Dzogchen: Visible evidence of progress!

[goldisheavy]

The same admonition to discuss the subject at hand applies to you. Cut and pasting lengthy quotes are not means of discussion.

 

That wasn't the worst quote, imo. It was short enough for me to get his point: The Buddha never said "I don't exist" is the right view. This similar topic is discussed in "No-self or Not-self?", which I think is a great article that should be read by anyone interested in the not-self doctrine. Lots of people confuse not-self with no-self, but Buddha never denied self as such. Buddha has only ever denied that the various categories of specific phenomena are self. The Buddha hasn't denied some abstract isolated beyond-phenomenal self. He only called that which is inconstant as unfit to be called "self." But then Buddha also mentioned something that wasn't inconstant, but stopped short of encouraging people to call it self without ever prohibiting it either, basically leaving the topic purposefully ambiguous and purposefully open.

 

I do dislike it when Simple_Jack posts enormous wall of text quotes without any of his own thoughts attached. When this happens I automatically just ignore them. I came to this forum to communicate with people rather than books. I can read the books on my own outside the forum. So providing a link to a book is one thing, but spamming pages or chapters out of a book is another. The only exception I'd make is if the book is secret, then spamming chapters from it would be OK in order to break the secrecy.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

That wasn't the worst quote, imo. It was short enough for me to get his point: The Buddha never said "I don't exist" is the right view. This similar topic is discussed in "No-self or Not-self?", which I think is a great article that should be read by anyone interested in the not-self doctrine. Lots of people confuse not-self with no-self, but Buddha never died self as such. Buddha has only ever denied that the various categories of specific phenomena are self. The Buddha hasn't denied some abstract isolated self. He only called that which is inconstant as unfit to be called "self." But then Buddha also mentioned something that wasn't inconstant, but stopped short of encouraging people to call it self without ever prohibiting it either, basically leaving the topic purposefully ambiguous and purposefully open.

 

I was just asking him to participate with his own interpretation as opposed to all the cut/paste which is his usual way.

Edited August 16, 2014 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

The same admonition to discuss the subject at hand applies to you. Cut and pasting lengthy quotes are not means of discussion.

 

IMHO, discussions of Buddhist tenet systems on internet forums should rely on reliable or authoritative sources; Buddhist sutras, commentaries, etc. fit that description. This cuts down on unnecessary proliferation...which is why I favor quoting Loppon Namdrol. Please see these posts:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33273-prajna-is-3-fold/?p=512655

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33273-prajna-is-3-fold/?p=563751

 

That wasn't the worst quote, imo. It was short enough for me to get his point: The Buddha never said "I don't exist" is the right view. This similar topic is discussed in "No-self or Not-self?", which I think is a great article that should be read by anyone interested in the not-self doctrine. Lots of people confuse not-self with no-self, but Buddha never denied self as such. Buddha has only ever denied that the various categories of specific phenomena are self. The Buddha hasn't denied some abstract isolated self. He only called that which is inconstant as unfit to be called "self." But then Buddha also mentioned something that wasn't inconstant, but stopped short of encouraging people to call it self without ever prohibiting it either, basically leaving the topic purposefully ambiguous and purposefully open.

 

It's mostly a case of translation issues ("not-self" vis a vis "no-self"). IMO, the discourse to Vacchagotta can hardly be classified as a definitive sutta, but definitely provisional, due to his confusion which prompted that discourse.

[goldisheavy]

It's mostly a case of translation issues ("not-self" vis a vis "no-self"). IMO, the discourse to Vacchagotta can hardly be classified as a definitive sutta, but definitely provisional, due to his confusion which prompted that discourse.

 

It's not just a translation issue. The real issue is that there are two ways people interpret what the Buddha said.

 

1. No self exists at all, period.

 

2. Seeing is inconstant, stressful, so isn't fit to be called self. Hearing, smelling, feeling, consciousness, etc.

 

Buddha has only and ever preached #2 and never #1, but weirdly most people actually think #1 is the correct understanding of the Buddha Dharma.

