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.
Are all virtuous and non-virtuous actions we do including dharma practice motivated by delusions
Are all virtuous and non-virtuous actions we do including dharma practice motivated by our strong and powerful delusions - ?????
0
Comments
Seriously, I guide my actions but I can't know if my reasons are delusional or not, can I?
We are motivated by many things, but eventually it comes down to sense of self. If there is an action, someone has to make the decision to act. We can act to avoid pain or seek happiness or contentment or our of responsibility, but in the end all actions are "selfish" in that manner.
once one sees what is delusion one sees all virtuous and non-virtuous actions we do including dharma practice motivated by our strong and powerful delusion
but
until then we must avoid non-virtuous actions and cultivate virtuous action
why
virtuous actions lead 'us' to see the 'Delusion' or our Ignorance
There is not even a consensus among Buddhist traditions.
For example, this weekend in hundreds of Buddhist centres people will eat meat and drink alcohol as part of their virtuous activities.
Other Buddhists will view that as delusional and see their denouncing it as virtuous.
How is this action motivated by delusion? :scratch:
what is good for you but not good for others is non-virtuous
what is good for others but not good for you is non-virtuous
what is neither good for you nor good for others is non-virtuous
what is good for you and good for others is virtuous
so one is still in samsara
greed hate & delusion.
My answer to the question as to how delusive or not an action is ,
refers to how selfless or self oriented the action is.
whether one is worldling (puthajjana), Noble person (stream entry/ once returner/non-returner) or Araht
if one is worldling even one think there is no thought or notion of 'I' help 'him' there is built-in (habitual) 'I' and 'him' with that meritorious deed (there is kamma and kamma vipaka)
if one is Noble but not mindful one is again habitual 'I' and 'him' with that meritorious deed (there is kamma and kamma vipaka)
for Arahat the deed is just a deed there is no merit definetely
whether one is worldling (puthajjana), Noble person (stream entry/ once returner/non-returner) or Araht
if one is worldling even one think there is no thought or notion of 'I' help 'him' there is built-in (habitual) 'I' and 'him' with that meritorious deed (there is kamma and kamma vipaka)
if one is Noble but not mindful one is again habitual 'I' and 'him' with that meritorious deed (there is kamma and kamma vipaka)
for Arahat the deed is just a deed there is no merit definetely
That is model some find useful...puthajjana/ stream returner et
It does not feature in Dzogchen.
Man hungry = Feed Man.
. . . I am obviously such a beginner.
If you are interested you could try www.vajracakra.com where some members sail as close to the wind as is possible in a public forum.
--Skulls
Just always been my take on this subject of hushness....
Feel free to disagree...
My intention on joining the thread was to point out the demonstrable fact that despite an in~built assumption among some western Buddhists, not all schools of Dharma assume a framework of the precepts. much of Dzogchen does not. Much of the Vajrayana does not. Much of Zen does not.
aware than anyone can join. That wasn't really my point...Why get into
conversations when you have certain conditions/knowledge that the other
person might not.... correcting...or teaching?
I also understand not all use it for a teaching curriculum....but I think the
framework is present.
now the Buddha talks about actions that are NOT rooted in those three. These are actions we can perform however the mindset and intention have to be in a correct place for it to be free of ignorance.
the opposite of attachment, aversion and ignorance? detachment, acceptance, and wisdom of course.
or more common word usage are greed, hatred and delusion(which sort of like Dukkha being translated as suffering, are just horrid uses), which are eradicated by deeds stemming from non-greed(generosity), non-hatred(metta), and wisdom.
here is a good sutta - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.033.than.html
Nidana Sutta: Causes
"Any action performed with greed — born of greed, caused by greed, originating from greed: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
"Any action performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
"Any action performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
"Any action performed with non-greed — born of non-greed, caused by non-greed, originating from non-greed: When greed is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
"Any action performed with non-aversion — born of non-aversion, caused by non-aversion, originating from non-aversion: When aversion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, destroyed at the root, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
"Any action performed with non-delusion — born of non-delusion, caused by non-delusion, originating from non-delusion: When delusion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
They have not been overlooked or mislaid. They simply do not feature.
One of the issues is the way that all traditions came west in a heap.
This has led to a situation whereby all traditions tend to be seen
through particular lenses. Particularly that of the Theravada and by extension the Buddhism of the Pali Canon, which does not contribute at all to much of the Vajrayana And hardly at all to Dzogchen.
It is frequently a surprise, even a shock when there is a realistation that the Buddha of Dzogchen is not Shakyamuni.
You have lenses too.....no?
You have assertions too...no?
I sure must like you...hahaha....I'm always happy to
see you return here...then we go in circles...hahaha
May we continue to learn and laugh together.
That is model some find useful...puthajjana/ stream returner et
It does not feature in Dzogchen.
forget the models for a moment
do you (we) have anything other than our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind?
can we get any experience without these six senses?
whenever we get an experience through our eyes, we say 'we' see 'something'
where is 'we' or 'something' apart from the eye contact the colour and the mind know it?
this is called 'seeing'
not 'I see something'
try to grasp the above meaning
it is up to you to check the above and try to see the same with other sense bases
no need to believe in stream entry etc.
you will see what is delusion
how quickly you would see depends on how often you would do this and how long you have been doing this in your previous births
once 'we' see what delusion is 'we' do not have to depend on 'he says, she says' or 'according to this tradition, according to that tradition'
because
Truth is Truth
Next ya be mocking all the identity I hold, in safekeeping the light and way of the Buddha's truth that makes my school special over all others.
Dzogchen; zazen; dog chain..... Whatever!!!!
Geddit, get it!
Delusion is the creation of your mind. Let's start again. 4NT. The rest is up to you.
OK.
Now?
For ever?
Too long?
I love it when a plan comes together.
Hannibal Smith
Incidentally I am not too familiar with Dzogchen though a little familiar with Mahamudra.
Perhaps a practice of self discovery is different than the release of info that leads to nuclear proliferation.
Perhaps if mass hysteria is a secret, it's can't be called mass hysteria.
Perhaps holding a "secret teaching" is a lure that holds a students attention or gives a sect the justification to consider itself special....
but
after seeing copious amounts of delusion over the years sported as an exclusive truth,
I support complete disclosure as a matter of respect for all Buddhist practitioners.
Do you know for certain that the techniques are not dangerous?
A fireman is trained to fight a fire. But if I read up on fires in the internet and then start trying to fight them I won't make it very far. That is just to illustrate my thinking, obviously the fire fighter analogy is lacking in total proof. It is just a way to shine light on the matter.
So. Do you accept that tummo "may" be dangerous?
I guess the question is if it is more dangerous for everyone as a secret as opposed to being in the public domain,
and if it is a likely practice for Joe Blo to become accomplished enough in to make dangerous, what fool developed it, when the rest of the Buddha's teachings do perfectly well in the open while safeguarding everyone's safety.
Clearly it needs saying again, there is nothing secret ' about :Dzogchen. its freely available.
But it is dependant upon specific structures and processes, and those processes are not posited on the 4 nt or 8fp. This is not a claim to superiority. Merely a claim easily verified.
Clearly it was a mistake to raise the subject, and I apologise and will not repeat it.
~/\~
My teacher's student asked her if she could practice tummo. My teacher said that she couldn't support that student's tummo practice. So the student would be on her own if she practiced something tummo. So as Citta says tummo isn't hidden. Just not all teachers will teach it. I think that would fit in with my assertion that it is dangerous.
You seem to imply that it was a foolish choice to insert a dangerous practice into Buddhism. I don't know if the Buddha taught it (with oral tradition of teacher/student) or if it was later added. But the draw to teaching the dangerous methods is to more rapidly attain enlightenment.
"Give up negative actions, practice virtue and develop mastery over the mind." - Shakyamuni
"Thought arises, remain present in that state - if no thought arises, remain present in that state; there is no difference in these states." - Garab Dorje
I am not too familiar with Dzogchen, though from what I understand the teachings pre-date Buddhism in Tibet.
Anyway, I think some of the differences between Sutrayana, Tantrayana and Dzogchen lie in how the relative is dealt with, Sutrayana renounces the relative, Tantrayana embraces the relative and Dzogchen, not sure it matters.
Anyhow, not sure how much is secret as withheld and how much is secret in that you wouldn't understand without the teaching.
You can give someone a car and not teach them how to drive but, that might not be too safe.
When does a student know that they have learned enough to become a teacher?
When the teacher realizes they are still just a student!
Tada
Back to the cushion. Smile on face.
You raise an interesting point in regard to how utterly confused the majority of sentient beings are. The teachings often describe the rarity of a sentient being encountering the Dharma and I feel you touch on this. Trungpa Rinpoche mentions briefly in his book "Crazy Wisdom" that the workings of karma are so complex that encountering the Dharma more or less happens by accident.
May we remember this and use it as
fuel for our practice and as motivation to help beings in whatever limited way we can.
Great question. Thank you.