The Boddhisattva in Theravada
DharmaTroll
> All Buddhist schools recognize the existence of bodhisattvas.
> All Buddhist recognize the difference between arhats and bodhisattvas.
>
> Namdrol
Only in a technical sense. In Theravada, sure, the term is used, but it means
the buddha-to-be, before he became the Buddha. The presence of the bodhisattva
ideal in the pali canon tends to refer specifically to Gotama himself, before he
awakened as the Buddha. The use of the term "bodhisattva" occurs in a number of
the suttas in the Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikaayas where the Buddha
says: "Monks, before my Awakening, and while I was yet merely the Bodhisatta."
In Mahayana it by contrast becomes a class, like arahants, except a
triumphalistic move is made, and so boddhisattva is an indicator that the
Mayayana is a wider or superior path than other sects, such as Theravada. It is
this latter claim to which I take issue. I have no problem using the word to
refer to the Buddha before he was awakened. So yes, the word is used by
Theravadins but only in that way, and it's used in a few other places to talk
about the Maitreya or Buddha-to-be, but all the stuff about a class of
Boddhisattvas and their vowing to come back and help their pals is a Mahayana
mythology and not a Theravadin one.
--DT
GeirSmith
>Namdrol says..
What's interesting is to see how the use of the name of Maitreya has evolved.
Buddhism was verily rewritten on toto by the buddhists of the 11th century and
all the wailing and ranting of the hinayana ayatollahs won't change that. It's
like a communist-brainwashed guy who's been lobotimized saying I'm no longer
the what I used to be !
Namdrol
"DharmaTroll" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:njFb7.933$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
If you examine the Visuddhimagga, you will ascertain there that Theravadins
indeed rcognize the bodhisattvayana as a seperate vehcle-- I also direct you
to the work of Nyaponika Thera who also discusses this issue. He asserts
that in Thervadin countries, those folks who express an aspiration to follow
the bodhisattva path are not taught certain techniques of vipassana so that
they will not become stream enterers --since if one becomes a stream enterer
it is assured that one will become an arhat within seven lifetimes.. Instead
such people are encouraged to accumulate tremendous merit so that they will
have good rebriths., etc. So it is recognized as a seperate vehicle in
Theravadin countries, and a vehicle one can choose to adopt.
Namdrol
punnadhammo
<malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote:
> If you examine the Visuddhimagga, you will ascertain there that Theravadins
> indeed rcognize the bodhisattvayana as a seperate vehcle-- I also direct you
> to the work of Nyaponika Thera who also discusses this issue. He asserts
> that in Thervadin countries, those folks who express an aspiration to follow
> the bodhisattva path are not taught certain techniques of vipassana so that
> they will not become stream enterers --since if one becomes a stream enterer
> it is assured that one will become an arhat within seven lifetimes.. Instead
> such people are encouraged to accumulate tremendous merit so that they will
> have good rebriths., etc. So it is recognized as a seperate vehicle in
> Theravadin countries, and a vehicle one can choose to adopt.
This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
take up this bodhisatta-yana.
philarktos
"Namdrol" <malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote in message
news:psRb7.5$WN4....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
> If you examine the Visuddhimagga, you will ascertain there that
Theravadins
> indeed rcognize the bodhisattvayana as a seperate vehcle-- I also direct
you
> to the work of Nyaponika Thera who also discusses this issue. He asserts
> that in Thervadin countries, those folks who express an aspiration to
follow
> the bodhisattva path are not taught certain techniques of vipassana so
that
> they will not become stream enterers --since if one becomes a stream
enterer
> it is assured that one will become an arhat within seven lifetimes..
Instead
> such people are encouraged to accumulate tremendous merit so that they
will
> have good rebriths., etc. So it is recognized as a seperate vehicle in
> Theravadin countries, and a vehicle one can choose to adopt.
>
> Namdrol
>
This is extremely interesting and an important contribution.I must admit
that with my far, far more limited knowledge, I was unaware of Theravadan
sources on the bodhisattvayana. I would speculate that the "historical"
understanding of many Mahayana practitioners isn't all that different from
that of the Mahayana's detractors, this information not being presented in
the brief working overview of the Three Vehicles that I, for one, am
familiar with.
More specific references, quotations, on-line resources ?
Larry
Jumbomatic
Its important to point out that the Bodhisattva path and that of the
arhat or pratakeyabuddha(sp?) have different goals. Arahats are
concerned about getting free of the ego, while Bodhisattvas work with
Bodhichitta (The wish to and actualization of enlightenment for the
benefit of all beings.). Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation really
draws some clear disctinctions between the Theravada and Mahayana
goals. You could sum it up by saying that a Theravada practioner gets
free for his own benefit, while the Mahayana practioner gains
enlightenment for the benefit of others (which, according to the
Mahayana, traditon is the only way to do it given the non-dual apsect
of mind). You could also say that the accomplishment of an arhat is
similar to that of the first Bodhisattva Bhumi, except the Arhat has
nowhere to go becuase they have not generated any bodhichitta to
propel them to full enlightenment. Read Gampopa, its great stuff.
dharmatroll
DT:
<< In Theravada, sure, the term is used, but it means the
buddha-to-be, before he became the Buddha. The presence of the
bodhisattva ideal in the pali canon tends to refer specifically to
Gotama himself, before he awakened as the Buddha. The use of the term
"bodhisattva" occurs in a number of the suttas in the Majjhima,
Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikaayas where the Buddha says: "Monks, before
my Awakening, and while I was yet merely the Bodhisatta."
In Mahayana it by contrast becomes a class, like arahants, except a
triumphalistic move is made, and so boddhisattva is an indicator that
the Mayayana is a wider or superior path than other sects, such as
Theravada. It is
this latter claim to which I take issue. I have no problem using the
word to refer to the Buddha before he was awakened. So yes, the word
is used by Theravadins but only in that way, and it's used in a few
other places to talk
about the Maitreya or future Buddha-to-be, but all the stuff about a
class of Boddhisattvas and their vowing to come back and help their
pals is a Mahayana mythology and not a Theravadin one. >>
Namdrol:
> > If you examine the Visuddhimagga, you will ascertain there that
> > Theravadins indeed rcognize the bodhisattvayana as a seperate vehicle--
> > I also direct you to the work of Nyaponika Thera who also discusses this
> > issue. He asserts that in Thervadin countries, those folks who express
> > an aspiration to follow the bodhisattva path are not taught certain
> > techniques of vipassana so that they will not become stream enterers --
Taken literally, that would be unfortunate that people would actually
abandon practise or withhold teachings because of a superstition that
enlightenment was selfish. As a metaphor, however, it is a wonderful
reminder that practise isn't just sitting on one's cushion and trying
to fix one's own neuroses, but that practise and spirituality are
about helping all beings and living in a caring and compassionate way
in the world. Abandoning practise for fear that one will literally be
promoted and shipped off to a higher realm misses the point, I'd say.
However, I do find these examples interesting, however, as I didn't
think the Boddhisattva stuff was added to the Buddhist spin-offs for
many centuries.
> > So it is recognized as a seperate vehicle in Theravadin countries,
> > and a vehicle one can choose to adopt.
That only suggests that there is a Mahayana influence and that the
traditions blend with each other. Only Mahayanists rudely claim that
the path of the arahant is selfish. Theravadin teachers, every one of
them I've met, say that as one becomes an arahant, one becomes
compassionate and that idea of wanting some credential or gain for
oneself is dropped completely. That is, working toward awakening for a
Theravadin is really the same as working to be a Boddhisattva. I
actually like the addition of the Boddhisattva mythology, as it
grounds one in community service and makes that all a part of
practise.
punnadhammo <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message news:<070820010945585950%arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net>...
> This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
> is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
> sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
Well, I can add our Bhante to my list of Theravadin teachers that say
that.
> I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> take up this bodhisatta-yana.
I do find Namdrol's examples interesting. I'd like to know when
historically the Boddhisattva vow was added to Buddhism, and when the
concept of the Buddha-to-be got turned into beings which are sometimes
worshipped as greater than the Buddha in Mahayanist schools --
something that Theravadins find bizarre. I don't remember what Peter
Harvey said in his book, but I don't remember him mentioning when this
happened in Mahayana Buddhism.
--DT
DharmaTroll
> Its important to point out that the Bodhisattva path and that of the
> arhat or pratakeyabuddha(sp?) have different goals. Arahats are
> concerned about getting free of the ego, while Bodhisattvas work with
> Bodhichitta (The wish to and actualization of enlightenment for the
> benefit of all beings).
No, that's only if you buy into the insulting Mahayana rheteric.
If you ask any Theravadin, compassion and community go hand in hand with
meditation practise. There is no difference in goals at all, just in the
mythological stories.
Also, the Pratyeka-buddha, or literally a "solitary awakened one" is simply one
who has awakened on her own. In this case, she might not be in a spiritual
community and might be a solitary hermit, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be
concerned with others' well-being and wouldn't give her her life for others.
> Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation really
It consists of political trashing of the other sect. Gampopa is just another
triumphalistic fool. No mature teacher would spew such crap as, "Our enlightened
dudes are compassionate, but yours only have selfish aims; your most enlightened
dudes maybe are on par with our lowest-level enlightened dudes, but we have many
higher levels."
I actually heard a Tibetan teacher say that "While the Theravadin or Hinayanist
school only can take you so far as an arhant, and the Mahayana school can take
you a step further, only the Vajrayana path can result in the highest
awakening." What a load of crap. Wake up, Jumbomatic, and figure out that
*everybody* says that their school is the best and highest. This is "my mommy is
better than your mommy" stuff.
> You could sum it up by saying that a Theravada practioner gets
> free for his own benefit, while the Mahayana practioner gains
> enlightenment for the benefit of others
Yeah, just like you could get the Russians to sum up the difference between
socialism and capitalism: socialism is the wonderful system of Russia where the
state owns everything and everyone lives in a perfect utopian equality, wheras
capitalism is simply a system of greed and imperialism and egoism. Same kind of
way to "sum it up".
> You could also say that the accomplishment of an arhat is
> similar to that of the first Bodhisattva Bhumi,
Poppycock. A first level Bodhisattva is a wuss, and even only a ninth or tenth
level Bodhisattva would have a chance to kick an arahant's butt, but I'd bet he
still probably wouldn't last seven rounds in the ring with an arahant or a
pacceka-buddha.
--DT
ClaudeHL
<CH4c7.2438$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com>
DT wrote:
>In article <b492cc5e.01080...@posting.google.com>, Jumbomatic
>says...
>
>> Its important to point out that the Bodhisattva path and that of the
>> arhat or pratakeyabuddha(sp?) have different goals. Arahats are
>> concerned about getting free of the ego, while Bodhisattvas work with
>> Bodhichitta (The wish to and actualization of enlightenment for the
>> benefit of all beings).
>
>No, that's only if you buy into the insulting Mahayana rheteric.
>
>If you ask any Theravadin, compassion and community go hand in hand with
>meditation practise. There is no difference in goals at all, just in the
>mythological stories.
>snip<
>> You could also say that the accomplishment of an arhat is
>> similar to that of the first Bodhisattva Bhumi,
>
>Poppycock. A first level Bodhisattva is a wuss, and even only a ninth or
>tenth
>level Bodhisattva would have a chance to kick an arahant's butt, but I'd bet
>he
>still probably wouldn't last seven rounds in the ring with an arahant or a
>pacceka-buddha.
Hi DT,
You seem to accept the existence of a Boddhisattva path and there may even be
some evidence for it in the Theravada tradition, as the beginning of this
thread indicated, but you do reject its Mahayana definition (even though it is
mostly a Mahayana concept).
You also seem to consider that both Mahayana and Theravada have the same goal,
so I would be interested to know what you think the Boddhisattva path really is
and how does it differ from the path of the Arhats, in your view (apart from
what you call the mythological stories)?
By the way, Mahayanists do not (or should not) claim that Theravadins do not
have compassion or do not wish to help others. Mahayana teachings often give as
proof of the contrary, among others, the fact that Theravadins teach the
Dharma. Why else would they teach if not to benefit others?
Claude
Geof
> Poppycock. A first level Bodhisattva is a wuss, and even only a ninth or tenth
> level Bodhisattva would have a chance to kick an arahant's butt, but I'd bet he
> still probably wouldn't last seven rounds in the ring with an arahant or a
> pacceka-buddha.
You're on. I'll take that bet.
Geof
Namdrol
"dharmatroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7f161754.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Namdrol:
> > > If you examine the Visuddhimagga, you will ascertain there that
> > > Theravadins indeed rcognize the bodhisattvayana as a seperate
vehicle--
> > > I also direct you to the work of Nyaponika Thera who also discusses
this
> > > issue. He asserts that in Thervadin countries, those folks who express
> > > an aspiration to follow the bodhisattva path are not taught certain
> > > techniques of vipassana so that they will not become stream
enterers --
>
> Taken literally, that would be unfortunate that people would actually
> abandon practise or withhold teachings because of a superstition that
> enlightenment was selfish. As a metaphor, however, it is a wonderful
> reminder that practise isn't just sitting on one's cushion and trying
> to fix one's own neuroses, but that practise and spirituality are
> about helping all beings and living in a caring and compassionate way
> in the world. Abandoning practise for fear that one will literally be
> promoted and shipped off to a higher realm misses the point, I'd say.
> However, I do find these examples interesting, however, as I didn't
> think the Boddhisattva stuff was added to the Buddhist spin-offs for
> many centuries.
The bodhisattva ideal was present in Buddhism from the beginning-- it is my
suspicion that it was a lay oriented ideal.
> > > So it is recognized as a seperate vehicle in Theravadin countries,
> > > and a vehicle one can choose to adopt.
>
> That only suggests that there is a Mahayana influence and that the
> traditions blend with each other. Only Mahayanists rudely claim that
> the path of the arahant is selfish. Theravadin teachers, every one of
The path of an Arhat is only selfish is one pursues it with no thought to
benefit others. If one chooses the path of an Arhat in order to benefit
sentient beings, out of compassion, and provide a noble example to inspire
others, then this becomes Mahayana practice by definition.
> them I've met, say that as one becomes an arahant, one becomes
> compassionate and that idea of wanting some credential or gain for
> oneself is dropped completely. That is, working toward awakening for a
> Theravadin is really the same as working to be a Boddhisattva. I
I think there are important differences that need to be distinguished-- it
must be recognized, as it is by all traditions, that the Bodhsattva path
aims at the accumulation of merit such that the person following it maifests
all the attributes of complete Buddhahood.
> actually like the addition of the Boddhisattva mythology, as it
> grounds one in community service and makes that all a part of
> practise.
Community servise is integral in all Buddhist schools.
> punnadhammo <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
news:<070820010945585950%arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net>...
>
> > This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
> > is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
> > sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
>
> Well, I can add our Bhante to my list of Theravadin teachers that say
> that.
>
> > I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> > take up this bodhisatta-yana.
>
> I do find Namdrol's examples interesting. I'd like to know when
> historically the Boddhisattva vow was added to Buddhism, and when the
> concept of the Buddha-to-be got turned into beings which are sometimes
> worshipped as greater than the Buddha in Mahayanist schools --
As early as the time of Ashoka-- the Katthavattu records a dispute where
some Bhikkus asserts that there are other Buddhas in other world realms, and
the Vibhajjyavadin response was "What are their names, where" in their
refutation of this doctrine. Further, the MahaSamghika split was predicated
on the fallability of Arhats. The Mahasamghikas maintained, that unlike the
Buddha, arhats could make mistakes. The Sthaviras rejected this, and this
was the point at which early Buddhism divided into "18" schoools.
Namdrol
Namdrol
"punnadhammo" <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
news:070820010945585950%arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net...
This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of sentient
beings is Western misconception. All Bodhisattvas aim at complete
liberation. Therefor, the point of the bodhisattvayana is that it is the
vehicle for complete Buddhahood.
> I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> take up this bodhisatta-yana.
Nontheless the bodhisattva yana is recognized by Theravada as a distinct and
*seperate* spiritual option which is qualitatively different from the
arhat's path. Why is it qualitatively different? Because the liberation of a
Buddha is qualitatively different than that of an arhat.
Namdrol
Mike Austin
<malcolm.smith@?.?.?.genuity.com> writes
>>
>> This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
>> is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
>> sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
>
>This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of sentient
>beings is Western misconception. All Bodhisattvas aim at complete
>liberation. Therefor, the point of the bodhisattvayana is that it is the
>vehicle for complete Buddhahood.
Hi Namdrol,
I think this is misunderstood when it's taken literally. The meaning is
that the Bodhisattva is *prepared* to return endlessly for the sake of
all sentient beings. This brings about steadfastness, supreme tolerance
and release from self-interest.
The words of Shantideva's sum it up:
For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.
I find this the one of the most inspirational verses I've ever read.
Metta
Mike Austin
Namdrol
"Mike Austin" <mi...@lamrim.org.uk> wrote in message
news:48BSWXAh...@clara.net...
Given that tenth stage bodhisattvas are functionally equivalent to Buddhas--
they have the capacity to remain in Samsara for as long as it takes. Heck,
if Ananda had taken the broad hints the Buddha gave, he would have displayed
parinirvana much later.
Namdrol
Jumbomatic
I'd just like to clarify that I'm talking about Bodhichitta, not
compassion. Bodhichitta has 2 aspects relative and ultimate, the
ultimate being full enlightenment and and the relative being the path
to get there. You can further divide the relative aspect into 2
categories, Aspiration and Action. Aspiration Bodhhichitta is the wish
and the desire to become enlightened for the benefit of all beings
while Action Bodhichitta is the actual work involved (Mediation etc.).
The Bodhisattva vow protects those on the Bodhisattva path from
keeping their meditative results for themselves and instead offering
them to all beings for their benefit.
I'm sure Theravada practioners have compassion and I deeply respect
the tradition, I mean hey its the Buddha's teaching. Its clear though
that the focus in the Theravada school is on individual liberation,
while in the Mahayana tradition the focus is on enlightenment for the
sake of all beings, hence the Bodhisattva. In the Mahayana and
Vajrayana traditions it is a great mistake to exclude the Theravada
teachings.
Jumbomatic
GeirSmith
http://geocities.com/longlivemaitreya/
>Namdrol
>DT:
><< In Theravada, sure, the term is used, but it means the
>buddha-to-be, before he became the Buddha. The presence of the
>bodhisattva ideal in the pali canon tends to refer specifically to
>Gotama himself, before he awakened as the Buddha. The use of the term
>"bodhisattva" occurs in a number of the suttas in the Majjhima,
>Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikaayas where the Buddha says: "Monks, before
>my Awakening, and while I was yet merely the Bodhisatta."
>
>In Mahayana it by contrast becomes a class, like arahants, except a
>triumphalistic move is made, and so boddhisattva is an indicator that
>the Mayayana is a wider or superior path than other sects, such as
>Theravada. It is
>this latter claim to which I take issue. I have no problem using the
>word to refer to the Buddha before he was awakened. So yes, the word
>is used by Theravadins but only in that way, and it's used in a few
>other places to talk
>about the Maitreya or future Buddha-to-be, but all the stuff about a
>class of Boddhisattvas and their vowing to come back and help their
>pals is a Mahayana mythology and not a Theravadin one. >>
http://geocities.com/longlivemaitreya/
DharmaTroll
Punnadhammo:
>>> This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
>>> is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
>>> sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
Namdrool:
>> This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
>> sentient beings is Western misconception.
No, it is an Asian superstition. Tibetan teachers teach that, and it is not
"Western". That is silly.
>> All Bodhisattvas aim at complete liberation.
You just stated in your last post that they try to avoid liberation.
Mike:
>Hi Namdrol,
>
> I think this is misunderstood when it's taken literally. The meaning is
> that the Bodhisattva is *prepared* to return endlessly for the sake of
> all sentient beings. This brings about steadfastness, supreme tolerance
> and release from self-interest.
Yes, I agree. What you are talking about is 'bodhicitta' or the selfless way of
life that is being valued, rather than taking the mythology of the bodhisattva
as a true story where someone avoids enlightenment to be reborn to help others.
The value of 'bodhicitta' is the egg which Namdrol keeps missing.
> The words of Shantideva's sum it up:
>
> For as long as space endures
> And for as long as living beings remain,
> Until then may I too abide
> To dispel the misery of the world.
>
> I find this the one of the most inspirational verses I've ever read.
>
> Metta
> Mike Austin
Cool. I like the following verse of Shantideva:
<< Even when I have done things for the sake of others,
No sense of amazement or conceit arises.
It is just like having fed myself;
I hope for nothing in return. >>
Shatideva also didn't accept religious authority, and went on his own reasoning
and insight (which is illustrated in the mythology by the receiving of visions
of Manjushri, who is a metaphor for wisdom).
In fact, Shantideva was also a very cool macho guy, and not a pacifistic wimp:
in the tales of the tantric mahasiddhas, Shantideva gave back his monks robes
and vows, and got himself a .44 magnum (ok, ok, it was a gold-painted wooden
sword) and became a palace guard in lay life. When his identity was finally
discovered, Shantideva quit and hung out in a remote mountain cave and lived as
a hermit for the rest of his life.
--DT
Namdrol
> In article <48BSWXAh...@clara.net>, Mike Austin says...
>
> Punnadhammo:
> >>> This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
> >>> is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
> >>> sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
>
> Namdrool:
> >> This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
> >> sentient beings is Western misconception.
>
> No, it is an Asian superstition. Tibetan teachers teach that, and it is
not
> "Western". That is silly.
Allow me to clarify-- what I meant was that the idea of a someone avoiding
enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings is a western misconception.
Whenever I have ever heard this concept put to a Tibetan master-- they
laugh, and invariably point out that it is hard to help anyone in any
significant way if you have not acheived your own benefit first.
Bodhisattvas do not avoid enlightenment; it is just that until they have
passed the seventh bodhisattva bhumi, they have to begin as an ordinary
sentient being during each and every rebirth. It is held that a
Bodhisattva's wisdom gained during the path of seeing is identical to that
of a Buddha's. But, because a first stage Bodhisattva's omniscience,
qualities and merit are lacking and his defilements are many, a
bodhisattva's liberation is inferior to that of a Buddha's. It is only upon
acheiving the tenth bodhisattva stage that a bodhisattva's omniscience,
qualities and merit are near enough to a Buddha's, that for all intents and
purposes a tenth stage Bodhisattva is a Buddha. However, what seperates a
tenth stage Bodhisttva is a very subtle obscuration of defilement which is
deliberately maintained by tenth stage Bodhisattvas so that they continue to
have something in common with ordinary sentient beings.
> >> All Bodhisattvas aim at complete liberation.
>
> You just stated in your last post that they try to avoid liberation.
No-- they avoid an arhat's liberation. They are striving for a Buddha's
liberation instead.
> Mike:
> >Hi Namdrol,
> >
> > I think this is misunderstood when it's taken literally. The meaning is
> > that the Bodhisattva is *prepared* to return endlessly for the sake of
> > all sentient beings. This brings about steadfastness, supreme tolerance
> > and release from self-interest.
>
> Yes, I agree. What you are talking about is 'bodhicitta' or the selfless
way of
> life that is being valued, rather than taking the mythology of the
bodhisattva
> as a true story where someone avoids enlightenment to be reborn to help
others.
See above.
> The value of 'bodhicitta' is the egg which Namdrol keeps missing.
Bodhicitta is the desire to acheive complete liberation in order to best
help sentient beings. It has two phases "aspirational" and "entering".
The first of these is the bodhicitta cultivated by Mahayana practitioners on
the path of accumulation. It consists of the sincere wish to help sentient
beings gauged by the profound knowledge of our limited ability to do so.
The second of these is the bodhicitta of the Mahayana practitioner on the
path of application on up, who actually has the capacity to act, in a
significant way for the benefit of sentient beings.
<snip>
> Shatideva also didn't accept religious authority, and went on his own
reasoning
> and insight (which is illustrated in the mythology by the receiving of
visions
> of Manjushri, who is a metaphor for wisdom).
You apparently then have only read Shantideva's Bodhicarya-avatara, and not
his Shiksa-sammucaya, which is an exhaustive presentation on Mahayaana
training which extensively cites Mahayana sutras. Both works are accepted as
having been authored by Shantideva.
Namdrol
GeirSmith
>"Mike Austin"
Moron.
DharmaTroll
>> Namdrool:
>>> This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
>>> sentient beings is Western misconception.
>> No, it is an Asian superstition. Tibetan teachers teach that, and it is
>> not "Western". That is silly.
> Allow me to clarify-- what I meant was that the idea of a someone avoiding
> enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings is a western misconception.
> Whenever I have ever heard this concept put to a Tibetan master-- they
> laugh, and invariably point out that it is hard to help anyone in any
> significant way if you have not acheived your own benefit first.
Good. I would hate the Boddhisattva vow to be an excuse to avoid practise!
> Bodhisattvas do not avoid enlightenment; it is just that until they have
> passed the seventh bodhisattva bhumi, they have to begin as an ordinary
> sentient being during each and every rebirth.
Ok, then what makes one at the point where the vow takes place is in mythical
space and not in the real world, as 8th-level boddhisattvas can tele-transport
themselves from realm to realm (some sort of astral-jumpgate technology, no
doubt) and so on. That is, the belief is harmless as it only applies to mythical
critters with magic powers. Cool.
>> You just stated in your last post that they try to avoid liberation.
> No-- they avoid an arhat's liberation. They are striving for a Buddha's
> liberation instead.
Well, that is question-begging, as for a Theravadin, the arahant's liberation is
that of the Buddha's except that the arahant isn't the founder. Of course there
are stages of an arahant's enlightenment, such as stream-enterer and so forth,
but talk of the most awakened arahant being only equivalent to a lower-level
boddhisattva, as one poster claimed, is absolute silliness and just a way to say
"my sect is better than yours".
Really all these claims are just like claims about whether the SuperHeroes in DC
Comics or Marvel are really more powerful, and the whole thing is laughable and
has nothing to do with real life, and real dharma teachers who are insightful
and compassionate.
--DT
DharmaTroll
>> The value of 'bodhicitta' is the egg which Namdrol keeps missing.
> Bodhicitta is the desire to acheive complete liberation in order to best
> help sentient beings. It has two phases "aspirational" and "entering".
DT:
Shantideva called these the thought that inspires to awaken and the process of
awakening itself.
> The first of these is the bodhicitta cultivated by Mahayana
> practitioners...The second of these is the bodhicitta of the
> Mahayana practitioner on the path of application on up, who
> actually has the capacity to act, in a significant way for
> the benefit of sentient beings.
DT:
Everyone has the capacity to act in a significant way for others, so I take the
second to simply be a way of living ones life, based on the intention in the
first.
I have no idea if this guy was a historical figure, except that his poem makes
me think there was an historical figure; but in any case, Shantideva is a
wonderful mythological figure. Shantideva stressed mindfulness and thought of
imindfulness as a "watchman at the gateway of consciousness" ready to nip in the
bud any craving that threatened one's boddhicitta. (I suspect that the story
about him disrobing and becoming a palace guard come from this saying of his.)
>> Shatideva also didn't accept religious authority, and went on his own
>> reasoning and insight (which is illustrated in the mythology by the
>> receiving of visions of Manjushri, who is a metaphor for wisdom).
> You apparently then have only read Shantideva's Bodhicarya-avatara,
> and not his Shiksa-sammucaya,
DT:
I've never read either. I like mythology and stories, that's all. I've only read
his poem and some mythological stories about him.
> which is an exhaustive presentation on Mahayaana training which
> extensively cites Mahayana sutras. Both works are accepted as
> having been authored by Shantideva.
DT:
I don't even know if Shantideva was a real person, and when you say something
"has been accepted", every BS detector in the building goes off. But what does
his citing sutras have to do with Shantideva's thinking for himself. What made
him famous was not his citing sutras (sorry to disappoint your high hopes,
Drooler, and you too, Tango), but rather, his own original thinking. In fact, he
was laughed at by the other monks, who thought he was an idiot.
The monastery, as I remember the story, decided they wanted to kick his butt
out, as well as some other loser monks, so they set up a test where every monk
had to deliver a public discourse, and anyone who didn't show they knew their
dharma got the boot. Shantideva asked if they wanted him to parrot old stuff
already known, or to come up with something new. They audience said they wanted
something new. And then Shanti surprised them all by blowing them away with that
1000-verse poem which inspires Mike Austin so much.
As the story goes, he magically disappeared into thin air after reading the last
lines of his poem:
<< When neither something or nothing remains in mind,
There are no other alternatives;
So without any object,
There is complete peace. >>
--DT
--------------
In article <48BSWXAh...@clara.net>, Mike Austin says...
Punnadhammo:
>>> This is true but Dharmatroll's point remains valid. In Theravada there
>>> is no conception of a bodhisatta returning endlessly for the sake of
>>> sentient beings. It is seen as a vehicle towards Buddhahood.
Namdrool:
>> This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
>> sentient beings is Western misconception.
No, it is an Asian superstition. Tibetan teachers teach that, and it is not
"Western". That is silly.
>> All Bodhisattvas aim at complete liberation.
You just stated in your last post that they try to avoid liberation.
Mike:
>Hi Namdrol,
>
> I think this is misunderstood when it's taken literally. The meaning is
> that the Bodhisattva is *prepared* to return endlessly for the sake of
> all sentient beings. This brings about steadfastness, supreme tolerance
> and release from self-interest.
Yes, I agree. What you are talking about is 'bodhicitta' or the selfless way of
life that is being valued, rather than taking the mythology of the bodhisattva
as a true story where someone avoids enlightenment to be reborn to help others.
The value of 'bodhicitta' is the egg which Namdrol keeps missing.
> The words of Shantideva's sum it up:
>
> For as long as space endures
> And for as long as living beings remain,
> Until then may I too abide
> To dispel the misery of the world.
>
> I find this the one of the most inspirational verses I've ever read.
>
> Metta
> Mike Austin
Cool. I like the following verse of Shantideva:
<< Even when I have done things for the sake of others,
No sense of amazement or conceit arises.
It is just like having fed myself;
I hope for nothing in return. >>
Shatideva also didn't accept religious authority, and went on his own reasoning
and insight (which is illustrated in the mythology by the receiving of visions
of Manjushri, who is a metaphor for wisdom).
In fact, Shantideva was also a very cool macho guy, and not a pacifistic wimp:
GeirSmith
>Namdrol says...
Incidentally Dharma Troll is one and the same as Ole Nydahl. Yes ? Yes or what
?
Geof
> The monastery, as I remember the story, decided they wanted to kick his butt
> out, as well as some other loser monks, so they set up a test where every monk
> had to deliver a public discourse, and anyone who didn't show they knew their
> dharma got the boot. Shantideva asked if they wanted him to parrot old stuff
> already known, or to come up with something new. They audience said they wanted something new. And then Shanti surprised them all by blowing them away with that 1000-verse poem which inspires Mike Austin so much.
"Something new". Dharma is always something new, something newer than
you can possibly imagine or hypothesize. Your crusade (or should that
be "wheel-ade"?) against the Tibetans has almost run its course. And
that you will be able to accept in an instant, with great happiness.
Even more amazing things will happen to you.
Feeling nothing for you or against you,
Geof
who in not a Tibetan or even a sympathizer.
Tenzin Choedrak
Jumbomatic said, "Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation really draws some
clear disctinctions between the Theravada and Mahayana goals. You could sum
it up by saying that a Theravada practioner gets
free for his own benefit, while the Mahayana practioner gains enlightenment
for the benefit of others."
The Jewel Ornament of Liberation (the actual title should be the Precious
Ornament of Liberation, unfortunately its mistranslation has become common
place) speaks nothing of the Theravada. Theravada Buddhism is a separate
school and Gampopa had no contacts with Theravada Buddhism to state anything
about it. In no way could the above be deducted from Gampopa's work.
Furthermore, Theravada Buddhism has nothing to do with the Hinayana school
which existed in India (and developed later on). It appears that many
people and especially western scholars tend to mix up Theravada Buddhism and
the Hinayana. Hinayana Buddhism no longer exists as a separate school, it
died out centuries ago.
DharmaTroll wrote in message ...
>It consists of political trashing of the other sect. Gampopa is just
another
>triumphalistic fool. No mature teacher would spew such crap as, "Our
enlightened
>dudes are compassionate, but yours only have selfish aims; your most
enlightened
>dudes maybe are on par with our lowest-level enlightened dudes, but we have
many
>higher levels."
This statement is said because of the misinformation provided above
concerning Gampopa's work.
Jumbomatic also informed that, "You could also say that the accomplishment
of an arhat is
similar to that of the first Bodhisattva Bhumi."
This also appears to be a grave misinterpretation. Chandrakirti, an Indian
master, stated that when an Arhat enters the Bodhisattva path, he or she
enters it at the 8th Bodhisattva Bhumi (so most certainly he is not at the
first). This is because an Arhat has already purified all the defilements,
ego, selfishness and disturbing emotions.
