Ultimate Truth

[deepbluehum]

There's no agreement what that even means.

We know what the Mahasamghika recension contained.

Its pretty similar to the Pali Canon admittedley.

I just like the older, more "original" Mahasamghika recension, especially since Mahasamghikas gave rise to Mahayana.

Anyway the cited sutta is probably in it.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Ok fine.

Enlightenment in Mahayana = Omniscience.

Are you happy deepbluehum?

Jesus Christ.

The point is that it is much more than realizing the nature of the mind.

HAHAHAAAAAA! This guy has got you all bickering amongst yourselves now!





I'm starting to think he must be some kind of mahasiddha or something!!!

From the website of the man who believes he sees Ultimate Truth in all things...

http://theabsolute.net/misogyny/index.html

http://theabsolute.net/minefield/misc.html#guide

http://theabsolute.net/minefield/j14.html

http://theabsolute.net/minefield/j9.html

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/preview.html


------------------------------------------
OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SVAHA

Bookmarked it, thanks.

HAHAHAHA!

[wisdom]

Kevin it is tremendously dangerous to believe in ones own Enlightenment if its not actually true. The possibilities of it hindering your growth are staggering.

Buddhism is not about creating your own version of the truth in an anything goes, do whatever you want fashion. Thats just the modern corruption of Buddhism, and really the modern corruption of every valuable spiritual path. The ego loves it. This is what New Agism is all about. Everything is stripped out from a number of traditions to create ones own version of truth. Yet all this is is the denial of the existence of a Universal Truth, and it arises because that Truth is hard to comprehend. This is the lie of the ignorant mind, that what one believes is true and is somehow inherently valid merely because one believes it, because "I" believe it . There is nothing to believe.

This age has brought much disharmony in regards to all the great teachings, yet it has also provided us all with equal opportunities to understand them for ourselves regardless of race, class, and so forth.

If you had removed doubt in the Dharma you would not be making these errors. If you did not cling to identity view, you would willingly accept they are errors and stop making your own definitions for what Buddhism is or how Enlightenment is defined. It doesn't mean you wouldn't enter into debate, but you would not do so in order to argue, but rather in order to have an opportunity to be shown where you are wrong. That's the healthy approach. You made Buddhism into a trinity of God/Nature/Phenomena according to the thread on Buddhism and God. You've stated that quote "There is no freedom" in that same thread, whereas the attainment of liberation and freedom IS Enlightenment. You cannot believe you are Enlightened and believe there is no freedom. You've clearly demonstrated you have no comprehension of Buddhism nor of its philosophy.

Are you truly one in a million? Are you so blessed?

The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/THE%20ZEN%20TEACHINGS%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.htm

If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand.

People who don’t understand and think they can do so without study are no different from those deluded souls who can’t tell white from black." Falsely proclaiming the Buddha-Dharma, such persons in fact blaspheme the Buddha and subvert the Dharma. They preach as if they were bringing rain. But theirs is the preaching of devils not of Buddhas. Their teacher is the King of Devils and their disciples are the Devil’s minions. Deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the Sea of Birth and Death. Unless they see their nature, how can people call themselves Buddhas they’re liars who deceive others into entering the realm of devils. Unless they see their nature, their preaching of the Twelvefold Canon is nothing but the preaching of devils. Their allegiance is to Mara, not to the Buddha. Unable to distinguish white from black, how can they escape birth and death?
...
If you attain anything at all, it’s conditional, it’s karmic. It results in retribution. It turns the Wheel. And as long as you’re subject to birth and death, you’ll never attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment you have to see your nature. Unless you see your nature, all this talk about cause and effect is nonsense. Buddhas don’t practice nonsense. A Buddha free of karma free of cause and effect. To say he attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha. What could he possibly attain? Even focusing on a mind, a power, an understanding, or a view is impossible for a Buddha. A Buddha isn’t one sided. The nature of his mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure. He’s free of practice and realization. He’s free of cause and effect.

A Buddha doesn’t observe precepts. A Buddha doesn’t do good or evil. A Buddha isn’t energetic or lazy. A Buddha is someone who does nothing, someone who can’t even focus his mind on a Buddha. A Buddha isn’t a Buddha. Don’t think about Buddhas. If you dont see what I’m talking about, you’ll ever know your own mind. People who don’t see their nature and imagine they can practice thoughtlessness all the time are lairs and fools. They fall into endless space. They’re like drunks. They can’t tell good from evil. If you intend to cultivate such a practice, you have to see your nature before you can put an end to rational thought. To attain enlightenment without seeing your nature is impossible. Still others commit all sorts of evil deeds, claiming karma doesn’t exist. They erroneously maintain that since everything is empty committing evil isn’t wrong. Such persons fall into a hell of endless darkness with no hope of release. Those who are wise hold no such conception.

[Kyosan]

Full enlightenment includes omniscience of any subject that the enlightened one (Buddha) turns their attention to (according to Theravadra).

Does that mean that if my television set (TV) breaks, a fully enlightened person will know how to fix it, even if he/she never studied electronics and has no experience fixing TVs?

[mint]

I think I understand where Kevin is coming from in some respect.

In many ways, he's no different from the Transcendentalists of the mid-19th century United States who, reacting to the great leaps of biblical scholarship and transcendental philosophy taking place in 17th and 18th century Germany, sought to completely redefine not only Christianity but Existentialism as a whole from these intellectual curiosities. Kevin's appeal to Nature as Ultimate Truth is little different from Emerson, Thoreau, Longfellow, et. al.. Of course, this isn't to say Kevin is a Transcendentalist at all, but merely that the conclusions he's arrived at through his own powers of reasoning mimic those of the Transcendentalists in some respect. Where Transcendentalism failed, Kevin has included his own particular nuances.

There are also traces of Pragmatism in what Kevin believes. One really need only to read a common book like William James' "Varieties" to recognize certain prototypes of Kevin's individualistic thought. I would not put it past Kevin to have studied Santayana's "Life of Reason."

What so many here have failed to take notice of is Kevin's complete disregard for stationary objects. Kevin considers himself not only Buddhist but Enlightened because he imagines that he has thrown all conceptualizations and dogma to the wind. He imagines that his appeal to Nature is an appeal to the openness of Dharmakaya which is further imagined as the openness of Being. An easy mistake, especially for the self-guided. Look at Swedenborg. The more "we" attempt to argue a particular definition of a bodhisattva, buddha, or ultimate reality, the more Kevin will challenge those pre-conceptualizations even if it means asserting his own pre-concepts. Especially if it means asserting his own pre-concepts. Refutation/correction seems impossible otherwise.

I post this because I think some participants need to realize that if they're trying to "win" an argument, it's for nought. I see it as a waste of precious time and energy. If Kevin wished to be instructed otherwise, he has the resources but has made it clearly evident that his intention in registering to this forum is to espouse views which he's cultivated over the period of his life. Feel free to debate if you want to if you think that doing so will put a stop to heresy or clear up the confusion for lurking non-registered users, but I, for one, don't rightly see the point when I could be studying my own particular definitions of reality.

[edearl]

Seems unlikely man is smart enough to imagine the ultimate truth. He isn't even smart enough to not to foul his home, the Earth, or to live peacefully with neighbors.

[gregkavarnos]

Full enlightenment includes omniscience of any subject that the enlightened one (Buddha) turns their attention to (according to Theravadra).

Does that mean that if my television set (TV) breaks, a fully enlightened person will know how to fix it, even if he/she never studied electronics and has no experience fixing TVs?

Depends on if it's high defintion or not.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Full enlightenment includes omniscience of any subject that the enlightened one (Buddha) turns their attention to (according to Theravadra).

Does that mean that if my television set (TV) breaks, a fully enlightened person will know how to fix it, even if he/she never studied electronics and has no experience fixing TVs?

I don't think a TV set has afflictions, so no.

[Paul]

Full enlightenment includes omniscience of any subject that the enlightened one (Buddha) turns their attention to (according to Theravadra).

Does that mean that if my television set (TV) breaks, a fully enlightened person will know how to fix it, even if he/she never studied electronics and has no experience fixing TVs?

There are two schools of thought on this, one is that omniscience is knowing the nature of everything, the other is that omniscience is knowing everything AND the nature of everything. Of the latter, that can be split into two. One where a buddha has to want to know something and another where a buddha just knows everything without even having to want to know something. This has all cause hundreds of years worth of arguments.

So yes, depending on who you ask and their lineage, an omniscient buddha would indeed know how to fix a TV.

[deepbluehum]

nonsense

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I think KS sounds a lot like Nietzsche having pillow talk with Shankara. Doesn't mean he isn't enlightened of course. Hell for all I know all of you are enlightened buddhas but me.

[KevinSolway]

. . . Feel free to debate if you want to if you think that doing so will put a stop to heresy or clear up the confusion for lurking non-registered users, but I, for one, don't rightly see the point when I could be studying my own particular definitions of reality.

Even though I didn't agree with all that you said in the full post.

I won't point out the errors of your post unless you ask me to, since you'll probably work them out for yourself in your own good time.

[padma norbu]

I think KS sounds a lot like Nietzsche having pillow talk with Shankara. Doesn't mean he isn't enlightened of course. Hell for all I know all of you are enlightened buddhas but me.

I suspected Nietzsche was a big influence long before I found the website. He sounds just like my cousin... I realized that everyone I ever knew anywhere in life who was really into Nietzsche was very similar in their behavior which is actually almost identical to what Kevin Solway is doing here. Go to any Nietzsche forum and see.

[Sherab]

Hi KevinSolway, I've a question for you:

The relative truth refers to all that is conditioned.
The ultimate truth refers to all that is unconditioned.

Yet in essence, the relative truth is the ultimate truth and the ultimate truth is the relative truth.

How is this possible given that all-that-is-conditioned and all-that-is-unconditioned are mutually exclusive?

[KevinSolway]

I realized that everyone I ever knew anywhere in life who was really into Nietzsche was very similar in their behavior.

If you meditate deeply on that for a long time it's possible to come to an understanding of what rebirth is really all about.

[KevinSolway]

The relative truth refers to all that is conditioned.
The ultimate truth refers to all that is unconditioned.

Yet in essence, the relative truth is the ultimate truth and the ultimate truth is the relative truth.

Yes indeed.

How is this possible given that all-that-is-conditioned and all-that-is-unconditioned are mutually exclusive?

It's possible for the same reason that a whole cake can have parts (slices), even though a whole is a whole and parts are parts.

They are the same substance, described in different ways.

There is a teaching in Zen, which goes something like this: In the beginning there is a teacup. Further along the path there is no teacup. And in the end there is a teacup again.

This represents the process of awakening, from darkness to light, from lack of consciousness (blindness), to partial consciousness, and then to full consciousness, in which state there is no difference between relative and ultimate truth.

I remember reading a story about a Zen Master who, even though he was a Zen Master, had a very low opinion of the Lotus Sutra, because he couldn't detect much in the way of Ultimate Truth in it. But many years later his eyes became opened, and he then thought that the Lotus Sutra was the loftiest of all teachings.

[gregkavarnos]

I don't think a TV set has afflictions, so no.

You're kidding right? have you ever seen what comes out of a tv set during prime time? If that ain't affliction I don't know what is!

[Thug4lyfe]

The actual ultimate truth:

[Sherab]

Thanks Kevin, but there should be a better and more logically consistent explanation than this.
I think there are those on this board who can provide a better explanation.

How is this possible given that all-that-is-conditioned and all-that-is-unconditioned are mutually exclusive?

It's possible for the same reason that a whole cake can have parts (slices), even though a whole is a whole and parts are parts.

They are the same substance, described in different ways.

There is a teaching in Zen, which goes something like this: In the beginning there is a teacup. Further along the path there is no teacup. And in the end there is a teacup again.

This represents the process of awakening, from darkness to light, from lack of consciousness (blindness), to partial consciousness, and then to full consciousness, in which state there is no difference between relative and ultimate truth.

I remember reading a story about a Zen Master who, even though he was a Zen Master, had a very low opinion of the Lotus Sutra, because he couldn't detect much in the way of Ultimate Truth in it. But many years later his eyes became opened, and he then thought that the Lotus Sutra was the loftiest of all teachings.

[KevinSolway]

I think there are those on this board who can provide a better explanation.

There's always hope!