Sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross...

[JustARandomPanda]

just call that V's interpretation co-opting parts of others. The Buddha can speak for Himself.

 

Hmm...well in my admittedly limited reading of Buddhism I was under the impression it stated ignorance was a root condition of the human race.

 

Alas...the only work of the Buddha I have access to is the Darmapada (sp?). I guess I need to put that on my To Read Pronto list but I've been reading about Taoism lately (I finally got my own copy of the Tao te Ching! Woohoo!) and haven't felt the need to investigate Buddhism so much. Marble...you read any of Lieh Tzu yet?

[Marblehead]

I LIKE MARBLE! YIPPEE_KAI_YAY!!

 

 

Hehehe. I like you too!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Marble...you read any of Lieh Tzu yet?

 

Oh My Goodness! She's checking up on me!!! I better get busy and read that thing, afterall, it's really not that large a document.

 

No Dear, not yet, but soon, I promise. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

"Ignorant" is an adjective (descriptor) for a person. He says we are ignorant people.

 

An "ignorant person" is called an "ignoramus"

 

Now let's look at these synonyms for an ignoramus (same source)

ignoramus

noun dunce, fool,

 

 

Now, from same source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dimwit

 

dimwit - a stupid incompetent person

 

Now let's look at these synonyms for a dimwit (same source):

 

dimwit

noun (Informal) idiot, bonehead (slang), dunce, ignoramus,

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

just call that V's interpretation co-opting parts of others. The Buddha can speak for Himself.

 

Actually, this is standard Theravada into Mahayana interpretation. This is why enlightened beings can keep being reborn into any place in Samsara and not be sullied by it. This is Mahayana interpretation of the compassionate root for continued rebirth of an enlightened mind-stream.

 

I don't have an interpretation that is my own. You 3bob do though. Your interpretation is not at all in line with Buddhist interpretation of Buddhas statements within the vast corpus of context. My interpretation is in line with the Dalai Lamas interpretation as well. You should read some standard texts by enlightened Buddhas in regards to the Buddhas teachings.

[Marblehead]

 

anyway, case closed for me. You are all Dunces! (according to Buddhist doctrine, so don't blame me, just tryin to help.

 

Hehehe. Well, poo on you too.

 

You be well, my friend.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmm...well in my admittedly limited reading of Buddhism I was under the impression it stated ignorance was a root condition of the human race.

 

 

Shurangama Sutra: Link!

 

All that exists comes from this; every cause in fact has no cause. Subjective reliance on objective appearances is basically groundless. Thus, upon what is fundamentally unreliable, one sets up the world and living beings.

 

Commentary:

 

All that exists comes from this. "This" refers to ignorance, because:

 

From a single unenlightened thought

the three subtle appearances arise.

Then external states become the conditions

for the arising of the six coarse appearances.

 

"All that exists," then, refers to these appearances. Yet, every cause in fact has no cause. "Cause" here refers to a place of reliance. Why is there said to be no cause? It is because, although the three subtle appearances are said to arise from ignorance, ignorance is not really dependable. It is not a true place of reliance. Ignorance itself is a false creation, an empty appearance. Therefore, although it seems to be that the three subtle appearances arise out of ignorance, it doesn't really happen that way, because ignorance itself doesn't even exist! Since ignorance doesn't have any substance of itself, how can the three subtle appearances arise from it? Subjective reliance on objective appearances is basically groundless. Living beings are the subjective aspect that relies on ignorance, the objective aspect. But basically there is no foundation in this. There is really no source. Thus, upon what is fundamentally unreliable, one sets up the world and living beings.

 

Basically there is nothing to be depended on, but it is on this unreliable ignorance that the world is established. Out of what is empty, false, and unreal the world is set up, and with it all living beings. Their very existence is empty and false; there is nothing real about it.

[Apech]

If you do not see clearly, understand or have realized the nature of reality then you are ignorant (of it). Most people including (most of?) us are ignorant in this sense. It has nothing to do with IQ, life skills or application it is simply that we have not reached that stage of awareness yet. Without this we could not distinguish the sage from an ordinary man/woman. It is not a personal criticism.

 

This ignorance is part of how things go wrong.

[Marblehead]

If you do not see clearly, understand or have realized the nature of reality then you are ignorant (of it). Most people including (most of?) us are ignorant in this sense. It has nothing to do with IQ, life skills or application it is simply that we have not reached that stage of awareness yet. Without this we could not distinguish the sage from an ordinary man/woman. It is not a personal criticism.

 

This ignorance is part of how things go wrong.

 

That caused me to have some thoughts but I have forgotten them all so I have nothing to say.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Actually, this is standard Theravada into Mahayana interpretation. This is why enlightened beings can keep being reborn into any place in Samsara and not be sullied by it. This is Mahayana interpretation of the compassionate root for continued rebirth of an enlightened mind-stream.

 

I don't have an interpretation that is my own. You 3bob do though. Your interpretation is not at all in line with Buddhist interpretation of Buddhas statements within the vast corpus of context. My interpretation is in line with the Dalai Lamas interpretation as well. You should read some standard texts by enlightened Buddhas in regards to the Buddhas teachings.

 

Actually, by demonstration you felt compelled to correct a Zen Buddhist master just in case he was incorrect and or not up to your standard, thus your school so to speak.

 

Om

[Apech]

That caused me to have some thoughts but I have forgotten them all so I have nothing to say.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Your post caused me to think about forgetting and I think I forgot to think.

 

Thanks.

[3bob]

Anyway folks back to the topic of, "sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross".

 

"To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality. The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know". Sosan

Edited July 31, 2010 by 3bob

[Encephalon]

Anyway folks back to the topic of, "sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross".

 

"To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality. The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know". Sosan

 

Pretty gosh darn good sound advice, there, for sure.

[Marblehead]

"To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality...

 

Of course, I am sure you already knew that I would strongly, very strongly, agree with this.

 

If we talk only of a things emptiness we are talking of only one small aspect of Tao.

 

We cannot break down the 'totality' and inspect only some of the parts and think we understand reality.

 

Reality is all the parts. This is the only 'right view', IMO.

 

Yes, we observe the emptiness of emptiness but if we fail to see the fullness in the fullness we are getting only a partial view.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited July 31, 2010 by Marblehead

[Vajrasattva]

Leon, my friend. All religions and spiritual practices deep down are the same. When you trascend the self and commune with the Divine source all phenomena ceases to exist. I am now using words but really one needs to experience it because the truth words can't really define it.

 

When you reach the final goal you start manifesting the divine light that is buried deep within us. But even then you still will be present in a human body and mind, having to go to work and pay bills and taxes like the rest of us

 

Keep practicing and remember to focus on your higher self at all times even when you catch the bus or buy fruit at the grocery store.

 

In the meantime visiting this forum reminds you that the world out there vibrates at a different rate.

 

Keep going, my friend.

 

Good luck!

 

Yes sir you are very correct.

 

Thanks for sharing your heart.

[3bob]

Of course, I am sure you already knew that I would strongly, very strongly, agree with this.

 

If we talk only of a things emptiness we are talking of only one small aspect of Tao.

 

We cannot break down the 'totality' and inspect only some of the parts and think we understand reality.

 

Reality is all the parts. This is the only 'right view', IMO.

 

Yes, we observe the emptiness of emptiness but if we fail to see the fullness in the fullness we are getting only a partial view.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Peace and Love also MH,

[Vajrahridaya]

Of course, I am sure you already knew that I would strongly, very strongly, agree with this.

 

If we talk only of a things emptiness we are talking of only one small aspect of Tao.

 

We cannot break down the 'totality' and inspect only some of the parts and think we understand reality.

 

Reality is all the parts. This is the only 'right view', IMO.

 

Yes, we observe the emptiness of emptiness but if we fail to see the fullness in the fullness we are getting only a partial view.

 

Peace & Love!

 

According to Buddhadharma, one only experiences true and full openness on the most humble level by realizing directly the emptiness of all things and consciousness. Only when one truly has the experiential insight of emptiness, does one experience the totally transparent nature of everything, including ones self, thus ones consciousness expands infinitely, but not as a supreme self or source, but merely as a result of the experiential insight of the emptiness of all things, including the emptiness of Buddhahood. For Buddhists, Buddhahood also does not inherently exist and is empty of independent and absolute existence.

 

There is no beyond phenomena source of everything in Buddhist cosmology, though there is the direct insight which transcends all things including self. This insight is Nirvana. Since Samsara only exists relatively on an infinite scale of co-relating phenomena, it has no inherent power to bind, so this insight is considered Nirvana, not as an essence, but as an insight which liberates.

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyway folks back to the topic of, "sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross".

 

"To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality. The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know". Sosan

 

If one has direct insight into the truth of emptiness and dependent origination, talking and thinking have no inherent power to bind ones experience of open and infinite, beyond quantification, expansion.

 

Those that think that the experiences of formless samadhi beyond thought reveals a supreme truth, because of it's bliss, fall into the extreme of eternalism and are merely reifying one of the 4 formless samadhis. This is not in line with the Buddhas insight of dependent origination/emptiness which only came to him after he had stability in the 4 formless samadhis and saw them as neither a proof for an absolute truth, nor proof of an abiding Self of all.

 

All your interpretations of the Buddhas teachings were rejected by the Buddha himself.

[Vajrahridaya]

The insight of emptiness as defined by Buddhadharma, mostly mis-understood, is an affirmation of the malleable nature, non-static nature, and non-binding nature of all reality, and experiences of reality, both internally on a spiritual level and externally on a mundane level, through the 5 senses.

 

Emptiness is not at all a negative insight. It is deeply positive if directly experienced on an intuitive level insight. It only seems negative on the surface when one is first introduced to it.

 

The Emptiness of Buddhadharma cannot be equated with the western concept of nothingness, nor can it be equated with the philosophy of nihilism.

 

Emptiness means the interconnection of all phenomena, including individual consciousness, as well as the non-inherent nature of all phenomena and consciousness. It's a supreme revelation of total and across the board relativity as an absolute, not the revelation of a self standing, non-relative absolute.

 

Buddhas teachings do not agree with the idealization of a supreme source of everything, or any rooftop concept or non-concept, and reveals infinite regress. This is very different from any other spiritual tradition as a whole. This doesn't mean that an individual within any spiritual tradition cannot come to the same insight and explain through variances, but as a tradition, this sets Buddhism as a whole, apart from all others. Not as a dogma, but merely as the difference as a tradition of explanation of insight.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, by demonstration you felt compelled to correct a Zen Buddhist master just in case he was incorrect and or not up to your standard, thus your school so to speak.

 

Om

 

I don't know his mind directly, so I cannot speak for his internal interpretation of the words, translated from his own language, which you have quoted and might have mis-contextualized due to a subjective idealism. Then again... I might entirely disagree with his interpretation of Buddhism. I do not know enough about this "Zen Master" to assume that your interpretation of his words is the same as his own.

 

All I do know is that your interpretation of Buddhadharma does not hold up to Buddha's scrutiny. This is based upon my own study of all the different forms of Buddhism as well as meditative insight. If I am wrong... may I be proven so and I will concede.

 

I have done so before in public when my interpretation of Buddhadharma was much like yours. My interpretation definitely fell under a universalist idealism before I actually studied what the Buddha truly taught and experienced through initiation into Buddhist lineage.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

If you do not see clearly, understand or have realized the nature of reality then you are ignorant (of it). Most people including (most of?) us are ignorant in this sense. It has nothing to do with IQ, life skills or application it is simply that we have not reached that stage of awareness yet. Without this we could not distinguish the sage from an ordinary man/woman. It is not a personal criticism.

 

This ignorance is part of how things go wrong.

 

Right, and Samsaric realms are a manifestation of a vast majority of sentient beings ignorance. Not that every aspect is a manifestation of the driving force of ignorance and craving, but this is exactly why this realm or dimension of Earth is filled with pain, friction and anguish within the majority of it's inhabitance. Earth realm is not the manifestation of a Buddhas will. Only purelands are, according to Buddhism, which is why they are deeply pure, filled with a lack of anxiety, friction and density, because they are a manifestation of a Buddhas compassionate intention. This level of universe experienced by the vast majority of Earthlings is a manifestation of craving, for the most part. Though, because this realm is also empty of inherent existence, a deeply realized being, either Buddhist or non-Buddhist, can experience Heaven here, due to the fact that all phenomena are empty of any intrinsic nature to bind. Though a non-Buddhist would experience bliss here, due to their identification of everything with a divine source of all, while a Buddhist would experience bliss here, due to the insight of emptiness thus leading to a different outcome in the afterlife for both a Buddhist and non-Buddhist. Even though, both would seem to share the same transcendent happiness here, their interpretations of the cause of this happiness would be very different leading to a subtle, but deeply different awareness of this beyond the duality of pain and pleasure... bliss.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry about the onslaught of reply's. I am just catching up on the conversation after a day of very active work. All the best! Please don't take any of my reply's personally, as my opinion is all very relative.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

According to Buddhadharma, one only experiences true and full openness on the most humble level by realizing directly the emptiness of all things and consciousness. Only when one truly has the experiential insight of emptiness, does one experience the totally transparent nature of everything, including ones self, thus ones consciousness expands infinitely, but not as a supreme self or source, but merely as a result of the experiential insight of the emptiness of all things, including the emptiness of Buddhahood. For Buddhists, Buddhahood also does not inherently exist and is empty of independent and absolute existence.

 

Yep. And it is exactly this concept that prevents me from considering Buddhism any more than I do. I consider this to be a one-sided view. We must also, IMO, consider the fullness of everything at any given moment in time. Sure, things change. That is a given. True, nothing lasts forever. But there are many thing in this universe that will last far longer than I will so I can even, relative to my life, consider those things eternal (even though they are not).

 

To understand both the emptiness (mortality) of everything while also understanding the fullness of everything (at any given moment in time) is a better view, I think.

 

As it is said: First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

That is, our early observations are strictly of the Manifest, then as we mature (hopefully) we realize the temporal nature of all things. But we don't stop there; we go back to the mountain and live our life to the fullest.

 

I think that to stop at emptiness leaves one with an empty feeling. This is a wrong feeling, IMO.

 

If we consider fullness of life and self-actualization as key goals in life I believe that we will live a much richer (spiritually) and fuller life.

 

So even though I agree with you regarding emptiness I believe you, and Buddhism, is looking at only a small portion of the whole. Maybe that's why I'm not a Buddhist?

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

The insight of emptiness as defined by Buddhadharma, mostly mis-understood, ...

 

You got that right. And this is because it is inconsistent with the observable universe. If a view is not consistent with the processes of nature then it is, IMO, invalid.

 

One of the problems I have with Buddhism is that, after understanding that there is no mountain they refuse to realize that it still exists at this point in time. It is "now" that we all are living our life. That is, even if one believes in reincarnation, that one is still living "this" life during this "now".

 

There really is a mountain! No kidding folks!

 

Yes, mountains will come and go. So do people. That's the way thing are.

 

So although realization of emptiness is a valid step along the journey it is only step two of a total of three steps. If we stop at step two we have not completed our journey.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Sorry about the onslaught of reply's. I am just catching up on the conversation after a day of very active work. All the best! Please don't take any of my reply's personally, as my opinion is all very relative.

 

Oh, you are not sorry. You love to talk about Buddhism. We all know that.

 

And yes, it was about time you did some actual work for the purpose of supporting the family.

 

And yes, you can take this to heart; I know that everything you say is your opinion and is relative in the most part to only you. Hehehe.

 

And I have never stopped listening to your opinion even though I do not agree with many of them. But that's okay too because we are two distinctly different individuals. You exist independent of me and I exist independent of you. How do you like that for independent origination?

 

Peace & Love!