The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[themiddleway]

Jack,

But that's the problem right there.

To find the correct practice in Buddhism is the hardest thing. First you listen to speakers who have little or next to no understanding of the English language. Then you read tons of books which I'm sure are saying the same thing, but the terms and words they use are all different. And they argue about their choice of words and why their system is the ultimate. There are hundreds of books on Buddhism yet each one of them claims that their teachings are the authentic ones, and the best, yet they can't even define rigpa, boddhicitta, clarity, emptiness, knowledge and be consistent. One Buddhist says to expand the gap between thoughts, another says that the gap is not the way, another says that you must practice shamatha and vispassana, another says that you don't have to, another says that you must practice in very short periods (seconds) as often as possible, another says that you should practice many hours a day in retreat, one says tantra and another puts down tantra as unnecessary, most talk about boddhicitta but not many call it love, You see where I'm going here?

 

Then most Buddhists argue about the insignificant variations of view like it really matters, like the form of enlightenment you will realize is somehow tainted by your conceptual mind's view.. Then Buddhists say there is no self, yet they believe and talk about reincarnation or being born into the various other realms. Then, they try to prove emptiness by expounding on how conglomerates don't really exist, yet I haven't seen or seen proof that an intellectual proof has any bearing on the ability to walk through mountains or leave footprints in stone.

 

They they say to dedicate merit to all sentient beings,yet they say that no sentient beings exist. Then they say that they are dedicated to the whole infinite set of sentient beings in all the planes yet the goal of Buddhism is to not return. (Non-returner, arahats). How is anyone going to save anybody when they don't want to return here?

 

Then, you get a guru and are bound by samaya so you can't talk about your experiences, yet the guru turns around and sells books describing experiences and accomplishments, but I thought that true Buddhists were not allowed to sell their dharma...

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Buddhism, it is a rich culture of teachings and intellectual points of view, but it has been a real chore to try to figure out who is right and what exactly one should practice.

 

And really, who needs more debate? You don't win anyone over by proving they were wrong, you win them over by healing them, by walking through walls, by performing miracles, by living a life of unconditional love in the truest sense. Maybe that is the only true practice..

 

 

I must admit I was very confused when I first came to Buddhism. This was compounded by reading about dharma on Internet forums, I actually have gone down a number of dead ends from buying into BS on the internet but that's for another time and place.

 

The edifice of Buddhism can seem like a self contradicting labyrinth, focusing on one teacher/teaching has helped me immensely. Where as before I would be very reactive, I'm now more settled, secure. Consciously spending more time practicing than reading tedious Dhamric legalisms = Success!

If a path is not nourishing your basic, wholesome sanity then its less than worthless. Sounds axiomatic but I totally lost sight of that. Sorry about the bio but in discussing heady terminology, philosophy it's good to pause and ask in the X amount of time I've invested in this or that school am I a better, saner, happier EASY TO BE AROUND HUMAN BEING. Way-yyy more important than refining ones dialectics, and based on the behaviour of some "enlightened" teachers not neccesraliy coalescent.

As for the 84000 dharma doors, there just medicine. Mature Buddhist know how to maintain the purity of medicine without reifying it to the point where it can be used as a projectile.

I think exploring the nuances of traditions can be useful but people do get immense benefit from other paths. Terms like Crypto- advaita seem the antithesis of a scholasticism tempered with generosity, and that's precisely where it becomes toxic.

You could be forgiven for reading Crypto- nilism into Buddhism, no?

[Simple_Jack]

Terms like Crypto- advaita seem the antithesis of a scholasticism tempered with generosity, and that's precisely where it becomes toxic.

You could be forgiven for reading Crypto- nilism into Buddhism, no?

 

It seems that many people who are drawn to Mahayana paths overlook or fail to understand a very basic and essential premise to buddhadharma:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=420

 

Malcolm wrote:.. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause....

 

Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

 

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

 

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."...

 

Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

[gatito]

<Snip>

 

the average western Buddhist neurotic, anxious, self absorbed, often just plain daft).

 

<snip>

 

All the Buddhists I know (including my wife) are sorted happy people - but they do actively practice Mindfulness (Jon Kabat-Zinn style) and Metta along with Right Action.

 

That holy trinity seems to be all that's needed

 

Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be as effective in uncovering the intrinsic Happiness if any of the three are missing

[Apech]

All the Buddhists I know (including my wife) are sorted happy people - but they do actively practice Mindfulness (Jon Kabat-Zinn style) and Metta along with Right Action.

 

That holy trinity seems to be all that's needed

 

Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be as effective in uncovering the intrinsic Happiness if any of the three are missing

 

Ok maybe I shouldn't have said average ... it was just for contrast.

