St. John of the Cross on Spiritual Materialism

[tsultrim]

At 6.08 you said this

My point was that "awakening" isn't already there...

and at 6.30 you said this

My position is that there is Buddha-nature in all things. All things are nothing other than Buddha-nature.

But it is very rarely that any being awakens to their Buddha-nature.

and this

There are as many categories of consciousness as you care to make up.

Obviously you do not have an understanding of what Tatahagatagarbha

No, it is you who obviously have no understanding of the Tatahagatagarbha. There is no contradiction in anything I have said.

[gregkavarnos]

I have been very clear about what I am saying. I'm saying that if your idea of omniscience is the knowing of all the infinite physical details of the the universe, past, present, and future, with absolute certainty, then you are believing in the existence of something that ls as logically impossible as a square circle is impossible.

This is the third time I am saying this, so either you are purposefully ignoring what I am saying or you are, well... It is not MY idea of omniscience, it it what the Theravadra Canon states.

If, on the other hand, you have a more reasonable idea of what omniscience means, then that may well be something the Buddhas have. But one thing they definitely don't have is the ability to predict the future with certainty.

Oh yes he most certainly could!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[gregkavarnos]

No, it is you who obviously have no understanding of the Tatahagatagarbha. There is no contradiction in anything I have said.

Of course there is, Tathagatagarbha is ones enlightened nature that merely has to be realised. Enlightenment is already here, we just don't realise it. Of course it is true that its realisation seems to be quite rare, but it is there.

[tsultrim]

It is not MY idea of omniscience, it it what the Theravadra Canon states.

It's only your interpretation of what the Theravadra Canon states. There is no possible way for you to know with certainty the intentions of the authors of the scriptures.

I just read the following scriptural quote, reportedly from the Buddha, on this very forum (from "The Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra"):

When my Dharma disappears it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.

Now if the Buddha was omniscient in the manner in which you believe him to be, then it wouldn't have been "difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow", because the Buddha could have simply turned his mind to the question and then instantly everything would have been perfectly clear to him.

This should be a huge sign to you that your interpretation of the scriptures is incorrect.

But you shouldn't need scriptures to reveal the error of your conception, since the idea of omniscience, as you conceive of it, and as you interpet it, is easily disproven with reason if you think about it for a couple of seconds.

[tsultrim]

Tathagatagarbha is ones enlightened nature that merely has to be realised.

I don't use the term "enlightened nature".

I call it "Buddha-nature", and so far as I'm concerned there's nothing enlightened about it. Enlightenment, as I use the term, means awakening, which, as I previously stated, is something extremely rare. It's extremely rare that a being is sentient, and it's even more extremely rare that a being is mentally born in the "human realm", and it's even more extremely rare that a person becomes enlightened as to their true nature.

Enlightenment is already here

Then you have a different definition of "enlightenment" than I do, and I reject your definition.

I reserve the term "enlightenment" to mean awakening, because it is like the switching-on of a light, to see what was there all along.

Only Buddhas are enlightened, and therefore only they can rightly be said to have an enlightened nature.

[gregkavarnos]

evil sock puppet.jpg (21.25 KiB) Viewed 629 times

[Thug4lyfe]

[wisdom]

Trying to determine what omniscience is, if you aren't omniscient, is like a 2d character trying to understand what its like to live in a 3d universe. Whatever it is, if the Buddha himself is not recorded as claiming complete omniscience, and if he doesn't claim to know the future in its entirety, then any other claim is just based on someone deciding that the Buddha was completely omniscient.

We could say its impossible, but we can only honestly make that claim if we are omniscient and therefore know with certainty whats meant by "omniscience". And we can say its possible, but again if we are not omniscient, how do we know?

I foresee... that this thread has been severely derailed!

[tsultrim]

Trying to determine what omniscience is, if you aren't omniscient, is like a 2d character trying to understand what its like to live in a 3d universe.

It depends entirely what you mean by "omniscience". If you're not entirely sure what you mean by omniscience then you can't very well be making such authoritative statements about it, because you simply can't know that what you are saying is true.

We could say its impossible, but we can only honestly make that claim if we are omniscient

Once again this depends on what you mean by "omniscient", and if you don't know what it is then you can't make this claim.

[gregkavarnos]

do-not-feed-the-sock-puppet.jpg (14.92 KiB) Viewed 469 times

[Katy]

do-not-feed-the-sock-puppet

I'm not sure what you are implying, but if you're talking about tsultrim, I've found their posts to be rational, informative, and I've personally benefited from reading them.

[Dechen Norbu]

Of course you did!

[gregkavarnos]

BloodySockPuppets.jpg (27.12 KiB) Viewed 418 times

[tsultrim]

"I reckon Kev is so wise"

I have never said that I believe Kevin Solway to be wise.

Does slander form part of the Buddhism that you were taught?

If a person is intolerable even to educated and highly trained Buddhists then I can only assume that this person must be a person of the most extreme and terribly bad influence. So to publicly suggest that I find such a person to be wise, I regard to be slanderous.

[Tara]

ADMINSITRATOR NOTE

Any more off topic posts will be removed without further notice.

"St. John of the Cross on Spiritual Materialism"

Regards,