Potential

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:58 am

tamdrin wrote:No one is liberated from dukkha that is total BS. :)


Maybe ... maybe not.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby tamdrin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:00 am

TMingyur wrote:
tamdrin wrote:No one is liberated from dukkha that is total BS. :)


Maybe ... maybe not.

Kind regards



Ok the Buddha is, but anyone that has to incarnate in physical form is going to suffer.
tamdrin
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:02 am

tamdrin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
tamdrin wrote:No one is liberated from dukkha that is total BS. :)


Maybe ... maybe not.

Kind regards



Ok the Buddha is, but anyone that has to incarnate in physical form is going to suffer.


That is the reason why dukkha is eliminated. A synonym for "dukkha" is "afflictive obscurations".

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:05 am

The Mahayana differentiates between born through being driven by karma (i.e. dukkha) and born through aspiration.

So physical form does not seem to be the decisive criterion according to Mahayana teachings.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby tamdrin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:07 am

TMingyur wrote:The Mahayana differentiates between born through being driven by karma (i.e. dukkha) and born through aspiration.

So physical form does not seem to be the decisive criterion according to Mahayana teachings.

Kind regards



Practically speaking, I have heard of Lama's who were not considered to have been karmic born beings (ie. they came back for others mainly) who went through 20 years in Chinese Prison camp...
tamdrin
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Re: Potential

Postby tamdrin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:10 am

Kind regards[/quote]


Ok the Buddha is, but anyone that has to incarnate in physical form is going to suffer.[/quote]

That is the reason why dukkha is eliminated. A synonym for "dukkha" is "afflictive obscurations".

Kind regards[/quote]

Not really, Cognitive obscurations are suffering too. In fact this type of misperception is the cause of all suffering and afflictive obscurations in the first place
tamdrin
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:11 am

See here is the point where one again delves into speculation. Clining to views being the consequence. So better to focus on the 8fold path and eliminate dukkha, i.e. afflictive obscurations.

Que sera sera ...


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:13 am

tamdrin wrote:Kind regards



Ok the Buddha is, but anyone that has to incarnate in physical form is going to suffer.[/quote]

That is the reason why dukkha is eliminated. A synonym for "dukkha" is "afflictive obscurations".

Kind regards[/quote]

Not really, Cognitive obscurations are suffering too. [/quote]


This is exactly what I have written. But skip the "too". It is just that.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:18 am

Elimination is just that. Call it "cognitive" or "afflictive" ... "Afflictive" is more appropriate since it does not entail speculation and is based on direct experience.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby tamdrin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:25 am

TMingyur wrote:Elimination is just that. Call it "cognitive" or "afflictive" ... "Afflictive" is more appropriate since it does not entail speculation and is based on direct experience.

Kind regards



Nonsense, the obscuration of dualistic thinking is not speculative at all. Why do you seem to be so fixated on this idea that these ideas are out of our direct experience. Plenty of people have had the experience of "buddha nature" plenty of people have the experience of cognitive obscuration. I dont feel like debating this any further. CHao
tamdrin
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:27 am

tamdrin wrote:I dont feel like debating this any further. CHao


That's fine. it was a pleasure. thank you.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Sherab » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:48 am

TMingyur wrote:Well there also may be the difference that I do not consider buddhahood to be the mandatory goal of the path.

It does not matter, the map provided by the Buddha covers destinations/goals that fall short of full enlightenment as well.
The point is, if anyone wants a complete map, he/she should not ignore any part of the Buddha's teachings.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:34 am

TMingyur wrote:
There is always the possibility to take the word of others as replacement for one's direct experience.

That is what theists do as to their theist gurus and what some buddhists do as to their own gurus.

Actually it boils down to the decisive question:
Is speculative thought a skillful means?

A great part of tibetan buddhism obviously says: Yes and even indulges in speculative views.

The Buddha said: No, rely on direct expirience and I teach only what is required for liberation.

Tibetans tend to cling to views, indulge in all sorts of philosophy and speculation.



To be a Buddhist ALWAYS involves clinging to speculative beliefs until personal realization occurs - this is true of the Dharma of the Pali Canon all the way to the tantras of Secret Mantra.

One begins in life with beliefs based only the information gained through the senses, and then later also information passed onto oneself by others. Then one can reason based on that conglomeration of information. Generally speaking, one starts with a notion of having a "real" self that has "real" experiences and a sense that the characteristics of one's self are inherent to it and lasting. Then, one encounters the Buddha Dharma which says 'no, there is no truly existing self; there are dependently originated aggregates that comprise self and phenomena and you merely impute characteristics onto them which you cling to, so the self and other phenomena are illusory; the fact that you cling to these illusory dharmas is the reason why you suffer, but liberation from this self-created trap is possible.' Upon encountering such claims, can we know with certainty that they're true? No. We can only speculate that it's possible and well worth investigating further. And even though we may feel great certainty of our own ultimate view based on sharp reasoning, analysis, and experience, anything short of direct realization is like a picture of a lamp, so it still involves speculation. This is no less true of the non-affirming emptiness of the Pali Canon or the Prajnaparamita than it is of the Tathagatagarbha teachings.

