Returning to the Root /the Hindu bit again....
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com wrote: <<as for the speculation about mr tang being
a chinese nationalist, i confess that i always was under the impression
that his ethnicity is not chinese but vietnamese, for example when he
provided the correct vietnamese pronounciation for "thich nhat hanh" and
"thay", and when he spoke of vietnamese chants and such not. (and "huyen"
would be an incorrect romanisation in either the wade-giles or the pinyin
system.)
which would be most ironic for the accusations of being a chinese
nationalist, given the historical enmity between china and vietnam. or
perhaps he is an ethnic chinese from vietnam...?
in any event, he is certainly *now* an american from boston, and i must say
that, as distasteful (and uninformed) as i often find mr tang's assaults on
tibetan buddhism, and as intellectually forced (and contrary to buddhism)
as i may find his "kantian architectonic of pure reason", i find
distasteful as well (and reminiscent of racialism) the assumptions that his
trolling in ARBT is akin to that of mr/messrs sun/gui, or that he is
his/their replacement, basically just because he too is of asian
heritage.>>
Name-calling is the refuge of scoundrels.
I knew very little, still know very little, of Tibetan Buddhism, and much
of that comes from reading TRB and ARBT. Prior to that I knew that Tibetan
Buddhism, or some schools in it, had a strong grounding in Indian Buddhism,
and the little I know of the Tantras is about the Tantras transmitted to
China (and described in the French encyclopedia Hobogirin written by French
and Japanese scholars), which were older than those transmitted to Tibet.
On that basis, I made some judgements, like (1) much of the Tantras is not
Buddhist at all but more like Hindu or shamanistic or a combination
thereof, (2) there is a strong element of shamanistic bravura in Tibetan
Tantras, especially about boasting on getting the whole universe or some
such self-aggrandisement, (3) some interpretations of key Buddhist
concepts, like emptiness, popular in Tibetan Buddhism, especially among the
famous masters, are quite wrong, judging by Indian Buddhism. I base all of
the above judgements on Indian Buddhism, but have also cited some theories
and practices of Chinese Chan as collateral evidence that Indian Buddhism
has been correctly understood and practiced outside of India and in
countries not speaking Indo-European languages.
Instead of replying to those judgements, be they right or wrong, some
people have taken to calling me Liguo Sun, Mara, or an agent of the
People's Republic of China, on the apparent supposition that by dumping on
me such distasteful association, they will throw all my judgements into
immediate disrepute and therefore don't even have to deal with them. And
since I made many references to early Buddhism as the foundation for my
judgements (and not just about Tibetan Buddhism) and claimed that the
Chinese Agamas were in much better shape than the Pali Nikayas (and I have
done this ever since joining TRB and long before writing anything on
Tibetan Buddhism), some people have alleged "Chinese whispers" as adherent
to my interpretation of early Buddhism (and by extension, to my
interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism).
As yet there is no direct substantial replies to the above judgements of
mine, only name-calling, especially of the "guilt by association" type.
Surely not a reassuring sign. Upstanding Buddhists would not have behaved
that way, I suppose. I still wait to be refuted.
As to my ethnicity, it should not enter any judgement on what I have to
say, for or against, but here it is: I'm pure Vietnamese from the Hue
region. As Chinolatino notes, if I had not been Asian, there would have
been no allegation of Liguo Sun association about me. But one gets to know
people by their actions.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut wrote: <<Tang goes onto a Tibetan newsgroup to bash Tibetan
Buddhism..... could it be more simple than that?>>
Tibetan Buddhism prides itself on its intellectual achievements, exemplified in
the twenty or so years it takes to get the geshe degree, during which some
Indian Buddhism is learnt and debated, I suppose. So if an outsider asks
questions and makes judgements, shouldn't followers of Tibetan Buddhism honour
their own version of Buddhism by replying intelligently and honestly, rather
than just indulging in nasty and baseless name-calling? And if they reply,
shouldn't they do so in intelligent manners based on Indian Buddhism, which
other forms of Buddhism can understand?
A few hours ago, I replied to Chinolatino and rephrased some judgements that I
had made on Tibetan Buddhism: (1) much of the Tantras is not Buddhist at all but
more like Hindu or shamanistic or a combination thereof, (2) there is a strong
element of shamanistic bravura in Tibetan Tantras, especially about boasting on
getting the whole universe or some such self-aggrandisement, (3) some
interpretations of key Buddhist concepts, like emptiness, popular in Tibetan
Buddhism, especially among the famous masters, are quite wrong, judging by
Indian Buddhism.
These issues can be debated intelligently, *should* even be debated by Tibetan
Buddhists *on their own*, without external prompting, just to make sure that
they are still Buddhists. The Law goes against the stream, and it is very easy
to slip off the right way into wrong ways, without realising it.
When I argue about what constitutes, say, early Buddhism, do I bash early
Buddhism, or do I simply try to pin it down with greater accuracy, to eliminate
later accretions, for instance? And though my knowledge of modern logic and
science is quite elementary and purely intuitive, I argue about them with
experts like Dirk Bruyere and Kêt Nguyên; do I bash modern logic and science
then, or am I merely trying to get them more clearly *to myself*?
I still await replies to the above three queries of mine. I hope to be convinced
otherwise, but somebody has to show me how. Calling somebody Liguo Sun without
any basis whatsoever only lends credence to the possibility that the authors of
such name-calling are not Buddhists.
Just now Dharmatroll wrote in this same thread: <<The empirical evidence
suggests that more Americans have been hurt and misled by Vajrayana sects, if
you look at the number of sexual offenses, than by all other sects of Buddhism
combined. And when their are problems, the Vajrayana sects are less likely to
deal with them practically, and more likely to claim infallibility of gurus or
appeal to metaphysical blind-faith beliefs in order to avoid facing and dealing
with practical social problems.
Even on this list, you saw for example how the loyal devotees of an exposed
fraud, MamaLama Jetsunma, claimed that their guru was infallible, despite not
only hard evidence such as a police report of her beating a nun, but over 20
people confirming stories of exploitation and abuse. The defense was the
superstitious appeal to papal infalibility of the guru, and claims that the guru
who gave her the credentials possessed infallible magical abilities to discern
that she was the reincarnation of some famous Tibetan.
You are aware of the scandals of Chogyam Trungpa, his alcoholism, his sexual
exploitation, and his American successor spreading AIDS to several disciples,
while telling them that he possessed magical protection against sexually
transmitted diseases, are you not? So one issue is how to deal with the appeal
to mythological claims which are intended to justify corrupt and exploitative
actions on the part of those in power? These are reasonable concerns which other
sects deal with but which Vajrayana notoriously has avoided.
The number and intensity of such cases outweigh all the other sects of Buddhism
combined, and so the evidence and facts don't concur with your opinion, Evelyn.
Does that mean we should trash Vajaryana? No. It means we have to be wary when
anyone claims that the myths are scientific facts. Literalism may work for
Tibetans (thought that is also highly questionable) but it is *disastrous* for
Americans. Local cultural customs, such as the 'root guru' stuff, need to be
ousted and reworked into something that is more helpful in America.>>
Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism? that he is
spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a helpful wakeup call, to those few
who may still be interested in reality rather than in utter fantasy?
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379B9501...@bu.edu>...
>
>
>Evelyn Ruut wrote: <<Tang goes onto a Tibetan newsgroup to bash Tibetan
>Buddhism..... could it be more simple than that?>>
>
>Tibetan Buddhism prides itself on its intellectual achievements,
exemplified in
>the twenty or so years it takes to get the geshe degree, during which some
>Indian Buddhism is learnt and debated, I suppose. So if an outsider asks
>questions and makes judgements, shouldn't followers of Tibetan Buddhism
honour
>their own version of Buddhism by replying intelligently and honestly,
rather
>than just indulging in nasty and baseless name-calling? And if they reply,
>shouldn't they do so in intelligent manners based on Indian Buddhism, which
>other forms of Buddhism can understand?
Yes, Tang, I would say so..... in full agreement there....If one is
genuinely asking, one should receive a genuine reply. But it seems that
the posts I took exception to were more triumphalist preaching and
pronouncements rather than questions.
>Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism? that he is
>spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a helpful wakeup call, to those
few
>who may still be interested in reality rather than in utter fantasy?
Dharmatroll is not bashing Tibetan Buddhism, he is bashing the charlatan
teachers. I bash charlatans myself! He is not spamming, he is
discussing. Somehow I don't have much of a problem with dharmatroll
because he does not dismiss an entire tradition calling it something else.
Like I said before, you can communicate with Dharmatroll.
Even when I don't agree with him, or he with me, he somehow comes across
with a heart. It is not disagreement that I have a problem with, but the
cold hearted pronouncement that my form of buddhism is NOT buddhism.
Regards,
Evelyn
Tashi
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism? that he is
> spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a helpful wakeup call, to those few
> who may still be interested in reality rather than in utter fantasy?
>
> Tang Huyen
Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism
He is spamming ARBT.
He wouldn't know a wake-up call from a ripe plum.
Most of what he endeavors to spew here is his own, utterly useless, utterly obtuse,
utterly vicious, utterly self-serving fantasy.
Why do you ask?
yours,
Tashi
David Works
I don't have the knowledge to engage in the debate you are looking for.
Just a few comments and questions. You seem interested in getting to an
early Buddhism before it's "accretions". I heard one argument that this
means following the Theravada tradition and becomming a monk -- no deviation
from the earliest "scriptures". What is your starting point for "pure"
Buddhism before "accretions"?
I think it is fairly clear that Buddhism does integrate (not accrete) a
number of traditions -- Bon in Tibet, Taoism in China, etc.. But I don't
see any way to make value judgements about this integration except on a very
personal level (e.g. if it is a "fit" for you). It seems you are implying
(judging) there is a "true" Buddhism and a "false" Buddhism and then asking
for an objective debate. Not sure who would want to bite on this bait, that
is, prove one is a real Buddhist.
Of course, in the "end" there is no Buddhism at all. All the various forms
are temporary vehicles. You may think your boat is superior to others, and
that is OK. But if you really want to compare vehicles you should offer
some specific information rather than personal judgements only. For
example, what Tibetan Buddhist Tantric teachings are not Buddhist (and why)?
Where do you see this "strong element of shamanistic bravura... and
boasting"? How is the interpretation of emptiness different in the Indian
forms and Tibetan forms? And please, don't find a few exagerated personal
examples and apply them wholesale. For example, I could judge Christianity
using the examples of Fallwell and Swaggert, but that would be misleading.
A discussion based on information and insight will be much more meaningful
than one where judgements are thrown back and forth.
David
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379B9501...@bu.edu>...
>
>
>Tibetan Buddhism prides itself on its intellectual achievements,
exemplified in
>the twenty or so years it takes to get the geshe degree, during which some
>Indian Buddhism is learnt and debated, I suppose. So if an outsider asks
>questions and makes judgements, shouldn't followers of Tibetan Buddhism
honour
>their own version of Buddhism by replying intelligently and honestly,
rather
>than just indulging in nasty and baseless name-calling? And if they reply,
>shouldn't they do so in intelligent manners based on Indian Buddhism, which
>other forms of Buddhism can understand?
>
DharmaTroll
"Evelyn Ruut" <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Dharmatroll is not bashing Tibetan Buddhism, he is bashing the
> charlatan teachers. I bash charlatans myself! He is not spamming,
> he is discussing. Somehow I don't have much of a problem with
> dharmatroll because he does not dismiss an entire tradition calling
> it something else. Like I said before, you can communicate with
> Dharmatroll.
Well, I don't like it when people say that I'm not a Buddhist unless
I share their blind faith beliefs. Since I'm used to that kind of claim,
I tend to not want to do the opposite and tell others that they aren't
Buddhists because they have some beliefs I find absurd. I don't think
Buddhism has to do with beliefs one way or the other anyhow. My concern
about beliefs is more of a practical issue, in terms of people letting
themselves get duped out of money or not wearing condoms because of an
irrational belief.
> Even when I don't agree with him, or he with me, he somehow comes
> across with a heart.
Thanks.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Tang Huyen
Tashi wrote:
Tang Huyen: <<Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism? that he
is spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a helpful wakeup call, to those few who
may still be interested in reality rather than in utter fantasy?>>
Tashi: <<Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism
He is spamming ARBT.
He wouldn't know a wake-up call from a ripe plum.
Most of what he endeavors to spew here is his own, utterly useless, utterly obtuse,
utterly vicious, utterly self-serving fantasy.
Why do you ask?
yours,
Tashi>>
Well, chase him out of ARBT.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
please note what he said below.
>Well, I don't like it when people say that I'm not a Buddhist unless
>I share their blind faith beliefs. Since I'm used to that kind of claim,
>I tend to not want to do the opposite and tell others that they aren't
>Buddhists because they have some beliefs I find absurd. I don't think
>Buddhism has to do with beliefs one way or the other anyhow. My concern
>about beliefs is more of a practical issue, in terms of people letting
>themselves get duped out of money or not wearing condoms because of an
>irrational belief.
See what I mean? How can you hate a guy like this ;-)
Regards,
Evelyn
Legal Beagle
we are to have your posts grace the newsgroup.
lita
Tashi wrote:
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism? that he is
> > spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a helpful wakeup call, to those few
> > who may still be interested in reality rather than in utter fantasy?
> >
> > Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
Trashi wrote:
>
> Tang Huyen: <<Would anybody say that Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan
> Buddhism? that he is spamming ARBT? Or rather that he is issuing a
> helpful wakeup call, to those few who may still be interested in
> reality rather than in utter fantasy?>>
>
> Trashi: <<Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism
> He is spamming ARBT. >>
Yet *another* yipping poodle.
So, Trashi, tell us about yourself. What is Trashi like?
> Trashi: He wouldn't know a wake-up call from a ripe plum.
> Most of what he endeavors to spew here is his own, utterly useless,
> utterly obtuse, utterly vicious, utterly self-serving fantasy.
Poor fellow.
> Why do you ask?
Tang asks because he is sick of being the only one being abused for
questioning things and being insulted for his nationality, perhaps,
and would rather not be alone. So maybe he points out that there are
other obnoxious folks like DT who also critically question beliefs.
Tang, to Trashi:
> Well, chase him out of ARBT.
That'll be the day.
John Waterman
Tashi <bll...@ionet.net> wrote in message
news:379BC830...@ionet.net...
>
> Dharmatroll is bashing Tibetan Buddhism
Understandable
> He is spamming ARBT.
Is he? That sounds fun. I'll have to go and have a look.
> He wouldn't know a wake-up call from a ripe plum.
> Most of what he endeavors to spew here is his own, utterly useless,
utterly obtuse,
> utterly vicious, utterly self-serving fantasy.
Yeah, utterly great isn't it. Those utterly vicious bits always make me LOL.
Do you remember the mind-fart post to KSS, just hilarious.
> Why do you ask?
>
To know
John
Tashi
Legal Beagle wrote:
> And you Tashi are obviously a paragon of Buddhist virtue. How fortunate
> we are to have your posts grace the newsgroup.
> lita
Thanks, I think we're fortunate to have you here, too.
yours,
Tashi
Tang Huyen
David Works wrote: <<How is the interpretation of emptiness different in the
Indian forms and Tibetan forms?>>
See for instance my post "Emptiness and Ground (was Re: Mind's Transcendence of
Causality?)", Date: 1999/04/05.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
>
> David Works wrote: <<How is the interpretation of emptiness different in the
> Indian forms and Tibetan forms?>>
>
> Causality?)", Date: 1999/04/05.
All that your 4/5 post proves is that you can take one Tibetan teacher's
salvational teachings out of context.
To reduce Tibetan understandings of emptiness to a single teaching of
some "ground of all existence" as you attempt to do in the 4/5 post is
nonsense. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the diverse Tibetan
scholarship on emptiness will know that you speak out of ignorance.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Stefan Gmaj
As I understand it there is no *single* 'Tibetan Buddhist' view of
emptiness. The different schools have different interpretations (Some are
congruent, some are not).
Also, I agree with DT, you would be better to find more surgically accurate
terms than 'Hindu' or 'Brahmist'. These are blanket terms that some people
may find offensive.
Actually maybe better just to stick with the issues/points of
agreement/disagreement and try to avoid labels as much as possible?
Cheers, Stefan.
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379CFAAF...@bu.edu>...
>
>
>David Works wrote: <<How is the interpretation of emptiness different in
the
>Indian forms and Tibetan forms?>>
>
>See for instance my post "Emptiness and Ground (was Re: Mind's
Transcendence of
>Causality?)", Date: 1999/04/05.
>
>Tang Huyen
>
Evelyn Ruut
Lee Dillion wrote in message <379D02C7...@micron.net>...
(snips) In regard to Tang Huyen,
>All that your 4/5 post proves is that you can take one Tibetan teacher's
>salvational teachings out of context.
>
>To reduce Tibetan understandings of emptiness to a single teaching of
>some "ground of all existence" as you attempt to do in the 4/5 post is
>nonsense. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the diverse Tibetan
>scholarship on emptiness will know that you speak out of ignorance.
>
>--
>Lee Dillion
>dill...@micron.net
I might add, that anyone who has been posting to a Tibetan buddhist
newsgroup for over a year ought by now, to have more than a "passing
knowledge" especially when so many kind and knowledgeable people have spent
a lot of time offering their explanations, lists of books offered, etc. etc.
Evelyn
Tang Huyen
Stefan Gmaj wrote: <<Tang,
As I understand it there is no *single* 'Tibetan Buddhist' view of emptiness.
The different schools have different interpretations (Some are congruent, some
are not).>>
I have never claimed that there is a single Tibetan Buddhist view of emptiness.
I have pointed out at least two erroneous views of emptiness in Tibetan
Buddhism, one which takes emptiness as ground of all being (Dudjom) and another
which says that all phenomena vanish in emptiness (summarised in English by
Anne C. Klein, "Mental Concentration and the Unconditioned: A Buddhist Case for
Unmediated Experience," in Robert E. Buswell and Robert Gimello, eds., Paths to
Liberation: The Marga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1992, 269-308). The latter is discussed in my post
"Re: cruel awakened ones", 7/10/99. I have also criticised the view (also
criticised by Mubul), accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be
directly cognised. To Mubul and me emptiness is a concept/construct, and as
such cannot be directly perceived. Si I'm aware that there are multiple views
of emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism, some of which may be right, judging by Indian
Buddhism, but those that are presented in TRB and ARBT tend to be flat wrong.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379D9E03...@bu.edu>...
Dear Tang,
NO presented view on emptiness can possibly be right. They ALL have to be
flat wrong. It cannot be directly perceived as you state above. It is
experiential, not describable. Words are like the fingers pointing at the
moon, not the moon itself.
Regards,
Evelyn
Lee Dillion
>
> Stefan Gmaj wrote: <<Tang,
>
> As I understand it there is no *single* 'Tibetan Buddhist' view of emptiness.
> The different schools have different interpretations (Some are congruent, some
> are not).>>
>
> I have never claimed that there is a single Tibetan Buddhist view of emptiness.
> I have pointed out at least two erroneous views of emptiness in Tibetan
> Buddhism, one which takes emptiness as ground of all being (Dudjom) and another
> which says that all phenomena vanish in emptiness (summarised in English by
> Anne C. Klein, "Mental Concentration and the Unconditioned: A Buddhist Case for
> Unmediated Experience," in Robert E. Buswell and Robert Gimello, eds., Paths to
> Liberation: The Marga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, Honolulu:
> University of Hawaii Press, 1992, 269-308). The latter is discussed in my post
> "Re: cruel awakened ones", 7/10/99. I have also criticised the view (also
> criticised by Mubul), accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be
> directly cognised. To Mubul and me emptiness is a concept/construct, and as
> such cannot be directly perceived. Si I'm aware that there are multiple views
> of emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism, some of which may be right, judging by Indian
> Buddhism, but those that are presented in TRB and ARBT tend to be flat wrong.
To judge any form of Buddhism by postings on usenet is questionable. I
can refer you to any number of books and articles on Tibetan Buddhism
that articulate an understanding of emptiness that avoids reification.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Mike Austin
writes
>I have never claimed that there is a single Tibetan Buddhist view of emptiness.
>I have pointed out at least two erroneous views of emptiness in Tibetan
>Buddhism, one which takes emptiness as ground of all being and another
>which says that all phenomena vanish in emptiness
Hi Tang,
I know I'm not an academic, but I did try to point out that there may be
some projection of wrong view here. I responded to your previous comment
(identical to the above) trying to explain how the expressions are used.
Was that an unsatisfactory attempt? If so, please correct me. Otherwise,
it will appear you constantly wish to assert something without any valid
basis. Is that how you would like it to appear?
--
Mike Austin
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
Mary Finngan: <<It has been pointed out here more than once that Penor R was
probably joking and/or naive about westerners when he tulkuised JAL. Now of
course, he cannot lose face by publicly acknowledging his error.>>
DT: <<The latter is surely true, but I think the former claim is more likely
a later rationalisation, when really he is a superstitious shaman who got
duped by a streetwise New York hustler who knew just what to say: so
admitting that kind of blind spot would be too much shame to bear.>>
Mary: <<Chris Fynn is better equipped to comment on this than I am.>>
Well, congratulations, DT, you called Penor Rinpoche "a superstitious
shaman", and got away with it. I said that much of the Tibetan Tantras were
shamanistic rather than Buddhist, and got blasted at repeatedly, though
nobody has tried to refute my allegation.
DT: {{As I recall, MamaLama Jetsunma's lawyer/office boy, who had no response
to the evidence except to try and fling endless personal attacks as a
smokescreen, confessed to the following in his last post:
<< If you actually accepted literal rebirth, HH Penor Rinpoche would --
axiomatically -- be *incapable* of "making a mistake." HHPR is considered a
living buddha, whose recognitions are not subject to "mistake." >>
Think about how much a student who believes that (not the rebirth part, which
is harmless enough: I mean the infallibility part) would go along with, or
deny, just about *anything*. Reminds me of Jews and ovens.}}
Actually I kept thinking about the Germans running Nazi concentration camps
and Communists wiping away fifty million people in Russia, one eighth of the
Cambodian population, etc. when I read the recent posts here defending
corrupt and abusive teachers at any costs.
Same spirit: the order came from on high and *therefore* had to be right.
That the word "axiomatically" was used by that lawyer is both emblematic and
symptomatic of that entire mental framework.
Tang Huyen
JulianLZB87
Evelyn Ruut wrote in message <7nk4gd$h6m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
I might add, that anyone who has been posting to a buddhist
newsgroup for over a year ought by now, to have more than a "passing
knowledge" especially when so many kind and knowledgeable people have spent
a lot of time offering their explanations, lists of books offered, etc. etc.
Julian
JulianLZB87
Stefan Gmaj wrote in message <7nk094$s2o$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>Tang,
>
>As I understand it there is no *single* 'Tibetan Buddhist' view of
>emptiness. The different schools have different interpretations (Some are
>congruent, some are not).
>
>Also, I agree with DT, you would be better to find more surgically accurate
>terms than 'Hindu' or 'Brahmist'. These are blanket terms that some people
>may find offensive.
Perhaps if Tang used more surgically accurate terms not only would some
people feel offended but also ripped to shreds.
Evelyn Ruut
JulianLZB87 wrote in message ...
Yes, Julian, that is quite so. We are all supposed to be learning a bit
about each others traditions on t.r.b. It is too bad that some are very
insistent that their kind of buddhism is the only kind, and that they are
the only person in the world who understands the meaning of the buddhas
teachings, and that everyone else is practicing something other than
buddhism. A little tolerance of each others practices and beliefs would go
a long way here and in life too.
Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
JulianLZB87 wrote in message ...
>
Perhaps they already do.
Evelyn
DharmaTroll
"Evelyn Ruut" <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Tang:
<< I have pointed out at least two erroneous views of emptiness
in Tibetan Buddhism, one which takes emptiness as ground of
all being (Dudjom) and another which says that all phenomena
vanish in emptiness (summarised in English by Anne C. Klein).
I have also criticised the view (also criticised by Mubul),
accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be
directly cognised. To Mubul and me emptiness is a
concept/construct, and as such cannot be directly perceived. >>
I don't think that's quite what Mubul was saying: more like that
there is a quality of "empty" but that "emptiness" means no more than
that, as a paraphrase for being conditioned or dependent arising.
And we *can* directly perceive that something is empty, i.e., that it
is dependently arising, conditioned, and not self-existent.
Evelyn:
> Dear Tang,
>
> NO presented view on emptiness can possibly be right.
> They ALL have to be flat wrong.
> It cannot be directly perceived as you state above.
Actually, Tang also said he can't. But I say that it can.
So it's you two against me this round. But I think Mubul's in
my camp here, which I'll know in a minute after a quick search!
> It is experiential, not describable.
> Words are like the fingers pointing at the moon,
> not the moon itself.
If you are claiming that emptiness is something spooky beyond
our understanding or intellectual ability to comprehend, then
I strongly disagree. I say emptiness can be directly perceived,
and it can be easily described. It's not beyond our understanding.
Ok, now let's exhume the Ghost of Mubul with a search engine,
and see if Mubul agrees with Tang or with anyone else on this.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
========
Mubul:
The absolutising of "emptiness" by failing to understand it as a
relation is what Nagarjuna probably had in mind when he said that
emptiness is an antidote to all views, but for someone who makes
emptiness into a view there is no cure.
=======
Emptiness is a construct. It is a concept that is overlaid onto
experience. So to say that one is having a non-conceptual cognition
of it is flat-out absurdity.
=======
One of the implications of the understanding of emptiness is the
recognition that all of one's beliefs are contingent and ultimately
groundless. One cannot trust one's experiences, nor can one trust
reason, nor can one trust the authority of others. Everything is,
in the final analysis, nothing but interpretation. Nietzsche said it
well when he wrote "There is no such thing as fact. There is only the
interpretation of personal experience." (Or something like that.
Nietzsche's words change just about every time I quote them.)
There is probably no other philosophical text that has excited me
more than Nagarjuna's Vigrahavyavartani (Averting the disputes).
I wrote my BA honour's thesis on that in 1971 and have reread it
many, many times since then. I just read it again last week and
prepared a translation of it for my course in Buddhist epistemology.
In that text Nagarjuna presents one of the most radical critiques of
the idea of warranted belief I have ever seen. If one is the sort of
person who likes to believe in knowledge and in making distinctions
between truth and falsehood, the text usually proves quite terrifying.
Even those who are not terrified by it usually have a difficult time
working out all the implications of the groundlessness of all beliefs.
Indeed, I think working out the implications of the insight into the
emptiness of all things and the groundlessness of all beliefs is the
work of a lifetime (as is the task of working out how to ACT once one
gets an adequate insight into one's own lack of self).
Dharmatroll:
> How does [Nagarjuna] describe emptiness?
Mubul:
Emptiness, for Nagarjuna, has two dimensions, an ontological and an
epistemological. The ontological implication of emptiness is old hat;
every thing, when all its factors are taken away, ceases to exist.
No thing is greater than the sum of its causal factors. So this is
standard dependent origination and no-self theory, with nothing added
and nothing taken away.
But Nagarjuna also described emptiness as the interrelatedness of
concepts. He argued that no concept (or word) ultimately has any
referent. This means that every picture we have of anything is just
a picture; it is not a picture OF anything. And of course he also
argued that nothing that purports to be knowledge is anything more
than ungrounded opinion. This is emptiness as applied to questions
of truth and falsity.
=======
As for Tathaagata-garbha, there are many schools of Buddhism who do
not accept it at all, except as another term for emptiness, which
means nothing but the fact of being conditioned. But the fact of
being conditioned is perfectly sensible. That is, the conditioned
nature of things is perceived rather than inferred. So the
Tathaagata-garbha, being nothing but conditionality, is also
perceptible rather than intellectible.
=====
ombodhi thoren st. john wrote:
> "if we say everything is empty, and also that everyone has
> buddha-nature, someone may say 'that means buddha-nature is nothing'.
> this comes from a mistaken view of emptiness. when we say that
> something is empty, we do not mean that it is nothing. emptiness
> actually means 'empty of all limited things'."
Mubul:
This is known in Tibetan as the gzhan-stong interpretation of
emptiness. It is to be found in every school of Tibetan Buddhism
except the dGe-lugs. Pretty well all dGe-lugs-pa (and some members
of other schools as well) hold a view known as rang-stong.
Rang-stong means that all things are empty (stong) of themsleves
(rang); that is, nothing anywhere has a self. This includes such
things as nirvana and buddha-nature, which are ultimately regarded
as mental fabrications.
gZhan-stong means all beings are empty (stong) of everything other
(gzhan) than the eternal, radiant blissful essence of mind itself.
Paul Williams has written about this in his book on Mahayana Buddhism.
He has also translated some of the key passages from both sides of the
debate. It is an interesting debate. But like most debates, it would
be silly to take sides in what is essentially an unsolvable problem.
========
In the Madhyamika tradition, which has influenced most of Tibetan
Buddhism in one way or another, "emptiness" is just a synonym of
"conditioned origination". To say that something is empty is to say
that it is conditioned by a multiplicity of causal factors. All
conditioned things, of course, are liable to perish. They are
transitory and therefore incapable of providing lasting satisfaction.
When one fully grasps this, then one becomes less entranced by
conditioned things.
========
Buddha-nature as a synonym of emptiness, which is just another name
for conditioned origination. Emptiness, as the Heart Sutra suggests,
cannot occur in the absence of particular conditioned things, so
emptiness cannot be taken as a thing in itself, let alone a personal
being of some sort.
Rather, it is a name given for the fact that nothing is self-existent,
nothing is characterized in a fixed way, and nothing has any intrinsic
value. That nothing is self-existent is known as the emptiness of all
dharmas. That nothing is characterized in a fixed way is known as the
signlessness of all dharmas. And that nothing is intrinsically
valuable is known as the wishlessness of all dharmas.
========
Buddha-nature in many Mahaayaana systems of thought is synonymous
with emptiness. Emptiness is in turn a synonym of conditioned.
All conditioned things perish. Therefore, emptiness also means
perishability. So when a Mahaayaana author says that all beings
have Buddha-nature, he is saying that all beings have the
potential to awaken to their true nature, which they carry around
with them at all times, and that nature is their emptiness,
conditionedness and their mortality. Although the language is
somewhat different, the basic insight of Theravaada and those
forms of Mahaayaana that discussed emptiness is remarkably
similar -- so similar that it would be quite foolish for the
follower of one Buddhist path to denigrate another path in any way.
=======
The phrase "buddha nature" refers to that part of us that makes our
enlightenment and liberation possible. It is our potential to be free
from pain and disappointment. Now what is it that makes it possible
for you to be free? According to Buddhism it is nothing more than the
fact that you are conditioned and have no fixed nature. This fact,
in other more poetic terms, is all called emptiness. The fact that
you are empty and therefore have no fixed nature means that you are
never stuck. You need not wallow in sorrow and despair. You can break
old patterns of thought an behaviour. You can transform your present
suffering into the liberation from suffering.
Emptiness is a name given to the fact that you can do that.
Another word for emptiness is Buddha nature.
Another word for it is "anatta" (non-self).
=======
The word "empty" is not meant to convey anything logical or even
factual, but rather something emotive. It has the connotations of
being worthless, a waste of time. To say that every possible
experience is empty is to say that no experience is worth holding
on to as ultimate. Nothing is worth being attached to. So talking
in terms of emptiness is a bit of advice that is laden with value
judgements. The factual counterpart of that evaluative judgement
is to talk in terms of conditionality. That is much more logical.
Speaking of cause and effect appeals to the intellect. Talking
about emptiness speaks to the heart. To be precise, it has the
effect of making the heart disgusted and disinterested. Without
disgust and revulsion, nirvana is completely impossible. It is
also impossible without precise thinking. It is also impossible
without love. Putting love, disgust and precision all together in
one mentality takes a bit of work. But it's well worth the effort.
Dharmatroll replied:
> That makes sense, but doesn't a factual read of 'empty' work as
> well, if we take it to be an imcomplete predicate and talk
> about 'empty of what?'. When we say a glass is empty, we mean
> empty of liquid, but no of air, or even glass. In the Buddhist
> sense, empty would be empty of essence or indivisible self,
> wouldn't it, implying that being empty of such essence, something's
> existence is totally a matter of conditions coming together.
> Doesn't that work?
Mubul:
Fair enough, as long as one specifies that "empty" is a relation
that requires two arguments (in the mathematical sense of the word):
x is empty of y. In a Buddhist context, to say of anything that it
is empty is to say that it has no unconditioned aspect. In other
words, no part of it is absolute or independent. That can be said
in a relatively straightforward way by saying that everything that
can be experienced is fully conditioned; and anything that cannot be
experienced is of no interest to anyone. Or it can be said more
poetically, in a way that cultivates emotional responses, by saying
that everything is empty.
Dharmatroll:
> And even though it sounds reasonable, do you have good evidence
> to back up this theory that this is the intention behind the use
> of 'empty'?
Mubul:
I have read a lot of Sanskrit, not only philosophical works but also
poetry. What I have found is that the word s'uunya (which literally
means empty) is almost invariably used to mean unattractive,
unappealing and desolate. I can't think of a single instance where
I have seen it used positively. As a noun, a s'uunya (shunya) is a
desert or wasteland. Perhaps a better translation of "s'uunyataa"
would be desolation. (Oddly enough, my favourite place on the entire
earth is Desolation Canyon in Utah. There is something about places
so severe that no one can live there that fills me with an
inspiration that borders on religious fervour.) In the Pali canon,
the Buddha often refers to the views of other teachers as being
either tuccha or su~n~na; this later word is the Pali form of the
Sanskrit s'uunya. So I think there is pretty good literary evidence
for my claim.
=======
What is emptiness? That is merely another name for the fact that
everything is conditioned and therefore impermanent, unsatisfactory
and unfit to be seen as either part of one's self or part of one's
property.
=======
"The victorious ones have proclaimed that emptiness is the antidote
to all dogmas. But they call incurable one who make emptiness itself
into a dogma." --Nagarjuna, MMK 13.8
=======
chino...@my-deja.com
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
SNIP SNAP SNUP
> In article <7nk7s7$1hm6$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Evelyn Ruut" <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Evelyn:
>
> > Dear Tang,
> >
> > NO presented view on emptiness can possibly be right.
> > They ALL have to be flat wrong.
> > It cannot be directly perceived as you state above.
>
> Actually, Tang also said he can't. But I say that it can.
> So it's you two against me this round. But I think Mubul's in
> my camp here, which I'll know in a minute after a quick search!
>
> > It is experiential, not describable.
> > Words are like the fingers pointing at the moon,
> > not the moon itself.
>
> If you are claiming that emptiness is something spooky beyond
> our understanding or intellectual ability to comprehend, then
> I strongly disagree. I say emptiness can be directly perceived,
> and it can be easily described. It's not beyond our understanding.
well now, not all those attributes necessarily go together.
the fingers-pointing-at-moon metaphor comes from ch'an, and reflects
ch'an's taoist heritage.
in most early tao-chia, and particularly in the tao te ching, the tao
is taught to be something that indeed "can be directly perceived"
(albeit only indistinctly whilst one is mired amongst the "10,000
things"; much more clearly as one "realigns" with tao), and which is
"not beyond our understanding".
yet it is also *not* "easily described".
the crucial distinction here is of verbalisation. one may have direct
experience of something, and still be unable to express or convey that
knowledge through words.
words can then nonetheless serve a "second-best" function, as pointers.
this early taoist understanding of the inherent limitations of language
is the source for ch'an's finger-and-moon metaphor.
but the limitations pertain only to language, not to the mind's
capacity to know tao (for the taoists) or awakedness (for the
buddhists).
when evelyn wrote, "It is experiential, not describable.", this is what
i understood her to be saying, not making any claims about things
"spooky".
but perhaps i am wrong.
words fail, you know.
cheers,
chino
JulianLZB87
Evelyn Ruut wrote in message <7nklq5$1p4q$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
Slendid. Now, perhaps, time that they consider what they are doing
that leads to such a sorry state.
Evelyn Ruut
Did you read that humorous list I posted earlier? The one about "Never
wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it "
:-)
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
Tang: << I have also criticised the view (also criticised by Mubul),
accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be directly cognised.
To Mubul and me emptiness is a concept/construct, and as such cannot be
directly perceived. >>
DT: <<I don't think that's quite what Mubul was saying: more like that there
is a quality of "empty" but that "emptiness" means no more than that, as a
paraphrase for being conditioned or dependent arising. And we *can* directly
perceive that something is empty, i.e., that it is dependently arising,
conditioned, and not self-existent.>>
In "Re: The Four Parajika Rules", Date: 1999/05/14, by Mubul, there was the
following exchange (whch is partially quoted in the second quote made by
DT):
Nevermind wrote: <<My understanding is that yes, arahats and Buddhas are
free from these wrong views -- at all times. Everyone else, from
stream-winner to never-returner, still cling to false at least some of the
time, but even ariya puggalas are temporarily free from these wrong views
while abiding in the direct cognition of shunyata.>>
Mubul replied: <<This simply makes no sense to me at all. Emptiness is a
construct. It is a concept that is overlaid onto experience. So to say that
one is having a non-conceptual cognition of it is flat-out absurdity. If one
is simply experiencing a phenomenon, as in second jhaana, then one can have
a non-conceptual cognition of it. But the moment one notes something about
the phenomenon, namely, that it is empty of inherent nature owing to being
conditioned, then one is associating experience with carefully cutlivated
tendencies to think dogmatically. This is why insight (vipassana) is
impossible to cultivate in any jhaana higher than the first.>>
Unless my understanding of Mubul's English is gorssly wrong, he said what I
made him say, namely, that emptiness is a concept/construct, and as such
cannot be directly perceived.
Tang Huyen
Rx
>
>
>DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>Tang: << I have also criticised the view (also criticised by Mubul),
>accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be directly cognised.
>To Mubul and me emptiness is a concept/construct, and as such cannot be
>directly perceived. >>
>
>is a quality of "empty" but that "emptiness" means no more than that, as a
>paraphrase for being conditioned or dependent arising. And we *can* directly
>perceive that something is empty, i.e., that it is dependently arising,
>conditioned, and not self-existent.>>
>
>following exchange (whch is partially quoted in the second quote made by
>DT):
>
>Nevermind wrote: <<My understanding is that yes, arahats and Buddhas are
>free from these wrong views -- at all times. Everyone else, from
>stream-winner to never-returner, still cling to false at least some of the
>time, but even ariya puggalas are temporarily free from these wrong views
>while abiding in the direct cognition of shunyata.>>
>
>construct. It is a concept that is overlaid onto experience. So to say that
>is simply experiencing a phenomenon, as in second jhaana, then one can have
>a non-conceptual cognition of it. But the moment one notes something about
>the phenomenon, namely, that it is empty of inherent nature owing to being
>conditioned, then one is associating experience with carefully cutlivated
>tendencies to think dogmatically. This is why insight (vipassana) is
>impossible to cultivate in any jhaana higher than the first.>>
>
>Unless my understanding of Mubul's English is gorssly wrong, he said what I
>cannot be directly perceived.
>
>Tang Huyen
>
Although form is emptiness, and emptiness is form,
form is also form, and emptiness is emptiness.
huh?
Christopher Hayden
He wouldn't know a wake-up call from a ripe plum.
>> Most of what he endeavors to spew here is his own, utterly useless,
>> utterly obtuse, utterly vicious, utterly self-serving fantasy.
>
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Poor fellow.
Heh. Zen Master Trashi has spake.
Evelyn Ruut
chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nl7pc$o3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>when evelyn wrote, "It is experiential, not describable.", this is what
>i understood her to be saying, not making any claims about things
>"spooky".
>
>but perhaps i am wrong.
>
>words fail, you know.
Hi Chino,
(I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as sort of like
trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if the
descriptions are technically quite correct, the description would be
inadequate. Nothing 'spooky' about that either :-)
Regards,
Evelyn
Eugene Wyatt
But doesn't the emptiness of your orgasm leave you fulfilled, for a time
being...Evelyn.
