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 am my own light. That is what my teacher is pointing out to me. I have my own reading interests already... I don't get the right vibe from you to take you as my teacher. Thank you for offering however.
In other words there is too much crazy crap on the internet to give everyone the time of day. I have been with my teacher for a long time and I am happy.
I am my own light. That is what my teacher is pointing out to me. I have my own reading interests already... I don't get the right vibe from you to take you as my teacher. Thank you for offering however.
In other words there is too much crazy crap on the internet to give everyone the time of day. I have been with my teacher for a long time and I am happy.
Oh Lordy! I am not saying I am a teacher at all!Far from it:)
Rather than read my essay, go see for yourself how implausible it is that any of what we have today as "Buddhism" could been said with any certainty to the Dharma the Buddha discovered and taught. Its laughable to think it is.
When you see this then ask yourself, what was it the Buddha discovered that could be taught to someone overnight so that they became enlightened, etc etc etc.
Follow the Dharma not the controlling Buddhist theocracy and dogma:)
I don't think I can straighten you out so I don't care to discuss why I think you are wrong. I don't get the sense of someone listening to me when I talk to you. I feel you are just waiting in the wings to pounce with your own argument. You are so convinced that you are right that any discussion with you is very annoying.
I don't think I can straighten you out so I don't care to discuss why I think you are wrong. I don't get the sense of someone listening to me when I talk to you. I feel you are just waiting in the wings to pounce with your own argument. You are so convinced that you are right that any discussion with you is very annoying.
You havent said anything pother than your teachers says I'm wrong.
Thank you. Good luck with your practice too. I am afraid that we disagree as I do not believe that established Buddhism has gotten buddha's real message wrong.
That there was a 5e9 B.C.E. is an imputation from experience. If you want to know what's true, best get the relationship to experience straight first. That's truly foundational.
That there was a 5e9 B.C.E. is an imputation from experience. If you want to know what's true, best get the relationship to experience straight first. That's truly foundational.
Hi Fivebells
Second asking: Do you believe Dharma was true five billion years ago?
Mat, have you by any chance gone through an English translation of the "Brahma jala sutta"? The Buddha has talked about a few wrong views that were there in the ancient philosophical circles at that time in the mentioned sutta. I think if you read the suttas you might find the answer to your question and if you don't then the Buddha probably never talked about it or he did talk but we do not have a record of it now.
As far as I believe, the suttas are the only place where the dhamma which the Buddha taught is documented in this day. All the rest are interpretations of monks, philosophers, scholars etc and it might be their own stories; you get what I'm saying? They maybe not be quite exactly what the Buddha taught.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Mat, have you by any chance gone through an English translation of the "Brahma jala sutta"? The Buddha has talked about a few wrong views that were there in the ancient philosophical circles at that time in the mentioned sutta. I think if you read the suttas you might find the answer to your question and if you don't then the Buddha probably never talked about it or he did talk but we do not have a record of it now.
As far as I believe, the suttas are the only place where the dhamma which the Buddha taught is documented in this day. All the rest are interpretations of monks, philosophers, scholars etc and it might be their own stories; you get what I'm saying? They maybe not be quite exactly what the Buddha taught.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Hi, Yes I have. I think the Buddha is referring to the question about what underlays existence, not what is the structure of reality. I agree with him. I do mention this in my essay:)
I dont believe the suttras are accurate, and for good reason that nobody has countered:)
This whole argument is ludicrous. The only question that matters is whether or not the teachings of the Buddha produce enlightened beings, and that has been proven over and over and over again. All of this is just mental masturbation.
I wasn't going to say that, although of course I thought it. I was attempting to be kind.
I myself have ceased to pay attention except out of idle curiosity. I hope I can let go of even that idle curiosity. If it doesn't address the questions of suffering and generation of compassion, it's useless.
Now I have the task before me of letting go of this idle curiosity.
Second asking: Do you believe Dharma was true five billion years ago?
Second response:
That there was a 5e9 B.C.E. is an imputation from experience. If you want to know what's true, best get the relationship to experience straight first. That's truly foundational.
