fanatical Buddhists

[ralis]

I don't know, I could be wrong, as I'm just going on what you've written here.

 

 

I agree. You are wrong!

 

 

Also, experiencing Rigpa, you should have a recognition of how the Jalus, or Rainbow body is possible on an intuitive level.

 

Through sky gazing many things were revealed.

Edited July 12, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

 

If you actually read any of my posts with a grain of sensitivity, you would sometimes fall into a spontaneous state of heart mind, as many times my posts were written from that very state.

 

 

That reminds me of the television and radio preachers. Put your hands on the radio and television and be healed! Come on Vaj! Stop taking all this so seriously. Lighten up!

[Informer]

I appreciate the Vaj perspective on some matters

 

I see it as a learning experience, and insight to alternative perspective.

 

It's not about agreeing or liking his perspective, it just is his perspective, and one amongst many others.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Informer

[goldisheavy]

I appreciate the Vaj perspective on some matters

 

I see it as a learning experience, and insight to alternative perspective.

 

I actually appreciate a lot of things Vajrahridaya writes about. It's just that he has some tendencies related to religious affiliation and religious identity that I don't appreciate. If Vajrahridaya could simply forget what religion he's from when he's on this board, and just talk about what he finds to be meaningful and true without mentioning his club, and without reminding people that they're not getting everything they can out of life until they join his club, that would be perfect for my taste.

 

The quote in my signature is a reminder that sometimes Vajrahridaya says some really crazy things though.

 

Semper Vigilare

[Vajrahridaya]

Stop taking all this so seriously. Lighten up!

 

You should follow this advice. Your dark side view of matters religious is not a sign of someone who has lightened up.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The quote in my signature is a reminder that sometimes Vajrahridaya says some really crazy things though.

 

 

Pulled completely out of context, meanwhile donning it like an authority figure yourself.

 

I was speaking about those that are actually authorities on spiritual matters due to depth of experience and insight into the nature of things, and not just appointed political figures, which is how you took it... out of context to seem like.

 

You consider the term Authority a bad word. You have an emotional cringing when it comes to this word. You should work through that subjective attachment within your field of meanings. Maybe on your next post you will do so.

 

The Buddha is an Authority, my Rinpoche is an Authority, the Dalai Lama is an Authority and they've Authored many texts concerning spirituality and the methods for attaining ever deepening states of wisdom. They are true friends of society.

[Informer]

I don't really have any authority figure in my life. I don't really feel i need one at this point, most of what I need to do is already known to me.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't really have any authority figure in my life. I don't really feel i need one at this point, most of what I need to do is already known to me.

 

I'm not talking about authority figures. I'm just talking about different inspiring authorities of variously different perspectives.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Informer]

Thanks for explaining. So much can be lost in miscommunication/misunderstanding.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for explaining. So much can be lost in miscommunication/misunderstanding.

 

 

I agree and most of the disagreements that we all have on this board I think stem from how people individually contextualize statements as different from the authors intent in making the statement.

 

This is where I think face to face conversations can be more fruitful, as one gets a genuine feeling of what the persons intent is in saying things, due to voice inflection, body language, just the general energy of an individual which can be detected with more accuracy through more personal conversations. Even though there are cultural barriers to this as well. Like an Indian may say something that sounds like a question to us in the USA but is rather a statement just due to the infection in their voice. Also, for the English, the backwards peace sign means something vulgar, while for us in the USA it means peace. The same symbol, two entirely different meanings. I found that out as a youth in a camp, the English counselor was like, "Oy.. what's yur problem mate?" I was like, um... nothing... I was just giving you the peace sign. LOL!

[goldisheavy]

Pulled completely out of context, meanwhile donning it like an authority figure yourself.

 

I was speaking about those that are actually authorities on spiritual matters due to depth of experience and insight into the nature of things, and not just appointed political figures, which is how you took it... out of context to seem like.

 

You consider the term Authority a bad word. You have an emotional cringing when it comes to this word. You should work through that subjective attachment within your field of meanings. Maybe on your next post you will do so.

 

The Buddha is an Authority, my Rinpoche is an Authority, the Dalai Lama is an Authority and they've Authored many texts concerning spirituality and the methods for attaining ever deepening states of wisdom. They are true friends of society.

 

The word is not the problem. The problem is what the word "authority" refers to and how it plays out in life.

 

You say that authorities are true friends of society. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. To be a friend of society one must be a friend of every single individual. So if Buddha is a friend of society, it's only because Buddha is my friend. If Buddha is not my friend, he's not a friend of society because he is rejecting at least one person who is a member of society.

 

Now I ask: Assuming Buddha is both my friend and an authority, is Buddha my friend because he's an authority, or is Buddha an authority because he is my friend? In other words, what is more fundamental? Is friendship more fundamental than authority? Or is authority more fundamental than friendship? Does authority build on top of friendship? Or does friendship build on top of authority?

 

I believe friendship is more fundamental than authority. If I don't consider someone to be my friend, that someone ceases to be an authority for me, and by extension society.

 

What does authority imply in the context we are discussing? To me authority implies the ability to say things without being questioned. Is there anything that should be accepted without question? My answer is no. Is there any person whom we should listen to uncritically? No, there is no such person. Even Buddha said the same thing to Kalamas, but many so-called "authorities" were not so kind. In fact Mohammed, the Islamic "authority," has declared himself to be the last prophet, the last and final authority. This is why authority is immoral and bad. No one who claims to be an authority is a friend of society. People who promote others as authorities are not friends of society either.

 

Suggesting to people that there is a class of knowledge or a person who is not to be questioned is promoting ignorance. Anyone who promotes ignorance is an enemy of society.

 

Look at all the meanings embodied in the word "authority": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

 

In our context out of all the meanings the least ugly meaning is 7, which says that an authority is an expert on a subject. What makes one an expert? If I say I am an expert, does that mean I am? If 1000 of my friends and I all say I am an expert, does that mean I am? Or is every person free to decide who is and who is not an expert? And how about a situation where two experts in the same subject disagree with each other?

 

Finally, what makes the quote in my signature crazy and deliciously ironic is your, Vajrahridaya's denial of dependent origination. The quote basically says that authority stems from itself. It says that someone is an authority inherently instead of dependent on causes and conditions. You keep harping and harping and harping about dependent origination and then you say that authority is exempt from dependent origination.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

The word is not the problem. The problem is what the word "authority" refers to and how it plays out in life.

 

You say that authorities are true friends of society. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. To be a friend of society one must be a friend of every single individual. So if Buddha is a friend of society, it's only because Buddha is my friend. If Buddha is not my friend, he's not a friend of society because he is rejecting at least one person who is a member of society.

 

Not a very smart sense of reasoning there, as people make their own choices, even when a person is trying to be a friend to everyone, a person immeshed in their own dichotomous view will just reject someone who is asking a person to be more non-dual in their understanding of reality.

 

Now I ask: Assuming Buddha is both my friend and an authority, is Buddha my friend because he's an authority, or is Buddha an authority because he is my friend? In other words, what is more fundamental? Is friendship more fundamental than authority? Or is authority more fundamental than friendship? Does authority build on top of friendship? Or does friendship build on top of authority?

 

In the Buddhas case, authority is more important, because those that see his message and how deeply knowing he is of its loving nature, will wish to befriend him and those that don't and rather find their own inner contention through his reflection but see it as coming from him, instead of themselves, will not befriend him.

 

It all depends on you, maybe you like the way he dresses and you want to befriend him first, just based on something as superficial as that, then as you talk with him, you'll realize that he is an authority on the nature of things thereby you will grow in wisdom through this friendship and open up towards what he has to offer.

 

It's really individual. But, he is an authority no matter what others say about him or think about him, as plenty of people reject him due to the power of their own delusions.

 

Regardless of whether you get the Buddha or not, he will be liberated, and he will be an authority on the nature of liberation, as free from himself as an authority.

 

What does authority imply in the context we are discussing? To me authority implies the ability to say things without being questioned. Is there anything that should be accepted without question? My answer is no. Is there any person whom we should listen to uncritically? No, there is no such person. Even Buddha said the same thing to Kalamas, but many so-called "authorities" were not so kind. In fact Mohammed, the Islamic "authority," has declared himself to be the last prophet, the last and final authority. This is why authority is immoral and bad. No one who claims to be an authority is a friend of society. People who promote others as authorities are not friends of society either.

 

Your view is so black and white and I guess you really didn't work through your negative projections of the meaning of the term authority and how relative it is.

 

Suggesting to people that there is a class of knowledge or a person who is not to be questioned is promoting ignorance. Anyone who promotes ignorance is an enemy of society.

 

I promote the Buddha and the Buddha asked that people not accept his words on his authority and really make their mind up themselves through delving into the meanings of their own experiences and realizations. Upon doing so, one might come to recognize how much of an authority he is. He only asks people to question everything, including him and themselves, due to the fact of how much he is an authority on the nature of mind.

 

I don't equate the term authority with being unquestionable as you do, especially when it comes to spiritual dynamos like the Buddha. As in, this is not what I mean when I say that he is an authority. I don't mean it in the sense that I would use it to describe a police Lieutenant. Even he is subordinate to some higher authority.

 

The Buddha is teaching people that we are internally not subordinate to any higher authority, really... at least when we are enlightened that is, of which we all have the potential.

 

Look at all the meanings embodied in the word "authority": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

 

Yes, and you equate that with bad, and I equate that with either bad or good, dependent upon the individual and the group and how they handle themselves or what they teach, etc.

 

Really, we are all authorities in potential.

 

In our context out of all the meanings the least ugly meaning is 7, which says that an authority is an expert on a subject. What makes one an expert? If I say I am an expert, does that mean I am? If 1000 of my friends and I all say I am an expert, does that mean I am? Or is every person free to decide who is and who is not an expert? And how about a situation where two experts in the same subject disagree with each other?

 

Yes, you can see it as you wish, it's your choice as you are the authority of your own interpretation. No matter how much deeper a person is than you on the very subject of this, "field of meanings", it is you that is the authority on whether you accept a persons take on "wisdom" into your mind or not.

 

Finally, what makes the quote in my signature crazy and deliciously ironic is your, Vajrahridaya's denial of dependent origination. The quote basically says that authority stems from itself. It says that someone is an authority inherently instead of dependent on causes and conditions. You keep harping and harping and harping about dependent origination and then you say that authority is exempt from dependent origination.

 

Nope, not at all, that is your interpretation of my words and not my intention, that's not the make up I had in my mind when stating that, and if you contextualized that statement within reference of the entire body it appeared in, you would be able to see that I mean an authority when it comes to being a Buddha as he is actually only an authority on liberation due to the fact of being liberated. This is what I said. I didn't say what you said I said.

 

Again, an example of projection, and reification of reflection. Entirely missing the intended point of the statement.

 

Of course, this happens all the time, which is why people reject the Buddha as an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views, because they are too busy reading their own projections, clinging to them as self, and missing the point of his offering.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[doc benway]

 

The Buddha is an Authority, my Rinpoche is an Authority, the Dalai Lama is an Authority and they've Authored many texts concerning spirituality and the methods for attaining ever deepening states of wisdom. They are true friends of society.

There is no such thing as a spiritual authority.

It is a hallucination. It is a contradiction in terms.

Spirituality is an individual's exploration of the nature of their being.

It is unique for each of us and must be undertaken alone.

When I accept another's description of their spiritual discovery, I am creating an image based on their experience. I am no longer following my path.

