Time to reset the clock

[RongzomFan]

Well, at least he's not the only one if he is.

 

Whats so hard?

 

All the Indian professors such as Atisa, Kamalasila etc. held that the definitive sutra teaching is Madhyamaka.

 

Madhyamaka is like the Cliff Notes of Buddhism.

 

Madhaymaka also forms the basis of Vajrayana, such as Mahamudra etc.

Edited July 15, 2013 by alwayson

[Songtsan]

Whats so hard?

 

All the Indian professors such as Atisa, Kamalasila etc. held that the definitive sutra teaching is Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is like the Cliff Notes of Buddhism.

 

Madhaymaka also forms the basis of Vajrayana, such as Mahamudra etc.

 

I am way down with Mahamudra and far more attentive to Vajrayana philosophies.

 

I never said that Buddha was being a pessimist altogether. He identified most of the root sources of suffering, developed a plan to defeat it, and stated the plan pretty clearly. I just think he focused so much on clearing suffering that he failed to see how useful it was for us at the same time. It is what is evolving and pushing us to grow as people. Remember that post I made about fishes learning to walk on land, and how awful those first few thousands of years must have been evolutionary wise? Suffering was a part of this, and it co-creates who we are. My main point is don't fear the suffering and don't fear the wheel. Don't fear anything that you don't have to in fact! Avoid fear based motivations.

 

I was planning on further analyzing other religions on this board, but i think it may be stressful for me to go there, because more people will get upset and stuff. I am not trying to start controversy, I have plans within plans. Largely one of them is to point out the similarities between religions nowadays and especially the similarity of how they are almost all fear based at their root in some very significant ways. I also see that in some ways religions, etc. are not evolving. They should be.

[RongzomFan]

All of Buddhadharma is about ending ignorance/delusion.

[Songtsan]

All of Buddhadharma is about ending ignorance/delusion.

 

I agree...but I have seen supposed quotes by Buddha that indicated that he was not fully clear of ignorance himself. I would have to do some searching in the sutras to tell you which ones, and maybe some of those were only attributed to him and werent actually his real belief. I have the feeling that becoming even fully enlightened does not grant omniscience, and that one will always be ignorant to some degree. Just my opinion. If you wish me to go into detail I will, but not tonight I think. That is an argument that will take me time to formulate.

[RongzomFan]

I was planning on further analyzing other religions on this board, but i think it may be stressful for me to go there, because more people will get upset and stuff. I am not trying to start controversy, I have plans within plans.

 

The problem is that you have very little knowledge of Buddhism.

 

Buddhists love debating. But the other side has to have some knowledge.

[idiot_stimpy]

Whats getting defensive and where is it located?

[Songtsan]

I will say this right now: Buddha was heavily influenced by the Vedas/Brahmanism, as were pretty much every one of the teachers he learned from. Their ideas of reincarnation came from here. Brahmanism was heavily influenced by the caste-system that had formed in India as a way to control the lower castes by explaining why they had to stay where they were in society. If you study the roots of Tantra, before it became watered down by the Vedas in order to survive, they did not believe in those reincarnationist beliefs at all. I have a different view of reincarnation than Buddha and the Vedas did, and so his whole theory is somewhat flawed for me because of our root differences.

[Songtsan]

The problem is that you have very little knowledge of Buddhism.

 

Buddhists love debating. But the other side has to have some knowledge.

 

You lie! lol

[Songtsan]

Whats getting defensive and where is it located?

 

In the mind where else?

[Songtsan]

The problem is that you have very little knowledge of Buddhism.

 

Buddhists love debating. But the other side has to have some knowledge.

 

Listen you! You are personally attacking me. Go read all my posts on this. i cannot afford to be drawn in, so if this is how you are going to be, I will have to ignore you until you say something worth replying to.

[idiot_stimpy]

In the mind where else?

 

But the thought mind, is just that, a thought.

 

So a thought is getting defensive.

 

The question is, are you contained inside a thought or are you much larger?

[RongzomFan]

I will say this right now: Buddha was heavily influenced by the Vedas/Brahmanism, as were pretty much every one of the teachers he learned from.

 

Buddhas teachers were Sramana, not Brahmanical.

 

"These remarks confirm our impression that Magadha-and by extension, Greater Magadha-was not part of the land which the Brahmins considered their own during the Vedic period and, we may add, right up to a time close to the beginning of the Common Era. We may see this as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that Greater Magadha had a culture of its own which was different from the culture of the authors of the Vedic and early post-Vedic literature.....It was also the culture of those who founded, or joined, various religious movements, among which Buddhism, Jainsim, and Ajivikism are best known." -Johannes Bronkhorst

 

Their ideas of reincarnation came from here.

Nope. Come on do a basic academic reading of reincarnation in Indian religions.

Brahmanism was heavily influenced by the caste-system that had formed in India as a way to control the lower castes by explaining why they had to stay where they were in society.

 

Even western Ivy League scholars such as Columbia dean Nicholas Dirks says that caste is a British construction.

 

If you study the roots of Tantra, before it became watered down by the Vedas in order to survive, they did not believe in those reincarnationist beliefs at all. I have a different view of reincarnation than Buddha and the Vedas did, and so his whole theory is somewhat flawed for me because of our root differences.

 

I don't even know what this means.

[Songtsan]

But the thought mind, is just that, a thought.

 

So a thought is getting defensive.

 

The question is, are you contained inside a thought or are you much larger?

 

well, where do thoughts and emotions coincide? They are intertangled as far as I am concerned. Each thought seems to be paired with some feeling of some type. My defensiveness arises out of feeling that people are mislabeling me as something I am not.

[Songtsan]

Buddhas teachers were Sramana, not Brahmanical.

 

What you say is true, but there was still much Vedic influence in things that the Buddha taught, even as he denied many of their teachings...here go read this for starters: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

 

Please don't take anything i say as an absolutist statement

 

Nope. Come on do a basic academic reading of reincarnation in Indian religions.

 

Been there done that. i just recently read a book on the roots of Tantra written by an eminent Indian scholar - who's name i can't recall because it is long and complex. He clearly stated that the idea of reincarnation was cemented into the RigVedas as a means of controlling and explaining the caste system thousands of years ago. I would hate to get into a debate over scriptures with you that would end up with us arguing using different authors' interpretations of these things. I could find the title/author of the book if you like.

 

Even western Ivy League scholars such as Columbia dean Nicholas Dirks says that caste is a British construction.

 

Untrue - way older than that in many parts, go google it, maybe go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Indian_caste_system

 

 

I don't even know what this means.

 

Tantra means the 'science of life' - it is way older than the vedic systems, and originally had no ideas of reincarnation at all - it wasn't exactly atheistic, but was not certainly Vedic based originally. It was also original a casteless system. I think you actually should study it sometime. Like I said, I will find out that book title for you if you like.

[idiot_stimpy]

well, where do thoughts and emotions coincide? They are intertangled as far as I am concerned. Each thought seems to be paired with some feeling of some type. My defensiveness arises out of feeling that people are mislabeling me as something I am not.

 

Labels change, but what does not change?

[Songtsan]

Labels change, but what does not change?

 

change doesn't change!

[Songtsan]

I should also just say that I am somewhat slanted against western scholars who comment on eastern things. I generally don't give them as much credence, although there are certain authors I trust more such as George Fuerstein. Usually though I stick with scholars from the country in question, ones who grew up in that culture, and are at least a few dozen years old to boot, and then I try to find the best translations.

[RongzomFan]

What you say is true, but there was still much Vedic influence in things that the Buddha taught, even as he denied many of their teachings...here go read this for starters: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

 

Wow, you are really citing this guy?

 

http://stephenknapp.info/

Please don't take anything i say as an absolutist statement

 

I don't think anyone takes you seriously. Which is why your threads get ignored.

 

Been there done that. i just recently read a book on the roots of Tantra written by an eminent Indian scholar - who's name i can't recall because it is long and complex. He clearly stated that the idea of reincarnation was cemented into the RigVedas as a means of controlling and explaining the caste system thousands of years ago.

 

Probably some crap like the website you linked to.

 

I would hate to get into a debate over scriptures with you that would end up with us arguing using different authors' interpretations of these things.

 

Yeah if you use a crap author like the website you linked to.

 

Untrue - way older than that in many parts, go google it, maybe go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Indian_caste_system

Wikipedia is the worst cite for Indian religion information, as has been pointed out by many.

 

I cited an Ivy League dean and scholar from Columbia.

 

Tantra means the 'science of life' - it is way older than the vedic systems, and originally had no ideas of reincarnation at all -

 

Wrong on both accounts. Tantra is a medieval phenomena in India, and as such of course includes fully developed notions of reincarantion. Please start with a basic book such a Indian Esoteric Buddhism by Ronald Davidson.

 

I think you actually should study it sometime.

 

This is why you irritate people. My main interest in tantra. I always post on all sorts of Saiva and Buddhist tantra.

[Songtsan]

Wow, you are really citing this guy?

 

http://stephenknapp.info/

 

I don't think anyone takes you seriously. Which is why your threads get ignored.

 

 

Probably some crap like the website you linked to.

 

 

Yeah if you use a crap author like the website you linked to.

 

Wikipedia is the worst cite for Indian religion information, as has been pointed out by many.

 

I cited an Ivy League dean and scholar from Columbia.

 

 

Wrong on both accounts. Tantra is a medieval phenomena in India, and as such of course includes fully developed notions of reincarantion. Please start with a basic book such a Indian Esoteric Buddhism by Ronald Davidson.

 

 

This is why you irritate people. My main interest in tantra. I always post on all sorts of Saiva and Buddhist tantra.

 

You irritate me more than just about anyone else here. Good work. Let's just not talk to each other.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Songtsan

[Songtsan]

Tantra was primarily the way or means to understand the mysteries of life and universe, somewhat akin to the old Pythagorean concept of ‘philosophy’ which was ‘contemplation, study, and knowledge of nature’. At the earlier stages of history, Tantra arose as the sum total of man’s knowledge of the objective world around him. It was a way of life that sought the significance of knowledge, not in the realization of some illusory absolute, but in day-to-day activities of people. Essentially, Tantra is synonymous with science. Tantra is synonymous with religion, and religion is synonymous with science.

Science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths; a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Science is exactly Tantra in its original form. The scientific treatises composed in India are generally known as Tantras, or otherwise as ‘the scripture by which knowledge is spread.’ That’s all religion and spirituality is about.

The Tantric tradition which was evolving since time immemorial as the philosophy of the masses, had a great metamorphosis when elements of the dominant class were imposed on it. It was distorted and its principles were remodeled so that they would conform to the philosophy of illusion (i.e. Advaita Vedanta, non-dualism). The scientific and materialistic traditions were relegated to background, and all references to technical and manual labor, observation and experiment were effaced from the texts. This contempt for worldly knowledge was possible only because one section of the community lived on the surplus produced by another and withdrew itself from the responsibility of labor and hence from the obligation of acknowledging the reality of the material world. Earlier portions of the RigVeda knew neither caste-distinction nor contempt for empirical knowledge and its functioning in different spheres of life. Brahmanical social ideals were superimposed on the original Tantra to such an extent that the real contents are completely obscured. There have been countless attempts to convert Tantra into a kind of Vedanta. Also, while Tantra attaches supreme importance to Saktism, the popular belief that Tantra is the same as Saktism is wrong, although its heavily intertwined. Originally followers of the Tantric tradition were denounced for their anti-Vedic attitudes. The fact is that religious systems like Pancaratra, Pasupata, Sakta, Ganapatya, etc. were exclusively Tantric, originally having nothing to do with the Vedas. Actually original Tantra was atheistic. The incorporation of the Vedas brought the gods and goddesses. These forms of religion were extremely popular among the masses, and so therefore the followers of the Vedic tradition had to give them Vedic sanction. Slowly but steadily Vedic elements were infused into these systems. The grafted elements were given publicity and patronized by the ruling class and the elite, while the true tantric elements were blackened and severely condemned. The Vedantic orientation of later Tantric cosmogony gave rise to numerous anomalies and contradictions by which the medieval Tantric texts and commentaries are pronouncedly characterized. The purely illusory position of the world, as suggested by the absolute non-dualistic form of Vedanta on the basis of the queer logic that the cause alone is real and that its apparent transformation in the form of effect is only illusion, created much confusion among the Tantrics who believed in an organic psycho-physical process of creation in which qualities were common to the cause and its effects were stressed. The belief of the idealists, that the material world is an illusion, are refuted…the knowledge of external objects is true because there is no such knowledge which can reject it, just as the experience of the waking state, which rejects that of the dream, is perfectly true. If the absolute is, as is asserted to be, absolutely pure, the world itself should be perfectly pure. An impure world cannot be viewed as the outcome of the pure Brahman. Tantrism was basically not a moksa-sastra or science of the liberation of the soul, but was in fact an attitude towards life, a distinct outlook or viewpoint. Its intimate association with the practical aspects of life is proved by the emphasis it attached to the arts of agriculture, metallurgy, manual and technical labor, chemical sciences, physiology, embryology and medicine. Also, the sociological viewpoints expressed in the Tantras were in virtual opposition to those upheld by the Smarta-Puranic tradition. In the Vaisesika-sutras it is stated that every element as cause can produce effect, and this production of effect is conditional. This is opposed to the non-dualist view that there is only cause, and that that cause cannot be conditioned. Under the different historical conditions although this materialistic outlook was suppressed, it could not be totally excluded from the framework of the idealistic philosophical systems. Tantra is basically characterized by the doctrine of elements, and also the idea that there is no soul apart from the body. Tantra’s goal was only liberation within this lifetime and seeking physical immortality within this lifetime, that’s it. Anything else is Vedas-adulterated Tantra or western Neo-Tantra. Real Tantra is Dualist. Real Tantra is Science.

[idiot_stimpy]

You irritate me more than just about anyone else here. Good work. Your ignorance precedes you in everything you say. Let's just not talk to each other.

 

 

 

O son of noble family, when projections appear like this do not be afraid. You have a mental body of unconscious tendencies, so even if you are killed and cut into pieces you cannot die. You are really the natural form of emptiness, so there is no need to fear. The Lords of Death too arise out of your own radiant mind, they have no solid substance. Emptiness cannot be harmed by emptiness. Be certain that the external peaceful and wrathful deities, the blood-drinking herukas, the animal-headed deities, the rainbow light, the terrifying forms of the Lords of Death and so on have no substantiality, they only arise out of the spontaneous play of your mind. If you understand this, all fear is naturally liberated, and merging inseparably you will become a buddha. If you recognise in this way, they are your yidams.

[Songtsan]

.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Songtsan

[Songtsan]

Some quotes by Einstein, who was more enlightened than most people I have met:

 

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

 

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

 

“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

 

“The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

 

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.”

 

“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”

 

“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.”

[RongzomFan]

The reason why I irritate people is because I dont kiss ass and I dont put up with bullshit.

 

So far all I have seen are some nonsensical ramblings, and citations of bullshit websites like Steven Knapp.

[Songtsan]

.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Songtsan