Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Bodhicaryavatara.

Postby ground » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:08 pm

muni wrote:While we should not mix Conventionally and Absolute (Bodhichitta), are they one when understood. Dalai Lama.

The pointed finger to what just is, without all our concepts.

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

Re: Bodhicaryavatara.

Postby muni » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:19 pm

Hehe! Own mind stream concepts. (Padmasambhava)
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Bodhicaryavatara.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:02 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:The point here is simply that if the statement was made as indirectly quoted by Catmoon ("The post is not there") it is a very unskillful and absurd statement made by this person called "teacher" here. I would question the qualification as "teacher" of a person speaking in such irrational terms.
But as Catmoon mentioned there seems to have been an explanation afterwards. So it seems to be okay but there arises the suspicion that the instance may have been a case of sophistry.

There is nothing absurd about this the teacher's statement. The literature that is the source of Mahayana doctrine frequently refers to conventional reality as like a dream. Why? Because no single, solid, indivisible, truly existing part can be found to any of what we consider conventional reality. That's why it is "conventional" and not absolute. Everywhere you look, there are objects that are merely appearing, which is because they are comprised of parts and possess no self-nature as the thing that appears, i.e. "table-ness" or pillar-ness"; then, analyzing these merely appearing objects' parts, we can determine that those parts are themselves comprised of other parts also cannot be established beyond their mere appearance. Nothing unified and static can be found no matter where one looks. This is as much true of the people as it is the pillar, with the exception that the people possess consciousness. Of course, each individual's "consciousness" is only a continuum of instants of consciousness which arise within emptiness and dissolve back into it.

TMingyur wrote:Kind regards

Does it not feel odd to say very unkind things, such as accusing someone's teacher of being unskilled, unqualified, and making absurd statements, then to follow that with "kind regards?"
Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Bodhicaryavatara.

Postby Ngawang Drolma » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:37 pm

Regarding the discussion or frivolous criticism of other peoples' teachers, please review this piece of the ToS. Member are also requested to not be disruptive here.

1. All members are responsible for their own Right Speech

Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions. The views presented by Dharma Wheel members are not necessarily the views of the administrators or moderators. If you find anything objectionable, let the admin or mods know using the Report Post function and we'll look into it.
Ngawang Drolma
Founding Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: Bodhicaryavatara.

Postby catmoon » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:45 pm

About the post not being there: this was an all day teaching on emptiness and I think what happened was that the teacher dropped the wordy phrasing "the concept of the post, or mental model of the post" and started simply saying "the post".

Anyhow, I think it is clear that if one negates the post in its entirety one has taken up nihilism. Therefore, if we cannot negate the post entirely, something exists.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
Former staff member
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia


Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gwenn Dana, heart, pensum, Sherab Dorje, xabir and 31 guests