Obsession with old, dead guys...

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL yes he is dead. He died of food poisoning (wild mushrooms of rancid meat) and spent his last days vomitting up blood and shitting through the eye of a needle. He is nothing but food for worms and maggots.

 

 

Well, there are two death stories... I don't know which one is true? There are also two birth stories as well. One states that it was a virgin birth and the other not. I think the whole virgin birth idea was a reinvention due to Christian influence?

 

But, that was only his body that died. Come on Stig... as a spiritual taoist, you know that this life in the physical body on Earth is not all a mind stream has to look forward to! Don't you?

 

Anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

 

"According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pali canon, at the age of 80, the Buddha announced that he would soon reach Parinirvana, or the final deathless state, and abandon his earthly body. After this, the Buddha ate his last meal, which he had received as an offering from a blacksmith named Cunda. Falling violently ill, Buddha instructed his attendant Ānanda to convince Cunda that the meal eaten at his place had nothing to do with his passing and that his meal would be a source of the greatest merit as it provided the last meal for a Buddha. Mettanando and von Hinüber argue that the Buddha died of mesenteric infarction, a symptom of old age, rather than food poisoning. The precise contents of the Buddha's final meal are not clear, due to variant scriptural traditions and ambiguity over the translation of certain significant terms; the Theravada tradition generally believes that the Buddha was offered some kind of pork, while the Mahayana tradition believes that the Buddha consumed some sort of truffle or other mushroom. These may reflect the different traditional views on Buddhist vegetarianism and the precepts for monks and nuns."

 

Oh, and also Stig...

 

He's not worm food... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic

 

"In Buddhism, relics of the Buddha and various sages are venerated. After the Buddha's death, his remains were divided into eight portions. Afterward, these relics were enshrined in stupas wherever Buddhism was spread, despite his instructions that relics were not to be collected or venerated.

Some relics believed to be original cereal of Buddha still survive including the much revered Sacred Relic of the tooth of the Buddha in Sri Lanka.

A stupa is a building created specifically for the relics. Many Buddhist temples have stupas and historically, the placement of relics in a stupa often became the initial structure around which the whole temple would be based. Today, many stupas also hold the ashes or ringsel of prominent/respected Buddhists who were cremated. In rare cases the whole body is conserved, for example in the case of Dudjom Rinpoche, after his death his physical body was moved a year later from France and placed in a stupa in one of his main monasteries near Boudhanath, Nepal in 1988. Pilgrims may view his body through a glass window in the stupa.

The Buddha's relics are considered to show people that enlightenment is possible, to remind them that the Buddha was a real person, and to also promote good virtue."

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL yes he is dead.

 

Also, I meant that he is his teachings, that the historical Buddha is not as important as his teaching, the path that he shared, the methods of the Buddha. In that sense, he is alive and well.

[ralis]

The only disparity is in your mind ralis, as well as the minds of Buddhists who I am not inspired by.

 

I understand more than you could possibly imagine! Your preacher like remarks and attitude don't qualify you as a teacher.

 

My point is one of questioning religious hierarchal beliefs that create disparities among all. Your narrative lacks inclusiveness of others that don't share your beliefs.

Edited June 21, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I understand more than you could possibly imagine! Your preacher like remarks and attitude don't qualify you as a teacher.

 

My point is one of questioning religious hierarchal beliefs that create disparities among all. Your narrative lacks inclusiveness of others that don't share your beliefs.

 

 

On a more serious note...

 

You're absolutely right, I don't agree that every single belief system results in Buddhahood. Or that every Cosmology is reflective of a Buddhas Cosmology. Neither did the Buddha, neither did Nagarjuna and other historical Buddhas, and neither does Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.

 

Shankaracharya, the guy who popularized Advaita Vedanta didn't believe Buddhism resulted in enlightenment. Buddhism doesn't agree that Advaita Vedantas methods and philosophy are reflective of Buddhahood. The Dalai Lama says the same thing, very quietly in only very few books. He says that it's a Brahma Yoga, leading to rebirth in long lived God realms. Why does he say that? Because it's reflective of his realization, as well as what the Buddha taught.

 

I'm sorry that I don't join your party that states that all paths are one, or come from one self existing grand source and return to one self existing grand source.

 

Am I allowed to have a different belief than you? Or, are you going to continually chase me around and bark at me every time I say something you don't agree with?

[ralis]

Of course, you can say that we don't know what he taught, but when one meditates on his teachings, one can have direct insight into what he taught that transcends time. The Buddha told his closest and enlightened disciples to repeat everything of him over and over again, which is where the chanting of his teachings comes from, directly from what the Buddha taught during the time of the strictly oral tradition.

 

 

Chanting leads to a vulnerable trance state in which anything can be believed as absolute truth or in this case relative truth. Further, if the Buddha's truth is so profound and universal, then upon hearing, one would immediately believe without any trance induction. Further inductions or chanting in this case would not be necessary. What this technique does is reinforce the original altered state.

 

 

No matter what you talk on here Steve, with your Krishnamurti musings, it is clear that you have not crossed this ocean of Samsara.

 

Have you crossed the ocean of samsara?

[Vajrahridaya]

Chanting leads to a vulnerable trance state in which anything can be believed as absolute truth or in this case relative truth. Further, if the Buddha's truth is so profound and universal, then upon hearing, one would immediately believe without any trance induction. Further inductions or chanting in this case would not be necessary. What this technique does is reinforce the original altered state.

 

You are showing your lack of experience here. You probably never really engaged in chanting, you were too busy being critical of it for your mind to become calm, focused and open.

 

p.s. I see you typing again, are you seriously going to ruin this thread with your incessant barking? Steve and I had a nice and open debate, making points and debating them and being calm about the result of having different view points. You should learn from him.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

I'm sorry that I don't join your party that states that all paths are one, or come from one self existing grand source and return to one self existing grand source.

 

 

 

I have never said all paths are one.

 

Am I allowed to have a different belief than you? Or, are you going to continually chase me around and bark at me every time I say something you don't agree with?

 

If you preach your strongly held beliefs here, expect to be challenged.

[ralis]

You are showing your lack of experience here. You probably never really engaged in chanting, you were too busy being critical of it for your mind to become calm, focused and open.

 

p.s. I see you typing again, are you seriously going to ruin this thread with your incessant barking? Steve and I had a nice and open debate, making points and debating them and being calm about the result of having different view points. You should learn from him.

 

My points are related to this thread. The belief that someone who has been dead for 2500 yrs. necessitates repeated chanting of his sayings so that a truth is thoroughly indoctrinated, warrants questioning.

Edited June 22, 2011 by ralis

[Stigweard]

Great topic Steve!!

 

As we can see, yes there is a great deal of obsession with maggot ridden, dead guys.

 

However (hehehe) ...

 

Let's say I want to learn to play classical music on piano. There's a couple of paths to take.

 

Firstly I could just keep playing around with the keys and rely on my own inspiration. No doubt I would be able to create my own sort of music this way and, from a purely Dao-centric view, this might be just fine and splediferous.

 

On the positive side it means the music could be spontaneous and free. On the downside it may lack cohesive form and harmonic balance.

 

The other way is to learn from the classics of old, dead guys, to emulate their accomplishment. Once I have internalised these master works then I can allow my own inspirations to emerge and create my own music.

 

The positive side is that my work would be well structured and sophisticated. On the downside I could be so ensnared by past structures that my work is stilted, confined, lacking in freedom and expression.

 

Interestingly I have recently had a discussion with a Systema instructor who commented at how he would love to learn Taijiquan from me because his observation is that Systema folks could do well with some extra foundations in good form and connected movement. I responded that Taiji folks could do well with some of the fluidity and spontaneity that Systema provides.

 

So there needs to be a balanced found on the scale of "piss off with the old, dead guys".

 

[doc benway]

I'm not confined by your view, and my view is a viewless view.

 

It is said that until you have actually crossed the ocean of Samsara, the structured raft is necessary,...

 

No matter what you talk on here Steve, with your Krishnamurti musings, it is clear that you have not crossed this ocean of Samsara.

Forgot to mention:

Similarly, I'm not confined by your view, and I'm very comfortable stating that my view is considerably more viewless than yours, my brother.

And doesn't it say somewhere that Nirvana is Samsara and Samsara is Nirvana?

