tummo technique of meditation
zlo...@iname.com
to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
technique of heat generation. I would like to overcome
cold not only by the power of mind but by withstanding
it with a practical yoga method.
Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
contain a description of the actual technique?
Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
tell me where to get the technique!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kent Sandvik
zlo...@iname.com wrote in message <7eoai8$2ug$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
>to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
>technique of heat generation. I would like to overcome
>cold not only by the power of mind but by withstanding
>it with a practical yoga method.
>Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
>contain a description of the actual technique?
>Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
>tell me where to get the technique!
Yes, the book talks about the techniques. Still, if you have access to
a qualified teacher that could help you fine tune the techniques,
that's the optimal approach. Anyway, that book is worth the money, and
much much much more!
If you have a chance visiting the FPMT centers here on the West Coast,
of some interesting karmic reason we have excellent teachers that know
about Tummo meditation, so such classes are arranged now and then. I
assume Lama Yeshe was a an extremely good inner fire meditation
teacher as he raised such excellent teachers!
Mangalam, Kent
HH
>I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
>to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
>technique of heat generation.
Tumo-practice is taught by Teachers to their students...!
The only reference you should seek is a teacher.
>I would like to overcome cold not only by the power of
>mind but by withstanding it with a practical yoga method.
Well, the point of tumo-practice is NOT to be able to
withstand harsh climate without a proper jacket...
Motivation behind the practice is actually more important
than the practice itself...so for you, I would not recommend
tumo-yoga, but a shopping expedition to a clothes-shop
instead... sorry, but that is more practical to your needs.!!!
>Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
>contain a description of the actual technique?
Dunno...but any tantric meditation must be learned from
someone who has personal realization of the practice.
...Does a book have that realization???
>Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
>tell me where to get the technique!
You can get it from a Buddhist Teacher...if you are
a student, that is.!!!
HH
.
Binary_Wiz
=> http://members.tripod.com/arahan/fundamedi.html
In article <370feabc...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
"You" & "Me" does not exists ......
Every instances make up a "thing"
keep changing every second ......
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
zlo...@iname.com wrote:
> I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
> to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
> cold not only by the power of mind but by withstanding
> it with a practical yoga method.
> contain a description of the actual technique?
> tell me where to get the technique!
>
You do not "get" a technique. You train, with a Guru, for a long period of
time, to be able to generate a good heart and a steady mind. Only when you
are ready do you get exposed to Tummo.....
WARNING: folks, do not try this at home!!
Not without a teacher. "HH" is right on the mark in his response; however,
he could have been stronger in pointing out the DANGER in trying to
"practice" this "technique" when one is not sufficiently prepared....you can
really "screw yourself up."
"The Bliss of Inner Fire" is a wonderful book; you will NOT be able to
practice Tummo after reading the book. You need a teacher. Please don't
hurt yourself--
May all beings find the One True Warmth of compassion, the essential and only
necessary teaching of The Noble Ones.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
> >to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
> >technique of heat generation.
>
> The only reference you should seek is a teacher.
>
> >mind but by withstanding it with a practical yoga method.
>
> withstand harsh climate without a proper jacket...
> Motivation behind the practice is actually more important
> than the practice itself...so for you, I would not recommend
> tumo-yoga, but a shopping expedition to a clothes-shop
> instead... sorry, but that is more practical to your needs.!!!
>
indeed.
methinks one knows not what one asks for,
tummo is a variant of kundalini, iianm, and one should be willing to
undergo some perhaps quite disorienting and discomfiting alterations of one's
concept of 'sanity'. i would not be surprised if many more have
succumbed to madness than have 'succeeded' at tummo, yet you never hear
about them since they tend not to write books ... :(
take care
> >Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
> >contain a description of the actual technique?
>
> Dunno...but any tantric meditation must be learned from
> someone who has personal realization of the practice.
> ...Does a book have that realization???
>
> >Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
> >tell me where to get the technique!
>
> You can get it from a Buddhist Teacher...if you are
> a student, that is.!!!
>
> HH
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
piet...@my-dejanews.com
Binary_Wiz <binar...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> hope this will help you a bit
>
> => http://members.tripod.com/arahan/fundamedi.html
this is a great article on Theravada meditation and samadhi practice!
thanks for posting it.
i briefly read it expecting to find some cautionary stuff about
tummo type sensations, but missed it if it was there?
anyway, i recall once reading something on a Theravadan website that
discussed something vaguely referred to as a sensation of 'piercing
winds' which i am guessing would be referring to kundalini/tummo?
it is interesting to me that there is so little mention of this in
the Theravada tradition. either their meditation practice does not
arouse it, or they somehow have managed to moderate it into a more
subtle expression?
there is some discussion of this in Zen, for example, in the career of
Hakuin. i am not sure if most zennists would call tummo a 'makyo' or not?
tummo/kundalini is certainly found in many other mystical religions,
from Shamanism to Sufism to hesychast Christianity.
Yet Theravada Buddhism is quite silent on this issue, afaik, why?
:?)
>
> In article <370feabc...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> hhan...@pp.htv.fi (HH) wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:59:06 GMT, zlo...@iname.com wrote:
> >
> > >I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
> > >to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
> > >technique of heat generation.
Niels Steen Madsen
Ewanz-Wenz and 'Six Yoga's of Naropa" by Tsong-Kapa. I think that between
these two books you get a good impression of the techiques. Especially the
last one has a lot of descriptions.
However, I don't think it's enough with books as a starting point for such
potentially dangerous yoga's.
Yours in Dharma
Niels Steen Madsen
zlo...@iname.com skrev i artiklen <7eoai8$2ug$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I bow down to the great yogi Milarepa, and beseech you
> to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
> technique of heat generation. I would like to overcome
> cold not only by the power of mind but by withstanding
> it with a practical yoga method.
> Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
> contain a description of the actual technique?
> Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
> tell me where to get the technique!
>
pierrot michel
waves between respiratory and cardiovascular centers, before to act on
thermis regulatory center.... Danger without very long preparation
<gonpog...@my-dejanews.com> a écrit dans le message :
7erkpj$kel$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> > to point me to a reference where I could get the tummo
> > technique of heat generation. I would like to overcome
> > cold not only by the power of mind but by withstanding
> > it with a practical yoga method.
> > Does the book "The Bliss of Inner Fire" by Lama Yeshe
> > contain a description of the actual technique?
> > Please earn a righteous deed against your karma and
> > tell me where to get the technique!
> >
>
>
of
> time, to be able to generate a good heart and a steady mind. Only when
you
> are ready do you get exposed to Tummo.....
>
> WARNING: folks, do not try this at home!!
>
> Not without a teacher. "HH" is right on the mark in his response; however,
> he could have been stronger in pointing out the DANGER in trying to
> "practice" this "technique" when one is not sufficiently prepared....you
can
> really "screw yourself up."
>
> "The Bliss of Inner Fire" is a wonderful book; you will NOT be able to
> practice Tummo after reading the book. You need a teacher. Please don't
> hurt yourself--
>
> May all beings find the One True Warmth of compassion, the essential and
only
> necessary teaching of The Noble Ones.
>
>
>
>
maha...@yahoo.com
pierrot michel <PIERROT...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:7eu435
$hlr$5...@wanadoo.fr...
> Tummo technique acts through the cerebral trunk by synchronized concentric
> waves between respiratory and cardiovascular centers, before to act on
> thermis regulatory center.... Danger without very long preparation
I doubt there is enough seriousness in vigorous practice that will be
sufficient to endanger the beginner practitioner. The vigorous vase breathing
which is essential for beginners to blaze the tummo is just too hard for
ordinary people to withstand. I'm sure that even if the actual technque is
given, the practitioner will grow tired of the practice.
Just practice according to the book and make a report of your progress to this
ng, I'm sure there will be many people here willing to act as teacher to guide
you through.
Mangalam, Karma Tharchin
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
Kent Sandvik
piet...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7esimt$cs8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>methinks one knows not what one asks for,
>tummo is a variant of kundalini, iianm, and one should be willing to
>undergo some perhaps quite disorienting and discomfiting alterations
of one's
>concept of 'sanity'. i would not be surprised if many more have
>succumbed to madness than have 'succeeded' at tummo, yet you never
hear
>about them since they tend not to write books ... :(
Actually, kundalini and tummo meditation is different, even if one
would think they are the same. That's what experts told me some time
ago. It's a misunderstanding.
There's a successful program happening here in the Bay Area where
those who have chemical dependency problems have been taught tummo
meditation to eliminate their sufferings. Quite amazing.
I used to think that one should be careful with such internal
techniques, but if helping those with chemical dependencies will
eliminate suffering thanks to tummo meditation, then it's of benefit
to sentient beings. Still, it's good that someone who knows is showing
the techniques, otherwise it's just an awful waste of time.
Mangalam, Kent
piet...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
>
> Actually, kundalini and tummo meditation is different, even if one
> would think they are the same. That's what experts told me some time
> ago. It's a misunderstanding.
ok, i dont know much about either, and i suppose their
respective meditation practices would sound quite different,
but from what i have read, it sounds like they are stimulating the
same kind of physiology having to do with the endocrine/chakra system.
kundalinists often describe an 'inner fire' iirc.
anyway, it would be
interesting to know why tummo practice does not stimulate kundalini,
if it in fact doesnt, since so many other related practices do,
e.g. martial arts, garden variety yoga, and garden variety sex. :)
> There's a successful program happening here in the Bay Area where
> those who have chemical dependency problems have been taught tummo
> meditation to eliminate their sufferings. Quite amazing.
really! AA has some competition? :)
i have often thought the craving for intoxication is a disguised
religious craving. 'the passions are the bodhi' etc.
> I used to think that one should be careful with such internal
> techniques, but if helping those with chemical dependencies will
> eliminate suffering thanks to tummo meditation, then it's of benefit
> to sentient beings. Still, it's good that someone who knows is showing
> the techniques, otherwise it's just an awful waste of time.
>
> Mangalam, Kent
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> "The Bliss of Inner Fire" is a wonderful book; you will NOT be able to
> practice Tummo after reading the book. You need a teacher. Please don't
> hurt yourself--
Buddhist tantric literature is very easily available over the bookstore,
isn't it?
--
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 :->
maha...@yahoo.com
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:37138C17...@pacific.net.sg...
>
>
> gonpog...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > "The Bliss of Inner Fire" is a wonderful book; you will NOT be able to
> > practice Tummo after reading the book. You need a teacher. Please don't
> > hurt yourself--
>
> Buddhist tantric literature is very easily available over the bookstore,
> isn't it?
Once a teaching is revealed, it become public property, there is no meaning
to keep it secret anymore. Though by selfish reason, one may actually go and
destroyed all the teaching, these are the nature tendency of deluded
dharmapalas, and they can do considerable harm to people who revealed such
teaching. But once the teaching has become public property, the harm from
these dharmapalas are unlikely to occur, otherwise the dharmapalas themselves
will become objects under the 10 fields of extermination. The practice of
Tummo is no secret nowadays, and it is not exclusive teaching of Buddhist
Tantra. The actual name for Tummo is Candali in Tibetan pronouciation which
is in fact the Sanskirt equavalent of Kundalini. In age of degeneration,
keeping such teaching secret will cause further corruption of the teaching,
since there is so little record of accomplishment these days, if these
precious teaching is revealed, at least there will be more people who will
practice them, then people don't have to spend so much effort practicing
various self-improvement methods, body building, aerobic, etc. which results
are temporary and will only perish by the process of aging.
Even in Indian Yogic tradition, method of meditations are kept secret, like
Maharashi of TM for example, but the same detailed explaination of such
meditation teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these
are public property. These Buddhist Meditation technique on obtaining iddhi
powers are even more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though
such techniques are revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to
accomplished all the preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha
revealed such secret of iddhi due to irrefutable mathematical certainty. But
the 100,000 to one ratio was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today
the ratio would have to rise to at lease 3,000,000 to one.
People nowadays are strayed by the 3 poisonous emotions and distractions, and
there is little time and interest in practicing, therefore revealing the
method path technique will brings no accomplishment to the unworthy, as such
it is harmless to reveal them and it will benefit those who are shy but who
really needed it
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin.
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
Alex Wilding
>The actual name for Tummo is Candali in Tibetan pronouciation which
>is in fact the Sanskirt equavalent of Kundalini.
word from Kundalini.
Alex W
In-the-Dh(ark)
> which is unfortunatley just wrong. Candali is an entirely different
Sanskrit
> word from Kundalini.
Alex, please don't hold yourself back. Go on tell us a bit more about this,
we're dying to know more.
In anticipation and in the Dh(ark)
Tang Huyen
teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these are public
property. These Buddhist Meditation technique on obtaining iddhi powers are even
more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though such techniques are
revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to accomplished all the
preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha revealed such secret of
was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today the ratio would have to rise
to at lease 3,000,000 to one.>>
Mathematicians and scientists are going to eat their heart out! Who says that
Buddhists lag behind them in precision and certainty, especially those Buddhists
who dabble in magic?
Tang Huyen
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Once a teaching is revealed, it become public property, there is no meaning
> to keep it secret anymore. Though by selfish reason, one may actually go and
> destroyed all the teaching, these are the nature tendency of deluded
> dharmapalas, and they can do considerable harm to people who revealed such
> teaching. But once the teaching has become public property, the harm from
> these dharmapalas are unlikely to occur, otherwise the dharmapalas themselves
> will become objects under the 10 fields of extermination. The practice of
> Tummo is no secret nowadays, and it is not exclusive teaching of Buddhist
> Tantra. The actual name for Tummo is Candali in Tibetan pronouciation which
> is in fact the Sanskirt equavalent of Kundalini. In age of degeneration,
> keeping such teaching secret will cause further corruption of the teaching,
> since there is so little record of accomplishment these days, if these
> precious teaching is revealed, at least there will be more people who will
> practice them, then people don't have to spend so much effort practicing
> various self-improvement methods, body building, aerobic, etc. which results
> are temporary and will only perish by the process of aging.
Don't agree with you. It is dangerous to practice completion stage, like
'Six Yogas of Naropa' etc., w/o the guidance of a teacher.
Since these books are available, people who just read up themselves and
try these practices themselves. W/o proper guidance, it is dangerous if
they do not know how to use the air and so forth. Sorry, try not to
write or describe the practices in great detail here. If they use
wrongly, they would harm their own physical body.
> Even in Indian Yogic tradition, method of meditations are kept secret, like
> Maharashi of TM for example, but the same detailed explaination of such
> meditation teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these
> are public property. These Buddhist Meditation technique on obtaining iddhi
> powers are even more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though
> such techniques are revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to
> accomplished all the preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha
> revealed such secret of iddhi due to irrefutable mathematical certainty. But
> the 100,000 to one ratio was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today
> the ratio would have to rise to at lease 3,000,000 to one.
So?
> People nowadays are strayed by the 3 poisonous emotions and distractions, and
> there is little time and interest in practicing, therefore revealing the
> method path technique will brings no accomplishment to the unworthy, as such
> it is harmless to reveal them and it will benefit those who are shy but who
> really needed it
These books only benefit those who have received the major empowerments
and instructions on completion stage.
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Alex Wilding wrote:
>
> maha...@yahoo.com wrote in message <7f1qgc$teu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >The actual name for Tummo is Candali in Tibetan pronouciation which
> >is in fact the Sanskirt equavalent of Kundalini.
> which is unfortunatley just wrong. Candali is an entirely different Sanskrit
> word from Kundalini.
> Alex W
Yes, Alex, you are right. In fact, there is a goddess called Candali and
another goddess by the name of Kundalini.
maha...@yahoo.com
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:37153E61...@bu.edu...
>
> Mathematicians and scientists are going to eat their heart out! Who says that
> Buddhists lag behind them in precision and certainty, especially those
Buddhists
> who dabble in magic?
>
> Tang Huyen
>
The iddhi result from Buddhist meditation teachnque is no magic. There are
just a matter of mathematical certainty for one who has fulfilled the
preliminaries. This iddhi is authentic siddhi qualified under the 5 factors.
While those Buddhists who believe in magical ritual, they are not qualified
siddhi under the 5 factors, as such they bear elements of uncertainty. Since
they obtain power from external sources, they are called external practice
and accomplishment, that which is external is not mastery, as such it is
dependence on external factors, since they are not independent, they are
composite and subject to impermanence. Like the authentic Buddhist
meditation, the practice of Tummo belongs to method path of internal practice
and accomplishment, they are preliminaries, signs, and physical factors which
form part of the mathematical certainty of accomplishment.
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin
Shaun Rowan
maha...@yahoo.com
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:3714C032...@pacific.net.sg...
>
> Don't agree with you. It is dangerous to practice completion stage, like
> 'Six Yogas of Naropa' etc., w/o the guidance of a teacher.
They are certainly not as harmful as body building and aerobic. The
preliminary excercises of the 6 yogas are quite safe and beneficial for
health. The vigorous vase breathing is safer than the more vigorous aerobic
and body building excercise which accelerate the breathing rate to the
maximum limit, according to Tantric document, the speeding up of the
breathing rate will reduce one's life span. Until the kundalini is actually
cause to arisen, there won't be actual danger. But only one to 10,000 will
have their kundalini arisen. Once the kundalini has arisen, or if vase
breathing is too vigorous, one is best to seek advise from a master. But if
one has practice and accomplished signs of attainment of Vajrakilaya
practice, the pranic problem and arising of Kundalini should not concern you.
So it matters most in whether the preliminaries had been accomplished than
the need for the guidance of a master. After all, no master can guide you 24
hours, the most they can do is to give advise which you can find in books.
Nowadays I have not recognise any lamas from the major lineages who have
accomplished Tummo, so what they can advise you also come from their books.
>
> Since these books are available, people who just read up themselves and
> try these practices themselves. W/o proper guidance, it is dangerous if
> they do not know how to use the air and so forth. Sorry, try not to
> write or describe the practices in great detail here. If they use
> wrongly, they would harm their own physical body.
What they should not try is the 3nd initiation practice involving a consort,
the rest is quite safe to practice by trial and error. Even Milarepa had to
practice by trial and error after receiving instruction of practice. Master
usually guide you at the beginning, but that was the time when the kundalini
has not actually arisen, one had to practice alone for many years before the
actual kundalini will arisen, and that was the time the master was suppose to
leave you to practice alone. No master can keep watch on you for 12 years, you
have to learn by trial and error and depend on yourself alone.
>
> > Even in Indian Yogic tradition, method of meditations are kept secret, like
> > Maharashi of TM for example, but the same detailed explaination of such
> > meditation teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these
> > are public property. These Buddhist Meditation technique on obtaining iddhi
> > powers are even more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though
> > such techniques are revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to
> > accomplished all the preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha
> > revealed such secret of iddhi due to irrefutable mathematical certainty. But
> > the 100,000 to one ratio was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today
> > the ratio would have to rise to at lease 3,000,000 to one.
>
> So?
So the teaching of method path need not be keep secret.
>
> > People nowadays are strayed by the 3 poisonous emotions and distractions,
and
> > there is little time and interest in practicing, therefore revealing the
> > method path technique will brings no accomplishment to the unworthy, as such
> > it is harmless to reveal them and it will benefit those who are shy but who
> > really needed it
>
> These books only benefit those who have received the major empowerments
> and instructions on completion stage.
The completion stage is a method path, as such one can practice without
empowerment. It is the same as worldly meditation technique found in Hindu
yogis and Toaism, and one can become successful by following the technique
presented in books. In ancient time the people of China are obsessed with
power of Kung Fu, especially Kung Fu that is based on Pranayama, as such
masters has written their practice technque in books and hide them. Then
these books become target of conflict, people would try all means to steal or
rob the books, then whoever possessed the book and practice according to the
instruction will attain mastery of their Kung Fu and become masters
themselves, so it is the same with the instruction of Tummo and other advance
Buddhist yogas. If they really need the master who write the book to give
them empowerment, then they won't steal the books since without empowerment
their practice will be fruitless, but the fact is, this is not the case.
And before you forget, the Vajrakilaya Tantra was a Tantra that was discovered
in an Iron Box hidden in Bodhigaya by an ordinary man, who then practice and
attained accomplishment. So in matter of fact, there was no empowerment taken
place. But then later masters start to give empowerment of Vajrakilaya, and
claim that they are from unbroken lineage of oral transmission. If I should
ask:"Trace back from whom"? The answer will be the ordinary man who has
received no empowerment.
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> They are certainly not as harmful as body building and aerobic. The
> preliminary excercises of the 6 yogas are quite safe and beneficial for
> health. The vigorous vase breathing is safer than the more vigorous aerobic
> and body building excercise which accelerate the breathing rate to the
> maximum limit, according to Tantric document, the speeding up of the
> breathing rate will reduce one's life span. Until the kundalini is actually
Say who? Ask your teacher regarding the practice of Vase Retention and
so forth. See if he/she will tell you that it is dangerous to practice
w/o first receive the instructions.
> cause to arisen, there won't be actual danger. But only one to 10,000 will
> have their kundalini arisen. Once the kundalini has arisen, or if vase
> breathing is too vigorous, one is best to seek advise from a master. But if
> one has practice and accomplished signs of attainment of Vajrakilaya
> practice, the pranic problem and arising of Kundalini should not concern you.
> So it matters most in whether the preliminaries had been accomplished than
> the need for the guidance of a master. After all, no master can guide you 24
> hours, the most they can do is to give advise which you can find in books.
Oh come on, even you would agree that no master can guide you 24 hrs
here. Therefore, you must receive the teachings FIRST and practice on
your own. Isn't it?
> Nowadays I have not recognise any lamas from the major lineages who have
> accomplished Tummo, so what they can advise you also come from their books.
Ah.... again.... Chin fu is going to claim that he has accomplished
tummo while the lamas from the major lineages (including the Throne
Holders???) don't. Just like in the past msgs, he condemned the present
Chan (Zen) masters that they have not attained realizations, don't bow
to high teachers, splitted on photographs of the masters. Sigh! You
never learn.....
> What they should not try is the 3nd initiation practice involving a consort,
> the rest is quite safe to practice by trial and error. Even Milarepa had to
> practice by trial and error after receiving instruction of practice. Master
> usually guide you at the beginning, but that was the time when the kundalini
> has not actually arisen, one had to practice alone for many years before the
> actual kundalini will arisen, and that was the time the master was suppose to
> leave you to practice alone. No master can keep watch on you for 12 years, you
> have to learn by trial and error and depend on yourself alone.
True, but it seems that you're also agreed that you must receive the
instructions on 3rd Consecreation FIRST before practice it to
perfection. :-) So do you need a teacher or no teacher?
Anyway, the above practice is reserve for the skilful practitioners, not
for me, an inferior practitioner.
> > So?
>
> So the teaching of method path need not be keep secret.
So? If that's the case, you can go ahead and publish all the tantric
literature on the ng. I have no comment for that since you prefer to
remain this way, nothing I can do to stop.
> The completion stage is a method path, as such one can practice without
> empowerment. It is the same as worldly meditation technique found in Hindu
> yogis and Toaism, and one can become successful by following the technique
> presented in books. In ancient time the people of China are obsessed with
> power of Kung Fu, especially Kung Fu that is based on Pranayama, as such
> masters has written their practice technque in books and hide them. Then
> these books become target of conflict, people would try all means to steal or
> rob the books, then whoever possessed the book and practice according to the
> instruction will attain mastery of their Kung Fu and become masters
> themselves, so it is the same with the instruction of Tummo and other advance
> Buddhist yogas. If they really need the master who write the book to give
> them empowerment, then they won't steal the books since without empowerment
> their practice will be fruitless, but the fact is, this is not the case.
Talk about Kung Fu? I remmeber well that even the Chinese works "Book of
Breaking Roots" and "Book of Washing Marrows" are not to be practice
without a teacher! First, one must receive the proper instructions and
so forth, then one practices it to perfection.
Buddhist tantric literature should be sold under the supervision of the
bookshops. As I have said earlier, they only benefit those who have
received required empowerment (usually a major empowerment of
Annutarayoga) instructions on completion stage. Such as recently
translated text 'Je Tsongkhapa's "Six Yogas of Naropa"', and other works
on 11 Yogas of Naro Khachoma, Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra and even the Lam
Dre's 'The Triple Tantra', they should be sold to the people under the
supervision of the bookshops. Although most of these books have stated
that one must require the empowerment and instructions in order to read
the books, some people who are out of curiosity, still buy these books
and usually they have not received any empowerments and instructions. In
the past, there are a few people in this ng, requesting on proper
practice on Kundalini practice here after reading these books. It is not
very good, of course. My monastery's library is very strict on these
books and will ask our members if they have received the teachings or
not.
> And before you forget, the Vajrakilaya Tantra was a Tantra that was discovered
> in an Iron Box hidden in Bodhigaya by an ordinary man, who then practice and
> attained accomplishment. So in matter of fact, there was no empowerment taken
> place. But then later masters start to give empowerment of Vajrakilaya, and
> claim that they are from unbroken lineage of oral transmission. If I should
> ask:"Trace back from whom"? The answer will be the ordinary man who has
> received no empowerment.
Then you would even ask, how did the Buddha attained Buddhahood w/o any
guidance of teacher?
Not many people have good merits like the Buddha and great masters who
just require a single moment of contemplation or other means to attain
enlightenment. Remember how Master Hui Neng attained enlightenment when
someone is reciting the Diamond Sutra? Not many people have their
abilities. So, before we talk such things, it is safer to practice
Buddhadharma and seek proper instructions for any teachings. If one has
doubt, do not hestitate to ask one's teacher.
Kent Sandvik
>Tantra. The actual name for Tummo is Candali in Tibetan pronouciation
which
>is in fact the Sanskirt equavalent of Kundalini.
I know little about Kundalini but the little I know it's like the
snake energy that starts from the back end of one's spine. While
anyone studying tummo knows that the central point is in a different
place. Maybe someone who has more knowledge about both systems could
clarify this. I don't think this is correct. Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <37153E61...@bu.edu>...
>maha...@yahoo.com wrote: <<the same detailed explaination of such
meditation
>teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these are
public
>property. These Buddhist Meditation technique on obtaining iddhi
powers are even
>more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though such
techniques are
>revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to accomplished
all the
>preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha revealed such
secret of
one ratio
>was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today the ratio would
have to rise
>to at lease 3,000,000 to one.>>
>
says that
>Buddhists lag behind them in precision and certainty, especially
those Buddhists
>who dabble in magic?
I don't know what the stuff above means, sounds very bizarre. But
going back to the issue of controlling one's body with breathing. If
someone thinks this is hockus pockus, ask what athletes are doing
before important games and so forth. Using breath to control the
mental state is something that has been proven time after time. Isn't
there even a saying to count to ten when someone gets angry, and this
way controlling the mental state with breathing and counting?
Mangalam, Kent
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
>> maha...@yahoo.com wrote: <<Buddhist Meditation techniques on
>> obtaining iddhi powers are even more detailed than the TM Siddhi
>> meditation. But even though such techniques are revealed, only
>> one out of the 100,000 will be able to accomplished all the
>> preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha revealed such
>> secret of iddhi due to *irrefutable mathematical certainty*. But
>> the 100,000 to one ratio was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time,
>> today the ratio would have to rise to at lease 3,000,000 to one.>>
Kent writes:
> I don't know what the stuff above means, sounds very bizarre.
What it means is that Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin) is babblin' bullshit,
and making up nonsense yet again. There ain't no secret powers, 'cept for
the secret that there ain't no secret powers. The lack of anyone ever
displaying iddhi powers (except for sounding like an iddhi-ot) is used to
make claims that such powers are 'rare'. Then he pulls these fabricated
figures like "3,000,000 to one" out of his hat, talkin' like he'd been
referring to a carefully controlled study. Hah! Last week it was the claim
that people can give years of their life to a dying dude and make him young
again! Just repeat the magic mantra and apply the sacred snake oil, eh?
> But going back to the issue of controlling one's body with breathing.
> If someone thinks this is hockus pockus, ask what athletes are doing
> before important games and so forth. Using breath to control the
> mental state is something that has been proven time after time.
Of course. That is natural, and testable, and the real thing. The breath
has enormous effects on our state of mind. What is hocus pocus is crap
about walking on water or through walls or teleporting oneself across the
world or reading other people's minds. And athletes don't do that, Kent.
Neither do Buddhas. The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking.
> Isn't there even a saying to count to ten when someone gets angry, and
> this way controlling the mental state with breathing and counting?
But of course. And anyone who has had sex knows how important breathing is
with regards to that as well! Or, at the other end of the process, anyone
who has given birth would know how important it is when one is doing *that*.
It has nothing to do with amazing powers or magical transformations. Unless
of course you get rid of the baloney and see that from a naturalist view,
giving birth is an amazing power and is as magical a transformation as they
get. Once you've witnessed *that*, all the comic book talk don't mean squat.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts
who knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."
-Mark Twain
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> What it means is that Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin) is babblin' bullshit,
> and making up nonsense yet again. There ain't no secret powers, 'cept for
> the secret that there ain't no secret powers. The lack of anyone ever
> displaying iddhi powers (except for sounding like an iddhi-ot) is used to
> make claims that such powers are 'rare'. Then he pulls these fabricated
> figures like "3,000,000 to one" out of his hat, talkin' like he'd been
> referring to a carefully controlled study. Hah! Last week it was the claim
> that people can give years of their life to a dying dude and make him young
> again! Just repeat the magic mantra and apply the sacred snake oil, eh?
He loves to talk about CD (siddhi?), then go to Towers Records or HMV
and look for one. :-)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
ge...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> What it means is that Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin) is babblin' bullshit,
>> and making up nonsense yet again. There ain't no secret powers, 'cept for
>> the secret that there ain't no secret powers. The lack of anyone ever
>> displaying iddhi powers (except for sounding like an iddhi-ot) is used to
>> make claims that such powers are 'rare'. Then he pulls these fabricated
>> figures like "3,000,000 to one" out of his hat, talkin' like he'd been
>> referring to a carefully controlled study. Hah! Last week it was the claim
>> that people can give years of their life to a dying dude and make him young
>> again! Just repeat the magic mantra and apply the sacred snake oil, eh?
>
> He loves to talk about CD (siddhi?), then go to Towers Records or HMV
> and look for one. :-)
>
> --
> Yours in Dharma,
> Henry Chia
> (Ngawang Geleg)
Then soon all the siddi talk will be obsolete when all the Buddhists
start to upgrade to Devas (DVD). heh heh
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
JulianLZB87
Kent Sandvik wrote in message <92415680...@zeppelin.svr.home.net>...
>
>Tang Huyen wrote in message <37153E61...@bu.edu>...
>>maha...@yahoo.com wrote: <<the same detailed explaination of such
>meditation
>>teachnique exists in Buddhist Meditation of Pali Canon, and these are
>public
>powers are even
>>more detailed than the TM Siddhi meditation. But even though such
>techniques are
>>revealed, only one out of the 100,000 will be able to accomplished
>all the
>>preliminaries to manifest siddhi. As such the Buddha revealed such
>secret of
>>iddhi due to *irrefutable mathematical certainty*. But the 100,000 to
>one ratio
>>was the statistic recorded at Buddha's time, today the ratio would
>have to rise
>>to at lease 3,000,000 to one.>>
>>
>says that
>>Buddhists lag behind them in precision and certainty, especially
>those Buddhists
>>who dabble in magic?
>
>going back to the issue of controlling one's body with breathing. If
>someone thinks this is hockus pockus, ask what athletes are doing
>before important games and so forth. Using breath to control the
>there even a saying to count to ten when someone gets angry, and this
>way controlling the mental state with breathing and counting?
>
New Discovery in Science - Part 666
It is that all crime is due to breathing.
Statistics show:
a) that all convicts are guilty of this disgusting habit;
b) it is characteristic of all the inmates of our insane
asylums.
On the other hand, neither crime nor insanity has ever been
proved
against any person who was not an habitual breather.
Science has gone even farther,
and shown that breathing is akin to drug habits;
numerous experiments upon addicts have shown that suppression
leads to mental and physical distress of an even more acute
type
than that which follows the removal of Alcohol or Narcotics
from their slaves.
John Waterman
<maha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f3hhk$e3a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
that
> > Buddhists lag behind them in precision and certainty, especially those
> Buddhists
> > who dabble in magic?
> >
> >
>
> The iddhi result from Buddhist meditation teachnque is no magic. There are
> just a matter of mathematical certainty for one who has fulfilled the
> preliminaries. This iddhi is authentic siddhi qualified under the 5
factors.
> While those Buddhists who believe in magical ritual, they are not
qualified
> siddhi under the 5 factors, as such they bear elements of uncertainty.
Since
> they obtain power from external sources, they are called external practice
> and accomplishment, that which is external is not mastery, as such it is
> dependence on external factors, since they are not independent, they are
> composite and subject to impermanence. Like the authentic Buddhist
> meditation, the practice of Tummo belongs to method path of internal
practice
> and accomplishment, they are preliminaries, signs, and physical factors
which
> form part of the mathematical certainty of accomplishment.
>
Could you post the mathematics involved. I would be happy to ask a colleague
of mine to check it's validity. But no of course you can't.
If you mean it's certain - just say so, very likely - just say so,
uncertain - just say so, complete bunkum - I'd say so.
It is a poor habit to throw around terms like mathematical certainty, when
that *cannot* be what you mean, just to give your fairly bizarre ideas some
supposed validity.
Regards
John
Tang Huyen
"Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)" wrote:
dharm...@my-dejanews.com: <<What it means is that Mahasanti (Karma Tharchin)
is babblin' bullshit, and making up nonsense yet again. There ain't no secret
powers, 'cept for the secret that there ain't no secret powers. The lack of
anyone ever displaying iddhi powers (except for sounding like an iddhi-ot) is
used to make claims that such powers are 'rare'. Then he pulls these fabricated
figures like "3,000,000 to one" out of his hat, talkin' like he'd been referring
to a carefully controlled study. Hah! Last week it was the claim that people can
give years of their life to a dying dude and make him young again! Just repeat
the magic mantra and apply the sacred snake oil, eh?>>
Henry: <<He loves to talk about CD (siddhi?), then go to Towers Records or HMV
and look for one. :-)>>
What? With all his protectors hovering fretfully over him at all time, aren't
some of them heavenly musicians who blow unsolicited thoughts of music into his
ears to keep a song in his heart and a smile on his lips? Why does he stoop to
modern technology -- by definition demeaning to an accomplished Vajrayanist like
him -- like CD?
On the other hand, he accomplishes mathematical certainty that no modern
mathematicians and scientists can even dream of attaining, so he is vastly more
advanced than the modern technology that they wallow in, and to revert to it
would be very degrading to him.
Tang Huyen
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"John Waterman" <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> <maha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7f3hhk$e3a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>> The iddhi result from Buddhist meditation teachnque is no magic.
>> There are ust a matter of mathematical certainty for one who has
>> fulfilled the preliminaries. This iddhi is authentic siddhi...
John writes:
> Could you post the mathematics involved. I would be happy to ask a
> colleague of mine to check it's validity. But no of course you can't.
Why of course not, as only an enlightened Boddhisattva meditating in the
4th jhana could understand the mathematics, and they happen to be ineffable
equations, not ones that could be written on materialistic paper! etc, etc.
> If you mean it's certain - just say so, very likely - just say so,
> uncertain - just say so, complete bunkum - I'd say so.
heeheehee. If Karma Tharchin is making this stuff up, then he deserves to
be teased. But if this is one of the myths in his tradition, then it is
rather interesting and I would want not to attack it's absurdity as much
as know about its history and mythological connections. Could be something
like the numberology of the Jews or the Pythagoreans and so forth. I always
find that stuff interesting, and I like the cool stuff about sacred numbers,
like 108 (1*2*2*3*3*3). My own favorite number is 153. Guess why?
> It is a poor habit to throw around terms like mathematical certainty, when
> that *cannot* be what you mean, just to give your fairly bizarre ideas some
> supposed validity.
>
> Regards
> John
Since you liked my last post, let me bore you by pasting in the main
part of an old post I wrote about the iddhis and magical powers...
The six abhinnaas, for instance, shed a lot of light on the worldview
of ancient India. For one thing, they had a 4-element science to work
with, and the magical powers all tied into the paradigm of that era.
My read on the stories are that abhinnaas are really forms of alchemy,
Many of these magical superhero powers (iddhi) had to do with changing
one element into another. One version of Buddhist mythology talks about
eight of these superhero powers. The first iddhi is replicating oneself
so as to be in several different places at once. Being in several places
at once is sort of interesting, and defies the idea of a linear mindstream
of consciousness, doesn't it? How the different you's would then fuse
again would be interesting, but supposedly if you decide to split into
several replicas for a certain time, after that time is up you all just
magically pop back together (but do it before midnight or you will be
reborn as a pumpkin, I would imagine!)
The second superpower is the old invisible man trick, and you can make
yourself invisible and then pop into visibility again at will. Especially
fun for sneaking around the showers and locker rooms in college girls
dormitories, I suppose. Boy, that gives one some incentive to meditate!
The other six iddhis, or superhero powers, are tied to the cosmology of
that time period fairly intensely.
For example, third superhero power, the art of walking through walls,
entails changing the element 'earth' into the element 'air'. You aquire
this power by attaining the 4th jhana in the 'space' (air) kasina.
Next, the fourth iddhi lets you dive into the earth as if it were a lake
or swimming pool: this is done by turning the earth element into the water
element. To get that power, the yogin has to have attained the 4th jhana
in the water kasina.
Then the fifth iddhi allows one to walk on water (like the hippie in that,
um, *other* religion). And that is accomplished by transforming the water
element into the earth element, and like the others comes from attaining
the 4th jhana in the kasina of the element you are turning another element
into, in this case the earth kasina.
And the sixth iddhi lets you levitate and walk through the air. In a
similar fashion, this is accomplished by transforming turning the air
element into the earth element and comes from again attaining the 4th jhana
in the *earth* kasina. The earth kasina looks like it yields more bang for
the buck then, as it let's you both walk on water and fly. I wonder why
the fire kasina isn't mentioned, as you could become a human flame thrower
or be a great camping companion on a cold wet night before there were matches.
But before I continue, ask yourself whether this is meant to be *literally*
depicting superhero powers, or talking about phenomenally interpreting and
altering 4 kinds of perceptions? Oh, and please do bear in mind as well
that in Buddhism, reference to the 4 elements is usually in regard to the
qualia or subjective feels and not so much to theories about physical reality,
or the lack of it, as so many people are fond of claiming who take this stuff
as literal fact.
Rembember also that the Buddha didn't seem to care what the world was like
as much as what our *experience* of the world was like. *Now* does taking
these iddhis or super-powers as metaphors for transformations of our way of
*experiencing* seem even slightly plausible or possible to you believers out
there in TV land? Well, hold that thought, for the best is yet to come, folks!
The 7th superhero power is my very favourite: touching and caressing the
sun and the moon with one's hand! And it doesn't even require any special
kasina: only attaining the 4th jhana -- or perhaps one has to obtain the
4th jhana in all the kasinas first and then you get this iddhi as a bonus!
I mean, this one is great, and makes the Apollo program seem like a joke
by comparison: the mediatator can either go to the sun and moon and touch
them, or make them come into hand's reach by a mental resolution, doing so
by enlarging his hand. Gives new meaning to the word lunatic, doesn't it?
And the last of these eight iddhis allows one to travel the astral planes
and even go as far as to the Brahma-world (though the four most astral of
the astral planes, the immaterial spheres, are closed to normal tourists,
at least Americans, but if you go to Canada first and get a once-return
ticket, I think then you can get to them as well.
Anyway, all those superpowers are just the first abhinna. There are even
more superhero abilities with the other abhinnas. The second one, for
example is the Divine Ear superpower. With this one, one can hear people
whispering from miles away, and one can hear the deva Brahma's voice with
the Divine Ear, just as Jamie Summers the Bionic Woman, can.
And then the there is the Divine Eye superpower, with which you can see
Lord Brahma's form with your super telescopic vision and infrared abilities
just like Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man could. Why, I suppose
that deva Brahma must be sort of like their boss, Oscar Goldman, eh?
And then the fourth abhinna is the ability to recollect your previous lives.
Note that the claim about this power is often used as evidence that rebirth
is to be taken literally, yet it is seldom mentioned that seeing past lives
is found in the same context as trasforming the 4 elements into one another,
touching and carressing the sun and move with one's hand, and having bionic
ears and eyes.
I am very much into Buddhist mythology. However, I am into it *as* myth and
not as scientific fact! Here, one has at least two choices about how to
deal with all this stuff. You can go native and claim that all 20th-century
science and Einstein and Newton and Darwin and Freud are all deluded, and
that really the old 4-element theory of Indic science and the corresponding
mythologies like this one are literally true. And you can claim that they
are furthermore a matter of 'mathematical certainty'. Or you can see these
stories as useful metaphors and stop trying to peddle them as actual facts.
How anyone can believe in such things as touching the sun and swimming in
the ground, and being reborn in future lives as literal events amazes me.
Whaddaya take us for anyway, iddhi-ots?!
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7f5kjg$pp8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Waterman" <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > <maha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7f3hhk$e3a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>
> >> The iddhi result from Buddhist meditation teachnque is no magic.
> >> There are ust a matter of mathematical certainty for one who has
SNIPPPPPPPPP
op trying to peddle them as actual facts.
> How anyone can believe in such things as touching the sun and swimming in
> the ground, and being reborn in future lives as literal events amazes me.
> Whaddaya take us for anyway, iddhi-ots?!
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
>
I just touched the sun.
I'm not sure about that "swimming in the ground" thing, though..
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself!"
--Walt Whitman
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
convicts and their breathing...nor about Candali and Kundalini--tho' I suspect
Kent's right about them being different, just 'coz Mahasanti says they're the
same, but I can vouch for ONE thing....breath is the source of very amazing
powers! Just go and try to stop breathing.
What you do with it may be important; the fact that you do it at all is
miraculous.
JulianLZB87
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7f65ba$mcn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I don't know about Iddhis, numbers, precision (Tang's Balliwick (sp??)),
or
>convicts and their breathing...nor about Candali and Kundalini--tho' I
suspect
>Kent's right about them being different, just 'coz Mahasanti says they're
the
>same, but I can vouch for ONE thing....breath is the source of very amazing
>powers! Just go and try to stop breathing.
But is it the source of very amazing powers?
Without water I doubt anyone could even breath let alone
stun the gullible.
Jigme Dorje
Shaun>I admire you all.
That means a lot to me.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
DT:
>> ...stop trying to peddle them as actual facts.
>> How anyone can believe in such things as touching the sun and swimming in
>> the ground, and being reborn in future lives as literal events amazes me.
>> Whaddaya take us for anyway, iddhi-ots?!
>>
>> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
>>
> I just touched the sun.
Hold on a second: slapping Liguo silly doesn't count!
> I'm not sure about that "swimming in the ground" thing, though..
Aw, c'mon: mud wrestling is fun!
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > He loves to talk about CD (siddhi?), then go to Towers Records or HMV
> > and look for one. :-)
>
> Then soon all the siddi talk will be obsolete when all the Buddhists
> start to upgrade to Devas (DVD). heh heh
:-) :-) :-)
--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)
email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> What? With all his protectors hovering fretfully over him at all time, aren't
> some of them heavenly musicians who blow unsolicited thoughts of music into his
> ears to keep a song in his heart and a smile on his lips? Why does he stoop to
> modern technology -- by definition demeaning to an accomplished Vajrayanist like
> him -- like CD?
Oh yeah. He can cut a New Age CD album then.... inviting some 'heavenly'
musicians playing musical instruments while he, himself, sings the
praise on how great he has accomplished!
Nah. If that's the case, I rather switched to Handel's 'Messiah'!
"King of Kings and Lord of Lords! Hallelujah!"
> On the other hand, he accomplishes mathematical certainty that no modern
> mathematicians and scientists can even dream of attaining, so he is vastly more
> advanced than the modern technology that they wallow in, and to revert to it
> would be very degrading to him.
Oh well, in Buddhism, we have something very closed to Infinite as
preached by the modern mathematicians and scientists. Have to flip my
library to check it out. :-) However, that fellow has gone beyond maths!
Lunatic?
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I just touched the sun.
>
> Hold on a second: slapping Liguo silly doesn't count!
;-) Slap until he wakes up, also doesn't count?
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7f4kcs$ad5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Of course. That is natural, and testable, and the real thing. The
breath
>has enormous effects on our state of mind. What is hocus pocus is
crap
>about walking on water or through walls or teleporting oneself across
the
>world or reading other people's minds. And athletes don't do that,
Kent.
>Neither do Buddhas. The greatist psychic power of all is critical
thinking.
I don't have the data to either falsify this or exclaim its real, and
as such it's better to form a firm opinion when one has enough
knowledge and insight to see if such powers are real or not.
However, if one carefully studies the implications of emptiness,
especially the issue of how we label everything we see as our own
mental projections, and our view maps the world, it opens up a huge
amount of possibilities.
For example, one could think of the dog and us seeing a marker, we
know its a marker, for a puppy it looks like a chewable thing. Who is
right?
If someone else sees an event as a miracle, and others not, how could
we then judge and say that miracles do not exist?
Mangalam, Kent
maha...@yahoo.com
<dharm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7f61rn$jh3
$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7f5kjg$pp8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Waterman" <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > <maha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7f3hhk$e3a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>
> >> The iddhi result from Buddhist meditation teachnque is no magic.
> >> There are ust a matter of mathematical certainty for one who has
> stories as useful metaphors and stop trying to peddle them as actual facts.
> How anyone can believe in such things as touching the sun and swimming in
> the ground, and being reborn in future lives as literal events amazes me.
> Whaddaya take us for anyway, iddhi-ots?!
Here is the mathematic, i.e. if you can translate the following factors into
mathematical symbols and formulas:
The prerequisites for Direct Knowledge depends on:
(1) 5 mundane abhinnas
(2) 8 meditative attainments/4 fine material jhnanas and 4 aruppas.
To achieve abhinnas required:
(1) 8 attainments in each of 8 kasinas, the 4 elemental kasinas (earth, water,
fire and air elements) and 4 color kasinas (blue, yellow, red and white).
(2) To acquire total mastery of mind in 14 ways.
The 14 ways is to be accomplished by: (1) Attaining jhana in 8 kasinas in
direct order, i.e. from earth to white kasina, repeat up to 1,000x in each
until he is skillful. (2) Having master the direct order, the procedure
should be reverse, i.e. moving from white to earth kasina. (3) Repeating the
forward and reverse process of kasina again and again. (4) In direct order,
the yogin should attained the 8 attainments in direct order, i.e. from 1st to
8th jhana. (5) In reverse order, the yogin should mastered the jhana from 8th
to the 1st Jhana. (6) He should move through the jhanas in both direct and
reverse order. (7) He should skip alternate jhanas while retaining the same
kasina, with each kasina object he should move through the 8 jhanas, and he
should repeat the same process with all 8 kasinas. (8) He should skip
alternative kasinas without skipping jhanas; he attains 1st jhana in each of
the kasinas, and repeat the same for the other jhanas. (9) He should then
skip jhanas and kasinas. By attaining 1st jhana in earth kasina, the 3rd in
fire kasina, the base of boundless space by removing the blue kasina, and the
base of nothingness arrived at through the red kasina. (10) The next involves
the first jhana up to 4th aruppa all in the same kasina. (transposition of
factors) (11) He attains 1st jhana in each of kasinas from earth through the
white kasina. (transposition of objects) (12) He masters combined
transposition of factors and objects by changing jhanas and objects in
matched correspondence to each other, i.e. attaining 1st jhana in earth
kasina, the second in water kasina, the third in fire kasina, and so forth up
to base of neither perception nor non-perception arrived at from the white
kasina. (13) Defined each of jhanas from 1st to 8th by way of constituent
factors, the 1st as 5-factored, the 2nd as 3-factored, etc. (definition of
factors) (14) Defined object as earth kasina, etc. up to white kasina.
(defination of object)
The next attainment should be accomplished by:
(1) Development of 4 bases of accomplishment: (i) chanda (ii) citta (iii)
viriya (iv) vimamsa
(2) Cultivate to high level of intensity.
The final attainment of iddhi is to be accomplished by directing his mind to
the 6 abhinnas:
(1) iddhividhanana
(2) dibbasotadhatu
(3) cetopariya nana, paracittavijanana
(4) pubbenivasanussatinana
(5) cutupapatanana
(6) asavakkhayanana
The irrefutable mathematical certainties are: (1) It is not possible for an
ordinary person to attain iddhi without fulfilling the above preliminaries.
(2) Only one person out of a population of 3,000,000 will possessed the
ability to goes through all of the above preliminaries and attained iddhi.
This is the mathematical ratio:
Person can succeed with Iddhi= 1:3,000,000
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jake
Good description of Tumo is in book "Tibetan Yoga" by Garma.C.C.Chang.
A lot of practice and discypline needed.
About Kundalini and flow of Prana(KI,CHI) books of Mantak Chia are great.
But nothing better than good Teacher .It is like blessing
Kent Sandvik <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote in article <9241566...@zeppelin.svr.home.net>...
Tang Huyen
maha...@yahoo.com wrote: <<Here is the mathematic, i.e. if you can translate the
following factors into mathematical symbols and formulas:
The prerequisites for Direct Knowledge depends on:
(1) 5 mundane abhinnas
(2) 8 meditative attainments/4 fine material jhnanas and 4 aruppas. [snip]
The irrefutable mathematical certainties are: (1) It is not possible for an ordinary
person to attain iddhi without fulfilling the above preliminaries.
(2) Only one person out of a population of 3,000,000 will possessed the ability to
goes through all of the above preliminaries and attained iddhi.
This is the mathematical ratio:
Person can succeed with Iddhi= 1:3,000,000>>
Irrefutable, certainly.
Tang Huyen
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
DT:
>> Of course. That is natural, and testable, and the real thing.
>> The breath has enormous effects on our state of mind. What is
>> hocus pocus is the crap about walking on water or through walls
>> or teleporting oneself across the world or reading other people's
>> minds. And athletes don't do that, Kent. Neither do Buddhas.
>> The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking.
Kent:
> I don't have the data to either falsify this or exclaim its real,
> and as such it's better to form a firm opinion when one has enough
> knowledge and insight to see if such powers are real or not.
My God: what a sheepish cop-out! You're going to be vulnerable to
the most petty snake-oil peddler and charlatan, then. Look, we can
very well look at the empirical data and the reasoning and see how
strong these theories and claims really are.
> However, if one carefully studies the implications of emptiness,
> especially the issue of how we label everything we see as our own
> mental projections,
I don't label everything I see as (merely) my own mental projection.
When I see a tree, I'm pretty confident that there is a real tree,
objectively existing and mind-independent, rooted in the ground there.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be safe to be driving. I might kill a 'projection'.
> and our view maps the world, it opens up a huge amount of possibilities.
If we shove our head in a bucket of water, we find out really fast
which possibilities really obtain, and whether wer are ghosties who
project the universe or physically real animals who need to physically
breathe real physical air to continue to exist another minute. Try it.
> For example, one could think of the dog and us seeing a marker, we
> know its a marker, for a puppy it looks like a chewable thing.
> Who is right?
What you want to do with the object, chew it, mark with it, or
masturbate with it, is beside the point. It is still a physical
reality, and is composed of various chemicals in a particular
way and shape, and it has particular properties, regardless of
whatever relationship you choose to have with it or how it can
further your particular projects.
> If someone else sees an event as a miracle, and others not,
> how could we then judge and say that miracles do not exist?
Are you really going to try to play the shift-the-burden-of-proof
game and say "you can't disprove that there are ghosts and unicorns
and three-headed monsters"? It's up to the people who makes such
claims to show evidence for their existence.
And we *can* easily judge, Kent, by demonstrating how what was
thought to be a 'miracle' is not some supernatural spookery at all,
but is a regulated natural law. There are literally thousands of
examples of this. By demonstrating that the phenomenon is caused by
a natural process, which is repeated when this process is present,
and which is not repeated when this process is absent. We can show
that a miracle did not occur. So far, we have no reason to believe
that any miracles of any kind have ever occurred, nor have any psychic
powers of any kind ever been demonstrated to date.
What really is miraculous, however, is how the word 'gullible' happens
to be missing from every major English dictionary. Don't you think so?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The irrefutable mathematical certainties are:
> (1) It is not possible for an ordinary person to attain
> iddhi without fulfilling the above preliminaries.
That's not a certainty: that's a claim, conjecture, belief.
What is the reasoning which allegedly makes this a certainty,
and what is mathematical about it? And what is irrefutable?
It may simply be impossible for anyone to attain iddhi, if
it is only a mythical claim, and thus it would be trivially
true that if no one can attain it then an ordinary person
cannot attain it.
> (2) Only one person out of a population of 3,000,000 will
> possess the ability to goes through all of the above
> preliminaries and attained iddhi.
According to what study done when? How do you know it isn't
one in 2,500,000 instead, for instance? Where did this figure
come from? How did you verify your data? Again, this is not
only not a certainty, it is not even a claim with any supporting
evidence. You merely said this out of the blue, or because someone
else said this to you. That's about as *un*certain as it gets.
Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
> This is the mathematical ratio:
> Person can succeed with Iddhi= 1:3,000,000
And how is this ratio derived? You haven't said anything that
relates to any 'certainty' at all yet.
The rest of what you say looks pretty standard and obviously you
know your Buddhist mythology very well. However, I don't see how
these various lists lead to the statistical claims you have made,
much less demonstrate any kind of 'certainty'.
> Here is the mathematic, i.e. if you can translate the following
> factors into mathematical symbols and formulas:
This is all interesting stuff to read, and thank you for posting all
of the following. However, how exactly are these lists supposed to
'translate' into any kind of formula or demonstrate the statistical
claim you have made? Rather, they look to me like some exercises to
help one concentrate better, that's all. Sort of like doing push-ups.
(And I wonder if there are any videos of sexy yoginis doing jhanas?)
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Tang Huyen
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote (I have added the asterisks): <<Of course.
That is natural, and testable, and the real thing. The breath has enormous
effects on our state of mind. What is hocus pocus is the crap about walking on
water or through walls or teleporting oneself across the world or reading
other people's minds. And athletes don't do that, Kent. Neither do Buddhas.
*The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking*.>>
Kent Sandvik: <<I don't have the data to either falsify this or exclaim its
real, and as such it's better to form a firm opinion when one has enough
knowledge and insight to see if such powers are real or not.>>
DT: <<My God: what a sheepish cop-out! You're going to be vulnerable to the
most petty snake-oil peddler and charlatan, then. Look, we can very well look
at the empirical data and the reasoning and see how strong these theories and
claims really are.>>
The same Kent uttered a lion's roar in "Re: Truth In and Outside of Buddhism
(was Re: Buddhists, Monks, Families & Sex)", Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:28:15 GMT:
<<Yes. The beautiful part is that reasoning and honesty always wins over
falsity, opinions and guess work. It is easy to state opinions about
things, however having a good reason why something is wrong is another
matter.
The ancient masters, Shantideva (chapter IX in Bodhisattva's Way of
Life), Naropa (spent a lot of his abbot time as one of the gate
keepers debating against non-Buddhists at Nalanda), Je Tsongkhapa
(described incorrect views in details before tearing them apart),
Dharmakirti who was feared across India as the debater who never lost
a debate, and many, many, many other Buddhist teachers knew the
opposite views, and could explain why these were incorrect, illogical,
not valid, and futile for future happiness. We could still read today
their reasonings and get inspiration when dealing in this modern world
with Internet creating opinions and assumptions, and those fly around
the world in micro-seconds.
As such we have a huge assembly of valid reasoning, all the way back
to Shakyamuni Buddha's original teachings, justifying the Buddhist
world view. It's a matter of learning it well, as it's needed when
debating, of course.
Some might think that this is arrogance, and being attached to one's
own view. However, it's critical, as when one has a fully developed
conceptual understanding of emptiness, then suddenly all the false
views are big hindrances for fellow sentient beings, causing them to
suffer, and as such there's a responsibility to maintain and preserve
the ultimate medicine for happiness. It sounds very idealistic, but
that's how it is.
Oh, this became a long posting. Sorry. --Kent>>
So DT, you win: Kent has backed up your (very nice, to me) statement: "The
greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking." It is just that critical
thinking is utterly beyond lots of posters in TRB, many of whom just play the
uncritical and easy (easy because uncritical) game "if they are not for us,
they must be against us".
Tang Huyen
maha...@yahoo.com
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:37157498...@pacific.net.sg...
>
> Say who? Ask your teacher regarding the practice of Vase Retention and
> so forth. See if he/she will tell you that it is dangerous to practice
> w/o first receive the instructions.
Every excercises can be dangerous if you overdo it. But if one is really have
motivation to practice it, he will excercise caution by application of trial
and error, by learning from mistakes and correct them. Of course they will be
people who need guidance even in worldly excercises, these are people who must
rely on a master. The Vase Retention method really has potential danger, but
then the temporary benefit will be greater than the danger.
>
> Oh come on, even you would agree that no master can guide you 24 hrs
> here. Therefore, you must receive the teachings FIRST and practice on
> your own. Isn't it?
Of course, the teaching can be found in books.
>
> Ah.... again.... Chin fu is going to claim that he has accomplished
> tummo while the lamas from the major lineages (including the Throne
> Holders???) don't. Just like in the past msgs, he condemned the present
> Chan (Zen) masters that they have not attained realizations, don't bow
> to high teachers, splitted on photographs of the masters. Sigh! You
> never learn.....
Attainment of Tummo mean nothing to an accomplished master. He who releases
dharmakaya already has his mind inserted within the central channel, that is
in Kundalini refered to as the awakening of supramundane kundalini. And in
Tummo, is is called the secret Tummo, in contrary to conventional Tummo. So
it is the conventional Tummo that is the hardest to accomplish. And many
accomplished master skip it due to lack of time. But without conventional
Tummo, siddhis of Tummo will not become manifest. So is it by saying that
they did not attain accomplishment of conventional Tummo serve to belittle
them?
>
> True, but it seems that you're also agreed that you must receive the
> instructions on 3rd Consecreation FIRST before practice it to
> perfection. :-) So do you need a teacher or no teacher?
Nowadays, the 3rd initiation is only symbolic, there is no more actual 3rd
initiation existed since the new tantric age. Even with Hevajra empowerment,
you won't get an actual 3rd initiation. And there won't be an actual wisdom
mudra who are qualified vajrayana consort. And if Vajrayana disciples are too
choosy, you cannot expect that it is possible for him to get any consort!
Since one will eventually marrying an ordinary unqualified woman, you cannot
expect your teacher will allow this! So you will ended in practicing without
a teacher. To have a teacher one still must learn by mistakes, so it depends,
if one cannot be a Kung Fu master, he should be a disciple. It follows that
those who are naturally gifted in kung fu ability, need no teacher. I have
those nature instinct and ability, so I know who can learn by himself without
a master and who cannot. I fully recognised the existence of these
differences in capacity of vessels.
>
> Anyway, the above practice is reserve for the skilful practitioners, not
> for me, an inferior practitioner.
For unskilful practitioners, just uphold the view of absolute bodhicitta is
sufficient. Losing relative bodhicitta will not be the cause of downfall in
this case. But until absolute bodhicitta is recognised, to you this will not
be an exception.
>
> So? If that's the case, you can go ahead and publish all the tantric
> literature on the ng. I have no comment for that since you prefer to
> remain this way, nothing I can do to stop.
Those which are revealed will be revealed, those which are concealed will be
concealed, for those who need a teacher, the demand for a teacher will be
fulfilled, for those who don't need teacher, will himself appeared as teacher
of those who needed teachers. May all vessels become teachers, as such may
the population of disciples be exhausted by their having become teachers. As
such may the teachers dissolved into blissful state of sambogakaya, and from
there dissolved into the immaculate eternal mandala of the Lord of Universal
Goodness.
>
> > Talk about Kung Fu? I remmeber well that even the Chinese works "Book of
> Breaking Roots" and "Book of Washing Marrows" are not to be practice
> without a teacher! First, one must receive the proper instructions and
> so forth, then one practices it to perfection.
Those books are from Bodhidharma who gave to the 2nd Patriarch, who in turn
concealed them in the wall of Solin Temple. Later monks from Solin temple
discovered them, they formed the basis of Solin Iron-man Kung Fu and many
injuries' healing methods. Those who discovered and practice them did not
received any proper instruction from a living teacher, but have themselves
become others' teachers. Of course when these teachers without teacher are
present, it is proper to ask people to rely on them, but if they are not
around, then it is wrong to say that people cannot practice the instruction
without the teacherless teachers.
>
> Buddhist tantric literature should be sold under the supervision of the
> bookshops. As I have said earlier, they only benefit those who have
> received required empowerment (usually a major empowerment of
> Annutarayoga) instructions on completion stage. Such as recently
> translated text 'Je Tsongkhapa's "Six Yogas of Naropa"', and other works
> on 11 Yogas of Naro Khachoma, Guhyasamaja, Kalacakra and even the Lam
> Dre's 'The Triple Tantra', they should be sold to the people under the
> supervision of the bookshops. Although most of these books have stated
> that one must require the empowerment and instructions in order to read
> the books, some people who are out of curiosity, still buy these books
> and usually they have not received any empowerments and instructions. In
> the past, there are a few people in this ng, requesting on proper
> practice on Kundalini practice here after reading these books. It is not
> very good, of course. My monastery's library is very strict on these
> books and will ask our members if they have received the teachings or
> not.
