fanatical Buddhists

[3bob]

 

"Yes, I am a Buddhist, and the Buddha was a Buddhist as well, even before he became a Buddha. Call it egotistical, but to think of oneself as a Buddha before even being a Buddhist, is foolish. I would not follow or trust that person to reflect the Buddhas teachings as succinctly as a Buddhist Master, even if they have cultivated to a high degree, I would not consider it Buddhahood nor his/her words a worthy teaching to take take refuge in".

 

To make matters historically simple and for agreement sake let us say the historic Buddha was the founder of Buddhism, thus he was not a "Buddhist" before he founded same. Btw, a couple of these sentences leaves a lot to be desired (lol) in their self-contradiction? Anyway I have no problem with your, "Yes, I am a Buddhist" but after that you have shown time and again that you are compelled correct everyone else on their deluded and less than Buddhist path which comes across as non-dharmic to say the least.

 

Om

Edited July 11, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Are you going to give Keith Dowman credit for the cut and paste? I never mentioned the Karmapa or Dalai Lama, so why do you appeal to their authority to put me down? You must get a thrill in behaving that way.

 

Just as you appeal to your own mind as an authority to put me down and criticize me at every turn.

 

Yes, it's from Keith Dowmans site. But why should that matter, I credited the original translator. You didn't credit where you got your version from at all. You are such a hypocrite, do you enjoy acting this way?

[steve]

In my opinion, Steve...

 

I agree with the first sentence.

 

However, i doubt the manner in which the Bardo states have been investigated, expounded and validated by the various lineages in Tibet, including the Bons, can be labelled dogmatic in the least. After all, the Bardo states are not some occurrences restricted to after-death events, as in life, each moment transitioning to the next is as much a Bardo as the greater, more profound crossing-overs. Therefore, in Buddhism, or at least in Tibetan Buddhism, there is as much, if not more encouragement to investigate the Bardos of living as there are in the Bardos of dying and after death. Upon deeper introspection, isnt it true that we have to learn to die to each moment in order to fully live the next? Perhaps its when one is unable to fully understand or accept this simple truth that karmic baggage gets accumulated. One way to familiarize with this is thru gaining awareness during the Bardo of waking/dream transition.

 

From Chogyal Namkhai Norbu: "When one falls asleep, one becomes disengaged from the karmic traces of the material body, the karmic traces of vision, and the karmic traces of mental functioning. These karmic traces, during the waking state, manifests as one's material body, the external appearances one perceives, and the functioning of one's mind respectively. Why do we speak of being disengaged? From one's falling asleep right up to the moment when dreams begin, there is no functioning of the mind and one finds oneself in the real condition of existence. In this, one will experience to a certain degree a merging with what is called the natural clear light (intrinsic illumination and liberation of 'self' attachment)."

 

Such is what has been taught by the great scholars across all the different lineages - we, however, should not accept this on blind faith. We can find out, or not, if this is actually the case.

 

Buddhist doctrinal teachings only become dogma for those who are too lazy, too blind or too headstrong to look deeper and inquire into their efficacy (or not). When the basis of the path is one where self-inquiry forms the crux of the Teaching, it becomes doubtful if one can actually voice disingenuity. After all, the Buddha did encourage his 'followers' to doubt until they have investigated fully his words. And this way of self-inquiry and promoting experiential insights have been the norm since.

 

Which explains why threads of this nature, accusations of buddhist fanaticism, makes no sense. Looks like it was started as a deliberate attempt to cause some sort of schism. A grave error, indeed.

 

Namaste.

Do you really think that every Buddhist does the work? Even most? I'd buy some at best.

People are fundamentally lazy. Most don't have the patience or perseverance to "do the work."

Most are looking for a spiritual environment where they can feel comfy and secure and meet friends and so on.

They want to be told everything will be OK if you do x, y, and z, and if you say this prayer and light this candle you will be fine.

 

To the extent that one has personal experience with the Bardos of dying, dharmata, and becoming, they are actuality.

To the extent that one has accepted concepts proposed by religious doctrine, it is dogma.

And this is not limited to the Bardo states.

 

I agree that one of the most beautiful aspects of Buddhism is that absolutely everything should be personally investigated and experienced first hand before accepted. This is why I consider Jiddu Krishnamurti the consummate Buddhist. His message is exactly the message of the Buddha, minus the trappings. Look at your thought and see it for what it is. Don't accept any dogma or teachings unless you can personally verify them. He never made any attempt to name or discuss whatever it may be that is beyond thought - he always left us to do the work. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to do the work. They would rather believe than experience.