I agree with you, the suttas have come through a long time span so there can be missing points here and there. But when it was first put into writing it had been done by monks who were arahants so we can safely assume that it is accurate at least 90% of the time. If we cannot believe the suttas are right then there is nothing left that has more eligibility to be more accurate than the suttas because everything else are interpretations of the suttas or the writers own philosophies.
But that is not the point here. Buddhism is not something people blindly believe in because it is there in a sutta. They practice the Buddha's teachings and find out its truth for themselves in this lifetime. The Buddha taught the path to end suffering and there are monks even in this day and age who follow the path and reap the fruits of his teachings. That's all that matters
This whole argument is ludicrous. The only question that matters is whether or not the teachings of the Buddha produce enlightened beings, and that has been proven over and over and over again. All of this is just mental masturbation.
Palzang
Superbly put; I couldn't have said it any better.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
I am not sure I can do consise, but here is one reason from many:
1) They were not written down for centuries and fifteen hundred miles away from where The Buddha lived.
I dont belive the verbal method could carry such a vast amount of information (many bibles worth) do didstant in time and space without errors
The Buddha said (in the suttas), just like the great ocean has one taste, namely, the taste of salt, the dhamma has only one taste, namely, the taste of freedom.
Freedom comes from relinquishment. Relinquishment is like going to the toilet or doing a shit.
Doing a shit has not changed for thousands of years so, naturally, why would dhamma change?
Whether we squat, sit or use a laxative, it does not change.
"All of us are more or less naive ontologists." - R.D. Laing
Ontological formulations are like certain body parts. Everybody has one.
So Ditto And everybody has the reasons why their one is the right one. When I was in campus I also had my own theories and philosophies and debated on and on about them. Such a waste of time
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Pondering the suttas and discussing them with others on an intellectual level will not reveal any ultimate truths. Those seeking the truth will find this a pointless exercise. The point is: the Buddha didn't really have a method other than "awareness of things as they are" ... and what kind of method is this awareness? It is simply a "bhavana" practice - a straightforward "opening of the eyes" - like waking up from a dream. That is the core of the Buddha's teaching. Everything else are "props" - just use whatever is useful in your practice and discard the rest. If you need clarity about the use of any "prop" in your practice, then discuss this by all means. Too much of intellectual activity is like examining each "sign post" in great detail - how it was constructed, the materials used, etc... - you'll never get to the destination in this way.
I agree with you, the suttas have come through a long time span so there can be missing points here and there. But when it was first put into writing it had been done by monks who were arahants so we can safely assume that it is accurate at least 90% of the time.
Even 1% error is enough to make the totality questionable. It is a vast work.
Also, how do you know Arhants have done this?
>>>If we cannot believe the suttas are right then there is nothing left that has more eligibility to be more accurate than the suttas because everything else are interpretations of the suttas or the writers own philosophies.
Not true, we can start from First principles and practices, as the Buddha did:) He was just a man - (Or do you belive in the supernatural?)
Isn't Dharma being simple the truth?! Learn what is the truth by expierence and following the middle path-your truth is just that.
I agree! Except for two things:
1) It is not just experience that leads to truth but thought and reason.
2) There is more truth than the subjective "your truth." I am also interested in the ontological truth of Dharma:) Why would I not be?
Even 1% error is enough to make the totality questionable. It is a vast work.
Mat,
Undoubtedly the suttas are not the word-for-word teachings of the Buddha. All we absolutely know for certain is that the Buddha taught the cause of dukkha, and the cessation of dukkha. Whether the Buddha wrote the suttas himself or a monkey smeared them on a rock in its own feces is irrelevant. What is relevant is what produces results related to the cause and cessation of dukkha, and if it does so, then it is Buddhadhamma. The vast majority of the Tipitaka is accurate in doing this.
You say literal rebirth could not possibly have been taught by the Buddha, but what you fail to understand is that within the same suttas the Buddha explained that it was a moral teaching to guide those holding that preexisting belief to a better life, rather than a core teaching of his own which led to Nibbana. The Buddha understood the need for such teachings even if he himself did not believe in the belief that was the backbone to them, and that not all people would live in a monestary dedicating their lives to Nibbana. This is what made him such a superb teacher, who was capable of adapting his methods to suit his audience.