Eugene
Tang Huyen
it showed up in Deja with a messed-up title and did not show up at all on
Remarq, so I'm reposting without the "u" with umlaut in the title -- T.H. ***
Mary Finnigan wrote: <<It has been pointed out here more than once that Penor
Tang Huyen
Christopher Hayden wrote: <<Hey!! Don't touch my root!>>
Keep it for yourself.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com wrote: <<the fingers-pointing-at-moon metaphor
comes from ch'an, and reflects ch'an's taoist heritage.>>
It comes from an Indian Buddhist text, Lankavatara-sutra.
Tang Huyen
Christopher Hayden
Christopher Hayden
Although form is emptiness, and emptiness is form,
>form is also form, and emptiness is emptiness.
>
>huh?
At least we've got that straight.
DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
> Mary Finngan: <<It has been pointed out here more than once that
> Penor R was probably joking and/or naive about westerners when he
> tulkuised JAL. Now of course, he cannot lose face by publicly
> acknowledging his error.>>
> DT: <<The latter is surely true, but I think the former claim is more
> likely a later rationalisation, when really he is a superstitious
> shaman who got duped by a streetwise New York hustler who knew just
> what to say: so admitting that kind of blind spot would be too much
> shame to bear.>>
>
> Tang:
> Well, congratulations, DT, you called Penor Rinpoche "a superstitious
> shaman", and got away with it. I said that much of the Tibetan Tantras
> were shamanistic rather than Buddhist, and got blasted at repeatedly,
> though nobody has tried to refute my allegation.
Yeah, well, I didn't say that Tibetan Tantras were shamanistic. I said
something about a particular excentric religious guy. I'm not attacking
a tradition here, just pointing out a problem, where a perhaps very
kind and sincere teacher got duped by a charlatan who spent years with
a 'channeling' racket, pretending to be possessed by the ghosts of
Old Testament prophets, and then she read up on his sect and fed him
enough of his own superstitions to 'recognise' her as a reincarnation.
See, the system works in Tibet ok, but here both the naive old teacher
and the American students end up getting exploited. It's like taking an
animal an letting it loose on another continent where it doesn't have
natural pretators, and then the exo-system gets screwed up terribly.
Anyway, Penor, and his student here on our ng, Mahasanti, are very
shamanistic. But I'm not trying to whack Tibetan Buddhism and claiming
that it isn't Buddhism, Tang. I'm just pointing out some of the problems
when people from another culture naively swallow the 'package plan'.
> DT: {{As I recall, MamaLama Jetsunma's lawyer/office boy, who had no
> response to the evidence except to try and fling endless personal
> attacks as a smokescreen, confessed to the following in his last post:
>
> << If you actually accepted literal rebirth, HH Penor Rinpoche would
> -- axiomatically -- be *incapable* of "making a mistake." HHPR is
> considered a living buddha, whose recognitions are not subject to
> "mistake." >>
>
> Think about how much a student who believes that (not the rebirth part,
> which is harmless enough: I mean the infallibility part) would go along
> with, or deny, just about *anything*. Reminds me of Jews and ovens.}}
Tang:
> Actually I kept thinking about the Germans running Nazi concentration
> camps and Communists wiping away fifty million people in Russia, one
> eighth of the Cambodian population, etc. when I read the recent posts
> here defending corrupt and abusive teachers at any costs.
Of course, Hitler only gets the Bronze medal (and Stalin the Silver):
Mao gets the Gold with more slaughters than Hitler and Stalin combined!
> That the word "axiomatically" was used by that lawyer is both
> emblematic and symptomatic of that entire mental framework.
>
> Tang Huyen
Right. But not all, or even most, of Tibetan Buddhists adopt such a
framework. See, I'm claiming that its the UFO/Fundamentalist types
*here* who latch that follow-authority-surrender-be-a-sheep mentality
onto Tibetan Buddhism. The practices themselves aren't at fault, rather
our naive attempts to take them at face value.
Even Mary, who in my opinion is as level-headed as Evelyn, Lee, and Mike,
actually claims:
<< Total surrender to one's root guru is a prerequisite of Vajrayana,
as everyone here knows. >>
See, that's bullshit. If that were true, then it wouldn't be Buddhism,
it would be cultism of the worst kind. Steven Batchelor certainly
claims just the opposite of this, and he was trained as a TB monk!
Being a drone on autopilot is *not* a prerequisite for any kind of
Buddhism, Vajrayana or other. Buddhism is rather about waking up and
being mindful, not mindlessly following the orders of the leaders.
So the root guru crap has to go. It's got to be seen as a commitment
to, say, mindfulness, or to taking the three refuges, or to some of
the mythological boddisattvas. Surrendering to a mythological teacher,
like those five Jinas and so forth, something like that. And just as
you would with a doctor, always get a second opinion if your teacher
makes a strange request or acts strangely.
I mean, the Sufis are *way* ahead of the Vajrayanists when it comes to
practical issues and the 'surrender' stuff. There is an old Sufi saying:
Trust in Allah AND tie your camel to the post!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< "My piece of gratuitous advice is: 'If your goal is to arrive at an
adequate understanding of yourself to enable you to navigate the swift
currents of life without meeting disaster, NEVER limit yourself to one
teacher.' One-stop shopping is great if all you need is a sixpack of
beer, a can of motor oil, and a box of sanitary pads. But if what you
need is a spiritual mentor, one-stop shopping is just plain stupid."
-Mubul >>
Evelyn Ruut
Eugene Wyatt wrote in message ...
Only for a little while......
Ev
Eugene Wyatt
> Ev
A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>
Eu
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
Mary Finngan: <<It has been pointed out here more than once that Penor R was
probably joking and/or naive about westerners when he tulkuised JAL. Now of
course, he cannot lose face by publicly acknowledging his error.>>
DT: <<The latter is surely true, but I think the former claim is more likely
a later rationalisation, when really he is a superstitious shaman who got
duped by a streetwise New York hustler who knew just what to say: so
admitting that kind of blind spot would be too much shame to bear.>>
Tang: <<Well, congratulations, DT, you called Penor Rinpoche "a superstitious
shaman", and got away with it. I said that much of the Tibetan Tantras were
shamanistic rather than Buddhist, and got blasted at repeatedly, though
nobody has tried to refute my allegation.>>
DT: <<Yeah, well, I didn't say that Tibetan Tantras were shamanistic. I said
something about a particular excentric religious guy. I'm not attacking a
tradition here, just pointing out a problem, where a perhaps very kind and
sincere teacher got duped by a charlatan who spent years with a 'channeling'
racket, pretending to be possessed by the ghosts of Old Testament prophets,
and then she read up on his sect and fed him enough of his own superstitions
to 'recognise' her as a reincarnation. See, the system works in Tibet ok, but
here both the naive old teacher and the American students end up getting
exploited. It's like taking an animal an letting it loose on another
continent where it doesn't have natural pretators, and then the exo-system
gets screwed up terribly.>>
How do you know that the system works well in Tibet? In the West it is
exposed and its errors are known, but in Tibet its presumed errors are hidden
and we from the outside world cannot know them -- unless we have spiritual
powers ... You say: "I said something about a particular excentric religious
guy. I'm not attacking a tradition here, just pointing out a problem", but by
the very *configuration* of that tradition (configuration that is unique to
it in Buddhism), of which you have exposed many problems and errors, it seems
to me that the problems and errors are *built in* rather than accidental.
DT: <<Anyway, Penor, and his student here on our ng, Mahasanti, are very
shamanistic. But I'm not trying to whack Tibetan Buddhism and claiming that
it isn't Buddhism, Tang. I'm just pointing out some of the problems when
people from another culture naively swallow the 'package plan'.>>
You may or may not make the claim, but any intelligent reader -- who has not
been hooked yet -- can make the inference. But Henry Chia and Mahasanti are
*not* from "another culture": the kind of Tantric theory and practice that
Penor peddles is native to their culture (which is roughly my native culture
too, where shamanism is very different from Buddhism, even corrupt Buddhism),
and they behave just as Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism do. At least I
can't tell any difference between them and Western followers of Tibetan
Buddhism.
Westerners are supposed to be critical and progressive, but so far as I can
tell, Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism (and to a lesser extent Western
followers of non-Tantric Great Vehicle Buddhism) are among the least critical
and most regressive elements of the West.
And indeed what you call the "package plan" may be problem: on the positive
it contains lots of shamanistic theory and practice, which are not
recognisable as Buddhist by any stretch of the imagination, and on the
negative it lacks on Buddhist element: the restraint by the discipline
(vinaya). In Asia *outside of Tibet*, many Buddhist monks and nuns who go
shamanistic lapse from Buddhism and go to shamanism proper or a religion that
is highly shamanistic.
DT: {{As I recall, MamaLama Jetsunma's lawyer/office boy, who had no response
to the evidence except to try and fling endless personal attacks as a
smokescreen, confessed to the following in his last post:
<< If you actually accepted literal rebirth, HH Penor Rinpoche would --
axiomatically -- be *incapable* of "making a mistake." HHPR is considered a
living buddha, whose recognitions are not subject to "mistake." >>
Think about how much a student who believes that (not the rebirth part, which
is harmless enough: I mean the infallibility part) would go along with, or
deny, just about *anything*. Reminds me of Jews and ovens.}}
Tang: <<Actually I kept thinking about the Germans running Nazi concentration
camps and Communists wiping away fifty million people in Russia, one eighth
of the Cambodian population, etc. when I read the recent posts here defending
corrupt and abusive teachers at any costs.>>
DT: <<Of course, Hitler only gets the Bronze medal (and Stalin the Silver):
Mao gets the Gold with more slaughters than Hitler and Stalin combined!>>
Care to cite some numbers?
Tang: <<That the word "axiomatically" was used by that lawyer is both
emblematic and symptomatic of that entire mental framework.>>
DT: <<Right. But not all, or even most, of Tibetan Buddhists adopt such a
framework. See, I'm claiming that its the UFO/Fundamentalist types *here* who
latch that follow-authority-surrender-be-a-sheep mentality onto Tibetan
Buddhism. The practices themselves aren't at fault, rather our naive attempts
to take them at face value.>>
How do you know that? I would expect a priori that native Tibetan Buddhists
would be even less critical and more regressive than Western followers of
Tibetan Buddhism. Of course the former have no choice whereas the latter do,
and indeed choose Tibetan Buddhism from a wide range of choices offered to
them (even counting the non-Middle Eastern religions alone), and choose it by
self-selection (if you pass the pleonasm): as you have noticed, "they already
are high in the UFO factor and they relish the glitter of the rich
mythology". Inside the platter are magic, mystery (in the literal sense),
obscurantism, blind faith from below and authoritarianism from above (if you
just look at the Dalai Lama's handling of the Shugden worship), etc. The
*whole* stew is what attracts Western followers.
When you say: "The practices themselves aren't at fault, rather our naive
attempts to take them at face value", you seem to me to be "high in the UFO
factor". If the practices themselves are not at fault, at least don't they
lend themselves to errors and abuse, which will then be covered up by the
very configuration of said practices? It would be hard for errors and abuse
of the scale of Tibetan Buddhism in the West to occur in Theravada or Chinese
Chan, in East or West, firstly because their configuration inherently puts
constraints on them, and if they do occur anyway, the discipline (and social
norm) will push them out (the case of a certain British teacher does not
qualify, because he is *outside* of the traditional structure).
DT: <<Being a drone on autopilot is *not* a prerequisite for any kind of
Buddhism, Vajrayana or other. Buddhism is rather about waking up and being
mindful, not mindlessly following the orders of the leaders.>>
Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan Buddhism, they'll
trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism. And as I keep saying, if you want
to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you can
perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery least of
all.
Quite on the contrary, I scarcely see how being a drone on autopilot can in
any way help with waking up and being mindful.
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com
tang, i find this most interesting. would you be so kind as to provide
a precise citation within that sutra? in another lifetime (or what
seems it anyway) whilst studying for a doctorate in chinese philosophy,
i was taught that the metaphor itself developed within ch'an but
derived from the early tao-chia (philosophical-taoist) theories of
language which had helped form ch'an. i would be most interested to
see any lankavatara-sutra passage which served instead as source for
the metaphor.
thanks in advance.
cheers,
chino
chino...@my-deja.com
wy...@catskill-merino.com wrote:
> Evelyn Ruut writes...
> >
> > Eugene Wyatt wrote in message ...
> > >Evelyn Ruut writes...
> > >>
> > >> chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7nl7pc$o3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >>
> > >> >
is what
> > >> >i understood her to be saying, not making any claims about
things
> > >> >"spooky".
> > >> >
> > >> >but perhaps i am wrong.
> > >> >
> > >> >words fail, you know.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Chino,
> > >>
> > >> (I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as
sort of
> > like
> > >> trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if
the
> > >> descriptions are technically quite correct, the description
would be
> > >> inadequate. Nothing 'spooky' about that either :-)
> > >
> > >But doesn't the emptiness of your orgasm leave you fulfilled, for
a time
> > >being...Evelyn.
> >
> >
> > Only for a little while......
>
> > Ev
>
> A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>
>
> Eu
is a multiple emptiness possible?
and for men too?
cheerily,
chino
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
Evelyn Ruut: <<Hi Chino,
(I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as sort of
like trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if the
descriptions are technically quite correct, the description would be
inadequate. Nothing 'spooky' about that either :-)>>
Eugene: <<But doesn't the emptiness of your orgasm leave you fulfilled, for
a time being...Evelyn.>>
Evelyn: <<Only for a little while......>>
Eugene: <<A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>>>
Chino: <<is a multiple emptiness possible?
and for men too?>>
The standard lists, in the scriptures of the Perfection of Wisdom and even
the Maha-Vibhasa, go to eighteen or more ...
Tang Huyen
Eugene Wyatt
Let's not get greedy.
Eugene
chino...@my-deja.com
WHOA!!! coooooooooooool......
just goes to show ya, it pays to read the sutras......
multiple cheers,
chino
Tang Huyen
Eugene Wyatt wrote:
Evelyn Ruut: <<Hi Chino,
(I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as sort of like
trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if the descriptions
are technically quite correct, the description would be inadequate. Nothing
'spooky' about that either :-)>>
Eugene: <<But doesn't the emptiness of your orgasm leave you fulfilled, for a
time being...Evelyn.>>
Evelyn: <<Only for a little while......>>
Eugene: <<A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>>>
Chino: <<is a multiple emptiness possible?
and for men too?>>
Tang: <<The standard lists, in the scriptures of the Perfection of Wisdom and
even the Maha-Vibhasa, go to eighteen or more ...>>
Eugene: <<Let's not get greedy.>>
Just the facts, Eugene.
Tang Huyen
Eugene Wyatt
The "facts" are so intense I always lose count at 4 or 5...or was it 3.
Eu
Evelyn Ruut
chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7nn84a$1nh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <MPG.1208a4b1e...@news1.newscene.com>,
> wy...@catskill-merino.com wrote:
>> Evelyn Ruut writes...
>> >
>> > Eugene Wyatt wrote in message ...
>> > >Evelyn Ruut writes...
>> > >>
>> > >> chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message
><7nl7pc$o3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >when evelyn wrote, "It is experiential, not describable.", this
>is what
>> > >> >i understood her to be saying, not making any claims about
>things
>> > >> >"spooky".
>> > >> >
>> > >> >but perhaps i am wrong.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >words fail, you know.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> (I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as
>sort of
>> > like
>> > >> trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if
>the
>> > >> descriptions are technically quite correct, the description
>would be
>> > >> inadequate. Nothing 'spooky' about that either :-)
>> > >
>a time
>> > >being...Evelyn.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>
>>
>
>is a multiple emptiness possible?
>
>and for men too?
Why not?
Evelyn Ruut
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379F28CA...@bu.edu>...
>
>
>chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>Evelyn Ruut: <<Hi Chino,
>
>(I may be treading in Jackie's territory here), but I see it as sort of
>like trying to describe an orgasm. No matter what you say, even if the
>descriptions are technically quite correct, the description would be
>inadequate. Nothing 'spooky' about that either :-)>>
>
>a time being...Evelyn.>>
>
>Evelyn: <<Only for a little while......>>
>
>Eugene: <<A little bit of emptiness is better than none. <g>>>
>
>Chino: <<is a multiple emptiness possible?
>
>and for men too?>>
>
>The standard lists, in the scriptures of the Perfection of Wisdom and even
>the Maha-Vibhasa, go to eighteen or more ...
>
>
I think I used to know a guy like that.....;-)
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
Tang Huyen wrote in message <379EDE7B...@bu.edu>...
>DT: <<Being a drone on autopilot is *not* a prerequisite for any kind of
>Buddhism, Vajrayana or other. Buddhism is rather about waking up and being
>mindful, not mindlessly following the orders of the leaders.>>
Tang said;
>Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan Buddhism,
they'll
>trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism.
Tang, Dharma Troll said that YESTERDAY, and nobody has called him a basher
or trashed him for saying it.
That is precisely what I have been saying all along, you have a COMPLETELY
mistaken view of what a teacher and student relationship is all about. All
attempts to explain that it is not a slave/master thing or that you are not
supposed to check your brains at the door have fallen on deaf ears!
>And as I keep saying, if you want
>to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you can
>perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery least
of
>all.
Now I am not so sure about that statement.
If you wanted to play the piano, and you locked yourself in a room with one
for a few years, you might be able to hack out a few tunes, or teach
yourself the rudiments somehow. But how much better if you had a teacher
who at certain specific times came and gave you exercises to do, and brought
books along for you to learn to read the music and gave you simple little
tunes to play at first then more complicated ones later on, which one do you
think might be the better bet at learning to play the piano efficiently?
Come on now Tang, no fudging.... If you are the lover of great music you say
you are, you know the answer.....And you know I have you on this
one.......;-)
>Quite on the contrary, I scarcely see how being a drone on autopilot can in
>any way help with waking up and being mindful.
Yes Yes, a thousand times yes,...... being a drone on autopilot is not what
having a teacher is all about! You have been enslaving yourself to a myth
and a falsehood with this silly idea. Having a teacher is NOTHING like
that, and if it is.... GET yourself out of there fast!
Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
KSS wrote in message <7nnn1q$i4$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr>...
I said to Tang;
>>That is precisely what I have been saying all along, you have a COMPLETELY
>>mistaken view of what a teacher and student relationship is all about.
>All
>>attempts to explain that it is not a slave/master thing or that you are
not
>>supposed to check your brains at the door have fallen on deaf ears!
Tang claimed;
>>>And as I keep saying, if you want
>>>to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you
can
>>>perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery
least
>>of all.
To which I replied;
>>Now I am not so sure about that statement.
>>
>>If you wanted to play the piano, and you locked yourself in a room with
one
>>for a few years, you might be able to hack out a few tunes, or teach
>>yourself the rudiments somehow. But how much better if you had a teacher
>>who at certain specific times came and gave you exercises to do, and
>brought
>>books along for you to learn to read the music and gave you simple little
>>tunes to play at first then more complicated ones later on, which one do
>you
>>think might be the better bet at learning to play the piano efficiently?
>>
>>Come on now Tang, no fudging.... If you are the lover of great music you
>say
>>you are, you know the answer.....And you know I have you on this
>>one.......;-)
KSS (George) commented
>Madam, you DO have him on this one.
>
>This is no joke, and as it comes from someone who is allegedly a follower
>of Tang, Tang should believe it, and admit you DO have a point there.
>
>Everything we do in life, we do it while in _relationship_ to others
anyway.
>
>The teacher-student relationship can't be dismissed on grounds of being
>useless a priori, but simply criticised whenever it goes wrong.
>
>Even if only a minority of teacher-student relationships do not go wrong
>this still doesn't invalidate the teacher-student relationship as such, but
>only its misuses.
Yes, yes, yes! That is what I have been saying all along!
>Perhaps Tang should tell us, if he did have a teacher, how would he
>imagine their relationship to be like. But I guess this involves the use
>of imagination rather than non-mentation. So hard luck, Tang can't
>answer it this way. ;-)
Yes, George, I would very much like to hear what Tang would imagine a good
teacher and student relationship. I can hardly imagine a person as well
read and educated as Tang would have never in his life had a good teacher,
one that was inspirational without being abusive of his trust.
But most of all I want you to know that there ARE people like that who care
about others and don't abuse their trust, and some of them are Tibetan
Lamas. I happen to know a couple of them personally and that is the truth.