[ralis]

Just as you appeal to your own mind as an authority to put me down and criticize me at every turn.

 

Yes, it's from Keith Dowmans site. But why should that matter, I credited the original translator. You didn't credit where you got your version from at all. You are such a hypocrite, do you enjoy acting this way?

 

 

There was no reference or translator that I could find for what I posted. Any criticism you attract on this site, you have brought on yourself.

Edited July 11, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

To make matters historically simple and for agreement sake let us say the historic Buddha was the founder of Buddhism, thus he was not a "Buddhist" before he founded same. Btw, a couple of these sentences leaves a lot to be desired (lol) in their self-contradiction? Anyway I have no problem with your, "Yes, I am a Buddhist" but after that you have shown time and again that you are compelled correct everyone else on their deluded and less than Buddhist path which comes across as non-dharmic to say the least.

 

Om

 

The Buddha taught what he discovered, how he discovered it. So, yes, he was a Buddhist before becoming a Buddha as he said himself, he was only revealing an ancient path that was dead at the time that he rediscovered it. What you stated is a popular way to think about beings like Jesus, because no, he wasn't a Christian as Christianity is obviously far from what he taught. But, all in all, Buddhism is as he taught as he taught the precepts the noble truths the 8 fold path the levels of attainment, etc. for 45 years he taught, then he taught after death through the Sambhogakaya. He is not like other teachers who's religions sprang up different from the way he taught it. Even the other Buddhas that came after him are proof of this, and expanded on what he taught or evolved it. This is a common Mahayana view, of which I am, that he actually attained the highest Bumi before taking birth while practicing Buddhadharma (by whatever name) in Tushitaloka (a celestial realm). So, as a Mahayana practitioner, I believe this to be true, as it's possibility is elaborated upon through the Mahayana texts. He, unlike Jesus, was a practitioner of his spiritual tradition pryer to his spinning of the wheel on Earth. I believe this to be true based upon my own spiritual experiences. So, this is what I think of the historical Buddha, so I don't agree with your interpretation.

 

Your first statement rests on a lack of education and insight into the Buddhadharma, and the second rests upon your subjective view of me, an opinion that I'm fine with, as you are welcome to have it. But, to make an entire thread spawned by anger, which it was spawned by your anger and your level of affectedness, you cause more violence. As does Ralis. If you two really are not interested in my position, you could just ignore me, or post in a thread where I am not posting. Really it's quite ridiculous. You are as guilty of what you two accuse me of. So either let me be wrong as you think that I am, or stop being just as wrong by dragging this crap on over and over again like fools who while watching TV talk about how much they hate a show but instead of changing the channel, just keep on watching it out of some sort of masochistic tendency. All your points are really absurd.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

To the extent that one has personal experience with the Bardos of dying, dharmata, and becoming, they are actuality.

 

Exactly.

 

This is why I consider Jiddu Krishnamurti the consummate Buddhist.

 

The Buddha was clear on what a Buddha would teach. Jiddu Krishnamurti was an inspired intellect with some spiritual weight, far from a Buddha though, in my opinion.

 

His message is exactly the message of the Buddha, minus the trappings.

 

What you consider trappings are aspects of Buddhism that without, wouldn't have produced the wonderful 84 Mahasiddhas as well as thousands of other Buddhist Masters of antiquity and modern days, of which Krishnamurti is not amongst, in my opinion.

 

Look at your thought and see it for what it is. Don't accept any dogma or teachings unless you can personally verify them. He never made any attempt to name or discuss whatever it may be that is beyond thought - he always left us to do the work. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to do the work. They would rather believe than experience.

 

He left some self evaluation techniques, but no real path of methodology that works to strip away to the core, all the layers of self clinging. He was an inspired intellect that said some nice things though. I can understand why those that are inspired by Krishnamurti think the way they do about time honored traditions that have actually lead to Buddhahood, the rainbow body, or complete satori.

 

I do not agree with your point of view, this is my opinion based upon my own contemplation of this persons teachings in comparison with those teachers I consider of higher realization. That shouldn't be such a problem.

[C T]

Do you really think that every Buddhist does the work? Even most? I'd buy some at best.

People are fundamentally lazy. Most don't have the patience or perseverance to "do the work."

Most are looking for a spiritual environment where they can feel comfy and secure and meet friends and so on.

They want to be told everything will be OK if you do x, y, and z, and if you say this prayer and light this candle you will be fine.

 

To the extent that one has personal experience with the Bardos of dying, dharmata, and becoming, they are actuality.

To the extent that one has accepted concepts proposed by religious doctrine, it is dogma.

And this is not limited to the Bardo states.

