Tradition and Lineages

[Vajrahridaya]

From all my observations,

 

Still sounds like transcendent subjective idealism.

 

The state of the crystal clear light is neither undivided nor divided, neither white, nor any color, nor not other than all colors, is neither formless nor form, but not other. Is neither transcendent nor imminent.

 

Anyway...

 

You seem to be reifying the state of the light of infinite consciousness as being beyond the skandas only because you don't experience duality of the skandas in that state. That doesn't matter. It's still merely due to turning awareness onto it's consciousness and focusing there that one would reify awareness.

 

This leads to absorption into a formless state at the time of death or at the end of a cosmic aeon. This is not Nirvana according to Buddhism.

 

Look, from following you, you seem to turn all your perceptions and thoughts into light, you are pretty lit up. It's good, very good. But, you might want to drop the pride, which can get in the way of objectivity when considering yourself and others. You might want to drop your pride enough to get some confirmation on your realizations. Since you like Mahamudra, why not check out Garchen Rinpoche. Just for the heck of it? Take a drive to Arizona where he mostly resides. He was jailed by the Chinese for 20 years but did internal practice the entire time and came out more enlightened than when he went in. He's considered a Mahasiddha, with all the siddhi's and realizations of Mahamudra Mahasiddhas.

 

Why not... you're already enlightened, why not hang out with another Mahasiddha and check it out?

 

You can check out his movie: For the benefit of all beings.

 

But, you'd probably do much better with seeing him in physical presence and having a chat with him. He's very playful, very nice guy.

[Vajrahridaya]

My understanding of the function of tradition and lineage is that you first transfer your attachments from your family and society to the lineage and if the lineage has many masters this gives you faith in doing so otherwise it is just a massive leap in the dark. But then a good lineage will in the end cut you off from all attachments including the tradition itself, so it's like a gradual training process of letting go and cutting away until there is nothing to grasp and nowhere to rest your head. If the lineage doesn't do that last step then it is worthless imo and may just be some guys getting kicks from having people look up to them.

 

Yes, I agree.

[ralis]

Still sounds like transcendent subjective idealism.

 

 

 

I think you need to explain your argument. Further, have you done any reading on transcendental idealism? Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' has chapters on Transcendental Logic and Transcendental Aesthetic. I read it in college years ago. Vmarco addressed some of this a few posts ago.

 

http://www.thetaobum...post__p__279413

[JustARandomPanda]

*scratches chin*

 

I've been reading this lately:

 

 

From the Lotus Sutra

 

 

At that time the World Honored One arose serenely from Samadhi and told Shariputra, "The wisdom of all the Buddhas is extremely profound and unlimited. The gateway to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. It cannot be known by any of the Sound Hearers or Pratyeka Buddhas.

 

I didn't know what a Pratyeka Buddha was so I looked it up.

 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

A Pratyekabuddha (Sanskrit: प्रत्येक बुद्ध) or Paccekabuddha (Pāli: पच्चेकबुद्ध), literally "a lone buddha" , "a buddha on their own" or "a private buddha", is one of three types of enlightened beings according to some schools of Buddhism. The other two types are the Śrāvakabuddhas and Samyaksambuddhas. Pratyekabuddhas are said to achieve enlightenment on their own, without the use of teachers or guides, according to some traditions by contemplating the principle of dependent arising. They are said to arise only in ages where there is no Buddha and the Buddhist teachings (Sanskrit: dharma; Pāli: dhamma) are lost.

 

 

Anyway....to go on...I further pondered what the Buddha is saying here:

 

 

"Shariputra, there is no need to speak further. Why is this? As to that foremost, rare, and hard-to-understand Dharma accomplished by the Buddha--only the Buddhas and the Buddha can exhaust the Real Mark of all Dharmas, that is to say, with regard to all Dharmas: the suchness of the marks, the suchness of the nature, the suchness of the substance, the suchness of the power, the suchness of the function, the suchness of the causes, the suchness of the conditions, the suchness of the effects, and suchness of the retributions, and the suchness of the ultimate equality from beginning to end."

 

At that time, the World Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke verses saying,

 

Illimitable are the heroes of the world.

All the gods and people in the world,

And all the classes of living beings

Cannot know the Buddhas.

