The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..

[Anderson]

No lineage is needed really.......Why say "I belong to the Gelugpas or the Sakyas?" Is that THE point?

Teachings are needed not "schools" & "lineages"........I do understand that you probably mean where the integrity of the teachings are kept but that my friend is people not books even though books are useful.

 

Stefos

If you don't agree with the teachings of vajrayana you don't have to continuously tell us that you don't agree.

We understand that.

 

Try to stick to Pali buddhism and be happy with that.

Or is it that you can't leave it alone because you are afraid that there might be some truth in Vajrayana ?

[Anderson]

I agree with the spirit of this post, but it can not be dharmakaya.

 

That would mean you would have to be a Buddha before you could be a terton.

 

That is how i heard CNNR explaining it .

When causes and conditions are present a sambogakaya form will manifests to fulfill a certain function....

[RongzomFan]

That is how i heard CNNR explaining it .

 

On Esangha, Namdrol used to repeatedly explain it the way I explained it.

[Anderson]

On Esangha, Namdrol used to repeatedly explain it the way I explained it.

 

Nice.

So you go with Namdrol then...

 

But i think we are talking about different things.

What i am saying is that dieties like kalachacra, vajrapani.tara,amithaba...etc........are sambogakaya manifestations whereas tulkus or tertons are believed to be nirmanakayas wich as you pointed out would imply that they were budhas before which is not possible.....

Edited June 20, 2013 by Anderson

[stefos]

Stefos, I suggest study of the Chandogya Upanishad if you haven't already done so...? or not, and I will not get in arguments about such.

 

Good fortune to you.

Thank you sir.

 

I don't desire to argue either....never have!

 

Be blessed........

[stefos]

If you don't agree with the teachings of vajrayana you don't have to continuously tell us that you don't agree.

We understand that.

 

Try to stick to Pali buddhism and be happy with that.

Or is it that you can't leave it alone because you are afraid that there might be some truth in Vajrayana ?

No....I didn't disavow Vajrayana at all!

Vajrayana is the method of energy. It's useful.

 

What I'm saying is this "Which is the original Dhamma? Pre-Pali or today's sects?"

 

See, THE point is this: There are Theosophical writers who are clairvoyants and they are Theists (albeit impersonal).

They mention the chakras, nadis, and various koshas as well.

Rudolf Steiner mentions chakras, nadis, etc. along with "western" correspondences to "eastern" modes.

 

Vajrayana's roots are in the Upanishads ultimately. The Buddha was a Yogi....any sane person must acknowledge this.

The most salient point about the relationship of the Buddha & Upanishads was that the Buddha didn't disavow Brahman in the Pali texts.

He did say that Brahma was a "god."

 

The point of this thread was "Being skeptical & critically thinking also."

People who want security will often most of time cling to anything out of fear........This I know from experience.

 

Take Care

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Instead of reading Theosophy, read the original Indian sources:

 

http://www.khecari.com/styled/index.html

[narveen]

Anyone who's been involved in academia (I am right now btw) knows that there's politics at play in Universities...

 

so, academia, being funded by special interests, is a propaganda machine. we know that is true about liberal arts professors shaping minds at american universities. it never occurred to me that they have been shaping the face of the buddha also.

 

Are you incapable of proper criticism?

 

always on? obviously not. blame it on the professors, present company excepted. (i assume you teach?).

 

The topic of this discussion is "The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..", yet you are merely blindly accepting the works of a specific academic who happens to share your viewpoint. Even more, not reading his words closely enough to see that his position is far from being 'definitive'. He doesn't even claim such. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring potential sources of bias in the work...

 

stefos appears quite besotted with krishnamurti. do you have any opinions about this man and his teaching which always on has dismissed as New Age?

 

i look forward to your lecture.

[narveen]

There seems to be in Buddhist circles, an Atheism which states:

 

No Ishvara

No Self as in a fixed static self

 

what is the basis of this denial? reality is inexplicable and defies definition. rejection of something uknowable is silly.

 

Now, What the Buddha actually taught FULLY no one will really know because a tape recorder wasn't there to catch his words.

 

what the buddha taught is not important. what he was supposed to have taught is. so, let's deal with that and check it out.

 

Today however we have dogmatic "Buddhists" who have made up a ton of various beliefs around what the Buddha taught & said. Some of these said "Buddhist" schools believe in praying to Amitabha Buddha for salvation, much like a Christian would to Jesus. Very weird in fact and not found in the earliest Buddhist writings, the Pali canon.

 

ok, let's junk the buddhists if they are weirdos.

 

I revert back to my original understanding which is:

I believe that the Buddha did mention a transcendent state called Nibbana.

I believe that the Buddha did understand that "we are composed of parts & these parts being impermanent aren't the real us" per se.

I also believe that the Buddha understood Nibbana to be an aspect of Brahman, which is to say Nibbana is the release of the personal "self."

 

these are your beliefs. leave the buddha out of this. just deal with your beliefs which are:

 

1. nibbana, a transcendent state.

2. we are composed of parts and these parts being impermanent aren't the real us per se.

3. nibbana is an aspect of brahman and the release of the personal self.

 

In Buddhism, if there is no substratum which allows for the momentary fusion of atoms & quarks occur, then all discussion about "Enlightenment" "Nibbana" "various states of consciousness" become nothing but stupid verbal alphabet soup.

 

since it is stupid, let's junk buddhism in its entirety including everything the buddha was supposed to have taught.

 

Comments?

 

your thread is about three things:

 

1. the skeptical buddhist.

2. critical thinking.

3. buddhism.

 

we have junked 1 and 3. this leaves 2 (critical thinking). shall we apply this to check out your beliefs?

 

what is a transcendent state? and what are those parts that we are composed of?

Edited June 23, 2013 by narveen

[stefos]

what is the basis of this denial? reality is inexplicable and defies definition. rejection of something uknowable is silly.

 

 

what the buddha taught is not important. what he was supposed to have taught is. so, let's deal with that and check it out.

 

 

ok, let's junk the buddhists if they are weirdos.

 

 

these are your beliefs. leave the buddha out of this. just deal with your beliefs which are:

 

1. nibbana, a transcendent state.

2. we are composed of parts and these parts being impermanent aren't the real us per se.

3. nibbana is an aspect of brahman and the release of the personal self.

 

 

since it is stupid, let's junk buddhism in its entirety including everything the buddha was supposed to have taught.

 

 

your thread is about three things:

 

1. the skeptical buddhist.

2. critical thinking.

3. buddhism.

 

we have junked 1 and 3. this leaves 2 (critical thinking). shall we apply this to check out your beliefs?

 

what is a transcendent state? and what are those parts that we are composed of?

A "transcendent state" is, in terms of physics and in terms of our actual existence, what is actually occurring.

 

Beyond the imaginations of mind and the extremes of the emotions.

 

Those "parts" are body & brain & mind & that which perceives things such as the aura which I have perceived and other phenomena such as spheres of light, which I have perceived also.

 

More to come....

[narveen]

A "transcendent state" is, in terms of physics and in terms of our actual existence, what is actually occurring.

 

Beyond the imaginations of mind and the extremes of the emotions.

 

there is only this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - in which all mankind live.

 

this stream is reality, the world, the entirety of everything the mind (not the personal mind but the human mind) has put together. nothing else exists other than this stream. we are that stream and the stream is us.

 

do you agree?

 

Those "parts" are body & brain & mind & that which perceives things such as the aura which I have perceived and other phenomena such as spheres of light, which I have perceived also.

 

critical thinking is what is lacking in the buddhist, you said.

 

without critical thinking, weird and stupid beliefs have become buddhism, you said.

 

so, anything that cannot be critically verified immediately in an empirical and rational manner must be rejected as not true.

 

do you agree?

 

More to come....

 

let's do this step by step, like krishnamurti. get one thing absolutely clear before moving on to another.

 

if we do it right, the first step (of truth) is the last step.

 

if we do it wrong, the first step is the beginning of endless cycles of birth and death in buddhism.

Edited June 24, 2013 by narveen

[stefos]

there is only this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - in which all mankind live.

 

this stream is reality, the world, the entirety of everything the mind (not the personal mind but the human mind) has put together. nothing else exists other than this stream. we are that stream and the stream is us.

 

do you agree?

 

 

critical thinking is what is lacking in the buddhist, you said.

 

without critical thinking, weird and stupid beliefs have become buddhism, you said.

 

so, anything that cannot be critically verified immediately in an empirical and rational manner must be rejected as not true.

 

do you agree?

 

 

let's do this step by step, like krishnamurti. get one thing absolutely clear before moving on to another.

 

if we do it right, the first step (of truth) is the last step.

 

if we do it wrong, the first step is the beginning of endless cycles of birth and death in buddhism.

Answers to each respective paragraph:

 

1. No, I do not agree. Why? Other beings besides humans & animals exist.

Explain those in your worldview (which incidentally you have not stated)

 

BTW, I have seen a ghost/spirit float across a hallway. It was translucent had a winglike projection jutting out of its "back" and it had no arms just an upper part with the head & winglike projection & the lower part which "fanned" out at the bottom resembling a dress.

 

2. No, I do not agree. Why? Many things can be read but perception is key, not book knowledge as such.

Although a book might "point" to some truth(s) such as siddhis for example

 

3. Here you state "in Buddhism"........Which Buddhist form are you talking about? Theravada, Madhyamika, Zen, Dzogchen??

 

Stefos

[narveen]

Answers to each respective paragraph:

 

1. No, I do not agree. Why? Other beings besides humans & animals exist.

Explain those in your worldview (which incidentally you have not stated)

 

BTW, I have seen a ghost/spirit float across a hallway. It was translucent had a winglike projection jutting out of its "back" and it had no arms just an upper part with the head & winglike projection & the lower part which "fanned" out at the bottom resembling a dress.

 

my worldview is that i am this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - which includes anything and everything in reality. if it is perceiveable, then it is part of the stream. yes, it includes your ghost also.

 

2. No, I do not agree. Why? Many things can be read but perception is key, not book knowledge as such.

Although a book might "point" to some truth(s) such as siddhis for example

 

why do you disagree? perception is key but what we perceive must be subject to critical verification. perceptions that cannot fit with reason must be rejected. is this not what the buddha taught? this teaching is reasonable to me and that is why i accept it.

 

why do you accept the ghost you perceived? how would you authenticate it as a reasonable part of reality?

 

3. Here you state "in Buddhism"........Which Buddhist form are you talking about? Theravada, Madhyamika, Zen, Dzogchen??

 

all forms of buddhism are an endless cycle of births and deaths. buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs. didn't you say so yourself?

[Simple_Jack]

Regarding Mahayana & Vajrayana & Dzogchen:

Mahayana aka Nagarjuna (who made up the Samsara/Nirvana notion) is wrong and is a late invention.

Shakyamuni Buddha never stated this "At least" in the Pali texts nor is this Samsara/Nirvana 2 sides of the same coin part of Shakyamuni's teachings.

 

So, your basically saying that Padmasambhava, Longchenpa or Chogyal Namkhai Norbu have propagated a mistaken delusional doctrine and are actually themselves deluded?

 

 

Do you see the vast gap? Nagarjuna taught something which is not part of Shakyamuni's train of thought (in the Pali texts at least) nor was it ever part of any ancient (Pre-Mahayana) school.

 

Let's think about this.

 

That's not true. The Pali canon and Chinese Agamas have teachings where Buddha expounds sunyata. I posted some examples of sunyata in the Pali canon here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26853-sunyata-in-the-pali-cannon/#entry400687

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4767

 

 

Lazy_eye wrote:My interest was sparked by (among other things) these

three sutras

from the agamas. The first one corresponds closely to the Pali Canon's

Sunna Sutta

with a notable exception: it includes the formulation "empty of eternal and unchanging nature" which sounds like it came straight out of Nagarjuna.

 

It's pretty standard Nikāya era language. For example, see the Pāli Paṭisambhidāmagga Suññatākathā, where each of the twelve sensory spheres (āyatanā) are said to be "empty of a self or that which belongs to a self or of what is permanent and everlasting and eternal and not subject to change."

 

 

 

 

 

Lazy_eye wrote:Wondering if there are similar interesting discrepancies elsewhere, and what they signify -- did something get added into the Chinese version, or taken out of the Pali?

 

Doctrinally, all of the early texts are very similar. The only major differences are in word choice and how the basic pericopes are strung together to form larger units, and then how these larger units of sūtras are arranged into Āgamas/Nikāyas. Check out Four Gāndhārī Saṃyuktāgama Sūtras (and the other publications in this series) for a detailed comparison of issues regarding Indic, Chinese, and Tibetan languages, Āgama arrangement, etc.

 

All the best,

 

Geoff

 

 

https://sites.google.com/site/santifm10/ThreeEmptinessSutras.pdf?attredirects=0

samiddhi-suññata-veyyākaraṇa

The Answer to Samiddhi on Emptiness

SA 232

evaṁ me sutaṁ.i ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṁ

viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. atha kho

āyasmā samiddhi yena bhagavā ten’upasaṅkami,

upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekam-antaṁ

nisīdi, ekam-antaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā samiddhi

bhagavantaṁ etad-avoca.

Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One was dwelling at

Sāvatthi in Jeta’s Grove Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Then the

venerable Samiddhi approached the Blessed One, having

approached and bowed down he sat to one side. Sitting to

one side the venerable Samiddhi said this to the Blessed

One:

suñño loko’ti bhante vuccati. kittāvatā nu kho bhante

suñño loko’ti.

‘Empty is the world’ it is said, bhante. In what way,

bhante, is the world said to be empty?

bhagavā etad-avoca. The Blessed One said this:

cakkhuṁ, samiddhi, suññaṁ attenaii vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

The eye is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to

a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

rūpā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

Form is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a

self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

cakkhu-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Eye-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of what

belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging

nature.

yam-p’idaṁ cakkhu-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati

vedayitaṁ dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ

vā tam-pi suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vāiii.

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on eye-contact that too is

empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self, and

empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

sotaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

The ear is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to

a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

saddā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

Sounds are empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self,

and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

sota-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Ear-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of what

belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging

nature.

yam-p’idaṁ sota-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ

dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ vā tam-pi

suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on ear-contact that too is

empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self, and

empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

ghānaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

The nose is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs

to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

gandhā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Smells are empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to

a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

ghāna-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Nose-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of

what belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and

unchanging nature.

yam-p’idaṁ ghāna-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati

vedayitaṁ dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ

vā tam-pi suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on nose-contact that too

is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self,

and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

jivhā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

The tongue is empty, empty of self, empty of what

belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging

nature.

rasā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

Tastes are empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to

a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

jivhā-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Tongue-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of

what belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and

unchanging nature.

yam-p’idaṁ jivhā-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ

dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ vā tam-pi

suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on tongue-contact that

too is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a

self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

kāyo suñño attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

The body is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs

to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

photthabbā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Touches are empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs

to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

kāya-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Body-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of

what belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and

unchanging nature.

yam-p’idaṁ kāya-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ

dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ vā tam-pi

suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on nose-contact that too

is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self,

and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

mano suñño attena vā attāniyena vā sassatâvipariṇāmadhammena

vā.

The mind is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to

a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

dhammā suññā attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Mental objects are empty, empty of self, empty of what

belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and unchanging

nature.

mano-viññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā.

Mind-consciousness is empty, empty of self, empty of

what belongs to a self, and empty of eternal and

unchanging nature.

yam-p’idaṁ mano-sampassa-paccayā uppajjati

vedayitaṁ dukkhaṁ vā sukhaṁ vā adukkham-asukhaṁ

vā tam-pi suññaṁ, suññaṁ attena vā attāniyena vā

sassatâvipariṇāma-dhammena vā. taṁ kissa hetu.

dhammatā esā bhikkhave

Also what is felt as pleasure, pain and neither-pleasure

nor pain that arises dependent on mind-contact that too

is empty, empty of self, empty of what belongs to a self,

and empty of eternal and unchanging nature.

tasmātiha suñño loko’ti vuccati. Therefore ‘empty is the world’ is said.

idam-avoca bhagavā. āyasmato samiddhi bhagavato

bhāsitaṁ abhinanduṁ.

This was said by the Blessed One. The venerable Samiddhi

delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

[stefos]

my worldview is that i am this stream of consciousness - our actual existence - which includes anything and everything in reality. if it is perceiveable, then it is part of the stream. yes, it includes your ghost also.

 

 

why do you disagree? perception is key but what we perceive must be subject to critical verification. perceptions that cannot fit with reason must be rejected. is this not what the buddha taught? this teaching is reasonable to me and that is why i accept it.

 

why do you accept the ghost you perceived? how would you authenticate it as a reasonable part of reality?

 

 

all forms of buddhism are an endless cycle of births and deaths. buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs. didn't you say so yourself?

Addressing your post...each part.

 

1. You say that it is part of MY stream........This ghost which I saw might have the same "thought" about you!

Prove it

 

2. The qualifier you gave was "critically verified immediately"..........Everything can't be C.V. ID'ed immediately!

Ex. Seeing a rope at night, thinking it's a snake & then when morning comes, perceiving it was a rope only.

 

The ghost which I saw was not the result of alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, hysteria, delusion, paint thinner, "wishful thinking" or brainwashing. I saw it with my physical eyes floating across the hallway.

 

3. No, I never said "Buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs"

I did say that certain Buddhist sects are late inventions with not roots in ancient school....ie. Pure Land Buddhism

 

When quoting me, please cite my own source & give it to me please. I might have forgotten.

 

Thank you,

Stefos

[stefos]

So, your basically saying that Padmasambhava, Longchenpa or Chogyal Namkhai Norbu have propagated a mistaken delusional doctrine and are actually themselves deluded?

 

That's not true. The Pali canon and Chinese Agamas have teachings where Buddha expounds sunyata.

 

Geoff (Simple Jack)

 

In answer to the above points:

 

1 & 2:

I'm not a Buddhist scholar nor did I ever claim to be.

I have had experiences of emptiness myself actually! There was no "I" but there was consciousness & awareness.

 

I agree that Nama/Rupa are not the true us, The Will is not us, etc. What we are is what the 5 skandhas.are formed "around" so to speak.

 

Furthermore, Upon reading the Brahma Sutras of Sankaracharya, I see loopholes in certain Buddhist schools which cannot be rectified. One of them is the Sunyavada school. I'm not sure exactly what this school held to but I'll research it further.

Perhaps they put an emphasis on Sunya which had no place in the ancient texts. I'm not sure.

 

I also understand that the Pali texts say that Nibbana is "where conditioned consciousness ceases to exist"

 

Now, If the Pali texts are the oldest available texts near to the life of the historical Buddha & most closely reflect his thought, Why does did the Theras or any other Buddhist school not agree to this? They make consciousness a mere Skandha. The Buddha "supposedly in the Pali text" states that conditioned consciousness ceases in Nibbana, the inference is that our Skandha of consciousness is conditioned consciousness & not merely "consciousness" as is popularly pushed by Buddhist groups.

 

Do you see what I mean? Unconditioned Consciousness & Conditioned consciousness are 2 different things!

In Theravada teachings that I've heard about, not all, consciousness is an aggregate only.

 

Furthermore, Dzogchen doesn't say what the Theras & others say about the Skandha called "consciousness."

The Dzogchen view is completely different.

 

Stefos

[Simple_Jack]

1. I'm not Geoff (Jnana)

 

2. Shankara didn't understand Buddhism. It's quite clear once you unbiasedly compare and contrast his arguments to the source material for his formulations.

 

3. Madhyamaka had a significant influence on Advaita Vedanta.

 

4. You don't understand the premise for the Buddha's teaching on the 5 aggregates and its relation to the 12 links of dependent origination.

 

5. The Pali canon are not the oldest available texts. Those would be from the Gandhari texts which have been translated into a part of the Chinese Agamas.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[narveen]

Addressing your post...each part.

 

1. You say that it is part of MY stream........This ghost which I saw might have the same "thought" about you!

Prove it

 

Prove what? the stream of consciousness is reality. the ghost is part of reality because you saw it. someone else may see the buddha or a dog with six legs. that too would be part of reality. a schizophrenic experience - and there are many - is part of reality. the point is, what has a thing - be it the buddha, six-legged dog, or ghost - in reality, the stream of consciousness, got to do with practical living of life?

 

2. The qualifier you gave was "critically verified immediately"..........Everything can't be C.V. ID'ed immediately!

Ex. Seeing a rope at night, thinking it's a snake & then when morning comes, perceiving it was a rope only.

 

at the very instant of seeing the snake, that very perception was the verification. and you react to that reality by jumping away. it may have been a mistaken perception inaccurately verified but it was real to you and you responded appropriately.

 

The ghost which I saw was not the result of alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, hysteria, delusion, paint thinner, "wishful thinking" or brainwashing. I saw it with my physical eyes floating across the hallway.

 

ok, so the ghost was not an illusion. it was real and you have critically verified that as so. i don't reject your experience as a hallucination. neither would i reject someone else's admission of a six-legged dog as real. both you and that someone must live with your ghost and dog respectively.

 

if a guy is thrashing about in a fit in my presence. the catholic priest critically verifies and perceives that as a possession by demons. that is a reality that causes him to perform an exorcism. a medical doctor may critically verify that as epilepsy. that too is a reality that causes the doctor to treat the condition accordingly. i see the guy thrashing about, unable to verify anything and don't have a clue. that is my reality that would cause me to watch in puzzlement

 

3. No, I never said "Buddhists are weirdos with stupid beliefs"

I did say that certain Buddhist sects are late inventions with not roots in ancient school....ie. Pure Land Buddhism

 

ok, that is a reality which is causing you to refute my statements.

 

When quoting me, please cite my own source & give it to me please. I might have forgotten.

 

i could because it is recorded in your opening post of this thread. let's say, i did not read your words the way you intended them to express. as such, your clarification is accepted and i withdraw my statements.

Edited June 27, 2013 by narveen

[narveen]

4. You don't understand the premise for the Buddha's teaching on the 5 aggregates and its relation to the 12 links of dependent origination.

 

What is that premise, as you understand it?

[RongzomFan]

The Dzogchen view is completely different.

 

Stefos

 

No shit. Dzogchen is even different than Mahamudra.

[RongzomFan]

ie. Pure Land Buddhism

 

Dzogchen has Amitabha, Pure Lands, bardo practices etc.

 

So if you criticize Pure Land Buddhism, you are a complete hypocrite.

[stefos]

No shit. Dzogchen is even different than Mahamudra.

 

Again.....You're "enlightened" attitude & language sir.

 

Buddy, chiggedy check yourself & ego at the door.........Rule #1 of Buddhism

 

I refuse, after answering the second part of this multiquote answer to communicate your ignorant "self" again.

 

 

Dzogchen has Amitabha, Pure Lands, bardo practices etc.

 

So if you criticize Pure Land Buddhism, you are a complete hypocrite.

 

Pure Land Buddhism is a cult and a lieeeeeeeee.

 

Wake up.

 

There I criticized the Pure Land cult. Dzogchen is the best.

 

Stefos

[Apech]

Pure Land Buddhism is a cult and a lieeeeeeeee.

 

Wake up.

 

There I criticized the Pure Land cult. Dzogchen is the best.

 

Stefos

 

Pure Land Buddhism affirms a particular aspect of the possibility of liberation and that this is achievable through particular methods. As I understand the highest teachings of Tibetan Buddhism such as Dzogchen and Mahamudra do not refute the rest of the Buddhist path ... the Four Noble Truths and so on ... but build on them to give a 'higher' or more direct pathway to the goal. I have not heard of Dzogchen masters who refute parts of the dharma in the way you do.

[RongzomFan]

I refuse, after answering the second part of this multiquote answer to communicate your ignorant "self" again.

 

 

You didn't answer any of the points raised. So I assume you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

[stefos]

Pure Land Buddhism affirms a particular aspect of the possibility of liberation and that this is achievable through particular methods. As I understand the highest teachings of Tibetan Buddhism such as Dzogchen and Mahamudra do not refute the rest of the Buddhist path ... the Four Noble Truths and so on ... but build on them to give a 'higher' or more direct pathway to the goal. I have not heard of Dzogchen masters who refute parts of the dharma in the way you do.

 

The highest Teachings of Tibetan Buddhism DO in fact refute other Tibetan Buddhist schools.

 

Not to be patronizing but I share & ask the following rhetorical questions...please share your answers:

 

For example, Je Tsongkapa vs. Sakya Pandita vs. etc. vs. etc.

 

Another example is the the "Consciousness only" school & Zen.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says that Dzogchen is not about an "Alaya-vijnana" nor is it Zen.

 

What do we make of that?

 

The deep inference IS that these schools are in fact off base and lacking. Period.

CNN did speak about Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings but from the Tibetan Kanjur & not the Pali texts either.

 

What do we make of that?

 

To me, it seems obvious that the Tibetan schema is working within the paradigm of it's own Kanjur & it's own historical tracing.

 

Another issue is that one never hears about the Theras or any other ancient school from Tibetan sources....Why?

 

Moot point.

Stefos

Edited July 2, 2013 by stefos