The path with no goal aka nirvana

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

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby brendan » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:26 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
yegyal wrote:Usually prophetic statements are highly obscure and poetic, often completely indecipherable and rarely translatable into anything that makes much sense without being decoded.
If it was wrtiten in the 8th Century by Padmasambhava then I am sure that for at least 12 centuries the concept of a flying iron bird would have been completely indecipherable (and that it would have only been interpreted as meaning the year of the iron bird), it is only from the 20th century onwards that it makes any "sense".


It hasn't been written any were. There is no text stating that.

Malcolm Smith has stipulated this.

It seems to be a silly legend.

(please see how you have spelt 'written')
brendan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby yegyal » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:42 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
yegyal wrote:Usually prophetic statements are highly obscure and poetic, often completely indecipherable and rarely translatable into anything that makes much sense without being decoded.
If it was wrtiten in the 8th Century by Padmasambhava then I am sure that for at least 12 centuries the concept of a flying iron bird would have been completely indecipherable (and that it would have only been interpreted as meaning the year of the iron bird), it is only from the 20th century onwards that it makes any "sense".


To reiterate, this so-called prophecy that is repeated over and over again with only the citation of "Padmasambhava 8th Century" is for the most part made up of phrases that you would never see in Tibetan like, "horses run on wheel" and "scattered like ants across the face of the earth." And those phrases that do sound like Tibetan, "iron-bird" and "land of the red-faced," don't actually mean what people think they mean. This coupled with the fact that nobody knows where this prophecy comes from, makes it highly suspect.
yegyal
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:56 am

yegyal wrote:To reiterate, this so-called prophecy that is repeated over and over again with only the citation of "Padmasambhava 8th Century" is for the most part made up of phrases that you would never see in Tibetan like, "horses run on wheel" and "scattered like ants across the face of the earth." And those phrases that do sound like Tibetan, "iron-bird" and "land of the red-faced," don't actually mean what people think they mean. This coupled with the fact that nobody knows where this prophecy comes from, makes it highly suspect.
So the prophecy is a scam?

PS Let's get somehing straight here: I am neither American nor do I live in America, so I really have nothing invested in this discussion at all. I'm just interested in the truth.

PPS Thanks for the spelling lesson "brendan" (please see how you have spelt 'anywhere') :tongue:
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:10 am

So, to sum it up. You are trying to prove Buddhas omniscience through an ambiguous, unreliable quote attributed to Padmasambhava... :woohoo:

Still, omniscience does not imply omnipotency. What' it implies is lack of free will, as we cannot have freedom of choice and predict the outcomes at the same time. So, if someone is omniscient he, and everything else in this world, must be impotent.
It is good to analyze this before attribute omniscience to anyone. :smile:
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:34 am

oushi wrote:So, to sum it up. You are trying to prove Buddhas omniscience through an ambiguous, unreliable quote attributed to Padmasambhava... :woohoo:
I'm not trying to prove anything, I am just engaging in discussion. How can I possibly prove the Buddhas omniscience?
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:46 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
oushi wrote:So, to sum it up. You are trying to prove Buddhas omniscience through an ambiguous, unreliable quote attributed to Padmasambhava... :woohoo:
I'm not trying to prove anything, I am just engaging in discussion. How can I possibly prove the Buddhas omniscience?

Through authority of Padmasambhava. Method often encountered in Buddhists discussions.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that we are far away from the OP. Omniscience begins to live its own life here, and Padmasambhava quote yet another one.
Split, or cleanup?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby yegyal » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:54 am

probably more like an urban legend
yegyal
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:44 pm

oushi wrote:Through authority of Padmasambhava. Method often encountered in Buddhists discussions.
If that's what you want to believe then who am I to burst your bubble? I just threw out the Pamdasmabhava "quote" in response to shel obsession in regards to ominscience and jet planes. Anyway, if you don't like the methods encountered in Buddhist discussions you are quite free to not enter the discussions. ;)
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:00 pm

It was not only this one throw:
gregkavarnos wrote:
oushi wrote:To not drag it for too long I will ask, If you would show a jet plain to Buddha, would he be able to explain how does it fly and why?
Apaprently so... there is a section in the Milindpanha where King Milinda asks Nagasena a similar question but I cannot find it right now.

