I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[RongzomFan]

I don't see a need to compare his description to your incomplete explanation.

 

 

I think you got it backwards.

[xabir2005]

Your post may present an understanding of the aspect of view, but not the realization. The realization is as Namdrol describes how the view dissolves into a wisdom that perceives all appearances as being like a magician's trick, like mirage, dream, form, bubbles, etc.

 

The view aspect is as I describe here:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/view.html

 

The View

Posted by: An Eternal Now

 

Just posted in The Tao Bums a week ago:

 

I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment.

 

I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.

 

I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view.

 

The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.

 

The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.

 

The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.

 

What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of views cause all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views.

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism is pretty simple:

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

 

 

OK?

 

You either know there is a primordial freedom from grasping your mind or you don't.

 

Vidya vs avidya

[xabir2005]

The only freedom comes from realizing the twofold emptinesses which liberates the view of inherency.

 

In other words it does not just come from merely sustaining a non-conceptual state (like being bare and naked in awareness), but from realizing the twofold emptinesses which liberates from extreme views.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[RongzomFan]

Xabir,

 

I don't read Sutras or Chinese Buddhism.

 

I don't do that crap.

 

Nagarjuna and sons already distilled the essence of all the Buddhist texts extant at that time into a system called Madhyamaka.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

The only freedom comes from realizing the twofold emptinesses which liberates the view of inherency.

 

In other words it does not just come from merely sustaining a non-conceptual state (like being bare and naked in awareness), but from realizing the twofold emptinesses which liberates from extreme views.

 

 

Damn, you REALLY need to study Gorampa. Wow.

 

 

I follow Gorampa's Madhyamaka, which is the definitive Madhyamaka in my opinion.

 

 

Thats what my A, B, C is.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

I don't read Sutras or Chinese Buddhism.

 

I don't do that crap.

 

Nagarjuna and sons already distilled the essence of all the Buddhist texts extant at that time into a system called Madhyamaka.

There will be no Nagarjuna if there were no sutras. Nagarjuna simply explains the sutras.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

There will be no Nagarjuna if there were no sutras. Nagarjuna simply explains the sutras.

 

 

Exactly.

 

We agree.

 

Thus there is no need to read the actual sutras yourself.

[xabir2005]

Damn, you REALLY need to study Gorampa. Wow.

I'm pretty sure Gorampa stresses the realization of emptiness.

[RongzomFan]

I'm pretty sure Gorampa stresses the realization of emptiness.

 

 

???

 

I'm not following.

 

 

P.S. What you consider emptiness is just nonsense and not-Buddhist.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

So basically a mod should make this a sticky:

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

 

 

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

You make buddhism appear to me as if it is to find out who is right, rather than what

a layman can do. The rules are OK but how you use it in your daily life?

If you are interested in learning Buddhism, you should begin with an introductory book such as http://www.amazon.com/dp/0767903692/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

 

Buddhism is a practical teaching. Try to get familiarized with four noble truths and eightfold path.

[RongzomFan]

If you are interested in learning Buddhism, you should begin with an introductory book such as http://www.amazon.com/dp/0767903692/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

 

Buddhism is a practical teaching. Try to get familiarized with four noble truths and eightfold path.

 

 

I prefer Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams for an intro.

 

And its floating around for free on the internet:

 

http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/2009/02/buddhist-thought-complete-introduction.html

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

I would say there's still a need to read the sutras. The sutras help to refine and better the understanding of an individual's experience.

 

 

Are you smarter than Nagarjuna?

 

Why would you read the sutras LOL

 

Just study Madhyamaka (or read my first post again which is Madhyamaka in the vein of Gorampa)

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

???

 

I'm not following.

 

 

P.S. What you consider emptiness is just nonsense and not-Buddhist.

Basically, what I consider as emptiness simply means that what dependently originates is empty of an independent, inherent, locatable existence. All appearances lack self-being and hence while appearing is fundamentally empty, thus being like illusions, like a dream, a mirage, etc. The teaching of emptiness due to dependent origination is peculiar to Buddhism alone.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

This has been my experiemce also. Before Buddhism, I was able to stop my thoughts in order to be in a non-conceptual state where there was just awareness; though there was still reification. By realizing the twofold emptinesses of the individual and phenomena, is what enabled me to detach from inherency and any prior held reifications. Experiences became non-dual, there was no longer a state to be sought, something to "integrate with" in order to be free from suffering or mental anguish.

 

As the Sandhinirmocana Sutra says: "All phenomena lack own being; all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana."

Yes indeed... non-conceptual experiences are unable to remove our deep-seated views. Only the realization of the twofold emptiness will liberate.

[RongzomFan]

This is incomplete and not the full teaching. Better to not sticky or reference, lest someone doesn't want an accurate understanding of the teachings.

 

 

It is the full teaching.

 

You are just ignorant.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Basically, what I consider as emptiness simply means that what dependently originates is empty of an independent, inherent, locatable existence.

 

 

Wrong.

 

This is the Gelupa view of Tsongkhapa.

 

Unfortunately, as noted by others, it has contaminated every bit of Buddhism.

 

Read second paragraph:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson