Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
CrawfordHollow wrote: I also don't appreciate your passive aggressive comment suggesting that I have been taught a lower form of dzogchen because I am somehow inferior to you and your sky-high view.
Thich Nhat Hanh says that there is no such thing as Right View as taught by the Buddha???oushi wrote:Thích Nhất Hạnh
This, like the previous Longchenpa quote is referring to the uncaused nature of liberation, not to a lack of causality per se. It is talking about the path. According to the "eight causally oriented approaches" the path is the cause for enlightenment. Longchenpa disagrees with this, he does not disagree with causality per se.oushi wrote:The perspective of eight causally oriented approaches involves cause and effect; thus, unconditioned reality is relegated to the background. They claim that the buddha is other then the present awareness. This is like saying that by purifying and transforming the sky there will be another clear sky that is other than this present sky. But in our way of looking at it, by saying that this present mind is the buddha itself, and by attending to its intrinsic clarity, incidental conceptualizations are clarified in the dimension of mind as-it-is, just as we clear up muddy water. Therefore this is the path of natural spontaneous perfection, the primordial yoga in which the three dimensions of being arise on their own. -Longchenpa.
gregkavarnos wrote:Thich Nhat Hanh says that there is no such thing as Right View as taught by the Buddha???oushi wrote:Thích Nhất Hạnh
Please provide a source for this quote.
gregkavarnos wrote:It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
ie Right View is prerequisite for Nirvana. Right View is not a conceptual view, it is an outline of how to see reality, it is the basis ffor wisdom."And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22
I've already answered this question, twice.I quoted, where do you see me "talking"?
I am open for criticism, but please, quote me, not Lonchenpa.
CrawfordHollow wrote:So Longchenpa does not deny that there is delusion and karma. He clearly makes a distinction here between a sentient being and a Buddha. Its nice to just hear teachings on the primordial ground and how it is free from karma. But that really doesn't correspond to where we are now as sentient beings: deluded and under the sway of cause and effect. If you really think that dzogchen is just about a state being beyond all duality and karma then you are way off, because you are denying the reality of the situation. We are all in samsara.
You know, I really was trying to have a civil discussion here, just because I think that you are wrong about something doesn't mean you need to start throwing out personal attacks. None of us are perfect, you know.
gregkavarnos wrote:At 5'43" TNH says: "Nirvana is the capacity of removing wrong notions, wrong conceptions, which is the practice of freedom..."
It pays not tot take bits out of context, to maintain the entire context of the teaching and not use "bites" to fulfil your agenda.
Yes he did, but he also said: "When you are enlightened..."oushi wrote:Wait, didn't he say that everything in Buddhism should be discarded?
You obviously missed the large bit."Out of compassion, the truly and completely Awakened One, with his skillful knowledge, enunciated a myriad of lifestyles and approaches to the teachings. In these cases he taught according to the inclinations and abilities of those to be trained. What he taught to the majority of people had only indirect, provisional significance. He did not speak even once about the direct, real meaning." -Longchenpa.
No, the provisional refutes the provisional, you cannot refute the ultimate because it is beyond acceptance and rejection anyway. You can only realsie the ultimate or use provisional/relative terms to point to it. Right view is necessary as long as we are deluded, unless, of course, you are trying to tell me that you are enlightened?You take provisional to refute the real meaning. Because you are not able to understand that, this conversation is over.
gregkavarnos wrote: Right view is necessary as long as we are deluded, unless, of course, you are trying to tell me that you are enlightened?
Now, when I try to remove a view by discarding it, you oppose. Maybe because you are attached to that view.
gregkavarnos wrote:Whereas you are not attached to your (concpetual) interpretation of Longchenpa and TNH?
gregkavarnos wrote:Like I asked before: are you enlightened/realised?
As long as you are not enlightened you will have views. Clinging to the view of "no-view" is a conceptual trap too. The only (immediate) way out of this trap is to receive pointing out instructions from a guru and then remain in the natural state beyond elaborations. Have you received pointing out instructions?oushi wrote:Toward removing views, or toward glorifying them?
gregkavarnos wrote:Clinging to the view of "no-view" is a conceptual trap too.
gregkavarnos wrote: The only (immediate) way out of this trap is to receive pointing out instructions from a guru and then remain in the natural state beyond elaborations.
Work out?No, but I will ask, did it work out for you?
I wish! It is because I am NOT constantly "in the natural state beyond elaborations" that I rely on Right View so as not to accumulate further obscurations.Are you in the natural state beyond elaborations?
gregkavarnos wrote:Work out?
gregkavarnos wrote:I wish! It is because I am NOT constantly "in the natural state beyond elaborations" that I rely on Right View so as not to accumulate further obscurations.
According to whose criteria?oushi wrote:Yes, work out - To prove successful, effective, or satisfactory.
Sufficient for what?Where those instructions you received, not sufficient?