Something is apparent because it is mentioned in in the Milindpanha. Something is apparent because it was mantioned by Padmasambhava. On what basis are those claims apparent if not authority?

I entered this discussion before those methods appeared. I don't have to run from them as it is enough to point them out. It puzzles me how a belief can be apparent.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:01 pm

Do you understand the use of the word "apparently"? It works like the phrase: "it seems to be", or "it seems so".

Did the Buddha have ten toes? Apparently so. Was the Buddha omniscient? Apparently so. Did the Buddha die due to a problem with his alimentary tract? Apparently so. Given that the Buddha apparently lived 2500 years ago, we have nothing else to go on except tales, second hand reports and theories. So given this is a Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist discussion forum, when it comes to subjects like this, you have to either like it or lump it. Actually the views being proposed about the Buddha not being omniscient have even less evidence to back them (not even appeals to authority). Actually the only evidence I have seen is that those proposing Buddha was not omniscient, have only their own lack of omniscience as evidence (ie I am not omniscient so how can the Buddha have been omniscient) thus overlooking the fact that the Buddha was apparently, well... a Buddha (ie fully enlightened). Now I don't know how far you are going to get on a Buddhist site in trying to convince Buddhists that the Buddha was not a buddha. But hey, knock yourself out trying!

Back to the ridiculous ping pong match!
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:25 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Do you understand the use of the word "apparently"? It works like the phrase: "it seems to be", or "it seems so".

According to you, because according to dictionary it is:
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.
One should take care that the intended meaning is clear from the context.

;)

gregkavarnos wrote:Actually the only evidence I have seen is that those proposing Buddha was not omniscient, have only their own lack of omniscience as evidence (ie I am not omniscient so how can the Buddha have been omniscient) thus overlooking the fact that the Buddha was apparently, well... a Buddha (ie fully enlightened).

Apparently you didn't read my previous post in which I quote Buddha explaining in what sense he is all-knowing. In the same sutra he explains how impossible it is to measure all dharmas. I can quote it if you wish. Will that be sufficient? Those are explanations, not pure beliefs in unreliable translations. Do you see a difference?
Now I don't know how far you are going to get on a Buddhist site in trying to convince Buddhists that the Buddha was not a buddha.

Although, I do not see why would I try to convince anyone that Buddha was not a buddha (Buddha means awakened, not omniscient), still I can post a intriguing quote:

Bodhidharma in Bloodstream sermon wrote: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.

;)


But hey, knock yourself out trying!

Is it a wish, or a sight of your omniscience?

As you see, things are not always black and white and apparent.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:43 pm

oushi wrote:According to you, because according to dictionary it is:
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.
One should take care that the intended meaning is clear from the context.
I was using the third defintion. And, yes, you are quite right, the meaning should be made clear, which is why I asked you if you understood the meaning and gave the examples.
Those are explanations, not pure beliefs in unreliable translations. Do you see a difference?
Nope. For a number of reasons: a)You don't know if the Buddha actually said this or whether it is just an "unrelible translation", or somebody pretending that the Buddha said it. b)Taking the words of the Buddha as proof of what the Buddha was, is the utmost appeal to authority. It is like saying the bible is true because the bible says it is true! :smile:

But then I have a bit of an issue with "appeals to authority", because if I quote a realised meditation instructor on the efficacy of a practice (that I am merely a beginner in) does this not constitute an appeal to authority? So whose should opinion should I rely upon then?

Unless, of course, I am completely misunderstanding what "appeal to authority" means.
Although, I do not see why would I try to convince anyone that Buddha was not a buddha (Buddha means awakened, not omniscient)
It seems that omniscience is one of the qualities/characteristics of enlightenment.

