Well it's the only case of someone melting stone that i have witnessed Magnus, so in that sense yes such siddhis do exist! Those other guys putting hands in rocks etc. would be unable of such a sublime feat as TUR accomplished.heart wrote:TUR bringing forth genuine and deeply felt devotion in your heart pensum might actually qualify as a siddhi, don't you think? Not to mention directly introducing you to your natural state, again and again. Emaho! /magnus
"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
- Karma Dorje
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
A couple or three millennia ago, the flat earth was regarded as a fact. A few hundred years ago, the heavens were thought to be geocentric rather than heliocentric. Those things that we view as self-evident today may be considered quaint 400 years from now and unrecognizable 2000 years from now.Malcolm wrote: As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.
M
So why be emphatic about what is possible and close off what is not based on one's own current world view? I would rather keep a sense of wonder and possibility than try to be some sort of hard-boiled denizen of modernity puffed up with the conceit of purported progress. I would rather regard life as a riot of paradoxes and fables than as a scorched earth of foolish consistency.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
-Padmasambhava
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
I agree with you.Tsongkhapafan wrote:So trying to practise what the Buddha taught is now fundamentalism? If people believe this to be the case, 'Buddhism' is in a mess. The problem these days is a general lack of faith and wisdom and watering Buddhism down with science and New Age philosophies.
Regarding Scientology, if their methods did lead to good results that would be great. It's for the individual to judge that for themselves - the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
I am quite sure in 2000 years humans, if we still exist, will still discover the earth revolves around the sun, and not other way around.Karma Dorje wrote:A couple or three millennia ago, the flat earth was regarded as a fact. A few hundred years ago, the heavens were thought to be geocentric rather than heliocentric. Those things that we view as self-evident today may be considered quaint 400 years from now and unrecognizable 2000 years from now.Malcolm wrote: As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.
M
So why be emphatic about what is possible and close off what is not based on one's own current world view? I would rather keep a sense of wonder and possibility than try to be some sort of hard-boiled denizen of modernity puffed up with the conceit of purported progress. I would rather regard life as a riot of paradoxes and fables than as a scorched earth of foolish consistency.
For instance, a common fact that no one in any culture has ever rejected is that there is a sun and a moon. One sun, one moon. Not two, not three. Why do you think that is? Everyone understands that there are two human, biologically determined genders, not three, not four.
There are certain basic facts of our existence which are constant. Those facts are explained better today then they were 2000 years ago. Why fight it with fantasies about continents that only siddhas can fly to and so on? To insist there is a shred of truth in abhidharma meru cosmology, for example, is extremely immature. It is exactly at the same level of thinking as biblical creationism.
Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.
Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Karma Dorje
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Nobody of your ilk perhaps, but plenty of us mere humans. Yet again you are coming off as if you believe your viewpoint is the only sensible, mature one and everyone else is simply wrong. Frankly, I find you a lot more dogmatic about your opinions than these so-called fundamentalists you are railing against. I'll stick with what I have been taught by a realized master over the opinions of a scholar, no matter how eloquently stated or forcefully argued.Malcolm wrote: Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
-Padmasambhava
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Its not dogma. When you can show me a cosmic mountain in the middle of space somewhere, or even a human being who can fly unaided through the mere power of their will, then there is something discuss. Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.Karma Dorje wrote:Nobody of your ilk perhaps, but plenty of us mere humans. Yet again you are coming off as if you believe your viewpoint is the only sensible, mature one and everyone else is simply wrong. Frankly, I find you a lot more dogmatic about your opinions than these so-called fundamentalists you are railing against. I'll stick with what I have been taught by a realized master over the opinions of a scholar, no matter how eloquently stated or forcefully argued.Malcolm wrote: Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.
Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined the world community in 1959.
Secondly, a person may be realized about the nature of their minds, utterly free of affliction, and may still be completely mistaken about all kinds of things. Realization does not equal omniscience.
Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
- dzogchungpa
- Posts: 6333
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Tell us what you really think, Malcolm.Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
- Karma Dorje
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Preach it, brother. If there is one thing that is constant in your ever-evolving ideas, it is how emphatic you are that you are right.Malcolm wrote:Its not dogma. When you can show me a cosmic mountain in the middle of space somewhere, or even a human being who can fly unaided through the mere power of their will, then there is something discuss. Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.
Visionary experience != universally accessible empirical knowledge. Collapsing the two is nonsensical.Malcolm wrote: Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined the world community in 1959.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
-Padmasambhava
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Truthfully, even discussing it is useless prapanca.dzogchungpa wrote:Tell us what you really think, Malcolm.Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.Karma Dorje wrote:
Visionary experience != universally accessible empirical knowledge. Collapsing the two is nonsensical.Malcolm wrote: Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined the world community in 1959.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9455
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Yes, this is a very important point.Malcolm wrote: We can, if we so choose, accept these myths and legends as literally true, but to insist to others that they must accept these as literal facts is fundamentalism.
When people assert that these events are "real"
what they are actually implying is, "they are real, just as real as I am real"
as if refuting the illusory nature of our experience.
Instead, it would be more accurate, perhaps
to say "these things are fabrications of the mind,
just as "I" (the 'self' that I take as real) am also a fabrication of the mind.
