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.
My intention was not to insult. My point is that if someone accepts impermanence is a fact, then advocating someone take up a false doctrine of permanence would be stupid.
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.
We have masters who have achieved complete buddhahood in their human body, masters alive or dying right now. So, therefore, I must contend that the Pure Land sutras are garbage.
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.
Vajrayana is very clear. Buddhahood in this body, in this life. Perhaps it is a difficult task, but it can be done.
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.
What happens is one's negative karma is purified, and the physical body will manifest severe sickness, i.e., Lord Jigten Sumgon contracted leprosy. Once that is purified, the nirmanakaya can and will manifest.
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.
A buddha's physical body is produced by incalculable merit. So it to is produced by karma. This is in all the standard sutras. Karma is fundamental law.
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.
This is just like the Hindu avatar. These are samsaric. How a samsaric existence is somehow favorable is just in your mind.
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.
Samsaric views also have compassion. But they don't recognize bodhicitta.
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.
They don't know about all the levels of samsara that the buddha knows about, because they are in samsara, and the Buddha is beyond it.
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.
Jains think karma is a sticky substance that glues you to the world. Jains are materialists.
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.
It's an admirable view, one that can produce merit. But not enough to go beyond samsara. An arhat's path is probably less taxing then the Mahayana path. People like Daniel Ingram claim to have achieved this level by doing several one month retreats and working on it at home in his spare time. The method is anapanasati and basic vipashyana.
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?
You are really fixating on categories. I don't see the world like that. There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism. But there is nothing wrong with eating meat either. There's a story when Milarepa was eating meat, and some yogi was chastising him for eating it. Milarepa use his power to make the guy's bowl of rice look like worms. The point was that farming kills countless sentient beings, and his meat was just one. Compassion alone is not sufficient for realization. Compassion must be joined to wisdom.
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.
I'm giving you my opinion. If one accepts impermanence is fact, then advocating an extremist view would be stupid.
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.
I know there are lamas who emphasize relative behaviors rather than ultimate wisdom. My experience with these folks is that they are not realized lamas and probably shouldn't be teaching. But that won't stop them from wanting to and doing it anyway. There are instructions students can use on how to assess a lama.
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.
I don't understand this statement. Realizing emptiness doesn't mean you are gone. It means conceptualization is gone. The realization is very clear.
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.
Well look at this Akhyung Lama. He has 7000 practitioners at his gar. He taught everything and still managed to attain rainbow body. Now that's a lama.