Growing Weary

[xabir2005]

I have an Experiment for you to try!

For one hour use the words 'the Self' to describe what you normally call ones 'Enlightened Nature'.

 

Imagine that that is what it really means, but be aware that others may use the word with a different meaning attached to it than you...

I'm really not concerned with the words you use.

 

But so far, one of the only person I see that uses the terms 'Mind' or 'Buddha-nature' without coursing into eternalism is Zen Master Dogen.

 

Such a person (who realizes anatta but uses the terms buddha-nature, which I do) would define Mind or Buddha-nature or Enlightened Nature, whatever you want to call it, as simply and only processes and manifestations, because there truly is just that, nothing unchanging or independent - and this is how Zen Master Dogen defines it.

 

Of course many of the Tibetan masters also teach that Buddha-nature is the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness, which means the buddha-nature is empty of a self and therefore fine (except Shentong who define it as empty of other but not self, which falls into eternalism).

 

If you define an Absolute as a transcendental, ultimate reality, then that means anatta is not yet realized.

 

So yes, it really isn't the words that matter, but what the words mean in various contexts. For Nisargadatta the Absolute is the nothingness, for some it is pure consciousness as the I AM, for some it is 'nondual consciousness' albeit taken as unchanging/independent/substantial, etc. In each case, something is reified to be the true Self, permanent, unchanging, independent, absolute, source of everything, etc.

 

Such a person will be criticized by the Buddha (in MN 1) for conceiving things - I, me, mine, source, etc.. and thus not comprehending everything as it is.

 

All these are far from semantics.

Edited February 18, 2012 by xabir2005

[RiverSnake]

Interesting video

 

[xabir2005]

Interesting video

 

This is good... but no one I suppose is talking about philosophies here.

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Xabir

 

Way to prove the very point of this thread you knucklehead. You are the biggest buzzkill. Just suck all the joy and life out of spirituality and wear people out with your prideful need for righteousness.

 

Just reading anything you write is depressing and like seeing you just choke the life out of a puppy yelling, "no dog! it's anatta not woof woof!" Just repetitive, unoriginal, lifeless, doctrine spouting, obsessively attached, small minded...you have no "life" the way you interact on the forums here..no sense of communication or creativity (do you even know what that means? Or have pondered anything besides anatta, emptiness, buddha this buddha that?) It's like encountering a living textbook. I mean sure it's good for learning, but...

 

who wants to become a...textbook?

Edited February 18, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

@ Xabir

 

Way to prove the very point of this thread you knucklehead. You are the biggest buzzkill. Just suck all the joy and life out of spirituality and wear people out with your prideful need for righteousness.

 

Just reading anything you write is depressing and like seeing you just choke the life out of a puppy. Who'd want to be like you if that's what enlightenment is?

Haha... it is depressing from your POV... but not necessarily for others.

 

Anyway as I said... the only sutta ever to be disliked by his listeners was one addressed to those holding the view of the Samkhyas.

 

It so happens that I addressed too many of such topics... I originally have no intentions of dwelling into these issues at all, but when they come up I address them.

 

I don't talk about these things, or seldom do, in my forum for example.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Haha... it is depressing from your POV... but not necessarily for others.

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is basically about how much of a buzzkill you are for 6 pages.

 

And really depressing isn't the right word. It's like when you decide to watch a movie, there is always that kid who won't shut up about how unrealistic all these action scenes are because physicals laws a, b, c. Blah blah. Your little ego (I know, I know you don't have one but you sure act like someone who has a very strong one) just can't stand it when something unagreeable crosses your eye.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is basically about how much of a buzzkill you are for like 8 pages.

When you realized what I realized, then you will not see anything I said that is depressing.

 

I don't know what makes what I said depressing for others - maybe it is too repetitive (which as I said, is due to my addressing of certain issues that come up often, for example in this thread things pointed out by Seth Ananda) which is difficult to be avoided in a discussion. Or it could mean that certain people hold other views and don't feel comfortable if I challenge their views, etc. Or it could mean something else in which case I am happy to be pointed out.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Anyway as I said... the only sutta ever to be disliked by his listeners was one addressed to those holding the view of the Samkhyas.

 

It so happens that I addressed too many of such topics... I originally have no intentions of dwelling into these issues at all, but when they come up I address them.

 

I don't talk about these things, or seldom do, in my forum for example.

No, christ you REALLY don't get it. It's not what you talk about. It's the way you go about them.

[Protector]

Didn't you guys have a specific thread for fighting each other

[Lucky7Strikes]

When you realized what I realized, then you will not see anything I said that is depressing.

 

I don't know what makes what I said depressing for others - maybe it is too repetitive (which as I said, is due to my addressing of certain issues that come up often, for example in this thread things pointed out by Seth Ananda) which is difficult to be avoided in a discussion. Or it could mean that certain people hold other views and don't feel comfortable if I challenge their views, etc. Or it could mean something else in which case I am happy to be pointed out.

I guess the word "buzzkill" doesn't translate too well into your culture. It's not depressing in the sense of sadness, but in the sense of...annoyance combined with weariness.

 

Why don't you go ponder about why you arouse such sentiments in other people. Don't you think that's pretty important? I mean the very fact that you are only now understanding the point of this thread, which isn't about "right view" at all, shows how blinded you are when it comes to understanding people. And isn't that a major aspect of spirituality? Building up an understanding of the human being?

Edited February 18, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Didn't you guys have a specific thread for fighting each other

This won't go over the next page. I promise.

[xabir2005]

I guess the word "buzzkill" doesn't translate too well into your culture. It's not depressing in the sense of sadness, but in the sense of...annoyance combined with weariness.

 

Why don't you go ponder about why you arouse such sentiments in other people. Don't you think that's pretty important? I mean the very fact that you are only now understanding the point of this thread, which isn't about "right view" at all, shows how blinded you are when it comes to understanding people. And isn't that really what a major part of spirituality is about? Building up an understanding of the human being?

Weariness and annoyance, imo, comes from what I said earlier - repetitiveness and challenging other people's views. If there is something else you think I missed, please tell me. And if there is any practical advise to improving my skillfulnes in writing, please tell me too.

[xabir2005]

No, christ you REALLY don't get it. It's not what you talk about. It's the way you go about them.

I think I get what you mean. I should write in a way that addresses my point without making it seem like a direct challenge to people..?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Weariness and annoyance, imo, comes from what I said earlier - repetitiveness and challenging other people's views. If there is something else you think I missed, please tell me. And if there is any practical advise to improving my skillfulnes in writing, please tell me too.

Um, you're the enlightened one.

 

Whatever, I just chimed in here to agree with Aaron, SB, and a few others.

[JustARandomPanda]

Sigh...

 

I said I would not participate again but here I am since Twinner's PM about my posts here got me curious again as to how it was turning out. I had not planned to ever read this thread again nor post. That's how wearying it was.

 

Xabir...

 

It's the WAY you go about teaching. Not necessarily WHAT you teach. I repeat it is the WAY YOU DO IT. This in fact was the thing about Vajrahidaya that pissed so many people off too (well that and his insistence on the absolute superiority of Buddhism to anything else human kind has ever had in the way of spiritual wisdom but I won't go down that road right now).

 

Let me put it this way.

 

To me Right View is not necessarily something to harangue others about but rather something to be Discovered and Explored (that's where those Sutras come in as another possible aid.)

 

Does that make sense?

 

Your constant insistence that someone has to get RIGHT VIEW FIRST is the same technique CULT LEADERS use to indoctrinate their believers. It's used by Propogandists and Agitators. Most people know that these days if they've been paying any attention at all for the past 50-70 years. That's why suspicion immediately leaps to the mind whenever anyone - no matter how nobly their intent - keeps harping that you gotta get that Right VIEW FIRST (read to the modern student: Indoctrinated). And then proceeds immediately to tell you exactly what you need to believe FIRST just so you'll correctly interpret the meditative exercises?

 

Now...is it skillful means to be telling potential seekers they gotta leave their discernment parked outside in the parking lot before they can get anywhere with the exercises? Do you see how that opens potential students up to heavy doubts about whether they're genuinely noticing their "focusing" and "awareness" and "one-pointedness" exercises is being pre-conditioned by what they were taught first?

 

Yes, some sort of starting framework is used by everyone. I think Science has sufficiently debunked the Blank Slate theory of the brain.

 

And

 

Yes, I know the Buddha taught Right View. He was teaching a people that were heavily enculturated with a certain way of interpreting both their everyday sensory input as well as their spiritual ones that was putting a halt to them investigating everyday life even further when he knew it was possible to go further.

 

But right along side with his Exposition of "Right View" he was telling his students to TEST what he was saying. He kept saying something to the effect of: I can not give you my experiences or Realizations. All I'm doing is showing you How I did it. You must do the actual exercises yourself. Otherwise you will always be stuck at either Belief (blind adherence) or Skepticism when neither needs to be the case. Here is the Map he said. I'm showing you there IS further to explore and discover. But you must walk the territory for yourself.

 

 

I don't know about YOU but one of my Bodhisattva vows I recite nightly (yes, I say them every night) is:

 

Ways to the Truth (dharma) are Infinite but I vow to master them all.

 

In otherwords...if I F up the interpretation of those experiences of this mindstream with a wrong view...then the REALIZATION of that F-up needs to come from me as well. The teachings are only an aid in helping me see where I might have F'd up. But being harangued about how o so wrong I am makes me NOT inclined to discover where I may have F'd up but rather WEARY of the Guy/Gal pointing their finger at me at what a colossal F up I was in understanding.

 

That doesn't inspire dedication to go back and re-examine. It only inspires someone to get pissed off. And eventually turn away from the teachings since Finger Pointers seem to be heavily represented in said spiritual tradition. *shrug*

 

This truth is true for all spiritual traditions, not just Buddhism - the need for everyone to discover for themselves both where they are right and where they are wrong. If it turns out the Hindus or Taoists are wrong as you and Vh say they are they will have to discover it for themselves during their practices and researching not just their own Dharma (truth/Tao) but all others as well.

[JustARandomPanda]

Here's someone who teaches No Self in a way I can understand. Notice he also uses those Horrid words True Self too. He even says you can use the word Bubba (note: I think I'm gonna go investigate my original Bubba Nature ROFL)! :lol:

 

Notice how he emphasizes this is something someone can actually PERSONALLY TEST and VERIFY for one's self and that anything else doesn't amount to a hill of beans at the end of the day.

 

 

Daniel Ingram:

 

Many of the juvenile and tedious disputes between the various insight traditions result from fixation on these concepts and inappropriate adherence to only one side of these apparent paradoxes. Not surprisingly, these disputes between insight traditions generally arise from those with little or no insight. One clear mark of the development of true insight is that these paradoxes lose their power to confuse and obscure. They become tools for balanced inquiry and instruction, beautiful poetry, intimations of the heart of the spiritual life and of one's own direct and non-conceptual experience of it.

 

No-self teachings directly counter the sense that there is a separate watcher, and that this watcher is an "I" that is in control, observing reality or subject to the tribulations of the world. Truly, this is a useful illusion to counter. However, if misunderstood, this teaching can produce a shadow side that reeks of nihilism, disengagement with life and denial. People can get all fixated on eliminating a "self," when the emphasis is supposed to be on the words "separate" and "permanent," as well as on the illusion that is being creating. A better way to say this would be, "stopping the process of mentally creating the illusion of a separate self from sensations that are inherently non-dual, utterly transient and thus empty of any separate, permanent self."

Even if you get extremely enlightened, you will still be here from a conventional point of view, but you will also be just an interdependent and intimate part of this utterly transient universe, just as you actually always have been. The huge and yet subtle difference is that this will be known directly and clearly. The language "eliminating your ego" is similarly misunderstood most of the time.

 

You see, there are physical phenomena and mental phenomena, as well as the "consciousness" or mental echo of these, which is also in the category of mental phenomena. These are just phenomena, and all phenomena are not a permanent, separate self, as they all change and are all intimately interdependent. They are simply "aware," i.e. manifest, where they are without any observer of them at all. The boundaries that seem to differentiate self from not-self are arbitrary and conceptual, i.e. not the true nature of things. Said another way, reality is intimately interdependent and non-dual, like a great ocean.

 

There is also "awareness", but awareness is not a thing or localized in a particular place, so to even say "there is also awareness" is already a tremendous problem, as it implies separateness and existence where none can be found. To be really philosophically correct about it, borrowing heavily from Nagarjuna, awareness cannot be said to fit any of the following descriptions: that it exists, that it does not exist, that it both exists and does not exist, that it neither exists nor doesn't exist. Just so, in truth, it cannot be said that: we are awareness, that we are not awareness, that we are both awareness and not awareness, or even that we are neither awareness nor not awareness. We could go through the same pattern with whether or not phenomena are intrinsically luminous.

 

For the sake of discussion, and in keeping with standard Buddhist thought, awareness is permanent and unchanging. It is also said that, "All things arise from it, and all things return to it," though again this implies a false certainty about something which is actually impenetrably mysterious and mixing the concept of infinite potential with awareness is a notoriously dangerous business. We could call it "God," "Nirvana," "The Tao," "The Void," "Allah," "Krishna," "Intrinsic Luminosity," "Buddha Nature," "Buddha," "Bubba" or just "awareness" as long as we realize the above caveats, especially that it is not a thing or localized in any particular place and has no definable qualities. Awareness is sometimes conceptualized as pervading all of this while not being all of this, and sometimes conceptualized as being inherent in all of this while not being anything in particular. Neither is quite true, though both perspectives can be useful.

 

If you find yourself adopting any fixed idea about what we are calling "awareness" here, try also adopting its logical opposite to try to achieve some sense of direct inquisitive paradoxical imbalance that shakes fixed views about this stuff and points to something beyond these limited concepts. This is incredibly useful advice for dealing with all teachings about "Ultimate Reality." I would also recommend looking into the true nature of the sensations that make up philosophical speculation and all sensations of questioning.

 

While phenomena are in flux from their arising to their passing, there is awareness of them. Thus, awareness is not these objects, as it is not a thing, nor is it separate from these objects, as there would be no experience if this were so. By examining our reality just as it is, we may come to understand this.

 

Further, phenomena do not exist in the sense of abiding in a fixed way for any length of time, and thus are utterly transitory, and yet the laws that govern the functioning of this utter transience hold. That phenomena do not exist does not mean that there is not a reality, but that this reality is completely inconstant, except for awareness, which is not a thing. This makes no sense to the rational mind, but that is how it is with this stuff.

 

One teaching that comes out of the Theravada that can be helpful is that there are Three Ultimate Dharmas or ultimate aspects of reality: materiality (the sensations of the first five sense doors), mentality (all mental sensations) and Nirvana (though they would call it "Nibbana," which is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit). In short, this is actually it, and "that" which is beyond this is also it. Notice that "awareness" is definitely not on this list. It might be conceptualized as being all three (from a True Self point of view), or quickly discarded as being a useless concept that solidifies a sense of a separate or localized "watcher" (from the no-self point of view).

 

Buddhism also contains a strangely large number of True Self teachings, though if you told most Buddhists this they would give you a good scolding. Many of these have their origins in Hindu Vedanta and Hindu Tantra. All the talk of Buddha Nature, the Bodhisattva Vow, and that sort of thing are True Self teachings. True Self teachings point out that this "awareness" is "who we are," but it isn't a thing, so it is not self. They also point out that we actually are all these phenomena, rather than all of these phenomena being seen as something observed and thus not self, which they are also as they are utterly transient and not awareness. This teaching can help students actually examine their reality just as it is and sort of "inhabit it" in a honest and realistic way, or it can cause them to cling to things as "self" if they misunderstand this teaching. I will try again...

 

You see, as all phenomena are observed, they cannot possibly be the observer. Thus, the observer, which is awareness and not any of the phenomena pretending to be it, cannot possibly be a phenomenon and thus is not localized and doesn't exist. This is no-self. However, all of these phenomena are actually us from the point of view of non-duality and interconnectedness, as the illusion of duality is just an illusion. When the illusion of duality permanently collapses in final awakening, all that is left is all of these phenomena, which is True Self, i.e. the lack of a separate self and thus just all of this as it is. Remember, however, that no phenomena abide for even an instant, and so are empty of permanent abiding and thus of stable existence.

 

This all brings me to one of my favorite words, "non-dual," a word that means that both duality and unity fail to clearly describe ultimate reality. As "awareness" is in some way separate from and unaffected by phenomena, we can't say that that unity is the true answer. Unitive experiences arise out of strong concentration and can easily fool people into thinking they are the final answer. They are not.

 

That said, it is because "awareness" is not a phenomena, thing or localized in any place that you can't say that duality is true. A duality implies something on both sides, an observer and an observed. However, there is no phenomenal observer, so duality does not hold up under careful investigation. Until we have a lot of fundamental insight, the sense that duality is true can be very compelling and can cause all sorts of trouble. We extrapolate false dualities from sensations until we are very highly enlightened.

 

Thus, the word "non-dual" is an inherently paradoxical term, one that confounds reason and even our current experience of reality. If we accept the working hypothesis that non-duality is true, then we will be able to continue to reject both unitive and dualistic experiences as the true answer and continue to work towards awakening. This is probably the most practical application of discussions of no-self and True Self.

 

No-self and True Self are really just two sides of the same coin. There is a great little poem by one Kalu Rinpoche that goes something like:

 

We live in illusion

And the appearance of things.

There is a reality:

We are that reality.

When you understand this,

You will see that you are nothing.

And, being nothing,

You are everything.

That is all.

 

There are many fine poems on similar themes presented in Sogyal Rinpoche's The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. It is because we are none of this that freedom is possible. It is because we are all of this that compassionate action for all beings and ourselves is so important. To truly understand this moment is to truly understand both, which is the Middle Way between these two extremes (see Nisargadatta's I Am That for a very down-to-earth discussion of these issues). While only insight practices will accomplish this, there are some concentration attainments (the last four jhanas or Formless Realms) that can really help put things in proper perspective, though they do not directly cause deep insights and awakening unless the true nature of the sensations that make them up is understood.

[headless]

Weariness and annoyance, imo, comes from what I said earlier - repetitiveness and challenging other people's views. If there is something else you think I missed, please tell me. And if there is any practical advise to improving my skillfulnes in writing, please tell me too.

 

Ok, let me tell you. Root of the problem doesn't lie in your 'skillfulness in writing'(or lack of it), it's much deeper. You should ask your parents to sponsor you a visit to see the psychiatrist. Hint enough? Or would you rather practise your 'selective reading' skills again?

[xabir2005]

Sigh...

 

I said I would not participate again but here I am since Twinner's PM about my posts here got me curious again as to how it was turning out. I had not planned to ever read this thread again nor post. That's how wearying it was.

 

Xabir...

 

It's the WAY you go about teaching. Not necessarily WHAT you teach. I repeat it is the WAY YOU DO IT. This in fact was the thing about Vajrahidaya that pissed so many people off too (well that and his insistence on the absolute superiority of Buddhism to anything else human kind has ever had in the way of spiritual wisdom but I won't go down that road right now).

On the other hand, I do not feel any need to insist on the superiority of Buddhism - it just so happens that when something comes up that needs to be addressed, I will address it, and sometimes it is unavoidable that I have to mention that there are certain things that I simply cannot see being described outside of Buddhism (when people start saying this and this is the same as Buddhism when clearly it isn't).

Let me put it this way.

 

To me Right View is not necessarily something to harangue others about but rather something to be Discovered and Explored (that's where those Sutras come in as another possible aid.)

 

Does that make sense?

 

Your constant insistence that someone has to get RIGHT VIEW FIRST is the same technique CULT LEADERS use to indoctrinate their believers.

Right View is taught by Buddha to be the forerunner of the noble eightfold path that leads to awakening.

 

Without having right view, you can progress in your practice, but to breakthrough to certain realization it is necessary to come across Right View and yes that is where those sutras (and other teachings) come in as a possible aid, and yes, you need to explore and contemplate on them.

 

But there needs to be certain faith in the Buddha, otherwise you will not take the teachings seriously enough for it to have any effect on you. And that is not the same as merely blind faith since you are actually doing the contemplation yourself, you are trying to see it for yourself like a scientist.

It's used by Propogandists and Agitators. Most people know that these days if they've been paying any attention at all for the past 50-70 years. That's why suspicion immediately leaps to the mind whenever anyone - no matter how nobly their intent - keeps harping that you gotta get that Right VIEW FIRST (read to the modern student: Indoctrinated). And then proceeds immediately to tell you exactly what you need to believe FIRST just so you'll correctly interpret the meditative exercises?

It is my experience that if I did not have the right view first, then I would simply have stayed with my own framework or paradigm, i.e. continue to see in terms of a Self.

 

It is like what Rob Burbea said:

 

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

Of course having right view is not itself the realization... but as I already pointed, or what Ted Biringer points out,

 

"Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring."

 

So the point here is not simply to blindly believe in things. It is that you need to have certain faith in the Buddha, have the right understanding of what the Buddha taught, then investigate it for yourself contemplatively. If you do not have faith in Buddha and insist that your viewpoint is right, then there is no progress. But of course the point is not just having faith - that is only one small part of the path... the point is really to contemplate and see it for yourself.

Now...is it skillful means to be telling potential seekers they gotta leave their discernment parked outside in the parking lot before they can get anywhere with the exercises? Do you see how that opens potential students up to heavy doubts about whether they're genuinely noticing their "focusing" and "awareness" and "one-pointedness" exercises is being pre-conditioned by what they were taught first?

 

Yes, some sort of starting framework is used by everyone. I think Science has sufficiently debunked the Blank Slate theory of the brain.

 

And

 

Yes, I know the Buddha taught Right View. He was teaching a people that were heavily enculturated with a certain way of interpreting both their everyday sensory input as well as their spiritual ones that was putting a halt to them investigating everyday life even further when he knew it was possible to go further.

Buddha taught Right View as being a vital and necessary component of the Noble Eightfold Path to all his students... just as Right Intention, Right Speech, etc... Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration are all impotant parts of the path and doesn't matter who you are... these are necessary requisites for awakening.

 

Even if you aren't enculturated with a certain way of interpreting things, nonetheless it doesn't mean you realize the truth. Also we are all conditioned to perceive or proliferate - to grasp things wrongly, to see impermanence as permanent, not self as self, etc... this causes suffering and is actually prevalent in all persons, not just people 'enculturated with a certain way of interpreting things'.

 

This is why what Buddha taught all to contemplate on the three characteristics, the four noble truths, and so on. It is a universal subject of contemplation, for everyone.

 

But right along side with his Exposition of "Right View" he was telling his students to TEST what he was saying. He kept saying something to the effect of: I can not give you my experiences or Realizations. All I'm doing is showing you How I did it. You must do the actual exercises yourself. Otherwise you will always be stuck at either Belief (blind adherence) or Skepticism when neither needs to be the case. Here is the Map he said. I'm showing you there IS further to explore and discover. But you must walk the territory for yourself.

Yes precisely.

I don't know about YOU but one of my Bodhisattva vows I recite nightly (yes, I say them every night) is:

 

Ways to the Truth (dharma) are Infinite but I vow to master them all.

 

In otherwords...if I F up the interpretation of those experiences of this mindstream with a wrong view...then the REALIZATION of that F-up needs to come from me as well. The teachings are only an aid in helping me see where I might have F'd up. But being harangued about how o so wrong I am makes me NOT inclined to discover where I may have F'd up but rather WEARY of the Guy/Gal pointing their finger at me at what a colossal F up I was in understanding.

I do not 'harangue' and have no wish to dwell into unnecessary discussions (I do not, for example, disturb people's threads and discussions regardless of whether they have 'right view' or not - as I said I have no wish to pop in Vmarco's threads until I felt a particular point made by you needs to be addressed since it is directly related to my writings and blog) unless an occasion arises for me to correct something, usually statements directed to me or related to what I've said. Or at least rarely do I do so, unless I think the other party is open to pointers or is seeking advise.

That doesn't inspire dedication to go back and re-examine. It only inspires someone to get pissed off. And eventually turn away from the teachings since Finger Pointers seem to be heavily represented in said spiritual tradition. *shrug*

 

This truth is true for all spiritual traditions, not just Buddhism - the need for everyone to discover for themselves both where they are right and where they are wrong. If it turns out the Hindus or Taoists are wrong as you and Vh say they are they will have to discover it for themselves during their practices and researching not just their own Dharma (truth/Tao) but all others as well.

I agree, it is all up to one's own discernment, I have no wish to impose ideas on people. That was at least not my original intentions in all the threads and discussions I started recently, except and unless when someone says something related or directed at me which I felt should be corrected, and even so the intention is to correct certain statements - I am not trying to push certain ideas to others. It is entirely up to your own discernment. Edited February 18, 2012 by xabir2005

[JustARandomPanda]

Without having right view, you can progress in your practice, but to breakthrough to certain realization it is necessary to come across Right View and yes that is where those sutras (and other teachings) come in as a possible aid, and yes, you need to explore and contemplate on them.

 

Then EXPLAIN that this is something that can be DISCOVERED for themselves! This is where you and I part ways in going about trying to get people to begin inquiring about their senses.

 

I would show them the Buddha's sutras on Right View and explain that if what the Buddha said is TRUE then it will also be VERIFIABLE one day in their VERY OWN PRACTICE. That the FRUIT will show itself from the EXPERIMENT of testing the RIGHT VIEW VARIABLE.

 

Capiche?

 

It is telling them to TEST BUDDHA's claim that RIGHT VIEW is necessary for a breakthrough to occur in their meditative practices (and thus an effect on their ordinary, everyday, run-o-the-mill life experiences as well). THAT'S how I would get away from the inevitable baggage of people being instantly suspicious of being "indoctrinated" into Right VIEW.

 

It is reassuring people that what the Buddha taught is something they can test out. If RIght View is necessary as he claims then the Fruit will manifest with it and without it it will NOT manifest. If other spiritual traditions manifest this Same Fruit it means they had Right View too in their teachings even if they used those horrid words TRUE SELF to describe everything (Ways to Truth (dharma) are Infinite but I vow to master them ALL. )

 

I think this is what Seth Ananda was getting at.

 

Christ had a pretty good maximum I like to refer to still: "By their Fruit shall ye know them."

 

 

Frame it in terms of a scientific experiment. Which is what the Buddha was teaching anyway. Nobody needs to be indoctrinated into Right View and the way a lot of Buddhists teach it runs damn suspiciously close to precisely that.

 

Search for a different angle of explaining the same thing.

[xabir2005]

Hmm... and this is what I attempt to do in Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html

 

and my e-book which is much more lengthy but I'll try to shorten it this year.

Edited February 18, 2012 by xabir2005

[C T]

Actually most of what Xabir write accord with the true teachings.

 

He is taking time to share his experiences for which there ought to be some appreciation. Yes, it can get repetitive and drawn out, but then our ingrained delusions are also very repetitive and drawn out, so there are occasions where it may need a lot of one particular kind of reminder or teaching to be justifiably repeated over and over again before it registers and shifts the old habits. And this is not even breaking the habit.. just nudging a little, like a wake up call. How the delusions are going to be vanquished is entirely up to the individual's efforts and degree of willingness to investigate with an open mind.

 

Thats my short take anyway.

 

 

 

ps - The remarks made by 'headless' in post 92 is one example of ingrained delusions.

Edited February 18, 2012 by C T

[Aaron]

Interesting video

 

 

I love this guy... in one video he has a wristwatch that's studded with diamonds around the band, the face, everywhere, probably costs around a hundred thousand dollars. Certainly proof of his enlightenment. I mean, if people aren't paying you to spout "wise things" then what's the point in teaching?

 

I'm sorry, that was sarcasm, essentially I'm saying this guy is making way too much money for my comfort zone. If he's so detached, what the <bleep> does he need designer clothes, expensive watches, etc. for? Maybe he could donate all that wealth to the hungry and destitute, now that would be an excellent show of compassion. Oh wait, he is being compassionate! He's showing those people who have enough money how to find enlightenment! Or maybe he's just another smooth talker bilking those looking for answers out of money.

 

 

Aaron

Edited February 18, 2012 by Twinner

[Protector]

Ask a hobo down the street how to make a lot of money. He obviously doesn't have any on him since he gave it all away to people who need it more.

Like banks

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

Ask a hobo down the street how to make a lot of money. He obviously doesn't have any on him since he gave it all away to people who need it more.

Like banks

 

Ahh... well isn't this offensive? Why are you denigrating homeless people? Most aren't in that situation because they want to be.

 

Aaron