The Buddhas� powers, fearlessnesses,

Liberations and Samadhis,

And other Dharmas of the Buddhas

Can be fathomed by no one.

Formerly, following countless Buddhas,

I perfectly walked all the paths

Of the wonderful Dharma, subtle and deep,

Hard to see and hard to understand;

Through limitless millions of aeons.

I walked down all these paths.

In the Bodhimanda, I realized the fruit,

And have fully known and seen it all.

The great effect and retribution,

The varous natures, marks, and meanings,

Are such that I and the ten-direction Buddhas

 

Alone can understand these matters.

This Dharma can�t be demonstrated,

The mark of language being still and extinct;

Of all the kinds of living beings

None there is who can understand it.

Except the host of Bodhisattvas,

Firm in the power of faith.

The host of the Buddha�s disciples

Who�ve made offerings to the Buddhas

And who have exhausted all outflows,

And dwell in their final bodies--

The strength of people such as these

Also proves inadequate.

If the world were filled

 

With those like Shariputra,

Who together spent their thoughts to measure it,

They couldn�t fathom the Buddha�s wisdom.

 

Truly, suppose the ten directions,

Were filled with those like Shariputra,

And that the remaining disciples filled

All the lands in the ten directions,

And that together they spent their thoughts to measure it,

They also could not know it.

If Pratyeka Buddhas of sharp wisdom

Without outflows, in their final bodies,

Also filled the ten-directions,

Their number like the bamboo in the forest,

And if they put their minds together,

Wishing to think about the Buddha�s real wisdom,

Throughout measureless millions aeons,

They could not know the smallest part of it.

Suppose newly resolved Bodhisattvas,

Who�ve made offerings to countless Buddhas,

Who understand the principle and the purport,

And are well able to speak the Dharma,

Whose numbers are like rice, hemp, bamboo, and reeds,

Filled the ten-direction lands,

And suppose with one mind and with wondrous wisdom,

They were all together to think it over,

Throughout aeons like the Ganges� sands,

Even they couldn�t know the Buddha�s wisdom.

 

 

 

[JustARandomPanda]

It is in reference to the Lotus Sutra I was thinking about that long thread of how to determine someone's level of Enlightenment. Just reading over the Buddha's (to me) extremely high standard of just what it takes to A ) be a Buddha and B ) to know if someone else is a Buddha too I kept thinking the whole exercise of that thread was moot.

 

I mean...only Boddhisattva's and disciples who've fulfilled the following requirements - A ) ceased all outflows (ie no longer subject to karma ) , B ) reside in their final body and C ) have "faith" - might know if someone is a Buddha.

[3bob]

*scratches chin*

 

I've been reading this lately:

 

From the Lotus Sutra

 

I didn't know what a Pratyeka Buddha was so I looked it up.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Anyway....to go on...I further pondered what the Buddha is saying here:.....>

 

 

Perhaps and if you care to or try to? (although I think VJ will automatically interject with his speciality double-talk) consider that "Buddhism" does not have a monopoly on the meaning of or what the word "Buddha" points to... Further, that very long and glorious type of expalanation about what a Buddha understands means nothing more than what a very simple analogy can more or less point to, for instance: only water fully understands water, or only Buddha nature fully understands Buddha nature. (with the the word understand only being used as a conventional means to try and convey more than "understanding" as the word is commonly used)

 

Om

[Vmarco]

Korzybski's writings are useful for understanding the limitations of language and how language does not accurately describe any phenomenon.

 

I've surely experienced that,...ever try to have a rational discussion with a Tea Partier or social conservative, even when using the simpliest vocabulary? Cannot be done.

 

However,...that need not be so for Soulestrial Orienteers. For such orienteers, it's essential that admirable companions develop a language and vocabulary,...a very specific language to discuss and commune about the Short Path.

 

I'm not talking about a secret society, or mystical initiations into esoteric studies based on books,...but a language that doesn't get upset about truth. A language consistent with relating with what will never leave you, and from which you can never leave.

 

Of course, this language would be alien for ordinary sentient thinkers,...and that's fine,...for those in Maslow's lower-archy, that is, all below Self-Actualization, are welcome, when they are ready,...because Short Pather's do not need to pursuade Long Pathers,...or have a vocabulary to bridge their experiences with ours,...just to seek out others on the Short Path is more than enough.

 

I don't know/gnow where you are in this journey,...I haven't directly asked. But it appears your inquiries are serious.

 

V

[Vmarco]

[3bob]

I posted the Sutra because it's part of what makes up my current understanding. Sometimes it helps me to read a longer explanation with examples ala Lotus Sutra than just using a "simple analogy".

 

Also I typically do not like to share my point of views on subjects - especially on subjects like this. For one my views are bound to change due to my practices but also because there are too many people on Taobums who like to attack and stripmine someone else's posted POV instead of focusing on making a clear exposition of their own current realizations and experiences.

 

Right, (I did some interjecting myself).... besides my posts like some others, are a dime a dozen.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think you need to explain your argument. Further, have you done any reading on transcendental idealism? Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' has chapters on Transcendental Logic and Transcendental Aesthetic. I read it in college years ago. Vmarco addressed some of this a few posts ago.

 

http://www.thetaobum...post__p__279413

 

Subjective idealism deals with reifying the mind, as if the mind is the only one to surely exist and one's experience of a transcendent, beyond the skandas mind, or ultimate subject is what he seems to be reifying? It's clear from what the Buddha said that this is not what is meant by unborn, uncompounded, etc. There is nothing beyond dependent origination, as the Buddha said, because dependent origination is already beyond itself. It is the all, and to see this is to see the all and is to see Buddhahood, as the Buddha said. It's not merely a model, it's extremely subtle and profound, while being quite blatant and everything that is right in front of your nose as well.

 

He's really just Zhentog view. Zhentog Which is fine, there is lots of support in Vajrayana texts for this, but there are more texts that talk about it being an erroneous interpretation of experience leading only to formless absorption at the end of life or at the end of a cosmic aeon. Which I agree with.

 

His realization is subtle, yes... I don't think anyone here would be qualified to say otherwise. But, I would just suggest getting some confirmation because self foolery is very subtle and he's never received pointing out instructions which he thinks he doesn't need. But, if he's a Mahasiddha, then it wouldn't matter... it's just a suggestion. From his descriptions he seem's to just be making a formless jhana ultimate. But, the way he's internalizing the concepts he's using will be different from the way I am reading them. It's extremely hard to communicate enlightenment through words on an impersonal computer screen. It's much easier in person.

[Vajrahridaya]

or only Buddha nature fully understands Buddha nature. (with the the word understand only being used as a conventional means to try and convey more than "understanding" as the word is commonly used)

 

Om

 

Buddha nature is not an existent that understands or has a will. It's merely a synonym for emptiness.

[Vajrahridaya]

The Mind of a Tathagata has never moved. The sentient mind, which arises from the skandhas, cannot sense that which has never moved,...the sentient mind observes only motion,...from an apparently resting rock, to massive Planets in orbit around the Sun,...all objects are in motion.

 

The Mind of a Tathagata has never moved. Quite a frightening idea for the sentient, sciential mind,...it surely upsets its logic.

 

 

You keep seeming to reify an ultimate, transcendent, self existing, eternal mind. I've had this experience, this as well is dependently originated and empty. This mind has no self nature, neither inside the skandas nor outside of the skandas.

 

And Nagarjuna states:

 

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other

than the aggregates.

The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.

The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.

What Tathagata is there?”

[VCraigP]

I think that lineage plays an important role in cultivation and practice. A master passes energy to their student. That energy is the essence of the art. The essence itself has been cultivated and passed down (in some cases) over a thousand plus years... transmitted from master to student over and over again. The essence is the interrupted refinement of the life force that has been cherished, pondered and improved by every person who has dedicated their lives to the art.

 

Now in the culture we live in, where everything is for sale, it is hard to comprehend this. What makes teacher A better than teacher B? They both show you how to do motions. They both call what they do tai chi, or qigong, or what have you. We live in a culture of excess and competing products. So many people focus on the "best" or "most effective" or blah blah blah blah blah. Those who do not have a teacher want to tell themselves the teacher or the lineage does not matter. Those have had the opportunity to experience the transmission of a 1000+ year old essence and all of the love, and discipline and encouragement and refinement that has gone into it... they know differently.

 

Qigong is not about a set of movements. It is about a way of life.

 

Maybe the OPs question can be refined.

 

Can you receive benefit from being Connected to a lineage. (notice I did not say attached).

 

Will it be better to make such a connection while at the same time not becoming Attached to or identified with it? (my answer - Yes).

 

PS - Most of the rest of you need to consider your attachment to derailing other peoples posts :-)

 

Craig

[ralis]

I've surely experienced that,...ever try to have a rational discussion with a Tea Partier or social conservative, even when using the simpliest vocabulary? Cannot be done.

 

 

 

I have attempted to have conversations with the same and to no avail. I might add that the same would apply to advocates of lineages and doctrine based religions.

 

I have previously mentioned Robert Anton Wilson and this book was written in e-prime, which eliminates the word "is".

 

http://www.amazon.co...12303011&sr=1-2

[Vmarco]

Buddha nature is not an existent that understands or has a will. It's merely a synonym for emptiness.

 

That's a huge belief barrier for disinformed non-dualists. Form is empty,...not Buddha consciousness. Form is empty,...not what's beyond the skandhas. The skandhas are empty, and empty are the skandhas.

 

The consciousness of a Tathagata is not a synonym for emptiness, nor form.

 

A Tathagata is beyond the duality of empty and form.

 

V

[Vmarco]

I have attempted to have conversations with the same and to no avail. I might add that the same would apply to advocates of lineages and doctrine based religions.

 

I have previously mentioned Robert Anton Wilson and this book was written in e-prime, which eliminates the word "is".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Psychology-Brain-Software-Programs/dp/1561840718/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312303011&sr=1-2

 

Quantum Psychology,...looks interesting.

[Vmarco]

[3bob]

Buddha nature is not an existent that understands or has a will. It's merely a synonym for emptiness.

 

Your posts are merely a dime a dozen. The "four fold negation" stands to correct your misconceptions.

 

Om

[3bob]

Maybe the OPs question can be refined.

 

Can you receive benefit from being Connected to a lineage. (notice I did not say attached).

 

Will it be better to make such a connection while at the same time not becoming Attached to or identified with it? (my answer - Yes).

 

PS - Most of the rest of you need to consider your attachment to derailing other peoples posts :-)

 

Craig

 

"Derail", what an insightful observation for part of the goings on here. (although not all goings on)

[3bob]

true spiritual lineage equals purity (and much more) made manifest through that matrix.

[Informer]

I posted the Sutra because it's part of what makes up my current understanding. Sometimes it helps me to read a longer explanation with examples ala Lotus Sutra than just using a "simple analogy".

 

 

I do have a response to this, but I will refrain my original response, as I know how sensitive you choose to be.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

That's a huge belief barrier for disinformed non-dualists. Form is empty,...not Buddha consciousness. Form is empty,...not what's beyond the skandhas. The skandhas are empty, and empty are the skandhas.

 

The consciousness of a Tathagata is not a synonym for emptiness, nor form.

 

A Tathagata is beyond the duality of empty and form.

 

V

 

Yup, you're definitely reifying a transcendent self existent and are far from what the Buddha taught. You misunderstand the mahaparinirvana sutra and instead of seeing the bodhi of the buddhas, you fall back on a formless state of mind as causeless cause.

 

You've still got a long way to go, unless you drop your pride and get some true transmission from realized Buddhist lineage. But.. I don't see you dropping your pride any time soon, it's too powerfully based upon such a transcendent subjective idealism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Your posts are merely a dime a dozen. The "four fold negation" stands to correct your misconceptions.

 

Om

 

Thus the blind keeps leading the blind to re-absorption. I don't see how the 4 fold negation reifies an ultimate transcendent.

 

As the Buddha said, dependent origination is the all, those that see this, see the Buddha. Everyone here seems to be fighting to find an ultimate self existence.

 

p.s. Even Robert Thurman say's. "The state of liberation is the same between Hindu's and Buddhist's, it's just that Buddhists get to keep it for longer."

 

It's really that simple. It's the difference between reifying a formless transcendent and seeing it's dependent emptiness, directly.

[Vajrahridaya]

I might add that the same would apply to advocates of lineages and doctrine based religions.

 

I would add the same to supreme "I" er's. This false sense of clinging to an ultimate Self of all.

[ralis]

I would add the same to supreme "I" er's. This false sense of clinging to an ultimate Self of all.

 

Are you referring to yourself?