 

Meanwhile Buddha has also explained that there is something that isn't subject to inconstancy, and this is also routinely ignored by a lot of people.

 

It's not just a translation issue as I see it. We have two radically different ways of interpreting what the Buddha has said. And they can't both be right, imo. The implications that flow from #1 contradict a lot of stuff that flows from #2.

[Simple_Jack]

It's not just a translation issue. The real issue is that there are two ways people interpret what the Buddha said.

 

1. No self exists at all, period.

 

2. Seeing is inconstant, stressful, so isn't fit to be called self. Hearing, smelling, feeling, consciousness, etc.

 

Buddha has only and ever preached #2 and never #1, but weirdly most people actually think #1 is the correct understanding of the Buddha Dharma.

 

Meanwhile Buddha has also explained that there is something that isn't subject to inconstancy, and this is also routinely ignored by a lot of people.

 

It's not just a translation issue as I see it. We have two radically different ways of interpreting what the Buddha has said. And they can't both be right, imo. The implications that flow from #1 contradict a lot of stuff that flows from #2.

 

Nibbana is just the cessation of ignorance, aggression, craving: this is the salient point of Hinayana. Anatta/anatman being translated as "no-self" or "not-self" is a translation issue. A more important point of focus is the relation of this concept with the other two of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca and dukkha. As a follower of Mahayana: I don't consider the shravakayana canon as definitive.

[Simple_Jack]

 

It's not just a translation issue. The real issue is that there are two ways people interpret what the Buddha said.

 

1. No self exists at all, period.

 

2. Seeing is inconstant, stressful, so isn't fit to be called self. Hearing, smelling, feeling, consciousness, etc.

 

Buddha has only and ever preached #2 and never #1, but weirdly most people actually think #1 is the correct understanding of the Buddha Dharma.

 

Meanwhile Buddha has also explained that there is something that isn't subject to inconstancy, and this is also routinely ignored by a lot of people.

 

It's not just a translation issue as I see it. We have two radically different ways of interpreting what the Buddha has said. And they can't both be right, imo. The implications that flow from #1 contradict a lot of stuff that flows from #2.

 

 

Nibbana is just the cessation of ignorance, aggression, craving: this is the salient point of Hinayana. Anatta/anatman being translated as "no-self" or "not-self" is a translation issue. A more important point of focus is the relation of this concept with the other two of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca and dukkha. As a follower of Mahayana: I don't consider the shravakayana canon as definitive.

 

 

In fact, nirvana is considered an extreme in Mahayana, which is why the bodhi of arhats and pratyekabuddhas is considered a non-afflictive ignorance:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=519163

 

"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=531522

 

"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."

 

(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition) [<--- foundational sutra of Yogacara]

 

"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."

 

(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2, p 12)

Edited August 16, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

It's not just a translation issue. The real issue is that there are two ways people interpret what the Buddha said.

 

1. No self exists at all, period.

 

2. Seeing is inconstant, stressful, so isn't fit to be called self. Hearing, smelling, feeling, consciousness, etc.

 

Buddha has only and ever preached #2 and never #1, but weirdly most people actually think #1 is the correct understanding of the Buddha Dharma.

 

Meanwhile Buddha has also explained that there is something that isn't subject to inconstancy, and this is also routinely ignored by a lot of people.

 

It's not just a translation issue as I see it. We have two radically different ways of interpreting what the Buddha has said. And they can't both be right, imo. The implications that flow from #1 contradict a lot of stuff that flows from #2.

 

 

Nibbana is just the cessation of ignorance, aggression, craving: this is the salient point of Hinayana. Anatta/anatman being translated as "no-self" or "not-self" is a translation issue. A more important point of focus is the relation of this concept with the other two of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca and dukkha. As a follower of Mahayana: I don't consider the shravakayana canon as definitive.

 

>

 

 

In fact, nirvana is considered an extreme in Mahayana, which is why the bodhi of arhats and pratyekabuddhas is considered a non-afflictive ignorance:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=519163

 

"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=531522

 

"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."

 

(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 5, p 49; tr. Keenan, BDK edition) [<--- foundational sutra of Yogacara]

 

"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist."

 

(Samdhinirmocana Sutra, ch 2, p 12)

 

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33466-innate-purity-of-phenomena/?p=518225

 

Indeed, from the perspective of Madhyamaka a thing and its nature are identical. This is not so for those in lower schools.

 

To elaborate, conditions are merely an appearance. The notion of conditioned and unconditioned arises out of the substantialist roots of the substantialist tenet systems. By showing that the essence of phenomena is unconditioned, you are essentially showing that phenomena are in truth unconditioned. This is why the Prajñāpāramita makes statements like:

 

Any teaching by the Bhagavan that matter lacks inherent existence, does not arise, does not cease, is peace from the beginning and is parinirvana by nature, all such teachings are not the indirect meaning, nor the intentional meaning, but must be understood literally. (Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā)

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[gatito]

OK, so I got a partial admission that easily? So now you put me in "religious Buddhism" box?

 

What can you tell me about non-religious Buddhism? How is non-religious Buddhism different from Buddhism and why is it still called "Buddhism" at that point?

 

Yeah - I'm pretty easygoing. No - I find you quite out-of-the-box and irreligious - in a good way.

 

Quite a lot.

Very and I prefer the term Pseudobuddhism but as I'm not setting out to be gratuitously offensive, it tend to ration my use of the word.

[goldisheavy]

Simple_Jack, I agree with your above three posts.

 

Ralis, I was thinking about what you asked recently and I have come up with a different way to answer your question. You might like this one better. Your question was about whether an ideological adherence to neutrality or quiescence was something I considered a mistake, if I understand correctly. So here's a different way I can answer:

 

Remember how I was talking about burning up the blueprints for phenomenal reality? (note: phenomenal reality is not ultimate reality, but phenomenal reality is the familiar patterns of appearances that we trust, expect, and take seriously). OK, there is a difference between burning up all blueprints, and installing a blueprint of a reliably neutral and reliably quiescent experience. The former is chaotic. The latter is highly ordered. And still I claim there is no objective way to say which approach is superior.

 

Also, ideologies are driven by deeper needs that beings have. So ideologies are not "just ideologies." People commit to ideologies because they are perceived to answer some perceived needs. This process can be confused, but even in the middle of confusion there is some element of truth/authenticity there.

 

So I still think some beings need to actualize quiescence while others need to labor on paths with greater creativity and effort than just seeking a glorious repose.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Yeah - I'm pretty easygoing. No - I find you quite out-of-the-box and irreligious - in a good way.

 

Quite a lot.

Very and I prefer the term Pseudobuddhism but as I'm not setting out to be gratuitously offensive, it tend to ration my use of the word.

 

So it looks like you don't want to be public about the differences between what you call "scientific Buddhism" and "religious Buddhism." Do you mind sending me a PM with some detailed differences? What are the grounds of the so-called "scientific Buddhism"? What are its authorities? What are its tenets, goals, practices, maxims? I would like to know.

[gatito]

I was just asking him to participate with his own interpretation as opposed to all the cut/paste which is his usual way.

 

Waste of time - he's on cut-and-paste autopilot.

 

It's like trying to talk to someone who's tripping.

[gatito]

So it looks like you don't want to be public about the differences between what you call "scientific Buddhism" and "religious Buddhism." Do you mind sending me a PM with some detailed differences? What are the grounds of the so-called "scientific Buddhism"? What are its authorities? What are its tenets, goals, practices, maxims? I would like to know.

 

I didn't use the term "scientific Buddhism" - go back and read the post again because I was much more subtle than that.

[goldisheavy]

I didn't use the term "scientific Buddhism" - go back and read the post again because I was much more subtle than that.

 

OK, religious vs non-religious Buddhism. Or Pseudobuddhism vs religious Buddhism? But you were denigrating magical thinking, so maybe I jumped to conclusion here thinking you were promoting science as an alternative to magical thinking.

