Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

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

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:43 am

Flow wrote:
And I said we should rely on rational observation and logical reasoning. I think we are agreeing.


We could agree. ;) Depending on which type of logic you refer to. If you include non-aristotelian logic as a possible means of reasoning - understanding my argument about the root of reality and the criticism I have concerning the determination of truth about a subject in question should be easy for you... ;)


Sorry I am not big on vocabulary but I am willing to listen.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:49 am

Sorry I am not big on vocabulary but I am willing to listen.


That's fine. I can explain. But we have to continue this debate later on. I live in Germany and right now it is 1:47 am and I have some appointments in the morning. ;) So I will take rest now and answer later. :namaste:
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby adinatha » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:54 am

Flow wrote:This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self?


Phenomena are dependently originated. Nirvana is not. And this sums it up.

Thanks for the compliment. But I have to ask you again very directly: What is it that you see holding me back from understanding dharma? And which dharma? And how do you know about my understanding and realization so well when we have just spoken about a fairly unrelated topic to which I have simply stated a possible opinion which so far still stands unrefuted... Because except for personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, appeals to ridicule and various strawmen there has not been a substantial argument so far... :thinking:


I refuted you completely friend as to your conjectures about Quantum Mechanics and its applicability here. If you don't see that, you are on flimsy ground. That flimsy ground is firmed up by rational skepticism, where not knowing is just fine.

It is exactly due to your adherence to an idealistic view of history why you can't see that the history of Bon is totally unfounded. Your adherence to a foundation of any sort betrays an ignorance of the path. The six senses are without foundation. Nirvana cannot be established either. Buddhist histories are equally unreal.

One must release one's beliefs and rest in a state beyond opinions. Without a mind of ownership.

This is where tantra comes in to give credence to that which cannot be proven true. Because in one's own experiential continuum the lineage manifests. Though it manifests as a felt experience, the feeling, like the feeler, are equalized in space. If adhering to a story gives rise to the lineage blessings, then so be it. A fictive can be causative equally as facticity. A false accusation can land a man in prison forever. A false story can give rise to highs and lows of inner vistas and woes.

Choose your lineage with care. The fruit follows from the seed. The fruit has no words. The seed should have few.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:59 am

'It is exactly due to your adherence to an idealistic view of history why you can't see that the history of Bon is totally unfounded. Your adherence to a foundation of any sort betrays an ignorance of the path. The six senses are without foundation. Nirvana cannot be established either. Buddhist histories are equally unreal.'

So the adherence to a non-foundation are signs of attainment then? Jesus... I'm going to bed. Let's see if I can wrap myself up again to comment on the other stuff you wrote tomorrow...
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby adinatha » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:21 am

Flow wrote:'It is exactly due to your adherence to an idealistic view of history why you can't see that the history of Bon is totally unfounded. Your adherence to a foundation of any sort betrays an ignorance of the path. The six senses are without foundation. Nirvana cannot be established either. Buddhist histories are equally unreal.'

So the adherence to a non-foundation are signs of attainment then? Jesus... I'm going to bed. Let's see if I can wrap myself up again to comment on the other stuff you wrote tomorrow...


Non-adherence to a foundation. No acceptance or rejection.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:57 am

Flow wrote:
Please don't leave out half of the story...



All commentarial gloss aside, it is well known that the Theravadins are slightly eternalistic in their understanding of nirvana, thus their hermeneutics. Sautrantikas, which are a higher tenet system, are unencumbered by this, but are instead encumbered by a subtle annihilationism.


What is it that you see holding me back from understanding dharma?


In your case, a) you don't know Tibetan b) you have not properly studied tenet systems. c) you seem infected by idealism.

I have simply stated a possible opinion which so far still stands unrefuted...


Opinions do not need to be refuted, but merely rejected. I rejected your opinion, viz resorting to the use of textual analysis to understand the history of the Tibetan adoption of Buddhism required a materialist ontology.

