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.
As I said Buddha references the self in dhammapada among others though I am not a sutra scholar because I read from my teacher rather than the original source. When I am more experienced at a later time I may read more from primary source.
More experienced of what? You don't need any experience to read the suttas IMO. In fact it is best to read the suttas before a lot of jargon fill up one's head.
In fact it is best to read the suttas before a lot of jargon fill up one's head.
I have mix feelings about this.
I guess it can be true in some cases but i haven't see any evidence of this yet.
My understanding came from my experience, i did not read the 4nt, 8 precepts until recently and never read the suttas.
To me, the 4nt, 8 precepts are just common sence gained from seing life in a different way. Practice lead to their observation in my life, naturally.
And about the suttas, i haven't seen anyone here talking about the old texts where i was amazed by their wisdom gained by reading the texts. They seem to be able to repeat what is written in the texts but somehow not often do they seem to show wisdom themselves.
Everyone is different so different approach will fit different people.
-edit:
what i meant to say is that when i see someone who have been studying the old texts very hard, i do not feel like i'm missing something, that i would benefit by doing the same. in fact, it's the opposite. I feel like i should stay away from this.
when i see someone who have been practicing very much and not quote buddhist texts extensively, like say Texashermit, i feel like i would benefit from doing whatever he have been doing (which i'm certain includes reading the suttas, even a little bit)
To me, the 4nt, 8 precepts are just common sence gained from seing life in a different way. Practice lead to their observation in my life, naturally.
I completely agree. I've heard that the 8 fold path is the way to understanding, but I think those things occur naturally as a result of understanding.
Call me suspicious but I would never be comfortable in a path that asked me to just follow what my teacher says. I think that is actually against what the Buddha says in the Kalama Sutta. I am not willing to just buy into what some teacher says is true without giving it some serious thought and considering other points of view. I feel such devotion is potentially dangerous and of course the very essense of how cults work.
I'm not a big fan of "secret teachings" either.
I think it is important to go to the source, and the closest we can get to sitting and listening to Shakyamuni is the sutta/sutras.
Now certainly there is an advantage in listening to someone who has spent their lives studying these texts, and likely have a deeper understanding of them than I would have, and in fact I think we do well to hear at least a few points of view in this regard.
If a teachers own words are truthful and inspiring and helpful in our practice that is of great value as well, but I do think everyone interested in Buddhism should study some of the sutras.
I am also curious how many chant sutras regularly? Jodo Shinshu is big on this. Chanting from the Larger sutra on Immeasurable life, and the Smaller Sukhavati Sutra as well as works by Nagarjuna and Shinran Shonin.
occasionally the Metta Sutta is also used, as well as the homages of course.
I have a suspicion that many westerners who try Buddhism exclusively practice Meditation, forgetting that sutra chanting was a Buddhist practice, presumably even in the time of the Buddha, and how the sutras came to be written down much later. I think it has tremendous value and is itself a kind of meditation.
For those who do chant and are part of an organized Sangha...do you chant in English or your language of every day usage, or in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or Chinese?
My comments was intended to say that anyone does not necessarily need years of experience in the Buddhist practice to read the suttas. Why would they? In fact, it is always better to read the core teachings and the old texts with a mind empty of pre-existing beliefs and teachings from various scholars as the suttas have a tendency to be misinterpreted.
Also, it is better to start the practice with a bit of knowhow of the Buddhist teachings from some kind of source if not the suttas. Actually reading and educating yourself about Dhamma is part of the practice IMO. During the Buddha's time they used Dhamma talks and in this day and age we mostly use the texts.
Call me suspicious but I would never be comfortable in a path that asked me to just follow what my teacher says. I think that is actually against what the Buddha says in the Kalama Sutta. I am not willing to just buy into what some teacher says is true without giving it some serious thought and considering other points of view. I feel such devotion is potentially dangerous and of course the very essense of how cults work.
I'm not a big fan of "secret teachings" either.
Thats a good point as frightening as it sounds to me. The problem is that a teacher can very much benefit the students. And as I said EVERY teacher is criticized now and again. So if you never join up with a teacher because someone else criticizes them then you will never be able to benefit from a teacher. You do have to watch out for cults of course. Even the buddha was criticized. And even the buddha's students had to contend with strong devotion versus honesty and critical enquiry.
I feel I do give other points of view thought but at this point just for the purpose of raising my consciousness which in turn might lead for some great or fantastic questions that I may then ask my teacher. At this point I do not wish to debate a view.
I feel I am secure in my view but I am surprised you immediately brought up cults. When in fact my teacher is just presenting buddhism differently than is in your comfort zone. I would ask you to turn the kalama sutra to your own practice and stick to what you realize directly. I am slightly miffed at the knee jerk reaction to accuse of a cult just because of a little disagreement. I mean really?
Now certainly there is an advantage in listening to someone who has spent their lives studying these texts, and likely have a deeper understanding of them than I would have, and in fact I think we do well to hear at least a few points of view in this regard.
If a teachers own words are truthful and inspiring and helpful in our practice that is of great value as well, but I do think everyone interested in Buddhism should study some of the sutras.
Yes this is exactly how I feel. I have read sutras and they are nice but I feel much more benefit from my Lamas teachings than the sutras. Don't knock it before you try it I almost never read an article just because someone on the internet suggested it particularly in the context of an argument. I mean I read a book a week outside of what my teacher teaches. I too could give people endless 'reading assignments'.. end of rant
@ Deshy it is the choice of my teacher to teach her own presentation of buddhism which is designed for the western audience. It is based on both mahayana and pali teachings. When you are a lama deshy you may teach directly from the sutras.
According to my understanding is no production of a single thought and never in extinction of loving kindness, humility and respect cos all living beings is one lovely family.
Nirvana is a cleansing of the mind, anti-brainwashing if you will, to see reality that in our self-centered designs we have chosen to remain blind toward. Nothing is permanent and brain damage can affect, can change, the state of the mind. What's all this jibber-jabber for and why's it necessary?
For clarity on this point, there are some things that would bring confusion if taught too early in a mind's development. For instance, "there is no such thing as right and wrong" would confuse an 8 year old, even if it is true. "Secret teachings" are just ideas and truths that have to be approached in a specific way to be understood or used in a healthy way. They are not deceptive or "withheld from the unworthy" or anything like that.
For clarity on this point, there are some things that would bring confusion if taught too early in a mind's development. For instance, "there is no such thing as right and wrong" would confuse an 8 year old, even if it is true. "Secret teachings" are just ideas and truths that have to be approached in a specific way to be understood or used in a healthy way. They are not deceptive or "withheld from the unworthy" or anything like that.
With warmth,
Matt
"There is no such thing as right and wrong" is a half-baked truth. "It is wrong to starve and neglect a kitten, actually, truly, wrong" is fully baked.
"There is no such thing as right and wrong" is a half-baked truth. "It is wrong to starve and neglect a kitten, actually, truly, wrong" is fully baked.
If by baked you mean absolute, then I have to disagree... still only 3/4 baked. "Starving and neglecting a kitten creates suffering" would be more baked.
Also, to add to Matt's point; some lineages believe that esoteric practices can be dangerous to those without proper training. Therefore it is kept "secret" to avoid harm.
Also, to add to Matt's point; some lineages believe that esoteric practices can be dangerous to those without proper training. Therefore it is kept "secret" to avoid harm.
And to add to this, didn't the Buddha state it pretty clearly that he has no secrets to his teaching?
If by baked you mean absolute, then I have to disagree... still only 3/4 baked. "Starving and neglecting a kitten creates suffering" would be more baked.
Starving and neglecting a kitten is just downright wrong, is it not? or must we avoid that with mealy mouthed buddhism. Its plain old wrong. This is not being absolute.
In "emptiness" there is no such thing as right and wrong, in the "Absolute" there is no such thing as right and wrong. But you dont wash your dishes where dishes arent dishes. Forget emptiness.
And to add to this, didn't the Buddha state it pretty clearly that he has no secrets to his teaching?
In the Pali canon, yes. So, as far as I'm aware, Theravadens have no esoteric practices. Mahayana and Vajrayana have different canons, therefore they have esoteric practices for the reasons stated above.
(I'm hoping that this will not turn into another Theravaden vs Mahayana debate, as so often happens on this forum. I am not here to "justify" either position. I am just informing.)
I think Trungpa called it shunyata poisoning to do horrible things with the idea that they were empty anyway. Or that you don't need to meditate because all is empty anyway...
