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.
I think it is always the behavior that should be judged and not the person. Many people who we judge in an inferior way are only the way they are because they have not had people care about them enough to train them in the right way. What we consider to be easy behavior do not come easily to all people. We should judge others behavior with a mind of compassion.
A behaviour in us that may be ingrained, hereditary, good karma, life opportunities etc may be very hard won by those polishing their way to BuddhaHoodiness . . .
Our essence, in Truth is empty, void of conditions. This is why the 'Buddhas'/masters/enlightened/hereditary lamas speak with 'one voice'. . . . however that 'light' or pure nature may have to shine through mud or the flaws of a diamond.
Hit me with your rhythm stick Hit me, hit me Das ist gut! C'est fantastique Hit me, hit me, hit me Hit me with your rhythm stick It's nice to be a lunatic Hit me, hit me, hit me Ian Dury & The Blockheads
Aaaarrrgghhhh Oh Damm @Vastmind Made a fool of myself again, I didn't realize that your prison comment was actually a quote of a previous posting. I'll just crawl off now.
Don't worry @How, it's easy to lose track when there are so many opinions being expressed. I won't judge you for it ;-)
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.
I would agree with that. Someone said, "we are the inheritor of our intentions." Not our actions, or results, or accomplishments, but our intentions. I like that idea.
I don't think I can agree with that. Whatever the intent, it is the final result that we have to live with. This is why compassion should have wisdom as its guide.
A wise person once said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I am sorry, but I disagree. Circumstances determine our actions, which is why even enlightened people like Trungpa could act in unexpected ways. Our essential nature does not change.
Our essential nature does not change but that does not mean we always act in accordance with it. The measure of wisdom is whether or not you can act in accordance with it, in various circumstances. If you can't act in accordance with your essential nature, that means that your vision of your essential nature is clouded. It does not mean it's not there, it just means you can't see it clearly.
A "good buddhist" is continually judging themselves to see if their actions are in accordance with their essential nature. That is one function of the precepts. The precepts tell you how a person, who can clearly see their essential nature, naturally behaves. If one has a desire to act or acts contrary to the precepts, that alone is showing you that you have yet to see your essential nature clearly and you have more work to do. Trungpa still had work to do.
@betaboy said:
Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.
I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.
Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.
There is no problem judging Chogyam Trungpa, he wasn't a Buddha, and isn't revered as a great yogi or anything. He was a wise tantric that indulged a lot, I wouldn't consider him a "mad yogi", because I don't think he was enlightened, and he sure was not renown for his meditative prowess. He was walking the path but it is pretty clear he didn't accomplish the sublimation of emptiness required to transform his experience entirely, which is why his indulgence caught up to him and harmed many people (spreading stds for example). He understood tantrayana qua base and path, but didn't reach tantrayana qua fruit.
There is no problem judging Chogyam Trungpa, he wasn't a Buddha, and isn't revered as a great yogi or anything. He was a wise tantric that indulged a lot, I wouldn't consider him a "mad yogi", because I don't think he was enlightened, and he sure was not renown for his meditative prowess.
Wise tantric is a fair assessment.
I agree he was neither a Buddha, great crazy yogi or enlightened. He was clever enough to talk a good talk but fell down when walking . . .
However he was a hereditary symbol of Buddhahood. He will enter the official hagiography of Tantra. That is the way of the things. In other words people unable to distinguish between poets, rock stars and their own, others delusions, or the official lineage holdings incorporated, will venerate their own fantasy modelling . . .
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
January thread: one member gone, some missing in action.... Sunk.
Comments
xxx
Oh well!
A behaviour in us that may be ingrained, hereditary, good karma, life opportunities etc may be very hard won by those polishing their way to BuddhaHoodiness . . .
Our essence, in Truth is empty, void of conditions. This is why the 'Buddhas'/masters/enlightened/hereditary lamas speak with 'one voice'.
. . . however that 'light' or pure nature may have to shine through mud or the flaws of a diamond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajra
Hit me with your rhythm stick
Hit me, hit me
Das ist gut! C'est fantastique
Hit me, hit me, hit me
Hit me with your rhythm stick
It's nice to be a lunatic
Hit me, hit me, hit me
Ian Dury & The Blockheads
. . . and now back to the Dread Judge :wave:
Aaaarrrgghhhh Oh Damm @Vastmind
Made a fool of myself again,
I didn't realize that your prison comment was actually a quote of a previous posting.
I'll just crawl off now.
Don't worry @How, it's easy to lose track when there are so many opinions being expressed. I won't judge you for it ;-)
A wise person once said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A "good buddhist" is continually judging themselves to see if their actions are in accordance with their essential nature. That is one function of the precepts. The precepts tell you how a person, who can clearly see their essential nature, naturally behaves. If one has a desire to act or acts contrary to the precepts, that alone is showing you that you have yet to see your essential nature clearly and you have more work to do. Trungpa still had work to do.
There is no problem judging Chogyam Trungpa, he wasn't a Buddha, and isn't revered as a great yogi or anything. He was a wise tantric that indulged a lot, I wouldn't consider him a "mad yogi", because I don't think he was enlightened, and he sure was not renown for his meditative prowess. He was walking the path but it is pretty clear he didn't accomplish the sublimation of emptiness required to transform his experience entirely, which is why his indulgence caught up to him and harmed many people (spreading stds for example). He understood tantrayana qua base and path, but didn't reach tantrayana qua fruit.
Wise tantric is a fair assessment.
I agree he was neither a Buddha, great crazy yogi or enlightened. He was clever enough to talk a good talk but fell down when walking . . .
However he was a hereditary symbol of Buddhahood. He will enter the official hagiography of Tantra. That is the way of the things. In other words people unable to distinguish between poets, rock stars and their own, others delusions, or the official lineage holdings incorporated, will venerate their own fantasy modelling . . .
January thread: one member gone, some missing in action.... Sunk.