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Those mythological flying palaces were really spaceships. I don't know if all the fancy show in the ancient myth and lore are real. I am keeping an open mind about the whole thing. But I can't help laughing when I watch ancient aliens TV show on this history channel and they go on and on about the Vimanas
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Indeed, and Thank you very much for your clarity and insight, as well as your efforts to illuminate a seemingly thorny issue. Your posts make visiting here worthwhile.Malcolm wrote:Karma Dorje wrote:Malcolm wrote: ...a person may be realized about the nature of their minds, utterly free of affliction, and may still be completely mistaken about all kinds of things. Realization does not equal omniscience.
Unquestionably, Buddha Shakyamuni discovered and elucidated some very profound matters in regard to mind and behavior, but the understanding of the mechanics of the universe (as evidenced by the texts) is a product of story-telling, and bears little relationship to how things actually work. The same can be said of the many sages who followed him, which reiterates your point that realization, awakening, liberation, etc. are more properly in the domain of freedom from the afflictions, and do not grant some kind of cosmic knowledge about the universal manifestation and its intricacies.
The human mind, no matter how illumined it may become regarding its own nature, is incapable of comprehending the greater universe in which it appears, and so creates stories in order to provide some sense of temporary security in the midst of the vast unknown (which is the essence of the religious motive, after all). Some of these stories we recognize as myths, and some we call "science", though fundamentally they are all creations, and not unlike the primitives who gazed out at the night sky, filled with stars, and fabricated tales with which to pacify the tribe.
In a few centuries, once we venture out into the solar system in a significant fashion, we will (hopefully) still be able to appreciate the truths of suffering and its relief, as analyzed by Gautama, but will undoubtedly regard the religious beliefs regarding the mechanics of the cosmos of today's fundamentalists as quaint artifacts of the dark ages.
- dzogchungpa
- Posts: 6333
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?Malcolm wrote:Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
"Thus, one should investigate [if a teacher]
Has the knowledge of what should be practiced.
Whether he knows the number of insects
Is not of any use to us.
We seek one who is valid,
Knowing what to adopt and discard
As well as the method to do so,
Not one who knows everything.
Whether or not he can see what is distant,
He should see the reality we seek.
If seeing what is distant makes one valid
Then we should honor vultures here."
-- Dharmakirti
"These sizes, distances, and so forth are flatly contradicted by the empirical evidence of modern astronomy. There is a dictum in Buddhist philosophy that to uphold a tenet that contradicts reason is to undermine one's credibility; to contradict empirical evidence is still a greater fallacy. So it is hard to take the Abhidharma cosmology literally. Indeed, even without recourse to modern science, there is a sufficient range of contradictory models for cosmology within Buddhist thought for one to question the literal truth of any particular version. My own view is that Buddhism must abandon many aspects of the Abhidharma cosmology. To what extend Vasubandhu himself believed in Abhidharma worleview is open to question. He was presenting systematically the variety of cosmological speculations that were then current in India. Strictly speaking, the description of the cosmos and its origins - which the Buddhist texts refer to as the "container" - is secondary to the account of the nature and origins of sentient beings, who are "contained".
-- His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Has the knowledge of what should be practiced.
Whether he knows the number of insects
Is not of any use to us.
We seek one who is valid,
Knowing what to adopt and discard
As well as the method to do so,
Not one who knows everything.
Whether or not he can see what is distant,
He should see the reality we seek.
If seeing what is distant makes one valid
Then we should honor vultures here."
-- Dharmakirti
"These sizes, distances, and so forth are flatly contradicted by the empirical evidence of modern astronomy. There is a dictum in Buddhist philosophy that to uphold a tenet that contradicts reason is to undermine one's credibility; to contradict empirical evidence is still a greater fallacy. So it is hard to take the Abhidharma cosmology literally. Indeed, even without recourse to modern science, there is a sufficient range of contradictory models for cosmology within Buddhist thought for one to question the literal truth of any particular version. My own view is that Buddhism must abandon many aspects of the Abhidharma cosmology. To what extend Vasubandhu himself believed in Abhidharma worleview is open to question. He was presenting systematically the variety of cosmological speculations that were then current in India. Strictly speaking, the description of the cosmos and its origins - which the Buddhist texts refer to as the "container" - is secondary to the account of the nature and origins of sentient beings, who are "contained".
-- His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
That's pushing it.PadmaVonSamba wrote:Yes, this is a very important point.Malcolm wrote: We can, if we so choose, accept these myths and legends as literally true, but to insist to others that they must accept these as literal facts is fundamentalism.
When people assert that these events are "real"
what they are actually implying is, "they are real, just as real as I am real"
as if refuting the illusory nature of our experience.
Instead, it would be more accurate, perhaps
to say "these things are fabrications of the mind,
just as "I" (the 'self' I take as real) am also a fabrication of the mind.
.
.
.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Not Galileo's trial. The Scopes trial.Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
You think preventing or causing hail, healing mantras, etc are bullshit too?Malcolm wrote:Truthfully, even discussing it is useless prapanca.dzogchungpa wrote:Tell us what you really think, Malcolm.Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
You think preventing or causing hail, healing mantras, etc are bullshit too?
Now that's a much more important question, isn't it?
Now that's a much more important question, isn't it?
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9455
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Yeah, probably!dude wrote: That's pushing it.
...but is the hungry ghost realm any more real than the human realm?
...is Manjusri any more real than you or I?
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.