To say that a book will only benefit those who have received empowerment is
not wrong in view of the presence of a teacher, but it is not right either in
view of the absence of a teacher. There is basically no difference between
the transmission of kung fu and tantric teaching, since both are a teaching
of ancient science. Even kung fu transmission can be very strict, especially
the more deadly kung fu like the 'single Yan finger' of Suolin, and the
master only transmit to a single person who will be his successor, so here
indeed oral transmission is essential and without the pitch instruction, the
manual will be useless. But since they are a form of science and so must have
their composite factors, so if one has already mastered many kung fu method,
he only need to see the manual and he will intuitively or through trial and
error, realize the pitch meaning of the manual's instruction. So it is the
same for dharma which is much more systematic than kung fu. So whoever
realises the peak of dharma realises all the branches of the 8 lower yanas,
for such a practitioner, he indeed required no other teachers, for whenever
he sees a dharma, even by seeing its name, he knew its contents. And in
dharma the nature of empowerment is not the conventional empowerment by vase
which is only symbolic, the actual empowerment is supreme realization.
>
> > And before you forget, the Vajrakilaya Tantra was a Tantra that was
discovered
> > in an Iron Box hidden in Bodhigaya by an ordinary man, who then practice and
> > attained accomplishment. So in matter of fact, there was no empowerment
taken
> > place. But then later masters start to give empowerment of Vajrakilaya, and
> > claim that they are from unbroken lineage of oral transmission. If I should
> > ask:"Trace back from whom"? The answer will be the ordinary man who has
> > received no empowerment.
>
> Then you would even ask, how did the Buddha attained Buddhahood w/o any
> guidance of teacher?
Even at these very moment, they are countless beings who attained Buddhahood,
and at the same time countless beings fall into hell, one need not have
guidance in order to fall into hell, in the same way one need no guidance to
realize Buddhahood. By perfection of 6 paramita is a conventional way, by
realization is perfection of 6 paramitas of generousity in non-conventional
way, one need not go through countless aeons to accomplished conventional
paramitas.
According to the 'Vajra Heart Major Exposition' sutra: There are 7 precious
jewels of offering. When Munjushri asked the Buddha:"What is the body's 7
precious jewels of offering?" The Buddha said:"The desireless generousity, so
called the eyes which do not desire strange form, is the offering of the
jewel of form. The ears which do not desire good melody music, is offering of
the jewel of sound. The nose does not desire good incense, is the offering of
the jewel of incense. The tongue does not desire sublime delicious taste, is
the offering of the jewel of taste. The body does not desire nice clothing,
is the offering of the jewel of touch. The mind does not desire fame, benefit
and love, is the offering of the jewel of dharma. The essence does not desire
worldly pleasure, is the offering of the jewel of Buddhahood. If a man
realised within his body the 7 precious jewels of offerings, all the merit he
obtained will be superior to the merit of worldly offering of gold, silver,
precious stone, pearl mara, crystal, and the offering of 7 jewels ornaments.
They cannot be compared even by one out of a billion, they have no way to be
compare as such."
As such by realization of wisdom alone perfects the accumulation of merit of
the 6 conventional paramitas, and with that single drop of realization, one
attained the consummation of Buddhahood with or without a teacher.
>
> Not many people have good merits like the Buddha and great masters who
> just require a single moment of contemplation or other means to attain
> enlightenment. Remember how Master Hui Neng attained enlightenment when
> someone is reciting the Diamond Sutra? Not many people have their
> abilities. So, before we talk such things, it is safer to practice
> Buddhadharma and seek proper instructions for any teachings. If one has
> doubt, do not hestitate to ask one's teacher.
I speak from my own experience as one who has realised the pitch of oral
instruction through revealed documents of accomplished masters. I speak from
my own experience as one who comprehend the essential meaning through
scriptural transmission. As such due to the truth of direct experience. But
again, this only apply to the person of superior capacity according to the
classification of 3 level of capacities.
I must refute all refutation that one cannot attained realization from
scriptures and must depends on direct oral transmission and guidance from a
teacher. Then the cause of this is due to lack of teacher from whom I can
receive direct guidance. If teachers do not create the cause to leave
suitable vessels in the dust of ignorance, then the cause to refute the need
to rely on a teacher may not have arisen. So teachers have to bear their own
individual karma for keeping something good in secret. In age of
degeneration, such negative karma will be stronger, so it is to the teacher's
own benefit in term of karmic principal to reveal precious teaching to
benefit all sentient beings. Previously in Tibet, people possessed auspicious
karma, as such the teachers are readily available, and teachers openly
revealed precious teaching, as such it manifests as karma that all beings
must become their disciples and attains accomplishment, this is to them the
fruit of their positive karma. This tendency or tradition due to auspicious
past karma continue up to these days, but it is just the result of previous
karma, it has nothing to do with the fact of vajrayana teaching.
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
Tang:
> So DT, you win: Kent has backed up your (very nice, to me) statement
> "The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking."
Well, I win, or you could say that I was just tilting at windmills, as
Kent seems to share my view after all, or you could say Kent and I both win,
as the post you quote indicates that Kent and I don't actually disagree.
> It is just that critical thinking is utterly beyond lots of posters in TRB,
> many of whom just play the uncritical and easy (easy because uncritical)
> game "if they are not for us, they must be against us".
And don't forget the game, "if they are not in my sect, then they are really
a Brahmanist!" heh heh
The game I was objecting to was "if you can't disprove my unfalsifiable
fantasies, then you're not allowed to criticize my quackery."
I do think that if someone claims to find a system or meanings system to be
of value and to be helpful to them, there is no reason to criticize it.
However, it is when they make objective claims about the world that I have
a problem, or when statements start with incredibly absurd assumptions from
which one may conclude just about anything, such as "since everything is
really all an illusion anyway, then blah blah blah."
People who believe in psychic powers, devas, past lives, gods, and UFOs
or think that the mind creates the world instead of facing their own very
physical and short animal existence would do well to do some gardening or
go rock-climing in the woods instead of peddling such spookery. When the
Buddha was faced with all his stupid thoughts (the armies of Mara) he put
his hand on the ground, the real physical earth, and when he grounded
himself and touched that plain physical dirt, all the fantasies disappeared.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
chino...@my-dejanews.com
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> People who believe in psychic powers, devas, past lives, gods, and UFOs
> or think that the mind creates the world instead of facing their own very
> physical and short animal existence would do well to do some gardening or
> go rock-climing in the woods instead of peddling such spookery. When the
> Buddha was faced with all his stupid thoughts (the armies of Mara) he put
> his hand on the ground, the real physical earth, and when he grounded
> himself and touched that plain physical dirt, all the fantasies disappeared.
ummm..... not necessarily to disagree with your basic view, but using the
buddha's earth-touching to banish mara as the illustration of your point may
not be the best choice. at least as the traditional story goes, did he not do
it not at all to "ground" himself in "the real physical earth", free of
"fantasies", but rather, in response to mara's challenging him as to by what
right could he sit there seeking awakening, in order to call the earth as
witness to all the untold lifetimes he had lived in which he had created the
causes to be there then, on the brink of awakening?
so while it's kind of clever to attempt to use a traditional reference - one
that implicitly affirms rebirth - in such a way as to skewer some traditional
teachings, including rebirth, it would have been much more powerful to use a
traditional metaphor (or actual event) that made your point without having to
be made subject to fundamental revisionism as to what that metaphor (or actual
event) means or was all about in the first place.
rgds,
chino
JulianLZB87
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7f6vt1$cga$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>What really is miraculous, however, is how the word 'gullible' happens
>to be missing from every major English dictionary.
Try the minor ones instead.
"Gullible" is in the C.O.D.
John Waterman
> heeheehee. If Karma Tharchin is making this stuff up, then he deserves to
> be teased. But if this is one of the myths in his tradition, then it is
> rather interesting and I would want not to attack it's absurdity as much
> as know about its history and mythological connections. Could be something
> like the numberology of the Jews or the Pythagoreans and so forth. I
always
> find that stuff interesting, and I like the cool stuff about sacred
numbers,
> like 108 (1*2*2*3*3*3). My own favorite number is 153. Guess why?
Not a clue, sorry.
I don't know about numbers being sacred though, mathematics maybe, but I
wouldn't like to defend the claim. They are great though.... numbers, that
is. I like the surprising and beautiful connections between different areas
of maths and even within areas. For example, did you know that the sum of
the first n odd numbers is equal to n squared? Cool, huh?
>
> > It is a poor habit to throw around terms like mathematical certainty,
when
> > that *cannot* be what you mean, just to give your fairly bizarre ideas
some
> > supposed validity.
> >
> > Regards
> > John
>
> Since you liked my last post, let me bore you by pasting in the main
> part of an old post I wrote about the iddhis and magical powers...
>
< snip>
Thanks DT, I couldn't agree more. Myths are great, and useful for
contemplation. But contemplation in the context of *now* - the end of the
twentieth century. Why degrade Buddhism with ghosts, gods and magic?
Regards
John
John Waterman
<maha...@yahoo.com> wrote >
> The irrefutable mathematical certainties are: (1) It is not possible for
an
> ordinary person to attain iddhi without fulfilling the above
preliminaries.
> (2) Only one person out of a population of 3,000,000 will possessed the
> ability to goes through all of the above preliminaries and attained iddhi.
>
> This is the mathematical ratio:
> Person can succeed with Iddhi= 1:3,000,000
>
john
Tang Huyen
John Waterman wrote: <<Myths are great, and useful for contemplation. But
contemplation in the context of *now* - the end of the twentieth century. Why
degrade Buddhism with ghosts, gods and magic?>>
What, John? You want to revert to that old-fashioned, sober rationalism of the
Buddha? You don't want to get carried away in the stream of deities, yidams,
demons, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, etc.? And what is so wrong with you that makes
you dislike magic? It's the pulse of thousands of Buddhists, Eastern and
Western, you know, and you offend them by denigrating their ghosts, gods and
magic. So repent quick before they send their protectors to harm you, to protect
their dharma. Remember, they have Overseeing Lords who work for them.
Tang Huyen
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> According to what study done when? How do you know it isn't
> one in 2,500,000 instead, for instance? Where did this figure
> come from? How did you verify your data? Again, this is not
> only not a certainty, it is not even a claim with any supporting
> evidence. You merely said this out of the blue, or because someone
> else said this to you. That's about as *un*certain as it gets.
> Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
> possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
> around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
Remind me of Rinchen Zangpo and other New Translation masters criticized
the practitioners of Vajrayana displaying powers in the market place.
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
<sniped>
> I must refute all refutation that one cannot attained realization from
> scriptures and must depends on direct oral transmission and guidance from a
> teacher. Then the cause of this is due to lack of teacher from whom I can
> receive direct guidance. If teachers do not create the cause to leave
> suitable vessels in the dust of ignorance, then the cause to refute the need
> to rely on a teacher may not have arisen. So teachers have to bear their own
> individual karma for keeping something good in secret. In age of
> degeneration, such negative karma will be stronger, so it is to the teacher's
> own benefit in term of karmic principal to reveal precious teaching to
> benefit all sentient beings. Previously in Tibet, people possessed auspicious
> karma, as such the teachers are readily available, and teachers openly
> revealed precious teaching, as such it manifests as karma that all beings
> must become their disciples and attains accomplishment, this is to them the
> fruit of their positive karma. This tendency or tradition due to auspicious
> past karma continue up to these days, but it is just the result of previous
> karma, it has nothing to do with the fact of vajrayana teaching.
After reading your long post, I begin to sick of reading your stuffs.
Enough of your nonsense: mind is good, yours are bad.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
chino...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> ummm..... not necessarily to disagree with your basic view, but using the
> buddha's earth-touching to banish mara as the illustration of your point may
> not be the best choice.
Actually, it is the best choice, as Buddha's grounding himself in the earth
is very powerful and meaningful to me and is a metaphor which inspires me.
> at least as the traditional story goes, did he not do it not at all to
> "ground" himself in "the real physical earth", free of "fantasies",
Yes he did. The last cry of his deluded conditioned ego or neurotic craving,
or whatever, showed itself, as depicted by the metaphor of Mara. So he calls
upon the Earth goddess to bear witness, which is a metaphor for grounding
himself or connecting to the world, in the solid, tangigle earth.
> but rather, in response to mara's challenging him as to by what right could
> he sit there seeking awakening, in order to call the earth as witness to
> all the untold lifetimes he had lived in which he had created the causes
> to be there then, on the brink of awakening?
Exactly. And the untold lifetimes are a metaphor for what? All his conditioned
past experiences, right? The Buddha's awakened represents and end to all those
patterns and all the repressed contents of his subconscious are brought to the
surface and let go of finally.
> so while it's kind of clever to attempt to use a traditional reference -
It's not clever at all. It's taking the story of the Buddha's awakening and
making it a living, inspirational myth by which to live my life. I could talk
of Jesus going into the desert for 40 days and meeting the devil, which is a
very similar metaphor. It's a rather common theme, but the myth of the Buddha
is especially powerful and meaningful for me.
> one that implicitly affirms rebirth - in such a way as to skewer some
> traditional teachings, including rebirth,
Oh, come on now, not *another* fundamentalist? You sound like a Christian who
actually thinks Jesus didn't eat for 40 days or actually turned water into
wine! To treat such a beautiful and inspiring myth as a historical CNN news
report would be about as absurd as it gets. Where's the spirituality in that?
> it would have been much more powerful to use a traditional metaphor
> (or actual event) that made your point without having to be made subject
> to fundamental revisionism as to what that metaphor (or actual event)
> means or was all about in the first place.
I haven't revised what the metaphor means to me. It's always had that
powerful symbolism for me. If you are inspired by a different interpretation,
and you were raised in a culture where reincarnation was deeply embedded in
your meaning system, then you may be inspired by a different interpretation
of the myth and that is great. Please feel free to share whatever deeply
inspires you about the story. That's what's so rich about these stories:
their ability to move and inspire people in many different ways.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
> In article <7f87hk$h2j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> People who believe in psychic powers, devas, past lives, gods, and UFOs
>> or think that the mind creates the world instead of facing their own very
>> physical and short animal existence would do well to do some gardening or
>> go rock-climing in the woods instead of peddling such spookery. When the
>> Buddha was faced with all his stupid thoughts (the armies of Mara) he put
>> his hand on the ground, the real physical earth, and when he grounded
>> himself and touched that plain physical dirt, all the fantasies disappeared.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Waterman
maha...@yahoo.com
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:3717718B...@pacific.net.sg...
>
>
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > According to what study done when? How do you know it isn't
> > one in 2,500,000 instead, for instance? Where did this figure
> > come from? How did you verify your data? Again, this is not
> > only not a certainty, it is not even a claim with any supporting
> > evidence. You merely said this out of the blue, or because someone
> > else said this to you. That's about as *un*certain as it gets.
> > Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
> > possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
> > around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
>
> Remind me of Rinchen Zangpo and other New Translation masters criticized
> the practitioners of Vajrayana displaying powers in the market place.
This figure is based on the way accomplished masters predict the number of
times a mantra need to be recited in order to experience its effect. During
the auspicious time, a mantra only need to be recited for 100,000 times in
order to be effective. These masters predict that in time of degeneration
like this, one need to recite as many as 3,000,000 times. Based on this, one
can safely assume the original 1:100 000 ratio should be raised to 1: 3 000
000. Or to be more precise, one should add that the ratio is as follow:
Ratio of person attaining iddhi => 1(100 000) + < 1 (3 000 000)
Which mean more than 1 00 000 but less than 3 000 000, i.e. between 1 00 000
to 3 000 000, is the range within mathematical ratio.
Giving the factors that 100 000 in Buddha time refer to those sangha who have
heard and practice meditation. But today the factors that many people never
heard of Buddhist meditation, and are influence by worldly distraction, they
were at least 30 factors that cause the figure to be multiply by the minimum
of 30 times. Remember this is minimum, actual figure according to Guru
Rinpoche would be as much as 100 times! But as long as one knows the range of
that ratio, there is mathematical equation and certainly is no mere idle
speculation. To know mathematic and its application, one must know the
importance of ratio, and average, mathematic is not just about given the
actual number, but a range of numbers of approximation does not constitute
uncertainties, since within that range, there is certainty.
When the Titanic was hit with an iceberg, the ship builder intuitively knows
that the sinking of the ship is a matter of mathematical certainty. For the
entrance of the water into the ship is the cause factor of mathematical
certainty. In the same way the accumulation of the sum of cause factors (i.e.
the attainment of 8 jhanas throught each of the 1st 8 kasinas and train the
mind in 14 ways) leading to iddhi vidha.
That which is the yana of casulity operate in manner of mathematical
precision. Buddhism is never a superstitious belief, it is a science of
relativity which corresponce to its so called relative truth. Being the
science of relativity, it possessed mathematical precision at maximum level.
How much more is Buddhist Tantra which is essentially mean the Buddhist
Science?
The external tantric practice is not without the foundation of factors
essential for fruition, being possessing of external factors, such as
deities, communication and offerings, the offerer, recipient, the performers
and benefitors, when these necessary sum of factors are meet, then the result
is just a matter of mathematical or computed certainty. So one need not talk
about more complex mathematical fomulas, just understand this in term of
simply mathematical equation, i.e. the sum of factors equal results (1+1=2).
We are not talk about non-composite factors of absolute truth, whenever there
is composition, there will be factors. Whenever there are factors, there will
be sum or composite of which is the result (iddhi). Whenever there is sum or
equation, there will be mathematical certainty.
As the Buddha who has understood the nature of mind said: "With his mind thus
focused, purified...stable and impassible, he applies and leads his mind to
iddhi-vidha."
Furthermore:"Monks, I don't see any state when practiced and developed,
becomes so pliant and wieldly as the mind." (A.i.9.); for the mind, when
focused and purified through the 4th jhana, is flexible and wieldly like
well-purified gold. When mind is thus trained and purified it becomes firm
and well established in 16 ways that are roots from which developed the
iddhi-vidha.
The 16 ways are said to be thus:
(1) The plastic mind does not agitate in self-settleness, as such it is
undisturbed.
(2) The unmentated mind does not agitate in distraction.
(3) The uncontrived mind does not agitate in desire.
(4) The unoffending mind does not agitate in hatred,
(5) The independent mind does not agitate in judgement.
(6) The unfabricated mind does not agitate in lust.
(7) The emancipated mind does not agitate in sensuality.
(8) The liberated mind does not agitate in emotion.
(9) The unrestricted mind does not agitate in attachment of emotion.
(10) The one-pointed mind does not agitate in multi-layer emotivities.
(11) The mind of faith does not agitate in absence of faith.
(12) The mind stabilize by energy does not agitate in non-activity.
(13) The mind stabilized by recollection does not agitate in forgetfulness.
(14) The mind stabilized by samadhi does not agitate in disturbance.
(15) The mind of wisdom does not agitate in confusion.
(16) The mind awakened does not agitate in darkness of confusion, so it is
imperturbable.
(Ptsm.ii.206).
When mind is well cultivated, it is easily applied and become the basis and
proximate factors of the resultant fruit of iddhi.
As such by actually bring someone to display such miracle in front of public
audience is no more real than the actual understanding of those factors.
Without the knowledge of those factors, seeing the display of miracle would
not convinced you a bit, for all phenomenon is like dream, who would attached
any importance to it? Albert Enstein doesn't need to see the blazing of
Atomic Bomb in order to understand the principal factors and know it with
certainty that it will work out accordingly. This is understanding by mean of
intuitive knowledge of factors.
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"John Waterman" <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks DT, I couldn't agree more. Myths are great, and useful for
> contemplation. But contemplation in the context of *now* - the end of the
> twentieth century. Why degrade Buddhism with ghosts, gods and magic?
Yes, there is no reason to try to force such things upon us if they are not
deeply embeddded in our meaning system. If someone finds value, however, in
literally positing a literal ghostie called Mara, whose literal army of
various beasties the Buddha fought off, and that inspires them instead of
the metaphor of deluded thoughts and fears dissolving when the Buddha
grounded himself by placing his hand on the dirt, then that's fine if it
works with them. Doesn't do anything for me, but if that's their fancy, ok.
>> My own favorite number is 153. Guess why?
>
> Not a clue, sorry.
It's a triangular number, which means that it can be arranged in an
equilateral triangle, like bowling pins, with rows of 1, 2, 3...etc.
It is the sum of the first 17 numbers. Also, it is the sum of the first
five factorials: 153 = 5! + 4! + 3! + 2! + 1! It is also the sum of two
squares (144 + 9) and the difference of two squares (169 - 16). It is also
the sum of three cubes, but not just any three cubes: cube each of the
digits of 153 and then add them: 1 + 125 + 27 = 153. Isn't that cool?
Oh yeah, and in base 16 or hexidecimal (and in binary as well) 153 is
a palindrome, that is, it is the same forward and backwards, like the
word "racecar". There's quite a bit more, but I discovered all these
properties of 153 in highschool, and it instantly became my favorite
number, and has been ever since.
> I don't know about numbers being sacred though, mathematics maybe, but I
> wouldn't like to defend the claim. They are great though.... numbers, that
> is. I like the surprising and beautiful connections between different areas
> of maths and even within areas.
Yes, I agree. Though I enjoy reading about those who considered numbers to
be sacred. In ninth grade I went wild over the Fibanacci numbers.
> For example, did you know that the sum of the first n odd numbers is equal
> to n squared? Cool, huh?
Sure: just make a square with dots of size nxn. To get the next larger square
of size (n+1)^2, you add a row (n) and a column (n) and one for the corner,
which means you add 2n+1 to get the next square given any square nxn. Yet the
odd numbers can be defined as 2n+1, so each successive square is made by
adding the next odd number, since the row and column are each incremented by
one.
Yes, it's cool. And what's more, that claim really *is* irrefutable, as we
can use strong induction to show that if it works for any square of size n,
then it must work for a square of size n+1, and as we can show that it works
for the case of n=1, we hence have built an irrefutable ladder which climbs
up to infinity! I'd like to see Karma Tharchin try to top that bit of
mathematical magic!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
Tang Huyen <thu...@bu.edu> wrote:
> John Waterman wrote: <<Myths are great, and useful for contemplation. But
> contemplation in the context of *now* - the end of the twentieth century.
> Why degrade Buddhism with ghosts, gods and magic?>>
>
> What, John? You want to revert to that old-fashioned, sober rationalism of the
> Buddha? You don't want to get carried away in the stream of deities, yidams,
> demons, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, etc.? And what is so wrong with you that makes
> you dislike magic? It's the pulse of thousands of Buddhists, Eastern and
> Western, you know, and you offend them by denigrating their ghosts, gods and
> magic. So repent quick before they send their protectors to harm you, to
> protect their dharma. Remember, they have Overseeing Lords who work for them.
>
> Tang Huyan
Oh, relax, Tang: their Dark Lords are no match for us, because we have Yoda!
So the Force is with us, or will be in just 32 days from now. So John, Tang,
all together now, to the tune of the old Kinks' song "Lola" -- OK, hit it
guys:
I met him in a swamp down in Dagobah
where it bubbles all the time
like a giant carbonated soda,
S O D A, soda.
I saw the little runt sitting there on a log.
I asked him his name
and in a raspy voice he said Yoda,
Y O D A, Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda.
Well, I've been around but I ain't never seen
a guy who looks like a Muppet
but he's wrinkled and green,
Oh my Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda.
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
how he can lift me in the air just by raising his hand
oh my Yoda.
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Well, I left home just a week before,
and I've never ever been a Jedi before
but Obi-Wan he set me straight of course,
He said, "Go to Yoda and he'll show you the Force."
Well, I'm not the kind that'll argue with Ben
So it looks I'm gonna start all over again
with my Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
So I used the Force,
I picked up a box,
I lifted some rocks,
Well I stood on my head,
Well I won't forget what Yoda said.
He said "Luke, stay away from the darker side,
and if you start to go astray let the Force be your guide."
Oh my Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda.
"I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed.
But, remember if you kill him then you'll be unemployed"
Oh my Yoda,
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Well, I heard my friends really got in a mess
so I'm gonna have to leave Yoda, I guess.
But I know that I'll be coming back some day
I'll be playing this part till I'm old and grey.
The Long-term contract I hadda sign
says I'll be making these movies till the end of time
with my Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
Yo-Yo-Yo-Yo Yoda
(continue to fade...)
And for an encore, we can do the Y.O.D.A. version of the Village People's
YMCA! (But it's too long to post so go to
http://yoda.unl.edu/Resources/yodasong.html)
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <92424330...@zeppelin.svr.home.net>,
> SNIP
> What really is miraculous, however, is how the word 'gullible' happens
> to be missing from every major English dictionary. Don't you think so?
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
Nope. What I think is that it's miraculous that we're breathing! Most of us,
at least...
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself!"
--Walt Whitman
JulianLZB87
maha...@yahoo.com wrote in message <7f92ir$7te$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
>news:3717718B...@pacific.net.sg...
>>
>>
>> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > According to what study done when? How do you know it isn't
>> > one in 2,500,000 instead, for instance? Where did this figure
>> > come from? How did you verify your data? Again, this is not
>> > only not a certainty, it is not even a claim with any supporting
>> > evidence. You merely said this out of the blue, or because someone
>> > else said this to you. That's about as *un*certain as it gets.
>> > Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
>> > possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
>> > around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
>>
>> Remind me of Rinchen Zangpo and other New Translation masters criticized
>> the practitioners of Vajrayana displaying powers in the market place.
>
>This figure is based on the way accomplished masters predict the number of
>times a mantra need to be recited in order to experience its effect. During
>the auspicious time, a mantra only need to be recited for 100,000 times in
>order to be effective. These masters predict that in time of degeneration
>like this, one need to recite as many as 3,000,000 times. Based on this,
one
>can safely assume the original 1:100 000 ratio should be raised to 1: 3 000
>000. Or to be more precise, one should add that the ratio is as follow:
>
Excuse me. What on earth is this all about?
Sphere! Where's Sphere? Help!
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Without the knowledge of those factors, seeing the display of miracle would
> not have convinced you a bit, for all phenomenon is like dream, who would
> attached any importance to it?
On the contrary, seeing an actual miracle *would* be convincing, and in fact,
it is the *only* thing that would be convincing. And this is *not* like a
dream. In dreams I can fly and I can breathe underwater. However, try placing
your head in a bucket of water, and you will know very soon that you are an
animal make of flesh and blood that needs to breathe to continue to exist
even for a few minutes. So I attach a hell of a lot of importance to physical
reality.
> Albert Enstein doesn't need to see the blazing of Atomic Bomb in order to
> understand the principal factors and know it with certainty that it will
> work out accordingly.
But that is absolutely false!!! He didn't know with any certainty if the bomb
would work. They made a guess from their calculations. Many theories which
seem to be intuitively right turn out to be mistaken all the time. Einstein
didn't know if relativity was true at all. It was just a pretty theory that
looked good on paper. That doesn't mean anything, unless it is tested
empirically.
> This is understanding by mean of intuitive knowledge of factors.
Then you have admitted that it is bullshit, and not knowledge at all.
Anything which is not tested and demonstated with physical reality is
bullshit. It is just a fantasy, an idea. Most of them are wrong. All the
great philosophers had great intricate models. Plato thought that the four
elements, plus celestial matter, were composed of atoms which had the shapes
of the five regular solids. Leibniz had his intricate theory of Monadology.
All these people claimed to have intuitive knowledge, but it isn't actually
knowledge at all. Doesn't matter how nice it sounds or what guru said it:
if it doesn't test out with physical reality, it is false. Even Einstein.
Einstein's relativity theory which explained gravity as curved space
looked pretty on paper, and he was *confident* that he was right, but he
didn't *know*, and he had no certainty whatsover. Not until he made a
critical, empirical test. During a total solar eclipse right after WWI,
all the top physisists went to an observatory in South America and
looked at the light from stars just behind the sun during the eclipse.
If the light went straight, this would falsify Einstein's theory,
and he would be wrong. If he were right, it would curve so that we
would see light from stars that were behind the sun, but which had
been bent by the curvature of space very close to the sun. No one knew
what would happen, they all guessed. Until the actual results were seen.
Well, the light bent just as Einstein predicted. Even this did not *prove*
that he was right with any certainty. For some other theory which also
predicts the bending of light might actually be true instead of Einstein's.
However, the falsifying evidence did not occur. So we could have known with
certainty that he was *wrong*, if the light had not bent. But since it did,
we have good reason to believe Einstein's theory is true, but we even now
have no certainty whatsoever. You can only prove with certainty that a
theory is wrong, not that it is correct.
DT:
>> Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
>> possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
>> around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
> This figure is based on the way accomplished masters predict the number
> of times a mantra need to be recited in order to experience its effect.
The whole idea that repeating a word over and over is going to have some
kind of magical effect is of itself quite absurd. Repeating words over and
over millions of times is about as stupid a thing to do as I can imagine.
> During the auspicious time, a mantra only need to be recited for 100,000
> times in order to be effective. These masters predict that in time of
> degeneration like this, one need to recite as many as 3,000,000 times.
So this is a *prediction*, and not a certainty. If you mean prediction, then
say prediction. It is also grounded in nothing. In other words, these figures
came from the whims and imaginations of some guru who told people that if they
repeat the same word over and over like a moron for millions of times, that
they will have magical powers. That's about the most ridiculous crock of shit
I have ever heard. It is hard to imagine that any intelligent being would
believe such a thing.
I certainly don't wish to show disrespect to you or to your practice, but the
idea that someone can believe that if they repeat a magic word over and over
for millions of times that they will get comic book superhero powers and be
able to fly and walk through walls really disgusts me. It goes against just
about everything which I associate with Buddhism.
> Based on this, one can safely assume the original 1:100 000 ratio should be
> raised to 1: 3 000 000.
Yet the whole thing is based on some arbitrary claim coming from some guru
who did not justify his claim and demonstrate how he knows this.
> Buddhism is never a superstitious belief, it is a science...
Oh, I agree with that completely. But by that standard, none of what you are
talking about is Buddhism at all, not one bit. It is more like astrology.
In any case, you focus on concentration practice and jhanas and so forth, but
my understanding of Buddhism is that some concentration is necessary, but the
real work in Buddhism is in insight or mindfulness meditation. You seem to be
all caught up in superstitions regarding concentration exercises, but what
about mindfulness meditation, which was the Buddha's contribution, as all the
mantra and other concentration meditation already existed before the Buddha
came along and he found that it wasn't sufficient. Don't you deal with insight
or mindfulness meditation? To me, that's the real gem of Buddhist practice.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
JulianLZB87 wrote:
>
> Excuse me. What on earth is this all about?
> Sphere! Where's Sphere? Help!
I think our Karma Tharchin is going to be an expert in mathematics. :-)
:-) :-)
By the way, where is Sphere? I miss his post here and
alt.buddha.short.fat.guy....
John Waterman
John Waterman <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7f8lfi$tue$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> >So repent quick before they send their protectors to harm you, to
> protect
> > their dharma. Remember, they have Overseeing Lords who work for them.
> >
> > Tang Huyen
> >
>
> Aah, so it's Vhoodism.
>
> John
>
Sorry, make that Voodhism, or maybe Vuddhism.
John
John Waterman
<dharm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7f92pb$80g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7f8gu5$smf$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Waterman" <jo...@the-watermans.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > contemplation. But contemplation in the context of *now* - the end of
the
> > twentieth century. Why degrade Buddhism with ghosts, gods and magic?
>
not
> deeply embeddded in our meaning system. If someone finds value, however,
in
> literally positing a literal ghostie called Mara, whose literal army of
> various beasties the Buddha fought off, and that inspires them instead of
> the metaphor of deluded thoughts and fears dissolving when the Buddha
> grounded himself by placing his hand on the dirt, then that's fine if it
> works with them. Doesn't do anything for me, but if that's their fancy,
ok.
>
Sure, I agree. Only teasing really.
> >> My own favorite number is 153. Guess why?
> >
> > Not a clue, sorry.
>
> It's a triangular number, which means that it can be arranged in an
> equilateral triangle, like bowling pins, with rows of 1, 2, 3...etc.
> It is the sum of the first 17 numbers. Also, it is the sum of the first
> five factorials: 153 = 5! + 4! + 3! + 2! + 1! It is also the sum of two
> squares (144 + 9) and the difference of two squares (169 - 16). It is also
> the sum of three cubes, but not just any three cubes: cube each of the
> digits of 153 and then add them: 1 + 125 + 27 = 153. Isn't that cool?
> Oh yeah, and in base 16 or hexidecimal (and in binary as well) 153 is
> a palindrome, that is, it is the same forward and backwards, like the
> word "racecar". There's quite a bit more, but I discovered all these
> properties of 153 in highschool, and it instantly became my favorite
> number, and has been ever since.
>
A nice number.
Exactly. I did my first degree in mathematics and although I am realy quite
tolerant of other peoples ideas (a bit of a tease but as you say, if it
helps them, then ok), but I do try to challenge people who use terms such as
mathematical certainty to promote their ideas, when they have exactly
nothing to do with maths.
Regards
John
Kent Sandvik
>> I don't have the data to either falsify this or exclaim its real,
>> and as such it's better to form a firm opinion when one has enough
>
>My God: what a sheepish cop-out! You're going to be vulnerable to
>the most petty snake-oil peddler and charlatan, then. Look, we can
>very well look at the empirical data and the reasoning and see how
>strong these theories and claims really are.
Yep. It's called the intelligent Buddhist approach. Don't believe
until you have tested it out. This was provided by the famous
self-help consultant by the name of Shakyamuni Buddha. You use
empirical data, and especially your own cognition and realizations to
build a base of what is true and what is not.
>I don't label everything I see as (merely) my own mental projection.
>When I see a tree, I'm pretty confident that there is a real tree,
>objectively existing and mind-independent, rooted in the ground
there.
>Otherwise, I wouldn't be safe to be driving. I might kill a
'projection'.
You know, for you it's a *special* kind of tree, maybe a tree that
reflects early years with a swing, or climbing. For a wood worker it's
maybe reflected in a mental image of what it's worth cutting down. For
a dog it's a mental reflection of a place where you could put
something to mark your territory. For an ant it's maybe a huge object
in the way. Who is right, you, the ant, the dog? If the tree is self
existent, someone has to be wrong and only one mental image is right?
Or what?
>If we shove our head in a bucket of water, we find out really fast
>which possibilities really obtain, and whether wer are ghosties who
>project the universe or physically real animals who need to
physically
>breathe real physical air to continue to exist another minute. Try
it.
This is actually a good example, this realization is called
inferential cognizer. These are intellectual understandings built upon
experience. Another good example is that a hot stove burns, anyone
that has experienced this the first time will remember it, i.e. an
inferential cognizer is placed in the mind stream. Inferential
cognizers are not valid (as you have a mental projection in front
instead of a direct knowledge), but are very useful as they are needed
for building up a correct understanding of reality, emptiness and so
forth.
If you want to learn more about mind in Buddhism, see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7785/mind.html
>What you want to do with the object, chew it, mark with it, or
>masturbate with it, is beside the point. It is still a physical
>reality, and is composed of various chemicals in a particular
>way and shape, and it has particular properties, regardless of
>whatever relationship you choose to have with it or how it can
>further your particular projects.
I think you indirectly realize that each one of us have a different
object in mind when looking at this object (see first sentence).
However, then if you want to talk about the 'cylinder', yes, it's
real, but what is the marker, is it the label saying marker, or the
color inside (but then it could be a pen as well), or the combination,
but if you look at the combination then it's no longer a self-existent
object as you break it into parts. This is a very classical reasoning
used in Buddhism to break down the ignorance of assuming objects exist
from their own side.
>Are you really going to try to play the shift-the-burden-of-proof
>game and say "you can't disprove that there are ghosts and unicorns
>and three-headed monsters"? It's up to the people who makes such
>claims to show evidence for their existence.
No, I'm trying to convey the idea that the world is something we make
up in our minds, it's not an external self-existent reality. If
someone sees a ghost, and has the habit to see and experience it, they
will see ghosts. Just because you don't see ghosts does not imply that
you know exactly how all the other sentient beings label their
environment. If you believe it, you could for example have an
intelligent conversation about this with a dog, right, as the
self-existent reality is the same for everyone, right?
>And we *can* easily judge, Kent, by demonstrating how what was
>thought to be a 'miracle' is not some supernatural spookery at all,
>but is a regulated natural law. There are literally thousands of
>examples of this. By demonstrating that the phenomenon is caused by
>a natural process, which is repeated when this process is present,
>and which is not repeated when this process is absent. We can show
>that a miracle did not occur. So far, we have no reason to believe
>that any miracles of any kind have ever occurred, nor have any
psychic
>powers of any kind ever been demonstrated to date.
Again, tell your dog that don't chew on that marker, use it to show
that Einstein's theories are accurate. If you don't experience
'supernatural' phenomena, maybe it's up to you, and not the rest of
the world. BTW, why haven't you experienced the sensation of composing
something like Mozart and Bach composed? Could you show evidence how
to raise babies to become expert composers? Even if you isolate the
genes showing why this happened, why did some babies get these genes,
and most of us not?
>What really is miraculous, however, is how the word 'gullible'
happens
>to be missing from every major English dictionary. Don't you think
so?
I don't know what you are talking about.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3717208E...@bu.edu>...
>So DT, you win: Kent has backed up your (very nice, to me) statement:
"The
>greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking." It is just that
critical
>thinking is utterly beyond lots of posters in TRB, many of whom just
play the
>uncritical and easy (easy because uncritical) game "if they are not
for us,
>they must be against us".
I actually like this statement you wrote. The greatest power of all is
one's own mind, not the outside world. Believing that one is limited
due to outside forces is something that can't be proven. If you set
your mind to it, you could do anything. If you can't, I'm of course
interested in hearing a logical statement why there is a limitation,
right?
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7f8mm0$u6j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Yes he did. The last cry of his deluded conditioned ego or neurotic
craving,
>or whatever, showed itself, as depicted by the metaphor of Mara. So
he calls
>upon the Earth goddess to bear witness, which is a metaphor for
grounding
>himself or connecting to the world, in the solid, tangigle earth.
Going back to the issue of trolls, supernatural beings, et cetera et
cetera. Here's my limited view on it:
* We can't say what other people experience. I can't read other
peoples' minds. Actually not even a Buddha can read the mind (the
could figure out all the causes and conditions so that they know what
happens next, but if we want to debate this we have to switch to a
debate about what pramana, perfect mind, is capable of).
* Ultimately everything is just a reflection so that we think we know
while we project.
* Knowing the ultimate reality, interdependen existence, emptiness, is
the cure.
* Knowing emptiness is the best projection for any internal or
external influences.
* Ghosts, supernatural beings, and so on, they don't exist from their
own side. Neither you, neither me, neither any objects.
* Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it exists. So
worrying about if ghosts exist or not is not the point at all.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7f95fs$a7f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Nope. What I think is that it's miraculous that we're breathing!
Most of us,
>at least...
The Tibetan Medicine system (Buddhist) is based on the notion that
it's indeed a miracle a body works, as it's an extremely complex
system with various systems counter-working each other all the time,
and they have to be in balance. When the balance is gone, then the
body is decaying and dying. Keeping the balance is the key.
From a practical point of view it makes sense not to cause inbalance
by smoking, drinking strange stuff, not doing any physical exercises,
and so forth.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
number of
>times a mantra need to be recited in order to experience its effect.
During
>the auspicious time, a mantra only need to be recited for 100,000
times in
>order to be effective. These masters predict that in time of
degeneration
>like this, one need to recite as many as 3,000,000 times. Based on
this, one
>can safely assume the original 1:100 000 ratio should be raised to 1:
3 000
>000. Or to be more precise, one should add that the ratio is as
follow:
The main reason anyone gets any realizations or understandings is
based on past activities.
Now, if I were you I would turn around and say the reason most of us
are in this 'degenerate time' is due to our passivity in ancient times
when there were far better environments for getting realizations. And
the reason we were at those instances were due to past activities, and
so on and so on...
Mangalam, Kent
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik wrote: <<This is actually a good example, this realization is
called inferential cognizer. These are intellectual understandings built
upon experience. Another good example is that a hot stove burns, anyone
that has experienced this the first time will remember it, i.e. an
inferential cognizer is placed in the mind stream. Inferential cognizers
are not valid (as you have a mental projection in front instead of a
direct knowledge), but are very useful as they are needed for building up
a correct understanding of reality, emptiness and so forth.>> [snip]
<<No, I'm trying to convey the idea that the world is something we make up
in our minds, it's not an external self-existent reality.>>
So you are talking in classic Sautrantika terminology, I infer: inference
and direct, non-conceptual cognition are the two modes of cognition. But
the object of the latter, direct non-conceptual cognition, is precisely an
external self-existent reality, isn't it? The mind only receives it and
forms no judgement on it, right?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik wrote: <<* Knowing emptiness is the best projection for any
internal or external influences.>>
How's that again?
Kant: <<* Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it exists. So
worrying about if ghosts exist or not is not the point at all.>>
Total non sequitur to me.
The first part: "Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it
exists", is fine with me. I keep saying that emptiness means only the
inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the phenomena of which
essence is denied but which keep existing and functioning just like
before. What does that have to do with ghosts? Whether ghosts exist or
don't has nothing to do with emptiness. The phlogiston is proved not to
exist, but again what does that have to do with emptiness?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik wrote: <<The greatest power of all is one's own mind, not the
outside world. Believing that one is limited due to outside forces is
something that can't be proven. If you set your mind to it, you could do
anything. If you can't, I'm of course interested in hearing a logical
statement why there is a limitation, right?>>
You confuse the logical with the real. Now try to escape death. If you set
your mind to it, could you do that? Again, if believing that one is
limited due to outside forces is something that can't be proven, then try
to expand yourself to the size of the universe. If you could, even in one
case alone, not to speak of both, the Buddha should not have started
Buddhism. The Buddha's point, aimed at rationalists, is that the logical
should not be confused with the real. As I keep saying, he has no
imagination, is boring to tears, does not know how to have metaphyscial
fun. You could surely teach him a few tricks to entertain him in his
gray-as-dust nirvana.
And to think that what you wrote above was in reply to Dharmatroll's
statement: "The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking"! So is
your critical thinking the same as unchained fantasy? Is that what
Vajrayana is all about?
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3719087B...@bu.edu>...
>The first part: "Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it
>exists", is fine with me. I keep saying that emptiness means only the
>inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the phenomena of
which
>essence is denied but which keep existing and functioning just like
>before. What does that have to do with ghosts? Whether ghosts exist
or
>don't has nothing to do with emptiness. The phlogiston is proved not
to
>exist, but again what does that have to do with emptiness?
If you put restrictions to what should exist in emptiness, that means
there are self-existent limits, and as such the whole concept of
emptiness is defuted. It's not whether ghosts or no ghosts exists,
it's about whether everything could exist, or there's a fixed set of
existence that would indicate self-existence.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3719233F...@bu.edu>...
>You confuse the logical with the real. Now try to escape death. If
you set
>your mind to it, could you do that? Again, if believing that one is
>limited due to outside forces is something that can't be proven, then
try
>to expand yourself to the size of the universe. If you could, even in
one
>case alone, not to speak of both, the Buddha should not have started
>Buddhism. The Buddha's point, aimed at rationalists, is that the
logical
>should not be confused with the real. As I keep saying, he has no
>imagination, is boring to tears, does not know how to have
metaphyscial
>fun. You could surely teach him a few tricks to entertain him in his
>gray-as-dust nirvana.
Death is actually a good example, as it's interepreted as a
self-existent entity, some kind of hard wall out there somewhere, and
imagine that it's all in the mind how we experience death.
>And to think that what you wrote above was in reply to Dharmatroll's
>statement: "The greatist psychic power of all is critical thinking"!
So is
>your critical thinking the same as unchained fantasy? Is that what
>Vajrayana is all about?
No. Critical thinking is good to build inferential cognizers, but
those are still mental images where we interpret things. If we break
down this mental image building, we could actually know the objects as
they are. Vajrayana methods are ways to break down this artificial way
of looking at mental images and believe that they are real. Such as
the marker pen and the dog who wants to chew it.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <37190241...@bu.edu>...
><<No, I'm trying to convey the idea that the world is something we
make up
>in our minds, it's not an external self-existent reality.>>
>
>So you are talking in classic Sautrantika terminology, I infer:
inference
>and direct, non-conceptual cognition are the two modes of cognition.
But
>the object of the latter, direct non-conceptual cognition, is
precisely an
>external self-existent reality, isn't it? The mind only receives it
and
>forms no judgement on it, right?
No. This is actually the combination of Mind only school and
Madhyamika-Prasangika, as Madhyamika-Prasangika don't mind including
the Mind School concepts.
The mind is always active, interpreting the objects with background
and habituation, i.e. those are plain mental images.
In the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, there are no external
self-existent objects. Period. Rather consequences. That's why they
are called Consequentialists.
For more study, see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7785/emptiness.html
Geshe Lhundrup Sopa/Jeffrey Hopkin's Cutting Through Appearances (Snow
Lion) also has a commentary on the four Buddhist tenets.
Mangalam, Kent
Christopher Hayden
>Oh, relax, Tang: their Dark Lords are no match for us, because we have
Yoda!
>So the Force is with us, or will be in just 32 days from now. So John,
Tang,
>all together now, to the tune of the old Kinks' song "Lola" -- OK, hit
it
>guys:
>
>
> I met him in a swamp down in Dagobah
> where it bubbles all the time
> like a giant carbonated soda,
> S O D A, soda.
I should have known that Wierd Al had something to do with all of this...
Christopher Hayden
>>game and say "you can't disprove that there are ghosts and unicorns
>>and three-headed monsters"? It's up to the people who makes such
>>claims to show evidence for their existence.
>
Of course, one would think that maybe, IF someone had some great power or
other, and it was gained through spiritual practice, that this person
MIGHT not care enough about the scientific community's burden-of-proof to
go into a lab and get tested repeatedly, for the benefit of people who
MIGHT end up creating new weapons of mass destruction from the studies.
Just sayin', is all.
maha...@yahoo.com
To: <maha...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Áð:_tummo_technique_of_meditation
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:03:15 +0300
>Dear Mahasanti,
>Are you perhaps aware of a connection between Dharmakaya
>and the Christian Holy Spirit?
The dharmakaya is connected with all phenomenon.
>If so can you confirm to me someone's parallelism between
>Sambokakaya / Nirmanakaya and Father / Son in X-ianity.
There is no parallelism, but if someone want to contrive X-ianity into
Buddhism, there is parallelism by mean of interpretation with an intent.
>Finally what happens if a person develops action separate
>and independent from the body's senses? Good karma
>generated from such action, as well as bad karma, maybe
>in a sense separate from the body's own karma.
There is no action separate from the 3 vajras of body, speech and mind. If it
is separate there will be no action, and no karma. Nothing can be separated
from activities of the 3 vajras, as such nothing is independent of karma.
>E.g. as I write these lines I am starving and have already
>began preparing for food. Does the starving constitute a
>bad karma by itself, or does it constitute a bodily need
>separate from where my mind is?
Starving is the result of failure to feed the poor, needy and monks in the
past. It is also the result of past action of stealing other's possession. Or
perhaps slandering holy bodhisattvas, thus stealing the possession of all
sentient beings. Your mind is very much dependent on your body, as much as
your body depends on your mind. Starving is the maturation of bad karma. The
most immediate cause is your failure to plant the cause for the availability
of food.
>I should have contacted serious teachers before,
>instead of participating in the newsgroup. A lot of
>auspiciously good karma potential was wasted in
>arguments and flames, whereas things could have
>been much better if I had my mind more fixed on
>Dharmakaya in time.
Having realized dharmakaya will not improve or harm your present physical
condition. To improve or gain something worldly, you need to engaged in the
yanas of effort, by planting of virtuous cause, there will be virtuous result
to be experienced in this life.
>Thanks in advance
>I shall try to not post to the newsgroup
>as its just another form of attachment
>causing also bad feelings
I will only post my reply to ng, but you can email me directly.
>But you could perhaps raise these questions in public
>(or I could get a new mail address and open a dialogue
> purely for instructional purposes with you, whenever
>necessary in public) With respect George (KSS)
This will help.
Mangalam,
Karma Tharchin
http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
maha...@yahoo.com
<dharm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7f9ch0
$fem$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> On the contrary, seeing an actual miracle *would* be convincing, and in fact,
> it is the *only* thing that would be convincing. And this is *not* like a
> dream. In dreams I can fly and I can breathe underwater. However, try placing
> your head in a bucket of water, and you will know very soon that you are an
> animal make of flesh and blood that needs to breathe to continue to exist
> even for a few minutes. So I attach a hell of a lot of importance to physical
> reality.
Can you trust this event as physical reality after it has become a past event?
>
> But that is absolutely false!!! He didn't know with any certainty if the bomb
> would work. They made a guess from their calculations. Many theories which
> seem to be intuitively right turn out to be mistaken all the time. Einstein
> didn't know if relativity was true at all. It was just a pretty theory that
> looked good on paper. That doesn't mean anything, unless it is tested
> empirically.
When a theory is 'mistaken', it is not the fault of theory, but the fault of
availability of factors of that theory. If through experiement had proven the
theory and factors have matched and there is certainty of result, this become
established theory. Similiary, after the Buddha has recognised the theory of
mind and apply it through practice, he unites theory and factors into result,
thereby established the Buddhist Meditation technique, which is equavalent to
today's established science theory. The Buddhist Meditation not only proven
effective by Buddha himself, all the 500 monks who practice it, attained
mastery of iddhi-vidya, here mastery is not by chance, but total control by
resolve, it is not like minor sign of siddhi which manifest temporary, and
where there is certain limitation. Genuine iddhi-vidya is total, without the
possibility of known limitation.
>
> Then you have admitted that it is bullshit, and not knowledge at all.
> Anything which is not tested and demonstated with physical reality is
> bullshit. It is just a fantasy, an idea. Most of them are wrong. All the
> great philosophers had great intricate models. Plato thought that the four
> elements, plus celestial matter, were composed of atoms which had the shapes
> of the five regular solids. Leibniz had his intricate theory of Monadology.
> All these people claimed to have intuitive knowledge, but it isn't actually
> knowledge at all. Doesn't matter how nice it sounds or what guru said it:
> if it doesn't test out with physical reality, it is false. Even Einstein.
All the 500 arhats have tested it successfully, this has already become
established Buddhist Meditation science document, here you will find case
history of experiments, and actual theory established by successful
experiments and testing.
>
> Einstein's relativity theory which explained gravity as curved space
> looked pretty on paper, and he was *confident* that he was right, but he
> didn't *know*, and he had no certainty whatsover. Not until he made a
> critical, empirical test. During a total solar eclipse right after WWI,
> all the top physisists went to an observatory in South America and
> looked at the light from stars just behind the sun during the eclipse.
> If the light went straight, this would falsify Einstein's theory,
> and he would be wrong. If he were right, it would curve so that we
> would see light from stars that were behind the sun, but which had
> been bent by the curvature of space very close to the sun. No one knew
> what would happen, they all guessed. Until the actual results were seen.
This is understanding by the availability of known factors, when there are
factors not fully understood, there is uncertainty, and there is a need to
ascertain the result by testing. I did not speculate and invent Buddhism, only
implementing an established scientific theory of Buddhism.
>
> Well, the light bent just as Einstein predicted. Even this did not *prove*
> that he was right with any certainty. For some other theory which also
> predicts the bending of light might actually be true instead of Einstein's.
> However, the falsifying evidence did not occur. So we could have known with
> certainty that he was *wrong*, if the light had not bent. But since it did,
> we have good reason to believe Einstein's theory is true, but we even now
> have no certainty whatsoever. You can only prove with certainty that a
> theory is wrong, not that it is correct.
A theory must be back up with the availability of factors of that theory, and
testing is the only way to find out if the factors for that theory are
available. And whether the unity of factors and theory will bear the expected
result. The sum of causes equal results, this is irrefutable mathematical
certainty of dependent-arising, there is nothing new about this in Buddhist
Science.
>
> DT:
> >> Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
> >> possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
> >> around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
What need to be demonstrate had already being demonstrated, what will be
demonstrated will become that which has been demonstrated. If that which has
already being demonstarted cannot be believe by people, neither can that which
is to be demonstrated will be believe by people.
>
> The whole idea that repeating a word over and over is going to have some
> kind of magical effect is of itself quite absurd. Repeating words over and
> over millions of times is about as stupid a thing to do as I can imagine.
Tell me which state of mind is not involve in mantra repetition? If you had
not being repeating that mantra for countless aeons, you will not be you
anymore! The reason you are in this state is due to your stupidity in
repeating your own mantra over trillions of lives.
>
> So this is a *prediction*, and not a certainty. If you mean prediction, then
> say prediction. It is also grounded in nothing. In other words, these figures
> came from the whims and imaginations of some guru who told people that if they
> repeat the same word over and over like a moron for millions of times, that
> they will have magical powers. That's about the most ridiculous crock of shit
> I have ever heard. It is hard to imagine that any intelligent being would
> believe such a thing.
Prediction is by understanding of the factors of change by truth of dependent-
arising, when that tolerance factors are known, then like the missile's target
range, all objects within that radius' tolerance will be destroyed with
certainty.
>
> I certainly don't wish to show disrespect to you or to your practice, but the
> idea that someone can believe that if they repeat a magic word over and over
> for millions of times that they will get comic book superhero powers and be
> able to fly and walk through walls really disgusts me. It goes against just
> about everything which I associate with Buddhism.
The fact that you can communicate electronically, is a miracle due to
repetition of your own mantric (mental) syllables for many lives. If this
fact of mantric power is not recognise, your association with Buddhism is
attachment to mere superstitious belief.
>
> Yet the whole thing is based on some arbitrary claim coming from some guru
> who did not justify his claim and demonstrate how he knows this.
He's already speaking about the flying of iron-garuda which refer to today's
aeroplane during his time (800 A.D.), is this not justification of his vision
of high level precision?
>
> Oh, I agree with that completely. But by that standard, none of what you are
> talking about is Buddhism at all, not one bit. It is more like astrology.
You are the one who raise doubt about Buddhism's irrefutable theory of Iddhi-
vidya, when this doubt arise in your being, how could you possibly believe in
the basis of rebirth theory which is based entirely on direct knowledge of
iddi- vidya? Then on what basis do you refer to your stand point as based on
Buddhism?
>
> In any case, you focus on concentration practice and jhanas and so forth, but
> my understanding of Buddhism is that some concentration is necessary, but the
> real work in Buddhism is in insight or mindfulness meditation. You seem to be
> all caught up in superstitions regarding concentration exercises, but what
> about mindfulness meditation, which was the Buddha's contribution, as all the
> mantra and other concentration meditation already existed before the Buddha
> came along and he found that it wasn't sufficient. Don't you deal with insight
> or mindfulness meditation? To me, that's the real gem of Buddhist practice.
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
Without the basis of believe in iddi-vidya, the outcome of Vipas-yana is
doubtful but it does not arise in you, amazing! Then whoever believe in dry
Vipas-yana without believing in iddi-vidya is a qualified condition of a
supersititious believer who trust in something which they do not know, as
such act out on the basis of blind faith. You may called that a real gem of
Buddhist practice because of your blind believe, this is understandable. But
blind faith in Buddhism lead inevitably to ultimate liberation, because there
is truth, even though you do not know it but believe. This is still Buddhism.
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> The first part: "Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it
> exists", is fine with me. I keep saying that emptiness means only the
> inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the phenomena of which
> essence is denied but which keep existing and functioning just like
> before. What does that have to do with ghosts? Whether ghosts exist or
> don't has nothing to do with emptiness. The phlogiston is proved not to
> exist, but again what does that have to do with emptiness?
Care to explain why the ghosts exist or don't has nothing to do with
emptiness, given the point 'that ultimately nothing exist from their own
side but it exists'?
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
> * Ultimately everything is just a reflection
Of what, Kent? Your argument is to set up a false dilemma here. You say:
eternalism is false, therefore nihilism is true, so nothing really exists
and is only a reflection, etc, etc, etc. But the Buddha ain't no nihilist.
> * Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it exists.
You like to contradict yourself, eh? And then throw in an 'ultimately' to
cover over the muddle you've created, so that you can then conclude:
> * Ghosts, supernatural beings, and so on, they don't exist from their
> own side. Neither you, neither me, neither any objects.
Totally wrong, Kent. I think you have gotten totally confused here, as you
equate emptiness with non-existence. To be empty does not ever imply not
being physically real and existing. To be empty means to have causes outside
itself and not to be permanently eternally and indivisibly essential. That
does *not* imply that trees, stones, cats, and stars are somehow non-existent.
They simply are not separate, self-existing permanent essences which have no
causes outside themselves. But they sure do exist.
> * Ghosts, supernatural beings, and so on, they don't exist from their
> own side. Neither you, neither me, neither any objects.
Tang replies:
<< Total non sequitur to me.
The first part: "Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it
exists", is fine with me. I keep saying that emptiness means only the
inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the phenomena of which
essence is denied but which keep existing and functioning just like
before. What does that have to do with ghosts? Whether ghosts exist or
don't has nothing to do with emptiness. The phlogiston is proved not to
exist, but again what does that have to do with emptiness? >>
Yup. Beat me to the punch, Tang. Darn. And *I* was gonna mention phlogiston.
Kent again equates emptiness with non-existence, and that is the problem, for
emptiness actually refers to no essence or permanence or lack of any causes
outside itself and is *not* a claim that it is non-existent or dependent on
minds for existence. (That's Bishop Berkeley, you see, not Buddha.)
Kent:
> If you put restrictions to what should exist in emptiness, that means
> there are self-existent limits, and as such the whole concept of
> emptiness is defuted.
No, the whole concept of nihilism is 'defuted', which you wrongly equate with
emptiness once again, Kent. Awakening is seeing things as they are, and not
claiming to be creating them or projecting them. Perhaps if you got out more
and climbed some mountains and hung out with real trees instead of fantasizing
that you have created the world, you'd appreciate how real and wonderful trees
really are. Try climbing one.
I tell you that if I thought the tree didn't exist, I would be a dangerous
driver and you go on about how I feel about the tree or whether I relate
to climbing trees or chopping them or whatever and then think you have
somehow shown that because I relate to the tree in a particular way, that
somehow it isn't a real, physical, tangible, objective, mind-independent
tree that could total my car. And the really interesting thing is that it
is empty of any self or essence, AND it is real and could total my car,
which is also empty of self or essence, AND it could kill this animal,
which is also empty of self or essence yet is a real brain which can go
through a very real windshield and end up very dead or very mangled.
> You know, for you it's a *special* kind of tree, maybe a tree that
> reflects early years with a swing, or climbing. For a wood worker it's
> maybe reflected in a mental image of what it's worth cutting down. For
> a dog it's a mental reflection of a place where you could put
> something to mark your territory. For an ant it's maybe a huge object
> in the way. Who is right, you, the ant, the dog? If the tree is self
> existent, someone has to be wrong and only one mental image is right?
But I agree that mental images don't exist, Kent. We were talking about
the tree, not about various images of the tree. A road map and a geographic
map are different but still may refer to the same tangible real territory.
All you have done is to mistake the map for the territory, then point at
the map and say "SEE? THE MAP IS ONLY A REFLECTION, SO NOTHING EXISTS".
Maybe you say such things because you are too busy thinking about your
mental fantasies and you don't go out and climb real mountains and trees.
Again, you have confused the various *experiences* of the tree with the
tree. This is called a use/mention error, to take the name for the thing
named. Of course our experience or images or thoughts about the tree are
our mental reflections. But I am talking about the tree, not my thoughts.
My thoughts or image of a tree can't total a car, Kent. But a tree can.
You don't seem to get that because the tree is real, it could total my car
and I could be killed if I ran into it. The tree is not a projection of my
mind, and I did not create it, as you and Karma Tharchin and whoever else
seems to think. Rather, it grew all by itself from an acorn. *That* is the
reality, and if you don't think the tree is real and you drive accordingly,
you may just find yourself becoming "one with the tree" Kent!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
WCX...@prodigy.com (Christopher Hayden) wrote:
>>Are you really going to try to play the shift-the-burden-of-proof
>>game and say "you can't disprove that there are ghosts and unicorns
>>and three-headed monsters"? It's up to the people who makes such
>>claims to show evidence for their existence.
>
> Of course, one would think that maybe, IF someone had some great power or
> other, and it was gained through spiritual practice, that this person
> MIGHT not care enough about the scientific community's burden-of-proof to
> go into a lab and get tested repeatedly,
That's a popular question-begging excuse, but not as good as the classic:
"The devas and gods don't believe in you, either, so there!"
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
> In the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, there are no external
> self-existent objects. Period. Rather consequences. That's
> why they are called Consequentialists.
And then Kent might be what you'd call an inconsequentialist!
heeheehee -- sorry, couldn't resist that one!!!
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7fc4gg$m4n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> * Ultimately everything is just a reflection
>Of what, Kent? Your argument is to set up a false dilemma here. You
say:
>eternalism is false, therefore nihilism is true, so nothing really
exists
>and is only a reflection, etc, etc, etc. But the Buddha ain't no
nihilist.
Nope. I don't say that, see next line.
>> * Ultimately nothing exist from their own side, but it exists.
>You like to contradict yourself, eh? And then throw in an
'ultimately' to
>cover over the muddle you've created, so that you can then conclude:
:-). That's the whole idea of the middle way, don't go down the path
of nihilism, neither the path of eternalism. Nothing exist *from its
own side*, but it still exists. Note the wording 'from its own side'.
There's no contradiction here, unless you want to project a
contradiction into it, and that's OK, as the middle way accepts that
your mental projections cause the ignorance that then triggers
suffering.
>> * Ghosts, supernatural beings, and so on, they don't exist from
their
>> own side. Neither you, neither me, neither any objects.
>
>Totally wrong, Kent. I think you have gotten totally confused here,
as you
>equate emptiness with non-existence. To be empty does not ever imply
not
>being physically real and existing. To be empty means to have causes
outside
>itself and not to be permanently eternally and indivisibly essential.
That
>does *not* imply that trees, stones, cats, and stars are somehow
non-existent.
>They simply are not separate, self-existing permanent essences which
have no
>causes outside themselves. But they sure do exist.
You are mixing the words empty with emptiness. I wish we all should
have stuck with shunyata, the sanskrit term, or maybe tong.pa.nyi, the
Tibetan term. In the case of the Tibetan translation, it's empty.just,
i.e. it's just empty of self-existance, not empty. Maybe
'everythingness' would have been a better translation, who knows, as
the term emptiness leads down the wrong path, see reasoning above.
>Yup. Beat me to the punch, Tang. Darn. And *I* was gonna mention
phlogiston.
>Kent again equates emptiness with non-existence, and that is the
problem, for
>emptiness actually refers to no essence or permanence or lack of any
causes
>outside itself and is *not* a claim that it is non-existent or
dependent on
>minds for existence. (That's Bishop Berkeley, you see, not Buddha.)
No, I don't. You try to force nihilism into the picture, mostly due to
having a wrong conception of the meaning of emptiness. That's
understandable, most of us have the wrong conception, see reasoning
about the word above.
If nothing existed, you and I would not exist, neither this debate.
>No, the whole concept of nihilism is 'defuted', which you wrongly
equate with
>emptiness once again, Kent. Awakening is seeing things as they are,
and not
>claiming to be creating them or projecting them. Perhaps if you got
out more
>and climbed some mountains and hung out with real trees instead of
fantasizing
>that you have created the world, you'd appreciate how real and
wonderful trees
>really are. Try climbing one.
No, I don't. Kind of funny when the opponent tries to make me a
nihilist due to misunderstanding of terms. Oh well.
I have climbed trees, they are sticky in my mental projections, maybe
they are funny in yours, but they certainly are not self-existent as
we have different concepts of the tree. If they were the same, your
and my impressions of the tree were the exact same, as the tree had
these magical particles that beamed out from it into our minds saying:
"Hi, I'm this funny tree that has this shade of green and is fun to
climb, and don't you think I'm sticky...". Furthermore, it would beam
these same magical particles to dogs so they would say: "Hey, I'm this
funny tree that has this shade of gree and is fun to climb, and don't
you think I'm sticky...". By which the dog ignores these magical
particles and pees on the tree..
I removed the rest of the debate as it seemed you totally
misunderstand emptiness, and it's a cardinal sin to make one believe
emptiness equals nihilism. Hopefully the reasoning above helped you
avoid this terrible abyss.
Mangalam, Kent
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
maha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can you trust this event as physical reality after it has become a past event?
Can I trust that it happened? Yes. Can I trust that it will happen again? No.
But the more regular its occurrance the better the chances are. But there is
never certainty about any future event.
> When a theory is 'mistaken', it is not the fault of theory, but the fault of
> availability of factors of that theory. If through experiement had proven the
> theory and factors have matched and there is certainty of result,
That is nonsense. There has never been any certainty of result with any
theory, just very high reliability. And you are speaking nonsense to say that
if a theory is wrong it is not the fault of the theory. Yes it is. The theory
is wrong. If other factors were available, you'd have a *different* theory.
> Genuine iddhi-vidya is total, without the possibility of known limitation.
More nonsense. And more grandiosity. Buddhism cuts through this kind of crap,
and we find that we are limited, that we are vulnerable animals who have very
little control and are going to get sick and get old and die. This comic book
unlimited powers talk has nothing to do with science, nor with Buddhism.
> All the 500 arhats have tested it successfully, this has already become
> established Buddhist Meditation science document, here you will find case
> history of experiments, and actual theory established by successful
> experiments and testing.
I'm not even sure if there was even one arhat, and I haven't seen any study.
However, I have tried out meditation techniques and have found some of them
helpful and have continued to practice them. That is all I ever can go on.
>> Einstein's relativity theory which explained gravity as curved space
>> looked pretty on paper, and he was *confident* that he was right, but he
>> didn't *know*, and he had no certainty whatsover. Not until he made a
>> critical, empirical test. During a total solar eclipse right after WWI,
>> all the top physisists went to an observatory in South America and
>> looked at the light from stars just behind the sun during the eclipse.
>> If the light went straight, this would falsify Einstein's theory,
>> and he would be wrong. If he were right, it would curve so that we
>> would see light from stars that were behind the sun, but which had
>> been bent by the curvature of space very close to the sun. No one knew
>> what would happen, they all guessed. Until the actual results were seen.
> This is understanding by the availability of known factors, when there are
> factors not fully understood, there is uncertainty, and there is a need to
> ascertain the result by testing.
Yes. And there is always uncertainty, and we never will know more than a very
very small fraction about the universe. So anytime you hear someone claiming
to know something with certainty, the one thing you *can* be certain of is
that they are either charlatans or extremely deluded.
> I did not speculate and invent Buddhism,
No, but you have invented a lot of other nonsense which you call Buddhism.
> only implementing an established scientific theory of Buddhism.
Little of that stuff has to do with Buddhism, and it is not even remotely
scientific. I think you just attach names like "scientific" and "mathematical"
to try to be deceptive. If you practice meditation and you find that it is
helpful for you, that I can accept and that is great. But all this other stuff
is such nonsense and is a distraction from Buddhism.
> The sum of causes equal results, this is irrefutable mathematical certainty
> of dependent-arising, there is nothing new about this in Buddhist Science.
It is neither mathematical nor irrefutable, as there is no way to measure and
test all the causes of something. Again you misappropriate these terms.
DT:
>> Can you produce a single example of even *one* person that *does*
>> possess the ability to attain iddhi and can you get him to fly
>> around and walk through a wall in front of a CNN crew, please?
> What need to be demonstrate had already being demonstrated,
No it has not. You are lying. No one has ever walked through a solid wall,
and you know it as well as I do. There are only excuses. No one has ever
demonstrated any psychic powers. That is known as 'bullshit'.
> Tell me which state of mind is not involve in mantra repetition?
Intelligence. Look, mantras are effective for building some concentration,
but to have these superstitions that saying a magic word over and over will
give you comic book superpowers is what is really absurd here. I am surprised
that anyone believes such a thing. It is wrong to take advantage of them.
> The reason you are in this state is due to your stupidity in repeating
> your own mantra over trillions of lives.
Luckily, I am not stupid enough to repeat the same old story over and over.
Rather, I tend to grow and learn.
> Prediction is by understanding of the factors of change by truth of
> dependent-arising, when that tolerance factors are known, then like the
> missile's target range, all objects within that radius' tolerance will
> be destroyed with certainty.
No, sometimes you have all the tech and certainty that you can get, and the
missile still misses and it kills innocent civilians by mistake. If you
don't believe me, turn on the news. There ain't no certainty.
> The fact that you can communicate electronically, is a miracle due to
> repetition of your own mantric (mental) syllables for many lives.
Utter bullshit. The reason I can communicate electronically and you can too,
is that people with intelligence worked hard and used their intelligence and
did not believe in ghosts and magic powers. That is why we walked on the moon
and you are still in the stone age, pal.
> If this fact of mantric power is not recognise, your association with
> Buddhism is attachment to mere superstitious belief.
Let's test who is the one with superstitious belief: who is it that walked
on the moon again, was it the witchdoctor who believes in psychic powers
and walking through walls, or was it the critical thinkers who worked hard?
> He's already speaking about the flying of iron-garuda which refer to today's
> aeroplane during his time (800 A.D.),
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. No one flew aeroplanes or even knew the basic
physics that would get their shape to work in 800 A.D. Please point out the
passage which describes the principle of the air foil and the creation of
rise due to low pressure created by the shape?
> is this not justification of his vision of high level precision?
There is no precision. There is a vague reference which has nothing to do with
aerodynamics, and you are making absurd associations that are nonsense. Again,
if there is high level precision, then present a reference giving high-level
specs for an aeroplane that match present ones. You can't, because you are
once again just making up nonsense.
> You are the one who raise doubt about Buddhism's irrefutable theory of
> Iddhi-vidya, when this doubt arise in your being,
Don't give me that line. That is more question-begging, assuming that your
lie is 'irrefutable' from the start. Rather, I am doubting what is false,
or most likely false. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claim
if you can, and you can't, so you again try these silly tricks which don't
work on someone who is intelligent and can think clearly.
> how could you possibly believe in the basis of rebirth theory which is
> based entirely on direct knowledge of iddi- vidya?
Rebirth is not based on any direct knowledge: it is based on the cosmology
and mythology that happened to be prevalent in the Buddha's time. It is not
based on even the slightest scrap of evidence.
> Then on what basis do you refer to your stand point as based on Buddhism?
Epirical evidence, and direct experience, and lots of critical thinking.
> Without the basis of believe in iddi-vidya, the outcome of Vipas-yana is
> doubtful but it does not arise in you, amazing! Then whoever believe in
Yet *another* question-begging claim, that if you don't believe it won't work.
Again a circular argument which starts by assuming what it sets out to prove.
You've already tried that one. You can't even reason as well as a 10-year-old
child if you take that argument seriously. Putting your lack of rationality
or critical thinking aside, how much do you practice? Do you do a steady
meditation practice or do you just talk about these magical powers and so on?
> dry Vipas-yana without believing in iddi-vidya is a qualified condition of a
> supersititious believer who trust in something which they do not know, as
Nope. I never believe anything, in fact I try to assume that it is nonsense.
Then, when it is not nonsense, I notice positive results. I only go on the
evidence, and never any belief. Unless I had tangible experiential results,
I would never keep practicing. Yet I do. What kind of meditation practice
do you do, anyway? Do you use mantras?
> You may called that a real gem of Buddhist practice because of your blind
> believe, this is understandable.
Try again. Apparently you are used to talking to people who are as lacking
in critical thinking as you are, just with a different set of superstitions.
I don't believe in anything; I don't even believe in believing. I only go
for what is demonstrated. And you can't seem to demonstrate anything, so now
you are trying to stir up a diversion.
Why not admit that I am smarter than you and that you can't trick me with your
fallacious tongue-twisters and parlour tricks and circular arguments? Why not
just admit that you have nothing going for you but blind faith.
> But blind faith in Buddhism lead inevitably to ultimate liberation
Bling faith in *anything*, including Buddhism, leads to delusion. (But don't
take my word for it: just look at Bhava!) It is not *what* you believe that
matters, it is the act of closing the eyes and following authority,
regardless of the authority. Awakening is not finding the right authority to
blindly believe; awakening is opening ones eyes and thinking and finding out
for oneself. It is not learning *what* to think, but rather *how* to think.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7fc6r0$nk1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <92440464...@zeppelin.svr.home.net>,
> "Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
>
>> In the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, there are no external
>> self-existent objects. Period. Rather consequences. That's
>> why they are called Consequentialists.
>
>And then Kent might be what you'd call an inconsequentialist!
>
>heeheehee -- sorry, couldn't resist that one!!!
Feel free to do this. It's understandable that all this is very hard
to grasp, initially. I would recommend reading Cutting Through
Appearances, Geshe Sopa and Jeffrey Hopkins. Hopefully that will help
you understand all this.
Mangalam, Kent
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik wrote: <<Critical thinking is good to build inferential
cognizers, but those are still mental images where we interpret things. If
we break down this mental image building, we could actually know the
objects as they are. Vajrayana methods are ways to break down this
artificial way of looking at mental images and believe that they are real.
Such as the marker pen and the dog who wants to chew it.>>
So what are the objects that we know as they are after we have broken down
the mental image building?
Tang Huyen
David Yeung
>
> When a theory is 'mistaken', it is not the fault of theory, but the fault of
> availability of factors of that theory.
So what you're saying is that if you don't have enough evidence to prove
something, that's because you're looking into the wrong places, not
because the theory is wrong? Sorry, but that's the argument that
Christian fundamentalists use to back creationism. With that kind of
thinking you can believe in anything.
> If through experiement had proven the
> theory and factors have matched and there is certainty of result, this become
> established theory.
Okay. There's this theory that says that most of the Buddhist
scriptures were manufactured by later writers, and can't be directly
traced to the Buddha. (I'm not doubting their usefulness as inspiration
or explanation, just their historical authenticity.) The theory states
that it is a literary device for Buddhist writings to start with the
words "Thus have I heard... the Buddha preached to such-and-such an
audience", etc. In the same way that stories which begin with "Once
upon a time..." might not actually have happened "once upon a time",
these newer writings might not actually have happened. Furthermore, it
is theorized that as time progressed, Buddhism became more and more
assilimated into Hinduism in India. This is reflected in the literary
style of the later compositions, which borrow heavily from Hindu themes,
for instance the theme of the "spiritual athlete" who attains
supernormal powers by means of meditation.
Now, accredited scholars, e.g. archeologists, textual critics,
Sanskritists, and such have gone through the evidence, and the facts (or
"factors" as you say) seem to match the theory. As a result, it is an
established theory amongst critical scholars of Buddhism that the texts
referring to supernormal powers are a later composition which are not a
part of the original (I mean historically, not doctrinally) Buddhism.
Do you accept or not accept this theory, which is established based on
your given criteria, and if not, why not?
> All the 500 arhats have tested it successfully, this has already become
> established Buddhist Meditation science document, here you will find case
> history of experiments, and actual theory established by successful
> experiments and testing.
It may be a part of Buddhist mythology, but I'd object to calling it a
"science" document. The "evidence" can support several other hypotheses
than what you're out to prove. A Christian faith healer may claim that
his successful cases prove the existence of his God, but several other
options are possible, i.e. placebo effect, there are several gods, etc.
So some early Buddhist documents claim that 500 arhats were established,
and later documents claim that certain "masters" repeated this feat.
One possibility is as you suggest. Another is that the later writings
were sectarian propaganda designed to boost the credibility of a teacher
or lineage. Without critical thinking, how can you tell which is true?
> This is understanding by the availability of known factors, when there are
> factors not fully understood, there is uncertainty, and there is a need to
> ascertain the result by testing.
So you're assuming that your theory is true before you start? That's
not very scientific.
> I did not speculate and invent Buddhism, only
No. It was invented by many people over a period of time. :) But
seriously, it seems to me that you need to read some books or take a
course on how cultures develop, especially how religions "balloon" over
time. Or just sit back and observe how religious ideas proliferate.
Many of the things which you call "Buddhism" are in fact later additions
to the religion. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but to
grasp onto a later, outer shell while denigrating the earlier, inner
core (the critical reasoning which others such as dharmatroll see as
Buddhism) seems a bit confused.
> implementing an established scientific theory of Buddhism.
No, you're peddling your own quackery which you label "Buddhism".
Calling it so don't make it so.
> > Well, the light bent just as Einstein predicted. Even this did not *prove*
> > that he was right with any certainty. For some other theory which also
> > predicts the bending of light might actually be true instead of Einstein's.
> > However, the falsifying evidence did not occur. So we could have known with
> > certainty that he was *wrong*, if the light had not bent. But since it did,
> > we have good reason to believe Einstein's theory is true, but we even now
> > have no certainty whatsoever. You can only prove with certainty that a
> > theory is wrong, not that it is correct.
(To drive home the point, several modifications have been made to the
theory in light of later discoveries. The original theory was hence
incomplete.)
> A theory must be back up with the availability of factors of that theory, and
> testing is the only way to find out if the factors for that theory are
> available. And whether the unity of factors and theory will bear the expected
> result.
This isn't the scientific way of doing things. In the above statement
you clearly assume that your theory is true. You're saying that if
other people don't agree with your results, that's because they're not
trying hard enough. At the same time, you have nothing to show to back
up your claims. The scientific conclusion would be that your hypothesis
is unsupported.
> The sum of causes equal results, this is irrefutable mathematical
> certainty of dependent-arising, there is nothing new about this in Buddhist
> Science.
There is an established usage of scientific language, and you're just
abusing it. You're just peddling a bunch of lies, and calling it
"mathematically certain" and "scientific" don't make it so.
> What need to be demonstrate had already being demonstrated, what will be
> demonstrated will become that which has been demonstrated. If that which has
> already being demonstarted cannot be believe by people, neither can that which
> is to be demonstrated will be believe by people.
Pure bunk. I claim that I can fly and walk through walls. Want proof?
Too bad, I was just flying around half an hour ago but you missed me.
Now, how is my claim any less valid than yours, if you refuse to accept
critical (i.e. scientific) thinking?
> Tell me which state of mind is not involve in mantra repetition? If you had
> not being repeating that mantra for countless aeons, you will not be you
> anymore! The reason you are in this state is due to your stupidity in
> repeating your own mantra over trillions of lives.
And the reason you're here is...?
(btw when someone starts throwing off insults like "you're stupid" in an
argument, it's usually because they have nothing worthwhile to say.)
> Prediction is by understanding of the factors of change by truth of dependent-
> arising, when that tolerance factors are known, then like the missile's target
> range, all objects within that radius' tolerance will be destroyed with
> certainty.
This is actually a terrible example, since missiles fail all the time.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. As an
engineer I can assure you that specs are never given "with certainty".
A missile might be specified so that objects within a certain radius of
the target have a certain probability of being damaged, the probability
being following kind of distribution (e.g. Gaussian) that drops with
distance. So, are you actually admitting that you don't know what
you're talking about with any certainty? :)
> The fact that you can communicate electronically, is a miracle due to
> repetition of your own mantric (mental) syllables for many lives.
How about you shut off the electricity to your computer, if you can
still "communicate electronically" by repeating a mantra then I'll have
some chance of believing you.
> If this
> fact of mantric power is not recognise, your association with Buddhism is
> attachment to mere superstitious belief.
I think you've got it backwards.
> He's already speaking about the flying of iron-garuda which refer to today's
> aeroplane during his time (800 A.D.), is this not justification of his vision
> of high level precision?
No. First of all, a vague reference such as an "iron-garuda" can be
applied to any number of things. If the vision was more specific, such
as a description of aerodynamics, then I might believe that it referred
to an airplane. If I accept your claims on that basis, why shouldn't I
accept the claims made by others (e.g. by other religions) that they
fulfill certain prophecies to such a degree as not to be doubted?
Furthermore, all instances of "fulfilling prophecy" have been shown
("scientifically") to be reading back into the original
text/prediction. i.e. if you believe that there's a prophecy regarding
an "iron-garuda", and there were no airplanes, you'll just "fulfill" it
with something else.
> > Oh, I agree with that completely. But by that standard, none of what you are
> > talking about is Buddhism at all, not one bit. It is more like astrology.
>
I agree with dharmatroll. What you're preaching may be a part of your
tradition, mythologically, but it most certainly doesn't constitute
"Buddhism" in and of itself, as you claim.
> You are the one who raise doubt about Buddhism's irrefutable theory of Iddhi-
> vidya,
It isn't "Buddhism"'s theory, and it isn't "irrefutable". And raising
doubt is a good thing, it's what the Buddha taught us to do.
> when this doubt arise in your being, how could you possibly believe in
> the basis of rebirth theory which is based entirely on direct knowledge of
> iddi- vidya?
Because there are many good reasons to accept the Buddha's philosophy.
None of which have remotely anything to do with your superstitions.
> Then on what basis do you refer to your stand point as based on
> Buddhism?
Actually, I think dharmatroll has a much firmer grasp of Buddhism (and
reality) than you.
> Without the basis of believe in iddi-vidya, the outcome of Vipas-yana is
> doubtful but it does not arise in you, amazing! Then whoever believe in dry
> Vipas-yana without believing in iddi-vidya is a qualified condition of a
> supersititious believer who trust in something which they do not know, as
> such act out on the basis of blind faith.
