Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Simultaneously with its realization the Vajra-Sattva state is realized. These teachings are exhaustive of all knowledge, exceedingly deep and immeasurable. Although they are to be contemplated in a variety of ways, to this Mind of self-cognition and self originated Wisdom, there are no two such things as contemplation and contemplator. When exhaustively contemplated, these teachings merge in at-one-ment with the scholarly seeker who has sought them, although the seeker himself when sought can not be found. Thereupon is attained the goal of seeking, and also the end of the search itself. Then nothing more is there to be sought; nor is there need to seek anything. This beginningless, vacuous, unconfused Clear Wisdom of self-cognition is the very same as that set forth in the Doctrine of the Great Perfection. Although there are no two such things as knowing and not knowing, there are profound and innumerable sorts of meditation; surpassingly excellent it is in the end to know one's mind. There being no two such things as object of meditation and meditator, if by those who practice or do not practice meditation the meditator of meditation be sought and not found, thereupon the goal of the meditation is reached and also the end of the meditation itself.
This is Varjra teaching. When followed and understood, the practitioner realizes that there is no such thing as Buddhahood, enlightenment, teachings by scripture, etc.... For those that are still trying to figure out there place in the universe, these teachings make little sense. These people become preachers of words, and ideas ABOUT the path, but do not really know that there is nothing to it. Until that time, people of misunderstanding claim many superior attributes to their own involvement with these kind of teachings, becoming somewhat zealous about preaching for what they believe to be true. Like the trained Jehovah Witness, who really never listen to another person, they have an answer for every possible question according to their trained religiosity. They are truly ignorant that they are stuck in an extremely narrow mental framework. The universe encompasses unfathomable realities and can not be described by any means. Those who claim to know, are actually showing everyone their lack of compassion and knowledge.
Do you think the Buddha was lacking of compassion and knowledge?
You use "the Buddha" as a noun. I think his fabled name was Shakyamuni. I don't claim to know what the state of Shakyamuni was. Like is said before, it is sufficient for me "to wash my own rice bowl". You seem to love to wash other's rice bowl, maybe that is because the "well" has no water in it.
Do you think to much compassion could be wrong? Washing others bowls would be a very compassionate act. *smile* Something like: "I will wash all bowls, and even I had washed all, I will not think that I have washed only a single one."
There is no such thing as "Buddhahood". Just ego inflation.
Ok, so you're not here to learn about Buddhism or promote Buddhism for newbe's? You're here to denigrate it? At least we're clear on your intentions. You're obviously very understudied in the topic. I have yet to find an egotistical Buddha when sifting through the Earths huge resource of Buddhist teachings from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
The above is an article, Did Buddha Teach the Tantras?
The Buddha taught Tantras from the Sambogakhaya to those that were ready to understand it. It's fine to have whatever view you have. But, it's easy for some of us to see that many of the precepts for the different vehicles should not be compared outside the vehicle they appear in and for those they appear to be true for. You will gravitate towards that vehicle and those precepts you need in order to personally evolve. The only truth that is absolute is the truth of relativity.
There is no such thing as "Buddhahood". Just ego inflation.
Ok, so you're not here to learn about Buddhism or promote Buddhism for newbe's? You're here to denigrate it? At least we're clear on your intentions. You're obviously very understudied in the topic. I have yet to find an egotistical Buddha when sifting through the Earths huge resource of Buddhist teachings from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
Well "hood" gives always easy rise to identification, isn't it. As well as opposite. *smile*
The above is an article, Did Buddha Teach the Tantras?
The Buddha taught Tantras from the Sambogakhaya to those that were ready to understand it. It's fine to have whatever view you have. But, it's easy for some of us to see that many of the precepts for the different vehicles should not be compared outside the vehicle they appear in and for those they appear to be true for. You will gravitate towards that vehicle and those precepts you need in order to personally evolve. The only truth that is absolute is the truth of relativity.
Take care.
Maybe just to those who needs it in this way, if he really taught?
"The only truth that is absolute is the truth of relativity." Is that the 5 noble truth?