[Jeff]

 

Malcolm wrote:.. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause....

 

Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

 

As you (and Malcolm) said... A very good point. The confusion is often when people try to make emptiness into concepts of awareness or consciousness.

[Simple_Jack]

All the Buddhists I know (including my wife) are sorted happy people - but they do actively practice Mindfulness (Jon Kabat-Zinn style)...

 

Sati or 'mindfulness', in itself is not a unique feature of Buddha's teaching, everyone uses some degree of attention in their everyday lives, sati as a mental factor, is utilized as sustained attention on an object. Attention is developed when we can continually sustain it on an object of focus for extended periods of time. Naturally, this is the primary factor that leads to the development of samadhi. In Buddhism, sati only becomes a liberating factor, when it is combined with the 37 factors of awakening, and the Buddha's teaching on the 3 seals of anicca, dukkha, anatta (for Mahayana its 2-fold emptiness). The 3 seals are a very basic component of Buddhism and is particularly emphasized in Hinayana; 'mindfulness' of the arising and passing of the 5 aggregates via the 6 sense doors are taught as the primary means towards stream-entry. All Theravada traditions emphasize this when teaching vipassana whether it's in the style of the Burmese or Thai traditions, Mahasi Sayadaw's and S.N. Goenka's teachings, etc.

 

Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBST), and the related Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), are very effective therapeutical techniques nonetheless.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Tibetan_Ice]

TI, don't just rely on books: seek a teacher or a group meet up for whatever aspect of Buddhism you're interested in. If you really want to comprehend, in a shorter period of time, vipassana practice: then go to an Insight Meditation Society meet up in your area or attend a 10 day S.N. Goenka vipassana retreat, where you'll learn anapana along with vipassana. If you want to learn anything Vajrayana, definitely seek out a teacher to receive empowerments and teachings, that you're interested in.

 

S***** J*****,

I don't rely on books. I rely on practices and knowledge. In a way, I find it quite funny that you would even consider giving me advice, implying that I know nothing about anapanasati, vispassana or even Goenka.. I'm not interested in learning things that I already know and have practised. It's almost like you are telling me to go back to kindergarten.

 

I would like to remind you that I have been meditating and doing yoga (one form or another) for over 43 years. Just in the last five years, I have logged over 1600 hours on the cushion. I was doing yoga, pranayama when I was 16 and was hitting samadhi regularily, consistently after a solid 20 minutes. I have done Kriya Yoga (SRF), Raja Yoga, activated kundalini.. blah blah blah.. I have many gurus and have had many experiences. So really, you seem quite naive to me to suggest that I learn what these practices are about.

 

Oh, by the way, there is a talk from Alan Wallace in which he discussed some of Goenka's teachings. Many years ago Alan Wallace attended Goenka's course. When Alan asked Goenka where he got the body scanning technique from, Goenka replied that it was from Buddha, that it was a Buddhist practice. Well, after recounting that story, Alan Wallace made it quite clear that body scanning is not, was not and never has been a Buddhist practice. He said, in no uncertain terms, that Goenka was deceiving people.. And as far as I can tell, the only Buddhist practice that even resembles body scanning is 'visualizing the body as transparent', but that's it.

 

Now, I'm not putting down Goenka's practice as I think that similar practices such as "sensing the inner body" by Tolle are very powerful practices, but I was not too happy to hear that Goenka is actually deceiving people. I do own "The Discourse Summaries" and I read every book I own quite carefully and assess the writings based on my own experiences.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Summaries-S-N-Goenka/dp/1928706096

 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

TI, you misunderstand, I don't want to 'win anyone over', but I would like to see Buddhism represented accurately on TTB's. Gatito is only perpetuating what dwai, 3bob, and practically every other person that posted regularly on the bums has done. All that does is make Buddhist principles and praxis something nebulous. In any case, what you are describing are methods for different proclivities; choose one that works for you and see how that goes for a while. Also, 'no-self' and emptiness does not equate to nihilism: this is exactly what I mean when I rant about Buddhism not being represented accurately or not being portrayed fairly on this board. You're free to remain ignorant on the finer points of Buddhism. If you want to discuss your experiences with like minded people: go to dharmaconnectiongroup, dharmaoverground or kennethfolkdharma.

S*** J****

I never said you were trying to win anyone over. If anything, you post too many diverse and contradictory quotes to make a good Buddhist salesman. What you are really doing is fostering more diversity and confusion. Perhaps you should find a practice, stick to it and then based on your experiences and understanding, write about that.