Such as youself?
> You may called that a real gem of
> Buddhist practice because of your blind believe, this is understandable. But
> blind faith in Buddhism lead inevitably to ultimate liberation, because there
> is truth, even though you do not know it but believe. This is still Buddhism.
So you're justifying calling yourself "Buddhist" because even a person
who believes in nonsense can be a Buddhist. Thanks for admitting it.
>
> Mangalam,
> Karma Tharchin
> http://nyingmapa-lineage.gurusgurus.webjump.com/
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Metta,
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
> I have climbed trees, they are sticky in my mental projections,
> maybe they are funny in yours, but they certainly are not
> self-existent as we have different concepts of the tree.
Differing concepts have nothing to do with the physical tree.
> If they were the same, your and my impressions of the tree
> were the exact same
No. If our impressions both refer to the same tree, it does not
follow from necessity that our impressions must be identical.
There is no reason to conclude that the same real physical tree
would cause the same effect in both you and me. The fact that
we both react differently does *not* imply that we are reacting
to different trees. It implies, rather, that *we* are different.
> as the tree had these magical particles that beamed out from it
They are not magical. They are called electromacnetic radiation,
and they reflect off the tree into our retinas, which translate
them, sending a signal to that brain, which then compare the
pattern to those in memory and creates the impression. There is
no reason to conclude that when different brains process the
differing information they receive, that this implies that the
source of the radiation is two different trees.
> I removed the rest of the debate as it seemed you totally
> misunderstand emptiness, and it's a cardinal sin to make one
> believe emptiness equals nihilism.
Exactly my point, Kent. What I am claiming is that you are
making *just* this mistake inadvertently.
You insult me four times in your post, claiming from your
authority that I am ignorant, yet you avoid all of my claims,
and you furthermore continue to argue for idealism.
> Kind of funny when the opponent tries to make me a nihilist
> due to misunderstanding of terms. Oh well.
That is question-begging. At least consider that you may be
mistaken, at least a little bit, Ken. Ain't you never heard of
'Beginners Mind' or are you so sure you alone have the truth?
> Hopefully the reasoning above helped you avoid this
> terrible abyss.
Ok, let's look at your reasoning carefully. Any objections?
P1) You and I paint paintings of a tree.
P2) You and I have painted different paintings.
C) Therefore, we have painted different trees.
C2) And therefore, trees do not ultimatly exist, only paintings do.
But this conclusion does *not* follow at all. Both paintings
could indeed *share* a common reference. Now please address this
point instead of repeating that I am ignorant as your comeback.
If you want to have a fun insult match, ok, or if you want to go
psycho like KiSS ok, but I actually thought you were discussing the
issue seriously. Your posts are usually reasonable and intelligent.
> :-). That's the whole idea of the middle way, don't go down
> the path of nihilism, neither the path of eternalism.
Right. But that's *my* point. My claim, valid or not, is that you
are positing nihilism here, even though that is not your intention.
If you disagree, then explain carefully instead of just repeating
that I am ignorant because I disagree with you.
> There's no contradiction here, unless you want to project a
> contradiction into it, and that's OK, as the middle way accepts
> that your mental projections cause the ignorance
Again, simply insulting me and calling me ignorant is not evidence
for your view. It is simply name-calling and being insulting.
> Nothing exist *from its own side*, but it still exists.
You're going to have to say what you mean by "from its own side"
Kent. This is an ambiguous term, and you have used it in at least
two different ways. My guess is that you get muddled by overusing
this term in different senses in different contexts, and then you
inappropriately equate those different senses of the phrase.
Then have you simply repeated back the very criticism I have
made of you views here and have replied "Tu Quoque":
1) > You are mixing the words empty with emptiness.
2) > You try to force nihilism into the picture, mostly due to
> having a wrong conception of the meaning of emptiness.
This is exactly a self-critique of your *own* views, I'd say.
Wow -- I *am* the troll-mirror, empty of any self-existent colors.
Wah hah hah
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
Kent pontificates:
>>> In the Prasangika-Madhyamika school, there are no external
>>> self-existent objects. Period. Rather consequences. That's
>>> why they are called Consequentialists.
DT:
>> And then Kent might be what you'd call an inconsequentialist!
>>
>> heeheehee -- sorry, couldn't resist that one!!!
> Feel free to do this. It's understandable that all this is very
> hard to grasp, initially.
Oh, cut the authoratative bullshit Kent. Look at my posts to Tang:
I tease him the same way when he shows the same arrogance.
I was teasing you here because you have simply been proffessing me
as ignorant and insulting me, from the height of your divine wisdom.
Now stop being a gas bag and share your reasoning intead of always
assuming that you have the pipeline to the truth.
> I would recommend reading...
Until you demonstrate that you can have even the most elementary
grasp of logic and reasoning taught in a philosophy 101 class,
do you really think you are in a position to recommend book which
will clarify why you have the truth and everyone else is ignorant?
Give a break, dude.
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3719AF27...@bu.edu>...
Inter-dependent being. Can't be described with words, as immediately
we use words, we use mental images.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7fdaag$ipm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <92442596...@zeppelin.svr.home.net>,
> "Kent Sandvik" <san...@iname.com.no.spam> wrote:
>> I have climbed trees, they are sticky in my mental projections,
>> maybe they are funny in yours, but they certainly are not
>> self-existent as we have different concepts of the tree.
>Differing concepts have nothing to do with the physical tree.
No. They have to do. As your concept of a tree is different from mine.
If you don't believe it, take a friend to a forest and ask what he
thinks of a tree, and compare if your thoughts are *exactly* the same.
If they are not, then either there's no inherently existing tree, or
then of some reason it will take billions of years or more before you
have the exact same impression (and most likely that won't happen, as
both your mind streams create new impressions and concepts, so that
you are out of sync all the time).
>> If they were the same, your and my impressions of the tree
>> were the exact same
>There is no reason to conclude that the same real physical tree
>would cause the same effect in both you and me. The fact that
>we both react differently does *not* imply that we are reacting
>to different trees. It implies, rather, that *we* are different.
Exactly. That's the point, our mental images projected gives the
meaning of tree to each one of us. Not the tree itself.
>> as the tree had these magical particles that beamed out from it
>
>They are not magical. They are called electromacnetic radiation,
>and they reflect off the tree into our retinas, which translate
>them, sending a signal to that brain, which then compare the
>pattern to those in memory and creates the impression. There is
>no reason to conclude that when different brains process the
>differing information they receive, that this implies that the
>source of the radiation is two different trees.
Did you know that you could experience a tiny bit of the avaible
physical data coming from a tree. Other animals could see other parts
of the spectrum you can't, and vice versa. So why don't you get all
the information from this tree, then? Aren't you just building a
mental image of a tree and you think it's inherently existing? And if
you try to find the inherently existing tree, feel free to point to me
where this one is. It's actually the starting point for a
Madhyamika-Prasangika:ist, they ask the opponent to find the essence
of the tree, the one that defines a tree a tree, and notning else. The
break down analysis usually opens up the eyes concerning the
impossibility of an inherently existing tree.
>> I removed the rest of the debate as it seemed you totally
>> misunderstand emptiness, and it's a cardinal sin to make one
>> believe emptiness equals nihilism.
>Exactly my point, Kent. What I am claiming is that you are
>making *just* this mistake inadvertently.
>You insult me four times in your post, claiming from your
>authority that I am ignorant, yet you avoid all of my claims,
>and you furthermore continue to argue for idealism.
Sorry if I insult, it's not the intent. The intent is to lead you away
from both nihilism *and* eternalism, as both views are incorrect.
>Ok, let's look at your reasoning carefully. Any objections?
>P1) You and I paint paintings of a tree.
>P2) You and I have painted different paintings.
>C) Therefore, we have painted different trees.
>C2) And therefore, trees do not ultimatly exist, only paintings do.
No. There are two paintings of trees. The paintings exist, both not
from their own side. There's an image of a tree on the painting. It
exists, but it's not inherently existing. There's no 'inherent tree
object' in the painting.
>But this conclusion does *not* follow at all. Both paintings
>could indeed *share* a common reference. Now please address this
>point instead of repeating that I am ignorant as your comeback.
>If you want to have a fun insult match, ok, or if you want to go
>psycho like KiSS ok, but I actually thought you were discussing the
>issue seriously. Your posts are usually reasonable and intelligent.
The reference is different. Let's say I'm color blind, so I paint the
leaves of the tree blue, and you green. Let's say that there's not
even a good reference point what green means, so we could argue for
eons why the leaves are not green from *our own reference point*. Who
is right? Actually none, as it's a mental projection of what green
means.
>Right. But that's *my* point. My claim, valid or not, is that you
>are positing nihilism here, even though that is not your intention.
>If you disagree, then explain carefully instead of just repeating
>that I am ignorant because I disagree with you.
I hope I explained the middle way above, if not feel free to
counter-claim. Maybe in one sentence, there's a difference in
inherently existing and existing. This avoids nihilism and eternalism.
>Again, simply insulting me and calling me ignorant is not evidence
>for your view. It is simply name-calling and being insulting.
I think a lot of Usenet postings are prime examples of mental images
built upon words, where someone is stating something, and the other
labels it as an insult, the third one as random noise, the fourth one
as an interesting aspect, and so on, and so on... Who is right? All,
or none, doesn't matter, it's their own mental projection of words.
>You're going to have to say what you mean by "from its own side"
>Kent. This is an ambiguous term, and you have used it in at least
>two different ways. My guess is that you get muddled by overusing
>this term in different senses in different contexts, and then you
>inappropriately equate those different senses of the phrase.
I should maybe use the definition from Hopkin's Meditation on
Emptiness (a book I strongly recommend to read, it's next to my bed as
I need to re-read sections time after time), he is using inherently
existing, and negating this inherently existing object. It's the
cornerstone of Madhyamika Buddhism. The other tenets negate an
inherently existing self (heaps), but they also need an object to be
labelling upon, where Madhyamika-Prasangika negates even this need.
>Then have you simply repeated back the very criticism I have
>made of you views here and have replied "Tu Quoque":
>
>1) > You are mixing the words empty with emptiness.
>
>2) > You try to force nihilism into the picture, mostly due to
> > having a wrong conception of the meaning of emptiness.
I hope not. If so, it's my writing skills that are not Ok, not the
definitions. I think you want to have something to label things upon,
as such it's OK, Mind-Only school as well as Svatantrika-Madhyamika
requires this need, so there are different levels for different
understandings of reality, each one suitable for each practitioner.
Mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7fdbd8$jmf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Until you demonstrate that you can have even the most elementary
>grasp of logic and reasoning taught in a philosophy 101 class,
>do you really think you are in a position to recommend book which
>will clarify why you have the truth and everyone else is ignorant?
Sorry, I'm not interesting to debate about these kinds of topics. Now,
talk about shunyata and logic, then I'm interested again!
Mangalam, Kent
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik wrote: <<Critical thinking is good to build inferential
cognizers, but those are still mental images where we interpret things. If
we break down this mental image building, we could actually know the
objects as they are. Vajrayana methods are ways to break down this
artificial way of looking at mental images and believe that they are real.
Such as the marker pen and the dog who wants to chew it.>>
Tang Huyen: <<So what are the objects that we know as they are after we
have broken down the mental image building?>>
Kent: <<Inter-dependent being. Can't be described with words, as
immediately we use words, we use mental images.>>
Kent: <<This is actually the combination of Mind only school and
Madhyamika-Prasangika, as Madhyamika-Prasangika don't mind including the
Mind School concepts. [snip]
Geshe Lhundrup Sopa/Jeffrey Hopkin's Cutting Through Appearances (Snow
Lion) also has a commentary on the four Buddhist tenets.>>
I have not read the book by Sopa/Hopkins, but both Sopa and Hopkins have
been (justly) savaged in the Indo-Iranian Journal, along with another
scholar associated with Sopa and who has also written on the tenets of the
four schools, Anne Klein. I don't know Tibetan and cannot judge, but would
guess that for you to rely on Sopa/Hopkins is about the same as for tjn
(Toshu) to rely on Faure and McRae in Chan. One article on the topic of
tenets that is reliable is Katsumi Mimaki, "Le chapitre du Blo gsal grub
mtha’ sur les Sautrantika," Zinbun. Memoirs of the Research Institute for
Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University, 1980, 143-172.
I do not see how you can talk about breaking down the mental image
building from the viewpoint of "Madhyamika-Prasangika" (the normal
word-order is reverse), because Candrakirti, the supposed founder of
Prasangika-Madhyamika (a name invented in Tibet) is well-known to flatly
and repeatedly refuse any non-conceptual perception. This problem, of a
syncretistic reading that tries to synthesize warring and incompatible
viewpoints, also plagues the Yogacara (alone), as many of its concepts and
schemes are incompatible with each other. The traditional view, as
represented by Nagao, is totally unacceptable.
Candrakirti, Catuhsatakavrtti, translated in Tom J. F. Tillemans,
Materials for the Study of Aryadeva, Dharmapala and Candrakirti, Vienna:
Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien,
1990, I, 194 (the brackets are Tillemans’): "The notion is itself also
associated with the consciousness, and thus does not exist without the
[corresponding] consciousness, while the consciousness, in turn, is
unestablished without the notion." Candrakirti, Madhyamakavatara, Fr. tr.
by Louis de la Vallée Poussin, VI, Le muséon, 1910, 325 cites the
"ineffable pure object" (anabhilapyam vastu-matra) of the Sautrantika wing
of the Vijñana-vada only to deny it.
Tang Huyen
Kent Sandvik
Tang Huyen wrote in message <371A5C0B...@bu.edu>...
>Geshe Lhundrup Sopa/Jeffrey Hopkin's Cutting Through Appearances
(Snow
>Lion) also has a commentary on the four Buddhist tenets.>>
>
>I have not read the book by Sopa/Hopkins, but both Sopa and Hopkins
have
>been (justly) savaged in the Indo-Iranian Journal, along with another
>scholar associated with Sopa and who has also written on the tenets
of the
>four schools, Anne Klein. I don't know Tibetan and cannot judge, but
would
>guess that for you to rely on Sopa/Hopkins is about the same as for
tjn
>(Toshu) to rely on Faure and McRae in Chan. One article on the topic
of
>tenets that is reliable is Katsumi Mimaki, "Le chapitre du Blo gsal
grub
>mtha’ sur les Sautrantika," Zinbun. Memoirs of the Research Institute
for
>Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University, 1980, 143-172.
Just to be correct, the chapter in Sopa/Hopkins book is an annotated
translation of Gon-chok-jik-may-wang-bo's Precious Garland of Tenets,
associate editor Anne Klein. Actually, the text is nothing special, it
just lists the four tenets with their qualifications, it's a pretty
standard text book in the Gelug monasteries. All it does is to give
the debater an understanding of the various tenets, so the debate is
more fruitful. A debate is not fruitful if both sides don't understand
what they are debating about. Anyway, if you have more info about what
the Indo-Iranian journal talked about, I'm always interested. Did this
do with this text, or something else, and so on? In the case of the
tenet text was in question, what was the critique, especially
concerning the original commentary?
>I do not see how you can talk about breaking down the mental image
>building from the viewpoint of "Madhyamika-Prasangika" (the normal
>word-order is reverse), because Candrakirti, the supposed founder of
>Prasangika-Madhyamika (a name invented in Tibet) is well-known to
flatly
>and repeatedly refuse any non-conceptual perception. This problem, of
a
>syncretistic reading that tries to synthesize warring and
incompatible
>viewpoints, also plagues the Yogacara (alone), as many of its
concepts and
>schemes are incompatible with each other. The traditional view, as
>represented by Nagao, is totally unacceptable.
The notion of mental images actually comes from the Sautantrika
school, and it's used to describe how the mind operates in the Lo.rig
teachings. As such mental images do not exist from their own side. I
think this is that Chandrakiirti tries to state time after time, not
that nothing exist at all. If that was the case, we had the
surrealistic notion that Chandrakiirti was a nihilist :-).
Mangalam, Kent
Tang Huyen
Appearances (Snow Lion) also has a commentary on the four Buddhist
tenets.>>
Tang Huyen: <<I have not read the book by Sopa/Hopkins, but both Sopa and
Hopkins have been (justly) savaged in the Indo-Iranian Journal, along with
another scholar associated with Sopa and who has also written on the
tenets of the four schools, Anne Klein. I don't know Tibetan and cannot
judge, but would guess that for you to rely on Sopa/Hopkins is about the
same as for tjn (Toshu) to rely on Faure and McRae in Chan. One article on
the topic of tenets that is reliable is Katsumi Mimaki, "Le chapitre du
Blo gsal grub mtha’ sur les Sautrantika," Zinbun. Memoirs of the Research
Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University, 1980, 143-172.>>
Kent: <<Just to be correct, the chapter in Sopa/Hopkins book is an
annotated translation of Gon-chok-jik-may-wang-bo's Precious Garland of
Tenets, associate editor Anne Klein. Actually, the text is nothing
special, it just lists the four tenets with their qualifications, it's a
pretty standard text book in the Gelug monasteries. All it does is to give
the debater an understanding of the various tenets, so the debate is more
fruitful. A debate is not fruitful if both sides don't understand what
they are debating about. Anyway, if you have more info about what the
Indo-Iranian journal talked about, I'm always interested. Did this do with
this text, or something else, and so on? In the case of the tenet text was
in question, what was the critique, especially concerning the original
commentary?>>
I have to make a correction. I meant that Sopa and Hopkins got savaged
previously and separately, Sopa some years ago for his article in the
Robinson memorial volume, Hopkins for another book on emptiness. More
recently, just a few months ago, Hopkins and Klein got savaged for a book
that they coauthored. The criticism went right down to the allegation that
they did not know Tibetan and relied on bad explanations in the Das
dictionary. I have read other books by Klein and she is shrill and
hysterical to me.
Tang: <<I do not see how you can talk about breaking down the mental image
building from the viewpoint of "Madhyamika-Prasangika" (the normal
word-order is reverse), because Candrakirti, the supposed founder of
Prasangika-Madhyamika (a name invented in Tibet) is well-known to flatly
and repeatedly refuse any non-conceptual perception. This problem, of a
syncretistic reading that tries to synthesize warring and incompatible
viewpoints, also plagues the Yogacara (alone), as many of its concepts and
schemes are incompatible with each other. The traditional view, as
represented by Nagao, is totally unacceptable.>>
Kent: <<The notion of mental images actually comes from the Sautantrika
school, and it's used to describe how the mind operates in the Lo.rig
teachings. As such mental images do not exist from their own side. I think
this is that Chandrakiirti tries to state time after time, not that
nothing exist at all. If that was the case, we had the surrealistic notion
that Chandrakiirti was a nihilist :-).>>
Heh heh! The traditional presentation of Prasangika-Madhyamika, especially
by the Gelugpa, is a total whitewash. When I read Candrakirti, I found him
to be full of assumptions (the traditional view says that he had none),
many of which he was unaware of and all of which were along the
essentialist-permanentist line (remember Brahmanism?). What the Perfection
of Wisdom scriptures (he quoted them) and Nagarjuna said in the de
intellectu mode, especially their negations, he reinterpreted brutally in
the de re mode, and thus ended up with total nihilism, up to the entire
world inclusively. Ditto with Kamalasila.
This unforgiving nihilism at cosmic scale was not isolated but ubiquitous
in Candrakirti and Kamalasila, and can be found easily in many (nearly
all, and I say "nearly" just to be safe) present-day English-language
works in India, Japan and the West that rely on him, also in Lamotte's
French. It was suspected early in the century by Lamotte's great teacher,
Poussin, but nobody reads him, including Lamotte. To Candrakirti,
Kamalasila and their modern clones, there is no way to get out of
language, and there is nothing outside of language and thought, period,
except non-existence, which they then take as their ultimate reality.
I was similarly shocked when I read the extant Sanskrit works of the
Yogacara. They did not fit the traditional view at all. The bits flied in
the face of each other. Even the three-nature theory was inconsistent with
itself. It took me a few years of utter confusion before I got the pieces
to fall together, but then the picture was quite different.
In both cases, I would have been much *happier* if the traditional views
had been correct. I must have been a masochist to find things out for
myself. But in both cases, the authors in question said what they wanted
to say very clearly and repeatedly and were not afraid to say what they
wanted to say -- they were not wimps -- so that there was no margin of
equivocity left. I keep wondering how people who can read them in the
original can possibly stick to the traditional views. They must have lots
of blinders on.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen