Certain instances of Buddhist harping...

[Raymond Wolter]

further - what does not change does not suffer.

 

Om

Bob, you may get shot for making such a statement! Are you implying there is a static, unchanging Self? Can there be anything more blasphemous?

 

Namaste

[Birch]

"Uh oh Kate. This of course (slyly) means it's because you lack the "capacity" that you are unable to uphold the viewless view / dependent origination / emptiness = there is no soul, no spirit, no God, and no heaven."

 

= Oh, I lack all kinds of capacities

 

 

"Eternalism: If you uphold our way (Jesus, mystic Tao, Brahman, etc) then you will go to heaven."

 

- Actually, I'm interested in Taoism because of some of the more applicative aspects of it. Things like qi-gong, diet etc. I haven't read any practical applications of this type when it comes to Buddhism. Although as a mental practice it's cool.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dzogchen Buddhism: If you uphold the viewless view, then you are not a soul, not a spirit, there is no God, and you will not go to heaven."

 

- I know that already but I like a) to play and practice/experiment towards a goal of (shock horror) having a better life and helping other people

 

If I wait for ALL the public experimental data to be in then I could wait quite a long time

 

Also, I thought I'd point out that even if we say "Tao" it's still understood that it isn't actually "it" - which I reckon is pretty close to a "viewless view"

[Tao99]

Edited July 11, 2010 by Tao99

[Starjumper]

Look up Dalai Lama on youtube and look how joyous he is.

Look at him on youtube? This forum really needsd a rolling on the floor laughing emoticon

 

When you mentioned him I connected to him for a couple of seconds. He has plenty of suffering, it's good to know he is human.

 

I am a Buddhist myself and here to study and understand Taoism.

 

I will try to help you, and I'll use the Vinegar tasters to do it. For now please contemplate the message that painting has for us.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Starjumper7

[dwai]

Your continuing diatribe of untenable arguments, on what you believe as superior, is not about honest debate and continually begs the question. You mistakenly believe you are absolutely correct and proceed from that conclusion. In other words, you aren't engaging in debate, when you tell someone there belief system is wrong and yours is the "right view".

 

 

 

ralis

 

I wonder why we keep distracting these poor souls from their quest for emptiness by constantly challenging them. I propose we just move over to a new thread everytime anyone posts stuff similar to that kind of blathering and simply continue on. I for one have lost interest in TTB because all that seems to happen is "elucidations" of the "Finer" points of Buddhism by a pretender (and another noisy bunch rallying to support those fake efforts).

 

Heck, if Namkhai Norbu started posting here, I'd read with respect and interest...and I am certain he would not post this kind of nonsensical proselytization...I also seriously doubt (which I have since my first altercation with this individual) his "background". Talk is cheap and it's easy enough to fabricate lineages and tutelages on the internet...

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[JustARandomPanda]

If it was my forum I would ban you all.

 

It's easy to get rid of the Buddhist thorns in your side. Simply put Vajra, MichaelZ and whomever else irritates you on your ignore list.

[Birch]

"No need to wait, you can have your personal beliefs/practices based on your personal experiences. In fact, that's all we all have, even dzogchennists and Vajra. Believing you have something more is a "delusion". "

 

Heh- but what I believe is that my beliefs aren't actually that important. Hell, I'm not actually that important (well, I am to some people, but I digress ) Certainly not important enough to start attempting to stuff them down people's throats in an attempt to "help" (cough cough.)

 

Unless... they actually are important in which case they're hugely important because the way I see things (yes, you can even suggest the way I "delude" myself) is likely (although not obligatorily) to drive my actions within consensual reality - which is the one I'm mostly concerned with on a daily basis. Ask my big toe every time I stub it...

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

"Eternalism: If you uphold our way (Jesus, mystic Tao, Brahman, etc) then you will go to heaven."

 

- Actually, I'm interested in Taoism because of some of the more applicative aspects of it. Things like qi-gong, diet etc. I haven't read any practical applications of this type when it comes to Buddhism. Although as a mental practice it's cool.

 

There is plenty of energy practices with movement and practical information on diet in the Vajrayana path, just like there is in Hindu Tantra as well. It's also fine to integrate Taoism with Buddhism as long as one upholds the view. Of course it's fine to do whatever you want to do, not even hold up the "right view". It's just that the result of any internal practice in the long run is conditioned by ones view.

 

 

 

Also, I thought I'd point out that even if we say "Tao" it's still understood that it isn't actually "it" - which I reckon is pretty close to a "viewless view"

 

Close but not really. This is exactly what they say about Brahman, that it's not it... it's an experience... etc. It's still referencing a truly existing source of all being that is without cause. Therefore Tao is not referencing emptiness as it's considered beyond phenomena, the transcendent whole of everything.

 

Which is fine... it's a good transcendent concept which leads to very good places and states of consciousness. It's just not he whole enchilada that takes one completely beyond possible future psychological suffering or re-births. So, therefore it doesn't fully help, only partially.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

There's nothing wrong with suffering, it's the troll's attitude towards suffering that is wrong. Low level morons don't realize that if they end suffering they must also end joy, and yet they parade the lifeless way as superior.

 

Ref - The three vinegar tasters.

Suffering doesn't seep within if one sees suffering for what it truly is, empty of any inherent power of binding. This has to be directly experienced though from the point of view of luminous emptiness.

 

When you see that physical suffering has it's causes from without and psychological suffering has it's causes from within, one can more easily take on the mentality of suffering through internal practice, changing ones inner relationship with oneself and mind thus changing the way one lives so that the outer causes of suffering diminish as well.

 

It's really about how one internally views a situation which causes psychological suffering or not. So, this is why we do our practices, to find inner joy even when everything externally turns muddy.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

When you mentioned him I connected to him for a couple of seconds. He has plenty of suffering, it's good to know he is human.

 

 

Interesting that when I connect to him, I experience great joy and bliss. When he comes to me in dreams he is in a state of great joy and bliss. The Dalai Lama is quite beyond psychological suffering.

[Starjumper]

Suffering doesn't seep within if one sees suffering for what it truly is, empty of any inherent power of binding. This has to be directly experienced though from the point of view of luminous emptiness.

 

When you see that physical suffering has it's causes from without and psychological suffering has it's causes from within, one can more easily take on the mentality of suffering through internal practice, changing ones inner relationship with oneself and mind thus changing the way one lives so that the outer causes of suffering diminish as well.

 

It's really about how one internally views a situation which causes psychological suffering or not. So, this is why we do our practices, to find inner joy even when everything externally turns muddy.

So, are you saying that this two bit common sensical knowledge that is obvious in all the Eastern spiritual systems is now patented by Buddhist pigs? Is that it, and only someone as righteous as a Buddhist pig can get that advanced?

 

Also, your exalted mention of the exalted state of luminous emptiness doesn't impress me. I'll bet Buddhists have a patent on that too. It does sound special though when you use those special words to describe a common insight.

 

Luminous? Ha!

 

Interesting that when I connect to him, I experience great joy and bliss. When he comes to me in dreams he is in a state of great joy and bliss. The Dalai Lama is quite beyond psychological suffering.

 

I see, so he can't experience both sides, or is it that your fundamentalist dogma does not allow you to see it.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[ralis]

I'm not putting down the people who identify with being Taoist. I'm just saying that as it appears conceptually and methodologically, is not a complete path to the end of the "suffering" which afflicts the majority of this cosmos. Generally speaking the Taoist goal merely leads to higher rebirths. This truth you can understand directly through realizing exactly what the Buddha taught. As he said... "How would I teach this... it's so profound that most people will just not understand." Due to craving for one level of supreme existence or another.

 

Exactly how can you prove that the majority of this cosmos suffers? You posit broad generalizations that have no basis in fact.

 

You state you are not putting Taoists down and yet in the next sentence you contradict that statement. Do you even read what you write?

 

 

ralis

[C T]

So, are you saying that this two bit common sensical knowledge that is obvious in all the Eastern spiritual systems is now patented by Buddhist pigs? Is that it, and only someone as righteous as a Buddhist pig can get that advanced?

 

Also, your exalted mention of the exalted state of luminous emptiness doesn't impress me. I'll bet Buddhists have a patent on that too. It does sound special though when you use those special words to describe a common insight.

 

Luminous? Ha!

 

 

 

I see, so he can't experience both sides, or is it that your fundamentalist dogma does not allow you to see it.

Wow! Post of the century imo....

 

Hey 3Bob.. whats your stand here? Dont you agree this is a mighty fine piece of writing? What kind of harping would you call this?

[JustARandomPanda]

So, are you saying that this two bit common sensical knowledge that is obvious in all the Eastern spiritual systems is now patented by Buddhist pigs? Is that it, and only someone as righteous as a Buddhist pig can get that advanced?

 

If you insist on replying to the Buddhist(s) who tick you off so much SJ cut out the insults now or you will be taking a TB vacation. I suggest you follow Ralis' example. He is able to critique the Buddhist(s) and express his disapproval - all while staying within the TB ToS of no insults.

[ralis]

So, are you saying that this two bit common sensical knowledge that is obvious in all the Eastern spiritual systems is now patented by Buddhist pigs? Is that it, and only someone as righteous as a Buddhist pig can get that advanced?

 

Also, your exalted mention of the exalted state of luminous emptiness doesn't impress me. I'll bet Buddhists have a patent on that too. It does sound special though when you use those special words to describe a common insight.

 

Luminous? Ha!

 

 

 

I see, so he can't experience both sides, or is it that your fundamentalist dogma does not allow you to see it.

 

 

What the Buddhists try to patent and license for themselves is rather ordinary to everyone with no exception. The quality of being luminous is what lights all phenomena so that all phenomena can be seen. The brain works by interpreting frequencies in terms of color, degrees of light etc. In other words there is light everywhere I look. Any text on neurophysiology will confirm that. I guess it is all in my head. :lol: It is no mystery!

 

The problem here is the Buddhists denial of science. They think science is way too material.