DharmaTroll wrote in message ...
>I actually heard a Tibetan teacher say that "While the Theravadin or
Hinayanist
>school only can take you so far as an arhant, and the Mahayana school can
take
>you a step further, only the Vajrayana path can result in the highest
>awakening." What a load of crap. Wake up, Jumbomatic, and figure out that
>*everybody* says that their school is the best and highest. This is "my
mommy is
>better than your mommy" stuff.
I do not know where this information comes into play, but of course not all
Tibetan teachers are fully qualified or realized to say this; and also it
could very well be that whoever translated or edited what the Tibetan
teacher said could've changed it around (as very few Tibetan teachers would
refer to the Theravada school). It is sometimes the fantasy of Western
Tibetan Buddhist or Mahayana Buddhist that Theravada Buddhism is just
Hinayana or just for "self-liberation." ---and then they apply it to what
their teacher said and twist the story around.
As many Tibetan teachers, who are qualified and that I know, have said:
the Arhats are also Bodhisattvas, they actually are Bodhisattvas, there is
no difference. They benefited other beings and taught. They appeared as
Arhats, even though they were just like Bodhisattvas, to spread the dharma.
The concept of the Bodhisattvas "coming back again and again" seems more to
refer to the idea that one reaches enlightenment and then can emanate in
nirmanakaya form to benefit others. We say, "To become enlightened in order
to benefit other beings.." So the true benefit of others occurs after
enlightenment, not before. I doubt one can reincarnate again and again,
while still deluded and suffering, and be able to benefit others.
regards...
Namdrol
It is clearly taught in the Pali canon an Arhat:
"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as
Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive
things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does
not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is
that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell
you.
While a Tathagata:
"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as
Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive
things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does
not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is
that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress,
that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into
being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away,
cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally
awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."
An Arhat is simply devoid of delusions; while a Buddham, in his own words
has "has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening".
Therefor, because their merit is different, the length of their careers is
different, and their realization is different-- it is certain that Buddha's
realizatinon outstrips that of an Arhat. Even with the community of Arhats
there are superior and inferior grades-- depending on whether they acheived
arhatship striclty via insight, or they acheived it by running through all
the various form and formless realm dhyanas. For example, Sharipitra became
a stream enterer merely by hearing on the Buddha's disciples recite
"yedharma hetuprabhava..." to him when Shariputra asked what this monk's
teacher's doctrine was. Mahamudgalyayana on the other hand, realized his
arhatship through dhyana.
Shariputra was the monk to whom Buddha sent beginners-- to receive basic
lessons in abhidharma. MahaMadugalyayana was the monk to whom Buddha sent
advanced students.
Shariputra did not cultivate abhij~naas; Mahamaudgalyayana did. etc.
> are stages of an arahant's enlightenment, such as stream-enterer and so
forth,
> but talk of the most awakened arahant being only equivalent to a
lower-level
> boddhisattva, as one poster claimed, is absolute silliness and just a way
to say
> "my sect is better than yours".
It is difficult hermenuetical issue-- one the one hand, Arhats by definition
are free from all but the most subtle knowledge obscuration, according to
Mahayana; while first stage bodhisattvas have both defilement and knowledge
obscurations. By the time a bodhisattva has acheived the stage of
non-regression however, he/she has eliminated his knowledge obscurations and
needs only to work out the rest of his defilements obscurations.
> Really all these claims are just like claims about whether the SuperHeroes
in DC
> Comics or Marvel are really more powerful, and the whole thing is
laughable and
> has nothing to do with real life, and real dharma teachers who are
insightful
> and compassionate.
That you have no faith in the vast majority of Buddhadharma, but simply pick
and choose, and interpret various Buddhist teachings to satisfy your
modernist predilictions, is quite obvious. But, the Buddha taught the
following:
"Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse
Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and
vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma
(merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it
occurs to him' -- unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind
and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off
and put there he will wind up in hell
--Maha-Sihanada Sutta
Namdrol
Namdrol
>
> As the story goes, he magically disappeared into thin air after reading
the last
> lines of his poem:
>
> << When neither something or nothing remains in mind,
> There are no other alternatives;
> So without any object,
> There is complete peace. >>
>
This line is actually in the first couple of pages of ninth chapter-- there
are ten.
Namdrol
GeirSmith
So you feel for Nydahl now that's he's been discovered. The tibetans *are*
finished. Nydahl is really going to have amazing things happen to him
unfortunately for him; you found the right word.
DharmaTroll
> That you have no faith in the vast majority of Buddhadharma,
> but simply pick and choose
Try again. I'm interested in what is real in Buddhadharma, and I'm not so
interested in superstitions. For example, if the only distinction between two
things is a claim of magical comic-book powers, then it's clear that the
distinction is mythological, and not practical. For instance:
> Shariputra was the monk to whom Buddha sent beginners-- to receive
> basic lessons in abhidharma. MahaMadugalyayana was the monk to whom
> Buddha sent advanced students.
>
> Shariputra did not cultivate abhij~naas; Mahamaudgalyayana did. etc.
Again, telling me that someone developed x-ray vision and the ability to fly ony
hurts your case. Probably the more enlightened one is the one to whom you'd send
beginners anyway, as they would have more patience, and the better you can
understand something, the more easily you can put it into plain words.
And then you quote something practical:
>It is clearly taught in the Pali canon an Arhat:
>
> "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing
> Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding,
> does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things
> coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,'
> does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the
> ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.
There. So an arahant is someone who is awakened.
While a Tathagata:
>
> "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing
> Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding,
> does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things
> coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,'
> does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known
> that delight is the root of suffering & stress,
That's the first noble truth. Every arahant knows that.
> that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has
> come into being there is aging & death.
Ok, but every arahant knows that as well, and most non-arahants.
> Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go,
> relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened
So far, so has the arahant as well.
> to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."
Aha! "Unexcelled". Again, that is saying that you can't have less craving than
no craving. Again, no difference from an arahant, unless (as triumphalist
Mahayanaists do) you want to make out the arahant to be a moron that doesn't
even know what the first noble truth is, or who hasn't ended the arising of all
the yucky stuff in them.
And there cannot be a 'wrong' self-awakening. That's like a 'wrong' orgasm.
So the only difference is with pure superstitious comic-book powers. I can live
with that, as that makes it a mythological or political distinction, and again
not a practical one about the real experience of real people.
> But, the Buddha taught the following:
>
> "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me:
> 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states,
Yeah, the Lotus Sutra says that if you don't believe the bullshit in the Lotus
Sutra you will be reborn with buck-teeth, too. Again, this kind of P.R. is added
to snag believers just like the "Doubting Thomas" story with Jesus.
> he will wind up in hell
I'm just sorry, Namdrool, that you are so lost in your Jerry Falwell Bible
literalism that you can find laughable nonsense like "if you don't believe that
the Buddha has comic-book powers just like Superman, then you aren't a real
Buddhist and you will go to hell." This is just the sort of crap that lets your
pals like Jetsunma abuse their followers.
One advantage of Theravada, btw, is you don't have threats of going to hell if
you aren't a born-again fundamentalcase. That's why I stick to the pali canon,
and find the rest good mythology, as I do Carlos Castenada's book. The Lotus
Sutra and these others like this is laughable question-begging nonsense.
If you were a 5-year old child, Namdrool, this would be excusable, but you are
an adult, and you weren't raised in a cave on Borneo, so it's time you stop
pretending to believe in comic-book powers and witchdoctors that make it rain.
You are a knave, a rogue, and a mountebank.
You see, I'm interested in real Buddhism, that is, that leads to the endind of
suffering, and not more superstitions to cling to. That's where we are
fundamentally different. I'm cleaning house, and you want more crap with which
to fill your junkyard of superstitions. To each his own. Soon you won't even
have room to sit down.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
DharmaTroll
> "Something new". Dharma is always something new,
Yep. But tell that to the blind-faith parrots and crows.
> Your crusade (or should that be "wheel-ade"?) against the Tibetans
Boy have you got it wrong. I love Tibetan Buddhism with all its rich mythology.
What I don't like are the Namdrools who are no better than Jerry Falwell and
other Bible bozos, just with a different set of superstitions.
I am seriously deeply saddened that Namdrol and other fundamentalcases, whether
Tibetan, Zen, Theravadin, Pure Land, Nichirenegade, whatever, go around
believing in comic-book powers and quoting people from sutras that say if you
don't have blind faith in magic and quackery, that you are going to hell.
> Feeling nothing for you or against you,
Good. Then your medication must be kicking in.
--DT
DharmaTroll
Not according to my story of what he read that day. Maybe he added some more
after he came back from the astral plane, or else his editor added in some
similar stuff for the final edition.
Anyway, doesn't matter, as the cool point of the fairy tale is that when he
uttered those words he floated up and then vanished into thin air.
It's like the joke about Descartes' last words: he was at a bar and the
bartender asked him if he wanted another beer; he said "I think not" and
promptly vanished into thin air.
See Namdrol, you memorize what chapter the words are in, but you can't get a
joke and you can't be moved by it. Blindly believing mythology as if it were
scientific journal writing will never make up for lack of experiencing it and
being moved by it, no matter how blindly you make yourself believe.
--DT
Namdrol
>
> One advantage of Theravada, btw, is you don't have threats of going to
hell if
> you aren't a born-again fundamentalcase. That's why I stick to the pali
canon,
If you stuck to the Pali Canon-- silly boy, you would accept the sutta I
cited to you here-- which comes from the Majjihma Nikaya.
> and find the rest good mythology, as I do Carlos Castenada's book. The
Lotus
> Sutra and these others like this is laughable question-begging nonsense.
>
> If you were a 5-year old child, Namdrool, this would be excusable, but you
are
> an adult, and you weren't raised in a cave on Borneo, so it's time you
stop
> pretending to believe in comic-book powers and witchdoctors that make it
rain.
You really need to stop insulting my teacher, the late Nagapa Yeshe Dorje
Rinpoche-- who was in fact appointed by the HH Dalai Lama to prevent rain in
and around Dharmasala when important state functions were scheduled. While I
understand that you are not really trying to insult him-- and instead are
simply trying to needle me-- nonetheless Ngagapa Rinpoche was one of the
kindest men I ever met, and fantastic teacher of Buddhist yogic traditions--
he was hardly a witch doctor-- so just cut it out.
Namdrol
GeirSmith
Yu're a DT-sidekick from all the Kagyu connections you have traitor ! Queer.
Lackey of the Khampa aristocrats !
GeirSmith
Sakyapa lineup. Not the Ngorpas' in any case.
> "Namdrol"
GeirSmith
> Namdrol says...
>>
>"DharmaTroll"
>> As the story goes, he magically disappeared into thin air after
>>> reading the last lines of his poem:
>>>
>>> << When neither something or nothing remains in mind,
>>> There are no other alternatives;
>>> So without any object,
>>> There is complete peace. >>
>
>> This line is actually in the first couple of pages of ninth chapter--
>> there are ten.
>>
>> Namdrol
>
>Not according to my story of what he read that day. Maybe he added some more
>after he came back from the astral plane, or else his editor added in some
>similar stuff for the final edition.
>
>Anyway, doesn't matter, as the cool point of the fairy tale is that when he
>uttered those words he floated up and then vanished into thin air.
>
>It's like the joke about Descartes' last words: he was at a bar and the
>bartender asked him if he wanted another beer; he said "I think not" and
>promptly vanished into thin air.
>
>See Namdrol, you memorize what chapter the words are in, but you can't get a
>joke and you can't be moved by it. Blindly believing mythology as if it were
>scientific journal writing will never make up for lack of experiencing it and
>being moved by it, no matter how blindly you make yourself believe.
>
>--DT
DT the olefront and Namdrol the Sakya Trizin champion look like they're twins.
Namdrol
> In article <Oyvc7.5$xb7....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol says...
> >
> >
> >"DharmaTroll" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:Mhqc7.3662$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
> >
> >>
> >> As the story goes, he magically disappeared into thin air after
> >> reading the last lines of his poem:
> >>
> >> << When neither something or nothing remains in mind,
> >> There are no other alternatives;
> >> So without any object,
> >> There is complete peace. >>
>
> > This line is actually in the first couple of pages of ninth chapter--
> > there are ten.
> >
> > Namdrol
>
> Not according to my story of what he read that day. Maybe he added some
more
> after he came back from the astral plane, or else his editor added in some
> similar stuff for the final edition.
>
> Anyway, doesn't matter, as the cool point of the fairy tale is that when
he
> uttered those words he floated up and then vanished into thin air.
The story runs thus-- he vanished but his voice continued the rest of the
teaching-- so you are correct-- he vanished at that stanza-- your are
incorrect in that stanza being the last verse of the Bodhicarya-avatara,
i.e. "Introduction to Enlightened Conduct". Later, he was asked to write a
commentary on this text that would be practical-- and that is what we now
know as the Shiksa-sammucaya, i.e. "Encylopedia of Training".
Namdrol
DharmaTroll
>> Not according to my story of what he read that day. Maybe he added some
>> more after he came back from the astral plane, or else his editor added
>> in some similar stuff for the final edition.
>>
>> Anyway, doesn't matter, as the cool point of the fairy tale is that when
>> he uttered those words he floated up and then vanished into thin air.
> The story runs thus-- he vanished but his voice continued the rest of the
> teaching-- so you are correct-- he vanished at that stanza-- your are
> incorrect in that stanza being the last verse of the Bodhicarya-avatara,
> i.e. "Introduction to Enlightened Conduct".
Aha. As I said, the last chapter wasn't in the original.
> Later, he was asked to write a commentary on this text that would be
> practical-- and that is what we now know as the Shiksa-sammucaya,
> i.e. "Encylopedia of Training".
Probably added in by someone else. I like his vanishing at the end -- makes for
a better bedtime story.
--DT
Namdrol
> In article <jSyc7.10$xb7.1...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol says...
> >> Not according to my story of what he read that day. Maybe he added some
> >> more after he came back from the astral plane, or else his editor added
> >> in some similar stuff for the final edition.
> >>
> >> Anyway, doesn't matter, as the cool point of the fairy tale is that
when
> >> he uttered those words he floated up and then vanished into thin air.
>
> > The story runs thus-- he vanished but his voice continued the rest of
the
> > teaching-- so you are correct-- he vanished at that stanza-- your are
> > incorrect in that stanza being the last verse of the Bodhicarya-avatara,
> > i.e. "Introduction to Enlightened Conduct".
>
> Aha. As I said, the last chapter wasn't in the original.
The text is comparitively late in Indian Buddhism-- and there is no reason
that I know of to suppose that the work in question is not integral.
> > Later, he was asked to write a commentary on this text that would be
> > practical-- and that is what we now know as the Shiksa-sammucaya,
> > i.e. "Encylopedia of Training".
>
> Probably added in by someone else. I like his vanishing at the end --
makes for
> a better bedtime story.
As far as I know, stylistic considerations suggest a single author for both
texts.
Namdrol
GeirSmith
Puppet. Son of Man. Jesus.
GeirSmith
Ole , you having fun ?
DharmaTroll
> If you stuck to the Pali Canon-- silly boy, you would accept the sutta I
> cited to you here-- which comes from the Majjihma Nikaya.
Doesn't matter. While the Pali Canon has less crap, it still has lots of crap.
So what? Just because there is so much of value in the pali canon doesn't mean
that there isn't a ton of crap in it, which there is as well. You seem to assume
here that because I like this canon, I would take your glazed-eyed attitude and
not use intelligence to discern the gems from the bullshit in it.
> You really need to stop insulting my teacher, the late Nagapa Yeshe Dorje
> Rinpoche-- who was in fact appointed by the HH Dalai Lama to prevent rain
> in and around Dharmasala when important state functions were scheduled.
I'm not insulting an old witchdoctor who doesn't know better. He might even
believe the world is flat, or that devas and nagas are real critters like cats
and dogs. I'm only insulting *you*, who insists that he has magical powers. You
already admitted that by your actions you believe that bicycles exist. In the
same way, you know very well, that your teacher couldn't make it rain.
Maybe confronting him on this would not be appropriate, because he didn't know
better, being indoctrinated with primitive superstitions; knowing this makes it
harder to accept the good things he had to offer. What you are doing could be a
form of infantile regression, where we had to glorify our parents and see
everything they said as right and true. Adults learn to discern: to take what is
helpful and get rid of what is not.
One of the most interesting things about Jetsunma's victims, btw, was this same
infantile attitude toward here that you show toward the witchdoctor: they would
rationalise away whatever she said and find a way to believe it. You have the
formula for cult-hood of the worst kind, Namdrool, and you are spreading it like
a whore with AIDS.
