fanatical Buddhists

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

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

 

On your own authority then.

 

Just as your brain signals authorize your bodies movement, but what authorizes the conditions of your brains signals?

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

 

I am using a conventional meaning, just applying it to generally unthought of paradigms.

 

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.

 

Look, what I meant by my statement is as stated. So, you can either accept that you misunderstood me, or you can just misunderstand me.

 

 

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

 

No, at this point it's just you not seeing through your own projection due to the limitations inherent in your personal field of meanings. I didn't say anything stupid, I just didn't unpack what I said enough for you to understand, thus making this argument really stupid as obviously you can't concede to the fact that you misunderstood me. I know what I meant when I said what I said, but you are assuming that your projection of what I meant is an absolute truth, thereby clinging to a self made value judgement.

 

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?

 

I'm saying that any term has to be contextualized by it's body of meaning it appears in. If you had actually read the post that I made my statement in, with an objective sense of reasoning, you would not have assumed the meaning you so did. You making it a quote on the bottom of every page of yours also made impacts on peoples minds concerning your sense of personal authority. It was a secret intention of your own, due to the fact of how high you think yourself to be! You think yourself to be higher than the Buddha, secretly, by example of your statements concerning the legacy he left behind. You are probably not even aware of these facts either, they are most likely quite subconscious of you.

 

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.

 

Only if he or she is actually a Buddha and not a charlatan, and it is up to you to decipher this, and you could be wrong either way concerning any individual based upon the authority of your own limited level of realization. The Buddha cannot be blamed for the fact that militant muslims and militant hindus did not understand his teaching and wish to stomp it out of existence. Including your somewhat militant view.

 

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.

 

Nope, not at all. You are once again deciphering from your own personal field of meanings and projecting onto my statements something other than I intended, based upon the the fact that you have erroneously authorized yourself to do so.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Nope, not at all. You are once again deciphering from your own personal field of meanings and projecting onto my statements something other than I intended, based upon the the fact that you have erroneously authorized yourself to do so.

 

Can I be an authority on the subject and yet be in error on that same subject? If yes, then authority is meaningless. If not, then it makes no sense for you to say that my authority with regard to my own actions is erroneous.

[ralis]

For Vajraji to say that the Buddha's realization is dependently originated without proving a cause for the dependent origination of the realization, is just a circular argument. The argument offers no proof and can never be questioned. What a cop out!

Edited July 13, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Can I be an authority on the subject and yet be in error on that same subject? If yes, then authority is meaningless. If not, then it makes no sense for you to say that my authority with regard to my own actions is erroneous.

 

No, it's not meaningless, as it finds meaning due to context.

 

For me, the Buddha was an authority concerning all things spiritual and I mean all things spiritual. He was not an authority concerning all levels of communicating it, due to the fact that no single individual is omnipotent. Thus there is no single personal "god" of all. He was enough of an authority within his own language to adequately build a system by which other people could come to the same realization that he had. Meanwhile they themselves would not have to be stuck in some static ideation of his expressions due to the inner meaning of his expressions. Thus through their own personnel expression of the very same realization they could evolve the teachings he handed down in order to suit them for a different social and political environment, and possibly a more evolved social and political environment. Dependent origination man, there is no independent origination.

[Vajrahridaya]

For Vajraji to say that the Buddha's realization is dependently originated without proving responsibility for the dependent origination of the realization, is just a circular argument. The argument offers no proof and can never be questioned. What a cop out!

 

Your just not getting it. The proof of you not getting it is in the limits of your understanding arising dependent upon your internal interpretation of said statements, based upon your perception, as reflected by your expressions concerning such statements.

 

So, what you're saying is that the Buddha is responsible for how every single being in the entire cosmos understands his teaching? That would not mean dependent origination, but independent origination. You are not seeing the subtlety of the 1st of the 8 fold path, "right view" that is dependent origination.

 

Your misunderstanding or understanding what I've said arises dependent upon a whole assortment of personal conditions that are unlike any other personal conditions of perception, understanding and interpretation.

 

In order for a Buddha to connect to many beings, there has to be karmic connections there. Just like not everyone get's the rigpa transmission from Norbu, some only get one of the jhanas or another, and some get nothing. Some peoples get heart chakra activation and others get ajna, and still others get the whole picture in an expansive paradigm transcending but incorporating chakras and jhanas and their inner and outer meanings.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

Take your own advice please. Thanks.

 

 

( I also suggest you try to limit the baggage you are carrying around, example above the rest was a repeat of a repeat of a repeat...)

[ralis]

Your just not getting it. The proof of you not getting it is in the limits of your understanding arising dependent upon your internal interpretation of said statements, based upon your perception, as reflected by your expressions concerning such statements.

 

Why not respond as opposed to deflecting the argument and preaching at me as if I am some ignorant imbecile. The above response is not appropriate to what I stated. What you do is deflect the argument and begin preaching to what you erroneously perceive to be an ignorant audience.

 

 

So, what you're saying is that the Buddha is responsible for how every single being in the entire cosmos understands his teaching? That would not mean dependent origination, but independent origination. You are not seeing the subtlety of the 1st of the 8 fold path, "right view" that is dependent origination.

 

That is not what I said or intended. The Buddha gave himself authority by virtue of his own realization which as you said was dependently originated which leaves according to your world view, no room for questioning. The above response is rhetorical nonsense.

 

Your attempt to use complicated prose is not useful. Mostly contradictions made into circular arguments. Say what you mean, precisely.

Edited July 13, 2011 by ralis

[Stigweard]

Vaj frothing at the mouth and Ralis taking to him with a whip ....

 

Ahhh ... all is right in the world ....

 

[Birch]

Vaj frothing at the mouth and Ralis taking to him with a whip ....

 

Ahhh ... all is right in the world ....

 

 

Oh you

[goldisheavy]

That is not what I said or intended. The Buddha gave himself authority by virtue of his own realization which as you said was dependently originated which leaves according to your world view, no room for questioning. The above response is rhetorical nonsense.

 

According to Vajrahridaya enlightenment is completely impenetrable to ordinary beings. So if someone comes up to you and says "I am enlightened" and you ask some questions and receive answers you consider to be illogical, misleading, harmful and/or wrong for whatever other reason, you really don't have any grounds for saying, "no, I don't think you're a buddha" unless you too claim to be a buddha.

 

My problem with Vajrahridaya's view is that it's too extreme and simplistic. Ordinary beings never enter into the extreme of ordinariness. In other words, ordinary beings have a measure of wisdom available to them at all times. At the same time buddhas do not enter into the extreme of buddhahood. In other words, buddhas can get arbitrarily wise, but no matter how wise they get they all still have a measure of ignorance. This means the difference between buddhas and ordinary beings is not an extreme kind of difference, but Vajrahridaya's language portrays an extreme difference.

 

If you accept my view that ordinary beings do not differ from buddhas in the extreme, then it gives ordinary beings valid grounds to evaluate claims of buddhahood. If we accept Vajrahridaya's view, then ordinary beings can accept or reject the claims of buddhahood based only on blind faith and nothing else, since the gap in wisdom between the two types of beings is extreme.

[ralis]

According to Vajrahridaya enlightenment is completely impenetrable to ordinary beings. So if someone comes up to you and says "I am enlightened" and you ask some questions and receive answers you consider to be illogical, misleading, harmful and/or wrong for whatever other reason, you really don't have any grounds for saying, "no, I don't think you're a buddha" unless you too claim to be a buddha.

 

My problem with Vajrahridaya's view is that it's too extreme and simplistic. Ordinary beings never enter into the extreme of ordinariness. In other words, ordinary beings have a measure of wisdom available to them at all times. At the same time buddhas do not enter into the extreme of buddhahood. In other words, buddhas can get arbitrarily wise, but no matter how wise they get they all still have a measure of ignorance. This means the difference between buddhas and ordinary beings is not an extreme kind of difference, but Vajrahridaya's language portrays an extreme difference.

 

If you accept my view that ordinary beings do not differ from buddhas in the extreme, then it gives ordinary beings valid grounds to evaluate claims of buddhahood. If we accept Vajrahridaya's view, then ordinary beings can accept or reject the claims of buddhahood based only on blind faith and nothing else, since the gap in wisdom between the two types of beings is extreme.

 

 

Valid point. The Tibetans claim there can only be one Buddha for a certain time period and they have predictions as to who will be the next Buddha. According to the Kagyu school, Tai Situ Rinpoche will be the next Buddha. This seems rather contrived and useful to keep the secret club afloat. I guess the rest of us low lifes will never be allowed such esteem.

[goldisheavy]

Valid point. The Tibetans claim there can only be one Buddha for a certain time period and they have predictions as to who will be the next Buddha. According to the Kagyu school, Tai Situ Rinpoche will be the next Buddha. This seems rather contrived and useful to keep the secret club afloat. I guess the rest of us low lifes will never be allowed such esteem.

 

I share this sentiment. This kind of politikin completely discredits the religion of Buddhism.

[Stigweard]

Oh you

Heheheh

[Vajrahridaya]

Valid point. The Tibetans claim there can only be one Buddha for a certain time period and they have predictions as to who will be the next Buddha. According to the Kagyu school, Tai Situ Rinpoche will be the next Buddha. This seems rather contrived and useful to keep the secret club afloat. I guess the rest of us low lifes will never be allowed such esteem.

 

That's not what they teach, they are talking about wheel turning Buddhas, there are all kinds of different Buddhas that have different capacities.

 

Simple you are padawan. Understudied young sir.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

wow, such subjective nonsense.

 

Amazing!

 

Have fun with it guys.

 

The B.S. in here would need a bulldozer.

 

Oh yeah, but it's all my fault, right? :lol:

[Vajrahridaya]

( I also suggest you try to limit the baggage you are carrying around, example above the rest was a repeat of a repeat of a repeat...)

 

I know, you think I think too much, but actually all this is just elaboration upon a single moment of free from thought state of mind. Thoughts and this state of mind are also not in contradiction.

 

It seems that I need to repeat and unpack endlessly for you guys, but it's like speaking to brick walls, so I suppose it's merely for those who are open and reading while watching.

 

So, I'll let it be. Take care!

[Vajrahridaya]

According to Vajrahridaya enlightenment is completely impenetrable to ordinary beings. So if someone comes up to you and says "I am enlightened" and you ask some questions and receive answers you consider to be illogical, misleading, harmful and/or wrong for whatever other reason, you really don't have any grounds for saying, "no, I don't think you're a buddha" unless you too claim to be a buddha.

 

My problem with Vajrahridaya's view is that it's too extreme and simplistic. Ordinary beings never enter into the extreme of ordinariness. In other words, ordinary beings have a measure of wisdom available to them at all times. At the same time buddhas do not enter into the extreme of buddhahood. In other words, buddhas can get arbitrarily wise, but no matter how wise they get they all still have a measure of ignorance. This means the difference between buddhas and ordinary beings is not an extreme kind of difference, but Vajrahridaya's language portrays an extreme difference.

 

If you accept my view that ordinary beings do not differ from buddhas in the extreme, then it gives ordinary beings valid grounds to evaluate claims of buddhahood. If we accept Vajrahridaya's view, then ordinary beings can accept or reject the claims of buddhahood based only on blind faith and nothing else, since the gap in wisdom between the two types of beings is extreme.

 

You do have your impenetrable force field up around your brain. It's as if nothing I said made any sense. I might as well be speaking Cantonese to an African tribe, or Swahili in B.C. China.

[ralis]

wow, such subjective nonsense.

 

Amazing!

 

Have fun with it guys.

 

The B.S. in here would need a bulldozer.

 

Oh yeah, but it's all my fault, right? :lol:

 

I believe you started this a couple of years ago.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vaj frothing at the mouth and Ralis taking to him with a whip ....

 

Ahhh ... all is right in the world ....

 

 

He's not equipped to do as such. Frothing at the mouth... ??? :lol: Shaking my head.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

That's not what they teach, they are talking about wheel turning Buddhas, there are all kinds of different Buddhas that have different capacities.

 

Simple you are padawan. Understudied young sir.

 

Actually they do teach that. I studied in that lineage 24 years ago. Tai Situ is one of the four regents of the Karmapa. There is an interesting group! They all die and reincarnate at different times to insure their club stays afloat.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually they do teach that. I studied in that lineage 24 years ago. Tai Situ is one of the four regents of the Karmapa. There is an interesting group! They all die and reincarnate at different times to insure their club stays afloat.

 

No, my point is that they don't teach that there is only one Buddha per Dharma era. They are saying that Tai Situ Rinpoche is part of the mind stream of Maitraya, the next Samyakasambuddha after the Dharma ending age passes. Your statement does not encompass what they teach at all and leads to misunderstanding.

 

In Buddhism, three types of Buddha are recognized. From Wikipedia:

 

Samyaksambuddha (Pali: sammasambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha, one who has attained samyaksambodhi.

Pratyekabuddhas (Pali: paccekabuddha)

Śrāvakabuddha (Pali: sāvakabuddha)

 

The first two types of Buddha both achieve Nirvana through their own efforts, without a teacher to point out the Dharma. The term Savakabuddha does not occur in the Theravadin Pali Canon, but is mentioned in three Theravadin commentarial works, and refers to an enlightened disciple of the Buddha.

 

Samyaksambuddha

 

Samyaksambuddhas (Pali: sammasambuddha) gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dhamma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew. The historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha, is considered a Samyaksambuddha. See also the list of 28 sammasambuddhas.

 

Three variations can be distinguished in the way of achieving Samyaksambuddha-hood. With more wisdom (prajñādhika), with more effort (vīryādhika) or with more faith (śraddhādhika). Śākyamuni was a Prajñādhika (through more wisdom) Buddha. The next Buddha of this world, Maitreya (Pāli: Metteyya) will be a Vīryādhika (through more effort) Buddha.

 

Pratyekabuddha

 

Pratyekabuddhas (Pali: paccekabuddha) are similar to Samyaksambuddhas in that they attain Nirvāṇa without having a teacher. Unlike the Samyaksambuddha however, they do not teach the Dhamma that they have discovered. Thus, they also do not form a Saṅgha of disciples to carry on the teaching, since they do not teach in the first place.

 

In some works they are referred to as "silent Buddhas". Several comparatively new Buddhist scriptures (of later origin; after the Buddha's demise, like the Jātakas), show Pratyekabuddhas giving teachings. A Paccekabuddha can sometimes teach and admonish people, but these admonitions are only in reference to good and proper conduct (Pali: abhisamācārikasikkhā), not concerning Nirvana.

 

In some texts, they are described as 'one who understands the Dharma by his own efforts, but does not obtain omniscience nor mastery over the Fruits' (phalesu vasībhāvam).

 

Śrāvakabuddha

 

Śrāvaka (Skt.; Pali: sāvaka; means "hearer" or "follower") is a disciple of a Samyaksambuddha. An enlightened disciple is generally called an arahant (Noble One) or ariya-sāvaka (Noble Disciple). (These terms have slightly varied meanings but can both be used to describe the enlightened disciple.) The Theravadin commentary to the Udana uses the term sāvaka-buddha (Pali; Skt. śrāvakabuddha) to describe the enlightened disciple.

 

Enlightened disciples attain Nirvana as do the two aforementioned types of Buddhas. After attaining enlightenment, disciples may also lead others to enlightenment. One can not become a disciple of a Buddha in a time or world where the teaching of the Buddha has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because this type of enlightenment is dependent on a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksambuddha.

 

A rarely used word, anubuddha, was a term used by the Buddha in the Khuddakapatha for those who become buddhas after being given instruction.

 

In the Pali Canon itself, the first two are mentioned by the above names, while numerous examples of the third type occur, without that name. There is no mention of types of buddhas, though the word buddha does sometimes appear to be used in a broad sense covering all the above.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

Actually they do teach that. I studied in that lineage 24 years ago. Tai Situ is one of the four regents of the Karmapa. There is an interesting group! They all die and reincarnate at different times to insure their club stays afloat.

We all die and reincarnate each single moment to the next. Your context here about keeping afloat is all about sensationalizing things, as per your usual style, Ralis. By the way, your word usage 'insure' is wrong. Don't be going around asking others to write flawlessly.

[ralis]

[ralis]

We all die and reincarnate each single moment to the next. Your context here about keeping afloat is all about sensationalizing things, as per your usual style, Ralis. By the way, your word usage 'insure' is wrong. Don't be going around asking others to write flawlessly.

 

My usage is correct.

 

"to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions"

 

"We hope that careful planning will insure success."

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insure