I think the actuality is that 'kitten morality' is a function of our sensitive hearts. And it arises in response to the situations. And it is ungraspable though you can use guidelines as skillful means. For instance if there are feral cats who are hungry I might try to put out some food but I wouldn't take them in my home as feral cats don't do well when caught and caged in my opinion. But thats just my take. On the other hand if putting food out was causing trouble with other wildlife (attracting them to my house) I probably wouldn't do that and its just poor luck for the feral cats.
Starving and neglecting a kitten is just downright wrong, is it not? or must we avoid that with mealy mouthed buddhism. Its plain old wrong. This is not being absolute.
I think that stating its wrong is about morality, not about truth. I'm not meaning to haggle. I am talking about the tricky nature of some views for exactly this reason... because otherwise there is a possibility of nihilism to arise, which seems to be the force you're arguing against.
The point to "secret teachings" (that I see) is to develop first a sense of social morality that allows for the development of empathy and compassion. Then dissolve the social morality, so that empathy and compassion can operate skillfully, without the constraint.
If you do the latter without the former, you create spiritual materialism. Jeffery's reference to "shunyata poisoning" seems a decent name for it. Didn't mean to derail the thread, just trying to help discern a reason for "secret dharma"
Nirvana is nothing. There's essentially nothing there to be permanent in the first place. Impermanentce ONLY applies to forms. Is Nirvana a form?
.
If this were true then the very source of all our trouble would be permanent.
If impermanence only applied to forms then our thoughts, which are formless, would be permanent and we would never have a chance to develop on the path or attain liberation.
Regarding secret teachings its actually part of the bodhisattva (edit in shantideva tradition) vow to refrain from teaching emptiness to people who are destabilized emotionally by those teachings. Or who react hostily. Another reason to have a teacher rather than just read sutras is that the teacher will be aware of that and can help you build up from where you are rather than misunderstand teachings and use the dharma to make yourself even more unhappy. Just a thought.
Regarding secret teachings its actually part of the bodhisattva vow to refrain from teaching emptiness to people who are destabilized emotionally by those teachings. Or who react hostily. Another reason to have a teacher rather than just read sutras is that the teacher will be aware of that and can help you build up from where you are rather than misunderstand teachings and use the dharma to make yourself even more unhappy. Just a thought.
That was not part of the vows I remember taking. Maybe that is part of the Vajrayana. The whole notion of keeping secret teachings is strange. Teachings on Emptiness are not rocket science, but it can sound that way in some texts.
Nirvana is nothing. There's essentially nothing there to be permanent in the first place. Impermanentce ONLY applies to forms. Is Nirvana a form?
In Buddhism, it's much better to think about phenomena as activities, events or processes rather than things or places. The way it’s presented in Theravada, samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process (emphasis mine)." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."
This may be a bit of nonsense, but in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint explains things through subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action. This mental process is "seen," ignorance [of the four noble truths] is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), and nibbana, then, would be the "letting go" of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant (anicca) and stressful (dukkha) nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable (anatta). Nibbana isn't the unconditioned as much as it's the unconditioned.
As with all conditional things, since ignorance itself isn't self-sustaining, it persists for only as long as the conditions for its existence persist:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Thus, by seeing deeply into dependent co-arising [which is synonymous with Nagarjuna's emptiness (shunyata)], we remove the veil of ignorance from our metaphorical eyes and open ourselves to the deathless (amata), or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."
(This kind of reminds me of something I read recently in Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. While discussing Heraclitus' doctrine of perpetual flux [which is similar to the Theravadin samsara], he goes to discuss how "science, like philosophy, has sought to escape from the doctrine of perpetual flux by finding some permanent substratum amid changing phenomena… Unfortunately it seemed that protons and electrons could meet and explode, forming, not new matter, but a wave of energy spreading through the universe with the velocity of light. Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent. But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the common-sense notion of a "thing" [which can be compared to the notion of selfhood (atta)]; it is merely a characteristic of physical processes (emphasis mine). It might be fancifully identified with the Heraclitean Fire, but it is the burning, not what burns. 'What burns' has disappeared from modern physics." Compare that with what the Buddha says in SN 12.35.)
I think that stating its wrong is about morality, not about truth.
The wrongness is a relative truth, the niether right nor wrongness is an absolute truth. Is an absolute truth more truthful than a relative truth? Is it the primary truth? Can there be a perception of absolute truth without a perception of a relative one? or are they actually one perception?
I don't think its about making such cut and dry attributions, so I'm not sure if there are any answers to your questions. If one is convinced their morality is an objective truth, ie, expecting it to be consistent across subjective realities, then their interaction will be stunted by that perception, right? Won't they most likely fall into the trap of seeing the neglecter as doing wrong action... based on their own sense of morality (ego judging?) In the absence of such an expectation, wouldn't the mind be more clear to be able to see what is actually happening, and skillfully intercede for both the sake of the kitten and the sake of the neglecter?
I don't think its about making such cut and dry attributions, so I'm not sure if there are any answers to your questions. If one is convinced their morality is an objective truth, ie, expecting it to be consistent across subjective realities, then their interaction will be stunted by that perception, right? Won't they most likely fall into the trap of seeing the neglecter as doing wrong action... based on their own sense of morality (ego judging?) In the absence of such an expectation, wouldn't the mind be more clear to be able to see what is actually happening, and skillfully intercede for both the sake of the kitten and the sake of the neglecter?
With warmth,
Matt
Definitely, I agree completely and that is well put. I am not saying that it is a moral across the board absolute. The point is that the statement "there is no such thing as right and wrong" is a statement from an "absolute" position. Ultimately, or (incorrectly) "really" there is no such thing as right or wrong. To be attached to this view is to be stuck in Emptiness. On the other hand there is right and wrong on a relative level. It is a contextual, contingent truth. To be attached to this view is to be stuck in Form, to absolutize the relative. So what I was pointing to is that these to views are one. Both are essential. One does not prevail over the other, niether is attached to. In other words "there is no such thing as right and wrong" is half the story, "there is no such thing as right and wrong/ there is such a thing as right and wrong" is the full story. ..... and I'm kind of rambling now. Anyway we dont really disagree I think.
Starving and neglecting a kitten is just downright wrong, is it not?
It's wrong on the grounds of morality. But there are no absolute rights or wrong. Things are just the way they are.
A doctor can let an unborn child die to save the life of the mother or kill one twin in order to save the other rather than letting both die. All these acts are based on moral grounds. You cannot say one is absolutely right or wrong.
Thats a good point as frightening as it sounds to me. The problem is that a teacher can very much benefit the students. And as I said EVERY teacher is criticized now and again. So if you never join up with a teacher because someone else criticizes them then you will never be able to benefit from a teacher. You do have to watch out for cults of course. Even the buddha was criticized. And even the buddha's students had to contend with strong devotion versus honesty and critical enquiry.
I don't recall saying anything about a teacher being criticized. Of course every teacher may be criticized. Such is human nature and it is healthy in most cases.
I feel I do give other points of view thought but at this point just for the purpose of raising my consciousness which in turn might lead for some great or fantastic questions that I may then ask my teacher. At this point I do not wish to debate a view.
I feel I am secure in my view but I am surprised you immediately brought up cults. When in fact my teacher is just presenting buddhism differently than is in your comfort zone. I would ask you to turn the kalama sutra to your own practice and stick to what you realize directly. I am slightly miffed at the knee jerk reaction to accuse of a cult just because of a little disagreement. I mean really?
Sorry you are miffed, but please point out where I accused you of being in a cult.
Here I was thinking I was posting about what I am comfortable and not comfortable with!
Yes this is exactly how I feel. I have read sutras and they are nice but I feel much more benefit from my Lamas teachings than the sutras. Don't knock it before you try it I almost never read an article just because someone on the internet suggested it particularly in the context of an argument. I mean I read a book a week outside of what my teacher teaches. I too could give people endless 'reading assignments'.. end of rant
On not knocking it before I try it...
I'm pretty sure I said...and you quoted, that there is benefit from listening to what someone who has spent their life studying the Sutras has to say.
If you suppose I have never done this, or done this with only one teacher, or even just one tradition, you are mistaken.
On reading materials posted in an internet "argument". (I thought it was a "discussion" myself)
I posted some links explaining my understanding of the three Dhama seals, which you had questioned. If you choose not to read them, I'm ok with that. Whatever floats your boat.:cool:
For others:
Regarding secret teachings...Truth is truth. It need not be hidden.
Now as a music teacher for 30 years I certainly understand that it might be unwise to start a beginner off with some advanced classical peice, but if the students asked about it, I would tell them...maybe even show them, and then say "but you aren't ready for that yet", however if they were deeply inspired and wanted to try, I wouldn't stop them.
That is how I personally feel. If others feel differently, I am not criticizing you, I am only saying my opinion. Something I plan on doing much less of here.
Definitely, I agree completely and that is well put. I am not saying that it is a moral across the board absolute. The point is that the statement "there is no such thing as right and wrong" is a statement from an "absolute" position. Ultimately, or (incorrectly) "really" there is no such thing as right or wrong. To be attached to this view is to be stuck in Emptiness. On the other hand there is right and wrong on a relative level. It is a contextual, contingent truth. To be attached to this view is to be stuck in Form, to absolutize the relative. So what I was pointing to is that these to views are one. Both are essential. One does not prevail over the other, niether is attached to. In other words "there is no such thing as right and wrong" is half the story, "there is no such thing as right and wrong/ there is such a thing as right and wrong" is the full story. ..... and I'm kind of rambling now. Anyway we dont really disagree I think.
Oh, certainly... I think I see what you're saying. Objective is not greater or more absolute than subjective, they are both part of the equation.
When I look at reality, I see the objective as a stage that all of the subjectives dance upon. For me, staying well rooted into the objective is not about calling it more "true" than subjective... that would be materialism also. Rather, I find I have a deep respect for all of the subjective realities that coexist within the ultimate. Staying rooted is about skillfully navigating between subjective realities for the sake of communication and compassion.
What I find as "truth" in this context is a matter of identifiable archetypes that transfer across subjective realities. No matter how subjectively true something seems, I find if it is morality based or something that doesn't apply to the objective, calling it true is more a trapping of ego and need for validation of the truth, rather than an "correct" expression. For instance "Killing kittens is wrong" is incorrect, where "I feel killing kittens is wrong" or "most Americans consider killing kittens to be wrong" are correct. With the indication of subjective inserted into the statement, there isn't an ego projection into the objective, 'keeping it real'. In these cases, both of the subjectively based statements are objectively true because they indicate the subjective.
IMO this is the way practitioners become very confused.
Why should anyone get confused over verifiable facts? :rolleyes:
However, if you start believing in unverifiable fantasies like rebirth-linking consciousnesses, floating minds, heavenly gods etc. then that is the best way to get confused IMO
However, if you start believing in unverifiable fantasies like rebirth-linking consciousnesses, floating minds, heavenly gods etc. then that is the best way to get confused IMO
What I find as "truth" in this context is a matter of identifiable archetypes that transfer across subjective realities.
With warmth,
Matt
Familiar with AQAL? Insubjectivity, cultural constructs. These are our objective moral truths. However I would say all objective truths are subject to this, not merely this, but subject to it.
However I was thinking of "the two truths". the absolute (emptiness) and the relative (form). these two truths co-arise. So when someone says "there is no such thing as right and wrong" they have fallen into emptiness. when someone says "there is only right and wrong"
They have fallen into form.
Normally your brain makes certain connections, symmetries and patterns when subjet to stimuli. A arahant has conditioned his/her brain not to produce some of those connections, symmetries or patterns due to (the same) stimuli in a way that those connectivity-pathways in the brain can never arise again.
Even if the Arahant suffers brain damage still the old discarded connectivity-pathways in the brain can not re-arise.
Even if the Arahant suffers brain damage still the old discarded connectivity-pathways in the brain can not re-arise.
Would you elaborate this more pls? Are you suggesting that Nibbana is some kind of physical alternation to the brain which cannot be undone even by the most severe brain damage?
Why should anyone get confused over verifiable facts? :rolleyes:
However, if you start believing in unverifiable fantasies like rebirth-linking consciousnesses, floating minds, heavenly gods etc. then that is the best way to get confused IMO
Why should anyone get confused over verifiable facts? :rolleyes:
However, if you start believing in unverifiable fantasies like rebirth-linking consciousnesses, floating minds, heavenly gods etc. then that is the best way to get confused IMO
I am as certain as any human has been that this is my last life.
I think tremendous damage has been done to the world because of afterlife doctrines, including buddhism's.
But I am afraid you simply cannot say that the absence of rebirth, gods etc is a verifiable fact.
By all means be steadfast and forthright in your views, but the moment you claim certainties that you are not entitled to, you become that which the Buddha taught against and warned against.
