Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:55 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
So you're claiming that Buddha knows everything, including everything that happens in the future?
No, I am not claiming anything.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
gregkavarnos wrote:
shel wrote:
So you're claiming that Buddha knows everything, including everything that happens in the future?
No, I am not claiming anything.

Okay good. :twothumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am
Posts: 500
oushi wrote:
Unless you are free from concepts, less is worse because you have less tools to work with you ignorance.
Less mind/brain seems more than likely to be worse in this way, yes.
oushi wrote:
Do you think that scientist is more awakened then an infant? Certainly child brain is more rudimentary.
No. The infant's potential for learning -as well as for different possibilities within and in consequence of that learning- is far greater. That chimes with what you go on to say:
oushi wrote:
"Unfortunately we are not 100% idiots." -Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche".
Because of that we need to learn few things to unlearn those things that make us clever.
Well the word 'clever' has connotations of stupidity with regard to actual business of living -to which subconcious, intuitive thought is of course central- which you hint at here. Maybe the point is not so much to unlearn cleverness, but more to recognise and remain mindful of the shortsightedness (through clinging to rigid cognitive patterns in a way that excludes all else) that it tends to lead to.
oushi wrote:
Anyway, we can provide quotes from both sides but this will not help. You got my point, and that was my only aim.
And you got mine, I take it. I'd just contrasted sunyata -on another thread- with an illusory "consciousness of being conscious" that shuts out genuine experience, and a one-sided reading of your earlier posts could have given an impression of that perspective.

But :focus: - It's just as well the Path isn't a series of intellectual goals, otherwise we really would be there forever _ _

_________________
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:20 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Quote:
Was the Buddha Omniscient?

"Reverend Nagasena, was the Buddha Omniscient?"

"Yes sire, the Blessed One was omniscient, but knowledge and vision were not constatntly and continuously present to the Blessed One. The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind. When he adverted it he knew whatever it pleased him to know."
The Questions of King Milinda, Edited by N.K.G. Mendis, Buddhist Publication Society, p75

It seems that concepts of past, present and future, and of existent and non-existent, don't really effect an enlightened being.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
gregkavarnos wrote:
Quote:
Was the Buddha Omniscient?

"Reverend Nagasena, was the Buddha Omniscient?"

"Yes sire, the Blessed One was omniscient, but knowledge and vision were not constatntly and continuously present to the Blessed One. The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind. When he adverted it he knew whatever it pleased him to know."
The Questions of King Milinda, Edited by N.K.G. Mendis, Buddhist Publication Society, p75

It seems that concepts of past, present and future, and of existent and non-existent, don't really effect an enlightened being.


No, it seems "The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind." You can't advert your mind to what doesn't exist. Things in the future don't yet exist so it's not possible to know about them, unless of course you can time travel to the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:13 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
You are assuming that time actually exists and that phenomena exist in that time. Anyway, if one can clearly discern the entire web of current causes and conditions, then it means they can "see the future".

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
gregkavarnos wrote:
You are assuming that time actually exists and that phenomena exist in that time. Anyway, if one can clearly discern the entire web of current causes and conditions, then it means they can "see the future".


You don't understand, something must cause one to look. What could cause anyone to look for something that doesn't exist? Nothing, or rather the cause doesn't yet exist.

You should study the concept of dependent origination, at the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:42 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
You don't understand, something must cause one to look. What could cause anyone to look for something that doesn't exist? Nothing, or rather the cause doesn't yet exist.
Except that you are judging the capacities of an enlightened being through the (extraordinarily) narrow prism of your samsaric experience/capacity.
Quote:
You should study the concept of dependent origination, at the least.
Thanks for the advice, I might actually look into that "concept" at some point in time. Just one thing: doesn't dependent origination describe samsaric existence and experience? :thinking:

Anyway, I am really not interested in trying to prove any of my wild claims to you, if you are cool with the Buddha not being omniscient then bully for you. Actually, it doesn't mean squat to me if the Buddha is omniscient or not anyway. It's not at all important to me. Doesn't really impact on my suffering one way or another. So I am out of this useless (for me) discussion.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am
Posts: 473
shel wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Quote:
Was the Buddha Omniscient?

"Reverend Nagasena, was the Buddha Omniscient?"

"Yes sire, the Blessed One was omniscient, but knowledge and vision were not constatntly and continuously present to the Blessed One. The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind. When he adverted it he knew whatever it pleased him to know."
The Questions of King Milinda, Edited by N.K.G. Mendis, Buddhist Publication Society, p75

It seems that concepts of past, present and future, and of existent and non-existent, don't really effect an enlightened being.


No, it seems "The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind." You can't advert your mind to what doesn't exist. Things in the future don't yet exist so it's not possible to know about them, unless of course you can time travel to the future.


Greg understands all this just fine, and I'm sure his grasp of Dependent Origination is better than many people on this forum. This is not even to speak of the fact that Dependent Origination points to ones ability to predict the outcome of the cycle of Samsara.

Although things in the future do not yet exist, their causes *DO* exist in the present. Furthermore we can see where these present causes have come from by looking at the past, which also doesn't exist, and through this we can project the likelihood of things occurring in the future. Some of these occurrences are absolute, for example an object in space moving in one direction will never change direction unless it collides with something. Thus although we do not "know" the future of this object, because we can see where it has been and where it is, we also know where it is going. Since we can see the area around it, we know there is no force that will interfere with its trajectory, and so can actually predict with 100% accuracy a future event of its being in a certain place at a certain time. Although this is often described as "physics" and "math", it is actually an act of predicting the future.

The same thing applies to all karmic causes and conditions whatsoever, on a material, energetic and mind level.

I had my first prescient dream when I was 10, and the dream was a totally accurate representation of what was going to happen the next day. The reason this was possible is because all the forces that were in motion to create that event were already heading in that direction, and because there were no forces that arose to obstruct that event from manifesting, it actually manifested as I saw it in my dream. I am not saying I am someone special because of this, many people have such dreams, even very ordinary people who have never had any spiritual inclination in their life or even considered that prescience might be possible. However it means that somehow my mind had unconsciously grasped these forces and was able to create a dream wherein I could see how those forces were going to come together.

Another example is that Greg says he is a behavioral psychologist. Such a science is only possible because we are able to look at present situations and past actions and predict a future course of action. Therapy is possible because we are able to predict that performing a series of physical, mental or emotional actions can result in a reduction of stress and delusion.

One final example is the process of gestation and birth. We can predict with great accuracy these days the period of time in which a woman will give birth. We can predict how a fetus will grow in the womb. Because of our understanding of this causal process, we can even interfere with it and generate different outcomes by manipulating DNA, giving a child blue eyes or black hair or whatever we want. We can do this because we understand the forces at play in the present as a result of past observation, and are able to take what is in the present and redirect it so that we obtain a desired future outcome. We can also do nothing, but still we can know with great accuracy the effect of doing nothing will have on that childs development and birth.

In essence, prescience is just math. A + B = C, as long as the "X" factor does not interfere. The "X" factor is the general unknown, its the acceptance of the fact that one can never have every fact in ones mind at one time and therefore although you can predict some futures with 100% accuracy for a limited duration, the vaster the scale of time you work on the more difficult it becomes to predict the future with such accuracy. However because it amounts to being math, if you understand the forces at play, you can predict outcomes in many areas of life.

If you wish to deny this, then you must also deny and denounce all forms of science whatsoever, since all science is based upon the ability to accurately predict outcomes, otherwise its not a science. You can resort to claims about nothing existing or time not existing or whatever, but our discussion is about the relative Siddhi of seeing the future and being all knowing in terms of relative existence.

From the absolute standpoint, anyone who realizes the true nature of reality in themselves becomes a Buddha and obtains omniscience. Why? Because if you know the true face of reality and abide in that, then you also understand the true nature of every phenomenal appearance whatsoever and have totally transcended the three times. In that sense you are all knowing because there is nothing which can appear to cause you delusion, confusion, ignorance or distraction. In essence, there is nothing in the universe you do not comprehend from the ultimate level and view, and so are omniscient in regards to all phenomenal appearances and the true nature of all beings. Since all relative knowledge is only a dream like appearance anyways, from the ultimate point of view there are no facts to learn, remember, or calculate with. So wondering whether or not a Buddha knows rocket science is totally moot, a Buddha knows all there is to *actually* know and in that sense is omniscient. Factual knowledge is the food of a deluded mind. Since there is nothing of substance to know outside of a Buddhas realization, there is no basis for forming an argument for or against a Buddha knowing worldly facts, since those facts never existed in the first place, and this is regardless of whether or not a Buddha would know such facts. Even if they did, they would place little to no importance on them and only use them as skillful means to guide others to liberation, and would only seek such facts if it were to be of use to a sentient being achieving realization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
gregkavarnos wrote:
shel wrote:
You don't understand, something must cause one to look. What could cause anyone to look for something that doesn't exist? Nothing, or rather the cause doesn't yet exist.
Except that you are judging the capacities of an enlightened being through the (extraordinarily) narrow prism of your samsaric experience/capacity.


Ditto. :tongue:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:54 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
shel wrote:
You don't understand, something must cause one to look. What could cause anyone to look for something that doesn't exist? Nothing, or rather the cause doesn't yet exist.
Except that you are judging the capacities of an enlightened being through the (extraordinarily) narrow prism of your samsaric experience/capacity.


Ditto. :tongue:
No, I am just reporting what I have been taught, not judging.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
You are reporting, gregkavarnos, as others could only have reported in the past, with what you describe as "the (extraordinarily) narrow prism of your samsaric experience/capacity."

I quite agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:31 pm
Posts: 85
I was just reading this, so I thought I'd share these quotes from
Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness
(John M. Reynolds translation)


Quote:
If these two do not become one without any duality, you will certainly not attain Buddhahood.
In terms of your own mind, as is the case with everyone, Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable.
Nonetheless, because you persist in accepting and enduring attachments and aversions, you will continue to wander in Samsara.

...
Quote:
As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.

...
Quote:
By not seeing that your own mind is actually the Buddha, Nirvana becomes obscured.
With respect to Samsara and Nirvana, (the difference is simply due) to ignorance or to awareness respectively. But at this single instant (of pure awareness), there is in fact no actual difference between them (in terms of their essence). If you come to perceive them as existing somewhere other than in your own mind, this is surely an error.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
wisdom wrote:
shel wrote:
No, it seems "The Blessed One's omniscient knowledge was dependent on his adverting his mind." You can't advert your mind to what doesn't exist. Things in the future don't yet exist so it's not possible to know about them, unless of course you can time travel to the future.


Greg understands all this just fine, and I'm sure his grasp of Dependent Origination is better than many people on this forum.

He grasps dependent origination better than many in a small group of varied individual who visit a Buddhist online forum. Hmm... impressive!

Quote:
Although things in the future do not yet exist, their causes *DO* exist in the present. Furthermore we can see where these present causes have come from by looking at the past, which also doesn't exist, and through this we can project the likelihood of things occurring in the future. Some of these occurrences are absolute, for example an object in space moving in one direction will never change direction unless it collides with something. Thus although we do not "know" the future of this object, because we can see where it has been and where it is, we also know where it is going. Since we can see the area around it, we know there is no force that will interfere with its trajectory, and so can actually predict with 100% accuracy a future event of its being in a certain place at a certain time. Although this is often described as "physics" and "math", it is actually an act of predicting the future.

The same thing applies to all karmic causes and conditions whatsoever, on a material, energetic and mind level.

I had my first prescient dream when I was 10, and the dream was a totally accurate representation of what was going to happen the next day. The reason this was possible is because all the forces that were in motion to create that event were already heading in that direction, and because there were no forces that arose to obstruct that event from manifesting, it actually manifested as I saw it in my dream. I am not saying I am someone special because of this, many people have such dreams, even very ordinary people who have never had any spiritual inclination in their life or even considered that prescience might be possible. However it means that somehow my mind had unconsciously grasped these forces and was able to create a dream wherein I could see how those forces were going to come together.

Another example is that Greg says he is a behavioral psychologist. Such a science is only possible because we are able to look at present situations and past actions and predict a future course of action. Therapy is possible because we are able to predict that performing a series of physical, mental or emotional actions can result in a reduction of stress and delusion.

One final example is the process of gestation and birth. We can predict with great accuracy these days the period of time in which a woman will give birth. We can predict how a fetus will grow in the womb. Because of our understanding of this causal process, we can even interfere with it and generate different outcomes by manipulating DNA, giving a child blue eyes or black hair or whatever we want. We can do this because we understand the forces at play in the present as a result of past observation, and are able to take what is in the present and redirect it so that we obtain a desired future outcome. We can also do nothing, but still we can know with great accuracy the effect of doing nothing will have on that childs development and birth.

In essence, prescience is just math. A + B = C, as long as the "X" factor does not interfere. The "X" factor is the general unknown, its the acceptance of the fact that one can never have every fact in ones mind at one time and therefore although you can predict some futures with 100% accuracy for a limited duration, the vaster the scale of time you work on the more difficult it becomes to predict the future with such accuracy. However because it amounts to being math, if you understand the forces at play, you can predict outcomes in many areas of life.

If you wish to deny this...

A lot of words to merely say what anyone would agree with, that we can predict future events. If it matters to you, the subject was knowing the future, not predicting the future. This is relation to omniscience. Omniscience is about knowing and not guessing. I hope you world agree that there is a difference between knowing and predicting.

Quote:
From the absolute standpoint, anyone who realizes the true nature of reality in themselves becomes a Buddha and obtains omniscience. Why? Because if you know the true face of reality and abide in that, then you also understand the true nature of every phenomenal appearance whatsoever and have totally transcended the three times. In that sense you are all knowing because there is nothing which can appear to cause you delusion, confusion, ignorance or distraction. In essence, there is nothing in the universe you do not comprehend from the ultimate level and view, and so are omniscient in regards to all phenomenal appearances and the true nature of all beings. Since all relative knowledge is only a dream like appearance anyways, from the ultimate point of view there are no facts to learn, remember, or calculate with. So wondering whether or not a Buddha knows rocket science is totally moot, a Buddha knows all there is to *actually* know and in that sense is omniscient. Factual knowledge is the food of a deluded mind. Since there is nothing of substance to know outside of a Buddhas realization, there is no basis for forming an argument for or against a Buddha knowing worldly facts, since those facts never existed in the first place, and this is regardless of whether or not a Buddha would know such facts. Even if they did, they would place little to no importance on them and only use them as skillful means to guide others to liberation, and would only seek such facts if it were to be of use to a sentient being achieving realization.


So you don't know if a Buddha knows factual knowledge. I don't know either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am
Posts: 116
Quote:
That which is of the nature of coming and going, arising and perishing, in its conditioned (mundane) nature is itself Nirana in its unconditioned (ultimate) nature. ~ Nagarjuna


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:40 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Koji wrote:
Quote:
That which is of the nature of coming and going, arising and perishing, in its conditioned (mundane) nature is itself Nirana in its unconditioned (ultimate) nature. ~ Nagarjuna


exactly, which is why it is rather a goal with no path.

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:59 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
You are reporting, gregkavarnos, as others could only have reported in the past, with what you describe as "the (extraordinarily) narrow prism of your samsaric experience/capacity."

I quite agree.
So do I, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:02 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
He grasps dependent origination better than many in a small group of varied individual who visit a Buddhist online forum. Hmm... impressive!
It's just a tad more impressive than using dependent origination to (wrongly) describe the activities/capacities of a Buddha. Just a little.
Quote:
Udaya Sutta: Breaking the Cycle
translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki

[The Buddha:]

Over and over, the seeds all get planted;
Over and over, the rain-god sprinkles rain.
Over and over, the farmer farms the field;
Over and over, the food grows in the realm.

Over and over, beggars do their begging;
Over and over, the givers give out gifts.
Over and over, the giver who has given;
Over and over, goes to a better place.

Over and over, he tires and he struggles;
Over and over, the fool goes to the womb.
Over and over, he's born and he dies;
Over and over, they bear him to his grave.

But one who's wisdom is wide as the earth
Is not born over and over,
For he's gained the path
Of not becoming over again.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Of course a Buddha is independent, beyond causality, omniscient, can travel through time, etc etc. They have any attributes anyone might care to give them. Why? Because as Gregkavarnos expresses, it doesn't matter...

Gregkavarnos wrote:
Actually, it doesn't mean squat to me if the Buddha is omniscient or not anyway. It's not at all important to me. Doesn't really impact on my suffering one way or another.


Religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:38 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
shel wrote:
Of course a Buddha is independent, beyond causality, omniscient, can travel through time, etc etc. They have any attributes anyone might care to give them. Why? Because as Gregkavarnos expresses, it doesn't matter...

Gregkavarnos wrote:
Actually, it doesn't mean squat to me if the Buddha is omniscient or not anyway. It's not at all important to me. Doesn't really impact on my suffering one way or another.


Religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
You shouldn't generalise from my statement of personal opinion to all Buddhists (and then to all religious people). You may find yourself tripping over your words (yet again).

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group