fanatical Buddhists

[ralis]

It's not the core of our being, it's the core potential of "our" being empty and inter-dependent.

 

A very subtle difference between clinging to experience and seeing through it, thereby deepening it's integration with relativity and fluctuation.

 

This is getting very old! Your persistent posting as if you know it all. The heart mind can never be described with words.

Edited July 16, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Will you stop repeating the same old broken record over and over again. Your broken narrative is boring!

 

Stop acting as if you know everything. You don't!

 

Man you're bitter. I sure know more than you! Happily. :lol:

 

It's just sad that you can't be, "Yeah! That' too!" You're stiff.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

This is getting very old! Your persistent posting as if you know it all. The heart mind can never be described with words.

 

You making transcendency a self existing ultimate is what I used to do as a juvenile of the experience of heart mind. It sure can be pointed to through words, most definitely.

 

I still feel you have just experienced a jhana and are trapped in some formless concept/experience of Rigpa. Following the concepts of the Buddha to the experience that they point to will reveal how much more training you need. Humble down bro. Seriously.

[ralis]

Man you're bitter. I sure know more than you! Happily. :lol:

 

It's just sad that you can't be, "Yeah! That' too!" You're stiff.

 

Why do you insist on preaching DO&E ad infinitum? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to win friends and influence people?

[ralis]

You making transcendency a self existing ultimate is what I used to do as a juvenile of the experience of heart mind. It sure can be pointed to through words, most definitely.

 

I still feel you have just experienced a jhana and are trapped in some formless concept/experience of Rigpa. Following the concepts of the Buddha to the experience that they point to will reveal how much more training you need. Humble down bro. Seriously.

 

I am not making it some self existing ultimate. The heart mind can only be pointed out as in the Rigpa given by Norbu et al.

[Vajrahridaya]

I am not making it some self existing ultimate. The heart mind can only be pointed out as in the Rigpa given by Norbu et al.

 

The way you talk about it does lead to that kind of idea for readers who don't know better though. You are not the only one on here reading bro. I was just expanding the meaning, not attacking you, like you do me.

 

I speak about do and e endlessly because there are always new readers who don't even comment, or people who haven't been through that stage of understanding yet, more so than those that have. Really, get over yourself and your most advanced state of heart and mind. I don't talk about it much because most people won't know what one is saying about it even conceptually, it just seems like... oh, "heart mind"... I mean, come on! It's very vague when you take yourself out of yourself knowing of what that means. If you're going to talk about heart mind, get out your semsde texts then and start exploring those modes of expression for the sake of the vast majority of mental patients out there without any patience.

[Marblehead]

And Chuang Tzu asked if we could return to the emptimindedness of the new-born child. (Our original state upon birth.)

[Vajrahridaya]

And Chuang Tzu asked if we could return to the emptimindedness of the new-born child. (Our original state upon birth.)

 

Sure, but with knowing, in order not to lose it. That takes integration.

[Marblehead]

That takes integration.

 

Hehehe. I think that can be said to be an understatement.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. I think that can be said to be an understatement.

 

[C T]

The way you talk about it does lead to that kind of idea for readers who don't know better though. You are not the only one on here reading bro. I was just expanding the meaning, not attacking you, like you do me.

 

I speak about do and e endlessly because there are always new readers who don't even comment, or people who haven't been through that stage of understanding yet, more so than those that have. Really, get over yourself and your most advanced state of heart and mind. I don't talk about it much because most people won't know what one is saying about it even conceptually, it just seems like... oh, "heart mind"... I mean, come on! It's very vague when you take yourself out of yourself knowing of what that means. If you're going to talk about heart mind, get out your semsde texts then and start exploring those modes of expression for the sake of the vast majority of mental patients out there without any patience.

Just what i was thinking! Ralis is the 'been there done that' man in my mind! His profound View cannot be expressed by words, so others can remain in doubt for all he cares. Why even bother to come on the forum, if that's the case.

[ralis]

Just what i was thinking! Ralis is the 'been there done that' man in my mind! His profound View cannot be expressed by words, so others can remain in doubt for all he cares. Why even bother to come on the forum, if that's the case.

 

Heart mind is not the exclusive property of Buddhists. Say whatever you want but the fact remains that heart mind can be pointed out. The actual so called heart mind is beyond words.

 

Why don't you and Vajraji take your legalistic arguments somewhere else.

[Marblehead]

Why don't you and Vajraji take your legalistic arguments somewhere else.

 

Hehehe. But then you would have to find someone else to disagree with. (That's not really how if feel but it sounded so neat playing around in my mind that I thought I would share it with you.)

 

Yeah, the Buddhist path is the path to buddhahood. Not many Taoists or Christians are walking in that direction.

 

But really, so far this has been a pretty good thread considering the number of Buddhists making posts to it.

[ralis]

The way you talk about it does lead to that kind of idea for readers who don't know better though. You are not the only one on here reading bro. I was just expanding the meaning, not attacking you, like you do me.

 

I speak about do and e endlessly because there are always new readers who don't even comment, or people who haven't been through that stage of understanding yet, more so than those that have. Really, get over yourself and your most advanced state of heart and mind. I don't talk about it much because most people won't know what one is saying about it even conceptually, it just seems like... oh, "heart mind"... I mean, come on! It's very vague when you take yourself out of yourself knowing of what that means. If you're going to talk about heart mind, get out your semsde texts then and start exploring those modes of expression for the sake of the vast majority of mental patients out there without any patience.