Comments
As the others already indicated your comment makes no sense to me either.
More experienced of what? You don't need any experience to read the suttas IMO. In fact it is best to read the suttas before a lot of jargon fill up one's head.
I have mix feelings about this.
I guess it can be true in some cases but i haven't see any evidence of this yet.
My understanding came from my experience, i did not read the 4nt, 8 precepts until recently and never read the suttas.
To me, the 4nt, 8 precepts are just common sence gained from seing life in a different way. Practice lead to their observation in my life, naturally.
And about the suttas, i haven't seen anyone here talking about the old texts where i was amazed by their wisdom gained by reading the texts. They seem to be able to repeat what is written in the texts but somehow not often do they seem to show wisdom themselves.
Everyone is different so different approach will fit different people.
-edit:
what i meant to say is that when i see someone who have been studying the old texts very hard, i do not feel like i'm missing something, that i would benefit by doing the same. in fact, it's the opposite. I feel like i should stay away from this.
when i see someone who have been practicing very much and not quote buddhist texts extensively, like say Texashermit, i feel like i would benefit from doing whatever he have been doing (which i'm certain includes reading the suttas, even a little bit)
I completely agree. I've heard that the 8 fold path is the way to understanding, but I think those things occur naturally as a result of understanding.
Call me suspicious but I would never be comfortable in a path that asked me to just follow what my teacher says. I think that is actually against what the Buddha says in the Kalama Sutta. I am not willing to just buy into what some teacher says is true without giving it some serious thought and considering other points of view. I feel such devotion is potentially dangerous and of course the very essense of how cults work.
I'm not a big fan of "secret teachings" either.
I think it is important to go to the source, and the closest we can get to sitting and listening to Shakyamuni is the sutta/sutras.
Now certainly there is an advantage in listening to someone who has spent their lives studying these texts, and likely have a deeper understanding of them than I would have, and in fact I think we do well to hear at least a few points of view in this regard.
If a teachers own words are truthful and inspiring and helpful in our practice that is of great value as well, but I do think everyone interested in Buddhism should study some of the sutras.
I am also curious how many chant sutras regularly? Jodo Shinshu is big on this. Chanting from the Larger sutra on Immeasurable life, and the Smaller Sukhavati Sutra as well as works by Nagarjuna and Shinran Shonin.
occasionally the Metta Sutta is also used, as well as the homages of course.
I have a suspicion that many westerners who try Buddhism exclusively practice Meditation, forgetting that sutra chanting was a Buddhist practice, presumably even in the time of the Buddha, and how the sutras came to be written down much later. I think it has tremendous value and is itself a kind of meditation.
For those who do chant and are part of an organized Sangha...do you chant in English or your language of every day usage, or in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or Chinese?
Also, it is better to start the practice with a bit of knowhow of the Buddhist teachings from some kind of source if not the suttas. Actually reading and educating yourself about Dhamma is part of the practice IMO. During the Buddha's time they used Dhamma talks and in this day and age we mostly use the texts.
What are you trying to say Marmalade?
I feel I do give other points of view thought but at this point just for the purpose of raising my consciousness which in turn might lead for some great or fantastic questions that I may then ask my teacher. At this point I do not wish to debate a view.
I feel I am secure in my view but I am surprised you immediately brought up cults. When in fact my teacher is just presenting buddhism differently than is in your comfort zone. I would ask you to turn the kalama sutra to your own practice and stick to what you realize directly. I am slightly miffed at the knee jerk reaction to accuse of a cult just because of a little disagreement. I mean really?
Yes this is exactly how I feel. I have read sutras and they are nice but I feel much more benefit from my Lamas teachings than the sutras. Don't knock it before you try it
@ Deshy it is the choice of my teacher to teach her own presentation of buddhism which is designed for the western audience. It is based on both mahayana and pali teachings. When you are a lama deshy you may teach directly from the sutras.
I thought it meant "Quiet! For Thors' sake" :rolleyes:
Quit Friggin Tickling?
There is no jibber, only jabberers:p
For clarity on this point, there are some things that would bring confusion if taught too early in a mind's development. For instance, "there is no such thing as right and wrong" would confuse an 8 year old, even if it is true. "Secret teachings" are just ideas and truths that have to be approached in a specific way to be understood or used in a healthy way. They are not deceptive or "withheld from the unworthy" or anything like that.
