"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby tobes » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:00 am

brendan wrote:
What a strange comment.

The paths and cognitions of the different yanas are marketed as different.

They clearly are not marketed as being all the same.

Unless one has realised all of the different paths how can there not be sectarianism?....providing it is non violent it seems fine.



There is an obvious difference between:

a/ Recognising difference between paths, traditions, lineages, philosophies, methods etc, and treating that difference with precision, care and compassion.

and

b/ Gleefully rejoicing in those differences and subtly (or not so subtly) ridiculing those who are on a different path or who hold a different view.

It's oh so common and oh so passe, fruitless, boring and unwholesome to practice b/ - and on these kinds of threads, b/ always tends to emerge at some point.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby tobes » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:03 am

Malcolm wrote:
tobes wrote:
I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.

:anjali:


Not really, but when pushed to it...


For the record, I think your responses on this thread have been fair minded - I wasn't aiming that at you specifically.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:56 am

tobes wrote:
jeeprs wrote:The other point that occurred to me in relation to this thread, is that it reinforces the fact that Buddhists oughtn't cling to dogma. Every single possible dogmatic view or philosophical position is subject to criticism. That doesn't mean that they don't have their place or their use, but, like anything else, they are transient, not ultimate.

So the lesson is, don't be attached to views.

And - Happy New Year.


Happy new year Jeeprs.

I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.

:anjali:

You mean in contrast to a good old fashioned assertion of cognitions
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby tobes » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:47 am

Simon E. wrote:
tobes wrote:Happy new year Jeeprs.

I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.

:anjali:

You mean in contrast to a good old fashioned assertion of cognitions


Well, I suppose so. If one is posting on the internet, there's not much else one can do but assert one's cognitions. What other possibilities would you have in mind?

What's at stake is content of those assertions, and the degree to which one 'listens' to interlocutors or simply seeks to ground them into submission.

I call the latter the arising of a sectarian dispute. Pun intended (does it arise from causes?)....

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:05 am

What interests me about DW is the possibility of a mutually supportive exchange concerning the experential.
I have no interest in cognitions around that.
But please feel free to address those who are so interested.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:58 am

God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby conebeckham » Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:04 am

brendan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Sure. I'd be a fool to deny appearances!


The fool being to claim they are nothing more than appearances..... on paper.

Rape,incest,slavery, children of the god of abraham etc...only appearances?

Thank full for the paper work.


I am saddened by those appearances, as any of us, I think, should be...but I am more sad that we are all under the sway of the ignorance which allows us to not recognize the illusory nature of our experiences, and which tethers us to karmic law and effect, both good and bad. And I ain't talkin' about paperwork.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:05 am

dharmagoat wrote:God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.

Or was it the devil that taught dzogchen?
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby brendan » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:36 am

dharmagoat wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.

Or was it the devil that taught dzogchen?


Ha ha so true....unfortunately monotheism has such horrible consequences, grandiose "I"...one believes they can do what they want when they want....and of of course it's not possible.

Anyway The monotheistic god is far worse than the devil...unfortunately I would guess most monotheists believe BuddhaDharama is an aspect of there devil.

Monotheism is such a horrible reality. The great uncaused always thinking it can create non aspects of its self and than watch them and judge them if they are behaving LOL....lucky there aren't many beings who crave such a hideous reality.

Sorry for being of topic..just thought I throw it in.
brendan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:40 am

brendan wrote:Sorry for being of topic..just thought I throw it in.

You are excused. I started it.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:47 am

brendan wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.

Or was it the devil that taught dzogchen?


Ha ha so true....unfortunately monotheism has such horrible consequences, grandiose "I"...one believes they can do what they want when they want....and of of course it's not possible.

Anyway The monotheistic god is far worse than the devil...unfortunately I would guess most monotheists believe BuddhaDharama is an aspect of there devil.

Monotheism is such a horrible reality. The great uncaused always thinking it can create non aspects of its self and than watch them and judge them if they are behaving LOL....lucky there aren't many beings who crave such a hideous reality.

Sorry for being of topic..just thought I throw it in.

so how do you explain Thomas Merton a Chtristian monk who was described by HHDL as having at that time a deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met ?o
Or Dom Bede Griffith who was a deeply realised Dzogchenpa ?
And before you say that it was despite their Christianity a little reading of them will show that in fact they embodied it.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:49 am

Oops.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby smcj » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:03 pm

...Thomas Merton a Chtristian monk who was described by HHDL as having at that time a deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met ?

I've heard HHDL mention Merton a little. It was in the context of saying that Merton was HHDL's model for being a Christian, the image HHDL thought of when the idea of Christian came into his head. I hadn't head HHDL say the had a "deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met" though. You sure about that quote?

Chatrul R. on the other hand had an interesting reaction to Merton. He gave Merton his Dharma name, which I forget, but I remember that the loose translation for it was "Dhamra person without a lineage". I thought that was funny.

...Or Dom Bede Griffith who was a deeply realised Dzogchenpa?

Hadn't heard of him before your post. I just read the Wiki article about him. Nothing was mentioned about Dzogchen in it. On first read it seems he was more into exploring Hinduism than Buddhism. So are you sure about that "Dzogchen" association?

Monotheism is such a horrible reality.

I know next to nothing abut Islam per se, but I like Rumi. Christianity can be wonderful if you approach it the right way. But I'm Buddhist for reasons that are my own.
Last edited by smcj on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby smcj » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:17 pm

The fool being to claim they are nothing more than appearances..... on paper.
Rape,incest,slavery, children of the god of abraham etc...only appearances?
Thank full for the paper work.

I am saddened by those appearances, as any of us, I think, should be...

I think it odd that in all the various discussion of Dzogchen, which is a popular topic here, that nobody has tried to reconcile the idea that, if everything is perfect 'just as it is', then pain, horror and outrage have to be seen as perfect too. Dzogchen is not about playing make-believe or sticking your head in the sand. That makes having even an intellectual understanding of Dzogchen a little more challenging.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:43 pm

Pain, horror and outrage are. But they are not ours.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:57 pm

smcj wrote:
...Thomas Merton a Chtristian monk who was described by HHDL as having at that time a deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met ?

I've heard HHDL mention Merton a little. It was in the context of saying that Merton was HHDL's model for being a Christian, the image HHDL thought of when the idea of Christian came into his head. I hadn't head HHDL say the had a "deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met" though. You sure about that quote?

Chatrul R. on the other hand had an interesting reaction to Merton. He gave Merton his Dharma name, which I forget, but I remember that the loose translation for it was "Dhamra person without a lineage". I thought that was funny.

...Or Dom Bede Griffith who was a deeply realised Dzogchenpa?

Hadn't heard of him before your post. I just read the Wiki article about him. Nothing was mentioned about Dzogchen in it. On first read it seems he was more into exploring Hinduism than Buddhism. So are you sure about that "Dzogchen" association?

Monotheism is such a horrible reality.

I know next to nothing abut Islam per se, but I like Rumi. Christianity can be wonderful if you approach it the right way. But I'm Buddhist for reasons that are my own.

Yup, sure. After Merton' death HHDL 's main translator at that time Harold Talbott, recounted the conversation in which HH described Merton thus.
Bede Griffith described in some detail his experience of ' pointing out '.

'
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby muni » Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:18 pm

smcj wrote:
The fool being to claim they are nothing more than appearances..... on paper.
Rape,incest,slavery, children of the god of abraham etc...only appearances?
Thank full for the paper work.

I am saddened by those appearances, as any of us, I think, should be...

I think it odd that in all the various discussion of Dzogchen, which is a popular topic here, that nobody has tried to reconcile the idea that, if everything is perfect 'just as it is', then pain, horror and outrage have to be seen as perfect too. Dzogchen is not about playing make-believe or sticking your head in the sand. That makes having even an intellectual understanding of Dzogchen a little more challenging.



Emptiness without Compassion is not liberation, so cannot be Dzogchen, I guess.
muni
 
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby brendan » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:47 pm

Simon E[quote="dharmagoat wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.

Or was it the devil that taught dzogchen?


Sorry for being of topic..just thought I throw it in.[/quote]
so how do you explain Thomas Merton a Chtristian monk who was described by HHDL as having at that time a deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met ?o
Or Dom Bede Griffith who was a deeply realised Dzogchenpa ?
And before you say that it was despite their Christianity a little reading of them will show that in fact they embodied it.[/quote



I think His Holliness The Dali Lama was being polite.

Of course the monotheisms have wonderful aspects....very different to BuddhaDharma though.

They are completely different cognitions with different results...its ok we are all one with god lol.
Last edited by brendan on Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
brendan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:07 pm

smcj wrote:So are you sure about that "Dzogchen" association?




He wrote an article entitled "Dzogchen and Christianity" published in 1993.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Simon E. » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:41 pm

brendan wrote:
Simon E[quote="dharmagoat wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:God taught sutra, tantra and dzogchen. End of.

Monotheism is so uncomplicated.

Or was it the devil that taught dzogchen?


Sorry for being of topic..just thought I throw it in.

so how do you explain Thomas Merton a Chtristian monk who was described by HHDL as having at that time a deeper knowledge of Dharma than any westerner he had met ?o
Or Dom Bede Griffith who was a deeply realised Dzogchenpa ?
And before you say that it was despite their Christianity a little reading of them will show that in fact they embodied it.[/quote



I think His Holliness The Dali Lama was being polite.

Of course the monotheisms have wonderful aspects....very different to BuddhaDharma though.

They are completely different cognitions with different results...its ok we are all one with god lol.[/quote
] So polite that he travelled to Kentucky to meditate at Merton's grave ?
That's some politeness .
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nemo, Phuntsog Tashi, supermaxv and 22 guests

>