Pride

[tobes]

Does it not take a very great deal of effort to cultivate bodhicitta?

Nope, all you need to do is cut off ego-clinging and you'll find bodhicitta was there all along. Ain't the Tathagatagarbha great!? Take an Arhat, for example (no please take one, free of charge, no strings attached): "An arahant is a person who has destroyed greed, hatred, and delusion - the unwholesome roots which underlie all fetters - who upon decease will not be reborn in any world, having wholly cut off all fetters that bind a person to the samsara." So, are we under the delusion that, upon achieving Nirvana, bodhicitta would not spontaneously arise for an Arahant? That by destroying greed. hatred and delusion one would not (automatically) be filled by an overwhelming sense of (enlightened) love and compassion?
Whether one goes clockwise direction (develop compassion, love and wisdom) or an anti-clockwise direction (destroy greed, hatred and delusion) they always come back to the same point.

Yes, but does anyone suggest that, whether one goes clockwise or anti-clockwise, it does not take a very great deal of effort? 30 years in a cave sounds like a decent effort to me.

It's part of the paramita of virya to rejoice in this.

[tobes]

But what you call "external" is just signs and sounds without inherent meaning.


Kind regards

I take your point, but I don't think the 'external Dharma' is usually reduced to this. For example, the Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond) contains many famous 'finger pointing to the moon' analogies......but the text is itself considered sacred in many Mahayana traditions. I think that this is something of a paradox in the Mahayana.

[gregkavarnos]

Yes, but does anyone suggest that, whether one goes clockwise or anti-clockwise, it does not take a very great deal of effort? 30 years in a cave sounds like a decent effort to me.

Granted, BUT, the experiences do not arise as a consequence of the effort itself (one can make a great effort to track down and kill somebody but this does not lead to enlightened experience) rather it arises as a consequence of the "object" to which the effort is applied. So again whatever arises is not a consequence of the self but of the Dharma.

Don't you feel silly putting your limited and ignorant viewpoint up against the Dharma teaching of a true Bodhisattva? Isn't it amazing how strongly the Ego reacts when it feels threatened? The Egos tenacity to cloud ones better judgement never ceases to amaze me!

[gregkavarnos]

I take your point, but I don't think the 'external Dharma' is usually reduced to this. For example, the Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond) contains many famous 'finger pointing to the moon' analogies......but the text is itself considered sacred in many Mahayana traditions. I think that this is something of a paradox in the Mahayana.

Paints, brushes and canvases by themselves do not have the capacity to produce a beautiful painting, but without them you cannot produce a beautiful painting and that's why you take care of them, store them safely and correctly, ensure they are of the finest quality, etc...

Get it?

[muni]

Poison in candy paper.

[tobes]

Yes, but does anyone suggest that, whether one goes clockwise or anti-clockwise, it does not take a very great deal of effort? 30 years in a cave sounds like a decent effort to me.

Granted, BUT, the experiences do not arise as a consequence of the effort itself (one can make a great effort to track down and kill somebody but this does not lead to enlightened experience) rather it arises as a consequence of the "object" to which the effort is applied. So again whatever arises is not a consequence of the self but of the Dharma.

Don't you feel silly putting your limited and ignorant viewpoint up against the Dharma teaching of a true Bodhisattva?Isn't it amazing how strongly the Ego reacts when it feels threatened? The Egos tenacity to cloud ones better judgement never ceases to amaze me!

Frankly I do not feel silly, because I have not in any place asserted that it is the self which makes the effort, or which is the cause of enlightened experience.

I have been making a subtle point about the relation of cetana to the paramita of virya.

In fact, because you have been so keen and ready to impute ignorance, ego, mara etc upon my posts, that I wonder if perhaps this is the case:

"Isn't it amazing how strongly the Ego reacts when it feels threatened? The Egos tenacity to cloud ones better judgement never ceases to amaze me"

[tobes]

I take your point, but I don't think the 'external Dharma' is usually reduced to this. For example, the Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond) contains many famous 'finger pointing to the moon' analogies......but the text is itself considered sacred in many Mahayana traditions. I think that this is something of a paradox in the Mahayana.

Paints, brushes and canvases by themselves do not have the capacity to produce a beautiful painting, but without them you cannot produce a beautiful painting and that's why you take care of them, store them safely and correctly, ensure they are of the finest quality, etc...