With warmth,
Matt
If by baked you mean absolute, then I have to disagree... still only 3/4 baked. "Starving and neglecting a kitten creates suffering" would be more baked.
And to add to this, didn't the Buddha state it pretty clearly that he has no secrets to his teaching?
Starving and neglecting a kitten is just downright wrong, is it not? or must we avoid that with mealy mouthed buddhism. Its plain old wrong. This is not being absolute.
In "emptiness" there is no such thing as right and wrong, in the "Absolute" there is no such thing as right and wrong. But you dont wash your dishes where dishes arent dishes. Forget emptiness.
Anyway. not in the mood to haggle.
In the Pali canon, yes. So, as far as I'm aware, Theravadens have no esoteric practices. Mahayana and Vajrayana have different canons, therefore they have esoteric practices for the reasons stated above.
(I'm hoping that this will not turn into another Theravaden vs Mahayana debate, as so often happens on this forum. I am not here to "justify" either position. I am just informing.)
Nios.
I think the actuality is that 'kitten morality' is a function of our sensitive hearts. And it arises in response to the situations. And it is ungraspable though you can use guidelines as skillful means. For instance if there are feral cats who are hungry I might try to put out some food but I wouldn't take them in my home as feral cats don't do well when caught and caged in my opinion. But thats just my take. On the other hand if putting food out was causing trouble with other wildlife (attracting them to my house) I probably wouldn't do that and its just poor luck for the feral cats.
I think that stating its wrong is about morality, not about truth. I'm not meaning to haggle. I am talking about the tricky nature of some views for exactly this reason... because otherwise there is a possibility of nihilism to arise, which seems to be the force you're arguing against.
The point to "secret teachings" (that I see) is to develop first a sense of social morality that allows for the development of empathy and compassion. Then dissolve the social morality, so that empathy and compassion can operate skillfully, without the constraint.
If you do the latter without the former, you create spiritual materialism. Jeffery's reference to "shunyata poisoning" seems a decent name for it. Didn't mean to derail the thread, just trying to help discern a reason for "secret dharma"
With warmth,
Matt
If this were true then the very source of all our trouble would be permanent.
If impermanence only applied to forms then our thoughts, which are formless, would be permanent and we would never have a chance to develop on the path or attain liberation.
In Buddhism, it's much better to think about phenomena as activities, events or processes rather than things or places. The way it’s presented in Theravada, samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process (emphasis mine)." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."
This may be a bit of nonsense, but in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint explains things through subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action. This mental process is "seen," ignorance [of the four noble truths] is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), and nibbana, then, would be the "letting go" of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant (anicca) and stressful (dukkha) nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable (anatta). Nibbana isn't the unconditioned as much as it's the unconditioned.
As with all conditional things, since ignorance itself isn't self-sustaining, it persists for only as long as the conditions for its existence persist:
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Thus, by seeing deeply into dependent co-arising [which is synonymous with Nagarjuna's emptiness (shunyata)], we remove the veil of ignorance from our metaphorical eyes and open ourselves to the deathless (amata), or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."
(This kind of reminds me of something I read recently in Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. While discussing Heraclitus' doctrine of perpetual flux [which is similar to the Theravadin samsara], he goes to discuss how "science, like philosophy, has sought to escape from the doctrine of perpetual flux by finding some permanent substratum amid changing phenomena… Unfortunately it seemed that protons and electrons could meet and explode, forming, not new matter, but a wave of energy spreading through the universe with the velocity of light. Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent. But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the common-sense notion of a "thing" [which can be compared to the notion of selfhood (atta)]; it is merely a characteristic of physical processes (emphasis mine). It might be fancifully identified with the Heraclitean Fire, but it is the burning, not what burns. 'What burns' has disappeared from modern physics." Compare that with what the Buddha says in SN 12.35.)
http://www.khandro.net/bud_bodhisattva_vow.htm
These are from the tradition of shantideva. The vow I mentioned is number 11. Number 16 seems related but not the one I was thinking of.
With warmth,
Matt
It's wrong on the grounds of morality. But there are no absolute rights or wrong. Things are just the way they are.
A doctor can let an unborn child die to save the life of the mother or kill one twin in order to save the other rather than letting both die. All these acts are based on moral grounds. You cannot say one is absolutely right or wrong.