The following verses cannot be parsed as you would like to parse them. However, the translation I gave you by Garfield is not, in my opinion very accurate. My apologies.


aparapratyayaṁ śāntaṁ prapañcairaprapañcitam|
nirvikalpamanānārthametattattvasya lakṣaṇam||9||

Not known from another, peaceful, not proliferated through proliferations,
non-conceptual, undifferentiated, that is characteristic of the real.


pratītya yadyadbhavati na hi tāvattadeva tat|
na cānyadapi tattasmānnocchinnaṁ nāpi śāśvatam||10||

Some thing arisen dependent on some (other) thing, that (thing) is not the same as the (other) thing,
and also is not different from it, therefore, it is neither annihilated and is not permanent (tattasmānnocchinnaṁ nāpi śāśvatam)

anekārthamanānārthamanucchedamaśāśvatam|
etattallokanāthānāṁ buddhānāṁ śāsanāmṛtam||11||

Not identical, not different, not annihilated, not permanent,
that is the amrita (or nectar) of the doctrine (śāsanāmṛtam) of the saviors of the world, the buddhas.

+++++++

Not known from another, peaceful, not proliferated through proliferations,
non-conceptual, undifferentiated, that is characteristic of reality
Some thing arisen dependent on some (other) thing, that (thing) is not the same as the (other) thing,
and also is not different from it; therefore, it is not annihilated and is not permanent.
Not identical, not different, not annihilated, not permanent,
that is the amrita (or nectar) of the doctrine (śāsanāmṛtam) of the saviors of the world, the buddhas.


Taken together, things are not the same, are not different, are not annihilated nor are they permanent, that is reality. When that is known directly, since it is known that things are free from extremes, also all proliferation regarding things are pacified. That is peace.

The second verse is discussing the meaning of the first verse, its implication for things, which is the summarized as being the amrita, the nectar of the Buddhas teachings. These verses do not concern a transcendent reality, though if you are conditioned by Advaita, you might be inclined to see things that way (a rabbit hole many people never escape from).

Since "not identical, not different, not annihilated, not permanent" is the nature of things because things are dependently originated, therefore, when there are no buddhas in the world to teach it, the doctrine of dependent origination can still be realized by pratyekabuddhas.

--> eternal truth [look back at what you wrote about: sanatana dharma, yungrung bön, 1000 Buddhas...]


No, not eternal, here, rather it is actually amrita, which literally means "without death" and refers to the elixir of the devas, etc. as I am sure you know. It is funny because in the Tibetan, immortal would be translated as 'chi med, but here in Tibetan the word was translated as bdud rtsi which means figuratively the "elixir that defeats the demon of death" i.e. Yama mara.

In any event, we do not have a concept of Sanatana Dharma in Buddhism. For example, Maitreyanatha argues in the Uttaratantra (the main source of teaching on tathāgatagarbha) that the Dharma is not a perfect refuge because it is conditioned and impermanent. Etc.

So you are 25, I started learning Tibetan when I was 27. It took me ten years to read fluently and I was translating texts after three years. There is hope for you.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:09 am

Flow wrote:'It is exactly due to your adherence to an idealistic view of history why you can't see that the history of Bon is totally unfounded. Your adherence to a foundation of any sort betrays an ignorance of the path. The six senses are without foundation. Nirvana cannot be established either. Buddhist histories are equally unreal.'

So the adherence to a non-foundation are signs of attainment then? Jesus... I'm going to bed. Let's see if I can wrap myself up again to comment on the other stuff you wrote tomorrow...


There is no foundation. It is termed "the baseless basis" in (Buddhist) Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Madhyamaka texts. What Adinatha says is perfectly correct. Everything is not established at all in any way. There is no reality at all, of any kind.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:03 am

Flow wrote:
All I am saying is that there might be the possibility for metaphysical accounts of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön to be actually true.


In terms of the origin and evolution of Buddhist texts? No. Nāgārjuna did not recover the Prajñāparamita Sūtras from sea monsters off of the coast of Andra Pradesh, as romantic as that might sound. Likewise, Buddha did not teach Abhidhamma pitika in one session to the gods in the thirty three heavens, as romantic as that sounds.