Get it?

Yes, I do get it.

But that does not represent the full range of views in the Mahayana. It is very, very, very regularly asserted throughout the Prajnaparamita sutras and in texts such as the Sutra of Golden Light and the Sanghata sutra that the texts themselves contain the causes of enlightenment. Of course they require a mind to engage with them......and it depends on how literally these assertions are taken....but some Lama's take these assertions very literally. In some respects, the texts are taken as a beautiful painting.

Whether this correct or not is another question.

[gregkavarnos]

Frankly I do not feel silly, because I have not in any place asserted that it is the self which makes the effort, or which is the cause of enlightened experience.

Ummmm.... yeah okay...

I have been making a subtle point about the relation of cetana (intention, volition) to the paramita (perfection) of virya (effort, vigor, diligence, zeal, or energy).

So subtle in fact that it was completely lost on me, but then I am neither reknowned for my subtlety or my capacity to pick up on subtlety. Anybody else out there pick up on Tobes point?

In fact, because you have been so keen and ready to impute ignorance, ego, mara etc upon my posts, that I wonder if perhaps this is the case...

I am sorry, I didn't know that you are beyond ignorance, the devices of Ego and the sway of Mara. Care to send me your geographical coordinates so I can prostrate in the direction of your physical presence? Sorry, I know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but then I am a witless, ignorant, ego-bound moron and so I tend to try and take on board the advice of Bodhisattvas without too much analysis and riposte (retort).

[tobes]

In fact, because you have been so keen and ready to impute ignorance, ego, mara etc upon my posts, that I wonder if perhaps this is the case...

I am sorry, I didn't know that you are beyond ignorance, the devices of Ego and the sway of Mara. Care to send me your geographical coordinates so I can prostrate in the direction of your physical presence? Sorry, I know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but then I am a witless, ignorant, ego-bound moron and so I tend to try and take on board the advice of Bodhisattvas without too much analysis and riposte (retort).

Likewise am I a witless, ignorant and ego-bound idiot (i prefer to say "idiot" rather than "moron" but that is quibbling over semantics).

But for this reason, I think it is good to analyse the advice of bodhisattvas, and also a matter of good diplomatic cyber relations to avoid pointing out other peoples obvious cognitive limitions.

[gregkavarnos]

Problem is that when we compare the elucidation of experiences gained by an enlightened being to the propounding of views by an ignorant/deluded individual we must talk about cognitive limitation because that is exactly what we are talking about.

If we do not admit to ourselves that we are deluded and that our views are based mainly in confusion then we will never be able to accept the advice of beings that have overcome this basic underlying ignorance.

Let's face it, the basic premise of Buddhism is that we suffer due to our three fold ignorance: 1. dukkha-dukkha - the suffering caused by suffering itself (sickness, old age, pain, etc...) 2. viparinama-dukkha - the suffering that arises from change (since all we grasp at is impermanent even positive circumstances ultimately give rise to suffering) 3. sankhara-dukkha - the all pervading suffering which arises as a consequence of clinging to a sense of self based on a group of impermanent conglomerates: the skhanda.

And it is this third category which is the most difficult to overcome as it is the most subtle. This brings us back to original point: if we believe that "our" spiritual progress arises as a consequence of "our" effort then all we are doing is fortifying the self and this will lead directly to an increase in the effect of sankhara-dukkha. Our practice will be a cause of suffering rather than the method which will lead us out of suffering!!! A fatal mistake!

[Rael]

Problem is that when we compare the elucidation of experiences gained by an enlightened being to the propounding of views by an ignorant/deluded individual we must talk about cognitive limitation because that is exactly what we are talking about.

If we do not admit to ourselves that we are deluded and that our views are based mainly in confusion then we will never be able to accept the advice of beings that have overcome this basic underlying ignorance.

Let's face it, the basic premise of Buddhism is that we suffer due to our three fold ignorance: 1. dukkha-dukkha - the suffering caused by suffering itself (sickness, old age, pain, etc...) 2. viparinama-dukkha - the suffering that arises from change (since all we grasp at is impermanent even positive circumstances ultimately give rise to suffering) 3. sankhara-dukkha - the all pervading suffering which arises as a consequence of clinging to a sense of self based on a group of impermanent conglomerates: the skhanda.