>Anyway, as I said my "guru" is wrong in this case, and Ev is right. hehe
>
>KSS
Thank you George.... you have restored my belief that you are a fair man :-)
(And especially I value your comments because I know you were once in an
abusive guru situation.)
Regards,
Evelyn
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com wrote: <<the fingers-pointing-at-moon metaphor comes
from ch'an, and reflects ch'an's taoist heritage.>>
Tang: <<It comes from an Indian Buddhist text, Lankavatara-sutra.>>
Chino: <<tang, i find this most interesting. would you be so kind as to
provide a precise citation within that sutra? in another lifetime (or what
seems it anyway) whilst studying for a doctorate in chinese philosophy, i
was taught that the metaphor itself developed within ch'an but derived from
the early tao-chia (philosophical-taoist) theories of language which had
helped form ch'an. i would be most interested to see any lankavatara-sutra
passage which served instead as source for the metaphor.
thanks in advance.>>
Lamotte, Traité, I, 538, n. 2 gives the Sanskrit of Lankavatara-sutra, ed.
Suzuki, 196, and also gives the Tibetan translation. He points out that
Suzuki's English translation, 169, is imperfect. His French translation: "Il
ne faut pas faire comme celui qui regarde le doigt. Mahamati, c'est comme si
on montrait du doigt quelque chose à quelqu'un et que celui-ci s'obstinât à
regarder seulement le bout du doigt; de même, ô Mahamati, les stupides
Profanes, comme de véritables enfants, restent attachés à ce bout du doigt
qu'on appelle l'interprétation littérale, et ils mourront ainsi attachés au
bout du doigt qu'on appelle la lettre. Pour avoir négligé le sens désigné
par le bout du doigt qu'on appelle l'interprétation littérale, ils ne
pénétreront pas dans l'Absolu." Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 125b, Lanka: T
670, 507a, T 671, 551c, T 672, 616a.
Tang Huyen
KSS
>>Buddhism, Vajrayana or other. Buddhism is rather about waking up and being
>>mindful, not mindlessly following the orders of the leaders.>>
>
>>Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan Buddhism,
>they'll trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism.
>
>or trashed him for saying it.
So? I'm sure that if Tang said it, someone WOULD....
>That is precisely what I have been saying all along, you have a COMPLETELY
>mistaken view of what a teacher and student relationship is all about.
All
>attempts to explain that it is not a slave/master thing or that you are not
>supposed to check your brains at the door have fallen on deaf ears!
>
>>And as I keep saying, if you want
>>to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you can
>>perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery least
>of all.
>
>Now I am not so sure about that statement.
>
>If you wanted to play the piano, and you locked yourself in a room with one
>for a few years, you might be able to hack out a few tunes, or teach
>yourself the rudiments somehow. But how much better if you had a teacher
>who at certain specific times came and gave you exercises to do, and
brought
>books along for you to learn to read the music and gave you simple little
>tunes to play at first then more complicated ones later on, which one do
you
>think might be the better bet at learning to play the piano efficiently?
>
>Come on now Tang, no fudging.... If you are the lover of great music you
say
>you are, you know the answer.....And you know I have you on this
>one.......;-)
Madam, you DO have him on this one.
This is no joke, and as it comes from someone who is allegedly a follower
of Tang, Tang should believe it, and admit you DO have a point there.
Everything we do in life, we do it while in _relationship_ to others anyway.
The teacher-student relationship can't be dismissed on grounds of being
useless a priori, but simply criticised whenever it goes wrong.
Even if only a minority of teacher-student relationships do not go wrong
this still doesn't invalidate the teacher-student relationship as such, but
only its misuses.
Perhaps Tang should tell us, if he did have a teacher, how would he
imagine their relationship to be like. But I guess this involves the use
of imagination rather than non-mentation. So hard luck, Tang can't
answer it this way. ;-)
Another way perhaps, Tang? :)
DharmaTroll
understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy
the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be
your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question
everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
-- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, p. 21
"The primary cause of disorder in ourselves is the seeking of reality
promised by another... It is a most extraordinary thing that although
most of us are opposed to political tyranny and dictatorship, we
inwardly accept the authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our
minds and our way of life.
-- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, p. 10
In article <7nnn1q$i4$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr>,
"KSS" <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote:
Tang:
<< And as I keep saying, if you want to wake up and be mindful, you
need no teacher and crowd for that, you can perfectly do it alone.
Krishnamurti once said that "Truth is a pathless land. You cannot
approach it by any religion, any sect."
Tang:
<< The Buddha so did [alone]. You need magic and mystery least of all. >>
Evelyn:
>> Now I am not so sure about that statement.
>>
>> If you wanted to play the piano, and you locked yourself in a room
>> with one for a few years, you might be able to hack out a few tunes,
>> or teach yourself the rudiments somehow. But how much better if you
>> had a teacher who at certain specific times came and gave you
>> exercises to do, and brought books along for you to learn to read
>> the music
KiSSer adds:
> Madam, you DO have him on this one.
>
> This is no joke, and as it comes from someone who is allegedly a
> follower of Tang, Tang should believe it... Anyway, as I said my
> "guru" is wrong in this case, and Ev is right. hehe
> KSS
No way, you sniveling sychophant! I back the Tangster on this one.
As my root-troll Jiddu Krishamurti said:
"Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek
security in your particular belief, you become separated from those
who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs
are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood."
Also, Evelyn's example is one of *acquisition*, of technical prowess,
of accumulation and gain. Awakening is just the *opposite*. It is the
ending of time, thought, mentation, conceptual baggage. It is not an
accumulation. The music teacher, the physics teacher, the philosophy
professor, they can only help you accumulate more skills, more ideas,
more possessions. Awakening is a radically different sort of happening.
It's not an accumulation over time. That's why it's called unconditioned.
"It is tradition, the accumulation of experience, the ashes of memory,
that make the mind old. The mind that dies every day to the memories
of yesterday, to all the joys and sorrows of the past -- such a mind
is fresh, innocent, it has no age; and without that innocence,
whether you are ten or sixty, you will not find God.
-- J. Krishnamurti, _Think on These Things_
It is not a journey from A to B. You can't get there from here!
If you can't get it from yourself, from whom could you ever get it?
"Having realised that we can depend on no outside authority in bringing
about a total revolution within the structure of our own psyche, there
is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward
authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and
accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals. You had an
experience yesterday which taught you something and what it taught you
becomes a new authority --and that authority of yesterday is as
destructive as the authority of a thousand years. To understand
ourselves needs no authority either of yesterday or of a thousand years
because we are living things, always moving, flowing never resting.
When we look at ourselves with the dead authority of yesterday we will
fail to understand the living movement and the beauty and quality of
that movement.
To be free of all authority, of your own and that of another, is to
die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is always fresh,
always young, innocent, full of vigour and passion. It is only in that
state that one learns and observes. And for this a great deal of
awareness is required, actual awareness of what is going on inside
yourself, without correcting it or telling it what it should or should
not be, because the moment you correct it you have established another
authority, a censor.
-- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, pp. 19-20
Evelyn:
>> being a drone on autopilot is not what having a teacher is all about!
"Now the question is: can the mind be free of this egocentric activity?
Right? That is really the question, not whether it is so or not.
Which means can the mind stand alone, uninfluenced? Alone, being alone,
does not mean isolation. Sir, look: when one rejects completely all the
absurdities of nationality, the absurdities of propaganda, of religious
propaganda, rejects conclusions of any kind, actually, not
theoretically, completely put aside, has understood very deeply the
question of pleasure and fear, and division -- the 'me' and the
'not me' -- is there any form of the self at all?"
--J. Krishnamurti, _Observing Without The 'Me'_, Brockwood Park,
First Public Talk, September 5, 1970
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
David Works
>
>Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan Buddhism,
they'll
>trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism. And as I keep saying, if you want
>to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you can
>perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery least
of
>all.
>
>Quite on the contrary, I scarcely see how being a drone on autopilot can in
>any way help with waking up and being mindful.
>
>Tang Huyen
No disputing that you can do it alone. But a question. If the Buddha did
not teach, and others did not learn, would there be a "Buddhism" today?
Aren't the writers of the texts that you believe reflect "true Buddhism"
essentially your gurus? Did they study under teachers? To really do it
alone, can you give up the texts (teachings) as well (like Buddha)? One of
my favorite paintings is of a monk tearing up the scriptures -- which leads
to magic and mystery.
I don't know how involved you are with the creative arts, but anyone who
pays attention to them (doing or appreciating) is confronted with mystery.
There is simply no way to "intellectually grasp" creativity or the aesthetic
experience. But there are ways to work with these "energies" (e.g. Tibeten
Buddhism). And since they can't be understood in conceptual terms, there
are always elements of magic and mystery. But I don't think they are as you
imagine them. These are common "everyday mysteries" that we learn to
ignore.
Tang, I think I read that you work in the computing field -- a programmer?
I have done this kind of work in the past, and would like to propose
something to you. The best programmers are not only technically competent,
they are also creative! As such, they exhibit "magician like" capability to
work with creative energies that result in novel solutions. Comming up with
a solution to a complex problem involves at some point a leap out of
concepts to insight -- another "little mystery".
To me, a "drone on autopilot" is one who does not attempt to be mindful of
the "everyday mysteries".
David
Evelyn Ruut
Now if you could just post this to alt.krishnamurti.talk you would be doing
fine:-)
But the buddha himself taught and up to a certain point he also was taught,
and as a matter of fact, the quotes below are also "teachings" so sure, you
CAN do it alone, and ultimately you MUST, but it would be a lot easier with
a guide to point out the way for you in the early stages. Buddhist
practices are techniques, just like any other technique and need to be
learned and actually practiced in the early stages,
BUT.......!!!!!
Just as nobody can teach you to have talent, but can teach you only the
rudiments, the outward skills and the philosophy of it, the spiritual work
has to be done on your own. Ultimately you do it yourself. So we are
probably both right in that view.
If you took a total newbie and told them to just go and cease mentation,
etc. etc. without some rudimentary instructions and even some further along
instructions too, they would probably give up after a couple of tries and
forget about it.
So although I cannot disagree with any of the quotes below ultimately, I
also am fairly certain that few people are able to "just do it" without some
help. I for one am glad of that help, as I surely needed and still
sometimes do need it.
Regards,
Evelyn
DharmaTroll wrote in message <7nordo$3c4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
chino...@my-deja.com
thanks, tang, but i am still not *fully* convinced that this passage is
the immediate precursor of ch'an's finger-pointing-at-moon metaphor.
the lanky passage you cite sures gives one the doigt a lot, but where
the lune enters into it just is not claire. but then again, the lune
*is* quelque chose, so perhaps the sutra *is* the ancestor.
are you (or anyone else) aware of the earliest recorded instance of the
fullblown finger-AND-moon metaphor? i would be most intrigued to read
any study that has been done of that text, whatever it is, and its
origins and antecedents.
je te remercie!
salut,
chino
Mike Austin
deja.com> writes
>Also, Evelyn's example is one of *acquisition*, of technical prowess,
>of accumulation and gain. Awakening is just the *opposite*. It is the
>ending of time, thought, mentation, conceptual baggage. It is not an
>accumulation. The music teacher, the physics teacher, the philosophy
>professor, they can only help you accumulate more skills, more ideas,
>more possessions. Awakening is a radically different sort of happening.
>It's not an accumulation over time. That's why it's called unconditioned.
Hi DT,
I think you've missed the point entirely here. As far as I understand, no
one is suggesting that the teacher can teach 'awakening'. The teacher can
teach techniques and practices that clear away the obstacles. One can lead
a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink. Some horses cannot even be
lead to water, though!
From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
there, neither 'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.
>"Having realised that we can depend on no outside authority in bringing
> about a total revolution within the structure of our own psyche, there
> is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward
> authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and
> accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals.
Ah yes, this is the crux of the matter. We have to overcome both of these.
There are problems if we don't balance the way we do this. The root cause
of the problem is the internal grasping at self. This sometimes appears as
grasping at another as an authority but the problem actually stems from an
attachment to a wrong view - and this rises from the fundamental ignorance
grasping at self. This runs far deeper and is more difficult to reach than
a projection of authority onto others.
When emptiness is taught (at least in the Tibetan Gelug school), emptiness
of self should precede emptiness of other. The reason for this is because
an understanding of emptiness of other can cause pride to rise. It is very
difficult to break through this to see emptiness of self later. I suspect
that what we have here in terms of authorities is something similar. When
we remove all authority (which is only a projected authority) from others,
a strong sense of our own authority is established. This is immensely hard
to overcome. Along with this arises afflictions such as pride, arrogance,
criticism of others, sectarianism and fixed views - in short, a benighted
ignorance. We even forget the fact that we are ignorant!
I think we have to ensure, as a priority, that we do not fall prey to this
internal authority of ignorance. Therefore, we try to view others as more
important than ourselves through compassion and we respect those who teach
us. This entails some ceding (or projecting) of authority on them. It's in
our own interests to do this, but it is *essential* that we recognise that
we are doing it. We must never throw out mindfulness. There's no permanent
investment of authority in others. It is simply a way to view things, but
it's difficult to get the balance right, and it seems it's commonplace for
others to assume that the balance we have is wrong!
--
Mike Austin
Tang Huyen
David Works wrote:
Tang Huyen: <<Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan
Buddhism, they'll trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism. And as I keep
saying, if you want to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for
that, you can perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and
mystery least of all.
Quite on the contrary, I scarcely see how being a drone on autopilot can in any
way help with waking up and being mindful.>>
David: <<No disputing that you can do it alone. But a question. If the Buddha
did not teach, and others did not learn, would there be a "Buddhism" today?
Aren't the writers of the texts that you believe reflect "true Buddhism"
essentially your gurus? Did they study under teachers? To really do it alone,
can you give up the texts (teachings) as well (like Buddha)? One of my favorite
paintings is of a monk tearing up the scriptures -- which leads to magic and
mystery.
I don't know how involved you are with the creative arts, but anyone who pays
attention to them (doing or appreciating) is confronted with mystery. There is
simply no way to "intellectually grasp" creativity or the aesthetic experience.
But there are ways to work with these "energies" (e.g. Tibeten Buddhism). And
since they can't be understood in conceptual terms, there are always elements of
magic and mystery. But I don't think they are as you imagine them. These are
common "everyday mysteries" that we learn to ignore.
Tang, I think I read that you work in the computing field -- a programmer? I
have done this kind of work in the past, and would like to propose something to
you. The best programmers are not only technically competent, they are also
creative! As such, they exhibit "magician like" capability to work with
creative energies that result in novel solutions. Comming up with a solution to
a complex problem involves at some point a leap out of concepts to insight --
another "little mystery".
To me, a "drone on autopilot" is one who does not attempt to be mindful of the
"everyday mysteries".>>
When I wrote of teachers above, I meant personal teachers, who teach you
personally, not absent teachers who transmit their knowledge and wisdom to you
through, say, books, David. As I keep saying, you can buy the Nikayas or their
translations (or the Chinese Agamas, which are very hard to read), in part or
whole, read them, and practice accordingly, without needing a teacher, and
you'll probably do as well as anybody else who does have a teacher. For that
matter, you can also read the Stoic literature, practice accordingly, and get
pretty well ahead in dispassion and detachment -- which are what Buddhism is all
about -- without teacher and without having heard of Buddhism.
When I wrote of magic and mystery, I meant them literally, not metaphorically.
As to the "energies" that you want to work with: they are explicitly taught in
Eastern Orthodoxy, the word for them is the Greek "energeia", plural
"energeiai", which means "act, operation", and wrongly translated as "energy".
The doctrine there, since Gregory of Nyssa (a great Tathagata-garbha doctor), is
that all we know from God is his acts or operations (energeiai), not his essence
(ousia), which is totally unknowable. We know only his manifestations
(theo-phania), not him as he is in himself. The Eastern Orthodox meditative
experience has many similarities with the Buddhist one, though it is far less
radical (just as Stoicism is like Buddhism but less radical).
As to creative or aesthetic experience: I previously wrote on that topic, in
"Re: The art of vanishing the world (was Re: Zen and the art of losing one's
mind)", Date: 1999/06/11. One passage: "My take on great art, great literature,
great philosophy, etc. is that it occurs when the person lets himself become
vacant and surrender control -- thinking or creating art -- to some of his
normally unconscious powers (including pure reason), which can then take over
and do their own thing through him. Normal consciousness is too cramped for
great creativity to occur, and great creativity needs the resources of an
expanded state of mind, in which tight control has been released and normally
unconscious contents and processes -- bigger in quantity and different in nature
-- can proceed untrammelled. After some stretch of time -- a few minutes or
hours -- the person returns to normal consciousness and may be surprised at what
is in front of him."
In other terms: one abdicates conscious control so that one's normally dormant
powers -- energies -- can have room to expand themselves and do their work
(energeia) unhindered.
So I'm not so far from where you are, David.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Mike Austin wrote: <<As far as I understand, no one is suggesting that the
teacher can teach 'awakening'. The teacher can teach techniques and practices
that clear away the obstacles. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot
make it drink. Some horses cannot even be lead to water, though!
From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
there, neither 'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.>>
I'm afraid I have to disagree, Mike. In the Buddha's Buddhism, all that occurs
is governed by Dependent Arisal. Delusion and awakening, faring-on and
blowing-out, all are governed by it, so that nothing escapes legality (which
is what Dependent Arisal means, not causality). Delusion is governed by the
"arising" sequence, and awakening is governed by the "ceasing" sequence.
Nothing is outside the purview of Dependent Arisal.
From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
there, conditions still pertain. There is no state to which neither
'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.
Only the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma, by reifying abstract concepts, comes to assert
various unconditioneds (see our friend Punnadhammo), and the Great
Assemblyers, by likewise giving in to speculation, come to assert various
"magical" states as unconditioned, which will be inherited by the Great
Vehicle.
Tang Huyen
Mike Austin
>Mike Austin wrote: <<From where we stand now, conditions are required to get
>there. When we are there, neither 'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.>>
>
>I'm afraid I have to disagree, Mike. In the Buddha's Buddhism, all that occurs
>is governed by Dependent Arisal. Delusion and awakening, faring-on and
>blowing-out, all are governed by it, so that nothing escapes legality (which
>is what Dependent Arisal means, not causality). Delusion is governed by the
>"arising" sequence, and awakening is governed by the "ceasing" sequence.
>Nothing is outside the purview of Dependent Arisal.
>
>From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
>there, conditions still pertain. There is no state to which neither
>'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.
Hi Tang,
I don't think it is quite this simple. I prefer to leave this one unresolved.
When I asked my teacher whether Buddhahood was permanent (bearing in mind the
Mahayana view that Buddha achieves enlightenment in dependence on all sentient
beings and yet Buddhahood is irreversible), he said there is an aspect that is
permanent and an aspect that is impermanent. From this, I took it to mean that
it depends on how it is viewed. And if it depends on how it is viewed, it will
be viewed differently when I am awakened. From this, I further took it to mean
"Be prepared to accept two answers when you ask awkward questions!"
Therefore, I sometimes refer to Buddhahood as 'gone beyond' or 'unconditioned'
and sometimes as 'conditioned'. Both views can be helpful at different times,
and both views can be helpful concurrently to indicate it is still unresolved.
--
Mike Austin
Mike Austin
writes
Hi Tang,
>When I wrote of teachers above, I meant personal teachers, who teach you
>personally, not absent teachers who transmit their knowledge and wisdom to you
>through, say, books, David. As I keep saying, you can buy the Nikayas or their
>translations (or the Chinese Agamas, which are very hard to read), in part or
>whole, read them, and practice accordingly, without needing a teacher, and
>you'll probably do as well as anybody else who does have a teacher.
Hee hee - a sort of 'off the peg' Buddhism as opposed to a 'tailor-made'
Buddhism! 'Off the peg' clothes don't fit so well, and one would indeed
be very fortunate if it turns out differently. On the other hand, if the
'tailor made' clothes don't fit, get a better tailor!
--
Mike Austin
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote: <<Also, Evelyn's example is one of *acquisition*, of
technical prowess, of accumulation and gain. Awakening is just the
*opposite*. It is the ending of time, thought, mentation, conceptual baggage.