One of the nice things about Buddhist texts, especially Mahāyāna texts is that one can study their evolution. Why? Becauase they were translated into different languages over the period of a thousand years. How is the possible? For two reasons -- we have the Chinese canon and the Tibetan canon.

Buddhist sutras in the Chinese canon clearly show textual development over the many recensions of their translations. The Tibetan forms of these sutras are always in more mature forms than the earlier Chinese translations. And interestingly enough, the surviving Sanskrit copies of many sutras and tantras too show evidence of textual development subsequent to their translations into Tibetan. We can see this type of development even between translations from the Imperial period and the so called "later translation period" which begins with Rinchen Zangpo in the late tenth century.

Another thing we notice with Bon texts is that their orthography is solely post Ralpachen i.e. post 840 or so. In other words, we do not find the kinds of archaic spellings in Bon canonical texts in general (such as the Zer mig, etc) that one would expect to find in ancient, pre-Buddhist texts.

So you can speculate all you like about Ancient Buddhas in mythical kingdoms writing down all the Buddhist sutras in independent form and depositing them in Tibet in the some prehistorical period. But the simple fact of the matter is that texts are plastic culture, they are susceptible to evolution and emendation, and in the case of Buddhist texts, these emendations are trackable to a very large degree until the Chinese and Tibetans stopped translating Indic texts. Of course, even in Tibetan Buddhist treasure literature one can find clear evolution and consolidation of language and terminology and very little in the way of truly archaic spellings, etc., spellings we have actual evidence of from texts which clearly date to that time period.

I think you ought to make yourself more useful, and go get a PhD in Tibetan studies somewhere, like Oslo - with Per Kvarne, who has a Bon studies program, university level. Then you can be really, truly insufferable as only academics can be.

Otherwise, you should study Tibetan Medicine, since you stated you wanted to be a healer. There are a bunch of Bon doctors in Nepal. Go study with them.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10219
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:34 am

:good:
Now that is some sound advice!
: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: 7959
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:54 pm

Namdrol,

since there was quite an accumulation of posts I will not address every single point that was made so far. So I will exemplary pick some of them and comment on that.

In your case, a) you don't know Tibetan b) you have not properly studied tenet systems. c) you seem infected by idealism.


Frankly, I don't know where you get this idea of idealism from. To me it seems that everything that does not pertain to your interpretation of scripture seems to fall into that pit... May I remind you that you first have to get a clear understanding of what the term consciousness is used for, if you want to attest anybody a 'false understanding' [according to your 'right' understanding of 'the only true system of Buddhism'] based on the fact that he speaks about consciousness. When I speak of consciousness I do not mean 'being self-conscious' or 'thinking' or any of the like. I am speaking of consciousness as the opposite of what we perceive of as matter [for the sake of being able to distinguish between different levels of relative reality] and at the same time the root of matter but not different from it. [That's some non-aristotelian logic right away...;] In Zen you call that mind. I don't know how Nagarjuna called it.

There is no foundation. It is termed "the baseless basis" in (Buddhist) Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Madhyamaka texts. What Adinatha says is perfectly correct. Everything is not established at all in any way.


Yes, the gateless gate, the pathless path – so what next? When I speak of a 'root', a 'base', a 'foundation' of reality I mean exactly that: non-duality. There is no top and down, no foundation and building upon in nondualism...

Can you now understand what I am talking about? And that you should have no objection to what I am saying. And that your objection lead me to think that you are actually a materialist and not a Buddhist – when it comes to the ontology that you seem to argue from?

You should keep in mind that we use a completely degenerated language devoid of transcendental vocabulary or transcendental categories of grammar - which is why you urge me to learn Tibetan.... To understand the original Bön writings better. Which you are correct with. But: You challenge me to present to you an alternative cosmology [to materialism] to then stick to terms which I have to use since there are no better ones in our language. You are making a word game on Nagarjuna out of this whole discussion so that you can get your ad hominem arguments out which then undermine my credibility in regards to the question we started out upon.

But please keep in mind that I am not an explicit follower of your philosophy. There might be a lot we agree upon - but there will be differences. So if in any case I should disagree with you on a question it is not a symptom of me not understanding dharmabut you imposing your truths upon others.

You stated:
There is no reality at all, of any kind
I have to disagree. And Nagarjuna disagrees also:

Not known from another, peaceful, not proliferated through proliferations,
non-conceptual, undifferentiated, that is characteristic of the real.


A simple reminder of Descartes should actually be enough to refute this. There is always reality. If something is – it is – and that is reality. If emptiness is emptiness is. If form is form is. If form is emptiness, emptiness is form - but there still: IS. Reality won't go away. The question is about what kind of reality you are speaking of. If you speak about absolute reality in the way of 'matter always existing' or 'the self' or 'the Buddha' or what not – then of course you point into the right direction. But you are not correct to assert that there is no-thing. Nothing can not be. And what is not is not. This is a semantic problem. Nothing more. In Bön the concept of aware space is utilized: Emptiness – but emptiness is not nothingness. At least not in the Bön teaching. What you proclaim here is actually nihilism. And that is not dharma. Seriously.

I will quote John Myrdhin Reynolds again to show that I am in complete agreement with [Bön] Dzogchen teachings with what I have stated so far:

'However, the central concern of the Buddhist teachings is mind. Among these three dimensions of Body, Speech, and Mind, it is the latter that is most important and fundamental. Both bodily activity and the energy of the emotions depend on mind. Everything comes from mind. The Upadesha teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist masters point directly to this mind that is the source. The focus of these instructions is the discovery within our immediate experience of this Nature of Mind and its capacity for awareness called Rigpa. The principal concern of both Dzogchen and Mahamudra is Mind, that is to say, the Nature of Mind. Here a crucial distinction is made between the mind (sems), our normal everyday thought process and waking state consciousness, and the Nature of Mind (sems-nyid), which is the source of our three dimensions of Body, Speech, and Mind. Our conscious thought process is changing from moment to moment; it is as fleeting as reflections seen on the surface of the water. But the Nature of Mind is outside and beyond time and conditioning. This distinction may be illustrated by the example of the mirror and the reflections that appear in the mirror. The Nature of the Mind is like the mirror and the mind or thought process is like the ever-changing reflections appearing in the mirror. In our normal waking state consciousness, afflicted with constant distractions, we live in the condition of the reflections, whereas in the state of contemplation we find ourselves in the condition of the mirror.'

'But what is mind? We tend to think in terms of dualities: mind vs. matter and spirit vs. nature. This brings to the fore many metaphysical questions where mind is opposed to matter and religious questions where Spirit is opposed to Nature. With meditation practice, however, we do not begin with philosophical conceptions and theories, scientific or otherwise, but with our immediate experience. Immediate experience is always the touchstone in Buddhism, not theory. Matter itself is an abstraction. We infer its existence, but we do not sense or experience matter directly. It is not a direct perception. It is inferred and conceptualized and abstracted from our sense experience, especially from our eye-hand coordination. It represents a combination of sight and touch. If we see it and can touch it, we think that it is something real. But actually our sense experience is the datum, not the abstract concept we call “matter”.
Similarly “mind” is an abstraction. What do we mean when we say “mind”? Or “I have a mind” or “Mr. Smith has a mind”? Does “mind” simply refer to the observed behavior of others? Do they act sentient and intelligent? In Tibetan, “sems” means mind and “sems-can” means a sentient being, that is to say, a living being that possesses a mind. A living thing or animal that moves in response to stimuli is inferred to have a mind. Trees and plants, although living things, do not do this and, so, they are said not to possess a mind (sems). Plants just like animals, however, possess life-force or vitality (srog).
The Cartesian dualism of mind and matter has dominated our Western thinking for over three hundred years. We are told by our culture that we have a material body and that this body is like a machine. But then, where is the mind? Is it the ghost in the machine? Matter is thought to be something solid, real, and mechanical. Our culture provides us with a mechanical model of reality and causality. This model or paradigm has been the basis of modern science for three centuries and we are told that this model represents an accurate description of an external objective reality. Indeed, the procedures of modern science have provided us with an impressive technology, but providing us with a definitive and exhaustive description of reality is quite a different matter. But is this mechanism what we actually experience? Are we just computers made of meat?
Buddhist philosophy is not afflicted with this radical dualism. Mind and matter are two sides of the same coin. Everything is part of a single continuous reality. But, of necessity, we may analyze out and abstract certain aspects of reality by way of our intellect. However, this does not make these distinct aspects separate realities or separate substances. Mind and matter are part of a single whole; they are not separate orders of being.'