Dharmic Truth Three: All systems are empty
Dharmic Truth Four: All systems are inevitably negative
This is a huge contradiction. If all systems are empty then you have to understand that the negativity is imputed. Anicca is not dukkha unless a person is attached and clinging and it is when this arises that dukkha arises. Dukkha is created within the mind, thus through practice and right understanding a person can be free of it as well, because of A leads to B, it would follow that eliminating A would eliminate B.
Different people learn the same things by different means. I learned to cook from my grandmother; some people learn from a cookbook; some people phone their local pizza delivery place.
Someone may first experience anatta while contemplating a koan, while meditating, while hearing an especially enlightening dhamma talk, or spontaneously while taking a shit. The experience, not the means, is what's important to Buddhist practice. The various methods employed by the different schools all produce profound results; this is Buddhadhamma. Your writings do not; they are not Buddhadhamma. Even if all of what you write is true, it is irrelevant to developing compassion, loving-kindness, mindfulness... to releasing attachment, clinging, and self-cherishing views... it is irrelevant to practice, understanding dukkha, and knowing freedom from dukkha.
It would do more good to practice five minutes of vipassana than it would to read the collective wad of ego-masturbatory sessions on your website.
Now you take me out of context:) If enlightenment is the mundane realsition of dharma I believe it is then I think i am, yes. I also think many Buddhist are too:) Especially those that reject rebirth:)
If its some deep mystical thing hidden in the hands of "priests" then no, I am an infinite distance from that enlightenment.
I didn't take you out of context. In buddhism what is translated as "enlightenment" is nibbana which means "to put out," as in a fire, the fires of greed/aversion/delusion. this is not supernatural or mysterious. You clarified in private that enlightenment to you means intellectually knowing the three seals and the path to nibbana - which is fine, but you should clarify your terms to begin with.
Comments
Read this http://bit.ly/5UQX2G
Then question all you have been told.
Then start again.
Be your own light.
Have you understood the Kalama Sutra?
Doubt it all, including the Kalama Sutra:P
In other words there is too much crazy crap on the internet to give everyone the time of day. I have been with my teacher for a long time and I am happy.
Oh Lordy! I am not saying I am a teacher at all!Far from it:)
Rather than read my essay, go see for yourself how implausible it is that any of what we have today as "Buddhism" could been said with any certainty to the Dharma the Buddha discovered and taught. Its laughable to think it is.
When you see this then ask yourself, what was it the Buddha discovered that could be taught to someone overnight so that they became enlightened, etc etc etc.
Follow the Dharma not the controlling Buddhist theocracy and dogma:)
Mat
You havent said anything pother than your teachers says I'm wrong.
Let's stop, and good luck with your practice:)
Mat
Hi Fivebells
Second asking: Do you believe Dharma was true five billion years ago?
Thanks
Mat
As far as I believe, the suttas are the only place where the dhamma which the Buddha taught is documented in this day. All the rest are interpretations of monks, philosophers, scholars etc and it might be their own stories; you get what I'm saying? They maybe not be quite exactly what the Buddha taught.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Hi, Yes I have. I think the Buddha is referring to the question about what underlays existence, not what is the structure of reality. I agree with him. I do mention this in my essay:)
I dont believe the suttras are accurate, and for good reason that nobody has countered:)
Mat
Hi
I am not sure I can do consise, but here is one reason from many:
1) They were not written down for centuries and fifteen hundred miles away from where The Buddha lived.
I dont belive the verbal method could carry such a vast amount of information (many bibles worth) do didstant in time and space without errors
If you dont belive that reason then check out:
http://salted.net/essays/was-the-buddha-a-buddhist/
Thanks
Mat
So your tenets must also be wrong :rolleyes:
Palzang
I wasn't going to say that, although of course I thought it. I was attempting to be kind.
I myself have ceased to pay attention except out of idle curiosity. I hope I can let go of even that idle curiosity. If it doesn't address the questions of suffering and generation of compassion, it's useless.
Now I have the task before me of letting go of this idle curiosity.
Second response:
But that is not the point here. Buddhism is not something people blindly believe in because it is there in a sutta. They practice the Buddha's teachings and find out its truth for themselves in this lifetime. The Buddha taught the path to end suffering and there are monks even in this day and age who follow the path and reap the fruits of his teachings. That's all that matters
Superbly put; I couldn't have said it any better.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Lmao.
Inaccuracy is related to realisation.
The suttas are fine, in fact, apart from the few obvious late additions, they are perfect.
Freedom comes from relinquishment. Relinquishment is like going to the toilet or doing a shit.
Doing a shit has not changed for thousands of years so, naturally, why would dhamma change?
Whether we squat, sit or use a laxative, it does not change.
Er...well that's certainly a novel way of describing it DD!
.
Ontological formulations are like certain body parts. Everybody has one.
So Ditto
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Pondering the suttas and discussing them with others on an intellectual level will not reveal any ultimate truths. Those seeking the truth will find this a pointless exercise. The point is: the Buddha didn't really have a method other than "awareness of things as they are" ... and what kind of method is this awareness? It is simply a "bhavana" practice - a straightforward "opening of the eyes" - like waking up from a dream. That is the core of the Buddha's teaching. Everything else are "props" - just use whatever is useful in your practice and discard the rest. If you need clarity about the use of any "prop" in your practice, then discuss this by all means. Too much of intellectual activity is like examining each "sign post" in great detail - how it was constructed, the materials used, etc... - you'll never get to the destination in this way.
Even 1% error is enough to make the totality questionable. It is a vast work.
Also, how do you know Arhants have done this?
>>>If we cannot believe the suttas are right then there is nothing left that has more eligibility to be more accurate than the suttas because everything else are interpretations of the suttas or the writers own philosophies.
Not true, we can start from First principles and practices, as the Buddha did:) He was just a man - (Or do you belive in the supernatural?)
>>That's all that matters
Not to me:)
mat
I agree! Except for two things:
1) It is not just experience that leads to truth but thought and reason.
2) There is more truth than the subjective "your truth." I am also interested in the ontological truth of Dharma:) Why would I not be?
Mat
Well, good luck with that
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Mat,
Undoubtedly the suttas are not the word-for-word teachings of the Buddha. All we absolutely know for certain is that the Buddha taught the cause of dukkha, and the cessation of dukkha. Whether the Buddha wrote the suttas himself or a monkey smeared them on a rock in its own feces is irrelevant. What is relevant is what produces results related to the cause and cessation of dukkha, and if it does so, then it is Buddhadhamma. The vast majority of the Tipitaka is accurate in doing this.
You say literal rebirth could not possibly have been taught by the Buddha, but what you fail to understand is that within the same suttas the Buddha explained that it was a moral teaching to guide those holding that preexisting belief to a better life, rather than a core teaching of his own which led to Nibbana. The Buddha understood the need for such teachings even if he himself did not believe in the belief that was the backbone to them, and that not all people would live in a monestary dedicating their lives to Nibbana. This is what made him such a superb teacher, who was capable of adapting his methods to suit his audience.
This is a huge contradiction. If all systems are empty then you have to understand that the negativity is imputed. Anicca is not dukkha unless a person is attached and clinging and it is when this arises that dukkha arises. Dukkha is created within the mind, thus through practice and right understanding a person can be free of it as well, because of A leads to B, it would follow that eliminating A would eliminate B.
Different people learn the same things by different means. I learned to cook from my grandmother; some people learn from a cookbook; some people phone their local pizza delivery place.
Someone may first experience anatta while contemplating a koan, while meditating, while hearing an especially enlightening dhamma talk, or spontaneously while taking a shit. The experience, not the means, is what's important to Buddhist practice. The various methods employed by the different schools all produce profound results; this is Buddhadhamma. Your writings do not; they are not Buddhadhamma. Even if all of what you write is true, it is irrelevant to developing compassion, loving-kindness, mindfulness... to releasing attachment, clinging, and self-cherishing views... it is irrelevant to practice, understanding dukkha, and knowing freedom from dukkha.
It would do more good to practice five minutes of vipassana than it would to read the collective wad of ego-masturbatory sessions on your website.
These earlier posts of yours truly say it all. :-/
Now you take me out of context:) If enlightenment is the mundane realsition of dharma I believe it is then I think i am, yes. I also think many Buddhist are too:) Especially those that reject rebirth:)
If its some deep mystical thing hidden in the hands of "priests" then no, I am an infinite distance from that enlightenment.
This is my only life.