I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't understand why you two are having this discussion here. Take it to Dharma Wheel so Namdrol can size you up both.

[Pero]

Namdrol's reply to alwayson today is gold, basically reitering the exact same things I told him which he refused to listen because of his utter ignorance and unreasonable prejudice against Thusness.

 

http://dharmawheel.n...php?f=48&t=5261

 

loled at "You mean even the physical? :jawdrop: "

 

like, didn't I already said?

 

I told you it's a waste of time to engage in this kind of a discussion with him. While presenting himself as someone who fully understands Buddhism he denigrates others and completely closes his mind to anyone else except perhaps Namdrol. And even there he often doesn't seem to even understand correctly what Namdrol is saying.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Prior to labeling, there is just pure sense perception unfiltered by concepts.

 

But with non-conceptual appearances as basis, and ignorance as basis, we project our own assertions on them, and primarily the assertion of existents and nonexistents which causes grasping and suffering.

 

When you practice mindful awareness (see http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html ), you go prior concepts and begin to experience truth beyond filtered experiences or delusions. Then through practicing insight investigation or vipassana/vipashyana, realization of the twofold emptinesses can arise, which liberates your worldview of the existents of self and phenomena, ending all reification, attachments and suffering.

 

Realizing that all perceptions and thoughts are delusions is mindful awareness; there are no necessary truths or knowledges beyond mindful awareness.

 

 

Things always change.

[xabir2005]

Realizing that all perceptions and thoughts are delusions is mindful awareness; there are no necessary truths or knowledges beyond mindful awareness.

 

 

Things always change.

Yes, and change is one of the three fundamental truths about all conditioned phenomena (along with dissatisfactoriness - due to change, and non-self). Buddhists call this the three characteristics of phenomena or the three dharma seals. You need to go beyond conceptual delusion in order to see these truths in action through mindful awareness.

 

I don't exactly agree with you on 'everything is delusion' but would state rather, 'everything is like an illusion'.

 

My personal understanding is in line with this:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

 

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

------------------

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[forestofclarity]

No mean to offend, Xabir, but the fact you illustrate your personal understanding with some one else's words suggests to me that in fact it is NOT a personal understanding at all.

 

 

My personal understanding is in line with this:

 

[xabir2005]

No mean to offend, Xabir, but the fact you illustrate your personal understanding with some one else's words suggests to me that in fact it is NOT a personal understanding at all.

Actually it is my personal understanding, elucidated well by others, so why not quote others.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Things always change.

 

 

I'd like to point out that even this changes. Even a state of unchanging stagnancy is sitll possible, rather all i mean to say is that there are no known truths, it's always flowing and changing, unpredictably predictable, yet unpredictable outright.

 

 

Even the I Ching and Tao Teh Ching predictions can be wrong or even outright defied... The best we have is meditation and mindfulness, not truths in and of themselves, but clarity of the nature of truth, which is still delusional in and of itself.

[gendao]

I really enjoy these heated Buddhist debates! They help provide a n00b (like me) convenient entry points into deeper Buddhist theory.

Third turning stresses luminosity, second turning on emptiness. Luminosity and emptiness can't be separated so I do agree it should be seen as inseparable.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

 

Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

What exactly is "luminosity" and how does it = emptiness?

 

And how exactly are these 2 statements different?

This

 

"To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)."

 

does not resemble this

 

"Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence."

Is the bottomline here that: "luminous" = empty = dependently originated?

 

Or not?

 

Can we clarify & simplify this some with "word/verbal math?"

Edited September 10, 2011 by vortex

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

lol the best advice a "bhuddist n00b" can get is that Sidhartha is from India, taught primarily the means and motivation of meditation, and most importantly: DID NOT (try to) FOUND BHUDDISM.

 

"Bhudda's" followers took to him as a deity for his incredibly sensational approach to spirituality, as having been a Hindu Prince swearing himself to poverty and study of the world and it's natural way.

 

 

His biggest and primarily only point was to guide the mindstorm to a calm and see your true reflection.

 

 

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

Everything built (by his followers and his followers' followers) after that is smoke and mirrors.

 

 

Silently and serently, Sidharta handed a man a lotus flower. The man nodded in acknowledgement while others looked on in confusion and/or frustration.

 

No words need be exchanged between the knowing; words only seek to confuse the seekers of knowledge.

He who speaks, does not know; He who knows, does not speak.

 

True knowledge is unattainable for knowledge is eternally fixed in time, unmoving, uncreating, unchanging; Knowing is fluid and never forever stationary but through varying frequencies of "stop-go".