[gatito]

OK, religious vs non-religious Buddhism. Or Pseudobuddhism vs religious Buddhism? But you were denigrating magical thinking, so maybe I jumped to conclusion here thinking you were promoting science as an alternative to magical thinking.

 

It would be religious Buddhism or Pseudobuddhism contrasted with Buddhism - and I'd differentiate between religious and pseudo if backed into a corner about it.

 

I was denigrating magical thinking because it leads to massive problems (e.g. if you imagine that walking on water a measure of success on the Path). Science is a useful antidote for that kind of stuckness and if a teaching just dismisses science then it's clearly lacking because science exists and is a very useful tool.

 

However, science isn't objective - it's just a case of intersubjective agreement if you stop and think about it.

 

Furthermore, it can tell you nothing about Consciousness (that which is Self-aware and is reading these words and knows that it's reading these words) for the simple and obvious reason that there exists no instrument that can access Consciousness to measure it (except Consciousness itself). So, in one way, that's science screwed in this inquiry - but it doesn't mean that science doesn't exist in exactly the same way that every other object exists nor does it invalidate science as a potentailly useful tool in the inquiry for some people.

[goldisheavy]

It would be religious Buddhism or Pseudobuddhism contrasted with Buddhism - and I'd differentiate between religious and pseudo if backed into a corner about it.

 

So if you think about it, all of pre-modern history, starting with the Buddha himself, people who thought they were practicing Buddha Dharma in actuality were practicing Pseudobuddhism?

 

And only now, roughly 2500 years after Buddha first preached pseudobuddhism, we now finally have real Buddhism thanks to modern science?

 

I was denigrating magical thinking because it leads to massive problems (e.g. if you imagine that walking on water a measure of success on the Path). Science is a useful antidote for that kind of stuckness and if a teaching just dismisses science then it's clearly lacking because science exists and is a very useful tool.

 

What you say makes sense only from the perspective of one who is committed to humanity (and therefore, human identity and all that's implied by it).

 

However, science isn't objective - it's just a case of intersubjective agreement if you stop and think about it.

 

Scientific practice presently maintains retentions of objectivity, even if its true nature is intersubjective.

 

Furthermore, it can tell you nothing about Consciousness (that which is Self-aware and is reading these words and knows that it's reading these words) for the simple and obvious reason that there exists no instrument that can access Consciousness to measure it (except Consciousness itself). So, in one way, that's science screwed in this inquiry - but it doesn't mean that science doesn't exist in exactly the same way that every other object exists nor does it invalidate science as a potentailly useful tool in the inquiry for some people.

 

I never wanted to say that science is devoid of all value. Scientific point of view has pros and cons, as does my view, as does Buddha Dharma, and so on. There no single view or approach that is pure win, an approach that doesn't require the giving up of something to gain something. The things that science gives up are too valuable to give up for me personally.

[Simple_Jack]

Waste of time - he's on cut-and-paste autopilot.

 

It's like trying to talk to someone who's tripping.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

... All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause....

 

Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginningless.

 

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

 

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."...

 

Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited August 16, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

So if you think about it, all of pre-modern history, starting with the Buddha himself, people who thought they were practicing Buddha Dharma in actuality were practicing Pseudobuddhism?

 

And only now, roughly 2500 years after Buddha first preached pseudobuddhism, we now finally have real Buddhism thanks to modern science?

 

No, no, no

 

Siddhartha taught Buddhism by definition.

 

Any present day teacher of Buddhism who rejects science is clearly lacking as a teacher.

 

Siddhartha never rejected science

 

What you say makes sense only from the perspective of one who is committed to humanity (and therefore, human identity and all that's implied by it).

 

I beg to differ.

 

And what's wrong with being committed to humanity?

 

Siddhartha was.

 

Scientific practice presently maintains retentions of objectivity, even if its true nature is intersubjective.

 

Scientists may believe that they're objective but I've explained clearly and simply that's not actually the case.

 

Can't you follow the reasoning?

 

Would you like me to explain it differently?

 

I never wanted to say that science is devoid of all value. Scientific point of view has pros and cons, as does my view, as does Buddha Dharma, and so on. There no single view or approach that is pure win, an approach that doesn't require the giving up of something to gain something. The things that science gives up are too valuable to give up for me personally.

 

Science doesn't give up anything unless you adopt it as a belief system as opposed to a tool.

 

A bit like Buddhism really. If you adopt Buddhism as a beief system, you lose your freedom. If you adopt it as a tool you find your freedom.

[goldisheavy]

Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Haha... this is so silly. I had no idea Namdrol was now preaching Vedantic fatalism as Buddha Dharma.

 

Lord Buddha has definitely denied what Namdrol is saying here, which is that the past solely determines the present. Source:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

 

BTW, correct understanding is present+past determine present+future. In other words, there is a role for free will to play.

Edited August 17, 2014 by goldisheavy

[gatito]

<snip>

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Ignorant twat.

[goldisheavy]

Siddhartha never rejected science

 

He rejected assumptions necessary for science. Further, besides his prior two Gurus and his own asceticism, the Buddha had no instruction. So the Buddha, as far as I know, wasn't trained in conventional sciences, never cared for them to advance any of these conventional sciences himself, and basically had an attitude of renunciation toward such sciences, the same way Buddha would relate to all other conventional phenomena.

[gatito]

He rejected assumptions necessary for science. Further, besides his prior two Gurus and his own asceticism, the Buddha had no instruction. So the Buddha, as far as I know, wasn't trained in conventional sciences, never cared for them to advance any of these conventional sciences himself, and basically had an attitude of renunciation toward such sciences, the same way Buddha would relate to all other conventional phenomena.

 

Maybe, maybe not but in either case he lived at a different time, in a different culture with different issues and I can't find any evidence that he invalidated modern scientific method in any way at all.

 

But....the big problem is that he's dead and that no-one really knows what he did or didn't say, which is why everyone argues about it.

 

QED

[goldisheavy]

Maybe, maybe not but in either case he lived at a different time, in a different culture with different issues and I can't find any evidence that he invalidated modern scientific method in any way at all.

 

The Buddha invalidated a lot of important assumptions that science today makes.

 

But....the big problem is that he's dead and that no-one really knows what he did or didn't say, which is why everyone argues about it.

 

QED

 

We have the early sutras and suttas. Some Sanskrit texts are claimed to be as old as Pali, and we also have the Pali Canon of course. This is as authentic as a Buddha can be in the world of convention.

 

Beyond the world of convention you have the world of tantra and other mystical yogas, but those yogas are even further from science than even the sutras and the suttas. Those yogas are highly private in part because they're highly subjective.

Edited August 17, 2014 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

The Buddha invalidated a lot of important assumptions that science today makes.

 

 

We have the early sutras and suttas. Some Sanskrit texts are claimed to be as old as Pali, and we also have the Pali Canon of course. This is as authentic as a Buddha can be in the world of convention.

 

Beyond the world of convention you have the world of tantra and other mystical yogas, but those yogas are even further from science than even the sutras and the suttas. Those yogas are highly private in part because they're highly subjective.

 

Any sources for these mystical yogas?

[dawei]

Ignorant twat.

 

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Gatito has been suspended for a few days due to this language.

 

But I should note that this thread has many reports which seems mostly that posters are getting on each other's nerves.

 

This is one of a few threads which have raised the same issue over and over.

 

The staff is discussing what we can do about the Buddhist sub-forum as there is too much time, resources, and energy spent on this sub-forum alone.

 

Maybe someone will post a thread and discuss how to improve the buddhist sub-forum... if not, then the staff will simply decide.

 

~~~~ ADMIN OUT ~~~

[goldisheavy]

Any sources for these mystical yogas?

 

I think you know all the usual suspects. I'm talking about all the yogas that don't deal with the transformation explicitly, ati being one example, but there could be and likely are more (whatever mahamudra teachings call themselves, I don't think they rely on an explicitly guided transformation either).