Dzogchen: Visible evidence of progress!

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[goldisheavy]

No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this:

 

No, I understand exactly what your point of view is. I know what you intend to say. I get you. I just don't agree with you.

 

I 100% get your perspective. Of course you don't have to trust me if you don't want. You can feel free and quiz me about your perspective to see if I get it right. I am sure I'll pass your quiz, because I do get what you're saying.

 

And scientific testing is the ultimate reality-check for every claim.

 

Science carries with it a lot of assumptions. And science cannot reach into every domain of experience. In fact, science has nothing to say about subjectivity. According to science colors, tastes, and other qualia don't even exist. The language of science is barren when it comes to personal experience. And the assumptions of science are very restrictive.

 

You can't really call me "anti-Buddha" and then when I point out how I am talking in line with the Buddha Dharma you say, "wait, I never cared about Buddhism anyway... it's all science for me."

 

You should have called me anti-science or something. Don't hijack Buddha's name.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[goldisheavy]

If that's true, then we get each others perspective.

The reason for the disagreement is most likely what I talked about in the last paragraph in post #73.

 

It looks like here we have complete mutual understanding then.

 

If you understand my perspective then you understand why you move in the reverse direction as a Buddha in my opinion.

 

Here I disagree. Here I think you are appropriating Buddha for your own ideological use. The Buddha Dharma by necessity denies that which conventional science needs to proceed forward, such as signs and marks, for example. No matter what the Dalai Lama does, the Buddha Dharma will never be reconciled with science as science currently exists.

 

If the Buddha was here, he'd laugh at science.

[gatito]

 

<snip>

 

If the Buddha was here, he'd laugh at science.

 

I doubt that very much!

 

It's incredibly important that the understanding of a teacher is sufficient to integrate the reality of science into the reality of traditional teachings.

 

Failure so to do allows the whole enterprise to fall into magical thinking (e.g. walking on water, walking through walls, teleportation, misunderstandings about rainbow body and the siddhis, etc., etc.).

 

Science has a way of cutting through this unnecessary dross like a hot knife through yak butter.

[GrandmasterP]

http://www.keithdowman.net/lineage/lineage_trees.htm

 

Interesting lineage with Samantabhadra (Choku a.k.a. ' Goku') as the originator.

'Goku' also means ' Heaven'.

 

[Apech]

Interesting lineage with Samantabhadra (Choku a.k.a. ' Goku') as the originator. 'Goku' also means ' Heaven'.

 

Samantabhadra is a primordial Buddha (cp. Vajra-Dhara) ... Vajrasattva is a Sambhogha Kaya emanation of Akshobya ... so in essence Garab Dorje received teachings direct from the Sambhoga Kaya which you could (with care) interpret to mean from his Mind. Saying it came from 'heaven' would not be far off.

 

This is true also of other Mahasiddhis.

[GrandmasterP]

Makes sense.

After all Dogen (was it?) reminds us that...

 

"Nothing comes from nothing-

nothing ever could,

But somewhere in my youth or childhood...

I musta done somethin' good."

 

 

( Or is that a number from ' The Sound of Music'?)

Edited August 16, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[steve]

Samantabhadra is a primordial Buddha (cp. Vajra-Dhara) ... Vajrasattva is a Sambhogha Kaya emanation of Akshobya ... so in essence Garab Dorje received teachings direct from the Sambhoga Kaya which you could (with care) interpret to mean from his Mind. Saying it came from 'heaven' would not be far off.

 

This is true also of other Mahasiddhis.

 

From a certain perspective, it's true for all teachings and all understandings and all of us.

Words and pictures can be provided but that spark of understanding, that connection that is meaningful goes beyond that.

It's a direct manifestation of samantabhadra in us.

[BaguaKicksAss]

It looks like here we have complete mutual understanding then.

 

 

Here I disagree. Here I think you are appropriating Buddha for your own ideological use. The Buddha Dharma by necessity denies that which conventional science needs to proceed forward, such as signs and marks, for example. No matter what the Dalai Lama does, the Buddha Dharma will never be reconciled with science as science currently exists.

 

If the Buddha was here, he'd laugh at science.

 

Did you see the awesome vids where some nuclear physicists explain it (nuclear physics) to HH? Aside from them talking to him like he has a low IQ and is young of age, it was pretty awesome.

[asunthatneversets]

Longchenpa says you're wrong. Dirty Vedantin!

 

Just kidding.

I never said you are dirty, but you very well could be for all I know.

 

As for the rest, the Dzogchen adepts of the past and the tantras refute your position, Madhyamaka refutes your position, perfection of wisdom sūtras refute your position.. And that is that.

 

If you want to claim your view is in line with those systems you can, doesn't mean it is. If you want to throw a fit about being labeled you can, doesn't mean I won't label you or continue to point out your inconsistencies. If you want to refer to what I say as ignorance you can, doesn't mean the logic I used to refute your solipsistic eternalism was not proper Madhyamaka, because it was.

 

You are correct when you compare your view to Kashmir Shiavism or really numerous other eternalist doctrines, because that is what it is.

 

Your confidence in your view is ill conceived, but you are entitled to your opinion.

[ralis]

I never said you are dirty, but you very well could be for all I know.

 

As for the rest, the Dzogchen adepts of the past and the tantras refute your position, Madhyamaka refutes your position, perfection of wisdom sūtras refute your position.. And that is that.

 

If you want to claim your view is in line with those systems you can, doesn't mean it is. If you want to throw a fit about being labeled you can, doesn't mean I won't label you or continue to point out your inconsistencies. If you want to refer to what I say as ignorance you can, doesn't mean the logic I used to refute your solipsistic eternalism was not proper Madhyamaka, because it was.

 

You are correct when you compare your view to Kashmir Shiavism or really numerous other eternalist doctrines, because that is what it is.

 

Your confidence in your view is ill conceived, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

You refute his position by deferring to exotic terms without detailed explanations. That serves no purpose here. Why do so many Buddhists write as if they are Buddhist scholars, when in actuality such persons are dilettantes. Further, these so called instructional narratives are disingenuous.

Edited August 16, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

You refute his position by deferring to exotic terms without detailed explanations? That serves no purpose here. Why do so many Buddhists write as if they are Buddhist scholars, when in actuality such persons are dilettantes. Further, these so called instructional narratives are disingenuous.

Oh ralis.

[gatito]

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

 

[ralis]

Oh ralis.

 

Is that the best you can do? I think you have proven to several here that you have little capacity for reasonable discussion.

[asunthatneversets]

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

Wait, I don't believe I exist? Or you mean someone else?

[asunthatneversets]

Is that the best you can do? I think you have proven to several here that you have little capacity for reasonable discussion.

Several here? Oh you mean the three amigos: you, zoom and goldisheavy?

 

You can see me have s#it tons of reasonable discussion really any and everywhere else I post. But talking to you three is like beating my head against a wall, forgive me if I don't go out of my way to be enthusiastic about it.

[Simple_Jack]

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

 

The Buddha was accused of propounding this position:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

 

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

 

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

 

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering

[ralis]

Several here? Oh you mean the three amigos: you, zoom and goldisheavy?

 

You can see me have s#it tons of reasonable discussion really any and everywhere else I post. But talking to you three is like beating my head against a wall, forgive me if I don't go out of my way to be enthusiastic about it.

 

I am admonishing you to come down from your golden throne and have a real discussion as opposed to your usual behavior of hiding behind exotic terms, medieval hats, robes and parental authoritarianism. I suppose in your mind, every bit of what I just listed comes from some secret Buddha realm that only special ones such as yourself can access.

[Simple_Jack]

 

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

 

 

 

The Buddha was accused of propounding this position:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

 

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

 

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

 

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering

[asunthatneversets]

I am admonishing you to come down from your golden throne and have a real discussion as opposed to your usual behavior of hiding behind exotic terms, medieval hats, robes and parental authoritarianism. I suppose in your mind, every bit of what I just listed comes from some secret Buddha realm that only special ones such as yourself can access.

You're a funny guy ralis.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

You're a funny guy ralis.

 

I am very serious. Just look at my avatar. The joker archetype is a very ancient one which predates the Buddha.

Edited August 16, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

I understand! Is that how you address authority?

Three amigos as in Lucky Day, Dusty Bottoms and Ned Nederlander.