 

I agree that one of the most beautiful aspects of Buddhism is that absolutely everything should be personally investigated and experienced first hand before accepted. This is why I consider Jiddu Krishnamurti the consummate Buddhist. His message is exactly the message of the Buddha, minus the trappings. Look at your thought and see it for what it is. Don't accept any dogma or teachings unless you can personally verify them. He never made any attempt to name or discuss whatever it may be that is beyond thought - he always left us to do the work. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to do the work. They would rather believe than experience.

Yes, in essence we are in agreement here, Steve.

 

Except what many see as trappings only see what they want/chooses to see, or are able to see, for that matter. There are many subtleties behind all the rituals. Each one has its own specific gross, subtle and hidden purpose. Looking from the outside in, an observer would be hard pressed to understand the symbols involved. However, i admit that ultimately these need not be necessary unless one is flexible and astute enough to work at them without being blinded by the glitz. Surely, keeping to the simpler practices can be just as helpful towards spiritual work.

 

I have been a keen learner of J.K.'s works and agree that his recommendations are very practical indeed.

 

(Edit to add) Presently reading one of my girlfriend's books titled Beyond Words - Dzogchen Made Simple - an interesting quote popped up just as i started re-reading it after i finished replying to you.

 

From Chogyal Namkhai Norbu -- "The essence is within yourself, and you must not be conditioned by externals, by books or by any system... Dzogchen practitioners must be aware and free and able to use everything, control everything, without being conditioned by the teachings or by externals."

 

How apt, i thought.

Edited July 12, 2011 by CowTao

[3bob]

VJ,

 

You have shown this site time and again of your never ending, self-justified, ever-ready-bunny type antics. The "Buddha" by well recognized and historically recorded doctrine was a student of "Hindu" related renunciates and or forest dwellers of that ancient time (after he left his Hindu related life as a prince) who helped him attain the 7th liberation, after which He speaks of going on to the 8th and thus beyond their help. All of your speculations can be debated forever which is what you apparently prefer to do around here including automatically winning any and all debates with your hypnotically perpetuated pov's.

 

Btw, thanks for proving my points about your modus-operandi.

[steve]

He left some self evaluation techniques, but no real path of methodology

That would have been antithetical to his message.

His message was that there is no method, no path to truth.

His message was exactly the message of Gautama Buddha, minus the methodology.

See the mind for what it is, do not attempt to use the mind to understand that which is beyond the mind, do not accept what the guru tells you as truth, see the truth directly through diligent self investigation.

 

 

I do not agree with your point of view, this is my opinion based upon my own contemplation of this persons teachings in comparison with those teachers I consider of higher realization. That shouldn't be such a problem.

No problem for me.... you?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Btw, thanks for proving my points about your modus-operandi.

 

You're welcome.

[Vajrahridaya]

That would have been antithetical to his message.

His message was that there is no method, no path to truth.

His message was exactly the message of Gautama Buddha, minus the methodology.

See the mind for what it is, do not attempt to use the mind to understand that which is beyond the mind, do not accept what the guru tells you as truth, see the truth directly through diligent self investigation.

 

I do agree with the meaning of some of his intellectual musings. I just don't find him a very deep realizer of the essence of them himself. I also find that his view is extreme and doesn't see exactly what people need in order to realize the truth directly beyond some intellectual antidotes that sound nice on paper. I do think he was well meaning enough to be thought of as a good person worth holding a nice conversation with.

 

No problem for me.... you?

 

 

No Steve, not at all. Thank you for allowing me to disagree with your opinion about someone.

[steve]

Yes, in essence we are in agreement here, Steve.

 

Except what many see as trappings only see what they want/chooses to see, or are able to see, for that matter. There are many subtleties behind all the rituals. Each one has its own specific gross, subtle and hidden purpose. Looking from the outside in, an observer would be hard pressed to understand the symbols involved. However, i admit that ultimately these need not be necessary unless one is flexible and astute enough to work at them without being blinded by the glitz. Surely, keeping to the simpler practices can be just as helpful towards spiritual work.

 

I have been a keen learner of J.K.'s works and agree that his recommendations are very practical indeed.

It's good to hear that we are more or less on the same page, we usually are.

And I agree with your characterization of the subtleties and purpose inherent in the "trappings" in every religion.

They're generally there for a reason, although sometimes the reasons are lost in time.

Anthony Demello tells a wonderful story about this, too long for me to recall or repeat here.

 

Trappings and ritual are not necessarily a bad thing, nor necessarily a good thing.

Sadly, they are more often a security blanket than a stimulus to spiritual growth.

IME, it is the student who determines the ultimate success or failure, not the method.

The astute student will succeed with any reasonably credible method, or no method.

The poor student is unlikely to succeed under any circumstances.

My main point, however, was a cautionary one - it is a slippery slope to accept as truth, something that is offered by the guru.

Then one gives up the responsibility for doing the work.

If something cannot be personally, independently verified, probably best to just say "I don't know"

Better to not know than to believe, IMO.

[Vajrahridaya]

Steve, I agree with what you said in your last post.

 

There is a tradition in India that says one should evaluate ones Guru for 7 or 9 years or something like that before actually becoming his or her student.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Ya Mu]

....

See the mind for what it is, do not attempt to use the mind to understand that which is beyond the mind...

+++++

[steve]

I do agree with the meaning of some of his intellectual musings. I just don't find him a very deep realizer of the essence of them himself. I also find that his view is extreme and doesn't see exactly what people need in order to realize the truth directly beyond some intellectual antidotes that sound nice on paper. I do think he was well meaning enough to be thought of as a good person worth holding a nice conversation with.

All that means is that his method of no-method didn't spark in you a journey of self discovery. That's OK. It did for me.

Similarly, I do not get excited by the endless debates in Buddhism and all the dogma. But again, that's just me.

 

Buddhas are Buddhas and heroes are heroes mostly because of distance.

 

We are all human.

Even deeply realized humans bring their human traits, weaknesses, and unique characteristics along with them in life.

So Krishnamurti, being very intellectual, expresses his realization in a dry, intellectual, and detatched way.

Ramana, being loving and joyful, expresses his in a very loving way by directly communicating love and one-ness.

UG Krishnamurti, being a curmudgeon, expresses his in a cranky, depressing way.

Osho and Gurdjieff, being opportunists, expressed theirs in that way through control, and so on....

All men who saw beyond the veil to some degree or other, IMO, but humans nonetheless.

 

I daresay that had Gautama lived in our century, we would all think of him very differently.

We can guess at what Gautama, Lao Zi, and Jesus may have been like as men (if in fact, they existed) but one thing I think is for sure, they would probably surprise us. I feel that it is exactly because we know the contemporary "spiritual leaders" as the men they are (were) that they are nothing more than that.... yet.

[steve]

Steve, I agree with what you said in your last post.

 

There is a tradition in India that says one should evaluate ones Guru for 7 or 9 years or something like that before actually becoming his or her student.

And by then, you no longer need them!

 

Thanks for that...

[Vajrahridaya]

And by then, you no longer need them!

 

Thanks for that...

 

LOL! Yeah, maybe. That'd be nice if every student of enlightened teachers attained enlightenment in 7 or 9 years.

[ralis]

The Buddhist dogma presented here is nothing but mental masturbation. Cerebral arguments obtain nothing but more cerebral arguments, which are dogmatic and doctrinal. The heart mind is what addresses conditioned belief systems, cultural baggage and helps one discover one's real nature.

 

I wonder how large of a mountain of texts have accumulated over 2500 yrs. all of which are commentaries and speculation as to what the Buddha taught. What he taught was directly from the heart mind and has nothing to do with mountains of nuanced cerebral minutia.

[Vajrahridaya]

I actually kind of feel sorry for you ralis. You're perspective is so negative concerning the beautiful adornments of reality through spiritual traditions. They are celebratory! All you see is corruption, and ignorance, this I think is a revelation of your proverbial mirror.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Osho makes an excellent point here in regards to belief systems.

 

 

[Birch]

Um, point made here

-----

It was actually Osho's crazy suit that reminded me of BF.

Here My link

[thuscomeone]

Osho makes an excellent point here in regards to belief systems.

 

 

Ah I remember Osho!

 

Much more wise than a lot of elitist spiritual types make him out to be.

[Birch]

" elitist spiritual types "

 

"You rang...sirrrr"?

[thuscomeone]

" elitist spiritual types "

 

"You rang...sirrrr"?

Oh!

I certainly wasn't referring to you

 

Some elitists are ok...

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Life is conditioned by how things connect, and things connect inter-dependently, the ramifications of this are infinite, beliefs are a part of this interconnectivity and are also empty of inherent existence. But, those beliefs which more clearly reflect this realization, are more helpful than those that do not, if your goal is liberation from unconscious recycling that is, which means seeing through all things beyond but inclusive of the senses. There really is a kind of omniscience that dawns on one.

 

This whole reification of emptiness as an ultimate truth that self exists is not going to liberate. Reifying the non-conceptual is not the state of Rigpa. As life is structure, it's how concepts and there experiential references connect and life is not an illusion, it's just "like" an illusion.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya