Question

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:13 am

So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??

dude
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Question

Postby dude » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:46 pm

You would if you had supernatural powers.
No it doesn't matter, or actually you're better off not knowing, because supernatural powers do not lead to enlightenment. In fact they only lead to further illusions of thought and desire.

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 5139
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Question

Postby kirtu » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:33 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??


The question is unclear. If you perceive them, then they are perceived.
They are just another form of existence.

"Does it matter" in what way?

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:09 pm

If one way is the case we are attuning ourselves to the existence of a being that existed apart from our perception of it. In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.
Does it matter?? My question is aimed at exploring the nature of the practice and our relationship to it.
Going back to the Noble Truths, I believe one can strip away the "structure" ,if that's the right word, and consider that the purpose is to benefit the individual and by extension others, rather than to establish dogma or a cosmology. Sorry, I'm not as educated as many of you. What I'm getting at, in simple terms, is that I see many of all "religions" who put the cart before the horse, IMO.

dude
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Question

Postby dude » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:45 pm

If I understand you correctly, that's right.
Practice is to reduce suffering and gain happiness for self and others in this world.

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 5139
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Question

Postby kirtu » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:46 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:If one way is the case we are attuning ourselves to the existence of a being that existed apart from our perception of it.


All sentient beings (or at least humans and some animals by inference) perceive other sentient beings as existing apart from our perception on them. We all perceive others as separate from ourselves. So if you perceive beings, they appear separate and in a sense self-existent (their existence doesn't seem to depend on our mind).

In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.

Well before the Path of Seeing at least, everything that we perceive is a projection and is conceptual.

Going back to the Noble Truths, I believe one can strip away the "structure" ,if that's the right word, and consider that the purpose is to benefit the individual and by extension others, rather than to establish dogma or a cosmology.... What I'm getting at, in simple terms, is that I see many of all "religions" who put the cart before the horse, IMO.


Okay. I'm not really understanding what you are asking.

The 4NT's are Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching on the pervasiveness of suffering, it's cause (grasping caused by ignorance) and how to free oneself from suffering.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:18 am

"Question" is rhetorical. I'm exploring the Buddhism as a tool concept. I also believe it's possible that over 2600 years, much of the structure (?) of the various forms of the practice contain much cultural material, and to an extent dogma as well. Not saying this is bad, as not all beings are attracted to the same things, just that we should be aware.

smcj
Posts: 4327
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Question

Postby smcj » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:15 am

If one way is the case we are attuning ourselves to the existence of a being that existed apart from our perception of it.

In the lower tantras the deity is considered to be external. In the higher tantras it is considered (becomes?) not different than your own mind.

My analogy is a bottle of beer. It starts as something outside of your mind, but ends up merged with it!
In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.

The visualization process initially utilizes your imagination. That's the samaya-sattva, which is just your imagination. Then the jnana-sattva, the wisdom deity, merges with your imagined one. So you definitely start with just your imagination.
My posts are for entertainment purposes only. Please don't take anything I say seriously unless you verify it with a real teacher first.

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:53 pm

The visualization process initially utilizes your imagination. That's the samaya-sattva, which is just your imagination. Then the jnana-sattva, the wisdom deity, merges with your imagined one. So you definitely start with just your imagination.

smcj

Posts: 1214
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 12:13 pm


Ok, look, I've had these teachings so this is not news that such a belief exists. OK? I am asserting that there could be no distinction between the "wisdom deity" and the result one's perfected and polished ability to visualize. If perfecting a visualization of a being which represents a higher attribute, such as compassion, and then believing that the being merges with oneself, and this produces the desired result of perfecting the compassionate nature of the practitioner, then the ultimate nature of that being , whether a wisdom deity or a creation of one's practice, is empty. In that sense this could be seen as a kind of self hypnosis. Such a view in no way diminishes the value of the practice.
So does the nature or lack thereof of one's self require input from an outside source to improve, or is perfection the responsibility of the practitioner?

theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Question

Postby theanarchist » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:38 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??


A human of sufficient realisation will know how to distinguish between a true vision of something that lives beyond this earthly, material realm and a product of deluded hallucination.

Nobody can "create" a sentient being.

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:Ok, look, I've had these teachings so this is not news that such a belief exists. OK? I am asserting that there could be no distinction between the "wisdom deity" and the result one's perfected and polished ability to visualize. If perfecting a visualization of a being which represents a higher attribute, such as compassion, and then believing that the being merges with oneself, and this produces the desired result of perfecting the compassionate nature of the practitioner, then the ultimate nature of that being , whether a wisdom deity or a creation of one's practice, is empty. In that sense this could be seen as a kind of self hypnosis. Such a view in no way diminishes the value of the practice.
So does the nature or lack thereof of one's self require input from an outside source to improve, or is perfection the responsibility of the practitioner?



It's all self hypnosis in a way. Because the buddhas do not reside "somewhere" but not in another place. This visualisation process is skillful means, it is not in itself some kind of ultimate truth.

User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Question

Postby Adamantine » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:10 pm

Jigme, are you looking for a one-line type of answer or are you open to book recommendations?
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:07 pm

Actually neither. I'm sure we could agree that Buddhism has different approaches. I have opened this discussion to oppose theism and dogmatism in Buddhist practice.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18489
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Postby Malcolm » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:15 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:Actually neither. I'm sure we could agree that Buddhism has different approaches. I have opened this discussion to oppose theism and dogmatism in Buddhist practice.


Define "theism".

Define "dogmatism".
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:19 pm

Sorry, but I believe the standard definitions are sufficient.

User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:32 pm

I would like individuals to think about dogmatism and theism in their own practice and beliefs.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18489
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Postby Malcolm » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:40 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:Sorry, but I believe the standard definitions are sufficient.


theism:
noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.


I am a theist. Buddhadharma contains a whole pantheon of mundane and transcendent "gods". By the dictionary definition given above, Buddhadharma is theistic.

dogma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:


I am a dogmatic. I accept that the Buddha set forth a set of principles that are incontrovertibly true. By the dictionary definition given above, Buddhadharma is dogmatic.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Former staff member
Posts: 5352
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:32 pm

The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?
May the ocean of lands be purified, the ocean of beings liberated, the ocean of Dharma realized,
and the ocean of wisdom fully attained. -The Aspiration of Samantabhadra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 18489
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Postby Malcolm » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:36 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?


It is both a part of oneself and not.

Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Former staff member
Posts: 5352
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:00 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?


It is both a part of oneself and not.

Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.



What is ones relationship to the sambogakaya prior to enlightenment then..i.e. for the purpose of the conversation, I guess what i'm asking is are Yidam etc. "the real thing" prior to this, or just our imagination on our side?
May the ocean of lands be purified, the ocean of beings liberated, the ocean of Dharma realized,
and the ocean of wisdom fully attained. -The Aspiration of Samantabhadra

theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Question

Postby theanarchist » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:53 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote: I have opened this discussion to oppose theism and dogmatism in Buddhist practice.


As a generalisation of all buddhist practitioners?

I'm sure that there are practitioners who have a theistic and/or dogmatic approach to their practice. What does that say about "the" buddhism? Nothing. Because there is no such thing.

So if you want to talk about the theism or dogmatism in a specific person's practice, or a specific buddhist tradition, fine. But there is no "the" buddhist practice to which these assumptions could apply.

So it's a waste of time to talk about it.


Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MrDistracted and 13 guests