Do you really think existence is an illusion

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Rael » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:56 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


this is quite interesting for me to read....

Your whole premise is to teach that the Mahayana is not that of the Buddha...
I have had this view and once asked is the Dharma Kaya Body part of Theravadian Buddhism.....

That for me is the crux....

did the Buddha teach the Dharma Kaya Body in what we know as Theravadian Buddhism or this "Thing" people refer to as Pali Canon....sorry you people must realize how ignorant i really am...i'm a lousy student of philosophical history but me channels and fire work well....charkras do amazing things for me..... :woohoo:

Tmingur???
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Anders » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:56 pm

TMingyur wrote:Which are based on the Buddha's teachings.


on a Mahayana board, Buddhavacana includes Mahayana sutras. In fact, these are generally considered more definitive than early Buddhist sutras.

You are misconstruing my words. I am advocating the direct approach taught by the Buddha. There is nothing inflammatory about this. And there is nothing dogmatic about this.
If you prefer philosophical views which are based on mere thought but not on direct experience that is up to you and everybody else.


I call it inflammatory because you fail to appreciate that people like Nagarjuna represent the baseline of Mahayana teaching. When you dismiss someone like him as a speculative 'mahayana philosophers' and contrast this with 'the buddhas teaching' that is disrespectful to the common basis assumed for a Mahayana forum.

Anders Honore wrote:It is about contrasting approaches. It is about learning and investigating. This cannot be disrespectful, sorry.


Yes it can be. Intertwined with 'learning', 'investigating' and 'contrasting approaches' are such factors as choice of words, contextual sensitivity and agendas; all of which provides plenty of opportunity for being disrespectful all the while attempting to 'learn' and 'investigate'.

You do not understand. My intentions are good.


I am not questioning your intentions, I am questioning the skilfulness of your expression. Basically, you come across as someone more interested in pushing his own agenda for what constitutes Buddhism and with no regard whatsoever for whether these opinions are appropriate or appreciated.

I am not saying your opinions aren't worth sharing. But if you actually want to share in a way that isn't aggravating others here, I would suggest you make a point of being more respectful of the common premises that form the basis for 'Mahayana' discussion. I am sorry to say, you just don't have the gravitas to pull off the "I'm peddling the true teachings of the Buddha" style of writing you currently subscribe to. A few qualifiers along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I read the Buddha as saying...' 'maybe one can look at it this way too...' would go along way towards accurately reflecting the fact that you are a student of the Buddhadharma who is still learning and not the wannabe cyber-authority on Buddhism one might be inclined to conclude you see yourself as based on your current style of writing.
Last edited by Anders on Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 651
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:58 pm

Rael wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


this is quite interesting for me to read....

Your whole premise is to teach that the Mahayana is not that of the Buddha...

Listen. If i would say this I would also have to say that the sutta pitaka is not by the Buddha. Why? Because the Buddha did not write it.

Rael wrote:I have had this view and once asked is the Dharma Kaya Body part of Theravadian Buddhism.....

That for me is the crux....

did the Buddha teach the Dharma Kaya Body in what we know as Theravadian Buddhism or this "Thing" people refer to as Pali Canon....sorry you people must realize how ignorant i really am...i'm a lousy student of philosophical history but me channels and fire work well....charkras do amazing things for me..... :woohoo:

Tmingur???

So far I did no come across that in the suttas

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

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:00 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Rael wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Yes the aggregates are taught as not being the self, not belonging to the self etc. I do not deny this.
However the Mahayana philosophers fabricated a different sort of emptiness referring to persons and inanimate things. Thus speculating beyond the sphere of the aggregates.

Kind regards


this is quite interesting for me to read....

Your whole premise is to teach that the Mahayana is not that of the Buddha...

Listen. If i would say this I would also have to say that the sutta pitaka is not by the Buddha. Why? Because the Buddha did not write it.


So yes, neither the sutta pitaka nor the Mahayana sutras are the words of the Buddha.

Agreed?

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

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:13 pm

Anders Honore wrote:I call it inflammatory because you fail to appreciate that people like Nagarjuna represent the baseline of Mahayana teaching. When you dismiss someone like him as a speculative 'mahayana philosophers' and contrast this with 'the buddhas teaching' that is disrespectful to the common basis assumed for a Mahayana forum.

Listen I did not mention him.
The problem is that I have no translations available that are not biased by the philosophical views of the translators.

Anders Honore wrote:
You do not understand. My intentions are good.


I am not questioning your intentions, I am questioning the skilfulness of your expression.

I appreciate this balanced response. Actually I am used to being personally attacked due to my postings but that is no problem.

Anders Honore wrote:Basically, you come across as someone more interested in pushing his own agenda for what constitutes Buddhism and with no regard whatsoever for whether these opinions are appropriate or appreciated.

I am not saying your opinions aren't worth sharing. But if you actually want to share in a way that isn't aggravating others here, I would suggest you make a point of being more respectful of the common premises that form the basis for 'Mahayana' discussion. I am sorry to say, you just don't have the gravitas to pull off the "I'm peddling the true teachings of the Buddha" style of writing you currently subscribe to. A few qualifiers along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I read the Buddha as saying...' 'maybe one can look at it this way too...' would go along way towards accurately reflecting the fact that you are a student of the Buddhadharma who is still learning and not the wannabe cyber-authority on Buddhism one might be inclined to conclude you see yourself as based on your current style of writing.

I see it a matter of actio and re-actio. See there is plenty of reciting just conventional tenets as if those were "given". So I do not see a problem responding in a sharp opposed way when the only reference is words and views but not person or alleged qualities of persons.

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

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Rael » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:14 pm

TMingyur wrote:
So yes, neither the sutta pitaka nor the Mahayana sutras are the words of the Buddha.

Agreed?

Kind regards


so is there any mention of the Dharma Kaya Body in the suttas....the suttas ...are they like sutras....or is there a difference as well...

when did the dharma kaya body first come into the picture.....

this is important....for the whole of mahayana might rest on the fact of...

which is cool cause those gurus were pretty much advanced and did things.....

ok i just fixed the three quote limit thing and my dyslexia made it obvious that suttas and sutras are different....

did not know this...

sooooo is the Dharma Kaya Body mentioned in any suttas then.....

i know i sound like a retard...i am slightly retarded...but my charkras are really cranked open and stuff flows through them like shit through a goose at times....and i think that is all due to vajrayana and raja yoga

it's kenner! it's fun!
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Anders » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:33 pm

TMingyur wrote:Listen I did not mention him.
The problem is that I have no translations available that are not biased by the philosophical views of the translators.


I do in fact empathise with this particular point. As a Chinese Mahayana practitioner, I find that most western studies of Nagarjuna are dominated by Tibetan hermeneutics. It seems one can not study the Mulamadhyamakarikas in English without also having to digest Candrakirti's take on this.

Candrakirti was never deemed important enough to be translated into Chinese however, and thus his views are rather absent in Sino-Mahayana compared to the elevated position they attained through Tsongkhapa's writings in Tibet. Moreover, two of the four seminal works of the Chinese Madhyamika school, Nagarjuna's commentary on the perfection of wisdom and his 12 gates treatise, never made it to Tibet and they provive for a quite different outlook on Madhyamika than the Tibetan takes in many cases. All of this is largely ignored in most western Madhyamika studies though. Not to mention, there is only one attempted English translation of Kumarajiva's translation of nagarjuna, a far earlier rendition than most of the sanskrit versions carried over from Tibet.

Nevertheless, it might be more fruitful to look at Nagarjuna and see whether there is actually support for some of your views there rather than flushing the baby out with the bathwater.

I actually fully agree with your views on what might call the espistemological restrictions of Buddhism. I just think you do not yet quite appreciate the subtler implications of this (especially in regard to language) and that most Mahayana is actually quite in line with this kind of thinking.

Anders Honore wrote:I see it a matter of actio and re-actio. See there is plenty of reciting just conventional tenets as if those were "given". So I do not see a problem responding in a sharp opposed way when the only reference is words and views but not person or alleged qualities of persons.


Views are people too.

Well, maybe not, but people often take them quite personal. It doesn't hurt to be sensitive to the fact that at the end of the day, we are engaging people here, not just their views.
"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: 651
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Anders » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:38 pm

Rael wrote:so is there any mention of the Dharma Kaya Body in the suttas....the suttas ...are they like sutras....or is there a difference as well...

when did the dharma kaya body first come into the picture.....

this is important....for the whole of mahayana might rest on the fact of...


Dharmakaya teachings represent a somewhat late stratum of Mahayana doctrine. It's only really in the Tathagatagarbha teachings it comes into prominence. Earlier Mahayana Madhyamika adherents weren't really comfortable with teachings like this either.

I don't think this fact is a great consequence to the authenticity of this teaching though.
"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: 651
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Rael » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:41 am

Anders Honore wrote:
Rael wrote:so is there any mention of the Dharma Kaya Body in the suttas....the suttas ...are they like sutras....or is there a difference as well...

when did the dharma kaya body first come into the picture.....

this is important....for the whole of mahayana might rest on the fact of...


Dharmakaya teachings represent a somewhat late stratum of Mahayana doctrine. It's only really in the Tathagatagarbha teachings it comes into prominence. Earlier Mahayana Madhyamika adherents weren't really comfortable with teachings like this either.

I don't think this fact is a great consequence to the authenticity of this teaching though.



Well if you make up a Dharma Kaya body in order to give the ultimate credibility to a sutra....thats bad...

is there a dharma Kaya Body?Once again wher did this originate from....is it in sutta ??????????!!!!!

The Tulku mentioned he had one for me to try to access....not exact words....I was really excited about his being a buddha and realized he had the Three kayas...and he mentioned specifically Dharma Kaya body....i was all happy....


in any case i thought the whole thus i heard meant one heard the Buddha say this stuff at one time....

and like the mahayana was just that...thus i heard...

if it isn't really from our Lord Sakyamuni and it is all just some expiedient means to learn stuff...well thats ok with me...but the whole dishonesty that seems to being shed on it....HURTS....
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:54 am

Anders Honore wrote:I always liked Nagarjuna's take on the illusory nature of things:
The Ten Similes
Looks like the link is busted, any other way we can access the file?
: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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Tara » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:59 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
Anders Honore wrote:I always liked Nagarjuna's take on the illusory nature of things:
The Ten Similes
Looks like the link is busted, any other way we can access the file?
:namaste:



Hmm, strange! The link works for me. http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200312 ... -10sim.htm

alternative links http://www.purifymind.com/Simile.htm - http://www.purifymind.com/Simile1.htm - http://www.purifymind.com/Simile2.htm - http://www.purifymind.com/Simile3.htm

Regards,
rt
Tara

**********************************************************
Maybe you collect a lot of important writings,
Major texts, personal instructions, private notes, whatever.
If you haven’t practiced, books won’t help you when you die.
Look at the mind – that’s my sincere advice.

**********************************************************
from Longchenpa's 30 Pieces of Sincere Advice

Mors certa — hora incerta
User avatar
Tara
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3690
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am
Location: Here.

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby muni » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:02 pm

Rael wrote:someone said time is an illusion and i said it wasn't...It got me to thinking...
do you think life is an illusion or illusionary..or more exact is existence an illusion...

I make the distinction because though it may appear illusionary it not necessarily is an illusion.

How real is this world to you?
do you think it really is as someone once said in the Buddhist community "like a dream within a dream"


*Independent great me with characteristics* which itself is a conceptual drawing; how can there be any creation or created world by such concept other than illusion like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzPk0QVr_nQ
Last edited by muni on Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby ground » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:08 pm

Rael wrote:is there a dharma Kaya Body?Once again wher did this originate from....is it in sutta ??????????!!!!!


The aggregates. Want to call them dharma kaya? Why not.

Dharma = Phenomenon
Dharma = truth

The truth displays itself through phenomena. Phenomena are the truth. Phenomena are the aggregates ... body/form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. There is nothing beyond the aggregates which arise and cease continuously.

