Potential

[devilyoudont]

Do you agree that delusional perspectives exist

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Do you honestly believe this to be an apt comparison? I would've thought it was obvious that I was using an expression that employs the verb "exist" in a manner peculiar to English usage, not debating the ultimate nature of existence, the abidance of characteristics or any subject impinging on related topics. "Do you agree that delusional perspectives exist" really means "would you characterize some views in certain contexts as delusional", so it would seem your response amounts to a simple play on words.

I was only asking for a clarification regarding your view, nothing more, but I won't push it if you're not keen on the subject.

[devilyoudont]

or are all perspectives correct in some way or other, and it's okay not to understand exactly how a view is correct in your opinion?

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

I hope for your sake that you realize this is on the level of disputing a post for using words like "you" and "I", hence "contradicting" Anatman. Discriminating between what is correct and what is incorrect is not the same as clinging to biases, but I'm sure you understand that already. I won't bother you if you'd like me to leave you alone.

[Adamantine]

I applied a metaphor. Trying to convey the meaning of "positive development" and "negative development". Up or down.

Kind regards

Enlightenment is not "positive" or "negative", "up" or "down", "left" or "right", "forwards" or "backwards", "inward" or "outward". There is no potential for it but there's no lack of potential for it either.

Okay. If you choose to put it that way I do not mind.

Kind regards

Whenever the basis of mind and phenomenon is free of all contrived, dualistic conception, it is absolute pure space, which is the basis of all pure phenomenon. But as long as the basis of mind is unaffected by stainless wisdom, it is like a vast ocean which supports many deluded phenomenon. Although the ocean's water is sometimes still, sometimes rippling, sometimes full of waves, and sometimes storming, none of these conditions can ever go beyond the quality of the ocean. The aspects of these phenomenon change from different circumstances which arise through habit, but they never surpass being aspects of the ocean. In the same way, through the habit of delusion, sentient beings take each moment's waves seriously and believe they are permanent and real. Whenever the basis of ordinary mind remains obscured, we may think some phenomenon are real and others are unreal, but all of these phenomenon are deluded and never go beyond samsara's recurring waves. Whenever we attain a precious human birth, we can have faith that Buddha nature can blossom through the pure reflection of Buddha Dharma and our own self-manifesting awareness mind. Through practice, we can recognize our wisdom mind, which releases us from continuous samsaric suffering to reach enlightenment. Buddha's enlightened wisdom mind is like stainless sky, inconceivable, untouchable, and uncatchable, which no one can affect or seed, and whose quality pervades everywhere unobstructedly.
Just as when there are no clouds in the sky and the sunlight pervades everywhere, there are no divisions between the senses in Buddha's stainless wisdom mind. Wisdom mind is from the beginning perfectly self-accomplished wisdom senses. The wisdom senses of the Buddhas are always pure because the wisdom appearance of the Buddhas is only the reflection of the pure display of the wisdom light of sole awareness, which is the self-secret source of all mandalas. From White Sail, by Thinley Norbu

[ground]

Do you agree that delusional perspectives exist

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Do you honestly believe this to be an apt comparison? I would've thought it was obvious that I was using an expression that employs the verb "exist" in a manner peculiar to English usage, not debating the ultimate nature of existence, the abidance of characteristics or any subject impinging on related topics.

Now you are requesting for your own words what you do not grant my words.

... so it would seem your response amounts to a simple play on words.

Please consider your responses to my words above.

or are all perspectives correct in some way or other, and it's okay not to understand exactly how a view is correct in your opinion?

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

I hope for your sake that you realize this is on the level of disputing a post for using words like "you" and "I", hence "contradicting" Anatman. Discriminating between what is correct and what is incorrect is not the same as clinging to biases, but I'm sure you understand that already. I won't bother you if you'd like me to leave you alone.

If applying "you" and "I" "contradicts" Anatman that what about applying the word "exist" (see above)?
Can there be a mode of "discrimination" without clinging to the so discriminated? There is the saying of a "discerning wisdom" which I would like to understand as a mode of "discrimination" without clinging to the so discriminated.


Kind regards

[muni]

The Buddha is a product, a result of my understanding,
Dharmakaya is from me alone.

I clean the mirror of what is to see there! Need strong soap.

[heart]

Whatever these schools are teaching I am following the teachings of the Buddha.

Kind regards

The teachings of the Buddha? You have some special way of contacting him directly? It seems to me you are mainly following your own interpretation of selected suttas from the Theravada tradition.

Anyway it make good discussion which I guess is your main motivating factor.

/magnus

[ground]

You have some special way of contacting him directly?

You have some special way of contacting your guru directly?


Kind regards

[heart]

You have some special way of contacting him directly?

You have some special way of contacting your guru directly?


Kind regards

Yes, email works fine.

/magnus

[ground]

You have some special way of contacting him directly?

You have some special way of contacting your guru directly?


Kind regards

Yes, email works fine.

/magnus

If it appears as "directly contacting" to you then this is reason to rejoice.

Kind regards

[heart]

If it appears as "directly contacting" to you then this is reason to rejoice.

Kind regards

You have no idea how correct that is. Reason to rejoice indeed. Wishing you the same fortune.

/magnus

[ground]

Wishing you the same fortune.

Thank you. This is reason to rejoice too.

Kind regards