Therefore, all of us Buddhists start out believing in the plausibility of truths we have not yet been able to verify, and we all continue to have faith in a nature and fruition we've not yet been able to realize entirely for ourselves. So, it's hypocritical to point the finger at others for "clinging to speculative views" when he have also done so and necessarily continue to do so.

As one begins to study, contemplate, and meditate on the enlightened ones' claims and one begins to verify them through personal experience, one gains greater and greater faith in the wisdom of the enlightened ones and one continues. At a certain point when one has tested so very many of the enlightened ones' claims and instructions and everything one's tested has proven unfailing and accurate, one develops a reason-based trust in the validity of the few more explicit claims about the ground and fruition made by the Buddha and one's lama that one still has yet to realize for oneself. With this reasoned faith, one becomes a more diligent practitioner, ever more intent on realizing the true nature of self and phenomena for oneself because of the claims the lama and the three jewels have made about the capacity to benefit others through such realization.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:41 am

Sherab wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Well there also may be the difference that I do not consider buddhahood to be the mandatory goal of the path.

It does not matter, the map provided by the Buddha covers destinations/goals that fall short of full enlightenment as well.
The point is, if anyone wants a complete map, he/she should not ignore any part of the Buddha's teachings.


Well yes. The 8fold path has to be 8fold, not 7- or 4fold.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:46 am

TMingyur wrote:Actually I am advocating not to care about what one cannot know.
Just because you have not realised it does not mean that everybody else has not realised it. You do not "know" enlightenment but you trust that the Buddha reached enlightenment and that the noble eightfold path leads to enlightenment. So stop talking nonsense.

But the opposite seems to manifest: People cling to what they cannot know.
People cling to anything and everything that can bolster their sense of identification as "Me" or "I", this may also include clinging to the teachings of the Pali Canon.

And this is really the point: If there is just a view, which is mere thought, either you leave it or you cling to it. Because there is no other way to deal with mere thought. In contrast, thought that is related to direct experience does not need that clinging. Why? Because there is certainty without thought. Why? Because there is knowing based on direct experience.
Very true. So do you agree that enlightened practitioners, like Saraha, Milarepa, etc..., that realised or experienced the "true" nature of mind and then tried to point it out through metaphor and simile were not talking about views but utilising views to express their experience? Or maybe you believe that they actually did not experience anything and were just loud mouthed morons talking shit?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9213
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Potential

Postby Sherab » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:16 am

TMingyur wrote:
Sherab wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Well there also may be the difference that I do not consider buddhahood to be the mandatory goal of the path.

It does not matter, the map provided by the Buddha covers destinations/goals that fall short of full enlightenment as well.
The point is, if anyone wants a complete map, he/she should not ignore any part of the Buddha's teachings.


Well yes. The 8fold path has to be 8fold, not 7- or 4fold.

Kind regards

This is weird. You seemed to have trouble understanding what I am saying.
Oh well, nevermind.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Potential

Postby Anders » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:45 am

tamdrin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
tamdrin wrote:I hate to say it Tmingyur but your failure to even acknowledge sang gye gyis gyu as even a basis of designation for how yogis describe their experience shows that you are stuck at a lower level of understanding perhaps?


Huh? What is "sang gye gyis gyu"?

Kind regards



it is the tibetan word for what has come to be translated as "Buddha Nature".. Sang Gye is the word for Buddha. Sang means purified of the obscurations, and gye implies it being increased, or blossoming with the good qualities. rGyud can mean many things such as..

1) continuum, continuity, succession; 2) string; 3) stream; 4) region, area, location; 5) [family] lineage/ succession/ descent; 6) * [text]; 7) character trait, nature; 8) via through; 9) bank, shore, coast, edge, side; 10) range

so all this came to mean "Buddha Nature" in english.


"buddha nature" in English most probably gained currency from the translation of the Chinese "fó xìng" (佛性). Which had currency in Chinese mahayana and translates quite literally as 'buddha nature'.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Potential

Postby conebeckham » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:27 pm

Actually I am advocating not to care about what one cannot know. But the opposite seems to manifest: People cling to what they cannot know. And this is really the point: If there is just a view, which is mere thought, either you leave it or you cling to it. Because there is no other way to deal with mere thought. In contrast, thought that is related to direct experience does not need that clinging. Why? Because there is certainty without thought. Why? Because there is knowing based on direct experience.


TMingyur-

Let's talk about Sunyata for a moment. It is my understanding that, for most of us, "emptiness" is a "mere thought" and not an object of direct experience. Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced. And, in fact, it would appear that a great deal of discussion, thought, debate, and discourse about this "experience." The question is, is all of this proliferation just speculative and beside the point? Or, perhaps, is all this just "expedient means?"
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:42 am

conebeckham wrote:Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced.

No. But I will grant that the experience of non-attachment is possible. ("non-attachment" here subsumes the 8th and 9th limbs of dependent origination)

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby heart » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:47 am

TMingyur wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced.

No. But I will grant that the experience of non-attachment is possible. ("non-attachment" here subsumes the 8th and 9th limbs of dependent origination)

Kind regards


Renunciation or non-attachment is actually very close to the experience labeled emptiness from a practitioner's point of view. However renunciation is still mainly personal while emptiness covers everything, this is actually the difference between mahayana and theravada according to my understanding.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: daverupa, Inge, Lhasa, Longigon, Prasutagus and 21 guests

>