ronnewmexico wrote:Well I agree with all that lastly said, well said and communicated.
That is true...my point is that.
I will add this part which is not stated....
Western buddhists are constricting buddhism to fit jainist ideal is my observation. One may imply things such as...well buddists in my schools can not have gun can not do this do that....well no...not really... they generallly do not say such things. Buddhism is the middle way called for many reasons, it is quite complex. Complex is the response to most all things..they must be fully considered, not filled by reason of ideology or quote of scripture generally.
In some things that suffices but in many not.
Yup, looks pretty clear from where I am standing!Right action (samyak-karmānta / sammā-kammanta) can also be translated as "right conduct". As such, the practitioner should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained as:
And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from illicit sex [or sexual misconduct]. This is called right action.
And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.
For the lay follower, the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta elaborates:
And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his... knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action.
ronnewmexico wrote:Really we should not be personally insulting from the get go..I went to a religious school as a young child..the children were heinous , hating eachother and treating eachother badly. In public school this was not the situation, children seemed to have heart for one another..
So this...."One would only advocate this based on a misunderstanding of even the most basic principals of dharma. "..please refrain from being insulting. I know you may want to extend point but there is nothing that says we cannot discuss this as person to person and not insult eachother.
The buddhists on this board practicing great compassion, seem like those children practicing anything but. If we cannot talk to eachother as reasonably equal but talking down one to another we will never communicate it is impossible.
ronnewmexico wrote:This is a quote from another site on pure land.....
"There is a sutra mentioned by Buddha Sakyamuni that in the dharma ending era where sentient beings' lack of wisdom to aware Suchness. There is none amongst a Billion and billion of people could possibly achieve complete fruition of Bodhi besides Pure Land. 《大集經》云： 末法億億人修行，罕一得道；唯依念佛，得度生死。 The advice is to learn insight contained in all school but destination towards Pure Land, the higher wisdom you achieve, the higher abode of Pure Land you will be here & there. The highest is Buddha equal enlightenment of Pure Land :
Basically these times are such none can achieve full buddhahood as human, but can go to pure lands and then from there attain buddhahood.
ronnewmexico wrote:And I have heard a equlivency in tibetan buddhism. I could probably provide quote but it would be a extensive endeavor. The point is relatively common we must go somewhere else a pure land or some similiar place to become fully enlightened, a buddha.
ronnewmexico wrote:The body it is thought a product of karma and cannot entertain fully enlightenment. It speaks of a limitation or effectual by karma the reason to be in a human body.
ronnewmexico wrote:Buddhas have not a body of our sort. Our sort is produced by karma. So thusly one cannot be a buddha in a human body. In this school of thinking a buddha is a emenation not a real human..the two things are impossible.
Not all certainly agree with that, there are variants of opinion but those are not unknown nor unusual.
ronnewmexico wrote:To be clear on jainism (though I am no expert) they consider a different thing. This realm and all things cycle in and out in a definitive form. In each cycle there are so many tirthankars that appear to teach when exactly needed so those that are trapped in this realm can find a way out.
ronnewmexico wrote:It is not perhaps random as in buddhism but considered in these cycles specific things that happen and a set amount of tirthankaras that appear at stages in the cycle. So is considered the soul having the nature of all things is very compassionate. When one attains enlightenment they do not necessarily become a tirthankar as there is no need for one. When needed they may become one if necessary such being the soul nature of things compassionate.
So that explains it a bit. They also at times consider that humans may not be in a suitable time for full enlightenment.
ronnewmexico wrote:Jains do not consider that there realm of enlighenment is a formless realm. One does not have form.... true.... but that does not formless realm make.
ronnewmexico wrote:Attachement concept of self remain in buddhism in formless realm. In Tibetan buddhism there are four basic formless realms with differing causes and differing results thusly in each. In jainism in that place soul remains but all is of soul and like one, when karma is removed. Karma it is that is considered to lead to our obstructions and pain and suffering. Once the negative karma is removed such soul remains pure.
ronnewmexico wrote:AScetisim is a means to remove this karma but also is removing caused by producing no suffering. ONe cannot simply be a ascetic and then expect to have a pure soul. ONe must also produce no harm and act compassionately as all souls are as human souls are, even the lowest microbe.
ronnewmexico wrote:Many buddhist say not this in the west ..."Buddhism is more flexible than Jainism and give people latitude to be strictly vegetarian and pacifist. It does't make them a Jain."...they firmly state buddhist must be vegetarians must not ever kill must not have any weapons and many other things with no degree of flexibility. As perhaps davadeeta did they do. Buddhism then gives them right to be inflexible or flexible only that they may say we may only do those things and be buddhist....this seems not flexible.
Should not those people then more rightly be in a inflexible vehicle?
ronnewmexico wrote:Again..."If one doesn't understand these basics"..we can talk to each other as holders of different opinion but must talk to each other with respect and consideration...I disagree with what you say or this or basically this consideration is wrong, or other things can be said, approximating the same thing respectfully.
ronnewmexico wrote:I am not advocating that one with a view of emptiness advocate this thing...but how many have view or only express learned view...it seems many.
As to emptiness stopping even the most basic of defilements I have heard great lamas say they employ methods of a courser nature such as just avoiding a situation or some means to prevent defilement rather than just relying on knowing emptiness. Few say...I know emptiness I have realized this and thusly have not that defilement. Perhaps it is with intention of not appearing great to be humble...but if such is always said.... well then to those that hear this always....what the point of emptiness if it cannot remove our defilements?...it seems quite useless if we must still employ means to stop defilements.
ronnewmexico wrote:I know one must employ means to attain realization of emptiness but why then after one has and is a great teacher....why do they not say yes they are gone...generally they do not.
ronnewmexico wrote:If they so fear their followers may hear such a thing and not be able to do such a thing...then their followers should be jain..at least they could do that thing and remove defilements through that means. Buddhist means and jain means having difference but both having result of removing gross defilements.
Why teach the profound if none apparently get it...at least not enough to remove defilements presentation.....it seems pointless. Far easier method for these people would seem suitable.
ronnewmexico wrote:Many may be in Tibetan buddhism enlightened as human...show me a buddha as human enlightened in tibetan buddhism...you will not find one.
ronnewmexico wrote:After perfection of the tenth bhumi one attains buddhahood. In forms of tibetan buddhism that do exist one does not make this transition as a human from human to buddhahood.
ronnewmexico wrote:So we are reasonably talking some buddhist here, and my contention remains not all buddhists but some may be better served by jainism.
ronnewmexico wrote:This..."I don't understand this statement. Realizing emptiness doesn't mean you are gone. It means conceptualization is gone. The realization is very clear...the defilements should be gone. Emptiness considered even in this conventional fashion as human will remove defilements when realized.
ronnewmexico wrote:Thrangu rinpoche and HHDL: state quite often that this means of emptiness may be employed but when then quaried in detail about their personal defilement approachments they state not emptiness as vehicle but other vehicle.
ronnewmexico wrote:Which has equal result such as exchangeing oneself with another or considering all as ones mother, ot just not getting in the situatiion at all...but they are not useing this thing of emptiness to its best purpose seemingly.
ronnewmexico wrote:So if it is such a good thing to know as human why are not even the greatest amongst us employing this to such means?
ronnewmexico wrote:Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?
ronnewmexico wrote:The buddha did not teach everything to everyone it is clear he had levels of teachings to those of differing quality. So perhaps in this degenerate age emptiness...is but about always something we may use and show around a ego extension servind not purpose but also to detriment.
ronnewmexico wrote:Emptiness to my view is compassion and always presents in realization of even the slightest sort of nonintellectual sort as compassion acting nicely to peoples and things. I hear great talk of that but really can buddhists even go on a internet site and talk without insulting oneanother and doing bad things...seemingly not..so what purpose this emptiness? It seems but conceptual in origin and thusly but one or another thing one must carry around protect and attend to...seemingly really useless.
ronnewmexico wrote:Not all are like that certainly...but for those that are is jainism not the better teaching?
Actually I think you may find that you can.adinatha wrote:These methods you mentioned are preliminary practices to Vajrayana or are general Mahayana approaches used within Vajrayana. You can't realize emptiness with tonglen.
I agree 100%, Buddhism without emptiness would not be Buddhism. If you do want to throw emptiness out of Buddhism then, yes, Jainism would be the answer (or some form of dualistic Hinduism).adinatha wrote:ronnewmexico wrote:Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?
ronnewmexico wrote:Hmmm..I guess then our conversation on this matter has ended.
NIce talking to you. Have a good day.
gregkavarnos wrote:Actually I think you may find that you can.adinatha wrote:These methods you mentioned are preliminary practices to Vajrayana or are general Mahayana approaches used within Vajrayana. You can't realize emptiness with tonglen.
gregkavarnos wrote:I agree 100%, Buddhism without emptiness would not be Buddhism. If you do want to throw emptiness out of Buddhism then, yes, Jainism would be the answer (or some form of dualistic Hinduism).adinatha wrote:ronnewmexico wrote:Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?
Why? Buddhism does not have the monopoly on the accumulation of merit without a view of emptiness. Merit is merit, when it is accumulated in a dualistic manner I believe it doesn't matter what its source is. I don't think that merit comes with a brand name attached.adinatha wrote:No. If you can't realize emptiness, then at least you should have faith in the Three Jewels, make offerings, do tonglen, do noble 8-fold path, do vinaya, make seven offerings, do prostrations, shamatha and vipashyana, Vajrasattva and mandala. Then, in a future life, you will have the merit to fully realize emptiness.
gregkavarnos wrote:adinatha wrote:No. If you can't realize emptiness, then at least you should have faith in the Three Jewels, make offerings, do tonglen, do noble 8-fold path, do vinaya, make seven offerings, do prostrations, shamatha and vipashyana, Vajrasattva and mandala. Then, in a future life, you will have the merit to fully realize emptiness.
Why? Buddhism does not have the monopoly on the accumulation of merit without a view of emptiness. Merit is merit, when it is accumulated in a dualistic manner I believe it doesn't matter what its source is. I don't think that merit comes with a brand name attached.
Merit accumulated through Buddhist practice whilst clinging to a notion of me will have the same outcome as non-Buddhist...
Otherwise we are just clinging to -isms.
Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 9 guests