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

[Simple_Jack]

But there are 5 P L, 5 Buddha families etc.

 

These are all related.

 

I'm sure they are, but just like you don't always see consciousness(es) included with the elements (as the 6th): from time to time you also see that the 5th element of space isn't included in the scheme. It happens, but in this case it's not denying that there is a 5th element (or a 6th element of consciousness), but when talking about the rupa skhanda: the scheme of the 4 elements is more common.

[stefos]

This conversation went, as Krishnamurti stated "From the sublime to the ridiculous."

 

Please address what I've posted or go meditate facing a wall.......LOL

 

Stefos

 

P.S. And what about Jesus (Yeshua) being a "realized being????"

 

Still waiting........

[stefos]

Love is overrated.

 

But hey....if you want to be loved stick with Geesus.

 

And as far as i know a "buddhist" doesn't come with an out of the box view.

It acquires one based on the approach of the school he/she adheres to.

 

Now, I don't know if you're being funny or just being rude.

 

"Geezus"....really? Are we 2 years old?

 

Please clarify what you've posted.

 

Thank you,

Stefso

[stefos]

ChNN, has apparently mentioned this more than once, according to some DC members. ChNN's criteria for a "realized being" is multifaceted. I personally don't agree with him that "realization" entails control over the 4 elements: since Buddhists and non-Buddhists (if they cultivate hard enough) can develop themselves to this point. This doesn't mean that someone has realization of 2-fold emptiness.

 

 

 

And how do YOU know Yeshua didn't have an understanding of the "2 fold emptiness" of self & other?

 

Jesus said "Father, not my will be done but yours"

He also said "The cup which the Father has given me, Shall I not drink it?"

 

If that isn't emptiness (In the New Testament's context of what Jesus was about to go through),

then you my friend are lost severely.

 

You seem to be way preoccupied with emptiness....What about the "primordial State" which is beyond emptiness?

Shakyamuni said "There IS the deathless, the unbecoming, the undying, the unborn OH monks, If it were not so I would not have told you." He also said "Here is where conditioned consciousness ceased to exist/be" he was referring to Nibbana.

 

Yeshua is LORD.

Stefos

[doc benway]

Hi everyone,

 

I've been agonizing to get this out but must.

 

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

 

No Ishvara

No Self as in a fixed static self

 

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

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

Comments?

Stefos

In my view, there is no need to believe.

In fact, it is preferable not to believe.

Belief is grasping, holding on to concepts.

This is contrary to Buddha's teachings.

He did not want people to simply believe the truths of others but to discover the truth for themselves.

Much better to simply practice and make room for knowledge to displace belief.

[stefos]

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

 

Geoff

 

The TRUE statements to make are these:

 

What did the Buddha actually teach? Period. If that isn't nailed down ANY so called "Dharma" can be pushed as "Buddhist."

 

NONSENSE.....

 

Did the Mahasiddhas attain something?

 

Perhaps...probably as I saw bands of color near someone and I never saw them before or since.

 

The issue is "Where did the Mahasiddhas get their information from in order to "attain" what they did?"

 

What's the source? By the way, don't tell me Milarepa got it from Marpa who got it from Tilopa.

Go back further....sorry, it's not good enough for me.

 

Lastly,

 

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu can absolutely be duped...He himself stated he's not enlightened.,

Longchenpa can absolutely be deceived and Guru Padmasambhava could have been deceived also.

 

 

My last statement reiterates what I've said all along:

First, which is to say of primarily importance: What did Shakyamuni Buddha actually teach?

 

All other so called "Buddhist Dharma" must be put to Shakyamuni's litmus test FIRST.

 

I don't deny subtle energy channels or chakras or koshas.

 

I DO completely question the validity of what I've read about another spiritually "attained" person.

 

Anything can be replicated, It doesn't qualify it as Truth in the Ultimate sense.

 

Stefos

Edited August 5, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

The Indian Mahasiddhas, the founders of Vajrayana, are just as authoritative as Shakyamuni.

 

They are Buddhas.

[idiot_stimpy]

They found the One-Taste

[RongzomFan]

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu can absolutely be duped...He himself stated he's not enlightened.

 

Viewing the guru as a dharmakaya Buddha, higher than any yidam, is one way of achieving Buddhahood in 1 lifetime.

 

You don't need completion stage etc.

 

This is stated for example by Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang in "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher."

[Anderson]

Now, I don't know if you're being funny or just being rude.

 

"Geezus"....really? Are we 2 years old?

 

Please clarify what you've posted.

 

Thank you,

Stefso

 

Dear Stefos,

 

I have read on the internet that the most famous person for loving everybody indiscriminately is Geezus and in response to your invitation that i should love you i suggested that you stick with this person who seem to know a lot of things about love which i don't.

The indians at my local corner shop are selling pictures with this person where he is beautifully depicted with long blond hair , angelic blue eyes and a visible heart pierced by a loving arrow which can only mean that he can impress upon everybody regrdless of their race or business inclination.

 

Since you are in the business of bashing all the buddhists who are not pali buddhists i think this person can love you too.

[Apech]

Why is everyone on the buddhist forum talking about Jesus?

Edited August 9, 2013 by Apech

[Jeff]

Why is everyone on the buddhist forum talking about Jesus?

Because Jesus was also a Dzogchen master...

[RongzomFan]

Why is everyone on the buddhist forum talking about Jesus?

 

Because westerners want to make all eastern religion subservient to Jesus

 

Because Jesus was also a Dzogchen master...

 

case in point

[Apech]

Because Jesus was also a Dzogchen master...

 

 

Groan. Whats all this stuff about God the Father then? Please don't answer its rhetorical.

[Jeff]

 

Because westerners want to make all eastern religion subservient to Jesus

 

case in point

Not at all. You are making institutional and doctrine assumptions based on a very limited set of books that you have chosen to define Jesus.

[Jeff]

 

 

Groan. Whats all this stuff about God the Father then? Please don't answer its rhetorical.

Groan.

 

Have you ever read Garab Dorje's translated works on the "All-Creating King - Pure Perfect Presence"? It very clearly defines the concept of "God the Father" as I would define it. Jesus was just speaking to poor Jewish fishermen... What is Garab Dorje's excuse...?

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Apech]

Buddhism

1) all compounded phenomena are impermanent

2) suffering arises from the contamination of phenomena with 'self'

3) phenomena are empty beyond elaboration

4) nirvana is perfect peace

 

Jesus did not say any of these things.

 

Christianity

 

• Our Father in heaven,

Buddhist cannot say this.

• hallowed be your name.

Buddhist cannot say this

• Your kingdom come,

Buddhist cannot say this

• your will be done,

Buddhist cannot say this

• on earth, as it is in heaven.

Buddhist cannot say this

• Give us this day our daily bread,

Buddhist cannot say this

• and forgive us our debts,

Buddhist cannot say this

• as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Buddhist CAN say this

• And lead us not into temptation,

Buddhist cannot say this

• but deliver us from evil.

SO Buddhism and Christianity are different.

[RongzomFan]

If Jesus was a Dzogchen master, tertons would have visions of him.

[RongzomFan]

If Jesus was a Dzogchen master, the dakini or Guru Rinpoche would have told some terton by now.

[Jeff]

Hi Apech,

 

On vacation with the family this week, but I give you my perspective of the mapping from the prayer to the Kunjed Gyalpo and the Ornament of the State of Samantabrhadra next week. Just remember that Jesus was speaking to mostly poor an uneducated Jewish people.

 

Regards,

Jeff

 

p.s. True communion is a very evolved Dzogchen transmission.

 

p.p.s. I promise not to post it in the Buddhist forum.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jeff

[Apech]

Hi Apech,

 

On vacation with the family this week, but I give you my perspective of the mapping from the prayer to the Kunjed Gyalpo and the Ornament of the State of Samantabrhadra next week. Just remember that Jesus was speaking to mostly poor an uneducated Jewish people.

 

Regards,

Jeff

 

p.s. True communion is a very evolved Dzogchen transmission.

 

p.p.s. I promise not to post it in the Buddhist forum.

 

Well have a nice vacation. All I can say that if by chance you are right and Jesus was teaching Dzogchen then he taught it very badly because everyone he taught practiced something else i.e. Christianity.

[stefos]

Viewing the guru as a dharmakaya Buddha, higher than any yidam, is one way of achieving Buddhahood in 1 lifetime.

 

You don't need completion stage etc.

 

This is stated for example by Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang in "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher."

 

You say that as a tantric Buddhist........Not found in Pali texts......Hence your bias

 

Besides, in Dzogchen "guru yoga' is not the teacher it's the primordial nature

 

Dear Stefos,

 

I have read on the internet that the most famous person for loving everybody indiscriminately is Geezus and in response to your invitation that i should love you i suggested that you stick with this person who seem to know a lot of things about love which i don't.

The indians at my local corner shop are selling pictures with this person where he is beautifully depicted with long blond hair , angelic blue eyes and a visible heart pierced by a loving arrow which can only mean that he can impress upon everybody regrdless of their race or business inclination.

 

Since you are in the business of bashing all the buddhists who are not pali buddhists i think this person can love you too.

 

First off, I'm not nor ever was "bashing" anyone. However the way you address "Geezus" is demeaning to the person. Right? Why can't you just type "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" what his name actually was?

 

I'm simply stating: Early Buddhism, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra/Dzogchen are not the same.

 

Why can't you understand that? People are trying to reconcile all of them & you can't.

 

I spoke with a Theravada nun & she said that "Vajrayana is Buddhism with Hinduism mixed in."

 

There you go! Case in point.

 

Why is everyone on the buddhist forum talking about Jesus?

 

Why not? What bad did Jesus do? None

 

We don't live in a bubble world anymore.

 

All I can say that if by chance you are right and Jesus was teaching Dzogchen then he taught it very badly because everyone he taught practiced something else i.e. Christianity.

 

What Jesus taught was being reconciled to God and God was described by Jesus as his Father.

 

In early Buddhism, Nibbana = Brahman can definitely be viewed as God the Father Impersonal:

I believe that Buddha Shakyamuni believed in Brahman = Nibbana & NOT Brahma = Nibbana or Vishnu = Nibbana or Shiva = Nibbana.

 

I have no problems viewing what little, I believe, Shakyamuni actually taught in the Pali texts as being in sympathy with biblical Christianity, not "denominational" Christianity, which is a watering down & Pagan amalgamation into & of biblical Christianity.

 

Mahayana, Tantric Buddhism, Mahamudra/Dzogchen came later.

I also believe that there were indeed tantric teachings taught by Shakyamuni to people openly but who knows what actually happened historically? Were you there?

For example: The Buddha spoke of "Winds" tearing his insides, head and entire body upon the stopping of the breath of the nose/mouth and then he mentions closing the eyes and ears also with similar results.

This is Prana, Kumbhaka & Rechaka and a particular Mudra which is about "closing the 10 apertures" respectively and the Buddha knew it & practiced it, it would clearly appear.

 

And finally, No one truly knows what Shakyamuni truly fully taught because the earliest records, just like the Jains are lost.

 

If we examine the Pali texts & the Vimuttimagga/Visuddhimagga, we see that Kasinas, Jhanas and other things are mentioned & taught. Tibetans know nothing about these things....Why? Zen practitioners don't....Why? Is there way superior vs. the Pali inferior?

 

Hinayana is not synonymous with Theravada only nor is Mahayana synonymous with Zen/Ch'an/Pure Land Buddhism only.

Not the same.

 

Bye bye,

Stefos

Edited August 14, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

I'm simply stating: Early Buddhism, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Mahamudra/Dzogchen are not the same.

No shit.

 

 

Why can't you understand that? People are trying to reconcile all of them & you can't.

 

You are the only one trying to reconcile them.

 

I spoke with a Theravada nun & she said that "Vajrayana is Buddhism with Hinduism mixed in."

 

Why are you threatened by Hinduism? Especially with your love for Brahman?

 

Mahayana, Tantric Buddhism, Mahamudra/Dzogchen came later.

No shit.

 

If we examine the Pali texts & the Vimuttimagga/Visuddhimagga, we see that Kasinas, Jhanas and other things are mentioned & taught. Tibetans know nothing about these things....Why?

 

Tibetans know about jhanas, but will view stuff like pranayama superior to meditation, following in the vein of the Indian tradition.

 

Hinayana is not synonymous with Theravada only nor is Mahayana synonymous with Zen/Ch'an/Pure Land Buddhism only.

Not the same.

 

No shit.

Edited August 14, 2013 by alwayson

[Cheshire Cat]

I spoke with a Theravada nun & she said that "Vajrayana is Buddhism with Hinduism mixed in."

 

Vajrayana is buddhist tantra which is a definition that implies something peculiar and not easily grasped.

You would understand more of what vajrayana is by speaking with theravadins who actually practiced it (tantra) to some extent rather than those who keeps an opinion or two.

 

 

What Jesus taught was being reconciled to God and God was described by Jesus as his Father.

 

According to the scriptures, Jesus taught to reconcile with God because he was the Messiah and soon he shall settle his reign. We are waiting since then, although he said that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

As for the "father" thing, to refer to God as father was (and is) common in jew prayers and hymns.

[Cheshire Cat]

In early Buddhism, Nibbana = Brahman can definitely be viewed as God the Father Impersonal:

I believe that Buddha Shakyamuni believed in Brahman = Nibbana & NOT Brahma = Nibbana or Vishnu = Nibbana or Shiva = Nibbana.

 

If my memory doesn't cheat, the "impersonal Brahman" philosophy was developed much LATER Shakyamuni's time by Shankara...

at the time of the Buddha, hindu society has devas with personalities and nothing that could be similar to his idea of Nirvana.