Will samsara be emptied?

[Rael]

not so at all...thats your interpretation of the teachings.
...
You have completely stopped talking about the Buddha's teachings here ,and the Masters abilities to allow the student to perceive the teachings.

See it is just sort of "natural" that there is no agreement with those attached to philosophical views.

The Buddha's goal is to improve one's awareness of existence, your place in it.

No. It is just teaching the 8fold noble path.

you have not fully experienced Sunyata and it has you in quandary....

How could something that is mere thought be experienced? It may be experienced as a thought, okay ... but that's it.

Kind regards

I can't answer any of this for it all sounds too philosophical in nature...too much up for grabs here....

[Rael]

you have not fully experienced Sunyata and it has you in quandary....

How could something that is mere thought be experienced? It may be experienced as a thought, okay ... but that's it.

Kind regards

The intellectual understanding is just that....

sunyata is to be experienced....

not unlike the experience one gets when experiencing the Rigpa...

[Rael]

so sorry for the flippant too philosophical post people....


TMingyur i was just trying to make a point about your going on about the philosophers....

you say Mahayana is to be experienced and then you consider Sunyata a thought...

This is what philosophers want to make others believe. However, one just has to practice the path taught by the buddha and discard what these philosophers are saying.

Kind regards

it's contradictory ....


any ways i hope my last post helps you see what is in store for you if you try ....

[ground]

you say Mahayana is to be experienced ...

No. where did I say this?

and then you consider Sunyata a thought...

Mere thought.. But Mahayana is mere thought too. Without definition nobody can understand.

Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.

The distinction between coventional and ultimate is not the result of speculation. It is the result of careful listening to the Buddha. In the Nikayas/Agamas the Buddha denied the Self in an ultimate sense, as a self-existing, unchanging essence or Upanishadic Atman thought to be within beings and the world (Majjhima Nikaya 22:15, 22-23, 25, etc.). Early Buddhists called this "ultimate truth" (Pali paramattha-sacca, Sanskrit paramartha-satya). They took seriously the Buddha's instruction to "look upon the world as empty" (Sutta-Nipata V.16.119), even prior to an experiential realization of this (the goal of insight meditation). The Buddha also often used the word "self" in the conventional sense, as a convenient designation for a confluence of the Five Aggregates, like you or me (e.g., "By the self alone is evil done..." Attanā hi kataṃ pāpaṃ Dhammapada. 12.5). Early Buddhists called this "conventional truth" (Pali sammuti-sacca or vohara-sacca, Sanskrit samvrti-satya).

[ground]

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.

The distinction between coventional and ultimate is not the result of speculation. It is the result of careful listening to the Buddha.

It is the result of the conceit that one knows better than the buddha how to express what the buddha wanted to express and at the same time violating his right view which appealed not to harbor thoughts about existence and non-existence.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards

[sukhamanveti]

It is the result of the conceit that one knows better than the buddha how to express what the buddha wanted to express and at the same time violating his right view which appealed not to harbor thoughts about existence and non-existence.

Why assume the worst in people? I do not know what was in the minds of early Buddhists, so I can't say that they thought they knew better than the Buddha. I think that "conventional" and "ultimate" are simply convenient labels for things that the historical Buddha actually taught (see Selfless Persons by Steven Collins for an in-depth look at early scriptures that gets misrepresented sometimes online). It is easier to say "ultimate truth" than to recite a dozen passages that refute the Atman for example. It is like a "shorthand."



In any case I think I have spent too much time in this discussion and I'm no longer sure of why I am involved with it. The original point of the thread was something entirely different. I hope that you are well and that you continue to reap the benefits of your studies and spiritual practices. You may have the last word.



Best wishes.



Ed

[ground]

It is the result of the conceit that one knows better than the buddha how to express what the buddha wanted to express and at the same time violating his right view which appealed not to harbor thoughts about existence and non-existence.

Why assume the worst in people?

What does "worst" imply? Does it have a "moral" connotation then this term is certainly misplaced. Does it have the connotation of "not-knowing" as opposed to the Buddha then "worst" is misplaced too since there is either knowing or not.

In any case I think I have spent too much time in this discussion and I'm no longer sure of why I am involved with it.

It is belief. When people encounter views and oppinions that do not comply with their belief then they start defending their belief based on uncertainty. Because how could belief be the basis of certainty? Belief which is mere thought cannot cause certainty. In contrast to this when there is experience there is certainty. Experience - as long as not completed/perfected - causes faith which opposes doubt which is a hindrance.


Kind regards

[Rael]

you say Mahayana is to be experienced ...

No. where did I say this?

and then you consider Sunyata a thought...

Mere thought.. But Mahayana is mere thought too. Without definition nobody can understand.

Kind regards

I might of misinterpreted you TMingyur in regards to the first part of your post....

here is where i thought you understood the Mahayanist expierences and not just contemplates and philosophies ;

By your own interpretation (if I understand you correctly) the Buddha would seem to be a speculative philosopher here and one should not listen to him.

Not necessarily because he does not reason about "existence" but restricts the application of existence to the scope of valid direct experience.

The philosophers however introduce speculation in that they reason about e.g. so called "ultimate" and so called "conventional" existence, put the experiential aspect aside and completely delve into the realm of mere thought.

The Buddha did not generate theories about existence.


Kind regards

when you say;

Not necessarily because he does not reason about "existence" but restricts the application of existence to the scope of valid direct experience.

i jumped to the conclusion that you understood that that both Rigpa and sunyata are meant to be experienced..both are Mahayanist jewel to be experienced...


when you said this

valid direct experience

i see it from the eyes of a Mahayanist...and what i thought you understood....

maybe now though you see....

In some ways you seem so advanced i just thought ...well jumped to conclusion....

I'm somewhat of a noob here and did not realize....

I think you are onto something though....

you just don't understand the experience is the thing....

the pointing is just that... a tool for one to eventually get to the point where that moment is an experience..the gap, the Rigpa..is not just a thought....you can know about it but you have to expierence it to actually know what it is like sitting in that condition...

when one actually completes the completion stages, whether with a Buddhist Tantra or other methods, and then mixes it , if you will ,with Sunyata view.....it no longer is just some thought....

melting the drops can be done without sunyata view....but with it one will experience the stage differently...and use it differently....

i thought you knew that...

[ground]

And now to re-connect an alleged off-topic discussion to the topic under discussion:

As long as there are views samsara will not be emptied. Renouncing all views except right view is the prerequiste for samsara to be emptied.

Why is this?

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

Kind regards

[ground]

the pointing is just that... a tool for one to eventually get to the point where that moment is an experience..

when one actually completes the completion stages, whether with a Buddhist Tantra or other methods, ...it no longer is just some thought....

Honestly, I am convinved that "tantra" or other so called "higher" or "highest" tibetan teachings are actually the necessary effect of introducing conceptual approaches ("philosophies") that are "by nature" hindrances. Whether this is an "inbuilt intention" or simply based on the fact that the Buddha's teachings of the suttapitaka and his meditative approach as we may know them today have never been transmitted to tibet I cannot decide.


Kind regards

[ground]

Generate properly thus the common path
Necessary for the two superior Great Vehicle paths,
The perfection vehicle - the cause - and the Mantra Vehicle - the effect.
Then, enter the great ocean of tantra
Relying on a protector, a skilful captain,
And obtain the complete instructions,
Thereby making meaningful the attainement of leisure and fortune.
I, a yogi, practiced such.
You, wishing liberation, please do so as well

Lama Tsongkhapa in his "Condensed Expositions of the Path"


Lama Tsongkhapa would have never said this if he believed that one may attain liberation based on the philosophical view that he himself devised conjoined with the methods of the lamrim.
And the same holds true for the variety of philosophical views we may encounter in indo-tibetan Mahayana.
All these require so called "higher" teachings as a basis for liberation from afflictive obscurations, "higher" teachings that are dispensable if one's path is based on right view as taught by the Buddha.
But liberation from afflictive obscurations is a prerequisite for a bodhisattva's leaving the mundane path and entering the supramundane path.


Kind regards

[Rael]

ahhhh...i see...

you know i think somewhere i wrote about my whole waiting for the highest teaching to be told to me by a Tibetan Geshe...and his answer is there is no highest teaching...went on to explain that it's all from the turning of the dharma wheel...

whether the teaching is about God the creator or no God the creator , both are perfectly right.

Tminguy, your entire approach is one of which is the highest Teaching and this hang up with the prefix Maha has you spell bound...

on one hand you want to attack this prefix ...so like your into Theravada Buddhism and the higher lower thing has you upset....