I don't recall saying anything about a teacher being criticized. Of course every teacher may be criticized. Such is human nature and it is healthy in most cases.
Sorry you are miffed, but please point out where I accused you of being in a cult.
Here I was thinking I was posting about what I am comfortable and not comfortable with!
On not knocking it before I try it...
I'm pretty sure I said...and you quoted, that there is benefit from listening to what someone who has spent their life studying the Sutras has to say.
If you suppose I have never done this, or done this with only one teacher, or even just one tradition, you are mistaken.
On reading materials posted in an internet "argument". (I thought it was a "discussion" myself)
I posted some links explaining my understanding of the three Dhama seals, which you had questioned. If you choose not to read them, I'm ok with that. Whatever floats your boat.:cool:
For others:
Regarding secret teachings...Truth is truth. It need not be hidden.
Now as a music teacher for 30 years I certainly understand that it might be unwise to start a beginner off with some advanced classical peice, but if the students asked about it, I would tell them...maybe even show them, and then say "but you aren't ready for that yet", however if they were deeply inspired and wanted to try, I wouldn't stop them.
That is how I personally feel. If others feel differently, I am not criticizing you, I am only saying my opinion. Something I plan on doing much less of here.
Oh, certainly... I think I see what you're saying. Objective is not greater or more absolute than subjective, they are both part of the equation.
When I look at reality, I see the objective as a stage that all of the subjectives dance upon. For me, staying well rooted into the objective is not about calling it more "true" than subjective... that would be materialism also. Rather, I find I have a deep respect for all of the subjective realities that coexist within the ultimate. Staying rooted is about skillfully navigating between subjective realities for the sake of communication and compassion.
What I find as "truth" in this context is a matter of identifiable archetypes that transfer across subjective realities. No matter how subjectively true something seems, I find if it is morality based or something that doesn't apply to the objective, calling it true is more a trapping of ego and need for validation of the truth, rather than an "correct" expression. For instance "Killing kittens is wrong" is incorrect, where "I feel killing kittens is wrong" or "most Americans consider killing kittens to be wrong" are correct. With the indication of subjective inserted into the statement, there isn't an ego projection into the objective, 'keeping it real'. In these cases, both of the subjectively based statements are objectively true because they indicate the subjective.
What do you think?
With warmth,
Matt
Why should anyone get confused over verifiable facts? :rolleyes:
However, if you start believing in unverifiable fantasies like rebirth-linking consciousnesses, floating minds, heavenly gods etc. then that is the best way to get confused IMO
Here we go again... sigh :hohum:
However I was thinking of "the two truths". the absolute (emptiness) and the relative (form). these two truths co-arise. So when someone says "there is no such thing as right and wrong" they have fallen into emptiness. when someone says "there is only right and wrong"
They have fallen into form.
Normally your brain makes certain connections, symmetries and patterns when subjet to stimuli. A arahant has conditioned his/her brain not to produce some of those connections, symmetries or patterns due to (the same) stimuli in a way that those connectivity-pathways in the brain can never arise again.
Even if the Arahant suffers brain damage still the old discarded connectivity-pathways in the brain can not re-arise.
I am sorry for your father.
/Victor
What's wrong brother?
Would you elaborate this more pls? Are you suggesting that Nibbana is some kind of physical alternation to the brain which cannot be undone even by the most severe brain damage?
Nothing really. I was just being a petulant child.. What you said was pretty straightforward and true.
completely irrelevant and ridiculous.
I am as certain as any human has been that this is my last life.
I think tremendous damage has been done to the world because of afterlife doctrines, including buddhism's.
But I am afraid you simply cannot say that the absence of rebirth, gods etc is a verifiable fact.
By all means be steadfast and forthright in your views, but the moment you claim certainties that you are not entitled to, you become that which the Buddha taught against and warned against.
namaste
Rebirth linking consciousness is. But anyway I was answering to your comments earlier
Really? I am not. How did you come to that decision?
:rolleyes:
Where did I say that? :crazy: Who said that? Oh wait a minute. It's you who is certain there is no rebirth. Isn't it?
People, all I said was
1) To read the suttas you do not need years of experience in practice
2) It is better to read the suttas with a fresh mind as things get cloudy when you read it with a mind full of pre-existing beliefs.
This is a comment generally put forward not as an absolute and necessary pre-condition. :hrm: