goldisheavy

Oh noes... I think a recognized buddhist teacher is wrong. Heaven forbid.

I think someone's opinion is wrong. What else is new?

Can you quote something where I do that?

I don't pass anything off. I specifically said that I am not a Buddhist many times. I don't like to be chained to a group identity of some kind. I believe I am not the only one who has expressed freedom from religion as a personally desirable condition, and thus refuses the religious identification. I think your complaint here can really only be aimed at Vajrahridaya, who claims to be a Buddhist. Styro hasn't been talking about his experiences, or if he has, I missed it. Either way, it doesn't matter. What if someone passes something as authentic Buddhism? So what? What is the big deal? Why do you care?

Good point. In the second study there was a third group who were writing morally neutral stories, and that could be a control group. In the first one though...? I don't see any mention of a control group. People determined it for their own selves. I don't think discussion on whether something is actually moral is relevant per se. This is a study of beliefs and not of actuality. It is the belief in one's morality that supposedly helps and not the actual morality.

Do the criticized teachings have their own self-criticisms? If yes, we can go easy on them. I believe it's true of the Mahayana, the way of the Bodhisattvas, which has sufficient self-criticism. It also may be somewhat true of Dzogchen, because I've at least heard of its own practitioners criticizing it, if not the texts. What about the others on the list? If a teaching is cognizant of its own limitations, that's OK. I don't equate meditation with legs or with some particular mental activity. So mind racing and legs getting cold are not impediments and do not necessarily need improvement. Or you can improve them, because such conditions don't have to be preserved as is either. Lack of wisdom. You could die or become insane. Neither of which is a big problem. You can always stand up and walk around. Beware of self-imposed limitations. You might need to be more patient, or you may be hindered by an assumption. Assumption is a safer bet. Exactly this happened to me in the past. I was hindered by an assumption about body, mind, the world, etc. All significances are provisional. People really should be taught to make their own significances instead of getting them from a master.

Can you be more specific? What do you want an example of? By the way, I was referring to Buddhism sharing with Taoism the absence of a supreme agent. Perhaps you want an example of me showing you how a Taoist could defend against an accusation that Tao is a supreme agent?

Look alwayson, you have plenty of space for yourself. Other people's claimed realizations and experiences really shouldn't hurt you so much, if at all. Even if someone belongs to Buddhism and claims all kinds of realizations, and is even respected by the community, and is describing all kinds of amazing experiences, this really shouldn't crimp your style or make you feel claustrophobic. You are apprehensive because you think if other people belong to Buddhism, your chosen club, and describe their various experiences, it will either invalidate your experiences, which are different, or leave you in a place where you find yourself needing to duplicate those experience in order to feel legitimate, or in order to be perceived legitimate by the community. That's just claustrophobia. You have plenty, plenty of space for both experience and realization. You don't have to be so anxious about experiences. Experiences are limitless. If someone has a handful of snow in Alaska, or a handful of sand in Sahara, do you get anxious? Of course not. Your instinct to own and to possess is really blinding you.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say in your criticism, but I still don't agree. I think teachings such as those presented in Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu are vague enough that any inference of a supreme agent must be your own doing rather than something that's inherently in the text. I think some doctrines are pretty clear about the supreme agent, others are not so much. It's gotta be painful to admit that perhaps Buddhism has to share some of its distinctions with other paths.

Divisions of the sphere of experience are as real as saying "Today is Tuesday" is true, only less so. And yet, strictly speaking, one cannot experience ma-Rigpa. All condition is natural condition. So when you experience Rigpa, it's really a trick that's designed to give you a new appreciation for an old thing.

Whatever mind conceives of, is not mind. Artifacts of awareness are not awareness. That's all fine and dandy, and yet, not all teachings are equally skillful. One extreme is to say every teaching is correct, since what they point to is beyond words. Another is to say none are correct. Between those extremes, there are more and less helpful teachings. Just because you cannot easily point out the mind with concepts, doesn't mean all instructions are now on the same plank of worth and effectiveness. I know that I have exactly the same criticisms for all of those practices as the tantra I quoted. I had them before I ever read that tantra. So when I read it, I could only go, "of course, finally someone says what I have been thinking all along." Being deluded is a relative quality. Ultimately speaking, delusions are wisdoms. Delusion is a cognitive context for wisdom and wisdom is a cognitive context for delusion. I use the word cognitive to indicate belonging to the process of raw awareness, cognizance, and not just vocalized thinking as Western psychology.

What do you mean by "not inherent"? Consciousness as a whole, not the individual objects of consciousness, is unborn and unconditioned. Of course the various individual perturbations of consciousness are conditioned. You must keep in mind that conditions are visionary rather than completely real. Conditions are themselves empty and are not merely a reason for phenomena being empty. The delineation between cause and effect is illusory, mind-made, it is also empty and unstable. It's impossible to say when cause stops and effect begins.

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real). Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves. It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

OK, so you like tomato juice, right? Seems like you're very close then. V8 is almost a tomato juice. Is it celery? Do you like celery? Celery is pretty tasty. Anyway, you can just drink V8 a lot and eventually you'll like it. That's how I grew to like black olives. I still don't like the green ones though.

styrofoamdog, I'd like to thank you for your contributions. It's always a pleasure to read something that's both knowledgeable and wise. It might just be my own fault, but I haven't seen you much before on this forum, so, I'd like to welcome you to the forum. Welcome!

You are crazy. I wasn't even talking about God or some universal essence. I have no idea why you decided to say that. I quoted that bit to show that at least one Vajrayana tantra criticizes everything and not just sutras. That was the main point. My secondary point was that consciousness is superior to any secret teaching, and I highlighted that part in the quote. I didn't even have God in mind. Not at all. The fact that you're talking about it means you're a lunatic. You've lost track of what's happening. You're barking at the shadows.

Ya Mu, get a hold of yourself please. Or if not, at least tell me what is your next invention down the pike, so I can get ready for it.

Right. Whatever you say.

Thank you kindly.

Who is this "all you people"? I hope you don't lump me into that big pile of yours.

OK, so you've got nothing. Got it.

I'm interested. Can you provide me with a trail to follow if I also want to read about it?

Buddha taught many diverse things. One of the things Buddha also taught was not to take anything he taught without independently performed critical analysis. Everyone was running around with a club membership so Buddha, not being terribly creative, started his own club. Golly-jee-whiz. How unexpected. Buddha also re-used concepts like karma and rebirth and so on. Buddhism is more of an evolution than a breakthrough. But the evolution is not over yet, and it never will be.

Have you tried looking?