And it is this third category which is the most difficult to overcome as it is the most subtle. This brings us back to original point: if we believe that "our" spiritual progress arises as a consequence of "our" effort then all we are doing is fortifying the self and this will lead directly to an increase in the effect of sankhara-dukkha. Our practice will be a cause of suffering rather than the method which will lead us out of suffering!!! A fatal mistake!

you know i love your mind dude...i really do ...thats not some internet suck up cause i'm a total loser and need company...ROFL!!!!

but i gots to say this my man....

Problem is that when we compare the elucidation of experiences gained by an enlightened being to the propounding of views by an ignorant/deluded individual we must talk about cognitive limitation because that is exactly what we are talking about.

we must talk about cognitive limitation

psssst....it's more about developing awareness...stretching your awareness and developing new means of ,to become aware....

cognitive skills are just that, skills....in the end their useless....

[gregkavarnos]

Flawed by pride,
you don't perceive the real -

you ruin every way
that you've been given.

The whole cosmos
is deluded by meditation -

no one perceives,
their innermost nature.
Tantric Treasues: Three Collections of Mystical Verse from Buddhist India Roger R. Jackson

[Indrajala]

Here you are clearly confusing the moon, with the finger pointing at the moon. Language can never clearly express/explain experience.

Not really. By virtue of saying that language can never clearly express or explain experience you have just described the experience you allude to.

And there is somebody there that has volition? Where exactly? Can volition exist without a self? How exactly?

Yes, there is a conventionally existent self or person (puruṣa), dependent on a myriad of causes and conditions ergo empty, that has volition and experiences the fruits of the actions of which it is the conventionally existent agent behind. If there was no agent, there would be no action. If no action, then volition would likewise have no function or existence.

Nope, all you need to do is cut off ego-clinging and you'll find bodhicitta was there all along.

Where did the Buddha ever mention "ego-clinging"?

[gregkavarnos]

Language can never clearly express/explain experience.

Not really. By virtue of saying that language can never clearly express or explain experience you have just described the experience you allude to.

The key point of the sentence for me when I was writing it, was the word clearly. Yet another example of the incapapcity of language to CLEARLY express experience and thought.

Yes, there is a conventionally existent self or person (puruṣa), dependent on a myriad of causes and conditions ergo empty, that has volition and experiences the fruits of the actions of which it is the conventionally existent agent behind. If there was no agent, there would be no action. If no action, then volition would likewise have no function or existence.

I think we have already answered that one here: "Granted, BUT, the experiences do not arise as a consequence of the effort itself (one can make a great effort to track down and kill somebody but this does not lead to enlightened experience) rather it arises as a consequence of the "object" to which the effort is applied. So again whatever arises is not a consequence of the self but of the Dharma." Sat. 29/01/2011

Where did the Buddha ever mention "ego-clinging"?

I think we already answered that one here: "3. sankhara-dukkha - the all pervading suffering which arises as a consequence of clinging to a sense of self based on a group of impermanent conglomerates: the skhanda." Sun. 30/01/2011. I can track down the exact scriptural reference for you if you reaaaaaalllllllly want me to.

[Indrajala]

Where did the Buddha ever mention "ego-clinging"?

I think we already answered that one here: "3. sankhara-dukkha - the all pervading suffering which arises as a consequence of clinging to a sense of self based on a group of impermanent conglomerates: the skhanda." Sun. 30/01/2011. I can track down the exact scriptural reference for you if you reaaaaaalllllllly want me to.

Does ātman really mean "ego" like you initially suggest it does? Ego is an idea in western psychology that is quite different from the idea of ātman in Buddhism.

[Rael]

Where did the Buddha ever mention "ego-clinging"?

I think we already answered that one here: "3. sankhara-dukkha - the all pervading suffering which arises as a consequence of clinging to a sense of self based on a group of impermanent conglomerates: the skhanda." Sun. 30/01/2011. I can track down the exact scriptural reference for you if you reaaaaaalllllllly want me to.

Does ātman really mean "ego" like you initially suggest it does? Ego is an idea in western psychology that is quite different from the idea of ātman in Buddhism.

Atman is a Hindu term...i know Hindu is relatively new and it is really a Vedic term...but for the sake of convention
Paramatman and all that...
My Tulku friend said once to a Hindu that the Hindu concept of Atman was the prime difference between Hinduism and Buddhism..Atman denotes an inherent soul...there is no inherent or created soul in Buddhism

it's not a buddhist term

[gregkavarnos]

Another example along the lines of Gendeun Rinpoche (and, Huseng, I will respond to your valid point soon):

How Purification Works
During Nyungne [fasting] practice, true purification is possible primarily because of the power of Chenrezig's compassion and blessing, as well as our faith, devotion, and correct motivation to do the practice. When such causes and conditions come together, a result inevitably occurs, and this result is understood as the interdependently-arising nature of all phenomena.

Buddhist Fasting Practice: The Nyungne Method of Thousand-Armed Chenrezig by Wangchen Rinpoche

[Rael]

Another example along the lines of Gendeun Rinpoche (and, Huseng, I will respond to your valid point soon):

How Purification Works
During Nyungne [fasting] practice, true purification is possible primarily because of the power of Chenrezig's compassion and blessing, as well as our faith, devotion, and correct motivation to do the practice. When such causes and conditions come together, a result inevitably occurs, and this result is understood as the interdependently-arising nature of all phenomena.

Buddhist Fasting Practice: The Nyungne Method of Thousand-Armed Chenrezig by Wangchen Rinpoche

When someone first explained the holographic universe and quantum physic theories to me i had a moment..
I would like to bounce a few ideas around the forum.

If you take a holographic image and break it into pieces each piece still contains the 3D image in whole...

so theorists state in every particle of the universe the whole universe and every event taking place is contained in each particle simultaneously ....theory ...


hence all the Dieties are indeed in every particle of the universe...

hence when we generate them it's not like we are asking them to come from a great great distance away.....

we are all made up of everything there is ...or in another angle...every energy that is happening everywhere is happening in every particle of our being so it's right there for the generating...or focusing....


Seeeeee what this joint does to me.....

[gregkavarnos]

Does ātman really mean "ego" like you initially suggest it does? Ego is an idea in western psychology that is quite different from the idea of ātman in Buddhism.

Well, Rael already pointed out that atman is a Hindu and not a Buddhist concept, I take it we all agree with his point and progress from there. When I use the word ego I do not refer to the limited psychoanalytic sense of the word as proposed by Herr Freud but the common everyday Greek usage of the word (I won't go into the etymology of the word as there seems to be some confusion as to whether it is latin or greek) and here in Greece ego is just the word for self, I, me, myself...

I don't think I stated that atman=ego anywhere so I'll proceed in the direction which I was initially moving, by asking you a number of questions: Do the five skhanda describe the self or the atman? When the Buddha was referring to the five skhanda do you believe he had in mind the self or the atman? Do you believe that in the Buddhas day to say atman was the same thing as to say self nowadays? And finally would you say that soul is the closest translation of the term atman?

[Rael]

Does ātman really mean "ego" like you initially suggest it does? Ego is an idea in western psychology that is quite different from the idea of ātman in Buddhism.

Well, Rael already pointed out that atman is a Hindu and not a Buddhist concept, I take it we all agree with his point and progress from there. When I use the word ego I do not refer to the limited psychoanalytic sense of the word as proposed by Herr Freud but the common everyday Greek usage of the word (I won't go into the etymology of the word as there seems to be some confusion as to whether it is latin or greek) and here in Greece ego is just the word for self, I, me, myself...

I don't think I stated that atman=ego anywhere so I'll proceed in the direction which I was initially moving, by asking you a number of questions: Do the five skhanda describe the self or the atman? When the Buddha was referring to the five skhanda do you believe he had in mind the self or the atman? Do you believe that in the Buddhas day to say atman was the same thing as to say self nowadays? And finally would you say that soul is the closest translation of the term atman?

oddly the wikki paramatman has changed to a more vishunee brahma neee thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

anyway Atman is your personal soul it's the thing that trans migrates in Hindu lore....
paramatman is where it came from...kind of like a chink of the old block....when liberated you go back to the great ocean of paramatman....

ok carry on....


edit: I believe all souls come from paramatman , therefore even Vishnu and Brahma are like Atman trans migrating..