It can lead nowhere but back where it started - the point at which I must walk on my own two feet.

 

Certainly there are keepers of tradition and ritual who are expert in techniques and methods, but that is different from a spiritual authority.

Buddha is not an authority, Buddha is waking up.

Remember the koan - If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him!

This is telling us to accept no authority, not even the Buddha himself.

At least, that's one way of looking at it that I find extremely important.

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no such thing as a spiritual authority.

It is a hallucination. It is a contradiction in terms.

Spirituality is an individual's exploration of the nature of their being.

It is unique for each of us and must be undertaken alone.

When I accept another's description of their spiritual discovery, I am creating an image based on their experience. I am no longer following my path.

It can lead nowhere but back where it started - the point at which I must walk on my own two feet.

 

Certainly there are keepers of tradition and ritual who are expert in techniques and methods, but that is different from a spiritual authority.

Buddha is not an authority, Buddha is waking up.

Remember the koan - If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him!

This is telling us to accept no authority, not even the Buddha himself.

At least, that's one way of looking at it that I find extremely important.

 

The Buddha only offers this point of view due to the fact of how much he is an authority on the nature of mind and liberation.

 

It's really not so dense as you make it out to be. I suggest reading my last post.

[goldisheavy]

But, he is an authority no matter what others say about him or think about him, as plenty of people reject him due to the power of their own delusions.

 

Would Buddha be an authority to you if you thought poorly of him? I think the answer is no, he wouldn't be. What if everyone in the world thought poorly of Buddha? That is a possible scenario. There are some realms where this is the case. Would Buddha still be considered an authority in those realms?

 

I promote the Buddha and the Buddha asked that people not accept his words on his authority and really make their mind up themselves through delving into the meanings of their own experiences and realizations.

 

You don't just promote the Buddha. You promote the idea of authority in a more general sense with all the ugly downsides of that idea. Buddha himself warned people not to rely on any authorities, but instead Buddha asked people to see things for themselves. So by promoting the validity of authority in a general sense you are actually going against the wishes of the Buddha.

 

Nope, not at all, that is your interpretation of my words and not my intention, that's not the make up I had in my mind when stating that, and if you contextualized that statement within reference of the entire body it appeared in, you would be able to see that I mean an authority when it comes to being a Buddha as he is actually only an authority on the fact of liberation due to being liberated.

 

Nope. That statement is so simple and solid in meaning that no additional context would change its meaning. You should just admit you had a brain fart when you made that statement.

 

Let's investigate this further. If you truly believe that the phenomenon of authority is something that is dependently arisen, then tell me, depending on what do people consider someone an authority? Or if being an authority is not dependent on people's considerations, then depending on what is someone an authority? Please pick either the latter or the former question and try to answer it.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Would Buddha be an authority to you if you thought poorly of him? I think the answer is no, he wouldn't be. What if everyone in the world thought poorly of Buddha? That is a possible scenario. There are some realms where this is the case. Would Buddha still be considered an authority in those realms?

 

 

It doesn't matter what you or I think of him, he's still an authority regardless and he was aware of this, while being free from it at the same time. Which is what is required of being an authority in Buddhism.

 

You don't just promote the Buddha. You promote the idea of authority in a more general sense with all the ugly downsides of that idea. Buddha himself warned people not to rely on any authorities, but instead Buddha asked people to see things for themselves. So by promoting the validity of authority in a general sense you are actually going against the wishes of the Buddha.

 

You internalize the concept differently than I do. You have a mental dogma surrounding the term.

 

Nope. That statement is so simple and solid in meaning that no additional context would change its meaning. You should just admit you had a brain fart when you made that statement.

You are head strong. I only agree that I should have unpacked the meaning I intended for the statement as I'm doing now. Internally it does not take nearly as long to do so. One can write endlessly about a single moments occurrence within the mind of a being.

 

Let's investigate this further. If you truly believe that the phenomenon authority is something that is dependently arisen, then tell me, depending on what do people consider someone an authority? Or if being an authority is not dependent on people's considerations, then depending on what is someone an authority? Please pick either the latter or the former question and try to answer it.

 

Both can be a criteria for the term. He can be considered an authority due to the fact that he is one to himself even if no one recognizes it, such is the case with pratyekabuddhas. But no one will recognize his/her authority over themselves due to the fact that he/she is not an authority in the powers of communicating the realization. Shakyamuni Buddha is not so crippled by such a limitation being a samyakasambuddha, or wheel turning Buddha he was able to help people realize that he was indeed an authority in helping people recognize their own powers of authority over the tendency for self clinging.

 

It's all dependently originated. The Buddhas authority on liberation arises dependent upon the fact of his liberation and his authority on communicating the methods which help people to the very same state of liberation arise dependent upon the fact that he was able to help people recognize liberation for themselves and they would agree from within themselves that he indeed is an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views.

 

Thus the Buddha had many, many disciples who propagated his words while many themselves attained the realization of a Buddha in that very lifetime due to his inspiration.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no such thing as a spiritual authority.

 

Are you an authority enough to make this statement with unwavering faith?

[Jetsun]

The Buddha gave different advice to everyone who came to see him depending on the mind of the person and the circumstances, which is why many of the scriptures contradict and why there are different schools of Buddhist thought. No-one here ever met the Buddha and got his wisdom personally suited for their own particular state of wisdom, so to take him as an an ultimate authority means going by a scripture which is a teaching for a particular person for a particular time, so in other words you are taking another mans advice and another mans medicine as your own, which carries great risk for you because one mans medicine can be another mans poison. Which is probably why the Buddha didn't write down any of his teachings to try to avoid this problem.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Jetsun

[doc benway]

The Buddha only offers this point of view due to the fact of how much he is an authority on the nature of mind and liberation.

 

It's really not so dense as you make it out to be. I suggest reading my last post.

It is really quite simple and I read your last post.

 

 

Are you an authority enough to make this statement with unwavering faith?

I am not an authority and make this statement with unwavering faith.

[3bob]

Grace in Buddhism is the energy of those that have gone before, those of the tathagatagharba, those that represent a part of the cosmos that is beyond itself, a potential within every sentient beings. Grace doesn't come from an omnipotent universal essence endowed with Self will for Buddhas. That would just be a reification of the formless states of samadhi, very powerful, hard to cut through, the seed located deep within the unconscious minds of sentient beings as the Alayavijnana (Storehouse Consciousness, the "I" maker).

 

VJ,

Faith and compassion are not that complicated. Some free advice: consider all your knowledge, pov's and presentations as nothing more than baggage that will not go through the "Wheel". (even though same had uses inside the wheel)

 

Om

Edited July 12, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

see here

 

Excellent!

[goldisheavy]

It doesn't matter what you or I think of him, he's still an authority regardless and he was aware of this, while being free from it at the same time. Which is what is required of being an authority in Buddhism.

 

So being an authority is not a matter of convention according to you. This means anyone has a right to claim to be an authority because it's a matter of one's inner conviction and nothing else. This is not a conventional understanding of what authority means.

 

You internalize the concept differently than I do. You have a mental dogma surrounding the term.

 

I am simply using a conventionally accepted meaning of authority. And so should you. You should not be using your own private definition of authority in a public discussion.

 

You are head strong. I only agree that I should have unpacked the meaning I intended for the statement as I'm doing now. Internally it does not take nearly as long to do so. One can write endlessly about a single moments occurrence within the mind of a being.

 

So when you don't want to admit you said something stupid, it is me who is being head strong?

 

Both can be a criteria for the term. He can be considered an authority due to the fact that he is one to himself even if no one recognizes it, such is the case with pratyekabuddhas. But no one will recognize his/her authority over themselves due to the fact that he/she is not an authority in the powers of communicating the realization. Shakyamuni Buddha is not so crippled by such a limitation being a samyakasambuddha, or wheel turning Buddha he was able to help people realize that he was indeed an authority in helping people recognize their own powers of authority over the tendency for self clinging.

 

You are saying that ultimately all authority is purely internal. In other words a solitary Buddha has the same authority as the wheel turning Buddha with the only difference that the wheel turning Buddha has more groupies. Or in other words, all Buddhas have the same authority, but some are more ornamented than others. Or to say the same thing in yet other words, all Buddhas have the same authority even if the sizes of their retinues differ. Is that what you are saying?

 

It's all dependently originated. The Buddhas authority on liberation arises dependent upon the fact of his liberation and his authority on communicating the methods which help people to the very same state of liberation arise dependent upon the fact that he was able to help people recognize liberation for themselves and they would agree from within themselves that he indeed is an authority on the nature of liberation from self clinging views.

 

So Buddha's authority on communicating the methods depends on other people's capacities. But Buddha's authority on liberation depends only on Buddha feeling like he or she is liberated. This means whoever claims to be Buddha always has an easy out if the students fail to achieve results, because the Buddha can always blame the student for not being good enough.

 

So if I understand all this correctly, it implies this world is full of Buddhas as far as any non-Buddhas can know. All that one needs to be a Buddha as far as others (non-Buddhas) are concerned is to simply claim to be one. If other people fail to receive one's teachings favorably one can always blame those people. That's the logical implication of what you are telling me here.

[Vajrahridaya]

Which is probably why the Buddha didn't write down any of his teachings to try to avoid this problem.

 

Actually, it wasn't written down because things were generally oral at that time.

[C T]

The Buddha gave different advice to everyone who came to see him depending on the mind of the person and the circumstances, which is why many of the scriptures contradict and why there are different schools of Buddhist thought. No-one here ever met the Buddha and got his wisdom personally suited for their own particular state of wisdom, so to take him as an an ultimate authority means going by a scripture which is a teaching for a particular person for a particular time, so in other words you are taking another mans advice and another mans medicine as your own, which carries great risk for you because one mans medicine can be another mans poison. Which is probably why the Buddha didn't write down any of his teachings to try to avoid this problem.

This is where lineage is such a core thing. Not to mention the 'hidden' transmissions. And this is not exclusive to Buddhism either.

 

Every thing in life that has the potential to teach and transcend one's wisdom-mind is a hidden treasure.

 

'Hidden' here does not mean secret. It just means yet-to-be.

 

Someone teaches something, say algebra, for example. He is an authority on the subject. But when you are in pre-school, algebra is not in the curriculum, so his authority has no bearing whatsoever for you. When the time is ripe, and you are old enough to be taught algebra, who knows, maybe you get into this guy's class. Then his authority becomes relevant. Otherwise it cannot be. Its not even worth pondering before a need is found.

 

Same with spiritual authority. Its about what you connect with. People here speak of heavenly sages and celestial beings all the time.

Essentially a similar concept is at play. Keyword is 'play'. No need to grasp at anything or anyone. Respect, yes, but no grasping.

 

 

 

edit: The above is how its seen in the East anyway. In the West, there seems to be much aversion to that word. Its pragmatic potentiality appears to have been eroded somewhat. I could be wrong.

Edited July 12, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ,

Faith and compassion are not that complicated. Some free advice: consider all your knowledge, pov's and presentations as nothing more than baggage that will not go through the "Wheel". (even though same had uses inside the wheel)

 

Om

 

Take your own advice please. Thanks.

 

All my knowledge and pov's are dependently originated and empty of inherent existence.

 

There is no transcendent self standing being to take refuge in.

 

The Buddha said that if there was, he would teach one to take refuge in "that" but there isn't, so he didn't teach that.

 

I wish I could remember the exact scripture and quote, but I'm not good at that.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya