To resident Buddhists and others alike

[Lucky7Strikes]

"Think about President Obama. In a way he only exists in your mind as a thoughform."

 

Well, if you ask me to think about him, yes, agree. But if I don't think about him, does he still "exist" and if so, in who's mind? (Thought I'd throw you an ole "tree in the forest" thing).

 

"Similarly you exist as a thoughtfrom in your own mind"

 

Yes, and your point being?

Are you separate from your thinking?

 

Can you know the world without perceiving?

[RongzomFan]

"Think about President Obama. In a way he only exists in your mind as a thoughform."

 

Well, if you ask me to think about him, yes, agree. But if I don't think about him, does he still "exist" and if so, in who's mind? (Thought I'd throw you an ole "tree in the forest" thing).

 

"Similarly you exist as a thoughtfrom in your own mind"

 

Yes, and your point being?

 

 

Even if President Obama was standing in front of you, your thoughtform of him would be relatively stable, yet his thoughts and emotions would be constantly fluctuating.

 

Thus there is a simply a discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality.

[Birch]

"Are you separate from your thinking?"

 

So far, yes and no.

 

"Can you know the world without perceiving?"

 

I don't know the world enough. Although I'd like to get to know it

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey! You can play that game forever !

 

I will. Since there are endless beings, it's an endless voyage, as there will never be an end to those that don't understand.

 

Even though beings don't inherently exist either. It's just an appearance. There is no point when one will say, "my job is finished, there is no more to do." Even after one has realized full and total freedom from doership.

 

This is one of the main differences in Buddhism as well, there is no ultimate heaven where one lays down the burden of action forever. Unless it's understood as an inner metaphor where one has a realization that engenders peace and freedom in action, in this case, a burden is nothing at all, and no big deal which is why Bodhisattvas gladly take it on with zest and zeal!

Edited January 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

"Thus there is a simply a discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality."

 

I know that.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't know the world enough. Although I'd like to get to know it

Well if you know it, then you have perceived it. If you don't, well you haven't perceived it either in thought or in experience. So why worry about that?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Even though beings don't inherently exist either. It's just an appearance. There is no point when one will say, "my job is finished, there is no more to do." Even after one has realized full and total freedom from doership.

 

This is one of the main differences in Buddhism as well, there is no ultimate heaven where one lays down the burden of action forever. Unless it's understood as an inner metaphor where one has a realization that engenders peace and freedom in action, in this case, a burden is nothing at all, and no big deal which is why Bodhisattvas gladly take it on with zest and zeal!

I never said anything about Buddhism being different, or of an ultimate heaven, or jobs being finished...

 

I like what you wrote above though.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I never said anything about Buddhism being different, or of an ultimate heaven, or jobs being finished...

 

I think what you wrote above is great though.

 

Oh, I know... I wasn't saying that you didn't understand this either. I was just saying.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh, I know... I wasn't saying that you didn't understand this either. I was just saying.

I think the differences between the interpretation of Advaita/Hindu practice that takes the Self to be a real and the Buddhist Anatta teachings doesn't need to be so pronounced. I think the teaching of this difference is applicable in varying degrees where a practitioner may be clinging to a certain experience too much.

 

For example, a person might take the no-self teaching wrongly and fall into nihilistic tendencies ("oh, I'll let the universe decide") and a person might take the Self teaching to another extreme of, uh how shall I word it, "static clinging" to bliss states. I think this is why spiritual teaching cannot be codified.

 

I didn't mean to sound mean against you in the original post in this thread. Thank you for all the knowledge and experience you share here. .

Edited January 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I think the differences between the interpretation of Advaita/Hindu practice that takes the Self to be a real and the Buddhist Anatta teachings doesn't need to be so pronounced. I think the teaching of this difference is applicable in varying degrees where a practitioner may be clinging to a certain experience too much.

 

For example, a person might take the no-self teaching wrongly and fall into nihilistic tendencies ("oh, I'll let the universe decide") and a person might take the Self teaching to another extreme of, uh how shall I word it, "static clinging" to bliss states. I think this is why spiritual teaching cannot be codified.

 

I think anything is possible.

 

I didn't mean to sound mean against you in the original post in this thread. Thank you for all the knowledge and experience you share here. .

 

Not a problem.

[Birch]

"Well if you know it, then you have perceived it. If you don't, well you haven't perceived it either in thought or in experience. So why worry about that?"

 

I'm not worried.

 

Overly-simplistic-dualistic I am not

[Sunya]

Whoa. No need to impose meaning on my post. I didn't mean to sound insulting to Buddhists for spewing nonsense. That was not the intention of the post. That part was directed at Vaj.

[3bob]

well Lucky you gave it a shot but the bandits shot you up...

 

Om