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

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:33 pm

TMingyur wrote:The aggregates. Want to call them dharma kaya? Why not.

Dharma = Phenomenon
Dharma = truth

The truth displays itself through phenomena. Phenomena are the truth. Phenomena are the aggregates ... body/form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. There is nothing beyond the aggregates which arise and cease continuously.
All phenomena may arise from the Dharmakaya but it is wrong to say that the Dharmakaya, that Rael is asking about, is the realm of phenomena. While it is true that dharma/dhamma = phenomena when we talk about the Dharmakaya we use a capital "D" to denote that we are talking about the Body (Kaya) of Truth (Dharma). The aggregates, or the body of aggregates, is known as the rupa (form) kaya (body), with a small "r". Why? Because if it is with a capital "R" then it is a collective noun refering to the Sambhoga (enjoyment) kaya (body) and Nirmana (manifestation) kaya (body) together (in "opposition" to the Dharmakaya). Actually the Nirmanakaya is probably the closest Buddha kaya to the definition you offer, but (in terms of unenlightened sentient beings) you are definitely talking about the rupakaya.
:namaste:
PS Rael, as far as I know there is no reference to the Dharmakaya in the Pali Canon, the very fact that it is spelt Dharmakaya (Sanskrit) instead of Dhammakaya (Pali) blatantly betrays the fact that it is a later development.
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Rael » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:53 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
TMingyur wrote:The aggregates. Want to call them dharma kaya? Why not.

Dharma = Phenomenon
Dharma = truth

The truth displays itself through phenomena. Phenomena are the truth. Phenomena are the aggregates ... body/form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. There is nothing beyond the aggregates which arise and cease continuously.
All phenomena may arise from the Dharmakaya but it is wrong to say that the Dharmakaya, that Rael is asking about, is the realm of phenomena. While it is true that dharma/dhamma = phenomena when we talk about the Dharmakaya we use a capital "D" to denote that we are talking about the Body (Kaya) of Truth (Dharma). The aggregates, or the body of aggregates, is known as the rupa (form) kaya (body), with a small "r". Why? Because if it is with a capital "R" then it is a collective noun refering to the Sambhoga (enjoyment) kaya (body) and Nirmana (manifestation) kaya (body) together (in "opposition" to the Dharmakaya). Actually the Nirmanakaya is probably the closest Buddha kaya to the definition you offer, but (in terms of unenlightened sentient beings) you are definitely talking about the rupakaya.
:namaste:
PS Rael, as far as I know there is no reference to the Dharmakaya in the Pali Canon, the very fact that it is spelt Dharmakaya (Sanskrit) instead of Dhammakaya (Pali) blatantly betrays the fact that it is a later development.



i might sound like i'm on some witch hunt to defame the Mahayana....i'm not....it actually is really cool how the mahayana brings lucidity to the nuts and bolts of being a Buddha.....And with all respect to the Masters...they are pretty good chefs....

the last thing i read on esangha was from Namdrol....it was related to this sort of discussion.....

he said that ...and this is really a bad quote on my memory part ...take it as a gist.......he said" the mahayana is written and they say it is Buddha's words just like a lot of stuff hindus say is Krishnas words for more credibility....bad quote...sorry namdrol...but the gist is there.....

greg i don't get this"blatantly betrays the fact that it is a later development"?
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby ground » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:39 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
TMingyur wrote:The aggregates. Want to call them dharma kaya? Why not.

Dharma = Phenomenon
Dharma = truth

The truth displays itself through phenomena. Phenomena are the truth. Phenomena are the aggregates ... body/form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. There is nothing beyond the aggregates which arise and cease continuously.
All phenomena may arise from the Dharmakaya but it is wrong to say that the Dharmakaya, that Rael is asking about, is the realm of phenomena.

Nevermind. It was just a suggestion to direct a mere thought toward experience. Of course phenomena are not dharmakaya. Why? Because phenomena can be directly experienced whereas dharmakaya is a mere thought.

gregkavarnos wrote:While it is true that dharma/dhamma = phenomena when we talk about the Dharmakaya we use a capital "D" to denote that we are talking about the Body (Kaya) of Truth (Dharma). The aggregates, or the body of aggregates, is known as the rupa (form) kaya (body), with a small "r". Why? Because if it is with a capital "R" then it is a collective noun refering to the Sambhoga (enjoyment) kaya (body) and Nirmana (manifestation) kaya (body) together (in "opposition" to the Dharmakaya). Actually the Nirmanakaya is probably the closest Buddha kaya to the definition you offer, but (in terms of unenlightened sentient beings) you are definitely talking about the rupakaya.


This is "metaphysics". We have finally arrived at the decisive difference. You may use heuristical categories like the aggregates for human experience accessible to all directly or you may posit metaphysical phenomena like the so called "kayas".

Or do you consider them to be just metaphorical? If metaphorical for what do they stand?


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

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:22 pm

TMingyur wrote:Why? Because phenomena can be directly experienced...
Really? How can phenomena be directly experienced?
...whereas dharmakaya is a mere thought.
Are you talking about little "d" or capital "D"?

This is "metaphysics". We have finally arrived at the decisive difference. You may use heuristical categories like the aggregates for human experience accessible to all directly or you may posit metaphysical phenomena like the so called "kayas".
Before I can embark on an answer to this I have to get an answer/clarification of my first question.

Or do you consider them to be just metaphorical? If metaphorical for what do they stand?
Which "them" are you referring to? The aggregates or the kaya? The question is not clear enough.
: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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:29 pm

Rael wrote:greg i don't get this"blatantly betrays the fact that it is a later development"?
The Sanskrit Sutras (as opposed to the Pali Suttas) where laid down on paper much later, so much later in fact that Pali was no longer a "living" language and had been "replaced" by Sanskrit. Thus any terminology that is Sanskrit has had to arise later than terminology that is Pali (unless, of course, a term was later "translated" into Sanskrit from Pali).

Try the following experiment, go to the Access to Insight site (where Pali transliterations are used) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html and try a search for the term Nirvana (sanskrit transliteration), then try one for the term Nibbana (pali transliteration). Then try a search on the site for the term Dharmakaya and see what references you will get from the Pali Canon.
: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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby Blue Garuda » Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:57 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Rael wrote:greg i don't get this"blatantly betrays the fact that it is a later development"?
The Sanskrit Sutras (as opposed to the Pali Suttas) where laid down on paper much later, so much later in fact that Pali was no longer a "living" language and had been "replaced" by Sanskrit. Thus any terminology that is Sanskrit has had to arise later than terminology that is Pali (unless, of course, a term was later "translated" into Sanskrit from Pali).

Try the following experiment, go to the Access to Insight site (where Pali transliterations are used) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html and try a search for the term Nirvana (sanskrit transliteration), then try one for the term Nibbana (pali transliteration). Then try a search on the site for the term Dharmakaya and see what references you will get from the Pali Canon.
:namaste:


I think you may have the history confused here. Sanskrit was around long before Buddha, let alone Pali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit#History

It may be that one was written down before the other, but the terminology within Sanskrit would certainly predate Pali IMHO, by many hundreds of years.

What may have happened in some cases is that where there is no Sanskrit term (for something exclusively related to Buddhism) a term may have been adopted form Pai to fill in the gaps. However, the early Vedas managed quite well without Pali.

Those who peddle the 'if it's not in Pali, it's not Buddhism' would do well to remember, perhaps, that Buddha had no connection with Pali whatsoever. To say, 'it isn't in the Pali suttas' deserves the response: 'so what?'.

If emptiness is applicable to the aggregates, logic alone would dictate that it must be true of phenomena outside of them.
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Do you really think existence is an illusion

Postby mudra » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:31 am

There is a difference between "illusion" and "illusory/illusion-like".

Existence is definitely illusion-like/illusory. But it ain't no illusion. If it were merely an illusion then it would invalidate the Buddha's teachings - beginning with Four Noble Truths. There would be no point in all our efforts in the Dharma.
User avatar
mudra
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, LolCat, moron and 9 guests

>