Why then cross an ocean? Why not just step out and see it for what it is?

Or why not just float in the middle?

Liberation can take countless lifetimes, or an instant.

[Aaron]

Hello guys,

 

Let me first say that much of the reason why I have been away from the forums has to do with what Steve said in the beginning of this forum. Why are we so fascinated with dead guys that lived 2,000 years ago? And on an even deeper level, how much good have these dead guys actually done for those who came after?

 

For me, I practice now and I try to stay within the experience and forget about the dogma and ideology. I try very hard to remember that no one is perfect or imperfect and in the same way, no philosophy is perfect or imperfect. We can choose which we want to identify with.

 

I was also thinking a bit lately how I am an advocate of freedom of speech in the sense that the government shouldn't interfere with how their citizens express themselves, but the individuals corporations and people have every right to. In that sense we can advocate what someone should choose to believe or what they shouldn't, but people should always be free to believe what they want to in the end, even if it's that their doorknob is God.

 

Aaron

 

edit- To clarify the freedom of speech thing. Governments should not have the right to censor a person's right to express themselves, but newspapers, radios, people, etc., have every right to decide what they wish to print or say.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Forgot to mention:

Similarly, I'm not confined by your view, and I'm very comfortable stating that my view is considerably more viewless than yours, my brother.

And doesn't it say somewhere that Nirvana is Samsara and Samsara is Nirvana?

Why then cross an ocean? Why not just step out and see it for what it is?

Or why not just float in the middle?

Liberation can take countless lifetimes, or an instant.

 

 

 

The use of metaphor is beyond you I guess? Of course there is no literal ocean of Samsara. Samsara is defined as merely the mis-cognition of the moment, leading to actions that reflect this ignorance, leading to realms where there is a majority of the effects caused by the actions of ignorance. Due to the Earths friction, it is mostly the effect of ignorant actions, but also the effect of beautiful thoughts and actions as well. There are higher, "more perfect" realms. I use the term "perfect" relatively, so please.

 

Your problem, much like ralis, is that you read into my statements what you wish to see in order to make yourself seem right. You completely misunderstood the intent of my first couple posts here and just rambled on based upon this initial mis-cognition.

 

Like I said... What you're not seeing is the paradox I am explaining to you. Which is this; the more attached one becomes to the Buddhas teaching, the less attached one is to a "self" that attaches to the thought that there is a teaching to be attached to, to begin with. Or the thinking and attachment that there is a "self" that can even take refuge to begin with. The Buddhas teaching, though structured, clear and straight forward, is like a mirage that teaches the nature of all other mirages. But, since reality is all just mirages and relativity anyway, without an ultimate self standing nature, it is the ultimate mirage as it shows you your own mirage-ness as well as it's own while you are viewing it. As well, it's so good and clear, that once you yourself have seen everything for what it all is, it's a mirage that you hone and master in order to show others.

 

Buddhadharma is not a teaching you burn, or kill. What one kills is ones own pre-conceptions concerning the teaching as well as oneself. The dharma itself as a raft is still worth carrying around, but as a gift to others, not as a form of bondage.

[Stigweard]

But, that was only his body that died. Come on Stig... as a spiritual taoist, you know that this life in the physical body on Earth is not all a mind stream has to look forward to! Don't you?

Actually I "know" nothing of the sort. I have had experiences and I have learned what the Masters say, but I would never be as presumptious as to say that I "know" anything for certain.

 

For me, whilst these experiences and teachings inspire my cultivation, I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve the possibility for the extension of the "mind stream" beyond the grave.

 

[ralis]

The use of metaphor is beyond you I guess? Of course there is no literal ocean of Samsara. Samsara is defined as merely the mis-cognition of the moment, leading to actions that reflect this ignorance, leading to realms where there is a majority of the effects caused by the actions of ignorance. Due to the Earths friction, it is mostly the effect of ignorant actions, but also the effect of beautiful thoughts and actions as well. There are higher, "more perfect" realms. I use the term "perfect" relatively, so please.

 

 

Are you using the term miscognition in the Freudian sense, Jacques Lacan or are you just stating that one is ignorant and by implication of Buddhist ideology, all beings are ignorant, and therefor suffer, due to the mythology that all beings are thinking incorrectly? Pure cognition that transcends belief? Transcends any error in thinking?

