Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[xabir2005]

As GIH once said very aptly, you are a mere voice hearer and a follower of dogma.

In Buddhism, faith is important for progress. So examine a teaching, if Buddha's message appeals to reason (therefore not dogma), have faith in the teachings and practice, so that one day you can transcend mere belief into truly knowing and experiecing for yourself.

and most of all unimaginative

I am not a buddha with endless skillful means, I have limited ability at expressing my realization, which may improve as time goes by.

 

Just because you see an apple doesn't mean your vocabulary is going to improve at describing it.

 

And anyway it is pretty pointless to - unless you really want to teach a lot of people (I am not a teacher - merely sharing my realization and experience, hopefully it may be of help to a few).

 

Awakening and liberation doesn't mean you have great skillful means. A Pratyekabuddha is known to awaken outside the dispensation of the Buddha, but without the teaching of Buddha, he is unable to articulate and express it to others or teach others.

But that's only because you fool yourself more than anyone else. You give the same vibe as an evangelical Christian out to "save" everyone, no different and just as violent and unsympathetic: never truly for the sake of others but for the sake of Buddhism, and merit points.

Actually you are the one who brought out all these religion things - I never 'evangelise' but simply share my experience. I never even mentioned 'Buddhism' in my first post. In fact I even said that you can utilize self-inquiry, vedanta etc according to your circumstance, and go for 'pragmatic dharma - whatever works'.

 

As I said earlier, this is a discussion of my realization and experience, and I have no intentions on trying to convince people of other views, but you brought in things about this and that... vedanta vs my view or whatever.

 

And as I said earlier, "I'm more for pragmatic discussions nowadays than debating" which view is higher and so on, until you came in and brought these issues up.

Again, don't give me that crap about "oh but I discovered it to be so." Four years ago for the entire time we had the lengthy discussion here on the taobums passionately for your views (for something like 40 pages), it was revealed later that you really had no direct insight into any of the stuff you debated for. You just argued on and on with dwai on mere belief, on mere theory pretending all the while that it was something you were certain about.

No I never once said that 'I realized anatta and emptiness' 4 years ago, even though I did have glimpses of experiences (but not a realization or insight). Realization happened within the last two years.

And now you say it's not something one can understand through theory.

You can understand theoretically, which btw is important as part of 'right view', but theoretical right view is not realization of right view.

So basically you are saying back then you were just debating on grounds of faith alone, pretending it was wisdom. That stubbornness is no different now.

Different, cos I realized now but was dependent on faith previously.

Oh, and I forgot, you are really here to gain merit by proselytizing so to speed up your own meditative progress.

I never really had merits in mind but just want to share it with those who can benefit from it, I think I have enough merits for now. haha

To me you are a great example of how eastern spiritual traditions are not exempt from becoming a mirror to the west's religious infatuation. The fact that people will see you as some wise practitioner is what I am concerned about, but hopefully people like Seth can make their own judgments after interacting with you for a while. It will take a while because the disguise you put on is good enough. You are going to merely waste a lot of people's time. At worst I think you are toxic and joykill because you no longer have an open mind, absolutely no sense of exploration, no creativity. Just sheer ego and dogma; violence shrouded in pretentious compassion.

One of the characteristics of awakening in Buddhism is the removal of doubts - means utter certainty with regards to one's view and realization.

 

One may still be open to a lot of things, one can still learn a lot of things, but when it comes to things like 'self' - that view is utterly removed. It is like no amount of trying to convinced someone who is awakened that 'santa claus is real' is going to change him, he has woken up.

Edited February 5, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

What? I thought there were no constituents, no "entities." SO how are you going to break something down into separate constituents? Now you are just contradicting yourself.

Means the same as realizing 'there is no weather in or apart from the everchanging rain, wind, clouds, sunlight, etc'

 

 

If the origin of the reflection comes from something that is deemed real, the reflection is also an extension of that which is real. Only considering the reflection as the reality is false, because then you are not seeing things in their totality, but only the partial reflection. So in the end, it's just saying everything is One, the noumenon and phenomenon are together of one source.

Anatta removes the view of source, and the view of an ultimate reality, which is different.

 

Truly existent is a different definition then truly existent with a core. No where in our understanding of the definition of reality or our understanding based only on the idea of something's core or essence. That is just one part of it.

If appearance is without core and essence, then it is illusory like a mirage, a dream, and so on. A mirage is apparent but without core or substance, a bubble is apparent without core or substance. Edited February 5, 2012 by xabir2005

[idiot_stimpy]

Means the same as realizing 'there is no weather in or apart from the everchanging rain, wind, clouds, sunlight, etc'

 

 

Anatta removes the view of source, and the view of an ultimate reality, which is different.

 

If appearance is without core and essence, then it is illusory like a mirage, a dream, and so on. A mirage is apparent but without core or substance, a bubble is apparent without core or substance.

 

 

i have enjoyed reading your post xabir2005, thank you

[xabir2005]

i have enjoyed reading your post xabir2005, thank you

Glad someone enjoyed it

[Jeff]

Thank you both for the discussion. It was very insightful on all fronts... Sometimes a little repetitive, but I will definitely miss this thread.

 

Love, live, laugh...

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited February 5, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[headless]

Well he does. Xabir trolls around other spiritual websites to propagate his message. And since no one is willing to answer to all the pages of his quotes and his relentless repetition at the end of the day he just appears to have had the last word.

 

Honestly, I hate doing this. I don't like debating someone who is as close minded as he is and whose entire spiritual vocabulary in entrenched in one dogmatic paradigm. It almost feels like having a debate with someone who speaks a foreign language. If you go on atheist or Christianity boards you'll see a similar thing. Just adamant insistence on their own beliefs. No discussion period.

 

Xabir is as stubborn as anyone I know. He will never ever admit his own flaws in a discussion. In the four years I have observed him in any discussion boards and on the tao bums, even on the instances where he is clearly wrong or being self contradictory, he will just mute the point and move on to another one without mentioning anything about the error. He hates being wrong and he despises being vulnerable when he is called out. Once Thusness pointed to the carelessness of what he said on his own board on sgforums once, and you could tell Xabir just hated it and let it out on some other guy on the forum.

 

And here he is also clearly flawed mostly in the usage of his language. But he won't have it. He won't alter anything just so that he will be right. All the while claiming to be enlightened. If you notice he doesn't cater his definitions and message around the other person he is having a discussion with. He will just shove his own dogma down the other's throat. That's just violent. Anything the other person says is almost irrelevant besides his own message. How many times has he addressed question and inquiry into what I have said throughout this twenty page thread? None. Zero. It's just me, me, my Buddhism, my points, my ideas, my words.

 

@ Xabir

 

This is my last message on this thread. There's no need to bicker with you since hopefully enough people have seen your egotistical stubbornness and complete lack of the ability to formulate insights according to the topic or the person being engaged. You have no genuine interest in other people's insights or experiences as made clear by the sheer lack of questions or attitude of inquisitiveness on this board (even Vaj was a lot better than you). All you have is your own fixed language like (ironically) a fool who clings to names and ideas. You are a mere religious fanatic: the response that "oh other religions aren't true because they don't realize anatta" show how incurable you are like asking a devout Muslim whether he considers the veracity of other religions to which he says "oh other religions aren't true because they don't worship Allah." And don't give me that crap about seeing it yourself or understanding it directly. You were just as devout before you claim to have had these insights four years ago as you are now. So the worshipper dreamed of Allah, and now he suddenly has personal proof.

 

As GIH once said very aptly, you are a mere voice hearer and a follower of dogma. It is unfortunate really that since the time you were only two years old you didn't know any other ways of understanding the world outside of Buddhism. All the pride and identity that you have as a person is wrapped around your faith and another man's insights, Thusness's. Your words are not your own and your pitiful wisdom is just a repetition of others, and hence you are inflexible with the usage of language. It's not that important what we are debating about here, the significance is really in the type of responses you are generating: repetitive, rigid, stubborn, and most of all unimaginative. It is my experience that with the growth of spiritual insight and awareness, one's creative capacity increases, as with imagination. For the last six or so years you could only use a handful of examples to explain yourself, the "weather" the red "flower" and the "wind" (actually, I think that's it really) that are all someone else's. This shows that you don't really own the insights they point to, but just regurgitate the example for the sake of the message. Any other examples you have shown are just plain shallow and backfire (like the "santa claus.")

 

As I have mentioned to -K- above, the way you engage others in discussion is quiet disheartening. The tone of authority and the violent propagation of your views without really considering the other person's experience outside of your own paradigm is an unfortunate display of bigotry and haughtiness. How many times have you tried to sincerely learn from someone's experience on thetaobums? Probably none. Why? Because you think you are better than everyone and know what everyone is going through, and believe that your way is the only way to salvation. The most alarming thing is you do it under the disguise of wisdom. But that's only because you fool yourself more than anyone else. You give the same vibe as an evangelical Christian out to "save" everyone, no different and just as violent and unsympathetic: never truly for the sake of others but for the sake of Buddhism, and merit points.

 

Again, don't give me that crap about "oh but I discovered it to be so." Four years ago for the entire time we had the lengthy discussion here on the taobums passionately for your views (for something like 40 pages), it was revealed later that you really had no direct insight into any of the stuff you debated for. You just argued on and on with dwai on mere belief, on mere theory pretending all the while that it was something you were certain about. And now you say it's not something one can understand through theory. So basically you are saying back then you were just debating on grounds of faith alone, pretending it was wisdom. That stubbornness is no different now. Oh, and I forgot, you are really here to gain merit by proselytizing so to speed up your own meditative progress.

 

To me you are a great example of how eastern spiritual traditions are not exempt from becoming a mirror to the west's religious infatuation. The fact that people will see you as some wise practitioner is what I am concerned about, but hopefully people like Seth can make their own judgments after interacting with you for a while. It will take a while because the disguise you put on is good enough. You are going to merely waste a lot of people's time. At worst I think you are toxic and joykill because you no longer have an open mind, absolutely no sense of exploration, no creativity. Just sheer ego and dogma; violence shrouded in pretentious compassion.

 

Well said!

 

Those 2 paragraphs really summed up well what xabir is really about!

[xabir2005]

Kind of off topic but... Something I want to add.

 

I don't mean to say that there is anything bad with evangelism even though I am not an evangelist.

 

If anything, I find that there is a lack of effort in evangelising the dharma nowadays, contrast to the time of the Buddha, and I am not helping much. I think it is selfish if you have found some gems which can be shared with others without you losing anything yourself, and yet you are unwilling to share it.

 

In those days, monks were asked by Buddha to go to different directions, places and cities to preach and receive alms from people of all walks of life. Therefore in not a long time they were able to spread the dharma far and wide.

 

"Buddhism is the first missionary religion in the history of humanity with a universal message of salvation for all mankind. The Buddha after His Enlightenment sent out sixty-one disciples in different directions asking them to preach the doctrine for the weal and welfare of mankind. He is said in one of the earliest texts to have been born for the good and happiness of humanity” (manussaloke hitasukhataya jato (Sn 683). Addressed as “the King of kings” (rajabhiraja, Sn 553). He says, “I am a King, the supreme King of Righteousness, with righteousness do I extend my kingdom, a kingdom which cannot be destroyed.” (Sn 554)."

Edited February 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[Jetsun]

I think Buddhists teach far better through their presence or just by radiating Bodhicitta rather than evangelising. When I first met a Tibetan Buddhist monk the most powerful impression or teaching he gave me was that he didn't try to preech to me or teach me anything at all he just radiated love-kindness towards me and expected absolutely nothing in return, so it was completely non aggressive and so was far more powerful than if he had tried to reel off a teaching. How many people do you ever meet who expect nothing from you or dont project expectations on you? There is a certain amount of aggression and anxiety within evangelism so personally I think it is not a very Buddhist approach and may well be counter productive in the long term.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Jetsun