It is not an accumulation. The music teacher, the physics teacher, the
philosophy professor, they can only help you accumulate more skills, more
ideas, more possessions. Awakening is a radically different sort of
happening. It's not an accumulation over time. That's why it's called
unconditioned.>>
Buddhist world-transcending method -- I'm excluding worldly methods, like,
say, doing good to get reborn in heaven -- is unlearning, not learning. One
learns to undo one's previous learning, whole and entire.
Much of what one has learnt, either by direct learning in this life (which is
what learning usually means) or by genetic programming of the species or by
memory from previous lives, collective or individual, or whatever, is to
build up a (false) sense of self and to defend it, mostly against oneself.
Buddhist method is mostly about penetrating that learning and undo it,
patiently, bit by bit, until all of it is gone.
It is purely purgative and has nothing positive about it, though along the
way, positive attributes may come along to add themselves to one's
experience, like spiritual powers, but, while they may be of use in verifying
the teachings of the Buddha like Dependent Arisal, rebirth and deed and its
return, have to be keep under strict control, lest they divert one from the
path and become ends in themselves rather than remaining mere means to an
end, namely awakening.
The Buddha says that the thought "I am" is the root of all delusion, and the
sage has to get rid of it, but before getting even to know it, the sage has
to penetrate the whole wall of defence mechanism, get to know himself in his
(false) sense of self, and let go of it. But one cannot let go of something
one is unaware of. So one has to reclaim oneself, reconnect to the alienised
parts of oneself, then undo them by letting go of them.
In the Buddha's Buddhism, "accumulation" redounds to delusion,
"unaccumulation" or "letting go" redounds to awakening.
When one practices Buddhism -- or at least claims to -- one has to pay
attention as to whether what one does *actually* lets go of attachment and
increases dispassion or on the contrary merely entertains one (with vivid
imagery or magical powers or whatever) and gets one even more entrenched in
attachment and delusion. What makes a practice Buddhist or not comes down to
just that.
Tang Huyen
Ali Hassan
some very ordinary words and wrote in unforgettable fashion :
>
>
>Mike Austin wrote: <<As far as I understand, no one is suggesting that the
>teacher can teach 'awakening'. The teacher can teach techniques and practices
>that clear away the obstacles. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot
>make it drink. Some horses cannot even be lead to water, though!
>
>From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
>there, neither 'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.>>
>
>I'm afraid I have to disagree, Mike. In the Buddha's Buddhism, all that occurs
>is governed by Dependent Arisal. Delusion and awakening, faring-on and
>blowing-out, all are governed by it, so that nothing escapes legality (which
>is what Dependent Arisal means, not causality). Delusion is governed by the
>"arising" sequence, and awakening is governed by the "ceasing" sequence.
>Nothing is outside the purview of Dependent Arisal.
>
>From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there. When we are
>there, conditions still pertain. There is no state to which neither
>'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.
>
>Only the Abhidhamma-Abhidharma, by reifying abstract concepts, comes to assert
>various unconditioneds (see our friend Punnadhammo), and the Great
>Assemblyers, by likewise giving in to speculation, come to assert various
>"magical" states as unconditioned, which will be inherited by the Great
>Vehicle.
>
>Tang Huyen
I fear you miss the point, Tang. Conditions can be shaped to effect a
desired end of conditions. Free will. As you like to mention the
paradox of buddhism, this is essentially the same paradox. A true
teacher is also an unmuddied channel to the Unconditioned, and lays
out a methodology to do same.....what is not mentioned is that the
true teacher can give the experience of the Unconditioned to the
seeker, way ahead of time. And not necessarily is there any sudden
"blowing out" which happens virtually spontaneously. It is a gradual
progression to the cathartic finality. Again paradoxical.
Within the conditions, the Master is one who has mastered the rules
and conditions.
Naturally, as difficult as the Unconditioned is to find, likewise
the real teachers are also obscure. They have no need to stay 'alive'.
Conehead
flower? That he was getting tuned into Buddha's experience? Huh? Do ya?
I'd like to tune you into my experience. Or get tuned into yours, I'm
sure it would be interesting. Pass the Frequency Modulator apparatus
please.
:-)
--
Looking for an enlightened soul-mate?
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/zen/illsing.html
Jackie
You wrote to Dharma troll:
>Dear Dharmatroll,
>
>Now if you could just post this to alt.krishnamurti.talk you would be doing
>fine:-)
Splendid quotes, those, eh?
But without wanting to contradict you or be rude, may I put across my
opinions. Our views may differ on some points, but if they do, this of
course does not indicate any lack of respect. :-)
>But the buddha himself taught and up to a certain point he also was taught,
>and as a matter of fact, the quotes below are also "teachings" so sure, you
>CAN do it alone, and ultimately you MUST, but it would be a lot easier with
>a guide to point out the way for you in the early stages. Buddhist
>practices are techniques,
I'm not sure if K would agree with this. To be yourself is not really
a practice or technique... You would have to let go of the necessity
of practice and technique! It's a matter of how you view Buddhism,
isn't it? Always is I guess. Human beings are so different and diverse
in their thinking, they'll always disagree and have opposing
perspectives.
For me, in Buddhism, there is nothing to practice.
>just like any other technique and need to be
>learned and actually practiced in the early stages,
>
>BUT.......!!!!!
>
>Just as nobody can teach you to have talent, but can teach you only the
>rudiments, the outward skills and the philosophy of it, the spiritual work
>has to be done on your own. Ultimately you do it yourself. So we are
>probably both right in that view.
Speaking personally, I don't view learning to play complex pieces on
the piano as something particularly similar to 'being able to be
yourself'. In piano practice you're acquiring skills, on an external
object, that you do not have, you're learning them. In Buddhism, on
the path to self knowledge and acceptance, you have all the skills
already there. Nothing to learn. Only so much to unlearn!
But I take your point about having someone there to encourage you.
It's nice, easier, useful, helpful to have someone there to refer to,
I love it, but not strictly necessary.
>If you took a total newbie and told them to just go and cease mentation,
>etc. etc. without some rudimentary instructions and even some further along
>instructions too, they would probably give up after a couple of tries and
>forget about it.
Yes. I think the archetypal newbie would need some kind of mixture of
ideas to open out the agenda for him or her? Reading several different
books, perhaps visiting a few different centres and maybe taking part
in discussions (this last being the best, most eye-opening). If it
pleases one, one can label these things "teachers". However, isn't
search a very basic human drive? Won't most people 'start wondering'
at some point in their lives, what it's all about, what is the
meaning..? Do not many people turn to religion for the explanations?
Some to cults. Some to mystic ideas. Some to science. It is when you
do not seek desperately to explain and justify your existence any
more, give up that idea, that truth starts to seep in, like dye in
water. Soon it will blend in smoothly, forever. Most people,
especially when they are young, go through a questioning period. The
questions, the wondering and the beginnings of search can be seen in
almost everyone - it's how far they pursue these thoughts that lead to
the various conclusions people come to. A personal theory: people who
are devoutly religious are running scared and are the types who dare
not look truth in the face. They turn the other butt cheek to truth
and dive their heads under the blanket of the God-Creator theory.
Ridiculous idea to anyone with half an open brain ( - but damn! My
prejudice is showing).
>So although I cannot disagree with any of the quotes below ultimately, I
>also am fairly certain that few people are able to "just do it" without some
>help. I for one am glad of that help, as I surely needed and still
>sometimes do need it.
This is because you view Buddhism as some kind of artful practice?
Perhaps if you were 'just yourself', you would need no guide, as such?
Jackie.
>> "All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and
>> understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy
>> the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be
>> your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question
>> everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
>> -- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, p. 21
>>
>>"The primary cause of disorder in ourselves is the seeking of reality
>> promised by another... It is a most extraordinary thing that although
>> most of us are opposed to political tyranny and dictatorship, we
>> inwardly accept the authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our
>> minds and our way of life.
>> -- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, p. 10
>>No way, you sniveling sychophant! I back the Tangster on this one.
>>As my root-troll Jiddu Krishamurti said:
>>
>>"Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek
>> security in your particular belief, you become separated from those
>> who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs
>> are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood."
>>"It is tradition, the accumulation of experience, the ashes of memory,
>> that make the mind old. The mind that dies every day to the memories
>> of yesterday, to all the joys and sorrows of the past -- such a mind
>> is fresh, innocent, it has no age; and without that innocence,
>> whether you are ten or sixty, you will not find God.
>> -- J. Krishnamurti, _Think on These Things_
>>"Having realised that we can depend on no outside authority in bringing
>> about a total revolution within the structure of our own psyche, there
>> is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward
>> authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and
>> accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals. You had an
>> experience yesterday which taught you something and what it taught you
>> becomes a new authority --and that authority of yesterday is as
>> destructive as the authority of a thousand years. To understand
>> ourselves needs no authority either of yesterday or of a thousand years
>> because we are living things, always moving, flowing never resting.
>> When we look at ourselves with the dead authority of yesterday we will
>> fail to understand the living movement and the beauty and quality of
>> that movement.
>> To be free of all authority, of your own and that of another, is to
>> die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is always fresh,
>> always young, innocent, full of vigour and passion. It is only in that
>> state that one learns and observes. And for this a great deal of
>> awareness is required, actual awareness of what is going on inside
>> yourself, without correcting it or telling it what it should or should
>> not be, because the moment you correct it you have established another
>> authority, a censor.
>> -- J. Krishnamurti, _Freedom from the Known_, pp. 19-20
>>"Now the question is: can the mind be free of this egocentric activity?
Evelyn Ruut
I think this subject matter was discussed today far beyond my own abilities
in todays thread called "Where conditions pertain" After reading the
commentary there, I feel as though I have no more to say just now on the
subject.
I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful reply though....
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Jackie wrote in message <37a1932...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Mike Austin
>The Buddha says that the thought "I am" is the root of all delusion, and the
>sage has to get rid of it, but before getting even to know it, the sage has
>to penetrate the whole wall of defence mechanism, get to know himself in his
>(false) sense of self, and let go of it. But one cannot let go of something
>one is unaware of. So one has to reclaim oneself, reconnect to the alienised
>parts of oneself, then undo them by letting go of them.
Hi Tang,
I'll go along with this. In particular, "one cannot let go of something one is
unaware of." If, for example, one is merely looking at the aggregates and not
finding 'self', that is not sufficient to understand emptiness. In fact, just
doing this could well lead to nihilism. First of all, one has to establish the
'self' - and then go looking for it. This can be through something unexpected.
When someone falsely accuses us, something rises inside that seems to be quite
firmly established. This is what should be investigated.
--
Mike Austin
Tang Huyen
chino...@my-deja.com wrote: <<the fingers-pointing-at-moon metaphor comes
from ch'an, and reflects ch'an's taoist heritage.>>
Tang: <<It comes from an Indian Buddhist text, Lankavatara-sutra.>>
Chino: <<tang, i find this most interesting. would you be so kind as to
provide a precise citation within that sutra? in another lifetime (or what
seems it anyway) whilst studying for a doctorate in chinese philosophy, i
was taught that the metaphor itself developed within ch'an but derived from
the early tao-chia (philosophical-taoist) theories of language which had
helped form ch'an. i would be most interested to see any lankavatara-sutra
passage which served instead as source for the metaphor.
thanks in advance.>>
Tang: <<Lamotte, Traité, I, 538, n. 2 gives the Sanskrit of
Lankavatara-sutra, ed. Suzuki, 196, and also gives the Tibetan translation.
He points out that Suzuki's English translation, 169, is imperfect. His
French translation: "Il ne faut pas faire comme celui qui regarde le doigt.
Mahamati, c'est comme si on montrait du doigt quelque chose à quelqu'un et
que celui-ci s'obstinât à regarder seulement le bout du doigt; de même, ô
Mahamati, les stupides Profanes, comme de véritables enfants, restent
attachés à ce bout du doigt qu'on appelle l'interprétation littérale, et ils
mourront ainsi attachés au bout du doigt qu'on appelle la lettre. Pour avoir
négligé le sens désigné par le bout du doigt qu'on appelle l'interprétation
littérale, ils ne pénétreront pas dans l'Absolu." Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25,
1509, 125b, Lanka: T 670, 507a, T 671, 551c, T 672, 616a.>>
Chino: <<thanks, tang, but i am still not *fully* convinced that this
passage is the immediate precursor of ch'an's finger-pointing-at-moon
metaphor. the lanky passage you cite sures gives one the doigt a lot, but
where the lune enters into it just is not claire. but then again, the lune
*is* quelque chose, so perhaps the sutra *is* the ancestor.
are you (or anyone else) aware of the earliest recorded instance of the
fullblown finger-AND-moon metaphor? i would be most intrigued to read any
study that has been done of that text, whatever it is, and its origins and
antecedents.
je te remercie!
salut,
chino>>
The very passage of the Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 125b1-2 to which
Lamotte, Traité, I, 538 appends note 2 above says: "Supposons un homme qui
montra du doigt la lune à des gens doutant de sa présence; si ces hésitants
fixent le doigt, mais ne regardent pas la lune, cet homme leur dit: 'Je vous
montra la lune du doigt pour que vous la remarquiez. Pourquoi fixez-vous mon
doigt au lieu de regarder la lune?'" I looked up the original, and Lamotte's
translation is good. (It belongs to volume 9 and is not in the partial
English translation at http://www.kalavinka.org/toc.htm, which jumps from
volume 7 to 11).
This passage, which contains the full-blown finger-AND-moon metaphor, may or
may not be the earliest recorded instance of it, but surely predates Chan by
some centuries. My research indicates that the Dà zhì dù lùn (the partial
French translation of which by Lamotte is awful, full of errors of
translation and interpretation, though the annotation is superb) is (badly)
translated from an Indo-Aryan (not Sanskrit) original composed probably in
Central Asia, but is (mostly) not a Chinese product. Chan masters read it
like mad.
J'espère que tu es satisfait, mon copain. Ou voudrais-tu que je m'y aille
dix-huit fois?
Tang Huyen
John Waterman
Mike Austin <mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YJNYMBAk...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk...
Mike,
I think you are over complicating here.
Investigating that which arises when falsley accused is a good example of
"looking at the aggregates". I would view that which arises to be elements
of the aggregates, and through looking at and investigating them would know
them as not-self, impermenant and imperfect.
But then I have this dukkha, anicca, anatta obsession.
Regards
John
lawrence day
Non! Je (pour l'audience) protester!
Quel'que meaneth, nous demandez!
Les 'quoatjions' perplexer! Sans doubt!
Vailllablez en Englais? Nous preferons!
Gettez realez, por favor, dude.
fractured,
--laurent
Tang Huyen
Jackie wrote: <<For me, in Buddhism, there is nothing to practice.>>
If so, how does the ox get from the all-black state at the beginning to the
all-white state at the end? By magic? Or by grace from God?
Jackie: <<A personal theory: people who are devoutly religious are running scared
and are the types who dare not look truth in the face. They turn the other butt
cheek to truth and dive their heads under the blanket of the God-Creator theory.
Ridiculous idea to anyone with half an open brain ( - but damn! My prejudice is
showing).>>
Most of this is true except the part: "dive their heads under the blanket of the
God-Creator theory". They can very effectively dive their heads behind the
diversion (in the Pascalian sense of divertissement) which many so-called
meditations or visualisations or recitations consist in. They get mesmerised by
the vivid imagery of them, or just the drone-like repetition of something, like a
mantra or a name, and that (relative) concentration of mind ironically helps them
keep their attention from themselves and focus it on something else instead,
namely that meditation or visualisation or recitation. So a blanket to block
themselves from themselves can be perfectly non-theistic. Devotion can wear many
masks.
Jackie: <<This is because you view Buddhism as some kind of artful practice?
Perhaps if you were 'just yourself', you would need no guide, as such?>>
This is the whole opposition between artificialism and non-artificialism
(naturalism). In Brahmanism/Hinduism and Christianity, God/Brahma creates the
world by mentating it, sets it to order by mentating it, and keeps it in
existence and in order by mentating it. In the Buddha's Buddhism, on the
contrary, the world is governed by Dependent Arisal, it takes care of itself
quietly that way, and one needs not at all worry about its existence and
orderliness but can rely on its legality to guarantee its continued existence and
orderliness.
So instead of controlling one's mind to control the world, one simply is present
to the world, and the best way to be present to the world -- to its effulgence --
is not to divert oneself from it at all by mentation, but just to be aware of it
and otherwise leave it to be itself. So the best way to be "just oneself" is to
entertain no thought and no self at all but just to flow with the present of the
world, which rushes on and on so fast that one has no chance to build up a self
to fool oneself with. One opens oneself to the world, the world opens itself to
one, and between the two there is no gap, which would be created by thought or by
a self. This is what the Chinese Buddhists mean when they say: "Just so, just so"
(the two Chinese characters beginning each sutra, repeated twice).
Simple enough, heh?
Tang Huyen
Mike Austin
watermans.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I think you are over complicating here.
>Investigating that which arises when falsley accused is a good example of
>"looking at the aggregates". I would view that which arises to be elements
>of the aggregates, and through looking at and investigating them would know
>them as not-self, impermenant and imperfect.
>But then I have this dukkha, anicca, anatta obsession.
Hi John,
When this 'self' arises (e.g. from a false accusation), we have something to
look for. And we can look among the aggregates as we both agree. On analysis,
however, the 'self' cannot be found within the aggregates or outside them. If
you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates, in what way does
this differ from when the 'self' has not arisen so strongly and suddenly? Do
you not feel that something other than the aggregates is active here?
On the basis of this 'self', we act in unskilful ways and get suffering. Yet
the fluctuations of the aggregates, when uncharged by this 'self', don't give
rise to such behaviour. Therefore, what arises in this special case requires
particular consideration. My experience is that this 'self' seems to be apart
from the aggregates but manifests through them - as if they are controlled by
the 'self'. And yet the 'self' is not them, nor is it separate from them. The
illusion of this 'self' needs to be overcome, so looking at the aggregates in
its absence will not address the root problem.
--
Mike Austin
Ali Hassan
some very ordinary words, rolled the dice and wrote :
Now that you mention it, no, not exactly. I think the flower twirling
symbolized something they both knew.
>I'd like to tune you into my experience. Or get tuned into yours, I'm
>sure it would be interesting. Pass the Frequency Modulator apparatus
>please.
>:-)
You've got your own, I'm sure.
DharmaTroll
Mike Austin <Mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
DT:
<< Also, Evelyn's example is one of *acquisition*, of technical prowess,
of accumulation and gain. Awakening is just the *opposite*. It is the
ending of time, thought, mentation, conceptual baggage. It is not an
accumulation.
> Hi DT,
Hi, Mike!
> I think you've missed the point entirely here.
Do you really think so? You don't think maybe I understood the point,
but was making a different one which I thought counter-balanced it?
Or that maybe I didn't miss the point, but I just disagreed with it?
> As far as I understand, no one is suggesting that the teacher can
> teach 'awakening'. The teacher can teach techniques and practices
> that clear away the obstacles.
Right. I agree. However, I was talking about teachers who are
*creating* obstacles instead of helping to clear them away. Since
clearing them away is the goal, then creating more and more obstacles
is going to be counterproductive, don't you think?
> From where we stand now, conditions are required to get there.
> When we are there, neither 'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain.
I hate that sing-songy talk, Mike. Don't give me crap about "neither
'conditions' nor 'non-conditions' pertain". That is New-Age Zenny babble
and double-talk nonsense that you are repeating. Or else, then spell out
a concrete example of a condition, a non-condition, and a neither'of'em,
and explain what you mean carefully. Don't just feed me fortune cookies.
<< "Having realised that we can depend on no outside authority in
bringing about a total revolution within the structure of our own
psyche, there is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our
own inward authority, the authority of our own particular little
experiences and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals.>>
> Ah yes, this is the crux of the matter. We have to overcome both of
> these. There are problems if we don't balance the way we do this.
> The root cause of the problem is the internal grasping at self.
Well, ok, but why so abstract? See, I never have grasped at a 'self'.
I've never seen or heard or tasted or smelled or touched a 'self'.
So I ain't got a clue about that. Rather, I grasp at lots of other
stuff, like cute girls. I think it's simply grasping that's the problem.
Especially if you get slapped.
> This sometimes appears as grasping at another as an authority but
> the problem actually stems from an attachment to a wrong view -
No way, Mike. The "right view is one of the opinions and not the others"
is nonsense. If you are attached to *any* view, that's a wrong view!
> and this rises from the fundamental ignorance grasping at self.
Now you're talking in circles and are back to that stuff again.
Look, it's much more simple than that. There is craving going on,
and we suffer, and there is something insatiable about our craving,
and fulfilling it doesn't seem to get rid of it, nor does starving it.
'Self' is perhaps a word we use to mean our interpretation that there
is something permanent and solid amidst the waterfall of thoughts and
sensation. So we can check that out and watch it carefully and get to
know our experiences and find out.
> When emptiness is taught (at least in the Tibetan Gelug school),
> emptiness of self should precede emptiness of other. The reason for
> this is because an understanding of emptiness of other can cause pride
First of all, any child who has meditated for 2 minutes can see that
emptiness is easier to see on oneself because we have access to our
own insides, the sensations and thoughts and memories, whereas we have
only access to other people's outsides. Since we can experience only
this set of experiences, we can examine them in ways we can't others.
> we remove all authority (which is only a projected authority) from
> others, a strong sense of our own authority is established.
No, that doesn't follow. Our inward authorities are already established.
Removing outside ones cuts off the supply lines that reinforce the
inward ones, but the real work is still to be done. Removing the outside
authority always weakens the inner authority. The greatest pride is
found in those who prostrate endlessly, as they boast about how humble
they have become. Humility is the worst kind of pride their is because
it is so deceptive; whereas pride like Tang's is laughable and can be
seen through by any fool.
> We even forget the fact that we are ignorant!
Well, when we 'surrender' to a guru, we pretend that we know that we
are ignorant, but really we are scheming, you see. We are convinced
that we are so wise that we know that our guru is right and others
are wrong. We say "Thy Will not mine be done" but really we are
basking in reflected glory and identifying with our ego-projection.
Pretending to be ignorant and humble is the most deadly kind of pride.
> Therefore, we try to view others as more important than ourselves
That is psychologically impossible. Also, it has nothing to do with
Buddhism. Rather, the Buddha very clearly pointed out that comparing
ourselves as inferior, superior, or equal to others were all bad
strategies. Viewing others as more important is probably the worse
of the lot, whereas again, if we simply assume we are the most
important being in the universe, in about five minutes we will be
laughing at ourselves. Try it. Anyway, viewing others as more important
is 100% ego, as it is that reverse-pride of feeling one-up on those
who think they are better, whereas we secretly think we are better
because we claim we are nothing.
Did you hear about the time Henry Chia, Evelyn, and Tang went to the
Tibetan temple together? Henry went up to the big bronze Buddha and
started prostrating, chanting "I am nothing, I am nobody". Then Evelyn
also started prostrating, saying "I am nothing, I am nobody." After a
while, Tang also started prostrating and chanting, "I am nothing,
I am nobody." Henry elbowed Evelyn and whispered, "So look and see
who thinks *he's* nobody!"
The self-deception of placing yourself below others is a very common
religious ego second-order tactic. The rationalizations you present
don't pay off and it leads to more dependence on authorities, not less.
As Krishnamurti says:
<<"One is everlastingly comparing oneself with another, with what one
is, with what one should be, with someone who is more fortunate.
This comparison really kills. Comparison is degrading, it perverts
one's outlook. And on comparison one is brought up. All our education
is based on it and so is our culture. So there is everlasting struggle
to be something other than what one is. The understanding of what one
is uncovers creativeness, but comparison breeds competitiveness,
ruthlessness, ambition, which we think brings about progress.
Progress has only led so far to more ruthless wars and misery than
the world has ever known. To bring up children without comparison is
true education"
-- J. Krishnamurti, _Krishnamurti, A Biography,_ by Pupul Jayakar,
pp. 255-256 >>
> This entails some ceding (or projecting) of authority on them.
> It's in our own interests to do this,
No, it's in *their* interest. Yeah I know: they claim that since we are
attached, clinging to our money and possessions will lead us to suffer,
so by their taking our money and buying swimming pools and Rolls Royces,
(for they are immune to such evil attachment) they are merely acting out
of compassion by not letting us hurt ourselves with our attachments!
Ok, that's a cynical story that only applies to charlatans perhaps.
But equally silly is *ever* ceding authority to *anyone*. Rather, we
can open ourselves up to other human beings who have qualities which
we admire. We never have to go on autopilot.
> We must never throw out mindfulness.
That's the spirit! Yet *any* ceding of authority *necessarily* entails
throwing out some mindfulness. That's the kicker. They are incompatible.
> There's no permanent investment of authority in others.
There's no permanent anything, Mike. However, look around you.
People claim that if you plant apple seeds, a kangaroo will grow.
No. You plant the seeds of authority, you become more dogmatic.
Those people who say what you are saying rarely come back 20 years
later and say "it was all a game, a upaya, a skillful means, and
now I realise that it is all metaphor and there are no gurus or
boddhisattvas or realms and the teachers were just pretending to be
gurus to help me, and now I've shed all the superstitions and I'm
going to go live life fully and climb a tree, paint a picture, get
a pretty girlfriend and curl up with her next to the fireplace and
sip warm apple cider and snuggle..."
No, Mike. 20 years later they are more lost than ever. Except now
they talk about working toward some goal in some alleged *future*
lifetime; and they go insatiably chasing that ineffable carrot on a
stick until they drop dead. No, it *is* a permanent attachment, and
this is just the first investment. Don't kid yourself.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< "The greater the outward show, the greater the inward poverty; but
freedom from this poverty is *not* the loin-cloth. The cause of
this inward emptiness is the desire to become; and, do what you
will, this emptiness can never be filled. You may escape from it
in a crude way, or with refinement; but it is as near to you as
your shadow. You may not want to look into this emptiness, but
nevertheless it is there. The adornments and the renunciations
that the self assumes can never cover this inward poverty.
If we are able to face that emptiness, to be with that aching
loneliness, then fear altogether disappears and a fundamental
transformation takes place. For this to happen, there must be
the experiencing of that nothingness--which is prevented if there
is an experiencer. If there is a desire for the experiencing of
that emptiness in order to overcome it, to go above and beyond it,
then there is no experiencing; for the self, as an identity,
continues. If the experiencer has an experience, there is no longer
the state of experiencing. It is the experiencing of what is
without naming it that brings about freedom from what is."
--J. Krishnamurti, _Commentaries on Living, First Series_ p. 54 >>
chino...@my-deja.com
touché! et maintenant, vraiement, la lune est claire, on peut la
voir! merci!
> This passage, which contains the full-blown finger-AND-moon metaphor,
may or
> may not be the earliest recorded instance of it, but surely predates
Chan by
> some centuries. My research indicates that the Dà zhì dù lùn (the
partial
> French translation of which by Lamotte is awful, full of errors of
> translation and interpretation, though the annotation is superb) is
(badly)
> translated from an Indo-Aryan (not Sanskrit) original composed
probably in
> Central Asia, but is (mostly) not a Chinese product. Chan masters
read it
> like mad.
alors, c'est fascinant comme explication des origines de la métaphore...
> J'espère que tu es satisfait, mon copain.
mais parfaitement, ça va sans dire!
> Ou voudrais-tu que je m'y aille
> dix-huit fois?
non, ce n'est pas nécessaire, ça...
> Tang Huyen
encore une fois, merci!
chino
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote: <<However, look around you. People claim that if you
plant apple seeds, a kangaroo will grow. No. You plant the seeds of
authority, you become more dogmatic. Those people who say what you are
saying rarely come back 20 years later and say "it was all a game, a upaya,
a skillful means, and now I realise that it is all metaphor and there are no
gurus or boddhisattvas or realms and the teachers were just pretending to be
gurus to help me, and now I've shed all the superstitions and I'm going to
go live life fully and climb a tree, paint a picture, get a pretty
girlfriend and curl up with her next to the fireplace and sip warm apple
cider and snuggle..."
No, Mike. 20 years later they are more lost than ever. Except now they talk
about working toward some goal in some alleged *future* lifetime; and they
go insatiably chasing that ineffable carrot on a stick until they drop dead.
No, it *is* a permanent attachment, and this is just the first investment.
Don't kid yourself.>>
Isn't Tyree Hilkert an instance of those who <<[rarely] come back 20 years
later and say "it was all a game, a upaya, a skillful means, and now I
realise that it is all metaphor and there are no gurus or boddhisattvas or
realms and the teachers were just pretending to be gurus to help me, and now
I've shed all the superstitions and I'm going to go live life fully and
climb a tree, paint a picture, get a pretty girlfriend and curl up with her
next to the fireplace and sip warm apple cider and snuggle...">>
He gets savaged by some in ARBT for just that. A turncoat, which is much,
much worse than a non-believer.
I fully agree with: "You plant the seeds of authority, you become more
dogmatic." Buddhism is all about freedom, and you don't learn to be free if
you enslave yourself. The Perfection of Wisdom scriptures talk endlessly
about equality (samata), by which they mean equanimity, yet you don't learn
equanimity by practicing grovelling servility.
Tang Huyen
John Waterman
> In article <7nqm4j$302$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Waterman <john@the-
> watermans.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
> >I think you are over complicating here.
> >Investigating that which arises when falsley accused is a good example of
> >"looking at the aggregates". I would view that which arises to be
elements
> >of the aggregates, and through looking at and investigating them would
know
> >But then I have this dukkha, anicca, anatta obsession.
>
> Hi John,
>
> When this 'self' arises (e.g. from a false accusation), we have something
to
> look for. And we can look among the aggregates as we both agree. On
analysis,
> however, the 'self' cannot be found within the aggregates or outside them.
Mike,
IMO it is a *sense* of 'self' that arises. It arises, changes and ceases.
Notice its nature. Mental conditions, formations. Nothing more. So these
mental conditions that give rise to a sense of self can be found within the
aggregates, and only become a *self* when not known as such.
If
> you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates, in what way
does
> this differ from when the 'self' has not arisen so strongly and suddenly?
If you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates the 'self'
will not arise so strongly and suddenly.
Do
> you not feel that something other than the aggregates is active here?
>
No - unless ignorance is lending a hand :-)
> On the basis of this 'self', we act in unskilful ways and get suffering.
Yet
> the fluctuations of the aggregates, when uncharged by this 'self', don't
give
> rise to such behaviour. Therefore, what arises in this special case
requires
> particular consideration. My experience is that this 'self' seems to be
apart
> from the aggregates but manifests through them - as if they are controlled
by
> the 'self'. And yet the 'self' is not them, nor is it separate from them.
I just don't see this Mike. The special case you talk about seems just to be
when a certain group of feelings, perceptions and mental formations arise.
It is important to be mindful of their nature (There's that dukkha, anicca,
anatta obsession again) because they can give rise to this sense of self so
strongly - it still doesn't mean that there is some other kind of 'self'
controlling everything.
> illusion of this 'self' needs to be overcome,
But it *is* just an illusion. A false perception. And when seen as such what
is there left to strive to overcome.
> so looking at the aggregates in
> its absence will not address the root problem.
> --
> Mike Austin
"looking at the aggregates in its absence" makes no sense to me I'm afraid.
I may be misinterpreting much of what you have written (for which I
apologise) but IMO when meditating on the aggregates one notices that which
is there to be noticed. If the sense of self does not arise, notice
something else.
Regards
John
Punnadhammo
Krishnamurti is an inappropriate example to bring up in regards to the
question of teacher/student relations. He seems to have been that rare type
who doesn't need one. (Probably, because of considerable work done in
previous lifetimes, but you couldn't relate to that could you?)
Most of us will never make any progress without teaching. All the brave
talk about freedom from authority etc. is really only so much eyewash. What
happens in reality to the self-taught Buddhist is that, rare exceptions
like Krishnamurti notwithstanding, they end up following the authority of
the cravings.
Buddhist tradition, btw, does recognize the possibility of enlightenment
without teaching. Such beings are called Paccekabuddhas and they are
extremely rare.
It is one of the sad corruptions of modernism that so many think they can
blithely dispense with traditions and teaching lineages that have been
patiently and labouriously built up over hundreds of years. The arrogance
of such thinking is mind-boggling.
--
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
Arrow River Community Center
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc
Punnadhammo
Ali Hassan
(Punnadhammo) took some very ordinary words, rolled the dice and wrote
:
>Dharmatroll,
>
>Krishnamurti is an inappropriate example to bring up in regards to the
>question of teacher/student relations. He seems to have been that rare type
>who doesn't need one. (Probably, because of considerable work done in
>previous lifetimes, but you couldn't relate to that could you?)
Krishnamurti was a total sham. He was initiated at an early age by
Besant. Even if he said he rejected that, as long as he engaged in any
sort of meditation, he was nourishing it. What a joker.
Srini Rao
> Dharmatroll,
>
> Krishnamurti is an inappropriate example to bring up in regards to the
> question of teacher/student relations. He seems to have been that rare type
> who doesn't need one. (Probably, because of considerable work done in
> previous lifetimes, but you couldn't relate to that could you?)
>
> Most of us will never make any progress without teaching. All the brave
> talk about freedom from authority etc. is really only so much eyewash. What
> happens in reality to the self-taught Buddhist is that, rare exceptions
> like Krishnamurti notwithstanding, they end up following the authority of
> the cravings.
>
> Buddhist tradition, btw, does recognize the possibility of enlightenment
> without teaching. Such beings are called Paccekabuddhas and they are
> extremely rare.
>
> It is one of the sad corruptions of modernism that so many think they can
> blithely dispense with traditions and teaching lineages that have been
> patiently and labouriously built up over hundreds of years. The arrogance
> of such thinking is mind-boggling.
>
> --
> Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
> Arrow River Community Center
> http://www.baynet.net/~arcc
That is indeed very well said, Bhante. Traditions and teachers are after all
rafts to be ultimately dispensed with. Yet, it is an extremism of sorts to
think that in each and every case one must do either with or without them. The
problem often is not with the traditions or teachers as much as it is with our
tendency to cling to them. Even Buddha did not reject the traditions and
teachers of his times outright, but instead used them to the extent they were
useful to him. Perhaps we men should have the same attitude towards teachers
and traditions that we often instinctively seem to have towards women - use
them for what they are worth, while continually evaluatiing their "worth" in
the light of one's experience.
Cheers.
Karma Tharchin
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7nmegq$h8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <379DB6D5...@bu.edu>,
> Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Tang:
> > Well, congratulations, DT, you called Penor Rinpoche "a superstitious
> > shaman", and got away with it. I said that much of the Tibetan Tantras
> > were shamanistic rather than Buddhist, and got blasted at repeatedly,
> > though nobody has tried to refute my allegation.
Buddhist buddhism tends to disassociate itself from ritual (shaman). As we
know shamans exist in primitive civilization, and some of their tradition
continue to these days. The similarity of Shamanism in Tantras is not the
fault of Tibetan Buddhism, the vajrayana tradition of both India and the
east (Japan and China) also bear similarity. Therefore, when criticising
Tibetan Buddhism as Shamanist, one is actually criticising the whole
tradition of vajrayana, including those tantras spoken by the historical
buddha himself. Before criticing, one is well advised to develop insight
into the nature of tantra, to see whether it bears similarity with primitive
Shamanism or not. If one can spend just a moment developing this insight,
one will discover that not only they bear no similarity both in term of
origins and objective, they also have no connection with each other.
> Anyway, Penor, and his student here on our ng, Mahasanti, are very
> shamanistic. But I'm not trying to whack Tibetan Buddhism and claiming
> that it isn't Buddhism, Tang. I'm just pointing out some of the problems
> when people from another culture naively swallow the 'package plan'.
Bear in mind that shamanism is a tradition, if it works, it is a knowledge.
If it doesn't work, but one continue to follow, that is called
superstitious. In buddhist tantra, one also follow a tradition of tantra, if
it works, it is a knowledge of relative truth, if it doesn't work, but one
continue to follow, that is called abiding in percepts. By abiding in
percept, one is abiding in dharma. As long as there is percept, there is
buddhism, by abiding in percept, there will be progress in the path of
dharma. One only need to understand that external ritual are the external
percept of tantra, just as the practice of vipassana is the percept of
primitive buddhism. Since both the external ritual and vipassana is a
practice, in reality there is no differences in term of the notion of
ritual, although a practitioner of vipassana will denial that he is
practicing a form of ritual, that is because he is upholding a notion of a
ritual. For a person who abide in percept, there is no notion of a ritual,
even though to one who hold such a notion will argue that he is practicing
ritual. In term of a tantric practitioner, a retreat in ritual is the
equavalent of the severe ascetism of a primitive buddhist who abide in
renouciating the 8 worldly concerns.
The ritual of tantra is more effective than the ritual of a vipassana
practitioner, if the practitioner possessed a stronger attachment to the
three dorminating emotions. Unless a practitioner possessed a nature
tendency to renounce the three poisonous emotions which fuel the 8 worldly
concerns, the hinayana buddhist meditation will not be able to calm his
disturbing mind. It's a great miracle to see laymen and women who can abide
in vipassana, giving the attraction of the modern world. To desire the
extinction of all cankers, is a great miracle that occur during one's
journey in samsara. May those who possess such motivation, preserve it, but
may they not take pride in themselves and openly criticize the tantric
practitioners who abide in an object of ritual different from theirs.
>
> > << If you actually accepted literal rebirth, HH Penor Rinpoche would
> > -- axiomatically -- be *incapable* of "making a mistake." HHPR is
> > considered a living buddha, whose recognitions are not subject to
> > "mistake." >>
On the other hand, one may be a reincarnation, and still be capable of
making a mistake. It is not possible to find a single being who is not a rei
ncarnation of someone else. But being reincarnated doesn't make one
incapable of making a mistake. In fact the power to take reincarnation lies
in cultivating the mind of a sentient being, otherwise buddhas have no
connection to rebirth. HHPR's recognition is not subject to mistake, neither
is a being's recognition is subject to mistake, when he is being recognized
as such.
> Right. But not all, or even most, of Tibetan Buddhists adopt such a
> framework. See, I'm claiming that its the UFO/Fundamentalist types
> *here* who latch that follow-authority-surrender-be-a-sheep mentality
> onto Tibetan Buddhism. The practices themselves aren't at fault, rather
> our naive attempts to take them at face value.
You cannot make Tibetan Buddhism right even by not taking them at face
value, you can only make it right, when you enter the mandala and take the
nectars of samaya. It is like a contract, unless you sign up, the contract
is useless. To make the signing of a contract valid, you need a lawyer and a
witness. In case of vajrayana, the guru is the lawyer, and the invisible 3
roots are the witness. The nectars from the vase initiation is the nectar of
contract, in which after drinking it, you can only adhere to it which lead
to accomplishment, or break it which lead to the avici hell.
>
>
> << Total surrender to one's root guru is a prerequisite of Vajrayana,
> as everyone here knows. >>
>
> See, that's bullshit. If that were true, then it wouldn't be Buddhism,
> it would be cultism of the worst kind. Steven Batchelor certainly
> claims just the opposite of this, and he was trained as a TB monk!
> Being a drone on autopilot is *not* a prerequisite for any kind of
> Buddhism, Vajrayana or other. Buddhism is rather about waking up and
> being mindful, not mindlessly following the orders of the leaders.
This is due to your ignorance of buddhism in the principal of vajrayana,
which mean the path of vajra. Vajra means indestructible. To understand
vajrayana, you need to understand what constitute indestructibility. In
order to possess indestructibility, you need a root which is indestructible,
that root is Buddhahood, to turn the wheel of vajrayana, that root must be
representated by a three principal. There are a triple three principals (3 x
3 = 9), i.e. the trikaya, three roots, and three jewels. Primitive buddhism
only spoken of the three jewels. The higher ones contained the three jewels
without the need to refer to them. The path of vajrayana is needed in order
to successfully turn the wheel of dharma after the Buddha's parinirvana, the
general vehicle of hinayana and mahayana are just not powerful enough to
turn the dharma at the degeneration time where the disturbing emotions are
much much stronger. After the buddhism's infastructure has been prepared by
the leaders and followers of vajrayana, then those learnt scholars can relax
in their coziness, or spend their time speculating, or even criticizing
those who practice against their form of buddhism. They have no part in the
work of construction or restoration of the buddhas' tradition, nor do they
possessed the capacity to do so, except to bring disharmony within sangha.
They waste their idle time arguing about what is to be mindful, they boost
about their awakening, belittling their leaders, they make themselves above
others, creating conflict within buddhist traditions. A fully awakened
person never talks about such things, he has forgotten the name of
unawakening, and so he seldom talks about awakening. Neither did he boost
his mindfulness, for in the continous stream of dharmata, to be unmindful is
impossible. Because he is inseparable from buddhism, therefore without
upholding the notion of buddhism, he does not argue about what is buddhism,
or non-buddhism. To those who follow a teachers have their need to do so,
for those who don't follow teachers, the liberated ones had the need to be
liberated from all.
>
> So the root guru crap has to go. It's got to be seen as a commitment
> to, say, mindfulness, or to taking the three refuges, or to some of
> the mythological boddisattvas. Surrendering to a mythological teacher,
> like those five Jinas and so forth, something like that. And just as
> you would with a doctor, always get a second opinion if your teacher
> makes a strange request or acts strangely.
When one is not liberated from the trapping of samsara, the reliance on the
holy ones who have passed over to the other shore is a must, for such a
person, to let go of his object of refuge which is the guru or the three
jewels will spells disaster. When such a person take refuge in the three
jewels, the buddha is already becoming his root guru. It is not necessary to
let go of the root guru crap, if one can just let go of his notion of the
'crap' and accept the notion of 'root guru' as the buddha. Similary, if one
can let go of the notion of 'shit' and accept it as the buddha's jewel, by
that capability of letting go of preformulated notion, the clinging of
duality will be crash, then wisdom will shine, the actualization of buddha
wisdom is at hand. Therefore, when one feel the need to throw away the
reliance of a guru, the more is the need for him to overcome his notion of
guru, once that is overcome, and he finally accepted his root guru, his
dualistic clinging will be crashed, then buddhahood is as closed as in the
palm of his hand. On the other hand, when one has already relied and
sacrificed much for his root guru, when finally the ability to take reliance
on himself has arised, having realized the guru within himself, being
inseparable from his root guru, he would have actualize buddhahood.
Therefore, the root guru tradition is the special characteristic of the
superior vehicle of enlightenment. When a tradition is of an inferior
vehicle, that is due to the fact that the vessels for these vehicle will be
those of lesser merit, being of lesser merit, it is not possible for these
people to be able to meet a qualified guru-buddha in their lifetime, being a
vehicle for inferior vessels, the general vehicle of hinayana and mahayana
have not taught the guru-discipleship principal which is vital for the
vehicle that lead directly to buddhahood.
>
> I mean, the Sufis are *way* ahead of the Vajrayanists when it comes to
> practical issues and the 'surrender' stuff. There is an old Sufi saying:
> Trust in Allah AND tie your camel to the post!
They have Allah, but their gurus are not called Allah, only messengers of
Allah. There can only be One Allah, this is their pitfall.
>
> << "My piece of gratuitous advice is: 'If your goal is to arrive at an
> adequate understanding of yourself to enable you to navigate the swift
> currents of life without meeting disaster, NEVER limit yourself to one
> teacher.' One-stop shopping is great if all you need is a sixpack of
> beer, a can of motor oil, and a box of sanitary pads. But if what you
> need is a spiritual mentor, one-stop shopping is just plain stupid."
> -Mubul >>
There is a problem, each guru represent an ocean of dharma, and you only
need one drop in order to be liberated. If you tried to consume the ocean,
you will be consumed. Even for three kalpa, it will not be possible for you
to finish the studies of the ocean of dharma, but if you just stick to one
master and just drink to that single drop of nectars, you would have
contained the ocean.
With metta,
Karma Tharchin
URL: http://roswell.fortunecity.com/fate/199/index.html
Mahasanti
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:379EDE7B...@bu.edu...
>
>
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> DT: <<Anyway, Penor, and his student here on our ng, Mahasanti, are very
> shamanistic. But I'm not trying to whack Tibetan Buddhism and claiming
that
> it isn't Buddhism, Tang. I'm just pointing out some of the problems when
> people from another culture naively swallow the 'package plan'.>>
>
not
> been hooked yet -- can make the inference. But Henry Chia and Mahasanti
are
> *not* from "another culture": the kind of Tantric theory and practice that
> Penor peddles is native to their culture (which is roughly my native
culture
> too, where shamanism is very different from Buddhism, even corrupt
Buddhism),
> and they behave just as Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism do. At least
I
> can't tell any difference between them and Western followers of Tibetan
> Buddhism.
Taoism shaman does corrupt buddhism in some extend among chinese mahayana,
but only corrupt in the sense of language, not teaching, with the exception
of the minority of cults. In term of buddhism maintaining its authenticity,
the hinayana and mahayana are really quite self-sufficient, this is due to
the hinayana's three seals, and the mahayana principals. Although these
seals and principals which help protect the hinayana and mahayana from being
corrupt by false doctrine, it suffers the danger of striking against the
higher vehicle of teaching of the buddha which surpassed those seals and
principals. Unless they recognised the fact that the doctrine which
surpassed their seals and principals, but are not lacking in their seals and
principals, are the authentic teaching of the buddha, they run the risk of
slandering dharma once being exposed to secret mantra. It is for these
reason that the secret mantra is never a public teaching. Although its
principal is superior mahayana, it is not for the public.
And in term of language Taoism has a lot to borrow from buddhism, this is
just the mixing of traditions which is inevitable. As for South-east asia
shaman, they have yet to corrupt buddhism, it is more likely that other
major religion like catholic, and muslim will corrupt their own shamanist
tradition.
>
> Westerners are supposed to be critical and progressive, but so far as I
can
> tell, Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism (and to a lesser extent
Western
> followers of non-Tantric Great Vehicle Buddhism) are among the least
critical
> and most regressive elements of the West.
Those element of being critical and progressive are directly against the
principal of vajrayana guru-discipleship, the purpose of the guru is to
destroyed the student's tendency to be critical and rely too much on their
own intellect, for the wisdom of the ultimate transcients the relative.
>
> And indeed what you call the "package plan" may be problem: on the
positive
> it contains lots of shamanistic theory and practice, which are not
> recognisable as Buddhist by any stretch of the imagination, and on the
> negative it lacks on Buddhist element: the restraint by the discipline
> (vinaya). In Asia *outside of Tibet*, many Buddhist monks and nuns who go
> shamanistic lapse from Buddhism and go to shamanism proper or a religion
that
> is highly shamanistic.
Remember Penor Rinpoche upholds the discipline of vinaya, he is an ordained
Nyingma lama who is different from non-ordain Nyingma lamas, ordained lama
uphold the three principals of precepts, i.e. vinaya of hinayana, buddhist
precepts of mahayana and vajrayana percepts. According to Guru Rinpoche, he
predicted that his future disciples who will be mantra holders, the superior
one, or one who is regarded as holding higher rank will be lamas who is
ordained as a monk. A fully ordained Nyingma lama like Penor is not supposed
to be confused with ordinary lamas who can have wives and children. You
cannot compare a fully ordained Nyingma lama with ordinary buddhist monks
and nuns, because those ordinary monks and nuns, do not possessed the
superior vajrayana percepts, including the supreme ati percept. Only one
posessing vajrayana percepts can be call a lama, or guru, but he who possess
the percept of ati, is the jewel among them all.
>
> Think about how much a student who believes that (not the rebirth part,
which
> is harmless enough: I mean the infallibility part) would go along with, or
> deny, just about *anything*. Reminds me of Jews and ovens.}}
There is nothing special about reincarnation, it is the identity of their
former lives as accomplished yogins who make them great. Their greatness is
not without a cause and sacrifice. By their previous merit, it enable them
to continue turning the wheel of dharma in this life and the next, if they
so desire. By your tendencies, you are liable to commit the mistakes of
criticizing holy ones of the past. You must understand that those holy ones
possessed the capacity to bless anyone who will represent them, even as
emanation, not one but many, not just in this world, but in countless
worlds. So it will be utterly meaningless to debate as to who is, or is not
a real reincarnated tulkus.
> How do you know that? I would expect a priori that native Tibetan
Buddhists
> would be even less critical and more regressive than Western followers of
> Tibetan Buddhism. Of course the former have no choice whereas the latter
do,
> and indeed choose Tibetan Buddhism from a wide range of choices offered to
> them (even counting the non-Middle Eastern religions alone), and choose it
by
> self-selection (if you pass the pleonasm): as you have noticed, "they
already
> are high in the UFO factor and they relish the glitter of the rich
> mythology". Inside the platter are magic, mystery (in the literal sense),
> obscurantism, blind faith from below and authoritarianism from above (if
you
> just look at the Dalai Lama's handling of the Shugden worship), etc. The
> *whole* stew is what attracts Western followers.
The teaching is without a defect, that is what make the tradition survive.
As for people, teachers and disciples, deities and events, they changed, and
therefore should not be making it into the basis of judging the teaching of
Tibetan Buddhism. As for those mysticism stuff, in the teaching itself, you
won't find it. Neither can you see or experience those things. But they
exist in historical records, because the teaching is secret, it is not open
for public discussion, but the story in history can be told to anyone, young
and old. By talking about what is permissible, unrestricted and open, even
though it is not the teaching which is secret, it is the duty of vajrayana
practitioners to avoid reveal the secret dharma to the unsuitable vessel,
lest they suffer damage to themselves. If one ask why the historical record
exist as such, it is the gesture of masters of the past to create those
signs of miracle and feats in their disciples for a destined period, after
the wheel of dharma has been turn, such feats is no longer necessary and so,
without their intervention, those capability no longer appears in modern day
practitioners. There is no fault to talk about the story of past miracles to
put faith and encouragement in each other. But it will be of great fault to
speak a word about the practices of secret mantra to someone who has not
been initiated into vajrayana.
> Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan Buddhism,
they'll
> trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism. And as I keep saying, if you
want
> to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and crowd for that, you can
> perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and mystery least
of
> all.
Without the teacher, and without others to publish dharma books and guide
you. It is easy to talk about self reliance, the only possibility is, if
your intend should manifest as your future existence, you will be in a place
where you will never meet a teacher, student, practitioners, or books of
dharma. Indeed you will need no teacher and crowd for that, i.e. after
passing through the perfection of 6 paramitas through your own initiative,
which is doubtful at present, you will manifest buddhahood, that is for
certain! So go and teach every to follow you, they will surely manifest
self-awakening after three kalpas. It will not be hard to believe this, if
you were to recall the days before you have the chance to come across a
single book of dharma, that no matter how hard you try to reason, you just
turn your head around without ever understand anything, even though you
possessed the potential, but faith just couldn't arise without a second hand
opinion. On the other, it takes only an instant for one whose merit has
matured for him to find a root guru to pointed out to him the pitch
instruction, it is as simple as that! One instant and three kalpas, by
comparison, you have make a wise decision! The path of dharma entails wide
vision, and openness, not short-sightedness, not just for your own
situation, but for the benefit of all. Without this scope of vision, all
argument based on self-centered opinion is harmful to both self and others.
Tashi
Karma Tharchin wrote:
> DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7nmegq$h8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <379DB6D5...@bu.edu>,
> > Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tang:
> > > Well, congratulations, DT, you called Penor Rinpoche "a superstitious
> > > shaman", and got away with it. I said that much of the Tibetan Tantras
> > > were shamanistic rather than Buddhist, and got blasted at repeatedly,
> > > though nobody has tried to refute my allegation.
>
> Buddhist buddhism tends to disassociate itself from ritual (shaman). As we
> know shamans exist in primitive civilization, and some of their tradition...
snip
>
> ...If you tried to consume the ocean,
> you will be consumed. Even for three kalpa, it will not be possible for you
> to finish the studies of the ocean of dharma, but if you just stick to one
> master and just drink to that single drop of nectars, you would have
> contained the ocean.
>
> With metta,
> Karma Tharchin
> URL: http://roswell.fortunecity.com/fate/199/index.html
I predict Dharmatroll will never be able to *answer* this challenge without
(1)calling Tharchin names, (2)using inflammatory language or (3)resorting to
factious remarks about how he can't because the post makes no sense.
yours,
Tashi
Tang Huyen
Tashi wrote: <<I predict Dharmatroll will never be able to *answer* this challenge
without (1)calling Tharchin names, (2)using inflammatory language or (3)resorting
to factious remarks about how he can't because the post makes no sense.>>
What is "factious"? Do you mean "facetious" or "fictitious"?
But DT at least gets to the third item, whereas you never get past the first two.
And some of his replies are intelligent, too.
Tang Huyen
David Works
just want to explore the concept of teachers a little more. I will use art
as a close analogy.
One could learn a creative art completely alone, or with the use of texts.
A number of naturally gifted people don't need any "learning". However,
interaction with a teacher can be beneficial for many. The best teachers
focus on "un-learning" all the assumptions that you bring -- and there is a
lot of "crap" people usually bring to the arts (similar to religion,
enlightenment or any other quest). And this is done in a highly interactive
environment where the "good teacher" tailors "criticism" to each student.
Several of "my teachers" were more like Zen teachers, balancing the
introduction of new techniques with a constant challenge to habitual
beliefs. If you weren't confused, distressed, suprised and sometimes
amazed, you weren't getting "it". Of course, as with all areas of
learning/un-learning, there are good teachers and crappy teachers.
In terms of Buddhism, I don't think there are any "better paths". Some will
naturally "awaken", whatever their culture/tradition. Others only need a
"push" from texts. And some will benefit from the interaction with a
teacher. On the other hand, some may think they have awakened, to later
discover through experience that it was a delusion. A mis-reading of the
texts can be binding rather than liberating. And a shitty teacher can be
damaging. I think the "path" that best suits any individual depends on
their "internal landscape" -- their inherent capabilities and "personal
history". Whatever path/no path chosen, it is up to the individual to
"walk the walk".
I do not have a teacher or follow a specific form of Buddhism. So I
understand and value much of what you say. But I do appreciate the influx
of Buddhism in all its forms, teachers good and bad, and expressions of "the
mind at play" in this forum.
David
Tang Huyen wrote in message <37A03458...@bu.edu>...
>
>
>David Works wrote:
>
>Tang Huyen: <<Precisely. But if you say that to some followers of Tibetan
>Buddhism, they'll trash you as bashers of Tibetan Buddhism. And as I keep
>saying, if you want to wake up and be mindful, you need no teacher and
crowd for
>that, you can perfectly do it alone. The Buddha so did. You need magic and
>mystery least of all.
>
>Quite on the contrary, I scarcely see how being a drone on autopilot can in
any
>way help with waking up and being mindful.>>
>
>David: <<No disputing that you can do it alone. But a question. If the
Buddha
>did not teach, and others did not learn, would there be a "Buddhism" today?
>Aren't the writers of the texts that you believe reflect "true Buddhism"
>essentially your gurus? Did they study under teachers? To really do it
alone,
>can you give up the texts (teachings) as well (like Buddha)? One of my
favorite
>paintings is of a monk tearing up the scriptures -- which leads to magic
and
>mystery.
>
>I don't know how involved you are with the creative arts, but anyone who
pays
>attention to them (doing or appreciating) is confronted with mystery. There
is
>simply no way to "intellectually grasp" creativity or the aesthetic
experience.
>But there are ways to work with these "energies" (e.g. Tibeten Buddhism).
And
>since they can't be understood in conceptual terms, there are always
elements of
>magic and mystery. But I don't think they are as you imagine them. These
are
>common "everyday mysteries" that we learn to ignore.
>
>Tang, I think I read that you work in the computing field -- a programmer?
I
>have done this kind of work in the past, and would like to propose
something to
>you. The best programmers are not only technically competent, they are
also
>creative! As such, they exhibit "magician like" capability to work with
>creative energies that result in novel solutions. Comming up with a
solution to
>a complex problem involves at some point a leap out of concepts to
insight --
>another "little mystery".
>
>To me, a "drone on autopilot" is one who does not attempt to be mindful of
the
>"everyday mysteries".>>
>
>When I wrote of teachers above, I meant personal teachers, who teach you
>personally, not absent teachers who transmit their knowledge and wisdom to
you
>through, say, books, David. As I keep saying, you can buy the Nikayas or
their
>translations (or the Chinese Agamas, which are very hard to read), in part
or
>whole, read them, and practice accordingly, without needing a teacher, and
>you'll probably do as well as anybody else who does have a teacher. For
that
>matter, you can also read the Stoic literature, practice accordingly, and
get
>pretty well ahead in dispassion and detachment -- which are what Buddhism
is all
>about -- without teacher and without having heard of Buddhism.
>
>When I wrote of magic and mystery, I meant them literally, not
metaphorically.
>As to the "energies" that you want to work with: they are explicitly taught
in
>Eastern Orthodoxy, the word for them is the Greek "energeia", plural
>"energeiai", which means "act, operation", and wrongly translated as
"energy".
>The doctrine there, since Gregory of Nyssa (a great Tathagata-garbha
doctor), is
>that all we know from God is his acts or operations (energeiai), not his
essence
>(ousia), which is totally unknowable. We know only his manifestations
>(theo-phania), not him as he is in himself. The Eastern Orthodox meditative
>experience has many similarities with the Buddhist one, though it is far
less
>radical (just as Stoicism is like Buddhism but less radical).
>
>As to creative or aesthetic experience: I previously wrote on that topic,
in
>"Re: The art of vanishing the world (was Re: Zen and the art of losing
one's
>mind)", Date: 1999/06/11. One passage: "My take on great art, great
literature,
>great philosophy, etc. is that it occurs when the person lets himself
become
>vacant and surrender control -- thinking or creating art -- to some of his
>normally unconscious powers (including pure reason), which can then take
over
>and do their own thing through him. Normal consciousness is too cramped for
>great creativity to occur, and great creativity needs the resources of an
>expanded state of mind, in which tight control has been released and
normally
>unconscious contents and processes -- bigger in quantity and different in
nature
>-- can proceed untrammelled. After some stretch of time -- a few minutes or
>hours -- the person returns to normal consciousness and may be surprised at
what
>is in front of him."
>
>In other terms: one abdicates conscious control so that one's normally
dormant
>powers -- energies -- can have room to expand themselves and do their work
>(energeia) unhindered.
>
>So I'm not so far from where you are, David.
>
>Tang Huyen
>
>
Tashi
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Tashi wrote: <<I predict Dharmatroll will never be able to *answer* this challenge
> without (1)calling Tharchin names, (2)using inflammatory language or (3)resorting
> to factious remarks about how he can't because the post makes no sense.>>
>
> What is "factious"? Do you mean "facetious" or "fictitious"?
No, I meant factious. Look it up. Really, do I have to give grammar lessons now?
> But DT at least gets to the third item, whereas you never get past the first two.
> And some of his replies are intelligent, too.
>
> Tang Huyen
What's your point?
yours,
Tashi
Mike Austin
watermans.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Mike Austin <mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:U7C7wKAb...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>If you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates, in what way
>>does this differ from when the 'self' has not arisen so strongly and suddenly?
>
>If you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates the 'self'
>will not arise so strongly and suddenly.
Hi John,
I could imagine this to be the case, but that doesn't fit my experience. What
can happen is that the aggregates will not follow suit so swiftly - first the
rush of 'self', then the aggregates take it from there.
>>My experience is that this 'self' seems to be apart from the aggregates but
>>manifests through them - as if they are controlled by the 'self'. And yet
>>the 'self' is not them, nor is it separate from them.
>
>I just don't see this Mike. The special case you talk about seems just to be
>when a certain group of feelings, perceptions and mental formations arise.
>It is important to be mindful of their nature (There's that dukkha, anicca,
>anatta obsession again) because they can give rise to this sense of self so
>strongly - it still doesn't mean that there is some other kind of 'self'
>controlling everything.
I think you are right in that they contribute to a sense of self. In a similar
way, any possession we have contributes to it. We project 'self' or 'mine' on
things and get reflections of 'self' back. That is what we invest and that is
the return on it.
My experience is that feelings, perceptions and mental formations arise after
an initial surge, or innate assumption, of 'self'. They are imbued with 'mine'
from the start, although the concept of 'mine' comes later. So I think a false
sense of self comes prior to these phenomena, *as if* it controls them.
>> illusion of this 'self' needs to be overcome,
>
>But it *is* just an illusion. A false perception. And when seen as such what
>is there left to strive to overcome.
I know it's an illusion; you know it's an illusion. Even still, I am regularly
duped by it when I am not mindful of this. It is a liability, and that's why I
feel I must address it.
>"looking at the aggregates in its absence" makes no sense to me I'm afraid.
>I may be misinterpreting much of what you have written (for which I
>apologise) but IMO when meditating on the aggregates one notices that which
>is there to be noticed. If the sense of self does not arise, notice
>something else.
In our teachings, the aggregates are not the self, nor are they different from
the self. I presume you feel a strong sense of self on occasions. Do you think
this is, for example, part of the mental formations? Do you think an aspect of
'self' exists within these and this aspect can appear larger or smaller? Then,
these mental formations are not considered 'mine' - the property of something
external to them - but 'I' is considered inside them?
The more one looks, the harder it is to find. Of course, as you say, you could
notice something else and shift attention to that. We can observe things this
way - seeing what arises and what falls: dukha, anitya, anatman - but I wonder
if this can get to the root. If you are successful that way, that's fine. For
me, when I sit and reflect this way, I am observing that which is not so much
of a problem for me. The grasping at 'self' is what I identify to be the main
problem for me. When this happens, mindfulness goes out the window. I am not
composed as when sitting. I cannot suddenly reflect on the aggregates. So, the
way I see my practice is to become familiar with this 'self', illusory though
it is, so that I can experience its nature - empty. It's no easy task!
--
Mike Austin
Mahasanti
> In article <7nk7s7$1hm6$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Evelyn Ruut" <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> Tang:
> << I have pointed out at least two erroneous views of emptiness
> in Tibetan Buddhism, one which takes emptiness as ground of
> all being (Dudjom) and another which says that all phenomena
> vanish in emptiness (summarised in English by Anne C. Klein).
> I have also criticised the view (also criticised by Mubul),
> accepted by many Tibetan Buddhists, that emptiness can be
> directly cognised. To Mubul and me emptiness is a
> concept/construct, and as such cannot be directly perceived. >>
Dubjom's work is a translation, he did not compose in English, actual
translation of the word emptiness in tibetan according to the late Guru Lau
should be emptiness-essence. If one take emptiness-essence as the ground of
all beings, there is no fault. And that this emptiness-essence can only be
directly cognized, not conceptualized.
>
> I don't think that's quite what Mubul was saying: more like that
> there is a quality of "empty" but that "emptiness" means no more than
> that, as a paraphrase for being conditioned or dependent arising.
> And we *can* directly perceive that something is empty, i.e., that it
> is dependently arising, conditioned, and not self-existent.
Emptiness do not exist either as being conditioned or dependent arising, it
is a conceptual antidote to eternalism, not a term for ultimate reality.
What can be perceived as void of existence, is the unity of clarity and
emptiness. It is not voidness existing as separate, distinct entity of
emptiness. To label that which is a unity of appearance and the void as
emptiness is a notion. Other than that unity, that notion has no substantial
existence in itself. For other than a notion that object equals void of
essence is emptiness, is not a description for the view of reality. Because
object and emptiness is not two, since there are not two, an equation is
impossible to be formulated. Since object and emptiness is not two, these
emptiness-essence is not condition by an object which is itself, as such by
mean of this emptiness-essence, it is not conditioned by dependent-arising
as contrary to what some primitive buddhist scholars may rationalized.
Mahasanti
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:379E136F...@bu.edu...
>
>
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> In "Re: The Four Parajika Rules", Date: 1999/05/14, by Mubul, there was
the
> following exchange (whch is partially quoted in the second quote made by
> DT):
>
> Nevermind wrote: <<My understanding is that yes, arahats and Buddhas are
> free from these wrong views -- at all times. Everyone else, from
> stream-winner to never-returner, still cling to false at least some of the
> time, but even ariya puggalas are temporarily free from these wrong views
> while abiding in the direct cognition of shunyata.>>
>
> Mubul replied: <<This simply makes no sense to me at all. Emptiness is a
> construct. It is a concept that is overlaid onto experience. So to say
that
> one is having a non-conceptual cognition of it is flat-out absurdity. If
one
> is simply experiencing a phenomenon, as in second jhaana, then one can
have
> a non-conceptual cognition of it. But the moment one notes something about
> the phenomenon, namely, that it is empty of inherent nature owing to being
> conditioned, then one is associating experience with carefully cutlivated
> tendencies to think dogmatically. This is why insight (vipassana) is
> impossible to cultivate in any jhaana higher than the first.>>
For anaycal vipassana, it is indeed impossible to cultivate beyond access
Jhana, but supramundane vipassana can continue up to the basic jhana.
Because insight itself is beyond conceptualization.
>
> Unless my understanding of Mubul's English is gorssly wrong, he said what
I
> made him say, namely, that emptiness is a concept/construct, and as such
> cannot be directly perceived.
There is no emptiness, as such it can only be called the emptiness-essence.
Emptiness is an absolute term, being of extreme one-sidedness, there is no
equanimity, and so have no place of truth as judged conventional by the
middle path doctrine. Shunyata in Sanskirt may also suffered from the same
language limitation. A language limitation will give rise to numerious
interpretation, therefore to talk about ultimate reality, one should use
full sentence with meaning to join together as a word to replace a single
word that is opened to multiple interpretation. Shunyata being originated
from primitive buddhism, can only satisfied the clarification as against the
antidote in which is it intended, i.e. existentialist. While up to the
middle path of the mahayana, it's deficiency starts to surface, buddhist
scholars without understanding the underlying intend of shunyata originally
being utilized as an antidote, produce numerious errors in their own
interpretation, as such produce many volumes of arguments and traditions.
These are the common problems if the lower vehicle of buddhism do not seek
to harmonious their teachings with other traditions, according to the paths
and stages (bhumis), but instead seek to claim their own path as the only
true and superior doctrine of buddha. This is what will happened when one of
their members shall decided to criticize other traditions which view points
and practices differ from theirs. The example is what can be seen in this ng
where people deliberately criticize the superior mahayana leaders even
though they have no knowledge of those traditions.
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Now, you have a third homepage???
--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)
email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
Milton Durr
>From: "Mike Austin" <mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: "talk.religi...@list.deja.com"
><talk.religi...@list.deja.com>
>To: "talk.religi...@list.deja.com"
><talk.religi...@list.deja.com>
>Subject: Re: Learning and Unlearning (was Re: Shaman and Fuerer)
>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:50:51 +0100
>
> Message from the Deja.com forum:
> talk.religion.buddhism
> Your subscription is set to individual email delivery
> >
>In article <7nqm4j$302$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Waterman <john@the-
>watermans.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
> >I think you are over complicating here.
> >Investigating that which arises when falsley accused is a good example of
> >"looking at the aggregates". I would view that which arises to be
>elements
> >of the aggregates, and through looking at and investigating them would
>know
> >them as not-self, impermenant and imperfect.
> >But then I have this dukkha, anicca, anatta obsession.
>
>Hi John,
>
>When this 'self' arises (e.g. from a false accusation), we have something
>to
>look for. And we can look among the aggregates as we both agree. On
>analysis,
>however, the 'self' cannot be found within the aggregates or outside them.
>If
>you view that which arises to be elements of the aggregates, in what way
>does
>this differ from when the 'self' has not arisen so strongly and suddenly?
>Do
>you not feel that something other than the aggregates is active here?
i find that upon examining the constituents of this reactive state, the
'self' of this state is in essence in all of its constituents though it has
an origin different from its constituents. This reactive self, which arises
when I am accused (rightly or wrongly) ,for example, always seems to have
its origin in my conception-image of 'myself' and this maintained image
(semi-automatic) influences associations/conglomerations of thoughts that
work in conjunction with this conception image of 'myself' and can elict
quite marked physical states.
My 'self' when I am not in this reactive state also works on the same
principles, though its manifestation is more socially agreeable (though
internally can be an entirely different story). The aggregates are active in
each case, though different aspects arise. The motivational-force still
seems to the same axle.
>
>On the basis of this 'self', we act in unskilful ways and get suffering.
>Yet
>the fluctuations of the aggregates, when uncharged by this 'self', don't
>give
>rise to such behaviour. Therefore, what arises in this special case
>requires
>particular consideration. My experience is that this 'self' seems to be
>apart
>from the aggregates but manifests through them - as if they are controlled
>by
>the 'self'.
My experience is that my 'self' is controlled by the deeper workings of my
emotional center. This 'self' is apart from the aggregates but is a perfume
that permeates them similarly and acts as a cohering force.
This 'self' does come from somewhere else and the perfume can be shifted
very subtley in more innocuous circumstances, especially in dreams.
And yet the 'self' is not them, nor is it separate from them. The
>illusion of this 'self' needs to be overcome, so looking at the aggregates
>in
>its absence will not address the root problem.
Nor will forgetting the aggregates while looking at this 'self'
M
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Tang Huyen
David Works wrote: <<Tang, thanks for your thoughtful post. Yes, I think we are
Be open to experience and do not try to fit the new into the mould of the old,
that's all there is to it, David. In art, that is pushed to some extent, in
Buddhism it is pushed all the way, so that when the end-goal is reached, all
means and methods are let go of, and let go of because moot.
In art, one has to learn some technique in addition to unlearning what can
inhibit the application of that new technique, and what can inhibit the
application of that new technique can consist in old and bad technique and also
in non-technical (e. g., psychological) habits that constrain or even obliterate
the "intuition" or "inspiration" of art.
In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, there may be some technique
in meditation, but you can learn to meditate without doing anything Buddhist,
and you can learn to do much that is Buddhist without any technical meditation.
And what makes something Buddhist or not is whether it leads its practitioner to
calm, detachment, dispassion, not just affective detachment and dispassion, but
also intellectual detachment and dispassion, in the seeing-through of language
and thought, especially the defence mechanism, and the seeing-through of all
attachment to the word and letter. Yesterday I wrote two posts on "Literalism",
which show how many Buddhists attach to the word and letter.
So in Buddhism, there is very little technique to learn, but much unlearning to
do, and all the tools of unlearning are already in you. All the tricks of
deception, especially of self-deception, which include the defence mechanism and
the very act of building a self to protect, for or against, are in you, and it
is up to you, and to nobody else, to notice them, get acquainted with them, and
neutralise them, put them out of action, so that you no longer deceive yourself
by means of them.
The awakened is totally honest, and first and foremost honest to himself. He so
sees through himself that he leaves no self to fool him, so that all he does is
to receive the world untouched by his inner mechanism of distortion, which we
deludeds use all the time to tell ourselves a story that we can live with, but
that the awakened has no need for, indeed is repelled by, because he is
instinctly aware of distortion and tolerates none of it.
All that is just a extreme version of what you say: <<Several of "my teachers"
were more like Zen teachers, balancing the introduction of new techniques with a
constant challenge to habitual beliefs. If you weren't confused, distressed,
suprised and sometimes amazed, you weren't getting "it">>. Except that I'm
talking entirely of internal self-inspection, self-checking. Even if you have a
teacher, you still have to do it yourself, walk the walk by yourself.
Tang Huyen
Mahasanti
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:37A2A0DF...@pacific.net.sg...
>
> > >
> Now, you have a third homepage???
This is one of the 7-8 home pages link to my main page which contained
different topics. They have been added quite some time since my absence from
this ng.
Tang Huyen
Christopher Hayden wrote:
Tang: <<In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, there may be some
technique in meditation, but you can learn to meditate without doing anything
Buddhist, and you can learn to do much that is Buddhist without any technical
meditation.>>
Christopher: <<I have extreme doubt about this last comment. Do you mean
obeying the scriptures and all that stuff? Awakened masters have made a lot
of comments to the effect of, "All the teachings are just a drop in the
ocean;" apparently there is a lot more to this than just learning to do
'Buddhist' stuff.>>
By Buddhist stuff, I mean what makes Buddhism Buddhism, which is detachment,
dispassion, letting-go, not the scriptures and all that technical stuff. You
can see here on the Buddhist NGs lots of people, learned and not so learned,
who prattle endlessly about this wonderful visualisation and that wonderful
meditation, this wonderful teacher and that wonderful lineage, and who have
never practiced any detachment, dispassion, letting-go, not that any of them
shows up in their posts in the slightest. They can't even control themselves,
not to speak of seeing through anything or letting go of anything.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
arcc@NOSPAM_baynet.net (Punnadhammo) wrote:
> Dharmatroll,
>
> Krishnamurti is an inappropriate example to bring up in regards to the
> question of teacher/student relations. He seems to have been that rare
> type who doesn't need one.
As was the Buddha. But yes, I agree completely. And Krishnamurti *did*
have one. In fact, his bizarre circumstance led him to have more gurus
and teachers than any of us, Bhante!
> (Probably, because of considerable work done in previous lifetimes,
> but you couldn't relate to that could you?)
(Yes, I could, since I literally suscribed to hard rebirth from my early
youth, and since J. Krishnamurti was my hero and role model since I
discovered him around 13 years old. I had always thought that K was a
once-returner or boddhisattva or something, since he remarks that in his
youth he was naturally calm and had to make effort to think in words,
but was just totally 'there', as Tang mentions with 'non-mentation'.
It might be something genetic about him. It would be fascinating to know.
That would be orthogonal to rebirth, of course, as one can simple say
that a superior spook would seek a superior brain at rebirth, of course!!
Anyway, the rebirth story doesn't change anything: whether a soul or
whatever you call it had a three-some with the egg and sperm or not,
K was certainly an exceptional case.)
> Most of us will never make any progress without teaching.
No, most of us areound her are constantly trying to teach, that we are
right and the other folks wrong, and we make very little progress.
Oh wait--you mean without getting teaching from others. Yes. Absolutely.
"Beginner's Mind" Zen Master Shunru Suzuki, Roshi, used to teach: "in
the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's there
are few." But that's exactly what Krishnamurti was getting at, Bhante!
> All the brave talk about freedom from authority etc. is really only
> so much eyewash.
No. Suzuki's "Beginner's Mind" is just what Krishnaji means by freedom.
And what Blake meant by "the truth believ'd is a lie."
> Buddhist tradition, btw, does recognize the possibility of
> enlightenment without teaching. Such beings are called Paccekabuddhas
Strangely, K had more teachings than anyone might think. Don't you
know his story? He was basically kidnapped by Theosophists, (a mixture
of Tibetan Buddhism and neo-Platonism, sort of a mix of everything that
Tang trashes from all cultures) who "recognised" him as the "Maitreya"
which is the second coming of the Buddha. They were democratic about it,
as they also saw him as the second coming of Christ and of Krishna.
K was also molested by the same 'psychic', Charles W. Leadbeater, who'd
been kicked out of Theosophy at one point for molesting other young boys.
If you were raised by astrologists who tell you that they are grooming
you to be God and then bend you over and boned you up the ass when you
were a boy, you wouldn't be too fond of gurus and authorities either,
Bhante! I don't think K ever quite got over what had happened to him.
K's parents were paid off, and he was adopted by astrologists, basically,
who for his entire childhood trained and raised him to become the new
world guru messiah. He was told that constantly throughout his youth,
that he was God, reincarnated in this age to save the world, and he was
surrounded by the most superstitious people on the planet. Bhante, K
had gurus coming out of his ears!!! The whole movement started with
Madam Blavatsky in 1875, and continued with Madam Besant, the president
of the Theosophical Society, who raised Krishnamurti. At 35, the age
when the Buddha awakened, K was to assume the role of world guru. In his
earlier writings, one can see that he bought into their claims, but then
by the time he was an adult, he got sick of the whole thing, and at his
inauguration ceremony, he shocked them all by dissolving the religion
and proclaiming the Maitreya story to be a crock of shit, claiming that
he was just an ordinary human being, who was awake. (Just what a Buddha
*would* say, eh? Heh.) Tuesday will mark the 70th anniversary of K's
famous speech where he dissolved his religion.
> What happens in reality to the self-taught Buddhist is that, rare
> exceptions like Krishnamurti notwithstanding, they end up following
> the authority of the cravings.
Are you, the monk, so much holier because you run away from women,
and denounce the beautiful as the temptations of craving, or is that
just a different conditioned response to fear? Heh. K claims that:
<< "To the so-called religious to be sensitive is to sin, an evil
reserved for the worldly; to the religious the beautiful is
temptation, to be resisted; it's an evil distraction to be denied.
Good works are not a substitute for love, and without love all
activity leads to sorrow, noble or ignoble. The essence of affection
is sensitivity and without it all worship is an escape from reality.
To the monk, to the sanyasi, the senses are the way of pain, save
thought which must be dedicated to the god of their conditioning.
But thought is of the senses. It is thought that puts together time
and it is thought that makes sensitivity sinful. To go beyond thought
is virtue and that virtue is heightened sensitivity which is love.
Love and there is no sin; love and do what you will and then there is
no sorrow." >>
Then again, K loved and did what he will, and he got his girlfriend
Rosalind pregnant and she had an abortion. A few years later he got her
pregnant *again*, and she didn't want to have an abortion, but K
insisted on it and talked her into it. Not too cool for a world messiah!
But that was in his youth. I think K was celibate for the most part in
his later life, though I heard he had a fling with Greta Garbo, after
which she be came a recluse (seriously) and dropped out of sight.
> It is one of the sad corruptions of modernism that so many think they
> can blithely dispense with traditions and teaching lineages that have
> been patiently and labouriously built up over hundreds of years.
I agree. Of course believing such teachings is equally as bad, and they
become yet more dogma, yet more authorities. However, we can learn from
the wisdom of all that have gone before us. To do that, we have to not
blindly follow, but rather learn to think for ourselves, and they can
help us do that, but they can't do it for us. That's K's point. If he
didn't agree with you, he wouldn't have spent the rest of his life,
after dissolving his religion at 35, going around talking to people,
but without beliefs and prostrations and all that crap. K explains:
<< "You need a typewriter to write a letter, but you don't put the
typewriter onto an altar to admire it. But that's what you are doing
when organizations become your main concern. But those who really
want to understand, who are seeking for the eternal, for that what
is without beginning or ending, will proceed together with greater
intensity, will become a danger for all inessential, for all unreal,
for the shadows ... We have to create such a body, and this is my
intention. Due to this true friendship - which you don't seem to
know - there will be a real cooperation of all. This will not happen
because of an authority or for some redemption, but because you will
really understand....For two years I have been considering it
carefully and patiently, and now I have decided to dissolve the order
You can found other organizations and wait for another [guru].
It doesn't interest me. Neither am I interested in your jails or in
new decorations for those jails, nor in creating them. I am only
concerned with the absolute, unconditional liberation of humans."
> The arrogance of such thinking is mind-boggling.
Letting go of such thinking, of all authority, which consists in
thinking, whether the thought is "I don't need a teacher" *or* "I am
holier than though because I'm a celibate monk and I wear orange robes"
is the way to see things as they are, not through the lens of our
thoughts and conditioning, which is always in the past, and not present.
That's K's point, Bhante.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< J. Krishnamurti, writes:
"Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any
organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest, or ritual,
not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique.
He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the
understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and
not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has
built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political,
personal. These manifest as symbols,ideas, beliefs. The burden of
these dominate man's thinking, relationships and daily life. These
are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man in every
relationship. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts
already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is
this consciousness. This content is common to all humanity. The
individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires
from his environment. The uniqueness of the individual does not lie in
the superficial but in the total freedom from the content of
consciousness.
Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man's
pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure
observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward.
Freedom is without motive; freedom in not at the end of the evolution
of man but lies in first step of his existence. In observation one
begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the
choiceless awareness of our daily existence.
Thought is time. Thought is born of experience, of knowledge, which
are inseparable from time. Time is the psychological enemy of man.
Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always
a slave to the past.
When man becomes aware of the movement of his own consciousness he
will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the
observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He
will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there
pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past.
This timeless insight brings about a deep radical change in the mind.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation
of all those things which are not love -- desire, pleasure -- then
love is, with its compassion and intelligence." >>