Question
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Question
So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??
Re: Question
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.
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.
Re: Question
The question is unclear. If you perceive them, then they are perceived.Jigme Tsultrim wrote:So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??
They are just another form of existence.
"Does it matter" in what way?
Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"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
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"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
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
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.
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.
Re: Question
If I understand you correctly, that's right.
Practice is to reduce suffering and gain happiness for self and others in this world.
Practice is to reduce suffering and gain happiness for self and others in this world.
Re: Question
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).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.
Well before the Path of Seeing at least, everything that we perceive is a projection and is conceptual.In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.
Okay. I'm not really understanding what you are asking.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.
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
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"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
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"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
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
"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.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Question
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.If one way is the case we are attuning ourselves to the existence of a being that existed apart from our perception of it.
My analogy is a bottle of beer. It starts as something outside of your mind, but ends up merged with it!
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.In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.
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)
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
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.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
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?
-
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm
Re: Question
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.Jigme Tsultrim wrote:So in the realm of non-corporeal entities, how would you know whether they are perceived or created? Does it matter??
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.
- Adamantine
- Former staff member
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
- Location: Space is the Place
Re: Question
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
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
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.
Re: Question
Define "theism".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 "dogmatism".
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
Sorry, but I believe the standard definitions are sufficient.
- Jigme Tsultrim
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
- Location: N.E. Thailand
Re: Question
I would like individuals to think about dogmatism and theism in their own practice and beliefs.
Re: Question
theism:Jigme Tsultrim wrote:Sorry, but I believe the standard definitions are sufficient.
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.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Question
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?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Question
It is both a part of oneself and not.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?
Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Question
Malcolm wrote:It is both a part of oneself and not.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?
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?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
-
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm
Re: Question
As a generalisation of all buddhist practitioners?Jigme Tsultrim wrote: I have opened this discussion to oppose theism and dogmatism in Buddhist practice.
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.