The thicket of views

[conebeckham]

I would apply the right means to get the blind man to the station...in this case, I would take his arm and walk him there, eh?

If the person were deaf, and the station were not within view, I could write down directions on a napkin.....
And so on....

The difference here, being that we can ascertain the "obscuration" of these people.....with the Dharma, we're talking about a different order of experience entirely. People need concepts to "see" the Truth (Metaphorically speaking, eh?)
You seem to be implying that no such concept, other than your mantra of "nonattachement," is appropriate--and, in fact, all other concepts are detrimental by their very nature.

[Kyosan]

- all is emptiness
- everything is empty
- emptiness is the ultimate truth
- the ultimate (goal) is non-duality
- everything is mind only (or produced by mind)
- all is illusion
...

and so on and so forth.

These or similar formulated fabrications are uttered again and again.

Why is this? What makes non-differentiating, all-inclusive fabrications so attractive?


Kind regards

I think you are correct that these are fabrications. They are not the ultimate Buddha dharma. But if they help bring beings closer to the ultimate dharma they are the correct teaching.

Beings can not immediately understand the ultimate dharma but expedients bring them to the point that they can. I think that is a very important point.

What is the purpose of Buddhism? The purpose is for beings to realize the ultimate dharma and become Buddhas.

Now at a certain point in time we need to realize that these expedients are not the ultimate truth and we need to proceed further in the Buddha way. I think that's the meaning of the "Parable of the Magic City".

[Kyosan]

I would apply the right means to get the blind man to the station...in this case, I would take his arm and walk him there, eh?

If the person were deaf, and the station were not within view, I could write down directions on a napkin.....
And so on....

The difference here, being that we can ascertain the "obscuration" of these people.....with the Dharma, we're talking about a different order of experience entirely. People need concepts to "see" the Truth (Metaphorically speaking, eh?)
You seem to be implying that no such concept, other than your mantra of "nonattachement," is appropriate--and, in fact, all other concepts are detrimental by their very nature.

I think we shouldn't be attached to any of these concepts. If speaking of "nonattachement" liberates, it is correct dharma. If speaking of "impermanence" liberates, it is correct dharma. But even these concepts can become a hindrance if they are attached to.

Buddha said that the ultimate Buddha wisdom cannot be expressed in words. I think it's pretty safe to say that even the concept of "nonattachment" is also an expedient.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

- all is emptiness
- everything is empty
- emptiness is the ultimate truth
- the ultimate (goal) is non-duality
- everything is mind only (or produced by mind)
- all is illusion
...

and so on and so forth.

These or similar formulated fabrications are uttered again and again.

Why is this? What makes non-differentiating, all-inclusive fabrications so attractive?

I think you are correct that these are fabrications. They are not the ultimate Buddha dharma. But if they help bring beings closer to the ultimate dharma they are the correct teaching.

Beings can not immediately understand the ultimate dharma but expedients bring them to the point that they can. I think that is a very important point.

What is the purpose of Buddhism? The purpose is for beings to realize the ultimate dharma and become Buddhas.

Now at a certain point in time we need to realize that these expedients are not the ultimate truth and we need to proceed further in the Buddha way. I think that's the meaning of the "Parable of the Magic City".

(though of course I'd have replaced "become Buddhas" with "bring an end to duhkha by attaining nirvana"... even though it's a different goal, if enough people did that it would make it easier on you bodhisattva aspirants )

Maitri,
Retro.

[Malcolm]

Out of compassion?

When a "real" blind man who cannot see asks you how to get to the railway station that you can see because you are not blind, would you then point to the station that you can see using your hand's finger and say "There it is"?

Kind regards

The only reason a blind man (sentient being) knows there is a train station at is is that someone sighted (a buddha) informed him of the fact. They of course then provide the means (the path of cultivation, seeing, etc.) to get to the train station (nirvana).

N

[ground]

I would apply the right means to get the blind man to the station...in this case, I would take his arm and walk him there, eh?

Great. That is help. To take into account his conditions, circumstances and apply means that he can perceive and verify with his own experience. "Take the arm" is touching. "speaking" e.g. "now you go right ... watch out there is a hindrance" is hearing.
But you would not take his hand, lead it to your finger and say "See, this finger is pointing to the station" because this would not be of any help but he could just think "Well if I could see then I could look into the direction of the finger an know where to go."

Now this simile describes the difference between a "teacher" and someone who clings to fabricated thought that does not point to anywhere but is merely a self-referential mere thought. "Teaching" this thought to others necessarily inoculates others with this clinging to mere thought because there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. Like the blind man that may touch the finger pointing to the station but this would never lead him to the station.

Kind regards

[Kyosan]

Greetings,
(though of course I'd have replaced "become Buddhas" with "bring an end to duhkha by attaining nirvana"... even though it's a different goal, if enough people did that it would make it easier on you bodhisattva aspirants )

Maitri,
Retro.

Thanks retrofuturist. You are right; that can be discouraging. It is up to the people how far they want to go in Buddhism at some particular time. I shouldn't make them feel uncomfortable.

[Heruka]

Why is this? What makes non-differentiating, all-inclusive fabrications so attractive?


Kind regards

platos cave?

[ground]

(though of course I'd have replaced "become Buddhas" with "bring an end to duhkha by attaining nirvana"... even though it's a different goal, if enough people did that it would make it easier on you bodhisattva aspirants )

Maitri,
Retro.

And of course if what you call "bodhisattva aspirants" would bring an end to "their own" dukkha it would make it easier for them to be of help for others ... provided that bodhicitta pervaded their way toward the end of "their" dukkha.

Kind regards

[LastLegend]

- all is emptiness
- everything is empty
- emptiness is the ultimate truth
- the ultimate (goal) is non-duality
- everything is mind only (or produced by mind)
- all is illusion
...

and so on and so forth.

These or similar formulated fabrications are uttered again and again.

Why is this? What makes non-differentiating, all-inclusive fabrications so attractive?


Kind regards

Yes, these are fabrications. That's why you need to practice. Buddhism is not for you to say grass and sky but to practice.

[Rael]

I would apply the right means to get the blind man to the station...in this case, I would take his arm and walk him there, eh?

Great. That is help. To take into account his conditions, circumstances and apply means that he can perceive and verify with his own experience. "Take the arm" is touching. "speaking" e.g. "now you go right ... watch out there is a hindrance" is hearing.
But you would not take his hand, lead it to your finger and say "See, this finger is pointing to the station" because this would not be of any help but he could just think "Well if I could see then I could look into the direction of the finger an know where to go."

Now this simile describes the difference between a "teacher" and someone who clings to fabricated thought that does not point to anywhere but is merely a self-referential mere thought. "Teaching" this thought to others necessarily inoculates others with this clinging to mere thought because there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. Like the blind man that may touch the finger pointing to the station but this would never lead him to the station.

Kind regards

you are at the same time hung up on the attachment to non attachment of thought and totally attached to the non attachment of the conventional.

it's like your angry your living in a conventional world and would prefer living in some fluid like matrix....where words and convention are replaced by Nirvana....without having to go through the Shriners weekend

[Rael]

[ground]

you are ...

Are you?

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

Great. That is help. To take into account his conditions, circumstances and apply means that he can perceive and verify with his own experience. "Take the arm" is touching. "speaking" e.g. "now you go right ... watch out there is a hindrance" is hearing.
But you would not take his hand, lead it to your finger and say "See, this finger is pointing to the station" because this would not be of any help but he could just think "Well if I could see then I could look into the direction of the finger an know where to go."

Now this simile describes the difference between a "teacher" and someone who clings to fabricated thought that does not point to anywhere but is merely a self-referential mere thought. "Teaching" this thought to others necessarily inoculates others with this clinging to mere thought because there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. Like the blind man that may touch the finger pointing to the station but this would never lead him to the station.

This is one of the clearest cases of confusing the finger for the moon I have ever seen. What the author is forgetting is that the mind is also a sensory organ and that thoughts and concepts are sensory objects.

If words, which communicate thoughts and concepts, were not a valid means of pointing to the truth then the Buddha would not have taught, or maybe you believe that the Buddha was also "inocculating others with this clinging to mere thoughts"? And maybe Nagarjuna had realised emptiness and was using words and concepts in order to transmit his experience, his realisation? Maybe he wasn't just clinging to empty theories?

As for the fact that you too are using thoughts and symbols to express your views, does that mean that you too are "inocculating others with this clinging to mere thoughts"? According to your theory you are. Seems you have painted your self into a corner (yet again). Advice? Find yourself a good teacher and go practice with them and, who knows, you may even realise emptiness!

[Tsongkhapafan]

No I am honest ... listen ... I am convinced that Mahayana can be "true Buddhism" (to borrow your words).

What defines "true" buddhism?

What Buddha taught as opposed to what we THINK he taught (or what he absolutely did not teach)

[gregkavarnos]

What Buddha taught as opposed to what we THINK he taught (or what he absolutely did not teach)

We? First of all who is this we? Does it include realised beings? How do "we" know what the Buddha taught and what "we" just think he taught? What is the defining characteristic? It's in the Pali Canon? It's a Mahayana teaching? It was trasnmitted by a certain teacher? It was not transmitted by a certain teacher? What???

[Josef]

No I am honest ... listen ... I am convinced that Mahayana can be "true Buddhism" (to borrow your words).

What defines "true" buddhism?

What Buddha taught as opposed to what we THINK he taught (or what he absolutely did not teach)

I would love to know where you would draw the line between what Buddha taught and what we think he taught.

[conebeckham]

No I am honest ... listen ... I am convinced that Mahayana can be "true Buddhism" (to borrow your words).

What defines "true" buddhism?

What Buddha taught as opposed to what we THINK he taught (or what he absolutely did not teach)

For pete's sake, TsongKhapaFan, that's basically the entire history of Buddhist scholarship, explication, etc.

[conebeckham]

TMINGYUR replied:

Now this simile describes the difference between a "teacher" and someone who clings to fabricated thought that does not point to anywhere but is merely a self-referential mere thought. "Teaching" this thought to others necessarily inoculates others with this clinging to mere thought because there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. Like the blind man that may touch the finger pointing to the station but this would never lead him to the station.

Well, you assume that there is nothing in direct experience that the thought refers to. I am not certain this is the case, in fact, I am so far inclined to believe otherwise--in other words, I believe in the possibility of an unmediated, direct experience, available to every human being, potentially. That is, after all, the Buddha's message, is it not?

Let us say, for example, the blind man has never been to the station before. There is no doubt that the experience of touching the guide's finger is not the experience of "the station," nor would be the guide's verbal description of the station. The blind man would still not have experienced "the station."

Now, I grant you, it would be sad if the blind man, filled with a description of the station, along with a guide to get there, decided that he didn't need to get there after all, because he had a description. Perhaps the description was unappealing. Perhaps it was negative. Perhaps, perhaps, the guide described the station only by means of exclusion, saying that the station was not, for instance, a shopping mall, or an airport, or a candy factory. Filled with such "descriptions," the blind man turns the other way, walks away from the station, into traffic, and ends up losing his life or breaking his limbs.

If, on the other hand, the guide was skillful, and described the station in appealing terms, or perhaps even in terms that aroused the blind man's curiosity, the blind man might eventually have an experience of the actual station, if he followed the guide and reached the destination.

Then we could ask the blind man about his experience with regard to the station, and also with the path he followed to reach the station. The blind man would say, in my opinion, that the direct experience of the station ultimately could not be described in words or descriptions, as they all fell short. At the same time, he would grant that, not only were the descriptions provided by the guide expedient, in that they aroused his curiosity or affirmed a goal worth reaching, but they were also, in some sense, an imperfect approximation of the station.

[Rael]

you are ...

Are you?

Kind regards

It's not a contest....

look i got over my inferiority complex before i was 16.....

you post stuff that bleeds your reality your living inside your head....

i just show that...thats my thing....

and i love when others show me mine....i live for it..... seriously i'm not afraid to be shown wrong .....and will admit it....

on that note....than you got some suck up trying to knock anything i say about the emperor's new clothes.....


that too i love for i realize there is enough grey matter in this place for everyone to enjoy that for what it is....