[xabir2005]

I really enjoy these heated Buddhist debates! They help provide a n00b (like me) convenient entry points into deeper Buddhist theory. :DWhat exactly is "luminosity" and how does it = emptiness?

 

And how exactly are these 2 statements different?Is the bottomline here that: "luminous" = empty = dependently originated?

Pause all thoughts now.

 

Notice that in the absence of conceptualization, nevertheless, there is undeniably a vivid, clear, pure presence, knowing, an energetic vitality and livingness.

 

Notice that in the absence of conceptualization, nevertheless, there is vivid awareness of mind and all sense perceptions.

 

This vivid clear knowing, presence, intelligence, is termed luminous clarity. It is termed luminous not because it is bright in a visual sense, but bright as luminous clarity is illuminating in all experiences. There is the natural limpidity and clarity of a mirror to reflect everything as it is.

 

Since luminous clarity is present prior to concepts - it is simply the natural, uncontrived essence of mind, beyond fabrication. Even in the midst of concepts, luminosity is not lost, but for beginners you can start to get a sense of this by settling your mind to investigate your essence, like settling the pond to reveal whats in it - not that ripples actually make it disappear though.

 

No, luminosity cannot be equated with emptiness, but luminosity is empty of any inherent, independent existence. Therefore luminosity and emptiness are inseparable. With regards to emptiness, do read http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[Prince...]

I see people, including but not limited to xabir2005, promoting their stuff which they wrongly think is Buddhism.

 

These are the principles of Buddhism. Anything more or added is wrong.

 

 

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

 

Have you ever stopped to consider that no one gives a shit about your opinion on who represents what is Buddhism and what is not Buddhism?

 

Here is some helpful information-- stop stalking people on forums and reading all of their posts. Sit your ass down somewhere, take a deep breath, and then take a long walk. It would be much more productive.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

lol the best advice a "bhuddist n00b" can get is that Sidhartha is from India, taught primarily the means and motivation of meditation, and most importantly: DID NOT (try to) FOUND BHUDDISM.

 

"Bhudda's" followers took to him as a deity for his incredibly sensational approach to spirituality, as having been a Hindu Prince swearing himself to poverty and study of the world and it's natural way.

 

 

His biggest and primarily only point was to guide the mindstorm to a calm and see your true reflection.

 

 

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

Everything built (by his followers and his followers' followers) after that is smoke and mirrors.

 

 

Silently and serently, Sidharta handed a man a lotus flower. The man nodded in acknowledgement while others looked on in confusion and/or frustration.

 

No words need be exchanged between the knowing; words only seek to confuse the seekers of knowledge.

He who speaks, does not know; He who knows, does not speak.

 

True knowledge is unattainable for knowledge is eternally fixed in time, unmoving, uncreating, unchanging; Knowing is fluid and never forever stationary but through varying frequencies of "stop-go".

 

This is the truth everyone is missing. You can worship the man, make him more than a man, or use what he taught as a basic stepping stone to greater awareness. Or of course you can follow over 2,000 years of dogma and ideology and see where that gets you. It's really up to you, but my own suggestion is forget Buddhism and instead listen to what Buddha said. Of course the tricky part is sorting through all the things he supposedly said compared to what he actually said.

 

Or even better yet, don't listen to Buddha and just sit and contemplate on your own. You'd be amazed what an ignorant white man from the good ol' south can become aware of when he silences his mind and reaches a state of absolute stillness.

 

Aaron

[Mal]

Have you ever stopped to consider that no one gives a shit about your opinion on who represents what is Buddhism and what is not Buddhism?

 

Here is some helpful information-- stop stalking people on forums and reading all of their posts. Sit your ass down somewhere, take a deep breath, and then take a long walk. It would be much more productive.

 

Alwayson has been suspended already. I'm sorry for his posts but your advise seems sound

[xabir2005]

Alwayson has been suspended already. I'm sorry for his posts but your advise seems sound

Don't worry, he's still reading it, he just told me to do a public apology for 'slandering him here', though I'm not aware of doing that. Edited September 12, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Thanks for posting that. I've also bought Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Eloquence: Tsongkhapa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind, in oder to better understand his position on Yogacara.

 

Here's an interesting excerpt regarding the prophesied spreading of these two schools; this is from a quoted excerpt of Won ch'uk's Chieh sh'en mi ching su/Extensive commentary on the Sandhinirmocana sutra: "Two hundred some years after the nirvana [of the buddha,] Bodhisattva Nagarjuna, on the basis of the Prajna-paramita-sutras, composed several treatises such as the Maha-prajna- paramitopadesa, and the Madhyamaka-karika, etc. In these works, by refuting the imagined nature of dharmas, he has shown the guiding priniciple (naya) of the marklessness [of all dharmas.] Then Aryadeva and others took this up as perfect and by transmitting it from one to the other propagated it. Then, nine hundred some years after the nirvana [of the buddha,] Bodhisattva Maitreya, on the basis of the Samdhi-nirmocana-sutra, composed the treatises such as the Yogacara-bhumi and the Madhyantavibhaga. Acaryas Asanga and Vasubhandu took these texts up as perfect and propagated them. Since at that time, the doctrine was of one taste, there was no controversy of those between those asserting emptiness and those asserting existence (bhava.)* This is the reason why Acarya Nye b'ai 'od (Bandhu-prabha/Prabha-mitra) said: 'A thousand years ago the taste of Buddha's teaching was one. Thereafter mindfulness (smrti) and wisdom (prajna) gradually deteriorated and those asserting emptiness and those asserting existence (bhava) spread widely in the world.'"

 

The last paragraph you bolded, I remember reading before from wiki... " Ju Mipham, the 19th century rime movement commenter, wrote in his commentary on Śāntarakṣita's synthesis, that the ultimate view in both schools is the same and each path also leads to the same ultimate state of abiding." That pretty much coincides with my view of these two schools.

 

*For those reading this: One taste is the non-duality between appearence and emptiness (and samsara/nirvana, etc.) The Sandhinirmocana sutra talks of the one taste (non-duality) of phenomena. From the back cover of the book : "The former school [Madhyamaka] stresses the inexpressible ultimate; the latter [Yogacara,] the natural luminosity of mind."

Interesting predictions.

[lifeforce]

Or even better yet, don't listen to Buddha and just sit and contemplate on your own. You'd be amazed what an ignorant white man from the good ol' south can become aware of when he silences his mind and reaches a state of absolute stillness.

 

Aaron

 

Excellent ! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

"Or even better yet, don't listen to Buddha and just sit and contemplate on your own. You'd be amazed what an ignorant white man from the good ol' south can become aware of when he silences his mind and reaches a state of absolute stillness.

 

Aaron"

 

 

"Excellent ! I couldn't have said it better myself."

 

Too bad it's not always that easy, as most people aren't born into this life with the wisdom to "transcend" cyclical existence. There's so many byroads that you can get lost on, it would be stupid not to take guidence from someone or to use teachings to further your cultivation torwards realizing fully the "root" of mind, body and the universe (if this is your goal.)

 

I wanted to address this comment, but I felt it was not in the spirit of this thread, so I will make a new post. If you wish we can discuss this idea there, since I think it is a discussion that bears merit.

 

Aaron

[caliph]

alwayson is a troll seen him on Veritas Society trolling before... if he knew anything about buddhism he'd know that compassion and lovingkindness are also major components and he has failed to display them~

[BluLotus]

I wandered in here and found a bunch of 'Buddhists' fighting over what is or isn't 'real' Buddhism, LOL! I don't know whether to laugh or be disheartened.

 

A true Buddhist teaching MUST contain the FOUR SEALS or it is NOT a Buddhist teaching. Period. The FOUR SEALS are described slightly differently from different sources, but the general idea is the same. Various teachers, such as the Dalai Lama's close, personal student, Venerable Thubten Chodron, have talked about these Seals. The 4 Seals are generally as follows:

 

1. All conditioned, compounded things are impermanent.

2. All contaminated phenomena are dukkha

    (unsatisfactory) or in the nature of suffering.

3. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence.

4. Nirvana is true peace and free of extremes.

 

THE FOUR SEALS are what make something 'Buddhist' or not.

Edited December 20, 2019 by BluLotus

[BluLotus]

I just saw the dates on these posts and realized I wandered into an OLD conversation from 2011. I didn't mean to 'resurrect' a long "dead" thread, LOL! I just wasn't paying attention. 

[Apech]

40 minutes ago, BluLotus said:

I just saw the dates on these posts and realized I wandered into an OLD conversation from 2011. I didn't mean to 'resurrect' a long "dead" thread, LOL! I just wasn't paying attention. 

 

 

A mere 8 year gap is no obstacle to a good argument

[gatito]

I noticed that too, although, back in the day it was a lot more intellectually stimulating (barring a couple of notable examples).