Tradition and Lineages

[Informer]

Not part of it - of course, and you never see me shoving emptiness into people unless they are truly interested or are inquiring into it.

 

I never talked about anatta or shunyata to vmarco, for instance. I only talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... However, I did state that there are further insights about anatta and shunyata (without elaboration) and that it is best he find a Mahamudra teacher, since he is interested in Mahamudra and seems to be a sincere and genuine practitioner.

 

O that's right, it says it's ok if they aren't trained as long as they ask.

 

 

What's worse is that the place you promote, does it intentionally.

 

Why would that be part of the vow? Could it be because there are pitfalls and paradox that one might be caught in?

 

What vows did you take?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

Nice quote Xabir,...unfortunately, it appears that this thread is gravitating towards "potty jokes", diatribe, and ad hominem, rather than Traditions and Lineages (and their shortcomings). Anyway, the serious discussion has been most appreciated.

 

The monk Avalokiteshvara (Av a lo ki tash vara) who became the goddess Kuan Yin when he uncovered the threshold of compassion (Heart sutra), once told the Buddha he found the doctrine of dependent origination evident and easy to comprehend. The Buddha replied, “Ananda, do not say so. The doctrine of dependent origination is so profound that sentient beings are unable to comprehend it. They are unable to understand what I teach; likewise, they are unable to perceive the process of dependent arising. Consequently, they are perplexed just like with a ball of entangled thread, a jumble of munja grass. They cannot free themselves from sufferings, state of deprivation, degeneration, and transmigration.”

 

That was not an admonishment of Avalokiteshvara, for as was written in Chapter 6 of the Shurangama Sutra, Avalokiteshvara liberated the sentient mind when she uncovered an understanding of hearing, and all six senses were simultaneously liberated,...but what Buddha was expressing, is that for most, probably more than 99%, understanding Dependant Origination is too profound for ordinary consciouness,...especially as he said, “Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.” .

 

Usually, when ordinary sentient folks, especially those attached to Lineages for their identity, find themselves in a discussion of anything profound, they typically lash out, convert to potty talk, or fall asleep,...I'm sure you must have noticed this in life.

 

V

Yes... I thoroughly agree with what is being said there. Dependent Origination is a very subtle and profound truth... in fact it is one of the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings - including and not limited to the four noble truths, the teachings of emptiness, and so on.

 

The thorough realization of dependent origination is what results in liberation.

 

Lastly, even though it is not good to be attached to anything including lineages and teachers, nevertheless, pure lineage is important as I have quoted from the Dalai Lama - and a teacher who is the embodiment of the pure lineage, and who can transmit the dharma. In a sense all teachings are expedients like a raft - for the purpose of abandoning our delusions and attachments and not for the purpose of clinging on (to the raft) - and yet without the raft, we cannot obtain the perfect awakening of Buddhahood.

 

This is not only the case for Vajrayana... even in Zen, the 1st Ch'an Patriarch Bodhidharma says,

 

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/THE%20ZEN%20TEACHINGS%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.htm

 

"To find a Buddha all you have to do is see your nature. Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who’s free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don’t see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain.

 

There’s no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize then that everything you see is like a dream or illusion.

 

If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand."

 

 

A true lineage has time-tested techniques, experience, teachings, of countless yogis through thousands of years... therefore, never underestimate the importance of true lineage.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Will you tell me the vows you took and explain them please xabir?

[Vmarco]

Did you see me elaborate anatta to vmarco? Did you see me talk about anatta to vmarco in my previous posts? The most I talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... I only talk about anatta and shunyata to people who inquire about it...

 

 

On the contrary,...I'm quite sure I did not use the term anatta, nor inquired about in any post on this forum,...and yet you accuse me of having "not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*." Which is absurd,...for several reasons which can be authenticated throughout my posts.

 

As for Dependent Origination,...you are mistaken,...it is NOT the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings,...as I've mentioned,...most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

On the other hand, let's be clear,...Xabir's anatta believes his superior knowledge of Buddha dogma surpasses all others. The thing is Xabir, authentic Buddhism isn't about knowledge, or regurgitating the ideas of Lineages. Dependent Origination, which is in essence, the same as the Four Noble Truths, is simply to point to the fact that a sentient being is not who they think they are.

 

I'm quite certain that you do not have a clue,...because you have given no indication as to any understanding of When you are. NO ONE, NEVER, EVER, understands Dependent Origination without simultaneously uncovering When they are. 'When' is a viewable characteristic of a true bodhisattva,...and thus I say, you don't have a clue.

 

For example,...Buddhists have a story about Shakyamuni Buddha and Angulimala, the wearer of a garland of fingers. Angulimala was a notorious bandit who cut off a finger from each of his victims and wore them all around his neck. Although there are several variations of the story, the punch line is nearly the same. One day, Buddha, the light of Asia, was walking calmly along a road in the Kingdom of Kosala, where Angulimala was seeking his next victim. Seeing Buddha, Angulimala ran up to bash him from behind, yet he could not get close enough, and the faster he went, the Awakened One seemed to go that much faster. Infuriated and bewildered at not being able to catch him, Angulimala shouted for Buddha to stop. The light of Asia replied, “But I’m standing still. If you desire to catch me, you too must be still.” This is where oral traditions, especially Theravada ones, go off into different invented morals. The true pearl in the tale is that no matter how fast you move to catch light, light will always be 299,792 kilometers per second faster. Undivided light can only be caught through stillness.

 

Through this experience, Angulimala acquired one taste of the present. Thus, when Buddha said, “Come, bhikkhu,” Angulimala removed his garland of fingers and became a devotee of the light. (A bhikkhu is a fully ordained male monastic). One taste of the present brings a realization that the past is not real, and who really wants what’s unreal besides the unreal? mc² < c

 

V

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

On the contrary,...I'm quite sure I did not use the term anatta, nor inquired about in any post on this forum,...and yet you accuse me of having "not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*." Which is absurd,...for several reasons which can be authenticated throughout my posts.

 

As for Dependent Origination,...you are mistaken,...it is NOT the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings,...as I've mentioned,...most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

On the other hand, let's be clear,...Xabir's anatta believes his superior knowledge of Buddha dogma surpasses all others. The thing is Xabir, authentic Buddhism isn't about knowledge, or regurgitating the ideas of Lineages. Dependent Origination, which is in essence, the same as the Four Noble Truths, is simply to point to the fact that a sentient being is not who they think they are.

 

I'm quite certain that you do not have a clue,...because you have given no indication as to any understanding of When you are. NO ONE, NEVER, EVER, understands Dependent Origination without simultaneously uncovering When they are. 'When' is a viewable characteristic of a true bodhisattva,...and thus I say, you don't have a clue.

 

For example,...Buddhists have a story about Shakyamuni Buddha and Angulimala, the wearer of a garland of fingers. Angulimala was a notorious bandit who cut off a finger from each of his victims and wore them all around his neck. Although there are several variations of the story, the punch line is nearly the same. One day, Buddha, the light of Asia, was walking calmly along a road in the Kingdom of Kosala, where Angulimala was seeking his next victim. Seeing Buddha, Angulimala ran up to bash him from behind, yet he could not get close enough, and the faster he went, the Awakened One seemed to go that much faster. Infuriated and bewildered at not being able to catch him, Angulimala shouted for Buddha to stop. The light of Asia replied, “But I’m standing still. If you desire to catch me, you too must be still.” This is where oral traditions, especially Theravada ones, go off into different invented morals. The true pearl in the tale is that no matter how fast you move to catch light, light will always be 299,792 kilometers per second faster. Undivided light can only be caught through stillness.

 

Through this experience, Angulimala acquired one taste of the present. Thus, when Buddha said, “Come, bhikkhu,” Angulimala removed his garland of fingers and became a devotee of the light. (A bhikkhu is a fully ordained male monastic). One taste of the present brings a realization that the past is not real, and who really wants what’s unreal besides the unreal? mc² < c

 

V

Yes, I am aware about the utterly still and present Pure Presence. Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

You appear quite disinformed about about Dependent Origination, its purpose, and what Buddha taught. It is also outrageous how you have, like Vajrahridaya, developed an attachment to Emptiness as a goal.

 

What? emptiness is not a goal, it is not a thing or a substance, it is simply the nature of things. How is that a goal? It can not be grasped after if it is not a thing. You are the one who turns it into a substance.

 

Sure in Buddhist teachings Its Important to see it, but it is not the goal per say, the goal is Enlightenment for the sake off all sentient Beings.

 

Buddha expressed His experience of enlightenment in one of two ways, either in terms of having understood the Four Noble Truths, or in terms of having understood the nature of dependent origination,...each are simply principals of dualistic causality,...and are merely intended uncover what is beyond the skandhas.

 

Their is no permanent self within the sentient self.

I agree with this...

 

Even though a few, like Avalokiteshvara, could understand Dependent Origination quite easily, for most sentient beings, their bizarre concepts of things made is very difficult,...so Buddha had to address it like a kindergarten teacher doing ABC's with imbeciles.

 

Buddha's teachings range from very simple to very complex and profound, although most of the subtelty is still lost on you

 

Most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

What like Osho or Dolano? You are hilarious in your use of words like 'mature' or 'group think' to discount what actual Buddhists study and what Buddhism actually means.

It gets even funnier, when you quote Osho.

 

You separate your self from Buddhists at large, claiming you are the only honest one among them, because you are a 'freethought' Buddhist, like that means something, and then you selectively choose a few Interpretations that suit you and Ignore the rest. The entire set of Buddhist teachings, are logical, and fit together perfectly if you understand the context of them being aimed at different people with different capacities.

 

You seem to want to prove your points, or to distinguish yourself as a philosopher of considerable Insight yet you do not even have the guts to learn Buddhist teachings properly, in a way that would allow you to communicate with us, by understanding our perspective. You say you understand it, but then when you feed back your version of what we mean, you twist it all around, add a whole bunch of assumptions and totally get it wrong.

How can you argue when you do not know the perspective you argue against - which you clearly do not.

I have been trying to understand how you mean your stuff, but there are so many Illogical or plain stupid mish mashes of Buddhist, Osho, Dolano, politics, and pseudo science/mathematics that it seems pointless.

 

You could learn from Buddha and also be able to communicate to us as, how did you put it? Imbeciles, but then you would not be seen as somehow having a vastly superior Intelect to all the lame ass Buddhists who pollute the atmosphere around you with their 12 century and on teachings.

 

Form is empty, and empty is form,....if you disagree with this basic Buddha statement, than you disagree with Buddha.

Absolutely. Form is empty of any Inherent existence, period. That is not at all saying that form is filled with a mysterious substance called 'Emptiness'.

 

From emptiness, a substance unseen, a division of unwinded form, reaches a concave optical boundary where it begins to multiply, winding spectra into form.

Pseudo science look at me I'm so smart drivel. Fake Buddhism.

 

In no way does this contradict Dependant Origination,...it only contradicts the teachings of Lineages since the 12th century.

Blah blah. Buddhist masters since then have done astonishing things, things you will never accomplish in this life.

 

Not only are your views of duality strange,...it strange who sharply you deny the Tao on a Tao forum.

 

What? more mewling mind vomit. You are not even speaking clearly. And how do you reach this conclusion?

 

I never said emptiness creates (that's your misinterpetation of the cyclic flow between form and emptiness),...the only time I recall using the term "creator" was in the context that their can be no creator without the illusion of time,...also consistent with Dependent Origination.

 

You said things come from emptiness, a view Buddha rejected. Thats just trying to create a 'ground' or 'source' for everything and is reverting to eternalism, the very stance Buddha utterly rejected. There is no flow between emptiness and form. emptiness is not a thing that can flow, or do anything. It is just the nature of things as they are: Inherently empty.

 

He who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma,...and you dear poster, haven't a clue about Dependent Origination, or the nature of duality.

 

V

 

Right back at ya! lol

 

May your vision be purified!

Seth.

[Seth Ananda]

I might add Vmarco, that you should take a few notes from Gold is Heavy. He actually understands Buddhist philosophy very very well, because he bothered to spend the time to learn it properly, and in places he offer excellent critiques or counter arguments to elements of the Buddhist perspective.

 

I am not saying I always agree with him, but it is always a useful and Interesting conversation.

[Informer]

I think by free-thought he is meaning that he doesn't blindly accept what is said until it is experienced 1st hand. Which is how it was intended IMO.

 

Otherwise there is accepting of beliefs.

 

In other words, it is a seeker.

 

The book says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

A friend says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

A teacher says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

 

If we all just blindly accepted whatever we were indoctrinated to, where would that leave us?

 

I would be spending a lot of time in a church praying to jesus, the only factor being of where I was born.

[Seth Ananda]

I think by free-thought he is meaning that he doesn't blindly accept what is said until it is experienced 1st hand. Which is how it was intended IMO.

 

Otherwise there is accepting of beliefs.

 

In other words, it is a seeker.

 

The book says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

A friend says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

A teacher says it, but does it prove to be true?

 

 

If we all just blindly accepted whatever we were indoctrinated to, where would that leave us?

 

I would be spending a lot of time in a church praying to jesus, the only factor being of where I was born.

Cool.

In that case most Buddhist, at least the ones I admire are Free thought Buddhists. We sit for many many many hours of our life, looking to see if it could be true. Looking for flaws.

Trying to find ways to prove it wrong is one of my main methods.

 

If we just 'believed' in it, it would be very boring and not a mystical path. All I have ever wanted in my path was to experience truth for my self. For me Buddhism has brought that to me - for now. It lets me experience it, and no matter how hard I try I can not prove it wrong.

 

I can see some potential problems and loopholes, especially as clasical Buddhist thought did not have the development of certain elements of post-modernism and its understanding of paradigms and meta-paradigms, but that is something that I am still analysing and contemplating. When I have given it a lot more thought I will post it for feed back.

And even if their are valid points, it will not actually discount Buddhism, for the path still works.

[3bob]

Not part of it - of course, and you never see me shoving emptiness into people unless they are truly interested or are inquiring into it.

 

I never talked about anatta or shunyata to vmarco, for instance. I only talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... However, I did state that there are further insights about anatta and shunyata (without elaboration) and that it is best he find a Mahamudra teacher, since he is interested in Mahamudra and seems to be a sincere and genuine practitioner.

 

Xabir said,

 

"and you never see me shoving emptiness into people unless they are truly interested or are inquiring into it" Hmm... Yet when the dharma of "Right Speech" is so often broken and crapped all over at this place by your fellow birds of a feather you remain silent? Thus for my two cents worth those like yourself are also breaking a Buddhist dharma through a form of omission, thus-ness and obviously lowering the level of integrity of what you profess. Btw, and if you will, going 'beyond' the light is not profound or subtle (it just seems that way to mind) along with all such encumbering connotations and or misuse of doctrines, for it is plain as day, simple and happy. "Amen"

[goldisheavy]

I might add Vmarco, that you should take a few notes from Gold is Heavy. He actually understands Buddhist philosophy very very well, because he bothered to spend the time to learn it properly, and in places he offer excellent critiques or counter arguments to elements of the Buddhist perspective.

 

I am not saying I always agree with him, but it is always a useful and Interesting conversation.

 

Hi Seth,

 

I appreciate your kind words, but people should remember that I am just a regular person without any kind of magical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine. Everything I say should be questioned and nothing I say should be taken on faith. My level of practice is not anything special.

 

I function best in the role of a friend or a fellow conversationalist. If someone starts to think I am anything beyond a fellow conversationalist, that's equivalent to swallowing a bucketful of poison.

 

I don't know everything there is to know. I get puzzled or mystified from time to time. So while I appreciate your kindness I think you're exaggerating and embellishing.

Edited August 5, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

"If we all just blindly accepted whatever we were indoctrinated to, where would that leave us?"

 

Right about here:-)

 

There are still a lot of things I blindly accept. A lot of other things I don't.

Why is that? Because it's oh so much more convenient and comfortable to accept. What things should I not accept and what things are worth questioning? It seems there are so many! But I think the ones that might be worth questioning are the ones which seem to go to great lengths to convince me, perhaps use force, perhaps shame, perhaps promise me something great if I walk that way...

[3bob]

What? emptiness is not a goal, it is not a thing or a substance, it is simply the nature of things. How is that a goal? It can not be grasped after if it is not a thing. You are the one who turns it into a substance.

 

Sure in Buddhist teachings Its Important to see it, but it is not the goal per say, the goal is Enlightenment for the sake off all sentient Beings.

 

I agree with this...

 

Buddha's teachings range from very simple to very complex and profound, although most of the subtelty is still lost on you

 

What like Osho or Dolano? You are hilarious in your use of words like 'mature' or 'group think' to discount what actual Buddhists study and what Buddhism actually means.

It gets even funnier, when you quote Osho.

 

You separate your self from Buddhists at large, claiming you are the only honest one among them, because you are a 'freethought' Buddhist, like that means something, and then you selectively choose a few Interpretations that suit you and Ignore the rest. The entire set of Buddhist teachings, are logical, and fit together perfectly if you understand the context of them being aimed at different people with different capacities.

 

You seem to want to prove your points, or to distinguish yourself as a philosopher of considerable Insight yet you do not even have the guts to learn Buddhist teachings properly, in a way that would allow you to communicate with us, by understanding our perspective. You say you understand it, but then when you feed back your version of what we mean, you twist it all around, add a whole bunch of assumptions and totally get it wrong.

How can you argue when you do not know the perspective you argue against - which you clearly do not.

I have been trying to understand how you mean your stuff, but there are so many Illogical or plain stupid mish mashes of Buddhist, Osho, Dolano, politics, and pseudo science/mathematics that it seems pointless.

 

You could learn from Buddha and also be able to communicate to us as, how did you put it? Imbeciles, but then you would not be seen as somehow having a vastly superior Intelect to all the lame ass Buddhists who pollute the atmosphere around you with their 12 century and on teachings.

 

Absolutely. Form is empty of any Inherent existence, period. That is not at all saying that form is filled with a mysterious substance called 'Emptiness'.

 

Pseudo science look at me I'm so smart drivel. Fake Buddhism.

 

Blah blah. Buddhist masters since then have done astonishing things, things you will never accomplish in this life.

 

What? more mewling mind vomit. You are not even speaking clearly. And how do you reach this conclusion?

 

You said things come from emptiness, a view Buddha rejected. Thats just trying to create a 'ground' or 'source' for everything and is reverting to eternalism, the very stance Buddha utterly rejected. There is no flow between emptiness and form. emptiness is not a thing that can flow, or do anything. It is just the nature of things as they are: Inherently empty.

 

Right back at ya! lol

 

May your vision be purified!

Seth.

 

Wow Seth, maybe you are not such a lovable, self described "lady magnet" type of guy?

[Informer]

"If we all just blindly accepted whatever we were indoctrinated to, where would that leave us?"

 

Right about here:-)

 

There are still a lot of things I blindly accept. A lot of other things I don't.

Why is that? Because it's oh so much more convenient and comfortable to accept. What things should I not accept and what things are worth questioning? It seems there are so many! But I think the ones that might be worth questioning are the ones which seem to go to great lengths to convince me, perhaps use force, perhaps shame, perhaps promise me something great if I walk that way...

 

Fallow the heart

[Seth Ananda]

Wow Seth, maybe you are not such a lovable, self described "lady magnet" type of guy?

heheh, I have my moments...

 

Unfortunately patience is not one of my virtues yet.

I will admit it, Vmaro pisses me off. He has a similar communication style to Gauss. His theory's are full of crazy, but when I try to understand what he is Implying, he fills it up with statements like 'backwards moving convex light is full spectrum mathematical tube torus empty substance that does not exist...

And then he tops it all off with an Osho quote. That seals the deal for me.

Osho drives me nuts!

 

Could you really Imagine that I do not have buttons?

Or maybe you just wanted to take a swing at me...?

 

But what does all this have to do with the Lady's? What is stirring in your psyche?

[xabir2005]

On the contrary,...I'm quite sure I did not use the term anatta, nor inquired about in any post on this forum,...and yet you accuse me of having "not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*." Which is absurd,...for several reasons which can be authenticated throughout my posts.

 

As for Dependent Origination,...you are mistaken,...it is NOT the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings,...as I've mentioned,...most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

On the other hand, let's be clear,...Xabir's anatta believes his superior knowledge of Buddha dogma surpasses all others. The thing is Xabir, authentic Buddhism isn't about knowledge, or regurgitating the ideas of Lineages. Dependent Origination, which is in essence, the same as the Four Noble Truths, is simply to point to the fact that a sentient being is not who they think they are.

 

I'm quite certain that you do not have a clue,...because you have given no indication as to any understanding of When you are. NO ONE, NEVER, EVER, understands Dependent Origination without simultaneously uncovering When they are. 'When' is a viewable characteristic of a true bodhisattva,...and thus I say, you don't have a clue.

 

For example,...Buddhists have a story about Shakyamuni Buddha and Angulimala, the wearer of a garland of fingers. Angulimala was a notorious bandit who cut off a finger from each of his victims and wore them all around his neck. Although there are several variations of the story, the punch line is nearly the same. One day, Buddha, the light of Asia, was walking calmly along a road in the Kingdom of Kosala, where Angulimala was seeking his next victim. Seeing Buddha, Angulimala ran up to bash him from behind, yet he could not get close enough, and the faster he went, the Awakened One seemed to go that much faster. Infuriated and bewildered at not being able to catch him, Angulimala shouted for Buddha to stop. The light of Asia replied, “But I’m standing still. If you desire to catch me, you too must be still.” This is where oral traditions, especially Theravada ones, go off into different invented morals. The true pearl in the tale is that no matter how fast you move to catch light, light will always be 299,792 kilometers per second faster. Undivided light can only be caught through stillness.

 

Through this experience, Angulimala acquired one taste of the present. Thus, when Buddha said, “Come, bhikkhu,” Angulimala removed his garland of fingers and became a devotee of the light. (A bhikkhu is a fully ordained male monastic). One taste of the present brings a realization that the past is not real, and who really wants what’s unreal besides the unreal? mc² < c

 

V

In Mahamudra there is pointing out of Mind, Thoughts and Sense-Perceptions.

 

When non-dual insight occurs, you have that same non-dual Presence taste in and as all thoughts and perceptions (rather than have thoughts and perceptions occur 'within a background of presence' which is dualistic).

 

Thrangu Rinpoche,

 

"For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish."

Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth,

 

I appreciate your kind words, but people should remember that I am just a regular person without any kind of magical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine. Everything I say should be questioned and nothing I say should be taken on faith. My level of practice is not anything special.

 

I function best in the role of a friend or a fellow conversationalist. If someone starts to think I am anything beyond a fellow conversationalist, that's equivalent to swallowing a bucketful of poison.

 

I don't know everything there is to know. I get puzzled or mystified from time to time. So while I appreciate your kindness I think you're exaggerating and embellishing.

Pretty much my point. I am not worshipping you, but you are a good example of someone who thinks for himself, and questions, [as does Vmarco] and these are crucial wonderful qualities.

But, unlike Vmarco you bothered to learn the Buddhist Language others use, which makes you capable of having an Intelligent conversation, and sometimes challenging Buddhist structures in a way, Buddhists can understand and converse about.

 

Most of Vmarco's speels leave me feeling like i just read a bad scifi script, and i still do not get what he was going on about. That may be just my own limitations.

 

I love conversation myself, and do feel limited by typing.

I often wonder if the same barriers would be present if we could all just meet up...

 

Me and Vmarco, Ralis and Vajra, Xabir and Marblehead, Informer, Kate, serene, blasto, stig and you... all having coffee! It could be awesome! lol

[Seth Ananda]

Sorry you too 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

As for Dependent Origination,...you are mistaken,...it is NOT the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings,...as I've mentioned,...most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

Oh yes it does!

 

Which is why the Buddha only realized D.O. after seeing directly infinite consciousness (which you determine is the end all be all) otherwise known as infinite light from light's perspective. Not the same as the clear light which Tilopa is talking about, but you think it is. Anyway... The Buddha had the realization of dependent origination after his mastery of the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, which even that level of understanding seems to allude you my dear brother. You should put away your pride of your absorption into light and truly meet a great master.

 

Go to Garchen Rinpoche... why not? He might surprise you, even though in the tradition it say's to witness a great teacher for many years before accepting him as your Guru. As one has to work through all ones pre-conceptions and subconscious projections and really get to know a Teacher objectively. This can take many years.

[3bob]

Sorry you too 3bob

 

Thanks Seth, Not a bad idea of having a get together although logistics could be tough.

[3bob]

heheh, I have my moments...

 

Unfortunately patience is not one of my virtues yet.

I will admit it, Vmaro pisses me off. He has a similar communication style to Gauss. His theory's are full of crazy, but when I try to understand what he is Implying, he fills it up with statements like 'backwards moving convex light is full spectrum mathematical tube torus empty substance that does not exist...

And then he tops it all off with an Osho quote. That seals the deal for me.

Osho drives me nuts!

 

Could you really Imagine that I do not have buttons?

Or maybe you just wanted to take a swing at me...?

 

But what does all this have to do with the Lady's? What is stirring in your psyche?

 

I have buttons to, anyway I hope you don't mind me saying that

it sounds like you've re-grouped (so to speak) to a greater space.

And its not so easy to do that:

 

"...Through being impelled to by others, we discover Dharma

And find the essential meaning. Thank you, all who drive us on!

We dedicate our merit to you all, to repay your kindness".

 

- Gyalwa Longchenpa

[Vmarco]

Oh yes it does!

 

Which is why the Buddha only realized D.O. after seeing directly infinite consciousness (which you determine is the end all be all) otherwise known as infinite light from light's perspective. Not the same as the clear light which Tilopa is talking about, but you think it is. Anyway... The Buddha had the realization of dependent origination after his mastery of the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, which even that level of understanding seems to allude you my dear brother. You should put away your pride of your absorption into light and truly meet a great master.

 

Go to Garchen Rinpoche... why not? He might surprise you, even though in the tradition it say's to witness a great teacher for many years before accepting him as your Guru. As one has to work through all ones pre-conceptions and subconscious projections and really get to know a Teacher objectively. This can take many years.

 

 

Vajrahridaya, your beliefs are blinding you from reading what I've said.

 

First,...although your Lineage disagrees, other Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

That is not my quote,...but I do share that position.

 

You then continue with your false accusations that I worship an Infinite Light, which I have said. In fact, I recall posting that,...Infinity is another voguish belief topic among the object-ive minded. Theories of infinite space, time, and quantity are just more object-ive math. Definitions of infinity are related or relative to the concept of immeasurability in space, time, or quantity. However, if there is no space, time, or quantity, as implied by quantum cosmology, then there is no infinity.

 

I also said that I am on the Short Path,...I don't have years to follow some guru object-ively,...I've already realized the delusion of objects. Your suggestion is akin to asking a geometrist to go back to grade school to learn arithmetic. Please, don't misinterpret me,...I'm sure that there are many people who feel they need to learn arithmetic,...I'm just not one of them. Once one has stepped onto the Short Path there is no going back to the Long Path's.

 

Although those on the Long Path's appear to love calling those on the Short Path prideful and such, you really don't have a clue, because any pride has been effortless extinguished as a consequence of entering the Short Path. Thus, your insistent character assassinations is just proof of your own Long Path level,...and attachment to the delusion of humility.

 

"Humility is just a degree of pride" Wei Wu Wei

 

Unfortunately, the immature who see no humility, and automatically prescribe pride, are way too caught up in duality.

 

V

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

To make a further point about Traditions and Lineages, start the following YouTube at minute 12:00, and whenever the word 'economics' is mentioned, think "Traditions and Lineages", and whenever the term 'Economist' is mentioned, think "Priests and Gurus".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNgSa7GvA&feature=related

[johndoe2012]

Edited December 9, 2011 by chris d

[Vmarco]