I'd laugh , but it isn't funny for i'm thinking you use another word than Theravadian for the Buddhism your REALLY INTO...

and then your going to explain about deluded ideas and such....


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[ground]

whether the teaching is about God the creator or no God the creator , both are perfectly right.

Definitely not if "right" is understood as "conducive" in the context of buddha dharma.

Tminguy, your entire approach is one of which is the highest Teaching and this hang up with the prefix Maha has you spell bound...

on one hand you want to attack this prefix ...

Do not say what is not true! I never attacked Mahayana. It is because you are equating Mahayana with philosophy that this appears to you in that way. As explained above the valid alternative actually is to equate Mahayana with bodhicitta.

so like your into Theravada Buddhism and the higher lower thing has you upset....

I do not advocate any school. This only appears to you since you are attached to the thought of "schools and their views".


Kind regards

[Rael]

so like your into Theravada Buddhism and the higher lower thing has you upset....

I do not advocate any school. This only appears to you since you are attached to the thought of "schools and their views".


Kind regards

sorry i thought you were into buddhism ...i'm a noob here...

you just seem to not be into the Mahayana and into theravada...

I'm not really into any one school of thought myself ...i'm like into Raja yoga and holy alchemy tempered with buddhism ....

i like your confusing everything...it's Kenner it's fun

[ground]

sorry i thought you were into buddhism ...

I have taken refuge to the three jewels.

you just seem to not be into the Mahayana and into theravada...

Bodhicitta is the "heart" of the three jewels.

I'm not really into any one school of thought myself ...i'm like into Raja yoga and holy alchemy tempered with buddhism ....

i like your confusing everything...it's Kenner it's fun

Now I am wondering where actually confusion is.

Kind regards

[muni]

"Now I am wondering where actually confusion is".

This is me told: Mistakes/confusion is in our own mispercieving mind only till awaken and ready to actually help through bodhichitta.

[Rael]

sorry i thought you were into buddhism ...

I have taken refuge to the three jewels.

you just seem to not be into the Mahayana and into theravada...

Bodhicitta is the "heart" of the three jewels.

I'm not really into any one school of thought myself ...i'm like into Raja yoga and holy alchemy tempered with buddhism ....

i like your confusing everything...it's Kenner it's fun

Now I am wondering where actually confusion is.

Kind regards

let me make something clear....

really clear.....

The Buddhas , and the three jewels are my friends and mentors...

My entire western family is Buddhist....

generations....my parents....myself and wives(lol) make that ex wives and present one, now i sound mormon....
my child....

I was born into a catholic family and was brought up by a beat nik atheist dad who when i brought home Buddhism embraced it....me mum is 87 and her entire adult life she has embraced buddhism and is loved and protected by the three Jewels...


Raja yoga and alchemy seems to be some sort of profane thing to mention here...

thats your problem not mine .....

Buddhist Completion Stage Tantra is Holy Inner Alchemy whether some of the Alchemists or the Buddhists know it or not.

It actually doesn't matter till someone decides it's confusion and wants an edge in a conversation......
ROFL!!!

I'm not going disparage Raja Yoga . Raising your kundalinni is fun....lol.....get it ....lol


And.....what do you actually think Completion Stage Tantra is anyway....lol


Tmingyur....you slight the Mahayana, you talk like you know something no one else knows....to the point i don't even know what you believe in...then out of the blue you say you take refuge in the three jewels...

once again...the Buddha's Robe has been spread across my family....we're intimate...

[ground]

Tmingyur....you slight the Mahayana, ...

Even if you repeat your defamation again and again it is not going to become true.
I do not share your view that's all.

you talk like you know something no one else knows....

How could I? All I know I know due to the kindness of others.

Kind regards

[Rael]

Tmingyur....you slight the Mahayana, ...

Even if you repeat your defamation again and again it is not going to become true.
I do not share your view that's all.

you talk like you know something no one else knows....

How could I? All I know I know due to the kindness of others.

Kind regards

defamation, lil over the top .....
oki doki...attatchment to ego cause imloding poster to fall down and go boom....

lol....


honesty is always a nice conversation companion...

edit:
slight...think about it...it was a polite way of stating you don't know so you jump to conclusions and slight the Mahayana....