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
This is Varjra teaching. When followed and understood, the practitioner realizes that there is no such thing as Buddhahood, enlightenment, teachings by scripture, etc.... For those that are still trying to figure out there place in the universe, these teachings make little sense. These people become preachers of words, and ideas ABOUT the path, but do not really know that there is nothing to it. Until that time, people of misunderstanding claim many superior attributes to their own involvement with these kind of teachings, becoming somewhat zealous about preaching for what they believe to be true. Like the trained Jehovah Witness, who really never listen to another person, they have an answer for every possible question according to their trained religiosity. They are truly ignorant that they are stuck in an extremely narrow mental framework. The universe encompasses unfathomable realities and can not be described by any means. Those who claim to know, are actually showing everyone their lack of compassion and knowledge.
Still Padmasambhava taught the path of practical application. To take that quote out of context and project a meaning onto it outside of the full body of his entire life work is exactly what I was talking about previously as being a kind of new ager thing. You will only fall into an erroneous understanding of his intention.
Padmasambhava is merely talking about emptiness, realized by the mind made clear through the path of application and progression. The instantaneous realization that happens for an individual, happens through the path of application and progression, not through philosophical word play alone.
It's easy for a person who hasn't had the insights and experiences to cling to pretty sounding words that justify the limits of the persons perception.
"The only truth that is absolute is the truth of relativity." Is that the 5 noble truth?
It's the realization the Buddha had after mastering all the different stages of jhana, it's considered the 9th Jhana that liberated him, when he realized fully the truth of dependent origination and exhaustion of the seeds of defiled perception.
As Jeffrey said, it's the realization of the fruit of the 8 fold path.
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
So you think that is relative (4NT)? But I guess we are a little off topic.
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
So you think that is relative (4NT)? But I guess we are a little off topic.
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
So you think that is relative (4NT)? But I guess we are a little off topic.
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
The Dalai Lama refers to Theravadin Buddhism as the Fundamental Vehicle because that is a clearer way of describing what is meant by Lesser Vehicle. Theravadin is a simpler practice that is closer to what was taught by Shakyamuni Buddha. That does not make it a more valid Buddhism or an inferior Buddhism to what was later developed under the inspiration of the Buddha and the Buddhas who followed.
I think those that perceive a schism between the different vehicles are not in touch with what the leaders of those traditions are saying about one another. There is great admiration among most, if not all, of the true leaders in these traditions. All of these great teachers have high attainment of clear seeing and compassion, and lead practical lives dedicated to spreading the awakening to all whose karma causes them to become interested. This is very good.
Buddha means Awakened One or Blessed One. Very few people in Buddhist circles hold that there has only been one Buddha since Shakyamuni, in fact most believe that there are a number of Buddhas alive on this earth today. There are degrees and varieties of attainment. Indeed, entering a state of non-suffering is but one by product of practicing as we do. Not every Buddha is a miracle worker, though many do perform "miraculous" (heh) feats of mind such as super-intuition and telepathy.
So yeah... I see no schism.
Let me close my post this way. My friend, roommate and Sangha member Jon lived in Thailand as a practicing Buddhist for years teaching English at a Christian university there. One day he found himself talking to a high level monk (Theravadin of course) at a wat (Thai temple). He was a little intimidated at first, and wasn't quite sure what to talk about, so he mentioned a book he had recently read by the Dalai Lama that he really enjoyed. At the mention of the Dalai Lama, the Theravadin monk lit up! He was so overjoyed to be talking about such a wondeful being as the Dalai Lama, and overjoyed that Jon was interested in his teachings. They talked at some length, and Jon said that the entire time he felt the palpable presence of the Dalai Lama in the room as soon as the Theravadin monk started thinking about him.
So yeah, these traditions are more connected than you think. If a Theravadin monk at a random concrete temple in Bangkok can summon the energetic presence of the Dalai Lama with no apparent effort then certainly there is already an established connection there. That connection is bodhicitta! Bodhicitta, while talked about most in Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism, is truly common to all traditions and there is much more confluence of characters and ideas than we Westerners think.
What do you mean by relative? I don't think we have established how all of us understand the word relative
I didn't understand the post directly above.
Dont say that the word relative is relative, we could turn it in the other direction as well *smile* (As Vajraheart had shown) But both of that would not catch the point. *smile* Still subject of suffering we should stay where we are. Even Dhamma would has its cessation but we need it to come out.
One last point: Buddhists of all traditions stress tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance of the absolute truth of differing views, but it does mean accepting the value of differing views to the greater process of collective awakening. Thus all traditions in Buddhism view the other traditions and all other world religions as serving invaluable, irreplaceable roles in the current spiritual state of affairs of the world.
Furthermore, differences in traditions are often more closely related to culture than they are "absolute truth". For example, Tibetan Buddhism matured in an area dominated by an animistic, shamanistic, mystical tradition known as Bon, and so Tibetan Buddhism incorporated elements from Bon practice. Buddhism originally developed alongside Vedic religion, and so there are shared ideas there. In China, Buddhism and Taoism interacted a lot. This made it's way to Tibet, and so the traditional medicine of Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism and Taoism are all quite similar. Etc. etc. etc.
Preserving traditions is about preserving cultures, not adherence to dogma about absolute truth or worrying about who's right and who's wrong. Those voices crying unrest are far fewer than those crying "preserve and appreciate!"
There is no such thing as "Buddhahood". Just ego inflation.
Ok, so you're not here to learn about Buddhism or promote Buddhism for newbe's? You're here to denigrate it? At least we're clear on your intentions. You're obviously very understudied in the topic. I have yet to find an egotistical Buddha when sifting through the Earths huge resource of Buddhist teachings from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.</blockquote
LOL, I am not here to denigrate Buddhism. I do not think people with all the answers, actually have them. It seems some of those people can't tell clarity from wishful thinking. There is no such thing as Buddha. Remember that saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." I wonder what that saying means?
Padmasambhava is merely talking about emptiness, realized by the mind made clear through the path of application and progression. The instantaneous realization that happens for an individual, happens through the path of application and progression, not through philosophical word play alone.
It's easy for a person who hasn't had the insights and experiences to cling to pretty sounding words that justify the limits of the persons perception.
So this emptiness that Padmasambhava teaches, and made clear through application and progression, contains subject and object? This emptiness contains superior knowledge of some sort? This emptiness has pedestal to step up on, and preach to others about how THEY view the universe?
Someone once said "It's easy for a person who hasn't had the insights and experiences to cling to pretty sounding words that justify the limits of the persons perception."
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
This claim is utterly false. People still suffer if they are awake. To claim otherwise is extremely harmful, and is false Buddhist teaching. There is going to be physical pain when we are hurt. There is going to be emotional pain when we loose a loved one. If not, we are faking our humanity, and claiming outrageous states of mind. It is typical of the evangelical preacher to claim such things. I guess it is intended to elevate oneself above the common lot of humanity, and claim godlike properties.
@wondering, there is a difference between pain and suffering. I'm not the one to explain it however :mullet:
What you say about pain is true. Pain/pleasure are two of the eightworldly winds that turn us away from our practice and towards samsara. By seeing that chasing pleasure and avoiding pain is fruitless we lose our passion for such a pursuit.
I think the point is that pain is experienced, but not clung to. Like the Dalai Lama said, when a loved one dies, it's natural to grieve. But you let those emotions flow through you, you do your grieving, then you're done. You don't try to block them, nor cling to the point that you become depressed. If you break your leg skiing, and end up in the hospital, you will for sure experience pain. You will probably also experience codeine. But an enlightened being wouldn't use that as an occasion to feel sorry for himself, or wrap his mind around the pain, dwelling on it, thereby making it worse. Pain happens. It's all in how you handle it.
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
This claim is utterly false. People still suffer if they are awake. To claim otherwise is extremely harmful, and is false Buddhist teaching. There is going to be physical pain when we are hurt. There is going to be emotional pain when we loose a loved one. If not, we are faking our humanity, and claiming outrageous states of mind. It is typical of the evangelical preacher to claim such things. I guess it is intended to elevate oneself above the common lot of humanity, and claim godlike properties.
I think you guys might be talking apples and oranges. I think you're probably both right.
Stephen Batchelor recently said that the Buddha said all Enlightenment was, is the falling away of clinging, and hate, jealousy, anger, etc. It's desirelessness. It's possible in any moment, like when we're captivated by a sunset. It is not some mystical state. We're still human after we realize equanimity, a state of desirelessness. So we still experience pain, we're still moved by compassion to alleviate the suffering of others. We're still "us". We just don't get hooked by materialism, ego (grasping at fame or power) and negative emotions anymore.
We need to differentiate "a buddha" as someone who's had a glimpse of emptiness, and "a buddha" who has achieved Buddhahood, meaning total eradication of all defilemets and total development of all positive potential. According to the second definition, it is impossible for a buddha to experience any suffering. Are they still "human" at this point? Good question.
There is no such thing as "Buddhahood". Just ego inflation.
Ok, so you're not here to learn about Buddhism or promote Buddhism for newbe's? You're here to denigrate it? At least we're clear on your intentions. You're obviously very understudied in the topic. I have yet to find an egotistical Buddha when sifting through the Earths huge resource of Buddhist teachings from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
The saying means, quite simply, that to attain Buddhahood most assuredly it is best to never think of oneself as a Buddha -- and if one does, to immediately squash that notion through insight into lack of omnipotence, lack of perfect clarity, existence of some degree of suffering, imperfect abidance in rigpa (primordial Buddha mind), etc. This does not mean that other people cannot hold others as Buddhas, but most certainly those held at Buddhas are not running around proclaiming themselves as such. The process of accepting the presence of Buddhas in the world is an important step in making meaningful realizations about the inherent worth of the practice. If not for faith in the presence of Buddhas and the truth of Shakyamuni Buddha, how do you think people dedicate their entire lives to the practice?
Short version: I believe you have misinterpreted the saying.
The saying means, quite simply, that to attain Buddhahood most assuredly it is best to never think of oneself as a Buddha -- and if one does, to immediately squash that notion through insight into lack of omnipotence, lack of perfect clarity, existence of some degree of suffering, imperfect abidance in rigpa (primordial Buddha mind), etc.
I don't know what the saying means, either, but the historical Buddha did refer to himself as the World Honored One, the Tathagata, and other epithets. I've always wondered about that. Maybe some of that was added by scribes later.
We need to differentiate "a buddha" as someone who's had a glimpse of emptiness, and "a buddha" who has achieved Buddhahood, meaning total eradication of all defilemets and total development of all positive potential. According to the second definition, it is impossible for a buddha to experience any suffering. Are they still "human" at this point? Good question.
I'm pretty sure that if the Buddha broke his leg, he'd experience pain. So it depends on how we define "suffering". Certainly, he wouldn't wrap his mind around the pain to create more suffering. But he would feel the pain. Unless he was able to modify the pain receptors in his brain so that they no longer registered the pain signals coming from his leg.
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
So you think that is relative (4NT)? But I guess we are a little off topic.
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
What would there to be act any more?
Compassion, as in... all the beginningless conditions for personal suffering turn into endless conditions for compassionate offering once awakened. This is where you get into Mahayana comprehension.
Sure, life is not absolutely suffering, it's only suffering relative to your ignorance. If you are "awake", you are free from this suffering, and free from life even while acting through it.
This claim is utterly false. People still suffer if they are awake. To claim otherwise is extremely harmful, and is false Buddhist teaching. There is going to be physical pain when we are hurt. There is going to be emotional pain when we loose a loved one. If not, we are faking our humanity, and claiming outrageous states of mind. It is typical of the evangelical preacher to claim such things. I guess it is intended to elevate oneself above the common lot of humanity, and claim godlike properties.
There is no psychological projection of self clinging when these energies arise though, and they are simultaneously experienced as empty, dependently originated, and blissful as in self liberated upon arrival.
This understanding dawns as awakening deepens.
We need to differentiate "a buddha" as someone who's had a glimpse of emptiness, and "a buddha" who has achieved Buddhahood, meaning total eradication of all defilemets and total development of all positive potential. According to the second definition, it is impossible for a buddha to experience any suffering. Are they still "human" at this point? Good question.
They experience what we consider suffering as self liberated and blissfully empty of inherent existence.
This realization cannot be minimized to intellectual musings though... this insight has to be directly experienced.
"Compassion, as in... all the beginningless conditions for personal suffering turn into endless conditions for compassionate offering once awakened. This is where you get into Mahayana comprehension."
"Compassion, as in... all the beginningless conditions for personal suffering turn into endless conditions for compassionate offering once awakened. This is where you get into Mahayana comprehension."
Thanks for showing me that
I'm merely a parrot, with some transmission, study and experience... but still... nothing new under the sun.
Are they still "human" at this point? Good question.
If they're not human, what are they? The Buddha was human (it's easier for me if I think of the historical Buddha, rather than of hypothetical or mythical other Buddhas). If someone were to stab him with an icepick, he's say the equivalent of "OW!" in his language. When someone gave him spoiled meat to eat, he got ill from it, and died. Sounds human. What he likely didn't do while ill, was ruminate on his illness, or worry about impending death.
Are they still "human" at this point? Good question.
If they're not human, what are they? The Buddha was human (it's easier for me if I think of the historical Buddha, rather than of hypothetical or mythical other Buddhas). If someone were to stab him with an icepick, he's say the equivalent of "OW!" in his language. When someone gave him spoiled meat to eat, he got ill from it, and died. Sounds human. What he likely didn't do while ill, was ruminate on his illness, or worry about impending death.
This is why the state of mind of a Buddha cannot be equated with the state of body of a Buddha, at least in this realm.
This is why the state of mind of a Buddha cannot be equated with the state of body of a Buddha, at least in this realm.
o.0 Could you explain that, please?
The body is subject to it's conditions, as the mind is subject to it's own.
It's almost like the old theory of samkhya of prakriti and purusha. Darkness and light.
Basically... the mind can be liberated from the body while enacted through it. The body is darkness and the mind is light. Even though to a Buddha, Samsara is Nirvana so... even the body's activities are self liberated upon arising, even though those conditions still do arise dependent upon it's dimension of causes and conditions they are all empty, to be realized by the mind through the body.
Like the Pink Floyd album cover of the pyramid with the light turning into a rainbow through the darkness...
@Vajraheart um... ok. But the Buddha is (was) still stuck in his material body, while his mind was Enlightened. So he still felt the body's aches and pains, but was able to overcome them, or prevent them from causing undue suffering, by using his mind. (?)
"The body's activities are self-liberated upon arising"? How's that? What's that? :dunce:
I think of it as: pain may be there, but it's not as noticeable to the Enlightened mind as to the unenlightened mind. Like when people in serious chronic pain listen to music, they almost forget about the pain. They bliss out, and the pain momentarily fades to the background.
yeah the sensation of pain can be divided into various sensations. it in a way is illusory for it appears to exist, but under further examination it disappears. pain itself is ungraspable and empty of any inherent existence. thus it can be divided and penetrated.
Comments
Simultaneously with its realization the Vajra-Sattva state is realized. These teachings
are exhaustive of all knowledge, exceedingly deep and immeasurable. Although they
are to be contemplated in a variety of ways, to this Mind of self-cognition and self
originated Wisdom, there are no two such things as contemplation and
contemplator.
When exhaustively contemplated, these teachings merge in at-one-ment with the
scholarly seeker who has sought them, although the seeker himself when sought can
not be found. Thereupon is attained the goal of seeking, and also the end of the
search itself.
Then nothing more is there to be sought; nor is there need to seek anything. This
beginningless, vacuous, unconfused Clear Wisdom of self-cognition is the very
same as that set forth in the Doctrine of the Great Perfection.
Although there are no two such things as knowing and not knowing, there are
profound and innumerable sorts of meditation; surpassingly excellent it is in the end
to know one's mind.
There being no two such things as object of meditation and meditator, if by those
who practice or do not practice meditation the meditator of meditation be sought
and not found, thereupon the goal of the meditation is reached and also the end of
the meditation itself.
Do you think that Buddha wanted his disciples to follow him?
Something like: "I will wash all bowls, and even I had washed all, I will not think that I have washed only a single one."
Take care.
Well "hood" gives always easy rise to identification, isn't it. As well as opposite. *smile*
"The only truth that is absolute is the truth of relativity."
Is that the 5 noble truth?
Craving conditions ignorance.. Because ignorance is not absolute there can be release.. turning towards experience and letting the arisings of emotion be spacious leads to a release of craving..
All dependently arising which is to say... relative
Padmasambhava is merely talking about emptiness, realized by the mind made clear through the path of application and progression. The instantaneous realization that happens for an individual, happens through the path of application and progression, not through philosophical word play alone.
It's easy for a person who hasn't had the insights and experiences to cling to pretty sounding words that justify the limits of the persons perception.
As Jeffrey said, it's the realization of the fruit of the 8 fold path.
If ignorance is absolute then the self also is absolute.
I didn't understand the post directly above.
I think those that perceive a schism between the different vehicles are not in touch with what the leaders of those traditions are saying about one another. There is great admiration among most, if not all, of the true leaders in these traditions. All of these great teachers have high attainment of clear seeing and compassion, and lead practical lives dedicated to spreading the awakening to all whose karma causes them to become interested. This is very good.
Buddha means Awakened One or Blessed One. Very few people in Buddhist circles hold that there has only been one Buddha since Shakyamuni, in fact most believe that there are a number of Buddhas alive on this earth today. There are degrees and varieties of attainment. Indeed, entering a state of non-suffering is but one by product of practicing as we do. Not every Buddha is a miracle worker, though many do perform "miraculous" (heh) feats of mind such as super-intuition and telepathy.
So yeah... I see no schism.
Let me close my post this way. My friend, roommate and Sangha member Jon lived in Thailand as a practicing Buddhist for years teaching English at a Christian university there. One day he found himself talking to a high level monk (Theravadin of course) at a wat (Thai temple). He was a little intimidated at first, and wasn't quite sure what to talk about, so he mentioned a book he had recently read by the Dalai Lama that he really enjoyed. At the mention of the Dalai Lama, the Theravadin monk lit up! He was so overjoyed to be talking about such a wondeful being as the Dalai Lama, and overjoyed that Jon was interested in his teachings. They talked at some length, and Jon said that the entire time he felt the palpable presence of the Dalai Lama in the room as soon as the Theravadin monk started thinking about him.
So yeah, these traditions are more connected than you think. If a Theravadin monk at a random concrete temple in Bangkok can summon the energetic presence of the Dalai Lama with no apparent effort then certainly there is already an established connection there. That connection is bodhicitta! Bodhicitta, while talked about most in Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism, is truly common to all traditions and there is much more confluence of characters and ideas than we Westerners think.
Still subject of suffering we should stay where we are. Even Dhamma would has its cessation but we need it to come out.
Furthermore, differences in traditions are often more closely related to culture than they are "absolute truth". For example, Tibetan Buddhism matured in an area dominated by an animistic, shamanistic, mystical tradition known as Bon, and so Tibetan Buddhism incorporated elements from Bon practice. Buddhism originally developed alongside Vedic religion, and so there are shared ideas there. In China, Buddhism and Taoism interacted a lot. This made it's way to Tibet, and so the traditional medicine of Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism and Taoism are all quite similar. Etc. etc. etc.
Preserving traditions is about preserving cultures, not adherence to dogma about absolute truth or worrying about who's right and who's wrong. Those voices crying unrest are far fewer than those crying "preserve and appreciate!"
Someone once said "It's easy for a person who hasn't had the insights and experiences to cling to pretty sounding words that justify the limits of the persons perception."
@RobG, I second sattvapaul
What you say about pain is true. Pain/pleasure are two of the eightworldly winds that turn us away from our practice and towards samsara. By seeing that chasing pleasure and avoiding pain is fruitless we lose our passion for such a pursuit.
Stephen Batchelor recently said that the Buddha said all Enlightenment was, is the falling away of clinging, and hate, jealousy, anger, etc. It's desirelessness. It's possible in any moment, like when we're captivated by a sunset. It is not some mystical state. We're still human after we realize equanimity, a state of desirelessness. So we still experience pain, we're still moved by compassion to alleviate the suffering of others. We're still "us". We just don't get hooked by materialism, ego (grasping at fame or power) and negative emotions anymore.
Short version: I believe you have misinterpreted the saying.
This understanding dawns as awakening deepens. They experience what we consider suffering as self liberated and blissfully empty of inherent existence.
This realization cannot be minimized to intellectual musings though... this insight has to be directly experienced.
Thanks for showing me that
re (About, regarding, with reference) lative (uncountable)
Let us develop relative compassion first.
It's almost like the old theory of samkhya of prakriti and purusha. Darkness and light.
Basically... the mind can be liberated from the body while enacted through it. The body is darkness and the mind is light. Even though to a Buddha, Samsara is Nirvana so... even the body's activities are self liberated upon arising, even though those conditions still do arise dependent upon it's dimension of causes and conditions they are all empty, to be realized by the mind through the body.
Like the Pink Floyd album cover of the pyramid with the light turning into a rainbow through the darkness...
"The body's activities are self-liberated upon arising"? How's that? What's that? :dunce:
I think of it as: pain may be there, but it's not as noticeable to the Enlightened mind as to the unenlightened mind. Like when people in serious chronic pain listen to music, they almost forget about the pain. They bliss out, and the pain momentarily fades to the background.