all"

"the Self pervading all"

"the Single Self" (eka-ātman)

"the Diamond Self" (vajra-ātman)

"the Solid Self" (ghana-ātman)

"the Holy, Immovable Self"

"the Supreme Self"

 

In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this immutable, universal and salvific Buddha essence (the true self of the Buddha) is said to be the ground of all things, but it is viewed by fools as something changeful and impermanent, whereas in fact it is stated by the Buddha to be the very opposite of such impermanence..."

 

Thus in the end (or beginning) one has to find out for themselves while also being careful about putting all of their eggs into one basket of attachments to particular words and concepts related to same, and or as Ralis said and which I agree with, "pseudo scholarly prose that can confuse many" may come into play.

Dolpopa, Shentong, is no different from Advaita essentially. They have fallen into eternalist views.

 

See http://www.byomakusu...isShentong.aspx

 

As for Ghanavyuha Sutra and other sutras talking about a permanent nature, that permanent nature is emptiness (lack of inherent existence). It could even be talking about an eternal luminous mind (but is empty of self) - but this eternality is not the same as unchanging*

 

As Loppon Namdrol states, Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya.

 

 

*From the shentong article: If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.

[thuscomeone]

If you have to try, you haven't realized it yet. for an Anuttarasamkyakasambodhi Buddha, trying to be a Buddha is something of the past. Speaking completely from the relative level that speech appears in.

Well, I wasn't speaking about myself there. Just in general about those who cling to a part of emptiness/dependent arising (the view of them) and mistakenly think that the part (the view) is the whole. Those who realize that they are emptiness/dependent arising see that they don't have to maintain any sort of view of it. Everything they do is it. They live it and are it effortlessly, like you say.