 

Your statement implies there is a state of pure cognition which is not samsara. However, for every state to exist an opposite must exist simultaneously. Freud stated that all cognition contains miscognition. Not one without the other, but both.

 

Lacan would disagree with your notion that miscognition leads to ignorance. Lacan theorized that one must have a prior knowledge of what one is to miscognise.

Edited June 22, 2011 by ralis

[mYTHmAKER]

Hello guys,

 

Let me first say that much of the reason why I have been away from the forums has to do with what Steve said in the beginning of this forum. Why are we so fascinated with dead guys that lived 2,000 years ago? And on an even deeper level, how much good have these dead guys actually done for those who came after?

 

Aaron

 

Yes. A living teacher is more valuable than a dead one.

We put word into dead peoples mouths and add commentaries as we please.

A living teacher - providing he/she is the real deal won't let you rationalize or get away with anything.

[ralis]

Yes. A living teacher is more valuable than a dead one.

We put word into dead peoples mouths and add commentaries as we please.

A living teacher - providing he/she is the real deal won't let you rationalize or get away with anything.

 

Dead teachers have become larger than life!

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually I "know" nothing of the sort. I have had experiences and I have learned what the Masters say, but I would never be as presumptious as to say that I "know" anything for certain.

 

For me, whilst these experiences and teachings inspire my cultivation, I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve the possibility for the extension of the "mind stream" beyond the grave.

 

 

I deal with too many ghosts, ghosts that have been seen by other people as well to believe otherwise. For me, rebirth and multiple dimensions are as real as the sun in the sky, the moon at night and this computer I type upon right now... all inter-dependent, empty, but relatively real none the less. Meditation experiences consisting of de-conditioning my multilayers of physical identity, arriving at places which I later find were spoken about by Masters of antiquity, all give me cause to believe and not have doubt about what the Masters have said. I doubt my doubt, but I don't doubt the teachings of the Masters I find an intimate connection with.

[Vajrahridaya]

Are you using the term miscognition in the Freudian sense, Jacques Lacan or are you just stating that one is ignorant and by implication of Buddhist ideology, all beings are ignorant, and therefor suffer, due to the mythology that all beings are thinking incorrectly? Pure cognition that transcends belief? Transcends any error in thinking?

 

Your statement implies there is a state of pure cognition which is not samsara. However, for every state to exist an opposite must exist simultaneously. Freud stated that all cognition contains miscognition. Not one without the other, but both.

 

Lacan would disagree with your notion that miscognition leads to ignorance. Lacan theorized that one must have a prior knowledge of what one is to miscognise.

 

I'm not interested in these interpretations. I am into Buddhist phenomenology. Mis-cognition or misperception is widely used in such circles.

 

You can do a google search of misperception or mis-cognition and Buddhism... like this... misperception buddhism

 

or this...

mis-cognition buddhism

 

You will find all sorts of references.

[ralis]

I'm not interested in these interpretations. I am into Buddhist phenomenology. Mis-cognition or misperception is widely used in such circles.

 

You can do a google search of misperception or mis-cognition and Buddhism... like this... misperception buddhism

 

or this...

mis-cognition buddhism

 

You will find all sorts of references.

 

You are claiming that the Buddha's teachings are without error i.e, pure cognition? If that is true then why so much debate and preaching on your part? Further, the myriad schools of thought that have generated over the centuries all have their differences such as doctrines, primordial Buddhas, rituals etc. Not to mention the cultural differences between each country where Buddhism exists and translation problems.

 

Your narrative contains much trance induction i.e, repeating certain key phrases ad infinitum. DO&E are repeated in the hope that many will buy into that trance.

Edited June 22, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You are claiming that the Buddha's teachings are without error i.e, pure cognition? If that is true then why so much debate and preaching on your part?

 

There are problems with translation and commentaries that have been added over 2500 yrs.

 

The Buddha was only the first Buddha of this era, but there have been millions since him. Many of the commentaries are written by Buddhas throughout the last 2,500 years, others are not. Gotama was a SamyakasamBuddha or a wheel turning Buddha, and all others since him are SravakaBuddhas, buddhas through listening. The state of mind for these different Buddhas is the same, but the activity is different.

 

But yes, basically, his teaching is pure, but he still debated because other peoples perception of his teachings were not pure. Other Buddhas since him have pure cognition as well but also debated with those who weren't able to perceive the inner meaning of the teaching. So in order to clarify the meaning for them, elaboration and debate is necessary, some get it, most do not, it's Kali Yuga.

 

Buddhahood is no more obscurations to perception of phenomena within the range of the individuals perception. As in, there is no more mis-cognition of the nature of ones self, so there is no more psychological suffering caused by misperception of ones own nature. This does not make a Buddha omnipotent, only omniscient about the nature of phenomena, not that a Buddha knows all things at once. I recall talking about this with you before. But basically, "To know one thing thoroughly, is to know all things." As far as their inner most nature goes.

 

Experiencing Rigpa means having an experience of the Dharmakaya. If you haven't experienced the Dharmakaya, you have not experienced Rigpa.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are claiming that the Buddha's teachings are without error i.e, pure cognition? If that is true then why so much debate and preaching on your part? Further, the myriad schools of thought that have generated over the centuries all have their differences such as doctrines, primordial Buddhas, rituals etc. Not to mention the cultural differences between each country where Buddhism exists and translation problems.

 

The key cosmology is the same, the key teachings are the same, but the clothing is different. Those who disparage? I'm not interested in so much. Of course there are schools which I wouldn't agree with or interpretations that I don't agree with. But, that doesn't mean they are completely wrong, just incomplete in view in my opinion.

 

You flounder around the surface too much ralis. There is no point debating with you... there never has been. I just hope others reading this aren't ensnared by your bitter misperception of Buddhism.

 

Your narrative contains much trance induction i.e, repeating certain key phrases ad infinitum. DO&E are repeated in the hope that many will buy into that trance.

 

LOL! Wow... paranoid. Your personal version of critical analysis protects your fear.

 

Trance my ass. I use DO.E in all sorts of contexts. Other people read my stuff other than yourself, and some people just read one post. I get plenty of pm's talking about this, letting me know these things. Some people read it by coming here from google, as a post of mine has come up in the google search engine when they put in the key words inter-dependent origination and emptiness or interdependent origination/emptiness or any other common Buddhist terms that I use, or even phrases. All the different ways I say it are for the sake of real seekers of the meaning of Buddhist phraseology, not for you ralis, but for seekers. Not people who think they already know Buddhism through and through and dismiss it as you do. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

But basically, "To know one thing thoroughly, is to know all things." As far as their inner most nature goes.

 

 

 

What? All things have the same inner nature? No structural differences? Another absolute statement on your part. Even photons have different wave patterns.

[Vajrahridaya]

What? All things have the same inner nature? No structural differences? Another absolute statement on your part. Even photons have different wave patterns.

 

 

 

Emptiness ralis, the emptiness of things, the direct cognition of it's emptiness, thus it's luminosity as well. This has to be experienced. No amount of blah, blah, blah is going to help you understand, obviously. I'm not talking about the multiple layers of surface nature, or the objects manifest nature, but it's unborn nature. The factor of an object of consciousness that allows for the inward experience of liberation while in activity.

 

I'm talking Buddhism here, not quantum physics.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

 

I think it's a sign that you've digested the teachings more than me.

 

Not by a mile, VJ, but thank you for the kind words - much appreciated. I am only a lowly tea-maker on the bobbing raft in the vast ocean of samsara! I hope to serve everybody well, but i do realize not everyone likes tea.

 

I will try to find some supporting info for you and will send on a PM when its compiled. No point putting them up here or starting a new thread on it as there wont be much interest anyway.

[mYTHmAKER]

A story of tradition and religion.

So this guru had many disciples.

One day they found a cat and decided to take it back to the ashram.

A problem arose - whenever they had their chanting sessions the cat would go crazy and screech loudly.

The disciples asked the guru what to do. He said to take the cat out and tie it to a tree so it couldn't bother them.

The guru died and after a while the cat died.

Guess what happened. The disciples bought a new cat and every time the chanted they would take the cat out and tie it to the tree.