A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[Vajrahridaya]

You fail miserably in the word department.

 

 

ralis

 

For your particular bag of karmas, that is quite obvious. I've known that for 2 years now ralis.

 

I'm just dandy like a lion in the meadow with that...

[ralis]

What does it mean to be "considered enlightened"?

 

Who cares what one is 'considered'?

 

What counts is: what is 'enlightenment', is it a relative term, are there degrees of enlightenment and finally, who decides?

 

If I decide I am enlightened, and no one else does, what is the reality? Am I deluded? Is it possible that 'they' may decide I'm enlightened after I die?

 

What if you're enlightened, but nobody, even yourself realizes it? Would it make any difference?

 

Why do we seem obsessed with becoming enlightened? Why the focus on this? Why not be judged by the fruits of our actions and the light emanating from our being?

 

Someone who is enlightened does not speak of being enlightened, if they do, they are not.

 

 

Why do we care so much about this? Life does not become "easier", we just let go of certain troublesome aspects of our psyche. I do not believe being "enlightened" is a goal, rather, it is a by-product of right living and right mind.

 

My suspicion is, that for most of us (especially on this forum), are into enlarging the ego, becoming 'special' and perhaps powerful by becoming enlightened, rather than interested in becoming nobody. Becoming nobody is a prerequisite to becoming enlightened, whatever that means.

 

 

Each system, as far as I know, seems to have some nebulous idea of enlightenment. In my reading of the extensive literature, enlightenment is never clearly defined. The Pali canon and the extensive Buddhist literature are the best examples for wordiness and never getting to the point. Just indicates that whatever it is or is not, it can never be defined.

 

Vajraji posted yesterday somewhere that the Buddha is omniscient. That is really stretching it.

 

Actually, enlightenment may be a term that is used to manipulate psychologically. Enlightenment seems to lend some light ungrounded feeling to the mind. Just let all you cares float away.

 

 

ralis

Edited June 24, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji posted yesterday somewhere that the Buddha is omniscient. That is really stretching it.

 

A Buddha can in meditation know any particular in the cosmos. But, while living everyday life, they are all knowing about the nature of things, not the endless particulars, he talks about this in the Pali Cannon. A Buddha is not God... which does not exist.

[ralis]

A Buddha can in meditation know any particular in the cosmos. But, while living everyday life, they are all knowing about the nature of things, not the endless particulars, he talks about this in the Pali Cannon. A Buddha is not God... which does not exist.

 

This is where you are wrong! Read a definition before you write.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

[goldisheavy]

This is where you are wrong! Read a definition before you write.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

 

I don't get it. What exactly is Vajrahridaya wrong about?

 

I do think that there are two competing definitions of omniscience, although I am not sure I like the "inherent vs total" as they are presented in Wikipedia. I would say that in the Buddhist sense, since knowledge is empty and uncertain due to its instability (which is certain), the meaning of omniscience when it comes to Buddhas is something like the ability to display a seemingly endless array of knowledge with the understanding that no particular knowledge is "how it really is" because nothing is "how it really is," or there would have to be some non-empty thing. In other words, omniscience of Buddhas is not so much factually true, but an impressive and limitless appearance.

 

People who believe in God don't usually understand emptiness. They think things have an actual and true state, and that it's possible to know such state correctly, and supposedly God knows it. That kind of omniscience is a delusion, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, what is Vajra wrong about, again.

Edited June 24, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I do think that there are two competing definitions of omniscience, although I am not sure I like the "inherent vs total" as they are presented in Wikipedia. I would say that in the Buddhist sense, since knowledge is empty and uncertain due to its instability (which is certain), the meaning of omniscience when it comes to Buddhas is something like the ability to display a seemingly endless array of knowledge with the understanding that no particular knowledge is "how it really is" because nothing is "how it really is," or there would have to be some non-empty thing. In other words, omniscience of Buddhas is not so much factually true, but an impressive and limitless appearance.

 

People who believe in God don't usually understand emptiness. They think things have an actual and true state, and that it's possible to know such state correctly, and supposedly God knows it. That kind of omniscience is a delusion, in my opinion.

 

 

That's quite well said. You should submit it to wiki!

[garuda]

[Vajrahridaya]

True. If the words are PO instructions from a qualified. But intellectual circular questioning or challenging statements by the questioner, I suspect amounts to sparring without an open mind to learn.

 

"Mind pointing" from a qualified Rinpoche of Dzogchen in a private one on one is utterly amazing. Mine was with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.

 

The glimpse is not so hard for the serious practitioner, but the “living it” or sustaining it is quite arduous for most of us. I am happy for your glimpse; it's a great motivator and source for determination.

 

Well... glimpse after glimpse gets longer and more sustained. I guess that's the work of the path, to integrate fully, that taste with every aspect of life.

 

Fly well Garuda!

Edited June 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

I don't get it. What exactly is Vajrahridaya wrong about?

 

I do think that there are two competing definitions of omniscience, although I am not sure I like the "inherent vs total" as they are presented in Wikipedia. I would say that in the Buddhist sense, since knowledge is empty and uncertain due to its instability (which is certain), the meaning of omniscience when it comes to Buddhas is something like the ability to display a seemingly endless array of knowledge with the understanding that no particular knowledge is "how it really is" because nothing is "how it really is," or there would have to be some non-empty thing. In other words, omniscience of Buddhas is not so much factually true, but an impressive and limitless appearance.

 

People who believe in God don't usually understand emptiness. They think things have an actual and true state, and that it's possible to know such state correctly, and supposedly God knows it. That kind of omniscience is a delusion, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, what is Vajra wrong about, again.

 

 

The problem with his use of Buddhist omniscience, is that he uses this and other terms out of context and rarely makes precise definitions of what he means. He has a patronizing attitude, continually makes sweeping generalizations, begs the question and posits many fallacious arguments. Vajraji poses as a great intellect, which he is not. His grammatical syntax is fragmented and makes for difficult reading.

 

Honestly, Emmanuel Kant, Herbert Gunther(Buddhist scholar)and many of the great intellects are easier to read.

 

 

 

 

ralis

[garuda]

..... Mine was with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.....

 

As you know, he is known to be one of the best.

[goldisheavy]

The glimpse is not so hard for the serious practitioner, but the “living it” or sustaining it is quite arduous for most of us. I am happy for your glimpse; it's a great motivator and source for determination.

 

What's hard is to recondition one's own mindset. However, enlightenment doesn't have to imply reconditioning. Enlightenment means wisdom. Being wise to your own condition is all it takes to be enlightened, and that's certainly easy, and in fact, I would say effortless in day to day life. In fact, I would say that wisdom is what reduces the daily effort instead of requiring it.

 

But reconditioning takes effort. So if you're not happy with a good mirror, and you want to get a nose job as well, that's going to cost ya.

Edited June 25, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

The problem with his use of Buddhist omniscience, is that he uses this and other terms out of context and rarely makes precise definitions of what he means. He has a patronizing attitude, continually makes sweeping generalizations, begs the question and posits many fallacious arguments. Vajraji poses as a great intellect, which he is not. His grammatical syntax is fragmented and makes for difficult reading.

 

Honestly, Emmanuel Kant, Herbert Gunther(Buddhist scholar)and many of the great intellects are easier to read.

 

 

 

 

ralis

 

I think many of your accusations are true, but at the same time, I don't think every post Vajrahridaya makes is worthy of contempt. Also, when you say that Vajra is not a great intellect, you must be forgetting the raving, drooling-mad masses of morons out there. It's all relative. And then you go ahead and compare Vajrahridaya to Kant and to Gunther to make your point. According to that attitude, even 2nd best mind is a moron.

 

Needless to say, I think that kind of "demanding" attitude of yours is stupid in its own right.

[Vajrahridaya]

What's hard is to recondition one's own mindset. However, enlightenment doesn't have to imply reconditioning. Enlightenment means wisdom. Being wise to your own condition is all it takes to be enlightened, and that's certainly easy, and in fact, I would say effortless in day to day life. In fact, I would say that wisdom is what reduces the daily effort instead of requiring it.

 

But reconditioning takes effort. So if you're not happy with a good mirror, and you want to get a nose job as well, that's going to cost ya.

 

I do agree, and I think that's the point of Dzogchen. Have the glimpse, then just relax... always. Every moment is a new glimpse of the "one taste," the Mahamudra (great stance).

[goldisheavy]

I do agree, and I think that's the point of Dzogchen. Have the glimpse, then just relax... always. Every moment is a new glimpse of the "one taste," the Mahamudra (great stance).

 

I think having a good mirror is a must, but nose jobs are cool too! Actually in real life I don't like nose jobs, but if I have to go with my metaphor, that's what it sounds like.

 

I also think someone who was able to recondition one's own mindset to a great extent, to go beyond convention while still living in convention, in addition to having great reflective wisdom, is more seasoned or weathered, if you will. Wisdom is priceless, but wisdom plus some experience gained during reconditioning is a premium for me.

 

This is why I am more partial to Mahomogallana than to Sariputta. I respect Sariputta and consider him completely enlightened, but at the same time, I would be hanging out with Mahomogallana and not with Sariputta.

[Vajrahridaya]

Needless to say, I think that kind of "demanding" attitude of yours is stupid in its own right.

 

For someone like me, who was raised in poverty around highly under-educated people, except my mother who recently got her PHD in 1998 while in her mid to early 50's in womens arts and spirituality, who I rebelled against fiercely during various periods of my life. I didn't finish high school, though if I afforded slight effort got A's and B's very easily, and I denied the gifted program and AP studies so that I could play in the streets with thugs, and is mostly completely self taught in spiritual "jargon." Having been literally homeless a number of times in various cities including NY, San Francisco and Albq. NM, due to karmic circumstance and not getting hired. I think I do quite well though I looooong to have the finances to go to school, and be able to take care of me and my wife at the same time who I can't even afford to pay the fee's for her ability to get a social security number due to the fact that she's from Canada.

 

Anyway... I look at Ralis and Songs like promoters of my ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. A life long forced upon me practice... obviously.

[Vajrahridaya]

This is why I am more partial to Mahomogallana than to Sariputta. I respect Sariputta and consider him completely enlightened, but at the same time, I would be hanging out with Mahomogallana and not with Sariputta.

 

You mean Maudgalyayana. Oh yes... I fully agree with that my dude. Fa real! That guy was cool... in the colloquial sense of the word. I'm sure he was a huge burning furnace of power.

 

edit... yes also known as Mahamogallana, my bad.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

I think many of your accusations are true, but at the same time, I don't think every post Vajrahridaya makes is worthy of contempt. Also, when you say that Vajra is not a great intellect, you must be forgetting the raving, drooling-mad masses of morons out there. It's all relative. And then you go ahead and compare Vajrahridaya to Kant and to Gunther to make your point. According to that attitude, even 2nd best mind is a moron.

 

Needless to say, I think that kind of "demanding" attitude of yours is stupid in its own right.

 

To associate my demanding attitude as stupid is not well taken! As part of Vajraji's audience, I have every right to be demanding. Why should I have to reconstruct his grammatical syntax in my mind in order to understand him. For once, I wish he would drop the pretense and think through what he writes. It is as if he is writing for himself and not his audience.

 

I did not compare Vajraji to Kant et al! Their writings are difficult to the extreme and well written.

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

Anyway... I look at Ralis and Songs like promoters of my ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. A life long forced upon me practice... obviously.

 

 

I think that's very good. Good for you. You have many admirable qualities. But when you get a chance, maybe not today or tomorrow, check into the English grammar. I know I should be doing the same thing too. My grammar is not perfect.

Edited June 25, 2010 by goldisheavy

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Kilroy

Edited June 25, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[goldisheavy]

To associate my demanding attitude as stupid is not well taken! As part of Vajraji's audience, I have every right to be demanding. Why should I have to reconstruct his grammatical syntax in my mind in order to understand him. For once, I wish he would drop the pretense and think through what he writes. It is as if he is writing for himself and not his audience.

 

I did not compare Vajraji to Kant et al! Their writings are difficult to the extreme and well written.

 

ralis

 

You have a right to complain. I think you exaggerate about Vajrahridaya though. I've seen people with vastly worse prose skills than Vajrahridaya's and I was able to understand their intent. It's a good idea to have a perfect mastery of the English language, but at the same time, if that's your strongest knock on the person, that's weak sauce my friend.

Edited June 25, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Vaj, my son, you are reactive, and leap to defend or strike back without the equanimity one would expect of a real practitioner.

 

 

 

Your posts present someone who considers himself near realized.

 

 

Seriously? I never got that impression. How have you been able to arrive at this conclusion?

 

 

A near realized being would simply ignore ralis and I.

 

Absurd. A realized person would still have compassion and wouldn't ignore the helpless flailings of people with self-inflicted idiocy.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think that's very good. Good for you. You have many admirable qualities. But when you get a chance, maybe not today or tomorrow, check into the English grammar. I know I should be doing the same thing too. My grammar is not perfect.

 

I find grammar can be a dogma too. I'm more into the context... if one can gleam the gist of the juice in the expression... maybe it's like poetry? Some can and tell me so. At other times, maybe I am just writing for myself as I get joyful! More people tell me that my writing is good in a different way than these people who like to use me like a toilet bowl and hardly post anything else other than to show anger and bitterness. So, who should I listen to? My writing is ever evolving anyway. I will learn nothing from ralis and songs hate, except patience.

 

So, I thank you for that ralis and songs. Other than that...

Edited June 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I think that's very good. Good for you. You have many admirable qualities. But when you get a chance, maybe not today or tomorrow, check into the English grammar. I know I should be doing the same thing too. My grammar is not perfect.

 

There is still a creative quality about your posts that transcends the need for perfect grammar, as the message which transcends such bondage is transmitted through your posts regardless. At least your not calling everyone an idiot anymore. Even though most everyone is, a beautiful idiot ignorant of their nature that is.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I can't speak for ralis, but I don't hate you. I just find you an annoying, overwhelming presence here, and I oppose your takeover, like you did last year. I bear you no ill will. I just wish you weren't so dense and obscure! oh, and immature, too . Plus, you started all this by jumping down my throat with a snarky, nasty reply when I nicely asked you a respectful question, way back when... Yes, you, my son...

Edited June 25, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

I just wish you weren't so dense!

 

Hmmm... looked into the mirror lately?