The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
BFS
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby BFS » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:18 pm

All is good, TMingyur. I just need a little bit of time, and I will try to offer some context.
If I don't run now, I am going to be in trouble! :lol: I will get back to it, asap, thanks.

User avatar
BFS
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby BFS » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:02 pm


User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:57 pm


User avatar
BFS
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby BFS » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:04 pm


muni
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby muni » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:08 pm

:namaste: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtr ... ?PID=19464 This book (first post) can certainly clarify for interested ones.
Last edited by muni on Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:09 pm

Last edited by ground on Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:11 pm

"Why is what is considered to be "not commensurate" not commensurate?"

User avatar
BFS
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby BFS » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:12 pm

These few quotes, that you have given, as a basis for your argument, don't even fill up one page from the book! You want to come to a conclusion, based on a few quotes? Wow. Well each to his own, I guess.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:14 pm

What answer does he provide for this question:

"Why is what is considered to be "not commensurate" not commensurate?"

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:17 pm


User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:34 pm

See for comparison the beautiful simplicity of the prasangika "in-a-nutshell" approach:


There appears a conventional phenomenon, which is validly established by non-analytical conventional cognition. But if one analytically seeks to find it, one cannot find it.
Period.

:tongue:

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:06 am


muni
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby muni » Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:55 am

Buddhism is not "beating others" with "our knowledge", but to inspire each other. Something like this I saw in another post. I bow for this with warm heart. :bow:

There is no lack on tolerance and not really a different approach, but it looks like indeed. Still our responsability is to take here by the teaching of His Holiness The Dalai Lama and to protect the Dharma for all. :buddha1:

Happy Christmas day.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:28 pm


User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby catmoon » Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:42 am

Hm. I don't think we are getting anywhere here. Either that or I just can't follow the thread. I still read the OP and am still perplexed.

If consciousness had no beginning and no end, it seems to me it must then be unchanging. Is there any argument with this?

If consciousness is unchanging, then the word must be being used to designate something other than sense impressions or mind activity. These are in chaotic change.

For similar reasons consciousness must be other than the conventionally perceived "observer".

Is consciousness the thing observed? It might so, since the things observed are empty and dependent on thought for their existence. So what do you think of the idea that consciousness is the stream of things observed? This stream is not unchanging.. but.... might be endless.

Or consciousness might be something else entirely. I really don't know.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:49 am


muni
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby muni » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:43 pm

:namaste: I add this general explanation. Here: http://www.perryland.com/Noteworthy9.shtml

And some notes:

"In the empty nature of your mind,
You cannot find a basis for samsara.
Samsara's root, a timeless purity,
Is undeluded wakefulness which cannot fall."

"Mind's innate qualities" (luminosity, clarity, awareness) are not consciously created or deliberately constructed, they are rather given aspect of "mind". Dynamic processes. They are not the product of circumstancial conditions. Sometimes innate its' meaning is defined as permanence as never ending continuum (no begin, no end); sometimes as impermanent as processes composed of instances.

Dalai Lama.

User avatar
ronnewmexico
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:22 pm

Well this seems a complex issue. From my limited layepersons view.....

Consciousness may be thought of as a object. Personally I think of it as a quality. Without a object to be aware of we can not be aware. As per Shantideva...

61. If consciousness is that which does not know.
It follows that a stick is also conscious
Therefore, in the absence of a thing to know,
It is clear that consciousness will not arise.

As I see it there is no inherantly existant object, "consiousness" which travels from here to there and remains aware. There is a quality of consciousness to things which we call sentinent beings. That quality is consciousness but not eternal. As per the not being able to be aware of something that does not exist, ths conscious quality would not exist if there were no objects with which to be aware of.
But as our consciousness works....the five major and minor attributes of consciousness, the habitual formation aspect of consciousness has retention as a composit. As such the retention forms the object for the elicitiation of awareness. So we establish a continum of consciousness based on how our consciousnesses work. Not on eternal aspect of consciousness. As perhaps water is wet, always, a eternal observation. But it is a observational quality of water not a self inherant aspect. Water is not eternal, but when water is present it is always wet.

In other words it is our own consciousness which provides the object which causes a continum of consciousness to exist. If we could provide a first place or uncaused realm of some sort with no habitual tendency present we could provide cause for a consciousness which is not present yet may become present when a object presented. Observationally we already exist where a cause for the elicitation of awareness and consciousness has been present. As far as we know no other theoritical realm may exist with no first cause. Death is not that, as sleep is not that. LIke all objects perceived being only mind preceived...such a realm of no cause or no past consciousness cause is likely impossible. It contradicts all appearence is mind, a thing we know to be true, which is another subject but related in fashion.

It is not that consciousness or awareness is eternal. It is that due to how our awarenesses work they are functionally always present seemingly eternal to our view.

They are not inherantly existant as are no things. But as they function they create the conditions which functionally produce a eternal appearence.

So the quality of consciousness is eternal..we sentinent beings always have that. It differentiates us from rocks or stone. We may produce inantimate objects and they are not seperate from our consciousnesses but that also is another matter. They are not capeable of being aware seperate from a sentinent beings relationship to those objects. As our hair or nails are produced by our body but not capeable of awareness. We are but a microcosm, but again another issue.

Consicouness as quality not thing. So this being quality is always present and functionally due to aspect of how consciousness works eternal. So the quality like water is wet is always there, but nothing is inherantly existant in either case. But as we are this water is always there.

So this quality we call consciousness is always there and cannot as qualities are, be removed. So as quality it is permenant and not elicited by circumstance(as water when it presents as water is always wet). Consciousness may or theoritically not be there, so as object it is indeed elicited by circumstance. A self propogated perhaps circumstance but circumstance nevertheless. That is how the two are compatible.

Just my personal way of looking at it.

And "whew"....that was quite a lot of words. Ya gotta love Shantideva. Ch 9...Verses 151-167 plainly bring me to tears.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ground » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:41 pm


User avatar
ronnewmexico
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: The Middle Way - H.H. the Dalai Lama

Postby ronnewmexico » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:46 pm

Well I do not maintain that I am doing any such thing as this....

"Why not be honest and refrain from reificationist ungrounded assertions?"

I suggest a one line retort fairly rarely suffices to refute contentions made that approximate the better part of a page. Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, but I'd suggest only in a dream world in which we reach dream conclusions on dream suibjects will such simplistic retorts suffice as valid claim to point furthured or point initiated in discussion. Or pehaps on national US talking head visual media with pointed view which is not actually discussion or debate but play,(as a aside) .

To invalidate my claims and assertations it is actually necessary to engage with or into my discussion and point on specifics on how my elaborated points are lacking in logic or likewise deficient. To simply make blatent wholescale claim of such with only validations substance being a personal opinion, serves little.

This is the internet and anyone can do and say whatever they may feel at the moment. I do reserve the personal right to catagorize claims and statements made in a personal manner as is perhaps necessary in this particular environment. So I do state quite emphatically and firmly.....nonsense.

Or as they say....put up or shut up.

I stand by my comments and find them not refuted nor challenged, nor do I find point initiated that was not inclusive in my original statement.
Basically nothing has been stated, and thusly I offer no additional point nor point of rebuttal.

I do wonder perhaps how many times reificationist is to be uttered in this discussion, as in..."Why is such invalid and reificationist thought possible based on what may be claimed to be "objective analysis"?
It appears I lie not alone in being suchly accused.

Good day to you sir.
Now perhaps we may hear a real argument that challenges claims made, not this useless drivel of personal opinion.

I await a reasoned response.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.


Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests