fanatical Buddhists

[Vajrahridaya]

I would define this as a closed inflexible system, which is more along the line of predestination. Although, I know you see it differently.

 

Once you're a stream enterer, your personal chaos starts becoming more ordered and it's easier to see where you are going. It's easier to see the connections between circumstances, thoughts, beings, etc.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

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

The correct word is 'Ensure'. Google 'Insure' and and one finds a list of insurance-related sites.

[ralis]

The correct word is 'Ensure'. Google 'Insure' and and one finds a list of insurance-related sites.

 

I am not going to quibble with you. According to that dictionary that is an appropriate definition.

[doc benway]

The correct word is 'Ensure'. Google 'Insure' and and one finds a list of insurance-related sites.

Like this?

[rex]

Fanatical Buddhists?

Fanatical anti-Buddhists?

[C T]

I am not going to quibble with you. According to that dictionary that is an appropriate definition.

Well, it does seem like quibbling is what you love, so i thought why not indulge your fav hobby for a while, but since you're not keen, don't matter.

 

But 'insure' within the context of that particular post is incorrect because 'insure' suggests doing something whereby the probabilities of damage can be reduced by degrees. This ought to be obvious to one as particular as your esteemed self.

Edited July 13, 2011 by CowTao

[goldisheavy]

Well, it does seem like quibbling is what you love, so i thought why not indulge your fav hobby for a while, but since you're not keen, don't matter.

 

But 'insure' within the context of that particular post is incorrect because 'insure' suggests doing something whereby the probabilities of damage can be reduced by degrees. This ought to be obvious to one as particular as your esteemed self.

 

I've done some digging on this and I found that what you're talking about is an accepted modern guideline, while in the past "insure" and "ensure" were interchangeable spellings. That's a very likely reason why Merriam Webster dictionary still shows two acceptable meanings for the word insure, one of which is synonymous with ensure. So if we took a vote, my guess would be that most editor type people would agree with you while a sizable minority would disagree. So your remark is reasonable, but the issue is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.

[C T]

I've done some digging on this and I found that what you're talking about is an accepted modern guideline, while in the past "insure" and "ensure" were interchangeable spellings. That's a very likely reason why Merriam Webster dictionary still shows two acceptable meanings for the word insure, one of which is synonymous with ensure. So if we took a vote, my guess would be that most editor type people would agree with you while a sizable minority would disagree. So your remark is reasonable, but the issue is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.

But Ralis is the one who prods others towards correct English usage, otherwise i would not have bothered. I was playing Tetris anyways.

[Aaron]

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.

 

 

Really...A 162 IQ and all your vast knowledge of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, and you cut and paste from Wikipedia? Well at least you cited your source, rather than claiming it as your own. Really though, couldn't you have found a better source?

 

Aaron

Edited July 13, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

But Ralis is the one who prods others towards correct English usage, otherwise i would not have bothered. I was playing Tetris anyways.

 

 

My degree is in English and my general rule of thumb is that you don't correct other people's grammar, punctuation, and spelling unless you want them to start going over yours with a fine-toothed comb. Hence, the sage does not correct a man's grammar, rather he reads what a man writes and answers accordingly. Of course if you have to point out another's mistakes, then you should be above making those same mistakes.

 

Aaron

Edited July 13, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I am not going to quibble with you. According to that dictionary that is an appropriate definition.

 

I think that people are generally encouraged to use ensure instead of insure, but I think most educated people know what insure means and wouldn't balk at your use of the word.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

But Ralis is the one who prods others towards correct English usage, otherwise i would not have bothered. I was playing Tetris anyways.

 

I have asked Vajraji to write in a more precise manner, as opposed to the complicated narratives that he loves to wow people with. My critique has more to do with his profuse use of logical fallacies, among other things.

[ralis]

I think that people are generally encouraged to use ensure instead of insure, but I think most educated people know what insure means and wouldn't balk at your use of the word.

 

Aaron

 

My second wife is a writer and journalist. I know for certain she would have corrected my use of insure. She is as close to unimpeachable as anyone I ever met. I doubt anyone on this forum could match wits with her.

Edited July 13, 2011 by ralis

[3bob]

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!

 

Actually you don't nor does anyone else need to "repeat and unpack endlessly" for any party. (even for those that keep asking or happen to be watching...)

[Vajrahridaya]

Really...A 162 IQ and all your vast knowledge of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, and you cut and paste from Wikipedia? Well at least you cited your source, rather than claiming it as your own. Really though, couldn't you have found a better source?

 

Aaron

 

163, and it's a good enough source. LOL!! Man... people just really want to corner me and beat me up! I actually had the thought of replying with my own words, but why waste my time, it'll be deflected anyway. Someone not arguing with me will read that and might get some understanding from it though.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

My degree is in English and my general rule of thumb is that you don't correct other people's grammar, punctuation, and spelling unless you want them to start going over yours with a fine-toothed comb. Hence, the sage does not correct a man's grammar, rather he reads what a man writes and answers accordingly. Of course if you have to point out another's mistakes, then you should be above making those same mistakes.

 

Aaron

Me, sage? :lol: Far from it.

 

You may be, but i am as close to being a sage as the North is to the South. (or is that East to West?)

 

A an old roach perhaps might be an apter term, but thanks for the lavish praise, nonetheless.

I am afraid my knees will buckle under the term's weightiness.

[Apech]

My second wife is a writer and journalist. I know for certain she would have corrected my use of insure. She is as close to unimpeachable as anyone I ever met. I doubt anyone on this forum could match wits with her.

 

How many wives do you have? (and please no cheating by counting concubines).

[JustARandomPanda]

I experienced what I thought was my heart mind for the first time in 1981, at the age of 6, glowing compassion, deep peace, total equilibrium and inner stillness.

 

 

 

This is not heartmind?! WTH is then?

 

When I felt compassion it most definitely came across as having primarily a feeling component (and secondarily as thoughts arising of wanting to end the other person's/animal's suffering, etc). I can not imagine compassion any other way. I've even read that there are studies showing that people who do not have this feeling component display errors in their rational, ordinary, everyday thought processes.

 

If heartmind does not have to do with feelings then what exactly is it and how would you even recognize it manifesting?

[C T]

 

This is not heartmind?! WTH is then?

 

When I felt compassion it most definitely came across as having primarily a feeling component (and secondarily as thoughts arising of wanting to end the other person's/animal's suffering, etc). I can not imagine compassion any other way. I've even read that there are studies showing that people who do not have this feeling component display errors in their rational, ordinary, everyday thought processes.

 

If heartmind does not have to do with feelings then what exactly is it and how would you even recognize it manifesting?

As one goes deeper into the 'realizations', it becomes clearer and clearer that compassion is more than mere altruistic feeling of wanting to ease the suffering of other beings. Those who have reached such deeper states proclaim that Compassion is the primordial power (residing as a seed potential) within every single being to be liberated... like a dormant desire. Most people do not have the capacity nor insight to recognize this, hence such needs to be free become expressed as wishes for personal happiness, to be free of sorrow and pains, to have basic needs met, to always have companionship, good food, shelter, long life, etc.

 

So when people speak of Buddhas having equally great, tireless Compassion for all beings, they are speaking of such Beings who recognize how deep it is that sentient beings want to be free (from craving), and this then becomes a sort of overwhelming motivation (a basis) to germinate this very seed so that all those who come to them (as in seeking refuge) will experience a rain of blessings to enable the fruition of their own buddha potential.

 

This is one of the reasons why true teachers of the Dharma have a sense of immense urgency to help anyone who seek them, and they can do this with great zeal and deep conviction, due to having generated ultimate Bodhicitta (which is union with Avalokit). Since such masters no longer see themselves as separate from the great Avalokit, as in they have already embodied all the qualities of equanimous Compassion as symbolically represented by Maha Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. When they teach those who have taken refuge, the students sometimes report that they feel as if a real Buddha was in their midst, and the whole atmosphere becomes a sort of resplendent buddha field! A lot of times Rainbows would manifest in the sky to coincide with the appearance of these great masters.

 

Of course this (Bodhicitta) is realized in degrees, even with teachers, so some of them can maybe influence a small group of people, because their Bodhicitta is not in full bloom yet, and then there are great masters with full-blown Bodhicitta who can influence masses of people, and continue to do so even after they have died. This explains why some masters possess immense presence, and just being with them can be so awe-inspiring, while others seem to struggle just to keep an interested audience.

 

Younglings like us only get glimpses of this Bodhicitta occasionally, hence we are not yet able to transfer the kind of blessings on a large scale, so we start with ourselves first of all, we practice to connect with this latent potential to spark it to life, so to speak.

Edited July 13, 2011 by CowTao

[Ya Mu]

It seems this thread is mostly directed toward Vaj due to his tenacity and absolutism.

Some thoughts here:

 

I certainly have not read the majority of his posts because for me they are way too long and I lose interest a fourth of the way through them. If he asked for my advice (and I am sure he doesn't want or need it), I would suggest that he attempt to consolidate his views with less words.

 

For me, although I certainly disagree with quite a lot of what he says, I know that he offers quite a bit as well. Some of his experiences coincide with many of my own, and this says quite a bit to me personally.

 

To make my point and to make this post less wordy, I think he does not deserve roasting at the stake (possibly just burn his feet [joke]). I do wish he would let up, and realize that there are higher level realizations that don't include the "Buddhist" viewpoint, but one can admire his tenacity as well as the truth of a fair amount of what he says.

 

One of the replies about "dogma" from someone else (not Vaj) was very quick in pointing out Buddhism is not dogma. I took the liberty of cut & paste, put inside a word processor, and substituting the words "Jesus" "Holy Spirit" "Baptist" "Bible" for "Buddhism" and Bible quote for "someone who is realized said". I then read it and it was indeed no different than what I have heard all my life from the Baptists and other fanatical religions.

 

Buddhism indeed does offer quite a lot. I practice many of the truths inherent in Buddhism. But I also practice many of the truths inherent in Taoism as well as Christianity and Zoroaster's realizations. It boils down to truth is truth no matter where it comes from, but illusion should drop to the wayside. Most of the teachings from China have Buddhism, Taoism and even a certain amount of Confucius's realizations intertwined.

 

Dang, now I have a too wordy post, just like Vaj.

[ralis]

How many wives do you have? (and please no cheating by counting concubines).

 

She and I split up 20 yrs. ago. Not married now or ever again! :lol:

[3bob]

As one goes deeper into the 'realizations', it becomes clearer and clearer that compassion is more than mere altruistic feeling of wanting to ease the suffering of other beings. Those who have reached such deeper states proclaim that Compassion is the primordial power (residing as a seed potential) within every single being to be liberated... like a dormant desire. Most people do not have the capacity nor insight to recognize this, hence such needs to be free become expressed as wishes for personal happiness, to be free of sorrow and pains, to have basic needs met, to always have companionship, good food, shelter, long life, etc.

 

So when people speak of Buddhas having equally great, tireless Compassion for all beings, they are speaking of such Beings who recognize how deep it is that sentient beings want to be free (from craving), and this then becomes a sort of overwhelming motivation (a basis) to germinate this very seed so that all those who come to them (as in seeking refuge) will experience a rain of blessings to enable the fruition of their own buddha potential.

 

This is one of the reasons why true teachers of the Dharma have a sense of immense urgency to help anyone who seek them, and they can do this with great zeal and deep conviction, due to having generated ultimate Bodhicitta (which is union with Avalokit). Since such masters no longer see themselves as separate from the great Avalokit, as in they have already embodied all the qualities of equanimous Compassion as symbolically represented by Maha Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. When they teach those who have taken refuge, the students sometimes report that they feel as if a real Buddha was in their midst, and the whole atmosphere becomes a sort of resplendent buddha field! A lot of times Rainbows would manifest in the sky to coincide with the appearance of these great masters.

 

Of course this (Bodhicitta) is realized in degrees, even with teachers, so some of them can maybe influence a small group of people, because their Bodhicitta is not in full bloom yet, and then there are great masters with full-blown Bodhicitta who can influence masses of people, and continue to do so even after they have died. This explains why some masters possess immense presence, and just being with them can be so awe-inspiring, while others seem to struggle just to keep an interested audience.

 

Younglings like us only get glimpses of this Bodhicitta occasionally, hence we are not yet able to transfer the kind of blessings on a large scale, so we start with ourselves first of all, we practice to connect with this latent potential to spark it to life, so to speak.

 

Thanks for sharing that CowTao.

 

I would add that it is not so much that a being has or holds the Compassion but that the Compassion has and holds them, (in this way the Compassion is realy the great one while the master who has made great sacrifices works as its servant) Such beings have been willingly taken over by it and have no self-willed designs on its influences or manifestation through them.

 

Om

[C T]

Thanks for sharing that CowTao.

 

I would add that it is not so much that a being has or holds the Compassion but that the Compassion has and holds them, (in this way the Compassion is realy the great one while the master who has made great sacrifices works as its servant) Such beings have been willingly taken over by it and have no self-willed designs on its influences or manifestation through them.

 

Om

You're very welcome, 3Bob

 

I like the way you expressed it above. Thanks!

[3bob]

It seems this thread is mostly directed toward Vaj due to his tenacity and absolutism.

Some thoughts here:

 

I certainly have not read the majority of his posts because for me they are way too long and I lose interest a fourth of the way through them. If he asked for my advice (and I am sure he doesn't want or need it), I would suggest that he attempt to consolidate his views with less words.

 

For me, although I certainly disagree with quite a lot of what he says, I know that he offers quite a bit as well. Some of his experiences coincide with many of my own, and this says quite a bit to me personally.

 

To make my point and to make this post less wordy, I think he does not deserve roasting at the stake (possibly just burn his feet [joke]). I do wish he would let up, and realize that there are higher level realizations that don't include the "Buddhist" viewpoint, but one can admire his tenacity as well as the truth of a fair amount of what he says.

 

One of the replies about "dogma" from someone else (not Vaj) was very quick in pointing out Buddhism is not dogma. I took the liberty of cut & paste, put inside a word processor, and substituting the words "Jesus" "Holy Spirit" "Baptist" "Bible" for "Buddhism" and Bible quote for "someone who is realized said". I then read it and it was indeed no different than what I have heard all my life from the Baptists and other fanatical religions.

 

Buddhism indeed does offer quite a lot. I practice many of the truths inherent in Buddhism. But I also practice many of the truths inherent in Taoism as well as Christianity and Zoroaster's realizations. It boils down to truth is truth no matter where it comes from, but illusion should drop to the wayside. Most of the teachings from China have Buddhism, Taoism and even a certain amount of Confucius's realizations intertwined.

 

Dang, now I have a too wordy post, just like Vaj.

 

"It boils down to truth is truth no matter where it comes from, but illusion should drop to the wayside" Agreed

 

ps. VJ is pretty fast on his feet and probably has some experence as a fire walker to, so roasting same could be iffy.

Edited July 13, 2011 by 3bob

[JustARandomPanda]

Well CowTao that was an interesting post. Something to think about.

 

The thing it didn't address was how to tell when heartmind is manifesting in myself.

 

I'm talking about practical matters now. I take it most cultivators think they are manifesting Compassion when they are only really manifesting compassion. (if you get my drift). And thus mistaking one for the other.

 

If so, how in practical terms can someone like me tell if I'm manifesting Compassion as opposed to compassion?