 

What I object to is your attempt at some pseudo scholarly prose that can confuse many reading here. I have been studying Buddhism for 30 yrs. and all the Buddhist buzz words mean very little when it comes to the actual experience of heart mind. Heart mind is not your exclusive property or the property of Buddhists.

 

 

 

 

If you're going to talk about heart mind, get out your semsde texts then and start exploring those modes of expression for the sake of the vast majority of mental patients out there without any patience.

 

 

You accuse your audience as being mostly composed of mental patients? I am certain all reading this will object to being called a mental patient!

[rex]

I have been studying Buddhism for 30 yrs.

Are you hostile to Buddhism per se or just the way it is presented by the forum's resident 'Buddhist club members'?.

[3bob]

[ralis]

Are you hostile to Buddhism per se or just the way it is presented by the forum's resident 'Buddhist club members'?.

 

I disagree with how the teachings are presented here. The pseudo scholarly writings by Vajraji, do nothing but mask the real essence of the essential nature of the teachings. That has been reinforced by many over hundreds of years by creating hierarchies or distinct levels of teachings, which has made the real essence unavailable to most.

 

According to Vajrajis view, non believers are mental patients.

[Apech]

[Vajrahridaya]

You accuse your audience as being mostly composed of mental patients? I am certain all reading this will object to being called a mental patient!

 

It was a joke mr. "lighten up."

 

For someone who asks others to lighten up, you sure are grumpy and gloomy.

[Guest allan]

For those who want to learn a bit more about the heart/mind:

 

http://atouchofancientszhouyi.blogspot.com/2007/06/further-notes-on-heartmind-xin.html

[ralis]

It was a joke mr. "lighten up."

 

For someone who asks others to lighten up, you sure are grumpy and gloomy.

 

Then say it is a joke with an emoticon or other emphasis. You make a crude remark and then blame someone else for not reading your mind correctly. As far as I am concerned your statement still stands.

[Vajrahridaya]

Btw, all Buddhists do not agree on everything about Buddhism or use terms the same way!! For instance: (copied from Wikipedia)

 

"...Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the great Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, repeatedly exalts not the non-self but the self and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality:[53]

 

"the pervasive Lord" (vibhu)

"Buddha-Self"

"the beginningless Self" (anādi-ātman)

"the Self of Thusness" (tathatā-ātman)

"the Self of primordial purity" (śuddha-ātman)

"the Source of all"

"the Self pervading all"

"the Single Self" (eka-ātman)

"the Diamond Self" (vajra-ātman)

"the Solid Self" (ghana-ātman)

"the Holy, Immovable Self"

"the Supreme Self"

 

In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this immutable, universal and salvific Buddha essence (the true self of the Buddha) is said to be the ground of all things, but it is viewed by fools as something changeful and impermanent, whereas in fact it is stated by the Buddha to be the very opposite of such impermanence..."

 

Thus in the end (or beginning) one has to find out for themselves while also being careful about putting all of their eggs into one basket of attachments to particular words and concepts related to same, and or as Ralis said and which I agree with, "pseudo scholarly prose that can confuse many" may come into play.

 

It is unchangeable, in the sense that the insight is permanent. It is a Self in the sense that this insight is now the source of all expressions of a Buddha. It is the source of all in the sense that emptiness makes all things possible.

 

To equate it with ideas of monistic theism, or concepts concerning a creator god, would be erroneous. This is what happens when people take things out of context and apply their own meaning without the support of all the rest of Longchenpas works. Longchenpa also refutes wrong views. The problem with concepts many times is that they can be mis-read, or mis-understood if not contextualized properly, leading to a wrong view, or in this case a transcendental form of clinging, leading merely to "formless realm" realizations.

 

Longchenpa also refutes wrong views on the nature of mind and karma in the typical Buddhist fashion.

[Vajrahridaya]

For instance there is a self and yet there is no self, buddha nature is empty and yet not empty ... and so on ...

 

Right, at this point the only way to talk about Buddhanature is through paradox, revealing it's middle point access between dichotomous thinking.

[ralis]

It is unchangeable, in the sense that the insight is permanent. It is a Self in the sense that this insight is now the source of all expressions of a Buddha. It is the source of all in the sense that emptiness makes all things possible.

 

To equate it with ideas of monistic theism, or concepts concerning a creator god, would be erroneous. This is what happens when people take things out of context and apply their own meaning without the support of all the rest of Longchenpas works. Longchenpa also refutes wrong views. The problem with concepts many times is that they can be mis-read, or mis-understood if not contextualized properly, leading to a wrong view, or in this case a transcendental form of clinging, leading merely to formless realizations.

 

Longchenpa also refutes wrong views on the nature of mind and karma in the typical Buddhist fashion.

 

His post never said anything about monism. It was clear to me what it meant.

[Vajrahridaya]

Then say it is a joke with an emoticon or other emphasis. You make a crude remark and then blame someone else for not reading your mind correctly. As far as I am concerned your statement still stands.

 

Your right in the sense that I didn't make it clear enough. I apologize to people for misreading my intentions, due to my lack of clarity. I know what I was feeling when I made the remark. As I was considering all of us mental patients, said in jest. In a lightened up, non-serious kind of response to your ever so serious damning of my form of expressions.