 

 

ralis

[3bob]

Bob, you may get shot for making such a statement! Are you implying there is a static, unchanging Self? Can there be anything more blasphemous?

 

Namaste

 

Thanks Raymond, good timing I plead the "four-fold negation". (in this case better than the 5th amendment)

 

Besides, there is the Udana sutta to consider.

 

Om

[3bob]

Wow! Post of the century imo....

 

Hey 3Bob.. whats your stand here? Dont you agree this is a mighty fine piece of writing? What kind of harping would you call this?

 

I agree with Serene Blue on that one...

 

Om

[Birch]

Actually, I like the way the neuroscience folks are catching up with this stuff. But ultimately, right view or not, if you're here then what are you doing? Saving people against their will tends to be contra-indicated. Do it "with" their will and you might get somewhere.

 

For sure there are lots of Buddhist energy work practices but they seem to ask you to sign up to the whole shebang first before they let those out. I'm not signing up for anything, thank you. I think Taoism is just more open with many of its practices (they're also simpler for me). Where's the Buddhist energy practice forum that gets into such detail?

 

Besides, in all of human history, who exactly has been "saved" with any of this stuff? If you're liberated enough, you might just see that other people have also chosen their paths. That means that Buddha has chosen it too. Who's not to say I'm in fact a once-returner that's simply working on a few things down here for a while until I can be arsed to move on. Besides, I LOVE it here, the weather's wonderful.

[Starjumper]

If you insist on replying to the Buddhist(s) who tick you off so much SJ cut out the insults now or you will be taking a TB vacation. I suggest you follow Ralis' example. He is able to critique the Buddhist(s) and express his disapproval - all while staying within the TB ToS of no insults.

 

Hi sunshine, so you are a moderator now, okay then, don't be so sure someone is pissed off so much because of a little name calling. I'm a god damn welder for christ sakes, you should see how I and my buddies talk to and about each other In any case, I wasn't 'so' pissed off, slightly annoyed is more like it, and there are a bunch of people here evidently who are annoyed by the Buddhist dogmatic evangelist fundamentalist, who IS being a pig. OINK, OINK, OINK. What this forum needs is a pink piggy emoticon.

 

I do admire Ralis as he sees the way of things rather well, we'll see if I can restrain myself like he does. On the on the hand, a nice long vacation could do me a world of good.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Starjumper]

What the Buddhists try to patent and license for themselves is rather ordinary to everyone with no exception.

 

I was thinking that as you were writing it.

 

The quality of being luminous is what lights all phenomena so that all phenomena can be seen. The brain works by interpreting frequencies in terms of color, degrees of light etc. In other words there is light everywhere I look. Any text on neurophysiology will confirm that. I guess it is all in my head. :lol: It is no mystery!

It's true, things reflecting light gives them luminosity, but the way I reacted to it =) was as if it was describing a great glowing shining forth from within that only certain righteous people can achieve if they follow the one true way.

[Sunya]

When you mentioned him I connected to him for a couple of seconds. He has plenty of suffering, it's good to know he is human.

 

Sounds like you were just connecting to a deeper part of yourself, the part that is full of anger and fear, the part of you that makes you post in such an aggressive and hostile way.

[Sunya]

What the Buddhists try to patent and license for themselves is rather ordinary to everyone with no exception. The quality of being luminous is what lights all phenomena so that all phenomena can be seen. The brain works by interpreting frequencies in terms of color, degrees of light etc. In other words there is light everywhere I look. Any text on neurophysiology will confirm that. I guess it is all in my head. :lol: It is no mystery!

 

The problem here is the Buddhists denial of science. They think science is way too material.

 

The realization of luminosity, or nonduality, is realized by all mystical traditions because they all aim to dissolve the self (thoughts and sensations), but the realization of non-inherence does not come from dissolving the self. It comes through inquiring into the very nature of self on a grand scale. The self of luminosity must be seen through. This is what you keep missing. You think emptiness means luminosity, when actually emptiness is the nature of luminosity.

 

So, are you saying that this two bit common sensical knowledge that is obvious in all the Eastern spiritual systems is now patented by Buddhist pigs? Is that it, and only someone as righteous as a Buddhist pig can get that advanced?

 

Also, your exalted mention of the exalted state of luminous emptiness doesn't impress me. I'll bet Buddhists have a patent on that too. It does sound special though when you use those special words to describe a common insight.

 

Luminous? Ha!

 

Please share more of your exalted wisdom with us. It's obvious that your deep practices have truly developed you into a kind, wise, and patient being.

 

I think any tradition has qualities of kindness, patience, and skillfulness as marks of wisdom, and whatever your path is, you're surely failing. Sorry.

Edited July 10, 2010 by mikaelz

[Birch]

What about those of us who like the light show - given that everyone is taking part - and become worried when anyone in particular suggests they are Prometheus? Or at least have the fire of such (all boils down to the same thing) I'll cast myself in the population who doesn't want an all-encompassing fire doodle dandy (despite us being wood age and all and me being a water type )

 

So we're all back in agreement then ?