But, like I said here:
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.
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:08 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:But then I have a bit of an issue with "appeals to authority", because if I quote a realised meditation instructor on the efficacy of a practice (that I am merely a beginner in) does this not constitute an appeal to authority?

It does. What's more, it is a mere belief that he is realized.
gregkavarnos wrote: So whose should opinion should I rely upon then?

Yours. But while you can test the teaching of Buddha by making them alive, you cannot test the authenticity of iron birds prophecy.
It seems that omniscience is one of the qualities/characteristics of enlightenment.

You need to have some presumptive evidence to draw such conclusions. It is a good time to reveal them. Otherwise, it is nothing but another attempt to deify Buddha. It seems to be a common thing, as they also did that to Jesus.
gregkavarnos wrote:But, like I said here:
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.

Then why do you participate in this discussion? It makes no sense.
For me omniscience makes a hell of a difference, and I think it can be greatly misleading for readers. I thought that quoting Prajnaparamita will clarify it very well, but it doesn't seems to be winning with iron birds. As you questioned the authenticity of sutras, I don't think we are left with anything more then our views. As such, I will drop mine moving away from this debate.

Good luck!
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby shel » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:41 pm

oushi wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Now I don't know how far you are going to get on a Buddhist site in trying to convince Buddhists that the Buddha was not a buddha.

Although, I do not see why would I try to convince anyone that Buddha was not a buddha (Buddha means awakened, not omniscient), still I can post a intriguing quote:

Bodhidharma in Bloodstream sermon wrote: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.


Well put Oushi. Well put indeed. :sage:
shel
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby shel » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:57 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
oushi wrote:Through authority of Padmasambhava. Method often encountered in Buddhists discussions.
If that's what you want to believe then who am I to burst your bubble? I just threw out the Pamdasmabhava "quote" in response to shel obsession in regards to ominscience and jet planes. Anyway, if you don't like the methods encountered in Buddhist discussions you are quite free to not enter the discussions. ;)


One might construe characterizing someone as obsessed or irrational as an ad hominem attack, but I'm sure that's not the case. That couldn't be the case because you're a moderator on a Buddhist forum and necessarily act with integrity.

Anyway, it's true that you're claims have drawn my interest. They just appear so wild to me. Claiming that an "iron bird" is a prediction of jet planes is like claiming that someone in the distant past mentioning a 'talking rock' is a prediction of cell phones. It's absurd, in my opinion.

Incidentally, Oushi is apparently quite skilled in the "methods encountered in Buddhist discussions," if indeed you are referring to quoting authoritative Buddhist texts.
shel
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:46 pm

oushi wrote:It does. What's more, it is a mere belief that he is realized.
Really? Coz are far as I have been taught there are actual signs of realisation (specific signs for specific practices and more general signs).
Yours. But while you can test the teaching of Buddha by making them alive, you cannot test the authenticity of iron birds prophecy.
And what is the guarantee that my assessment is not based in delusion and ignorance?
You need to have some presumptive evidence to draw such conclusions.
I believe that to say "enlightenment includes omnsicience" is a case of presumptive evidence. It is presumed that all enlightened beings are omniscient, the Buddha was an enlightened being, thus... Legally speaking, the burden of proof is now on you to show the presumption is false.
For me omniscience makes a hell of a difference, and I think it can be greatly misleading for readers.
Why (or how) does it make a hell of a difference to ending your suffering?
As you questioned the authenticity of sutras...
Ummmm? Where exactly did I do that? Let me answer for you: NOWHERE.
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:54 pm

shel wrote:One might construe characterizing someone as obsessed...
Yes, you are right, maybe obsessed is too strong a word. Would you prefer if I had used "enthusiasm for" or "infatuation with"
...or irrational as an ad hominem attack, but I'm sure that's not the case.
Where exactly did I use the word "irrational" in reference to you? Let me answer for you: NOWHERE.
Claiming that an "iron bird" is a prediction of jet planes...
There you go with with your preoccupation again...
Incidentally, Oushi is apparently quite skilled in the "methods encountered in Buddhist discussions," if indeed you are referring to quoting authoritative Buddhist texts.
Oushi referred to the use of authorities and canon as a problematic element of Buddhist discussions, not me.
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7884
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby shel » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:05 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
shel wrote:One might construe characterizing someone as obsessed...
Yes, you are right, maybe obsessed is too strong a word. Would you prefer if I had used "enthusiasm for" or "infatuation with"

Perhaps you missed it (so I'll make it a bit bigger) but I wrote:

    It's true that you're claims have drawn my interest. They just appear so wild to me. Claiming that an "iron bird" is a prediction of jet planes is like claiming that someone in the distant past mentioning a 'talking rock' is a prediction of cell phones. It's absurd, in my opinion.

Oushi referred to the use of authorities and canon as a problematic element of Buddhist discussions, not me.

Exactly, and as I said, he appears to "use" them quite skillfully, meaning that he uses them intelligently, with purpose and integrity.
shel
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby oushi » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:39 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Really? Coz are far as I have been taught there are actual signs of realisation (specific signs for specific practices and more general signs).

In which you also have to believe, right?
gregkavarnos wrote:And what is the guarantee that my assessment is not based in delusion and ignorance?

No suffering.
gregkavarnos wrote:I believe that to say "enlightenment includes omnsicience" is a case of presumptive evidence. It is presumed that all enlightened beings are omniscient, the Buddha was an enlightened being, thus... Legally speaking, the burden of proof is now on you to show the presumption is false.

"Enlightenment includes omniscience" is a presumption, but what is the evidence? Before you presume something, there must be clues leading you to that presumption, thus I asked for them.
gregkavarnos wrote:Why (or how) does it make a hell of a difference to ending your suffering?

Not my suffering is the problem here, because I did not fall for it in the first place. If buddha is omniscient, then a practitioner will strive for omniscience. He will look for signs of it on the path. A great thorn for people practicing shikantaza, and any goalless method. As we saw in prajnaparamita, Buddha explanation not only removes this thorn, but also facilitates those types of practice.
gregkavarnos wrote:Ummmm? Where exactly did I do that? Let me answer for you: NOWHERE.

gregkavarnos wrote:a)You don't know if the Buddha actually said this or whether it is just an "unrelible translation", or somebody pretending that the Buddha said it.

I was quite happy while reading this, as sutras should be questioned for their authority. It is their power to make an actual change that makes them worthy of respect. And this is how I approach them. To be honest, I don't think that for example Nirvana Sutra was memorized for 500 years and then written down (because of its length). It is very probable that somebody pretended that the Buddha said it. But it doesn't really matter at all.
As you say you never questioned sutras, I will ask. Are you certain that Buddha actually said what is written in sutras, that translations are always reliable, and nobody faked them?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: The path with no goal aka nirvana

Postby brendan » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:51 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
oushi wrote:It does. What's more, it is a mere belief that he is realized.
Really? Coz are far as I have been taught there are actual signs of realisation (specific signs for specific practices and more general signs).
Yours. But while you can test the teaching of Buddha by making them alive, you cannot test the authenticity of iron birds prophecy.
And what is the guarantee that my assessment is not based in delusion and ignorance?
You need to have some presumptive evidence to draw such conclusions.
I believe that to say "enlightenment includes omnsicience" is a case of presumptive evidence. It is presumed that all enlightened beings are omniscient, the Buddha was an enlightened being, thus... Legally speaking, the burden of proof is now on you to show the presumption is false.
For me omniscience makes a hell of a difference, and I think it can be greatly misleading for readers.
Why (or how) does it make a hell of a difference to ending your suffering?
As you questioned the authenticity of sutras...
Ummmm? Where exactly did I do that? Let me answer for you: NOWHERE.


"the Buddha was an enlightened being"

Maybe you meant "the Buddha _is_ an enlightened being".

You sure do make a lot of claims.
brendan
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla, LolCat and 15 guests

>