This should make my point clear. Or is John Myrdhin Reynolds equally infected by idealism as I am or even the whole Bön lineage? ;)
Can you relate to this being one and the same statement – now that I have explained it a bit more?
'Mind and matter are part of a single whole; they are not separate orders of being.'
→ 'Consciousness is the 'root' of reality.'

But please remember that we are bound by language and that language can by constitution only be the map to the territory we are speaking about... So don't get hooked up on terms, please. Logic proving the conceptual system itself - cannot penetrate into the non-conceptual - the non-dual.

'The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.' Tao Te king, 1

'The limits of my language are the limits of my world.' Ludwig Wittgenstein

What comes to my mind when reviewing your judgement of me is that you might want to recap the idea of spiritual materialism again [you find that in Chögyam Trungpa's writings].

You happen to either deliberately misunderstand what I am saying - or having the idea that I disagree with you upon the nature of reality as presented by Nagarjuna – but that doesn't make my understanding of dharma flawed. I am not disagreeing with Nagarjuna.

You having mentioned him to prove that you are not a materialist is exactly what I referred to before: that you claim to have accepted an ontology based on certain metaphysical assumptions [Buddhism] but you speak from a perspective of another one [materialism]. Just because there is the doctrine of dependent origination [which I have not spoken upon at all] it does not mean that this is proof of Darwinian evolution which needs to be accepted for your linguistic theory to uphold.

Remember where we started out? I doubted that with your analytical tools borrowed from linguistics based on anthropology, based on evolution theory - you might go wrong in your assertions toward the past of Tibet - or of any other place in the world. This is what I am saying. Then I go on and make the argument that quantum physics implies that 'consciousness' is the 'base', 'root, [in lack of a better term] of reality which opens the door for different models of dependent origination concerning the appearance of life and the cosmos. Which would then be the ground to question your anthropology and hence your method of linguistical analysis. - and hence your assumptions about the history of Tibet or any other place in the world. It is as easy as that.

To give you an example: There is by nature a limited number of scripts and languages people can come up with. So if you would compute them and then have them lying before you you could sense similarities. Because by nature there will be similarities – but we know that the computer generated these scripts so there is no evolution of them. Evolution is an intellectual category applied onto reality. It is a scope through which we filter reality. Or could please be so kind and show me on your language tree how proto-indian languages develop into Chinese? Or how Sumerian gives rise to Maya-scripts? And please remember: a resemblance does not imply causation. Cum hoc non est propter hoc. It is simply a logical fallacy.

The next thing is: I do not adhere to any foundation of anything. I simply make clear that there are different cosmologies available and hence it is not certain that any place in the world including his history can be accurately examined which would then let one state that one had found 'the Truth'. When Nagarjuna finds 'the Truth' he does so based on a solid system of logical reasoning. When anthropologists find 'the truth' you have to wait three years for the next National Geographic to revise the findings that lead up to it. I ask you to try to really understand what I am saying. What you are doing is setting up strawmen pointing to 'my bad understanding of dharma' and then starting your wordgames:

No, not eternal, here, rather it is actually amrita, which literally means "without death" and refers to the elixir of the devas, etc. as I am sure you know. It is funny because in the Tibetan, immortal would be translated as 'chi med, but here in Tibetan the word was translated as bdud rtsi which means figuratively the "elixir that defeats the demon of death" i.e. Yama mara.


'not mortal' 'without death' doesn't imply eternity? I am sorry but this is hilarious. I know about amrta pretty well - as I mentioned I am educated in the Vedic source literature. Amrta is the symbol for eternity. You could say it is the endless knot of Sanatana dharma... ;) This is a semantic word game which does not lead anywhere. If 'without death' does not mean eternal what does it mean then? If something doesn't have an end is it not timeless? Since everything subjugated to time has an end? Is timelessness not equivalent to eternity?

What is is. And that describes these same eternity. It only depends on the level of relativity or absoluteness applied on this 'being-ness' whether it is really real or just phenomenally real...

The same with this:

All commentarial gloss aside, it is well known that the Theravadins are slightly eternalistic in their understanding of nirvana, thus their hermeneutics. Sautrantikas, which are a higher tenet system, are unencumbered by this, but are instead encumbered by a subtle annihilationism.


I refute your point by referring to the comment that is essential to understand the verse you quoted and then you simply wind yourself out of it by exclaiming that Theravada is not developed enough and hence 'slightly eternalistic'.

The same with Adinatha:

So the adherence to a non-foundation are signs of attainment then? Jesus... I'm going to bed. Let's see if I can wrap myself up again to comment on the other stuff you wrote tomorrow...



Non-adherence to a foundation. No acceptance or rejection.


So this means that I shall accept any nonsense about anything - otherwise I am adhering... What a blast! :rolling: Why don't you start not accepting and not rejecting right away and just leave this discussion? ;)


This discussion is a drag and a manifestation of obsessive philosophical inquiry – which will lead not one being present here to enlightenment...

Thank you though for your recommendations for studies. Actually I am seriously considering to ask for acceptance as a monk at Menri monastery at some point in the future and to go through the Geshe studies there. I have the strong faith that I can better understand Bön through that than by studying Tibetan at some Western university... ;) And there I can also learn the healing arts – not only from Doctors but also from shamanic practitioners... ;)

:namaste:
Last edited by Flow on Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:49 pm

'The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.' Tao Te king, 1


Stop! Go practice.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:50 pm

LastLegend wrote:
'The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.' Tao Te king, 1


Stop! Go practice.


Pardon?
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:52 pm

Flow wrote:
LastLegend wrote:
'The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.' Tao Te king, 1


Stop! Go practice.


Pardon?


You talk too much.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:59 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Stop! Go practice.


Pardon?


You talk too much.


Oh, that's true. Except maybe for you everyone that participated in this discussion has talked too much. ;) And I agree that exactly that first line of the Dao Dejing should make very clear that this discussion is completely out of balance...
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:07 pm

Immediate experience is always the touchstone in Buddhism, not theory. Matter itself is an abstraction. We infer its existence, but we do not sense or experience matter directly. It is not a direct perception. It is inferred and conceptualized and abstracted from our sense experience, especially from our eye-hand coordination.


What do we experience directly?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:13 pm

What do we experience directly?


We experience experience.

What do you see: do snake or the rope? What is matter other than an ontological category? Why is matter not mind? Why is not all mind? Why speak of matter anyway?

When I dream is that not experience? So is my dream made from matter?
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:21 pm

Flow wrote:
What do we experience directly?


We experience experience.

What do you see: do snake or the rope? What is matter other than an ontological category? Why is matter not mind? Why is not all mind? Why speak of matter anyway?


How do you know that we experience experience?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Josef » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:25 pm

Flow wrote:
What do we experience directly?




When I dream is that not experience? So is my dream made from matter?

Actually, yes. To a certain degree.
Vayu/wind is related to the motility of mind and it is what manifests the dream experience.
Vayu is dependent on/connected to matter.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Flow » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:28 pm

Vayu is dependent on/connected to matter.


What is matter?

Just came across this in another thread...
Flow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: Tibetan Buddhism and Bon

Postby Josef » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:31 pm

Flow wrote:
Vayu is dependent on/connected to matter.


What is matter?


Do you actually want an answer to your rhetorical question?
I'm sure you have an idea of how we define matter.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris_M, David N. Snyder, MSNbot Media and 16 guests

>