That is where you are missing out in sutras, as you fail to think for yourself
and instead blindly treat sutras and witchdoctors as an infant treats his
mother. It's time to stop sucking on Ngagapa Yeshe Dorje's rusty tits and learn
to think for yourself.
> nonetheless Ngagapa Rinpoche was one of the kindest men I ever met
There, finally an honest comment from you. That's the egg I'm talking about,
Namdrool. Accept his kindness, then, and if he's a good meditation teacher, then
accept that as well. As for his rattles and rain-dances, that is laughable, and
you need to learn a little discernment. Being kind doesn't mean that ones
beliefs are scientific facts. What witchdoctor taught you that?
Drooler, I think you know damned well that Nagapa Yeshe Dorje was a
superstitious, laughable fool, AND that he was kind and helpful in some ways. If
you let go of your dogmatism and need to be one-up and have the secret truths
that nobody else has, there will be no contradiction, and you will be able to
see both, and discern in what ways he was helpful without all the nonsense.
As for your quoting passages that say that unless you believe in magic powers
you will go to hell, you sound more like Jerry Falwell each passing day.
One of my teachers had a father who was suffering from something that put him in
a lot of pain. He had some guru he had found helpful talk to his father for
about an hour over the phone and give him some techniques which worked
incredibly well -- his father's pain mostly went away, and he had tried all
sorts of things already.
Well, my teacher went out to see this guru and was ready to become his disciple,
and thought that this was proof that this guy had amazing healing abilities and
was enlightened or whatever. The guru was also one of the kindest and most
compassionate people he'd ever met.
When he got to the guru's estate in California, the guru made him some tea, sat
with him in meditation, and then chatted with him for a while. Then the guru
took him out back and showed him a field he had cleared and was preparing. For
what, asked my teacher. For the UFOs to land, as they are planning to contact us
any day now and have chosen me to be their liason, replied the guru. After
further conversation, he realised that while this guru was kind and
compassionate and was amazing in terms of helping people deal with pain, he was
also completely luney toons and thought he was in telepathic contact with aliens
who were going to land their saucers in their backyard. He was sad to find this
out, but did get the guru to continue to help his father with his pain.
Steven Lightfoot
wrote:
>In article <J2yc7.8$xb7....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol says...
>
>> If you stuck to the Pali Canon-- silly boy, you would accept the sutta I
>> cited to you here-- which comes from the Majjihma Nikaya.
>
>Doesn't matter. While the Pali Canon has less crap, it still has lots of crap.
>
>So what? Just because there is so much of value in the pali canon doesn't mean
>that there isn't a ton of crap in it, which there is as well. You seem to assume
>here that because I like this canon, I would take your glazed-eyed attitude and
>not use intelligence to discern the gems from the bullshit in it.
If all you're depending is your own intelligence, how will it grow
beyond itself and its limits if it doesn't actually look at the
intelligence of others that goes against its natural bent?
>
>> You really need to stop insulting my teacher, the late Nagapa Yeshe Dorje
>> Rinpoche-- who was in fact appointed by the HH Dalai Lama to prevent rain
>> in and around Dharmasala when important state functions were scheduled.
>
>I'm not insulting an old witchdoctor who doesn't know better. He might even
>believe the world is flat, or that devas and nagas are real critters like cats
>and dogs. I'm only insulting *you*, who insists that he has magical powers. You
>already admitted that by your actions you believe that bicycles exist. In the
>same way, you know very well, that your teacher couldn't make it rain.
You're an intellectual retard DT, and naturall, you can't see that
because of the reardation factor.
>
>Maybe confronting him on this would not be appropriate, because he didn't know
>better, being indoctrinated with primitive superstitions; knowing this makes it
>harder to accept the good things he had to offer. What you are doing could be a
>form of infantile regression, where we had to glorify our parents and see
>everything they said as right and true. Adults learn to discern: to take what is
>helpful and get rid of what is not.
And adults with adult minds and adult attitudes towards there fellow
men and women don't go chasing babes and chicks for kicks. You are
hardly qualified to talk about what adults do or do not do. The
Buddha did not come to make you into an adult but to end your
suffering.
>That is where you are missing out in sutras, as you fail to think for yourself
>and instead blindly treat sutras and witchdoctors as an infant treats his
>mother. It's time to stop sucking on Ngagapa Yeshe Dorje's rusty tits and learn
>to think for yourself.
If you only knew the nature of mind you would be able to have the
thoughts of others without having those thoughts *not be* yours.
>
>> nonetheless Ngagapa Rinpoche was one of the kindest men I ever met
>
>There, finally an honest comment from you. That's the egg I'm talking about,
>Namdrool. Accept his kindness, then, and if he's a good meditation teacher, then
>accept that as well. As for his rattles and rain-dances, that is laughable, and
>you need to learn a little discernment. Being kind doesn't mean that ones
>beliefs are scientific facts.
And scientific facts don't guarantee sanity. If you think that
thinking like a scientist will end your suffering and that you can
hide behind that system of thought to claim sanity, you don't know
about the bomb that was created by science yet.
What witchdoctor taught you that?
If a witchdoctor heals one of their neurosis and a scientist creates a
bomb that kills millions of humans, which one gets to be called *more
real* by you, and by what standard do you judge, and inhuman one like
a machine might?
>
>Drooler, I think you know damned well that Nagapa Yeshe Dorje was a
>superstitious, laughable fool, AND that he was kind and helpful in some ways. If
>you let go of your dogmatism and need to be one-up and have the secret truths
>that nobody else has, there will be no contradiction, and you will be able to
>see both, and discern in what ways he was helpful without all the nonsense.
You haven't entered the great debate by saying that spooks don't exist
and pots do DT. I hope you don't use that argument to qualify you as
*one who understands* the nature of mind.
>
>As for your quoting passages that say that unless you believe in magic powers
>you will go to hell, you sound more like Jerry Falwell each passing day.
And if you say that thinking with the scientific method, borrowed from
others, is original Skillful Means thinking based upon direct
perception of what is needed by a human in the moment, you're
mistaken.
. He was sad to find this
>out, but did get the guru to continue to help his father with his pain.
You bounce off the walls with one extreme example after another, ad
infinitum, to prove the same point, *pots* exist, spooks do not.
You're the nutcase around here DT. How many years can you go without
an original thought and continue to make these circular arguments as
if you have learned how to think?
>
GeirSmith
Dt- hippy junk.
Namdrol
I will try to explain his to you one last time.
I understand that I am deluded, by definition, since all common sentient
beings are, and that my delusions behave efficiently; and that I, like all
other sentient beings, respond to those delusions as if they were real.
I also understand that the Buddha taught two truths-- and within those two
truths, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, all of this appearance is
unreal. Also from the point of view of the path-- conventional appearances
shift for yogis on path. One classic example of this is a famous Sakyapa
yogi was practicing tantric practices connected with his internal energy
systems; after having performed one practice connected with experiencing the
preta realm-- he became thirsty and went to the stream near his cave for a
drink. But he could not find the stream, he looked everywhere but there was
no water. Really doubting his mind, he left is robe on the the other side of
where he thought the stream should have been and returned to his cave. The
next day he awoke, went to the stream, sure enough his robe was on the other
side of it, and he had to cross the stream retreive his robe. Conventional
truth is purely subjective--my slowing for bicyclists does not prove
anything about the reality or unreality of bicyclists. It simply shows that
based on the common karma I share with common sentient beings, I share a
common vision-- perhaps, because I also share a common karma with Tibetans
and other Asians, I more readly encounter what you consider to be fantasy.
But nothing in our conversation deserves the kind rigid judgement of my
character that you display.
<snip>
> As for your quoting passages that say that unless you believe in magic
powers
> you will go to hell, you sound more like Jerry Falwell each passing day.
The point was troll that you constantly strut about making this or that
assertion on a daily basis about Buddhism, and many of your assertions
simply are not grounded in Buddhist tradition at all. Buddha certainly
beleived in hell realms, of that there is no doubt.
Namdrol
punnadhammo
Jumbomatic <jumbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation really
> draws some clear disctinctions between the Theravada and Mahayana
> goals.
Gampapa was probably not exposed to Theravada teachings at all. The
"hinayana" critiqued in all these Mahayana texts is the Sarvastivada.
punnadhammo
<malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote:
> This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of sentient
> beings is Western misconception. All Bodhisattvas aim at complete
> liberation. Therefor, the point of the bodhisattvayana is that it is the
> vehicle for complete Buddhahood.
If this is so then there is no disagreement on this point between our
traditions. But isn't one of the Bodhisattva vows (in Mahayana) not to
take final parinibbana until all beings are Buddhas? I have heard this
interpreted as the idea that when one is fully enlightened oneself,
then one sees the inherent Buddha-nature of all beings and one is then
free to "go". I could buy this interpretation.
> > I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> > take up this bodhisatta-yana.
>
> Nontheless the bodhisattva yana is recognized by Theravada as a distinct and
> *seperate* spiritual option which is qualitatively different from the
> arhat's path. Why is it qualitatively different? Because the liberation of a
> Buddha is qualitatively different than that of an arhat.
The essence of the realization is the same. There are some qualitative
differences in secondary attributes, such as greater psychic abilities
etc. This is said to be because a Buddha has perfected all the
paramitas (ten in the Theravda list) which is not neccessary for
arahantship.
punnadhammo
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> One advantage of Theravada, btw, is you don't have threats of going to hell if
> you aren't a born-again fundamentalcase. That's why I stick to the pali canon,
> and find the rest good mythology, as I do Carlos Castenada's book. The Lotus
> Sutra and these others like this is laughable question-begging nonsense.
Uh, sorry to be the one to break this to you, but Namdrol's quote *was*
from the pali canon...
You are making some good points in this thread, except when you let
your modernist minimalism carry you away.
punnadhammo
> You really need to stop insulting my teacher, the late Nagapa Yeshe Dorje
> Rinpoche-- who was in fact appointed by the HH Dalai Lama to prevent rain in
> and around Dharmasala when important state functions were scheduled. While I
> understand that you are not really trying to insult him-- and instead are
> simply trying to needle me-- nonetheless Ngagapa Rinpoche was one of the
> kindest men I ever met, and fantastic teacher of Buddhist yogic traditions--
> he was hardly a witch doctor-- so just cut it out.
Dharmatroll suffers from a dogmatic adherence to materialism and is
unable to imagine anything outside that box. He may yet grow out of it
with practise.
He should be careful though. Insulting the noble ones is a serious
obstacle to attainment.
There is a story in the Visuddhimagga about an old monk and a young one
together on alm's round. The old monk stops midway, sits on a stump and
eats some of his rice. The young monk thinks "Can't this greedy old
fool wait until we get back?"
The old monk immediately looks up at him and asks;
"Do you have any standing in the master's dispensation, avuso?"
"Yes, bhante, I am a stream-winnner."
"Then you had better forget about any higher attainment until you
apologize. I am an arahant. I have a digestive disease, and that is why
I need to eat now."
punnadhammo
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> So what? Just because there is so much of value in the pali canon doesn't mean
> that there isn't a ton of crap in it, which there is as well. You seem to
> assume
> here that because I like this canon, I would take your glazed-eyed attitude
> and
> not use intelligence to discern the gems from the bullshit in it.
And you are able to discern the one from the other? This is tantamount
to a claim that your level of realization is higher than that of the
compilers of the canon, five hundred arahant disciples of the Buddha.
And "intelligence" is not a sufficient instrument to judge that which
is beyond the sphere of reasoning.
There may be late interpolations to the canon, but you cannot
distinguish them with the method of choosing that which agrees with
your personal prejudices and rejecting the rest.
Namdrol
"punnadhammo" <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
news:100820010925577287%arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net...
> In article <_ITb7.10$WN4....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol
> <malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
sentient
> > beings is Western misconception. All Bodhisattvas aim at complete
> > liberation. Therefor, the point of the bodhisattvayana is that it is the
> > vehicle for complete Buddhahood.
>
> If this is so then there is no disagreement on this point between our
> traditions. But isn't one of the Bodhisattva vows (in Mahayana) not to
As I have always maintained.
> take final parinibbana until all beings are Buddhas? I have heard this
> interpreted as the idea that when one is fully enlightened oneself,
> then one sees the inherent Buddha-nature of all beings and one is then
> free to "go". I could buy this interpretation.
No, this not one of the Bodhisattva vows. There are some Bodhisattvas who
may choose to remain tenth stage bodhisattvas-- but there is virtually no
difference between a tenth stage bodhisattva and a Buddha.
>
>
> > > I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> > > take up this bodhisatta-yana.
> >
> > Nontheless the bodhisattva yana is recognized by Theravada as a distinct
and
> > *seperate* spiritual option which is qualitatively different from the
> > arhat's path. Why is it qualitatively different? Because the liberation
of a
> > Buddha is qualitatively different than that of an arhat.
>
>
> The essence of the realization is the same. There are some qualitative
I am not sure I agree here-- this is because even within Theravada, there
are arhats of superior and inferior realization. The point being of course
the end of suffering, and not omniscience, etc.
> differences in secondary attributes, such as greater psychic abilities
> etc. This is said to be because a Buddha has perfected all the
> paramitas (ten in the Theravda list) which is not neccessary for
> arahantship.
Exactly what I have pointed out all along.
Namdrol
Namdrol
"punnadhammo" <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
> In article <LmDc7.4409$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com>, DharmaTroll
> <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So what? Just because there is so much of value in the pali canon
doesn't mean
> > that there isn't a ton of crap in it, which there is as well. You seem
to
> > assume
> > here that because I like this canon, I would take your glazed-eyed
attitude
> > and
> > not use intelligence to discern the gems from the bullshit in it.
>
> And you are able to discern the one from the other? This is tantamount
> to a claim that your level of realization is higher than that of the
> compilers of the canon, five hundred arahant disciples of the Buddha.
Well we already know, Bhante, that Troll, Batchelor and the like, are
convinced that their modern educations permits them to make such
discriminations of the sutras irrespective of their level of realization
compared with that of the Arhats-- they basically assert that it was
possible for not only Arhats, but also the Buddha to be realized, yet
ignorant and superstitious at the same time.
> And "intelligence" is not a sufficient instrument to judge that which
> is beyond the sphere of reasoning.
>
> There may be late interpolations to the canon, but you cannot
> distinguish them with the method of choosing that which agrees with
> your personal prejudices and rejecting the rest.
Hear, hear.
Namdrol
cupcake
Namdrool wrote:
> "punnadhammo" <arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
>
>> In article [19]<_ITb7.10$WN4....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol
>> <malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > This notion of the bodhisattva returning endlessly for the sake of
>sentient
>> > beings is Western misconception. All Bodhisattvas aim at complete
>> > liberation. Therefor, the point of the bodhisattvayana is that it is the
>> > vehicle for complete Buddhahood.
>>
>> If this is so then there is no disagreement on this point between our
>> traditions. But isn't one of the Bodhisattva vows (in Mahayana) not to
>
> As I have always maintained.
>
>> take final parinibbana until all beings are Buddhas? I have heard this
>> interpreted as the idea that when one is fully enlightened oneself,
>> then one sees the inherent Buddha-nature of all beings and one is then
>> free to "go". I could buy this interpretation.
>
>
> No, this not one of the Bodhisattva vows. There are some Bodhisattvas
> who may choose to remain tenth stage bodhisattvas-- but there is
> virtually no difference between a tenth stage bodhisattva and a Buddha.
>
namdrool, i get so tired of listening to all yer vajra
metaphysical horse manure =-= what's all this "tenth stage
bodhisattva" crap? !...
yer either a "deluded", or yer an "arahant" -- and,
when the arahant dies, he attains to parinibbana; it's
just as simple as that... and! all this crapola
about "buddhas" is just that -- ie. crapolla!
The Buddha is a very special metaphysical quantity,
namdrool, and, there is *only* _one_ Buddha for
every Age... all of the rest of us can only
attain to "arahantship", and parinibbana...
so! quit saying that you've got all these
"buddhas", and wannabe "buddhas", prancing around!
'kay, namdrool?
(oh, and btw -- GET A JOB!)
GeirSmith
>Namdrol
DT won't grow out of anything by meditation : it's a group of Nydahl centers
posting under an alias that have nobody or nothing (Nydahl) directing them
like a headless chicken. A 'buddhist' monster.
