Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[Simple_Jack]

By the way, one of the many places that you'll find clear reference to nonduality and Consciousness in Buddhism is in the Kunjed Gyalpo

 

Marigpa is the experience of the afflicted nidanas which means that consciousnesses dependently originates due to the meeting of a sense organ and a sense object.

[Simple_Jack]

Ok, I'll give it a go and we'll see what happens

 

Let's take this classic example of copy and paste dogma: -

 

 

Interestingly, Buddhism is, in fact, nondual, although I'd agree that there's no such thing as a nondual "state" (in either Buddhisnm or in Advaita Vedanta).

 

The problem is that dependent origination and anatta are very advanced teachings that have turned into misunderstood dogma for the overwhelming majority of Buddhists - for whom Buddhism is merley a set of beliefs rather direct knowledge.

 

By adopting these advanced teaching far too early (merely as part of a misunderstood belief system) they actually act as an absolute barrier to their understanding and to their progress with the Buddhist system.

 

This barrier can only be removed by dropping their dogma and examining their own direct experience - whereupon, freedom will begin to be uncovered.

 

Of course, this is not going to happen when someone has invested everything that they have in a set of incorrect beliefs. It's difficult enough to appproach the Truth with what most people would describe as an open mind, let alone a mind that is further overlaid by a further set of false beliefs, which cannot actually be understood by the mind because they're nondual teachings.

 

Perhaps some of those reading this can see the Catch 22?

 

Other major barriers for most Buddhists that I've noticed are a belief in the actual existence of mind and a failure to examine and define Consciousness/Awareness clearly for themselves.

 

Gatito, why are you so entrenched in double standards and logical fallacies? It's as if you are deliberately and completely biased towards acknowledging these double standards made against buddhadharma.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Gatito, why are you so entrenched in double standards and logical fallacies? It's as if you are deliberately and completely biased towards acknowledging these double standards made against buddhadharma.

 

Reported, as it's an ad hominem

Edited February 24, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

Reported

 

I want a straight answer! Why do insist on engaging in double standards and logical fallacies when you encounter the buddhadharma?

[gatito]

I want a straight answer! Why do insist on engaging in double standards and logical fallacies when you encounter the buddhadharma?

 

Reported (repeated ad hominem - badgering)

[dawei]

I want a straight answer! Why do insist on engaging in double standards and logical fallacies when you encounter the buddhadharma?

 

In order to understand your position: What is the double standard and logical fallacies you have mentioned several times in several posts. Forgive me for not researching historical explanations but I find myself here now and it seems easier to just ask it.

 

Realize... I am not going to understand too much esoteric Buddhist jargon but I would like to understand your position as you see the 'double standard'. thanks.

[gatito]

In order to understand your position: What is the double standard and logical fallacies you have mentioned several times in several posts. Forgive me for not researching historical explanations but I find myself here now and it seems easier to just ask it.

 

Realize... I am not going to understand too much esoteric Buddhist jargon but I would like to understand your position as you see the 'double standard'. thanks.

 

Thank you

[Simple_Jack]

In order to understand your position: What is the double standard and logical fallacies you have mentioned several times in several posts. Forgive me for not researching historical explanations but I find myself here now and it seems easier to just ask it.

 

Realize... I am not going to understand too much esoteric Buddhist jargon but I would like to understand your position as you see the 'double standard'. thanks.

Thank you

 

Other than the logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread by Gatito you can read the "Debunking a Creator" thread starting from page 16 http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/page-16.

[gatito]

Other than the logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread by Gatito you can read the "Debunking a Creator" thread starting from page 16 http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/page-16.

 

Reported - for third ad hominem

[Simple_Jack]

Reported - for third ad hominem

 

Please, stop engaging in double standards and logical fallacies, by admitting of your bias towards buddhadharma.

[gatito]

Please, stop engaging in double standards and logical fallacies, by admitting of your bias towards buddhadharma.

 

Reported for fourth ad hominem

[dawei]

Please, stop engaging in double standards and logical fallacies, by admitting of your bias towards buddhadharma.

 

~~~ MOD REQUEST ~~~

 

For now, I'll ask that you refrain from the repeated accusations.

 

 

As a mod: I've asked you to explain you meaning and point. I already said I don't want to chase down other past threads.

 

Can you share in simple words the double standard as you see it?

 

 

~~~ MOD OUT ~~~

 

Added Mod markers.

[gatito]

For now, I'll ask that you refrain from the repeated accusations.

 

 

As a mod: I've asked you to explain you meaning and point. I already said I don't want to chase down other past threads.

 

Can you share in simple words the double standard as you see it?

 

Thanks again

 

And I'd be happy to deal with any specific issues in the Debunking a Creator thread if it is unlocked.

[Simple_Jack]

For now, I'll ask that you refrain from the repeated accusations.

 

 

As a mod: I've asked you to explain you meaning and point. I already said I don't want to chase down other past threads.

 

Can you share in simple words the double standard as you see it?

 

The double standard and logical fallacies, made by gatito, stems from gatito's bias towards the philosophy and praxis of buddhardharma; due in part to how buddhadharma undermines an eternalist position of a self-standing entity, in this case Cit i.e. "Consciousness/Awareness".

[gatito]

The double standard and logical fallacies, made by gatito, stems from gatito's bias towards the philosophy and praxis of buddhardharma; due in part to how buddhadharma undermines an eternalist position of a self-standing entity, in this case Cit i.e. "Consciousness/Awareness".

 

Reported again - for ad hominems ("double-standards" and "bias")

[Simple_Jack]

Reported again - for ad hominems ("double-standards" and "bias")

 

 

Hardly, as it's self-evident in your posts. Anyone, who are themselves not biased towards buddhadharma, can see this.

[yabyum24]

 

Hardly, as it's self-evident in your posts. Anyone, who are themselves not biased towards buddhadharma, can see this.

It's not self-evident at all. You have already accused me of such things too - that I am a "non-practitioner", "Realist" and other such stuff, when I took refuge and have been a Buddhist practitioner for over 25 years.

 

You are very quick to accuse people in this way, without even bothering to establish the facts.

[gatito]

 

Hardly, as it's self-evident in your posts. Anyone, who are themselves not biased towards buddhadharma, can see this.

 

 

It's not self-evident at all. You have already accused me of such things too - that I am a "non-practitioner", "Realist" and other such stuff, when I took refuge and have been a Buddhist practitioner for over 25 years.

 

You are very quick to accuse people in this way, without even bothering to establish the facts.

 

and he is unable to detail specific points as instructed by the moderator and he continued to post ad hominems - thus ending a discussion about the specific issues (for the time being).

[Jeff]

I know that I will probably regret this...

 

But I would have to agree with SJ regarding the defined definitions of buddhadarma. In the "buddha framework", consciousness is not equal to (or the same as) awareness/emptiness. Consciousness maps to Universal mind (or buddhamind).

 

In Taoist terms...Emptiness = Tao. Consciousness = The One.

 

Best wishes.

[Simple_Jack]

It's not self-evident at all. You have already accused me of such things too - that I am a "non-practitioner", "Realist" and other such stuff, when I took refuge and have been a Buddhist practitioner for over 25 years.

 

You are very quick to accuse people in this way, without even bothering to establish the facts.

 

I based that mostly off of this post here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/?p=523619

 

I wrote: In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object.

 

you wrote: That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

 

Having taken refuge and considering oneself a "Buddhist practitioner for over 25 years" does not necessarily mean an individual is engaging in the view of buddhardharma.

[Simple_Jack]

I know that I will probably regret this...

 

But I would have to agree with SJ regarding the defined definitions of buddhadarma. In the "buddha framework", consciousness is not equal to (or the same as) awareness/emptiness. Consciousness maps to Universal mind (or buddhamind).

 

In Taoist terms...Emptiness = Tao. Consciousness = The One.

 

Best wishes.

 

This is eternalism. There is no over-arching, self-standing, uber consciousness in buddhadharma. All cognitions are personal and dependently originated.

[yabyum24]

Having taken refuge and considering oneself a "Buddhist practitioner for over 25 years" does not necessarily mean an individual is engaging in the view of buddhardharma.

And you have evidently decided that I do not engage in the view of Buddhadharma (your definition) and am therefore a "non-practitioner".

[Jeff]

This is eternalism. There is no over-arching, self-standing, uber consciousness in buddhadharma. All cognitions are personal and dependently originated.

 

No eternalism. Just a terse description.

 

Do not you & I share the cognition of the same tree when standing next to each other?

[Simple_Jack]

And you have evidently decided that I do not engage in the view of Buddhadharma (your definition) and am therefore a "non-practitioner".

 

Correct. If you are a Vajrayana practitioner than disregarding the above is understandable, but if you were someone who practiced vipassana for example, then my assertion is valid.

 

No eternalism. Just a terse description.

 

Do not you & I share the cognition of the same tree when standing next to each other?

 

This is missing the point, consciousnesses arise due to the meeting of a sense organ and a sense object, positing anything otherwise, according to buddhardharma, is eternalism a la Hinduism.

[yabyum24]

Correct.

Well, that's pretty clear.