 

Why do you mention Gatito, Dwai and 3Bob? I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the contradictions in Buddhist writings. And, you know what is wrong with forums? There is no accountability. Anyone can pretend to be anybody, say anything and may or may not really know what they are talking about. And, most posters have their own hidden agenda in mind, not the welfare or spiritual development of others.

 

And I never said that emptiness equates to nihilism, nor eternalism. That's your deffective interpretation of what I wrote.

 

And, if I was to discuss experiences with anyone, I would certainly not go to any of those forums that you suggested. Many of those forums breed their own misconceptions and serve only to fuel and reify concepts such as the 'dark night' or 'noting practice'. I have no intention of catching those diseases..

 

But, here is a good case in point. I was reading C N Norbu's "Manifesting the Rainbow Body" from here:

http://dzogchen.ca/category/teachings/page/2/

 

 

Transcription of an Oral Teaching in Barcelona Spain

 

October 3, 2010 by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

Then there is another way of seeing energy, for example when we do Vajrayana practice. We close our eyes, think everything is emptiness and gradually the elements develop and our dimension becomes like the pure dimension of the mandala. Everything develops with the five colours of the elements. Then our manifestation of the deity develops at the centre of the mandala and we have a very precise idea of what it looks like.

 

We do this visualisation with our mind but when we open our eyes, we cannot see the mandala or elements like lights, we can see ordinary vision because we are only doing that visualisation in our dimension. When we develop it, we use channels, chakras, aspects related to our physical body, and with prana energy, with kundalini energy we gradually coordinate this transformation with our existence and integrate it at the end with the mantra of the practice. This is called the Accomplishment Stage. When we do the visualisation with closed eyes this is called the Development Stage, which is developed internally.

 

Finally we can have the realisation of being in the state of Mahamudra, that means no longer remaining in the dualistic state with these two stages. In Vajrayana, that is called realisation. So you see how we develop everything with symbols, such as mandalas, deities etc., which are developed internally, within our dimension.

 

 

So here is "the world's foremost Dzogchen Master", Dzogchen being the one most powerful practice that overcomes all obstacles, and he is saying that he uses channels, chakras, prana and kundalini and then mantras in order to transform into the Rainbow Body. WHAT! What happened to remaining in presence, in the natural state? What about the effortless non-meditation? And, then, is he saying that Kriya Yogins or Raja Yogins, because they also master the prana, chakras and kundalini attain rainbow body too? Gives your head a scratch, doesn't it? Do you know how many times people posted in this forum about how Dzochen is unique and "the only way"? Always a little off?

 

It is like the other book that I am currently reading called "As It Is" by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.

He is supposed to be "an authentic Dzogchen Yogi".

He spends three quarters of the book belabouring the point that one must recognize unconfined empty cognizance. Then, out of nowhere, he says this:

 

 

To go into more detail, one should practice tummo as it grows dark. Tummo is based on the A-HANG and the visualization of fire with the blissful heat. The red element manifesting below the navel in the form of the short A has the nature of heat and is the essence of Vajra Varahi. The white element in the form of the syllable HANG turned upside down at the top of the central channel is the nature of bliss, and the very essence of Chakrasamvara. These two aspects, the red and white bindu, are called the ‘basic body’. They are Vajra Varahi and Chakrasamvara, and are originally present from the moment the body is formed. Once you have received instructions from a master, you can practice tummo in depth. In short, the practice of blazing and dripping produces the blissful heat.

 

Through the tummo practice, imagine that all your negative karma created through body, speech, mind and their combination, as well as all your obscurations and habitual tendencies, are completely and utterly purified, completely burned away. An offering of blissful emptiness is given to the dakas and dakinis who dwell inside your body, within the channels, winds and essences. Your body becomes flawless, immaculate like a crystal ball. Practice this form of tummo from dusk throughout the evening. In this context of ‘four sessions that equalize buddhahood’, although the main part is effortless, you initially need to exert a slight effort to advance the state of effortlessness.

 

Urgyen Rinpoche, Tulku (2013-12-01). As It Is, Volume II: 2 (Kindle Locations 2857-2868). Rangjung Yeshe Publications. Kindle Edition.

 

 

WHAT? The more I read, the more all the teachings are sounding the same.

 

I also find it funny that both CN Norbu and Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche give the impression that Dzogchen is a subset of Vajrayana. One would imagine that such preliminary practices such as tantra, kundalini, chakras, channels, melting the bliss drops etc are practices for the lesser practitioners or new initiates, and not the other way around.

 

TI

Edited March 19, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Simple_Jack]

Goenka emphasizes 'body scanning' over the other frames of satipatthana, but this does not invalidate this approach. Mahasi style 'noting', is just another technique of vipassana that can be particularly suited to some individuals, and can be especially useful for beginners.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches 'body scanning' similar to Goenka. Neither technique is 'wrong' nor 'right' as they both are justifiable according to the Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta, respectively. Some teachers will place emphasis on a particular approach to vipassana and then disseminate this approach to the masses; this does not necessarily make these techniques invalid. Just as Allan Wallace's emphasis, of the 'visuddhimagga jhana', does not invalidate his teachings: since his criteria for jhana doesn't follow the suttapitaka to the tee.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

For the record Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is discussing mahāyoga and anuyoga in the above quote. Hence why he begins with 'for example when we do Vajrayāna practice' and concludes with how the accomplishment stage results in the realization of Mahāmudrā.

[themiddleway]

 

It seems that many people who are drawn to Mahayana paths overlook or fail to understand a very basic and essential premise to buddhadharma:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=420

 

Malcolm wrote:.. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause....

 

Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

 

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

 

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."...

 

Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

I'm sure Malcolm would now regret saying Hindu La la land. What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway? The Buddhist and the Shaivites were in dialog, the influences of each permeated the other. The endless rhetorical battle over normative Buddhism is a limitation, yes it's fun to discuss conditioned consciousness vis a vis permeated consciousness but don't cherish such abstractions. I prefer to CLING to the idea that beings with consciousness pervade everywhere, gives me a focused target for kindness and generosity. And just to validate the above a quote from your besty Malcolm:

 

>>I don't care anymore where wisdom comes from-- wisdom about plants, yoga, channels, winds, bindus, nature of mind, elements, people, etc. I just don't care anymore where it comes from. Wisdom is wisdom. If other people want to be involved in counting the horns on rabbits with tenet system studies, that is fine, I also put in my time with it until I realized it was a total waste of energy and never got me one inch closer to recognizing my true nature. That kind of knowledge, as far as I am concerned is only useful for polemics. And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatuence for the most part.

 

I personally ceased being very interested in the intellectual study of tenet systems many years ago when I understood from a work by Gorampa Sonam Senge's that they are unnecessary for Vajrayāna practitioners in general. Since that time I have been primarily interested in the Yogic side of Buddhism once I understood finally that correct view is based on the personal experience of the introduction and not on any intellectual analysis and subsequent meditation.<<<

Edited March 19, 2014 by themiddleway

[Simple_Jack]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway? The Buddhist and the Shaivites were in dialog, the influences of each permeated the other. The endless rhetorical battle over normative Buddhism is a limitation, yes it's fun to discuss conditioned consciousness vis a vis permeated consciousness but don't cherish such abstractions. I prefer to CLING to the idea that beings with consciousness pervade everywhere, gives me a focused target for kindness and generosity.

 

The above would only have significance if you understood how this diverges from Upanishadic doctrine in both intent and praxis. It's a prime component of Buddhism that features throughout Hinayana and Mahayana; it's significance is more than just a rhetorical device. Mahayana focuses on the realization of 2-fold emptiness, so as lead the practitioner from the limitations of Hinayana, to enter the path of seeing. On the other hand, the above won't be fully appreciated unless a person understands how Mahayana builds upon Hinayana:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Munindra

 

Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.

 

As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on. ~ Munindra

[gatito]

<Snip>

 

And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatulence for the most part.

 

<snip>

 

Indeed - that's the first time that I find myself concurring wholeheartedly with Malcolm Smith.

 

It's a pity that, in the process of coming to this realisation, he fathered so many foolish sons.

 

You can always find the roots of violence in toxic parenting, whether it is by the actual parents or by substitute parents, which can also include the child's peer group. teachers and religious leaders.

 

And by religion, I mean dogma; which is always dualistic and always false because the Truth cannot be articulated. It can only be approximated in successive iterations, until all iterations of dogma and stories are dropped in the undeniable presence of the Truth, which is not two (and even that is saying too much).

Edited March 19, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

It's a pity that, in the process of coming to this realisation, he fathered so many foolish sons.

 

You can always find the roots of violence in toxic parenting, whether it is by the actual parents or by substitute parents, which can also include the child's peer group. teachers and religious leaders.

 

And by religion, I mean dogma; which is always dualistic and always false because the Truth cannot be articulated. It can only be approximated in successive iterations, until all iterations of dogma and stories are dropped in the undeniable presence of the Truth, which is not two (and even that is saying too much).

 

I apologize if my above posts offends you: I understand that the Buddha's teachings won't appeal to everyone.

[gatito]

I apologize if my above posts offends you: I understand that the Buddha's teachings won't appeal to everyone.

 

I'm not offended Simple_Jack, I realise that you haven't got a clue about the Buddha's teachings.

[Jeff]

I'm not offended Simple_Jack, I realise that you haven't got a clue about the Buddha's teachings.

 

Simple Jack has correctly (and gracefully) articulated the differentiation between the two traditions. In Buddhism, "emptiness" is not an undifferentiated "blob" like your concept of awareness/consciousness. Buddha highlighted this point in many ways, mostly related to warning to go beyond and not "cease" in the undifferentiated consciousness/awareness blob.

 

As the Lankavatara Sutra states...

 

"When this active effort at mental concentration is succesful it is followed by a more passive, receptive state of Samadhi in which the earnest disciple will enter into the blissful abode of Noble Wisdom and experience its consumations in the transformations of Samapatti. This is an earnest disciple's first experience of the exalted state of realisation, but as yet there is no discarding of habit-energy nor escaping from the transformation of death.

Having attained this exalted and blissful state of realisation as far as it can be attained by disciples, the Bodhisattva must not give himself up to the enjoyment of its bliss, for that would mean cessation, but should think compassionately of other beings and keep ever fresh his original vows; he should never let himself rest nor exert himself in the bliss of the Samadhis.

But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation."

 

Buddha wanted everyone to get past the "one" and realize the Tao/Emptiness.

[gatito]

<Snip>

 

Buddha wanted everyone to get past the "one" and realize the Tao/Emptiness.

 

<snip>

 

Even someone with nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of non-duality would know that non-duality (advaita) is not oneness.

 

So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff

 

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

Have a good day

 

[Apech]

Even someone with nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of non-duality would know that non-duality (advaita) is not oneness.

 

So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff

 

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

Have a good day

 

 

 

You have a good day too.

[gatito]

You have a good day too.

 

Je t'en prie

[Jeff]

Even someone with nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of non-duality would know that non-duality (advaita) is not oneness.

 

So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff

 

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

Have a good day

 

 

Hi Gatito,

 

The "one" was a reference to your concept of consciousness/awareness/"undifferentiated blob". Rather than just continually making statements like "clueless" to those that disagree with you, it would be helpful if you provided some support for your positions. Can you give me any support for your position found in the words of Buddha?

 

Best regards,

Jeff

[Simple_Jack]

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

The post of Malcolm's that themiddleway referenced, was from almost two years ago. In comparison, the one I referenced [http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=420] was from last month. Malcolm's views or opinions may not be as black and white as they initially seem to be; the only constant with Malcolm's posts are his changing views or opinions on certain matters.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Even someone with nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of non-duality would know that non-duality (advaita) is not oneness.

 

So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff

 

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

Have a good day

 

Either way, non-dual in the buddhadharma is advaya. Non-duality in the sanatanadharma is advaita. Crucial difference.

[Simple_Jack]

Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out.

 

In compaison to Malcolm's post that themiddleway referenced, which was from almost 2 years ago, here's some posts of Malcolm's from a few weeks ago:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15699&start=20

 

Malcolm wrote: I have wavered on this over the years, as I have in so many other things, but my present thinking is that all Vajrayāna practitioners of whatever stripe need a solid grounding in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna paths....

 

ChNN only sets a minimum bar on what he expects people to know, but he expects _everyone_ to learn the base. Sadly, most people ignore him on this point, but it is partially because the translation is difficult to read....

 

...The reason why we need to acquaint ourselves with these tenet systems is so that we avoid falling into the same errors, thinking our view accords with Buddhadharma, when it really doesn't.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Hi Gatito,

 

The "one" was a reference to your concept of consciousness/awareness/"undifferentiated blob". Rather than just continually making statements like "clueless" to those that disagree with you, it would be helpful if you provided some support for your positions. Can you give me any support for your position found in the words of Buddha?

 

Best regards,

Jeff

Yes, I can - but you'd have to convince me that it wouldn't be a waste of my time

 

The post of Malcolm's that themiddleway referenced, was from almost two years ago. In comparison, the one I referenced [http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=420] was from last month. Malcolm's views or opinions may not be as black and white as they initially seem to be; the only constant with Malcolm's posts are his changing views or opinions on certain matters.

So, Malcolm constantly changes his position - let me kmow if he ever figures it out.

 

In the meantime, remind me what he said about polemics

Either way, non-dual in the buddhadharma is advaya. Non-duality in the sanatanadharma is advaita. Crucial difference.

Excellent - dualistic non-duality

 

That could present a bit of a dilemma for anyone who isn't Self-realised

 

I guess that's the issue with polemics