GeirSmith
> Namdrool wrote:
>
>> "punnadhammo" <arcc@STOPSPA
>"punnadhammo"
>amdo
If you have just a little to live stop fighting people and put yourself at the
service of Kalachakra. I know you're anti-tantric but take my guarantee that
Kalachakra has a wide range of characteristics but it's essential, one that
needs no other, is Compassion. Spread this on the Internet : thereby you'll
gain countless merit for your death and next life. Do it ! Om mani Peme Hung !
cupcake
Geir Smith wrote:
i'm exercising my Compassion against all of you deluded,
megalomaniacal vajrayanis
i love you geir! :)
GeirSmith
Sorry you'll have a very bad end and rebirth, not because you attack tantric
Buddhism but because you attack. It would be the same whoever you attack.
ClaudeHL
> > I would also add that it is pretty rare for anyone within Theravada to
> > take up this bodhisatta-yana.
>
> Nontheless the bodhisattva yana is recognized by Theravada as a distinct and
> *seperate* spiritual option which is qualitatively different from the
> arhat's path. Why is it qualitatively different? Because the liberation of a
> Buddha is qualitatively different than that of an arhat.
The essence of the realization is the same. There are some qualitative
differences in secondary attributes, such as greater psychic abilities
etc. This is said to be because a Buddha has perfected all the
paramitas (ten in the Theravda list) which is not neccessary for
arahantship.
Dear Punnadhammo,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Theravada recognizes that
there is such a thing as a boddhisattva yana, and it leads to buddhahood
instead of arhantship, with the differences that you mention. Even though it is
rare, there are some who follow it. Who are they then? Do they actually become
Buddhas? Are they mentionned anywhere in the Theravada tradition?
I thought that Theravada only accepted the historical Buddha and that everyone
else could only achieve arhantship. Certainly some of the other posters seem to
think that way.
If that is not the case, then what are all these arguments about? Both
traditions seem to be saying that there are two paths, one leads to arhantship
and one to Buddhahood and there are differences between the two, both in the
path and in the result, with the second one less travelled than the first.
Claude
cupcake
Geir Smith wrote:
> cupcake wrote:1
i'm not attacking -- i'm just exercising pure, unalloyed, Compassion
Tenzin Choedrak
punnadhammo wrote in message
<100820010917367171%arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net>...
>Gampapa was probably not exposed to Theravada teachings at all. The
>"hinayana" critiqued in all these Mahayana texts is the Sarvastivada.
Exactly. Gampopa did not mention the Theravada at all in his texts. All
such Tibetan references to the Hinayana refer to the Indian school, not to
the type of Buddhism which now exists in Sri Lanka and SE Asia.
Jumbomatic
said:
the Arhats are also Bodhisattvas, they actually are Bodhisattvas,
there is
no difference. They benefited other beings and taught. They appeared
as
Arhats, even though they were just like Bodhisattvas, to spread the
dharma.
I would refer you to the chapter on the 5 families in the "Jewel
Ornament of Liberation". It draws a very clear distinction between
Arhats and Bodhisattvas.
Please don't take my word for it. Read Gampopa
Jonathan
Kirt Undercoffer
> If you were a 5-year old child, Namdrool, this would be excusable, but you are
> an adult, and you weren't raised in a cave on Borneo, so it's time you stop
> pretending to believe in comic-book powers and witchdoctors that make it rain.
> You are a knave, a rogue, and a mountebank.
>
> You see, I'm interested in real Buddhism, that is, that leads to the endind of
> suffering, and not more superstitions to cling to. That's where we are
> fundamentally different. I'm cleaning house, and you want more crap with which
> to fill your junkyard of superstitions. To each his own. Soon you won't even
> have room to sit down.
Prior to 1492-1690 (or so) : Here be dragons!
But now our new superstitions compel us to proclaim loudly : Here be
NO dragons of any sort! And furthermore, none are to be allowed in
any context! We simply won't hear of it at all! And you better stop
babbling about dragons! Grow up and view the world the way we tell
you to!
Perhaps a better stance would be to say that you can't actually exclude
the possibility of dragons in some contexts but that you are skeptical.
Of course this would require a little loosening of your attachment to
your own ideas as the supreme embodiment of truth.
Kirt
dharmatroll
which has been demonstrated to correspond with the way nature is by
our walking on the moon, over a witchdoctor who does raindances and
chants magic incantations to make the rain fall, is some kind of
arbitrary choice based on 'personal prejudice' just like choosing
between vanilla and chocolate. It is not." >>
"Namdrol" <malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote in message news:<juSc7.3$D31....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>...
Punnadhammo:
> > And you are able to discern the one from the other? This is tantamount
> > to a claim that your level of realization is higher than that of the
> > compilers of the canon, five hundred arahant disciples of the Buddha.
Namdrol:
> Well we already know, Bhante, that Troll, Batchelor and the like, are
> convinced that their modern educations permits them to make such
> discriminations of the sutras irrespective of their level of realization
Oh My God! Namdrool actually complimented me by roping me in with one
of the totally awesomest of living Buddhist teachers, Stephen
Batchelor!!!
Yes, I can. When the story is about a god or boddhisattva who fires a
red beam of light from his tongue into a lake and creates a lotus
flower and a boy materialised in the lotus flower, then I have very
good reason to take this as a myth, and not as an historical
occurence.
And when I read a passage that says that hatred leads only to more
hatred, I can test this out in my experience and find that it makes
sense and indeed is a sound insight or principle, and I can learn from
it.
> > you cannot distinguish them with the method of choosing that which
> > agrees with your personal prejudices and rejecting the rest.
It's not my personal prejudices at all. If there were people flying
around, zapping lotus flowers into existence with beams of light,
walking through walls, reading minds, reaching up and touching the
sun, and so forth, and I ignored them, then you'd have a point. Such
things don't happen, and nobody has ever captured a deva, a naga, or
any of these mythical beasties. Rather, what I'm saying has nothing to
do with "personal prejudices" but rather with reality versus bullshit,
and Namdrol's witchdoctors are full of poppycock here. Neil Armstrong
actually walked on the real moon, and that isn't poppycock.
So don't tell me that choosing to believe in 21st century physics,
which has been demonstrated to correspond with the way nature is by
our walking on the moon, over a witchdoctor who does raindances and
chants magic incantations to make the rain fall, is some kind of
arbitrary choice based on "personal prejudice" just like choosing
between vanilla and chocolate. It is not.
As for whether my scientific understanding is higher than the
compilers of the pali canon, your damned right it is! They didn't even
know that the world was round, or that the Earth orbited the moon, and
they believed in all sorts of nonsense.
I don't need to be an arahant or a tenth-level schmodisattva to
correctly discern physical reality from fantasy in terms of
mythological stories. Same thing goes for talk about beasties, other
realms, psychic powers, walking on water, and anything else that one
doesn't see in the world, and knows defies the laws of physics.
So yes, I am capable of such discernment. Indeed, it is because of my
discernment that I find Buddhism so helpful and why I am not a
Jehovah's Witness instead. Were I to not trust my own discernment, I
would more likely be a Jehovah's Witness, in fact. Is that what you
are suggesting, that I abandon my intelligence and become a Jehovah's
Witness. Then instead of having to read my posts, I'd be knocking at
your door, and you'd *never* be rid of me.
--DT
dharmatroll
<< As for whether my scientific understanding is higher than the
compilers of the pali canon, you're damned right it is! They didn't
even know that the world was round, or that the Earth orbited the moon
>>
DT:
Of course, I meant the Earth orbits the sun, not the moon. heh heh heh
and Kirt Undercoffer <ki...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3B744B0E...@earthlink.net>...
DT:
> > If you were a 5-year old child, Namdrool, this would be excusable,
> > but you are an adult, and you weren't raised in a cave on Borneo,
> > so it's time you stop pretending to believe in comic-book powers
> > and witchdoctors that make it rain.
> >
> > You are a knave, a rogue, and a mountebank.
> >
> > You see, I'm interested in real Buddhism, that is, that leads to
> > the ending of suffering, and not more superstitions to cling to.
> > That's where we are fundamentally different. I'm cleaning house,
> > and you want more crap with which to fill your junkyard of superstitions.
> > To each his own. Soon you won't even have room to sit down.
> Prior to 1492-1690 (or so) : Here be dragons!
>
> But now our new superstitions compel us to proclaim loudly : Here be
> NO dragons of any sort! And furthermore, none are to be allowed in
> any context!
DT:
Nope. No new superstitions. Again, you make a claim that the theory of
electromagnetic radiation is a superstition just like talk of magic
powers. However, these little microwave ovens give us so much evidence
that the theory is actually true to a very high degree of accuracy,
whereas no incantations can be demonstrated to heat your food like
that. That blows away your relativism, that we are just switching
superstitions. The food gets hot. Neil Armstrong left footprints and a
flag on the moon.
> Perhaps a better stance would be to say that you can't actually exclude
> the possibility of dragons
DT:
It's not a matter of excluding any possibilities. I'm *not* saying
that dragons aren't *possible*. Sure they are possible. I'm just
saying that as it turns out, there ain't any of them flyin' around
torchin' people. Got it?
--DT
<< "I have argued flying saucers with lots of people. I was
interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible.
And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate
that the problem is *not* to demonstrate whether it's
possible or not but whether it's going on or not."
-- Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman >>
Guru George
But do you? Do you _actually_ encounter things like what that yogi
supposedly encountered? Or is it just that you would dearly _like_
to? (I probed you a bit on this before, but you were a bit coy -
Mister "I'm just laying out my tradition's wares" :-)
Same old story: genuine "miracles" (I mean, apart from the miracle
that anything exists at all), if they existed, would REALLY convince
people, really bring in the flocks. The fact that they usually don't
seem to verifiably occur "these days", and usually seem to have
occurred only in the Glorious Past, and we only get to encounter them
through hearsay, seems quite telling.
If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact. Therefore, _any_ Mahayana
Buddhist who claims "miraculous" powers is _bound_ to show them
reliably under controlled conditions, for that power alone would
convince the largest numbers of people to follow Buddhadharma. Fact.
You may think The Amazing Randi is some kind of enemy. Let me assure
you, he is the best friend any believer in "miracles" could ever have.
(Coincidence? Pah - I forget, but there's a book out there somewhere
that shows how ridiculously we under-estimate the power of sheer
coincidence. The famous "six degrees of separation" is something
along those lines. I'm only two steps away from somebody who's
shagged Madonna, for example - true!)
Same old story: if you are privileged to live in a time when all the
world's Explanation Stories are available for the cost of a couple of
hours average labour, it becomes a bit cheesy to uncritically carry a
torch for any one of them (Pascal's wager, anyone?)
This genuinely puzzles me: why, if one has had an enlightenment
experience, either strong, long, or both, would one be concerned about
whether this or that sort of weird shit happens or not? Whether it's
ultimately a potty world or a spooky world?
Once again (for anybody who didn't get it before): if you have seen
your true nature, Being, God, the Dao, Buddha Nature, blah-de-blah,
the question of whether the ultimate _verbal_ explanation of the world
is in materialistic terms or some other terms involving more than
"mere" atoms and void, is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.
It's like:
1) "oh, okay, so after aeons of critical investigation, it looks like
materialism is true - nothing but pointless, accidental atoms dancing
in a void, and consciousness is a "user illusion" secreted by the
liver. La-de-da."
2) "oh okay, after aeons of critical investigation, it looks like the
Christian/Buddhist/Vedic/Daoist/Mayan "pantheon" is the correct
explanation for things, and we're all in this gigantic RPG with a
Point, and you get prizes if you solve the puzzles right. Ho fucking
hum."
Either way, the fact is: shit happens, and you are not different from
that shit, whatever it is, however it's constructed.
Why not just be agnostically parsimonious? Give belief to (allow
yourself to be entranced by) only what's been cross-referenced by lots
of people under normal conditions; but be open to any possibility,
from any quarter?
IMNSHO this agnostic parsimony is the true way of the mind: as to what
lies beyond the mind, "that of which we cannot speak ... " , etc ...
Whether, at the end of the day, Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche can or
cannot make rain, that rain am. Whether, at the end of the day, the
world is just boring old matter or not, that world am.
After all, this attitude (the "these questions do not tend to
edification" attitude) is, if I am not mistaken, the attitude of
Gotama Siddhartha, Shakyamuni, the Unbound one. Part of DT's (and
Tang Huyen's?) gripe, which I agree with, is that lots of other
ancillary stuff has been laid on top of what was originally a system
the whole point of which was to bypass all that kind of stuff, and
concentrate on the matter of stopping peoples' suffering by means of
the the cunning trick of enlightening their asses.
Another way of saying all this: in light of the miracle that anything
exists at all, its composition and disposition is (almost laughably) a
secondary question, and nothing to get all in a lather about.
Meanwhile: con artists, cheats and scoundrels abound, even in Buddhism
(gosh!), and in matters such as these, where impressionable boobies
also abound, and are easily abused, nobody can be beyond suspicion, or
at the very least criticism.
>But nothing in our conversation deserves the kind rigid judgement of my
>character that you display.
>
><snip>
>
>
>> As for your quoting passages that say that unless you believe in magic
>powers
>> you will go to hell, you sound more like Jerry Falwell each passing day.
>
>The point was troll that you constantly strut about making this or that
>assertion on a daily basis about Buddhism, and many of your assertions
>simply are not grounded in Buddhist tradition at all. Buddha certainly
>beleived in hell realms, of that there is no doubt.
>
But the important question is: does that mean that everyone calling
themselves "Buddhist" has to?
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Tang Huyen
Guru George wrote: <<This genuinely puzzles me: why, if one has had an
It's like:
You are all wrong about Buddhism. The Buddha teaches to let go, to let go of all
identifications (positive or negative), with anything at all. To him, the "I am"
is the root delusion. To think and say "I am the same as ..." is delusional, just
as to think and say: "I am different from ..." is delusional.
It is in the total quieting of the mind chatter that reality is received (and
reality is sensible reality), without any interference from just that mental
chatter. This is to be open to reality, without the delusion of thought and
especially the thought "I am", qualified or unqualified.
You on the contrary abound with "I am" assertions, or variants of such. Examples:
"the fact is: shit happens, and you are not different from that shit, whatever it
is, however it's constructed", "Whether, at the end of the day, the world is just
boring old matter or not, that world am."
In the Scripture on the Analysis of the Six Modalities, at the fourth form
meditation, after concentrating on equanimity, the meditator can reflect: "If I
move this equanimity, purified thus, into the place of infinite space [and so on
for each of the other three formless attainments] and should develop my thought
in accordance with it, leaning on it, supported by it, standing on it, taking it
as object, attached to it, this equanimity, purified thus, leaning on the place
of infinite space, is therefore composed (sankhatam etam). What is composed is
impermanent, what is impermanent is suffering; if it is suffering, I know
suffering; after knowing suffering, from the equanimity I do not move into the
place of infinite space [and so on for each of the other three formless
attainments]." If the monk with regard to the four places contemplates them with
wisdom as they are, he does not accomplish them, does not move into them. He
therefore *neither composes nor wills out-mentates* (n‘eva abhisankharoti
nabhisańcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am"
(asmiti) is a thought (mańńita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti) is
a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor not be" is a thought,
"I will be with form" is a thought, "I will be without form" is a thought, "I
will be with notion" is a thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I
will be neither with notion nor without notion" is a thought; the monk thinks:
"If there is none of these thoughts, agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced." The
Pali says: "when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is said to be at peace"
(sabba-mańńitanam tveva samatikkama muni santo ti vuccati). Chinese
Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
"But a good man reflects thus, monks: ‘Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-ta,
the state of not-being-made-up-with) even the place of neither notion nor
not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what (yena yena)
they think it (mańńati tato), it becomes otherwise (tam hoti ańńatha ti).’ ... By
passing quite beyond the place of neither notion nor not-notion, a good man
enters and dwells in the felt cessation of notion. And having seen by means of
wisdom, his cankers are caused to be destroyed. This monk does not think that he
is anything, does not think that he is anywhere, does not think that he is in
anything (na kińci mańńati, na kuhińci mańńati, na kenaci mańńati)." MN, III,
44-45 (113).
Tang Huyen
Tenzin Choedrak
Jumbomatic wrote in message ...
>I would refer you to the chapter on the 5 families in the "Jewel
>Ornament of Liberation". It draws a very clear distinction between
>Arhats and Bodhisattvas.
>Please don't take my word for it. Read Gampopa
I've read the text already. Of course, there are distinctions between
Arhats and Bodhisattvas. If you read my post, I said that: "As many
Tibetan teachers, who are qualified and that I know, have said: the Arhats
are also Bodhisattvas, they actually are Bodhisattvas, there is no
difference. They benefited other beings and taught. They appeared as
Arhats, even though they were just like Bodhisattvas, to spread the dharma."
What exactly do you find contradictory with what I said above? Shariputra,
Ananda, Rahula, etc...and the Arhats were Bodhisattvas, they just appeared
as an Arhat. We call them "Arhats" but also they were just like
Bodhisattvas. I am sure.... not all Arhats are Bodhisattvas, but most of
those who were the Buddha's disciples (and the 16 Arhats most definitely)
are Bodhisattvas. This is not my own fantasy or creation. Maybe your
teachers think differently, all those I have come across affirm this.
From what I remember, the Surangama Sutra clearly points out that the
Bodhisattvas appear "as butchers, prostitutes, male, female, animals,
animate, inanimate, kings, warriors, even ordinary people" in order to
benefit sentient beings. So how then can you even try to assume that an
Arhat cannot be a Bodhisattva?
regards...
punnadhammo
dharmatroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Nope. No new superstitions. Again, you make a claim that the theory of
> electromagnetic radiation is a superstition just like talk of magic
> powers. However, these little microwave ovens give us so much evidence
> that the theory is actually true to a very high degree of accuracy,
> whereas no incantations can be demonstrated to heat your food like
> that. That blows away your relativism, that we are just switching
> superstitions. The food gets hot. Neil Armstrong left footprints and a
> flag on the moon.
If it's physical manifestation that you're after, then there are things
happening all the time that can't be explained by your materialist
science.
Here's one;
When I was in Thailand I saw with my own eyes a man cured of
snake-bite by what you would call a "witch-doctor."
He had been bitten in the heel by a cobra, and his whole leg up to the
hip was swollen to almost twice it's size and black-and-blue. It looked
very scary. No car was found to get him to the hospital for anti-venom,
but the village "snake-doctor" offered his services.
The procedure involved no physical touching, just passing of the hand
near the body and the use of breath. No internal medicines were given.
Within an hour and a half, the leg went back to normal size and the
colour went to almost normal, like a slightly sunburned pink, and the
victim walked away, when he should have been dead.
If this was a "placebo effect" it was still a convincing demonstration
of the power of mind over matter. Note that his problem was not a
psychosomatic one but the very material injection of powerful
neurotoxin directly into the tissue of the leg.
There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your
philosophy.
punnadhammo
<gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
> under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
> would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact.
Maybe after two or three generations. The mythos of science is that it
courageously follows the evidence wherever it leads, the reality of the
institutionalized practise is that it is extremely conservative. New
ideas that shake established paradigms usually have to wait until the
old guard dies away.
In the short term, it would be next to impossible to get reputable
scientists to even investigate the claims. Instead they would issue
short sarcastic comments and ignore the phenomenon. This is the real
world of scientific "skepticism."
> You may think The Amazing Randi is some kind of enemy. Let me assure
> you, he is the best friend any believer in "miracles" could ever have.
Hah! Another believer in Randi's hucksterism. He's a show man who's
found a lucrative gig "debunking." His million dollar challenge is pure
malarkey. The challenger has to sign a waiver giving Randi the sole
right to judge what constitutes a genuine psychic feat. It's his money,
and he can do what he likes with it I guess, but anybody who takes that
sort of thing as proof of anything is really gullible. See
http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jr-files.htm for more.
Boris Fuller
news:7f161754.01081...@posting.google.com...
> DT wrote:
>
> and Kirt Undercoffer <ki...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<3B744B0E...@earthlink.net>...
> > Prior to 1492-1690 (or so) : Here be dragons!
> >
> > But now our new superstitions compel us to proclaim loudly : Here be
> > NO dragons of any sort! And furthermore, none are to be allowed in
> > any context!
>
> DT:
> Nope. No new superstitions. Again, you make a claim that the theory of
> electromagnetic radiation is a superstition just like talk of magic
> powers. However, these little microwave ovens give us so much evidence
> that the theory is actually true to a very high degree of accuracy,
> whereas no incantations can be demonstrated to heat your food like
> that. That blows away your relativism, that we are just switching
> superstitions. The food gets hot. Neil Armstrong left footprints and a
> flag on the moon.
>
> > Perhaps a better stance would be to say that you can't actually exclude
> > the possibility of dragons
>
> DT:
> It's not a matter of excluding any possibilities. I'm *not* saying
> that dragons aren't *possible*. Sure they are possible. I'm just
> saying that as it turns out, there ain't any of them flyin' around
> torchin' people. Got it?
>
> --DT
>
now you really have gone too far!
i dare you to say that out loud in alt.fan.dragons!
then come and tell us you didn't get incinerated!
ha ha ha
orourboris
Boris Fuller
"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TJN0OxA85kqOSM...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:39:44 GMT, "Namdrol"
> <malcolm.smith@...genuity.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"DharmaTroll" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:LmDc7.4409$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> In article <J2yc7.8$xb7....@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net>, Namdrol says...
> >>
> >common vision-- perhaps, because I also share a common karma with
Tibetans
> >and other Asians, I more readly encounter what you consider to be
fantasy.
> >
>
> But do you? Do you _actually_ encounter things like what that yogi
> supposedly encountered? Or is it just that you would dearly _like_
> to? (I probed you a bit on this before, but you were a bit coy -
> Mister "I'm just laying out my tradition's wares" :-)
>
> Same old story: genuine "miracles" (I mean, apart from the miracle
> that anything exists at all), if they existed, would REALLY convince
> people, really bring in the flocks. The fact that they usually don't
> seem to verifiably occur "these days", and usually seem to have
> occurred only in the Glorious Past, and we only get to encounter them
> through hearsay, seems quite telling.
in order to accept the validity of any miracle one has to be capable of
first accepting that they are indeed possible. someone from DT's position
will ALWAYS deny it or explain it away. it is too threatening to their need
for solidity for them to even accept of the possibility. you will never
*argue* him out of this position, (although that is what he seems to be
asking for) it is not a question of logic but of a failure of faith and
belief. his religion of science is supporting his need to separate himself
from that which he fears.
[snip]
>
> Once again (for anybody who didn't get it before): if you have seen
> your true nature, Being, God, the Dao, Buddha Nature, blah-de-blah,
> the question of whether the ultimate _verbal_ explanation of the world
> is in materialistic terms or some other terms involving more than
> "mere" atoms and void, is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.
>
> Why not just be agnostically parsimonious? Give belief to (allow
> yourself to be entranced by) only what's been cross-referenced by lots
> of people under normal conditions; but be open to any possibility,
> from any quarter?
this indeed IS the question that needs an answer imo.
why can 'DT' NOT answer this?
you are fighting a smokescreen.
have fun.
Boris
DharmaTroll
>
>
>"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TJN0OxA85kqOSM...@4ax.com...
>> Same old story: genuine "miracles" (I mean, apart from the miracle
>> that anything exists at all), if they existed, would REALLY convince
>> people, really bring in the flocks. The fact that they usually don't
>> seem to verifiably occur "these days", and usually seem to have
>> occurred only in the Glorious Past, and we only get to encounter them
>> through hearsay, seems quite telling.
Boris:
> in order to accept the validity of any miracle one has to be capable of
> first accepting that they are indeed possible.
Nobody denies possibility. In fact, we are so used to the movies, that seeing
someone fly or blast people with bolts of fire would seem "just like the movies"
to us and the old-style miracles, such as walking on water, would be rather
boring, even.
> someone from DT's position will ALWAYS deny it
Again, this is just a personal attack. To argue for dragons by claiming that a
perverted materialistic scumbag like DT will always deny them, isn't an argument
at all -- rather, it's a standard Namdroolian insult tactic, and doesnt' provide
any evidence for dragons. Believe me, it doesn't matter how agnostic or
skeptical I am -- if a fire-breathing critter huffed and puffed and blew down
the house next door, I would not deny its existence. You'll have to find a
better story.
>> Why not just be agnostically parsimonious? Give belief to (allow
>> yourself to be entranced by) only what's been cross-referenced by lots
>> of people under normal conditions; but be open to any possibility,
>> from any quarter?
>
> this indeed IS the question that needs an answer imo.
> why can 'DT' NOT answer this?
What are you talking about? This is exactly what I'm asking for all along, and
there is even a million dollar reward if anyone can produce any of these psychic
powers or beasties. Nobody has yet. All they have done is to insult the person
who is putting up the reward. And where have we seen *that* strategy before?
--DT
Tang Huyen
Boris Fuller wrote: <<you are fighting a smokescreen.
have fun.>>
Hehe, Boris, you're onto something there.
The problem -- the fall -- in Buddhism is the act of giving rise to thoughts and
affects about what one experiences and reacting beyond measure to the whole
conglomerate -- what one experiences and thoughts and affects about it. It is
not the world/existence/life (which includes oneself) that is the problem, but
the fact that one harbours what one wants it to be and attempts to force it to
be.
This smokescreen -- of thought and affect that one gives rise to when one
experiences what one experiences -- is what creates tension and stress (read:
suffering). So suffering is self-made, and it is ended if one stops making it.
Once one drops the veil of mentation, however, the world is fine, even perfect,
and the Buddhist saint enjoys life. One gets born, grows old and sick, and dies,
but there is nothing wrong with those, they are only wrong if one takes them to
be wrong. If one relaxes, one can sit back and enjoy life. One will suffer if
one continues to force life to be what one wants it to be or thinks it to be,
but if one simply lets it be just the way it is, without imposing on it one's
view of what it should be, then there is no problem.
Whatever life has to offer, one takes it, one takes what comes along, especially
what one is and what one has, but without clinging to any of it and instead
letting go of all of it as swiftly as one experiences it. What is negated is not
life, but the grasping and clinging that make for suffering. What is experienced
is experienced, not blocked out or distorded (just think of the people on TRB
who spend the greater part of their energy blocking themselves from themselves
and bending themselves strenuously to fit a certain framework, as if they were
contortionists), but it is experienced in the mode of letting go. One just lets
it pass, and creates no problem thereby. Problems come from the resistance to
what occurs, not in what occurs itself in the raw.
One doesn't try to fit experience into any framework, but lets it come just the
way it comes and one lets it go just the way it goes. One doesn't try to bend it
into any framework and doesn't try to freeze it into any stability. One just
experiences it the way it is (yatha-bhutam), not the way one wants it to be
(yatha-pranihitam) or the way one thinks it to be (yatha-cetayitam).
Letting go works universally, across-the-board, equal-opportunity,
indiscriminately. Anything that occurs, including what one does, one lets go of
it, in part and in whole. When one experiences, one experiences in equality
(meaning that the whole sense-field is received without any special attention
getting paid to any part which would be singled out for preferential treatment)
and instantly drops the whole thing, also in equality (meaning that the whole
sense-field is dropped monolithically, indiscriminately, without any attention
being paid to any part which would be singled out for preferential treatment).
Thus, both experience and letting go have no intentional object, in Buddhist
terminology an-alambana, because an intentional object presupposes that
something be cut off from the whole sense-field and given special attention, in
terms of getting recognised, getting named, getting affective response like
affection or aversion, etc.
And I distinguish experience and letting go only for the sake of conceptual
convenience, because they ought to be the *same* movement: whatever one
experiences, one instantly lets go of, seamlessly, gaplessly, without having cut
it off from the whole sense-field, conceived it, named it and reacted to it
affectively first.
It is as if one pulled the rug from under one at every instant, without leaving
any station long enough for any thought or feeling to take a stand on. As the
Buddha says: "In the seen there will be just the seen".
Hui-neng awoke simply on hearing the phrase from the Diamond Scripture: "the
bodhi-sattva maha-sattva ought to give rise to an un-supported thought
(a-pratisthitam cittam), to a thought unsupported by anything (na
kvacit-pratisthitam cittam), to a thought unsupported by form, sound, scent,
flavour, tangible, object-of-mind." After he awakened, he still perceived those
six sense-fields like before, only now he was no longer supported by them, in
that he no longer faked up a concept for them and then took his stand on those
concepts.
All delusional activities are tautological and recursive, in that they stroke
themselves to keep themselves going; and dismantling them is the job of Buddhist
wisdom, which it does simply by dropping them, lock, stock and barrel, and that
is how the knot is unravelled. In Buddhism, a problem is solved, not when one
arrives at a solution to it, in the positive, but quite simply when one drops
the problem wholesale and no longer mentates it, in the negative.
That is what the *structure* of Buddhist training tends to. It has no regard for
content, which is the very intention of letting go: matter doesn't matter, it is
the manner of wholesale dropping of it that counts.
Tang Huyen
Namdrol
> are suggesting, that I abandon my intelligence and become a Jehovah's
> Witness. Then instead of having to read my posts, I'd be knocking at
> your door, and you'd *never* be rid of me.
Please do actually-- you can only knock on one door at a time. And you'll
never find mine.
Namdrol
Namdrol
> >I will try to explain his to you one last time.
I do not discuss my personal experience on the web-- or even in person.
> Same old story: genuine "miracles" (I mean, apart from the miracle
> that anything exists at all), if they existed, would REALLY convince
> people, really bring in the flocks. The fact that they usually don't
> seem to verifiably occur "these days", and usually seem to have
> occurred only in the Glorious Past, and we only get to encounter them
> through hearsay, seems quite telling.
Go to India, George, where the real yogis are.
> If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
> under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
> would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact. Therefore, _any_ Mahayana
He would not have been hired into the position by HHDL if he couldn't.
Actually, allow me to clarify-- Ngagpa Lha was actually hired to *prevent*
rain. In Tibet, that is what whether controllers did-- they generally were
hired to prevent hailstorms and rain.
> Buddhist who claims "miraculous" powers is _bound_ to show them
> reliably under controlled conditions, for that power alone would
> convince the largest numbers of people to follow Buddhadharma. Fact.
The Buddha clearly taught that demonstrating miracles for the puporse of
attracting beings to Dharma was wrong. He wanted people to follow Dharma in
order that they understand how to end their misery. All this stuff about
miracles is just a side show to demonstrate how narrow minded and bigoted
certain members of this group are-- which has been admirably shown.
<snip>
>
> This genuinely puzzles me: why, if one has had an enlightenment
> experience, either strong, long, or both, would one be concerned about
> whether this or that sort of weird shit happens or not? Whether it's
> ultimately a potty world or a spooky world?
>
> Once again (for anybody who didn't get it before): if you have seen
> your true nature, Being, God, the Dao, Buddha Nature, blah-de-blah,
> the question of whether the ultimate _verbal_ explanation of the world
> is in materialistic terms or some other terms involving more than
> "mere" atoms and void, is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.
Agreed-- as I said this is just a side show for troll and tang-- they are
obsessed with it-- apart from correcting their erroneous assumptions that
these sorts of paranormal events have no place in Buddhism, I never give
such stuff a second thought-- I simply don't.
<snip>
> >
>
> But the important question is: does that mean that everyone calling
> themselves "Buddhist" has to?
With a littel bit of effort-- one can yogically verify the subective
existence of these realms for oneself.
Namdrol
GeirSmith
Tang ar ound the bend here finally his tofu was contaminated; probably hanging
out at McDonald's again (the man who lives at McDonald's up to 4 hours a day is
Tang from what they told us in Boston). The snotty guy with no life hanging
from the counter seeing he can't make out the letters that aren't in chinese.
Tang here uses a Microsoft XW 567 processor to translate what he writes and
reads from his chinese dialect. PRC spy. The US dollar slowed you down and
McBurger killed you !
>Tang Huyen
>nabhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am"
>(asmiti) is a thought (maññita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham
asmiti)
>is
>a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor not be" is a
>thought,
>"I will be with form" is a thought, "I will be without form" is a thought, "I
>will be with notion" is a thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought,
>"I
>will be neither with notion nor without notion" is a thought; the monk
>thinks:
>"If there is none of these thoughts, agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced."
>The
>Pali says: "when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is said to be at
>peace"
>(sabba-maññitanam tveva samatikkama muni santo ti vuccati). Chinese
>Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
>
>"But a good man reflects thus, monks: ‘Non-identification-with
>(a-tam-maya-ta,
>the state of not-being-made-up-with) even the place of neither notion nor
>not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what (yena
>yena)
>they think it (maññati tato), it becomes otherwise (tam hoti aññatha
ti).’
>... By
>passing quite beyond the place of neither notion nor not-notion, a good man
>enters and dwells in the felt cessation of notion. And having seen by means
>of
>wisdom, his cankers are caused to be destroyed. This monk does not think that
>he
>is anything, does not think that he is anywhere, does not think that he is in
>anything (na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci maññati)."
Namdrol
> > someone from DT's position will ALWAYS deny it
>
> Again, this is just a personal attack. To argue for dragons by claiming
that a
Troll-- honestly-- how is what Boris said a personal attack?
And how is your discourse any better? [<-- this will undoubtedly be taken
as a personal attack]
Namdrol
DharmaTroll
> If it's physical manifestation that you're after, then there are
> things happening all the time that can't be explained by your
> materialist science.
I never said that any present, or even future, science, could explain
everything, Bhante. What I am saying is that my microwave oven and Neil
Armstrong's stroll on the moon, and experiments in particle accellerators, and a
zillion other things, give me overwhelming evidence that our present theories
correspond fairly well to the actual nature and patterns of the cosmos.
And that they have a much more consistent success rate than do witchdoctors,
psychics, shamans, homopathetic medicine, palm-reading, and the like.
> Here's one;
>
> When I was in Thailand I saw with my own eyes a man cured of
> snake-bite by what you would call a "witch-doctor."
I never said that witchdoctors never cure anyone, or never appear to cure
anyone. In fact, over the centuries, they develop all sorts of herbal remedies
for things.
The claim that magic mantras and rattle-shaking will cause thunderstorms, which
is Namdrool's claim, is laughable, and not like shamanistic medicine. At best,
the witchdoctor perceives the change in barometric pressure, as do lots of folks
with arthritis in their joints, and then disingenuously proclaims that he is
going to do a dance and cause a storm. The credulous groupies buy into the false
claim of causality and don't suspect the spurious correlation motivating the
magic trick.
> There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in
> your philosophy.
Of course, Bhante. As my materialistic physicalistic sat-guru says:
<< "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself
I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore,
and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble
or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of
truth lay all undiscovered before me."
--Sir Isaac Newton, in the Sutta Priinciipiiaa Maathemaatiicaa
>>
--DT
Tang Huyen
Namdrol wrote: <<Troll-- honestly-- how is what Boris said a personal attack?
And how is your discourse any better? [<-- this will undoubtedly be taken as
a personal attack]>>
Um, whom are you addressing, Namdrol? It seems that there are plenty of
candidates on TRB.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Namdrol wrote: <<Agreed-- as I said this is just a side show for troll and
tang-- they are obsessed with it-- apart from correcting their erroneous
assumptions that these sorts of paranormal events have no place in Buddhism, I
never give such stuff a second thought-- I simply don't.>>
Namdrol sweetie, I have never denied the possibility of supernatural powers. On
the contrary, I accept that they are possible.
I have repeatedly mentioned one particular power, known as inspiration. The
ancient European idea of "blowing a thought into somebody's mind" (inspiring)
can be used by Tibetan masters, individually or collectively, to blow a thought
into the mind of Chinese leaders, and such an idea, once it occurs in the
recipients' mind, can lead to autonomous actions from the recipients' part,
according to the idea, such as the Chinese leaders ordering the Chinese home ...
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Hui-neng awoke simply on hearing the phrase from the Diamond Scripture: "the
> bodhi-sattva maha-sattva ought to give rise to an un-supported thought
> (a-pratisthitam cittam), to a thought unsupported by anything (na
> kvacit-pratisthitam cittam), to a thought unsupported by form, sound, scent,
> flavour, tangible, object-of-mind." After he awakened, he still perceived those
> six sense-fields like before, only now he was no longer supported by them, in
> that he no longer faked up a concept for them and then took his stand on those
> concepts.
>
> All delusional activities are tautological and recursive, in that they stroke
> themselves to keep themselves going; and dismantling them is the job of Buddhist
> wisdom, which it does simply by dropping them, lock, stock and barrel, and that
> is how the knot is unravelled. In Buddhism, a problem is solved, not when one
> arrives at a solution to it, in the positive, but quite simply when one drops
> the problem wholesale and no longer mentates it, in the negative.
>
> That is what the *structure* of Buddhist training tends to. It has no regard for
> content, which is the very intention of letting go: matter doesn't matter, it is
> the manner of wholesale dropping of it that counts.
I agree. The issue remains, though, that many practitioners remain lost in
content. Thus, we can look at this newsgroup at any point in the past and note
that the discussions tend to remain fixed on content, with each "side" arguing by
example and counter-example, using their own tautologies to measure the validity of
another's position. And round and round the discussions go, never resolving,
generally diverting from practice, though I suspect some may use the revolutions to
gain speed before jumping off.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@home.com
DharmaTroll
>>> someone from DT's position will ALWAYS deny it
>> Again, this is just a personal attack. >
> Troll-- honestly-- how is what Boris said a personal attack?
By personal attack I do *not* mean that Boris was offensive, which you seem to
equating with personal attacks. When Tang replied "Idiot!" that is *not* a
personal attack. That is merely a rude insult, but not an invalid argument,
unless Tang adds "your theory is wrong *because* you are an idiot." The latter,
indeed, would be a personal attack, since it is an argument. So is "because you
are not a believer, you will never be open to the truth." That is a very common
personal attack. It draws the focus away from the issue, and tries to get the
opponent to instead defend his own character. It's commonly used when one has no
evidence to back up one's claim, so one instead calls the opponent
"closed-minded", which is a cheap-shot and not a valid form of reasoning. Such
cheap-shots are your specialty, Drooler.
A personal attack, or argumentum ad hominem, is the attacking of another's
character as an *argument* for one's position. It has nothing to do with being
rude, nor with offending anyone, but rather with fallacies of relevance, which
aare invalid forms of reasoning.
> And how is your discourse any better?
> [<-- this will undoubtedly be taken as a personal attack]
No, that is a legitimate question and not a fallacy of relevance. I don't use
attacks on character as arguments for my position. I don't say "because you are
a fool, you are necessarily wrong", as that would be invalid: a fool could have
stumbled onto the truth, whereas the masses have it wrong.
> Namdrol
Anyway, I just quoted you (on purpose) a discourse I gave to Jetsunma's lawyer
(and I'd expect a lawyer of all people to know this, but wouldn't expect you or
others to, btw) on the various kinds of argumentum ad hominem that are often
used as invalid arguments.
Again, from one of DT's replies to Jetsunma's lawyer David:
<< Ad hominem arguments are fallacies of relevance. Your last monster
sized post as well as this one each contain multible cases of several
forms of ad hominem arguments. A quick review for you:
-- Abusive ad Hominem: Attacking the character of the other
rather than my thesis. Which sums up the tone of your posts.
-- Poisoning the Well: Attempting to preclude discussion by
attacking the credibility of your opponent. This seems to be
a personal favorite. Btw, you never did tell me what cult I
was supposedly in and had blind faith towards, David.
-- Homily ad Hominem: when you appeal to a person's feelings or
prejudices, rather than his intellect, with a trite phrase
designed to reinforce a subjective rather than objective view
of a situation. At least 10 cases of this one in your posts.
-- Circumstantial ad Hominem: Attacking the opposing speaker by
implying vested interests. You've used another dozen of these.
-- Tu Quoque: Attempting to show that your opponent does not act
in accord with his thesis. A couple of instances of this one.
-- Genetic Fallacy: Attacking a thesis, institution, or idea by
attacking its background or origin. A couple of this one too.
Let's see, David, you also have appealed to several other fallacies
in this post and the last long one. Several cases of
-- post hoc nullificatio pro temperi,
-- dictum ex post facto,
-- argumentum ad vercundiam, and
-- ad fidentia.
In case you forgot, those are:
-- the temporal nullifying of past phenomena (another of your favorites),
-- the alteration of history by one's personal decree (a specialty of your
Mistress's),
-- appeal to authority (a favourite among blind-faith believers); and
-- attacking of one's self-confidence.
There are actually several more, but everyone gets the point by now.
>>
--DT
DharmaTroll
George:
>> If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
>> under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
>> would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact. Therefore, _any_ Mahayana
Namdrol:
> He would not have been hired into the position by HHDL if he couldn't.
Wrong. That is question-begging at best, and an outright lie at worst.
Rather, he would not have been hired if HHDL did not hold the superstitious
*belief* that he could.
The hiring of witchdoctors is not evidence that witchdoctors have magical
powers, which is what Namdrool is arguing.
Rather, the hiring of witchdoctors is evidence that the employer believes in
magical powers, and that is all.
> The Buddha clearly taught that demonstrating miracles for the
> puporse of attracting beings to Dharma was wrong.
That is only half the story. The true story is that lots of charlatans and
witchdoctors did parlour tricks, which can easily fool people such as Namdrool.
The Buddha didn't want monks to perform sleight-of-hand tricks, as did those
conniving Brahmanists, in order to get new followers. It's not that they had
comic-book powers but were ordered not to display them to ordinary mortals, but
rather that they weren't supposed to dupe people, but rather present the dharma
straight up.
In other words, the Buddha was asking them to present the dharma the way that
teachers such as Stephen Batchelor present it, without magic or spooks, but
rather as a teaching about suffering and the cessation of suffering, rather than
the way Namdrool presents it.
Now for Namdrool's daily insult:
> All this stuff about miracles is just a side show to
> demonstrate how narrow minded and bigoted certain members
> of this group are-- which has been admirably shown.
No, that is a lie. The motive is to attack anyone who doesn't believe in literal
magic or reincarnation, and to try to tell them that they aren't legitimate
Buddhists, then to try to force one's superstitions down their throats and if
they stand up for themselves, to viciously attack them, and call them names, and
claim that intelligence is "narrow-minded" and "bigoted".
So don't try to lie your way out of this one with more insults, Namdrol: what
you are doing is demonstrating your own intolerance, not others'. I've never
said that Tibetans don't know the dharma (as you have rudely accused not only me
but top dharma teachers who are not in your sect); I have only pointed out that
blind faith and superstitions are dangerous to export, and instead we should
import the core teachings and not the cultural baggage.
> Agreed-- as I said this is just a side show for troll and tang--
Nope: I can equally play that game and claim that I am exposing your gullibility
and hatred of others. Btw, Tang already tried this trick, to lump his enemies
together and then attack them all and make himself look like the objective
Buddha, and I just made fun of that by mocking it in my last post. If you're
going to insult me, Drooler, at least come up with something original.
--DT
Kirt Undercoffer
> He should be careful though. Insulting the noble ones is a serious
> obstacle to attainment.
>
> There is a story in the Visuddhimagga about an old monk and a young one
> together on alm's round. The old monk stops midway, sits on a stump and
> eats some of his rice. The young monk thinks "Can't this greedy old
> fool wait until we get back?"
>
> The old monk immediately looks up at him and asks;
>
> "Do you have any standing in the master's dispensation, avuso?"
>
> "Yes, bhante, I am a stream-winnner."
>
> "Then you had better forget about any higher attainment until you
> apologize. I am an arahant. I have a digestive disease, and that is why
> I need to eat now."
Three questions Bhante,
What's avuso (presumably a means of address or rank)?
If the arahant could read the younger monk's mind to
some extent (he at least knew he had been insulted
mentally) wouldn't he also have known the younger
monk's level of attainment? Most people who display
some degree of clairvoyance don't do so reliably. Of
course all this might have been a teaching foil - the
arahant did know, etc. The younger monk was even more
deluded because he thought he was a stream-winner. Or
the arahant's clairvoyance was limited while still being
reliable to some extent.
Assuming the younger monk was a stream-winner - if he
didn't apologize and died - was the blockage limited to
that lifetime or was he then really blocked to higher
attainment?
Thanks!
Kirt
Ed Carp
> By personal attack I do *not* mean that Boris was offensive, which you
seem to
> equating with personal attacks. When Tang replied "Idiot!" that is *not* a
> personal attack. That is merely a rude insult, but not an invalid
argument,
> unless Tang adds "your theory is wrong *because* you are an idiot." The
latter,
> indeed, would be a personal attack, since it is an argument. So is
"because you
> are not a believer, you will never be open to the truth." That is a very
common
Actually, I would have thought the opposite would be true. Belief is often
in opposition to the truth, because when you believe this or that, you are
not open to anything else. "Do not see the truth, only cease to cherish
opinions."
Guru George
Not true: he just recently responded to this very point, with a quote
from Feynman, as I recall. We can all accept that something is
possible - logically possible - so long as it involves no internal
contradiction. The important question is (plainly) whether it is
factual. And one can hold that something is possible while at the
same time disbelieving its factuality (always subject to revision, of
course).
>it is too threatening to their need
>for solidity for them to even accept of the possibility. you will never
>*argue* him out of this position, (although that is what he seems to be
>asking for) it is not a question of logic but of a failure of faith and
>belief. his religion of science is supporting his need to separate himself
>from that which he fears.
>
This "science is a religion" schtuck is a cheap shot. The argument is
well known, called the "tu quoque". But it falls short of its target,
for science is not, in fact, grounded in faith, but in criticism. Any
and every position can be held subject to revision. Belief isn't
important: what is actually the case is. We may indeed never know
anything with absolute certainty (cf. Descartes' unanswerable demon),
but that's not a problem for science, which proceeds by weaving
experiences as they come into an internally consistent story that is
constantly subject to revision.
>[snip]
>>
>> Once again (for anybody who didn't get it before): if you have seen
>> your true nature, Being, God, the Dao, Buddha Nature, blah-de-blah,
>> the question of whether the ultimate _verbal_ explanation of the world
>> is in materialistic terms or some other terms involving more than
>> "mere" atoms and void, is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.
>>
>> Why not just be agnostically parsimonious? Give belief to (allow
>> yourself to be entranced by) only what's been cross-referenced by lots
>> of people under normal conditions; but be open to any possibility,
>> from any quarter?
>
>this indeed IS the question that needs an answer imo.
>why can 'DT' NOT answer this?
>
I think he would agree with me.
>you are fighting a smokescreen.
>have fun.
>
Guru George
Isn't it "do not _search for_ the truth etc."?
Anyway, the whole point is that belief as you speak of it here is what
one might call raw or untamed belief. Scientific belief is different,
and, correctly practiced, is an exercise in ego-abandonment. It is
quite possible to have beliefs, argue vigorously for them, and yet not
be "stuck" in them.
The key is, I believe, that we must distinguish between the need to be
right (which is something we all definitely do need, as social animals
in a fundamentally indifferent world) and the need to be SEEN to be
right (which is a dis-ease of the mind of a social animal).
Guru George
<arcc@STOPSPAM_baynet.net> wrote:
>In article <TJN0OxA85kqOSM...@4ax.com>, Guru George
><gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
>> under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
>> would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact.
>
>Maybe after two or three generations. The mythos of science is that it
>courageously follows the evidence wherever it leads, the reality of the
>institutionalized practise is that it is extremely conservative. New
>ideas that shake established paradigms usually have to wait until the
>old guard dies away.
>
>In the short term, it would be next to impossible to get reputable
>scientists to even investigate the claims. Instead they would issue
>short sarcastic comments and ignore the phenomenon. This is the real
>world of scientific "skepticism."
>
Is it that you believe, from the existence of so many short sarcastic
comments, that some "phenomena" have already been ignored?
>> You may think The Amazing Randi is some kind of enemy. Let me assure
>> you, he is the best friend any believer in "miracles" could ever have.
>
>Hah! Another believer in Randi's hucksterism. He's a show man who's
>found a lucrative gig "debunking." His million dollar challenge is pure
>malarkey. The challenger has to sign a waiver giving Randi the sole
>right to judge what constitutes a genuine psychic feat. It's his money,
>and he can do what he likes with it I guess, but anybody who takes that
>sort of thing as proof of anything is really gullible. See
>http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/jr-files.htm for more.
Couldn't get anything with that URL. Anyway, what's the problem with
him being the judge of how he gives his money away? The point is that
he is an experienced stage magician, and a lot of psychic fakers use
stage magic tricks, not known to the general public (including
scientists in this context).
It's really quite simple, and there are numerous ways that anybody who
really had psychic powers could prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt,
even to someone like Randi.
(Incidentally, I went to one of his lectures recently, and to me it's
quite plain that he would absolutely _love_ to be proved wrong, even
if it cost him a million dollars. As I see it, his greatest concern
is the fact that millions of poor, uneducated, hopeful people are
being blatantly conned every day by fakers - and don't think he
exempts established religions from this!)
Guru George
There's a possible ambiguity with "personal" here, isn't there? You
could mean "personal" in the sense of "a public event I experienced",
or in the sense of "a purely subjective event with no publicly
accessible content".
>> Same old story: genuine "miracles" (I mean, apart from the miracle
>> that anything exists at all), if they existed, would REALLY convince
>> people, really bring in the flocks. The fact that they usually don't
>> seem to verifiably occur "these days", and usually seem to have
>> occurred only in the Glorious Past, and we only get to encounter them
>> through hearsay, seems quite telling.
