![](https://www.thedaobums.com/uploads/monthly_2018_03/N_member_18193.png)
nac
The Dao Bums-
Content count
647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by nac
-
Vajrahridaya, I know for a fact that even the most esoteric of Tibetan Buddhists believe the realms should not be externally objectified. I've come across this teaching quite recently here. It's written by a Tibetan lama. Ask in E-Sangha if you're still not convinced. I've seen it there more times than I could count in every single school. PS. Or I could ask if you don't mind. I'm doing it now...
-
Neither humans nor ghosts represent species in Buddhism. As long as you continue to perceive sentient beings like yourself wandering the earth in the condition of hungry ghosts, ghost-phenomena are arising before you. The realms must never be externally objectified! This is about layers of perception, not superficial scientific questions of psychic phenomena, life after death or the existence of bodiless species. How could I deny the very existence of hungry ghosts when the streets of Kolkata are full of them? Pretending they do not exist and trying to forget they're there are simply ignorance and self-delusion respectively. And since they exist for me, they indirectly exist for you too, even if you live in paradise. Please do something about it. I'm trying.
-
Mostly, but surely there are exceptions. What about the Tao Te Ching itself?
-
That's probably for the best. Although religious Taoism is usually way more superstitious than religious Buddhism IMHO. And in pre-modern times... well, ever heard of traditional Chinese remedy of bread baked in fresh human blood? Ah, never mind.
-
Nope, I don't need to become a Taoist to do it either. A lot of Tibetan Buddhists just talk like this all the time. You get used to it after a while. Join E-Sangha if you don't believe me. The moderators banned a Zen master for insisting that he didn't believe in literal rebirth. (I think they closed down the whole Soto Zen subforum for the same reason. I'm not sure, but it's bound to be something sneaky like that! ) Kill her! Sacrifice her to the devil!
-
"Subjective" and "objective" may not be entirely accurate descriptions of DO & phenomena, but I doubt that Buddhists disbelieve in objective truth in the conventional sense.
-
Correction: Tibetan Buddhists PS. Please excuse me if my statements in this thread seem to be inconsistent. These are supposed to represent different stages of insanity realization.
-
Crazy, more like it. Meh. Blessings on your journey! (or whatever you Tibetans say)
-
The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all around me are my teachers. There are no Mahayana temples in Kolkata. This.
-
Sure it does. I still disagree at the moment, however.
-
I have no understanding whatsoever! PS. Sickening, isn't it? Of course, I'm not nearly there yet, if that makes you feel any better...
-
You know, I understand the position of Buddhist doctrine. I just happen to disagree with it in places. Sorry, I was talking to mikaelz in a different way.
-
No, you misunderstand me. I don't want to "understand Zen". I want to find the truth on my own, even if it takes me a billion years.
-
But Zen also has the doctrine of no doctrine. If I simply accepted someone else's version of "how things are", I'd be flouting Zen doctrine. Why do Zen masters tell us to kill the Buddha and the patriarchs if we saw them? They have no independent existence apart from our minds. Would you kill Manjushri if you saw him? I'm looking forward to it. Oh yes I can. Watch me!
-
I'm sure even Christians would agree that one's understanding of God isn't actually God himself. Oh well, then I'm just staying with Chan/Zen/Seon, I guess. I don't care much for doctrine anyway...
-
Twenty Special Forms of Rhetoric Rhetoric has been a topic of academic interest for, approximately, forever. Below are detailed a number of special types of rhetorical argument, some of which (eg, (3)) have been observed since the time of Aristotle [Aristotle] and before. Others (eg, (1)) have been clearly recognized only within the last century [eg, Davis and Hersh]. Some of these (eg, (2)) have never been explicitly delineated before. The uses of rhetoric are manifold and many explications of such have been made before, which this paper will not repeat. 1. Proof by Intimidation A: What do you think about objection X? B: That's silly! 2. Proof by Loudness A: What do you think about objection X? B: That's VERY SILLY!!! 3. Proof by Impressiveness A: What do you think about objection X? B: Well, I'm very smart, very well known, and respected, and I know much more than you, and I think you are silly. 4. Proof by Obfuscation A: What do you think about objection X? B: Well, X is related to Y, Y is related to Z, and Z is often confused with W, which is considered to be very similar to Q, which is silly. Read rest of article here [edited by admin for copyright issues]
-
Didn't the Dalai Lama say that unlike God, the Dharmakaya is only a quality or potential present in our minds? Hmm, must have been somebody else.... PS. I disagree that Buddha-nature is somehow already manifest in nature and can bestow material favors BTW. I hereby split off the nac school of Buddhism. Introductory membership fee: $5.00 only!
-
... who are egoless entities only present within our minds. They can't grant us material favors either. Meh... some gods
-
Buddhists don't believe in God or pray to gods... :?
-
Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?
nac replied to chicultivation's topic in General Discussion
-
So? I'm not going to argue since you're obviously saying that in a rhetorical sense. And er... why would I want that? Poor us! Somehow personal conviction and looking down on others never convinces me. It's a shame you've boxed yourself into a static perspective.
-
Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?
nac replied to chicultivation's topic in General Discussion
I try not to identify with anything either. It's just that I happen to be Buddhist at the moment in the same way that I happen to be human. My own methods and thinking coincide with those of zen philosophy almost perfectly. -
Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?
nac replied to chicultivation's topic in General Discussion
MH: I meant effort on the part of those seeking realization. That's not possible according to Buddhism either. I'm afraid you don't seem to have understood Buddhist philosophy very well. Is this an "anyone with good morals is a Christian" type of argument? Because I'd be happy to call myself a Taoist in that sense. Anyway, I think we'd better move this discussion to PMs. -
Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?
nac replied to chicultivation's topic in General Discussion
Do you have proof or evidence? If I'm really a closet Taoist, I'd love to know about it. -
Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?
nac replied to chicultivation's topic in General Discussion
Rather, those who have found it haven't found a way to communicate it directly into other people's minds without any effort on their part. Or it's the other way around.... PS. I'm a Buddhist myself and frankly, I find it annoying too. I don't visit this forum to discuss Buddhist philosophy with non-Buddhists.