>
>Go to India, George, where the real yogis are.
>
Again, you say this so portentously, you must have had some personal
experience to make you think it would be worth my while. I don't go
halfway round the globe on third-hand hearsay. You are an intelligent
man: if you have personally experienced something you are unable to
explain in common sense terms, or scientific terms, I'm all ears.
>
>> If (e.g.) Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche could reliably produce rain
>> under controlled conditions, just about every scientist in the world
>> would become a Tibetan Buddhist. Fact. Therefore, _any_ Mahayana
>
>He would not have been hired into the position by HHDL if he couldn't.
>Actually, allow me to clarify-- Ngagpa Lha was actually hired to *prevent*
>rain. In Tibet, that is what whether controllers did-- they generally were
>hired to prevent hailstorms and rain.
>
He wouldn't have been hired if he couldn't prevent rain? How do you
know that? There are any number of alternative possible reasons for
HHDL hiring someone like that (political, personal, emotional): how do
you know that "because he can prevent rain" is the actual one?
>> Buddhist who claims "miraculous" powers is _bound_ to show them
>> reliably under controlled conditions, for that power alone would
>> convince the largest numbers of people to follow Buddhadharma. Fact.
>
>The Buddha clearly taught that demonstrating miracles for the puporse of
>attracting beings to Dharma was wrong. He wanted people to follow Dharma in
>order that they understand how to end their misery. All this stuff about
>miracles is just a side show to demonstrate how narrow minded and bigoted
>certain members of this group are-- which has been admirably shown.
>
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I do recall some texts by Vajrayana folks
saying siddhi should be used, if at all, _only_ to bring people to the
Dharma, or something like that.
The Buddha may have taught the uselessness of miracles in the Pali
canon, but does he teach it in the sutras and tantras? Aren't there
texts that show Bodhisattvas and Vajrayana practitioners using
"miracles" as teaching aids? OK maybe that's not strictly "attracting
beings to Dharma" in the first place, but it's still relevant to my
complaint. Always the "good old days", never now, never here.
Anyway, you can rest assured that should _I_ ever attain some siddhi
as a result of my practices, I will be the first to demonstrate them
openly to scientists, and collect my million dollars (to be given to
charitable causes) from Randi ;-)
>
>>
>> This genuinely puzzles me: why, if one has had an enlightenment
>> experience, either strong, long, or both, would one be concerned about
>> whether this or that sort of weird shit happens or not? Whether it's
>> ultimately a potty world or a spooky world?
>>
>> Once again (for anybody who didn't get it before): if you have seen
>> your true nature, Being, God, the Dao, Buddha Nature, blah-de-blah,
>> the question of whether the ultimate _verbal_ explanation of the world
>> is in materialistic terms or some other terms involving more than
>> "mere" atoms and void, is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.
>
>
>Agreed-- as I said this is just a side show for troll and tang-- they are
>obsessed with it-- apart from correcting their erroneous assumptions that
>these sorts of paranormal events have no place in Buddhism, I never give
>such stuff a second thought-- I simply don't.
>
>
Slippery as usual: "no place in Buddhism". Well we are all agreed
that they exist in the texts. Do they exist in fact?
Also, aren't you contradicting what you said above? (Or are you just
saying that the Buddha was aware of a - supposed - fact of "miracles",
but didn't think they were a required part of the Buddhist
curriculum?)
>
>> >
>>
>> But the important question is: does that mean that everyone calling
>> themselves "Buddhist" has to?
>
>With a littel bit of effort-- one can yogically verify the subective
>existence of these realms for oneself.
>
"Subjective" yes: even DT has agreed many times that they have
subjective existence. Anybody who's had an acid trip can verify that
all sorts of weird and wonderful things can SEEM to be the case. The
million dollar question is do they have objective existence? C'mon
Namdrol, get your dick out on the table and let's have the measure of
it! :-)
Tang Huyen
Namdrol wrote: <<You really need to stop insulting my teacher, the late Nagapa
Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche-- who was in fact appointed by the HH Dalai Lama to prevent
rain in and around Dharmasala when important state functions were scheduled.
While I understand that you are not really trying to insult him-- and instead
are simply trying to needle me-- nonetheless Ngagapa Rinpoche was one of the
kindest men I ever met, and fantastic teacher of Buddhist yogic traditions-- he
was hardly a witch doctor-- so just cut it out.>>
Hehe, Namdrol, are you implying that Nagapa Yeshe Dorje was an exception to the
run of your teachers like Penor? You write:
<<I have heard HH Penor Rinpoche say on many occasions that he has no special
qualities, and that he is not enlightened.>>
So, had Nagapa Yeshe Dorje special qualities? Was he awakened? Was he a Buddhist
saint (arya)?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Namdrol wrote: <<I do not discuss my personal experience on the web-- or even in
person.>>
Um, I thought that you did when you wrote to DT just this Monday 30 Jul 2001 in
"Re: Recommendation for DT":
<<As for you, you have not directly addressed any issues to me-- if you have
something to say, say it, and if you want to debate something, debate it--
without BTW subjecting us to your absurd judgements about who is and who isn't
enlightened on these usegroups-- fact is-- none of us are: not me, not you, not
foot, not troll, not tang, not lee, not cupcake, etc.>>
So you admitted that you were not awakened, and you did not stop there but went
on to deny awakening to all posters on these boards.
Have you the supernatural power to see into the minds of all the afore-named and
verify that, indeed, none of them ("none of us") was awakened?
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang wrote:
> Namdrool wrote: <<I do not discuss my personal experience on the web--
well, while i must agree with you, tang, that namdrool is
nothing other than a common, garden variety, simple-minded
moron, and a doofus;
i must, however, decline yer implication that i may be
awakened -- because i don't want all these little morons
to go into a frenzy... and, i certainly would never
want to be guilty of inciting to riot, no matter how
good the cause :)
Ed Carp
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:29:47 -0500, "Ed Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >"DharmaTroll" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:%lbd7.6200$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> By personal attack I do *not* mean that Boris was offensive, which you
> >seem to
> >> equating with personal attacks. When Tang replied "Idiot!" that is
*not* a
> >> personal attack. That is merely a rude insult, but not an invalid
> >argument,
> >> unless Tang adds "your theory is wrong *because* you are an idiot." The
> >latter,
> >> indeed, would be a personal attack, since it is an argument. So is
> >"because you
> >> are not a believer, you will never be open to the truth." That is a
very
> >common
> >
> >Actually, I would have thought the opposite would be true. Belief is
often
> >in opposition to the truth, because when you believe this or that, you
are
> >not open to anything else. "Do not see the truth, only cease to cherish
> >opinions."
> >
>
> Isn't it "do not _search for_ the truth etc."?
Actually, it's "seek", not "see". Typo.
> Anyway, the whole point is that belief as you speak of it here is what
> one might call raw or untamed belief. Scientific belief is different,
> and, correctly practiced, is an exercise in ego-abandonment. It is
> quite possible to have beliefs, argue vigorously for them, and yet not
> be "stuck" in them.
True, but this is a very difficult thing to do, especially when attachment
follows belief so closely. Why argue for them if your ego is not attached
to your beliefs?
> The key is, I believe, that we must distinguish between the need to be
> right (which is something we all definitely do need, as social animals
> in a fundamentally indifferent world) and the need to be SEEN to be
> right (which is a dis-ease of the mind of a social animal).
The need to be right is because we are attached to our egos - detach from
the ego and you will see that you are indifferent to the negative slights
and opinions of others. Also, what is right for *you* may not be right for
someone else.
DharmaTroll
Namdrool:
>>He would not have been hired into the position by HHDL if he couldn't.
> He wouldn't have been hired if he couldn't prevent rain? How do you
> know that? There are any number of alternative possible reasons for
> HHDL hiring someone like that (political, personal, emotional): how
> do you know that "because he can prevent rain" is the actual one?
DT:
He doesn't know, George. He believes.
> Anyway, you can rest assured that should _I_ ever attain some siddhi
> as a result of my practices, I will be the first to demonstrate them
> openly to scientists, and collect my million dollars (to be given to
> charitable causes) from Randi ;-)
Cool!
Namdrool:
>> With a littel bit of effort-- one can yogically verify the subective
>> existence of these realms for oneself.
DT:
I can 'subjectively' attest that I've experienced all those realms, and even
that I experienced being God in humble disguise. So what? That doesn't mean that
such experiences refer to anything outside the brain, just like dreams.
> "Subjective" yes: even DT has agreed many times that they have
> subjective existence. Anybody who's had an acid trip can verify
> that all sorts of weird and wonderful things can SEEM to be the case.
DT:
Bingo.
> The million dollar question is do they have objective existence?
> C'mon Namdrol, get your dick out on the table and let's have the
> measure of it! :-)
Namdrool:
>>I do not discuss my personal experience on the web-- or even in person.
DT:
Perhaps he has no dick, George.
--DT
DharmaTroll
Seetoh: <<But I thought miracles & supernatural powers are
recognized in Tibetan Buddhism?>>
DT: <<Yes and no. If you ask a Namdrol, you will get endless
comic book stories. Other Tibetan Buddhists say that they are
all symbolic and visualisations.>>
Namdrol: <<What other Tibean Buddhists? That's a laugh--
clairvoyance as a "symbol".>>
Tang's arch-enemy the granny Evelyn has explained that these practises are
symbolic. Namdrol laughs at the idea, and Tang laughs at Evelyn. (Sigh)
But even Chogyum Drunkpa said that these were metaphorical, though in other
places he had some superstitions as well.
Clarirvoyance is a laugh, btw, and one of the absurditities that has to be left
behind, along with the rain-making witchdoctors, if intelligent educated people
are dealing with Buddhism.
Namdrol: << Troll-- it is a well established point of ettiquette--
bhikshu's are forbidden to advertise any ahij~naas that they may
possess, for example, clairvoyance >>
More question-begging. Nobody has ever demonstrated clairvoyance, and making up
claims like "well, that's 'cause they vow to hide their super-powers' is no
answer but a joke. Again, Bhikshu's are told not to dupe people with tricks,
such as Uri Geller's spoon-bending trick, to get followers, instead of being
honest. Namdrool sounds like that Saturday Night Live skit where the sole black
guy gets off the bus, and then all the white folks suddenly pull out the
champagne and the dancing girls come out, but they never show this behavior when
a black person is on the bus.
--DT
DharmaTroll
Boris:
>> in order to accept the validity of any miracle one has to be
>> capable of first accepting that they are indeed possible.
>> someone from DT's position will ALWAYS deny it or explain it away.
GG:
> Not true: he just recently responded to this very point, with a quote
> from Feynman, as I recall. We can all accept that something is
> possible - logically possible - so long as it involves no internal
> contradiction. The important question is (plainly) whether it is
> factual. And one can hold that something is possible while at the
> same time disbelieving its factuality (always subject to revision,
> of course).
Yup.
>> his religion of science is supporting his need to separate himself
>> from that which he fears.
GG:
> This "science is a religion" schtuck is a cheap shot.
> The argument is well known, called the "tu quoque".
Bingo.
> science is not, in fact, grounded in faith, but in criticism.
> Any and every position can be held subject to revision.
> Belief isn't important: what is actually the case is.
Yes!!!
> We may indeed never know anything with absolute certainty
> (cf. Descartes' unanswerable demon), but that's not a problem
> for science, which proceeds by weaving experiences as they
> come into an internally consistent story that is constantly
> subject to revision.
Yup.
>> this indeed IS the question that needs an answer imo.
>> why can 'DT' NOT answer this?
> I think he would agree with me.
Your thinking is correct, Guru George.
--DT
Xin
(in message <Uhbd7.4674$vW2.1...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>):
Tang:
> In Buddhism, a problem is solved, not when one
>> arrives at a solution to it, in the positive, but quite simply when one
>> drops
>> the problem wholesale and no longer mentates it, in the negative.
>>
>> That is what the *structure* of Buddhist training tends to. It has no
>> regard for
>> content, which is the very intention of letting go: matter doesn't matter,
>> it is
>> the manner of wholesale dropping of it that counts.
Lee:
> I agree. The issue remains, though, that many practitioners remain lost in
> content. Thus, we can look at this newsgroup at any point in the past and
> note
> that the discussions tend to remain fixed on content, with each "side"
> arguing by
> example and counter-example, using their own tautologies to measure the
> validity of
> another's position. And round and round the discussions go, never resolving,
> generally diverting from practice, though I suspect some may use the
> revolutions to
> gain speed before jumping off.
MF:
From this POV, we can never know just how many succeed in Buddhist practice,
eh? Or just get tired?
Xin
(in message <iIx1O2zeFi4dRQ...@4ax.com>):
> Anyway, you can rest assured that should _I_ ever attain some siddhi
> as a result of my practices, I will be the first to demonstrate them
> openly to scientists, and collect my million dollars (to be given to
> charitable causes) from Randi ;-)
Are you so sure that you will gladly endure the circus bound to follow?
When I have mentioned to old friends some of the things I have witnessed and
experienced amongst Native acquaintances, I've gotten wide-eyed stares and
presumptions of naitvete. The lesson is fast learned to say little of this
kind of stuff.
It really is not that important anyway -- neither miracles nor "the
supernatural" exist as such. If these things happen they are in the same
reality as we are. What is truly "true" is that we always don't know an
infinite amount of stuff, while knowing a puny little bit. But with time that
little bit grows, if we care to tend to its culture.
---Mr. Minkfoot
Guru George
>"Guru George" <gurug...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hIl1O7Mu9v3JO5...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:29:47 -0500, "Ed Carp" <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >"DharmaTroll" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:%lbd7.6200$NJ6....@www.newsranger.com...
>
[snip]
>> Anyway, the whole point is that belief as you speak of it here is what
>> one might call raw or untamed belief. Scientific belief is different,
>> and, correctly practiced, is an exercise in ego-abandonment. It is
>> quite possible to have beliefs, argue vigorously for them, and yet not
>> be "stuck" in them.
>
>True, but this is a very difficult thing to do, especially when attachment
>follows belief so closely. Why argue for them if your ego is not attached
>to your beliefs?
>
Because knowing and speaking only truths is important, and it is by
mutual criticism that we approach the truth, and criticism
co-dependently arises with something to criticise - i.e. a position
held, even if only provisionally.
>> The key is, I believe, that we must distinguish between the need to be
>> right (which is something we all definitely do need, as social animals
>> in a fundamentally indifferent world) and the need to be SEEN to be
>> right (which is a dis-ease of the mind of a social animal).
>
>The need to be right is because we are attached to our egos - detach from
>the ego and you will see that you are indifferent to the negative slights
>and opinions of others.
No, we need to be right, full stop. What we don't need is to be
_seen_ to be right. _That's_ the ego dis-ease. Let me assure you,
I'm right about this :-)
>Also, what is right for *you* may not be right for
>someone else.
>
To an extent, yes, but this principle can be overused. There are
large numbers of things that, if they are right for one, are (ipso
facto) also right for all, and those are what are sought by scientific
(i.e. rigorous, thorough, unsparing) criticism.
From one point of view, it's true that we severally inhabit peculiar,
individual universes. From another point of view, we live in a shared
world that (perhaps somewhat boringly) has certain ways and not
others.
Guru George
wrote:
Ah, the relief - somebody's noticed I'm right! ;-)
Guru George
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:15:53 -0400, Guru George wrote
>(in message <iIx1O2zeFi4dRQ...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Anyway, you can rest assured that should _I_ ever attain some siddhi
>> as a result of my practices, I will be the first to demonstrate them
>> openly to scientists, and collect my million dollars (to be given to
>> charitable causes) from Randi ;-)
>
>Are you so sure that you will gladly endure the circus bound to follow?
>
A brave Bodhisattva ought not to be worried by such things ;-) The
ensuing flood of intelligent people getting into the Dharma (the Dao
actually, in my case <ahem>), who had waited patiently for hard proof
before giving head to weird shit, would very quickly change the world
for the better, and it would be well worth it.
>When I have mentioned to old friends some of the things I have witnessed and
>experienced amongst Native acquaintances, I've gotten wide-eyed stares and
>presumptions of naitvete. The lesson is fast learned to say little of this
>kind of stuff.
>
>It really is not that important anyway -- neither miracles nor "the
>supernatural" exist as such. If these things happen they are in the same
>reality as we are.
True word.
>What is truly "true" is that we always don't know an
>infinite amount of stuff, while knowing a puny little bit. But with time that
>little bit grows, if we care to tend to its culture.
>
Well put.