Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:25 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Aura wrote:
It was all too easy to attempt to discredit valid observations sincerely made by individuals
by simply accusing those individuals of being "communists" in the 1950's...
just as it is all too easy to attempt to discredit valid observations sincerely made by individuals
by simply accusing them of being "new agers" in the present day.
It was the American state that accused people of Communism during the 1950's and you know what? ome of them were Communists. I'm just a dumb schmuck on an internet forum, I hardly think the comparison is valid. I didn't say his observations are not valid, I said that he is not a Buddhist. Some of Einsteins theories were quite valid too, he was also not a Buddhist.
Quote:
Likewise, in a world where Bodhisattvas are spread about the earth and go unrecognized in all cultures and religions
and where many "non-practitioners" have amazingly been observed to adhere to both precepts and path
more closely than many avowed "practitioners"...
one might hesitate before attempting to discredit another as "not a Buddhist!"
Hello! Reality check! Is this a Buddhist forum? Are we posting in the Exploring Buddhism section? Granted that dharma is dharma (truth is truth), but not all dharma is Buddha Dharma.
Quote:
There was a wonderful bumper sticker on a passing car this morning.
It read:

REALITY. IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK.
It was obviously talking about what you think and not what I think! Image Image

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
gregkavarnos wrote:
Firstly, this is a Buddhist forum and the question was posted in the section "way of the bodhisattva" subsection "exploring BUDDHISM".  Buddhism has Abhidharma to explain the workings of mind (basic function of thought), it does not need Jungian psychoanalysis

Jungian psychology just happens to be based on projection, which is what this thread is about. If you'd feel better about my points being backed up with Buddhist sources I'll assemble some and post them. They will be of the same nature. The mind is what is being discussed, and the mind and it's attributes are universal. The mind of a buddhist and the mind of a non-Buddhist function the same way. I don't want you to adopt whatever points I'm attempting to make, if something I say doesn't vibe with you then discard it. I don't believe what anyone says, and certainly don't believe the "theories" of this dimiri fellow. I empirically investigated what he pointed to and found that i benefitted from it. All of my statements are free standing, I only posted those videos as a supplement to what I was saying. Look at your mind, and how it accepts and rejects things based on points of reference. Rejecting something automatically because it doesn't scream Buddhism. We understand you don't care for the video... If you think you're going to establish or prove some objective truth about the videos beyond your own opinion then you're kidding yourself.
gregkavarnos wrote:
Rajneesh and a whole host of other new age guru types also spoke of the dharma with high regard and saw the monetary profit that could be made off it.  That does not make them Dharma teachers.  Anyway if he was a full blown Dharma practitioner I am sure it would have been pasted all over his facebok account and his blog profile and...

It's speculation either way. You've heard those stories of the head of the monastery posting the statement about the mind and it's mirror like qualities only to return the next morning to find his paper annotated and corrected. Causing an uproar until the janitor finally came forward who had become realized by secretly listening to the teachings and practicing without anyone knowing. And he was named the new patriarch. Or the stories of the village madman who is a beggar and considered an insane nuisance by all the local practitioners disappearing one day... And then everyone finding only his hair nails in his house... Having attained rainbow body and being wise and realized worlds beyond any of the practitioners who ignorantly labeled him a nobody. You never ever know.
gregkavarnos wrote:
I am not interested (and this thread is not the place) in discussing how anybody's theories contrast/deviate from Dharma.  I am interested in Dharma.  There's more than enough of it to learn without having to contrast it to the half baked theories of the unenlightened (including myself).  I tend to take my Dharma as original as possible, once I fully understand and realise it then maybe I can start to produce my personal take of it.  Until then, just call me a fanatic!
Attachment:
Buddha mini gun.jpg

Fanatic. 


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:00 am
Posts: 26
gregkavarnos wrote:
I'm just a dumb schmuck on an internet forum, I hardly think the comparison is valid.

Using an ad hominem description of yourself does not make your previous ad hominem argument any less invalid.
Your posting of "Buddha mini gun" evidences a lack of familiarity with Buddha dharma altogether.
It is indeed an interesting case that you present on the nature and subject of defilements and projections.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:13 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
asunthatneversets wrote:
...The mind is what is being discussed, and the mind and it's attributes are universal. The mind of a buddhist and the mind of a non-Buddhist function the same way.
Yup and the mind of a Christian is the same as the mind of a Buddhist, but a Christian will (use their mind to) attribute existence to God, will claim an eternal soul and will posit that religious fulfilment consists of going to heaven and playing a harp all day. Should we also accept that analysis because it comes from a mind?
Quote:
If you think you're going to establish or prove some objective truth about the videos beyond your own opinion then you're kidding yourself.
Well, we are taking this personally aren't we? I'm not trying to prove any objective truth about the videos past the fact that they are not Buddha Dharma. You want to see it otherwise? It's your boat, whatever (Hacking the Unconscious: Beliefs, The Secret & Mind Control???) floats it. I merely pointed out that the videos are new age and that this is a Buddhist forum. Everything else is your projection (well, almost everything else)
Quote:
It's speculation either way. You've heard those stories of the head of the monastery posting the statement about the mind and it's mirror like qualities only to return the next morning to find his paper annotated and corrected. Causing an uproar until the janitor finally came forward who had become realized by secretly listening to the teachings and practicing without anyone knowing. And he was named the new patriarch. Or the stories of the village madman who is a beggar and considered an insane nuisance by all the local practitioners disappearing one day... And then everyone finding only his hair nails in his house... Having attained rainbow body and being wise and realized worlds beyond any of the practitioners who ignorantly labeled him a nobody. You never ever know.
So now this Dimitri Halley dude is the 6th Patriarch Huineng and Drukpa Kunley simultaneously? Whoa!!!
Quote:
Fanatic. 
I'll take that as a compliment! Image
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:23 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Aura wrote:
Using an ad hominem description of yourself does not make your previous ad hominem argument any less invalid.
Ummm... where did I use an ad hom exactly?
Quote:
Your posting of "Buddha mini gun" evidences a lack of familiarity with Buddha dharma altogether.
This on the other hand is an ad hom and betrays a complete lack of humor.
Attachment:
chill pill.jpg
chill pill.jpg [ 5.95 KiB | Viewed 720 times ]

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
gregkavarnos wrote:
Yup and the mind of a Christian is the same as the mind of a  Buddhist, but a Christian will (use their mind) to attribute existence to God, will claim an eternal soul and will posit that religious fulfilment consists of going to heaven and playing a harp all day.  Should we also accept that analysis because it comes from a mind?

If it's in ones nature to do so, sure.  But your example is spot on with what were discussing, that the thought projected onto experience creates the nature of said experience. That is projection.

gregkavarnos wrote:
Well, we are taking this personally aren't we?

Are we? I didn't know.. Sounds like a great time though should we fight about it in the streets? How about meet me in downtown San Francisco tomorrow morning and we'll use kitchen utensils for weaponry... We'll go with spoons.. You can bring a ladle if you really want, you'll have more reach. Bring a pot to wear on your head.. Preferably one with the two handles on the side because if it only has the one long handle that sticks out and it's facing forward you're automatically disqualified. Loser gets a sky burial on alcatraz. 

gregkavarnos wrote:
   I'm not trying to prove any objective truth about the videos past the fact that they are not Buddha Dharma.  You want to see it otherwise?  It's your boat, whatever (Hacking the Unconscious: Beliefs, The Secret & Mind Control???) floats it.  I merely pointed out that the videos are new age and that this is a Buddhist forum.  Everything else is your projection (well, almost everything else).

First off I just want to make it clear that I in no way follow, endorse etc.. This dimitri guy. He has good insight on thought patterns and their relation to experience in regards to their projective nature, but other than that I'm only defending my use of his videos to avoid total discrediting at the hands of Sir Greg "I like to stir the pot" Kavarnos (which I'm glad he does!)

My argument is that the buddhadharma approaches the subject of thought patterns and how they effect ones experience in the same way this dimitri fellow does. Not the rest of it. 'Hacking the unconscious' is clearly referencing dispelling the habitual patterns of thought that reify separation and suffering, which go unnoticed and/or are usually taken to be commonplace amongst most people. 'Mind control' is referencing how many of these habituated patterns are instilled in us as children, especially in the west where spiritual traditions really only tend to reify dualistic view rather than cutting through it.  Those terms taken out of context certainly sound radical and almost conspiracy theorist in and of themselves. And no doubt this guy posits some unique theories other than his teachings on projection, but I only referenced his stuff for the insight on thought, not anything else. 

So what he says about the nature of  thought projection, and what the dharma says are the same.
As I said when I can get to some books later today I will post some dharma quotes which match my sentiments.

gregkavarnos wrote:
So  now this Dimitri Halley dude is the 6th Patriarch Huineng and Drukpa Kunley simultaneously?  Whoa!!! 

Zing! I like your sarcasm, and you seem like a happy guy smiling in your photo i'm glad to see that. My only correction would be that I prefer "Drukpa Kunley the Enlightened Pervert" but other than that you're golden!

gregkavarnos wrote:
I'll take that as a compliment! Image
 :namaste:

Anything less would be uncivilized!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
I actually didn't realize that story was about Drukpa Kunley, he went rainbow?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
duckfiasco wrote:
It seems this ignorance you mention works on several levels. When we go, "there is a perception" in the first place, is that even accurate? It seems like perceptions themselves only exist in relation to other perceptions that constantly occur as a backdrop, so they too are subject to anatta. Kind of like seeing a mushroom pop up and being unaware of the whole network of fungus underground.


I'm using perception as meaning a notion or an idea about experience(experience otherwise communicates nothing about itself, it just IS), so imputed conceptual overlay creates a false sense of separation between what seems to be an inner subjective self and an outer objective world.

duckfiasco wrote:
So I have ignorance of a perception arising separately, then I liberally misunderstand just what that perception says about the world, then react in accordance with habits and ideas without realizing that part, either. Sounds a bit discouraging! I suppose you can't work through ignorance without realizing how much you have to begin with.


Somewhat, the notion that objects and things exist separately(exist at all) is due to imputed perceptions(ideas about experience). And then yes everything spins out of control from there and becomes habitual to the point that this skewed view becomes the way things are, and to posit that experience could exist any other way seems completely counterintuitive.

duckfiasco wrote:
So in essence, we are a part of everything else. It seems obvious at first blush, but then it's kind of shocking how hard it is to live like this is true. It's very easy for me to accept ideas like my perception of a person is more shaped by my own mind than anything about them. But then you get into things like the double slit experiment, and it's like people (myself included) expect the "real world" to exist as wholly discrete from the subjective human reality. Seeing something as basic as an electron being affected by observation seems shocking. Self-grasping in another form, no?


It's not so much a thing you "live like", as if it's adopted as an idea and then you're set. It has to be actualized in your experience, beyond belief.

duckfiasco wrote:
I guess the challenge is not just reinterpreting this into more subtle terms of ego. It's not that I decide to perceive something a certain way, then it magically changes in substance to match my perception. That seems like the ultimate ego trip.


Ha well actually, it is something like that in essence. This usually would depend on what school of buddhist thought you're engaged with though. In some it is that way, substance does change. But there are safeguards to make sure the ego is either completely dismantled or held at bay until it is destroyed.

duckfiasco wrote:
The barrier for me feels like a tidy little package of habits. Me vs. you, mind vs. everything out there. I feel very drawn to the ideas you've brought up, even though I can't understand them beyond a theoretical vagueness. I have a lot more groundwork to build :)


The barrier certainly is a package of habits! Although if it's tidy or little I don't know, is can certainly seem large and daunting to some.

duckfiasco wrote:
What does discarding projections mean? Is it similar to the bare awareness that is the goal of some meditations? It seems like it would be very, very easy to attempt to drop projections then in fact throw some others up without realizing it. "Look at me, I'm perceiving reality with no projections, woohoo!"


Discarding projections essentially means getting to the point where you're no longer under the sway of your own projections. Notions of separation and feeling that you're a subjective entity living in an objective world (which is separate from you) is actually created by continual and habitual reification of projections over time. I'm not sure what you mean by bare awareness. Yeah that is usually the case, the process of coming to the state of wholeness is based on accounting for habits that create fragmentation, and yes some are very subconscious and will pop up without one realizing it if they aren't mindful and earnest.

duckfiasco wrote:
Like you tell me later in your post, I'm my own worst enemy here. I'm having a hard time getting out of the way I've thought for most of my life.

For that reason, it seems like what you're saying IS dualistic. Things somehow only exist if I perceive them. More projection at work, I bet. How convenient that someone very learned shares the views I already have! :lol: :lol:


Yeah mostly anything you describe using language and concepts is going to appear dualistic(in the description), it's unavoidable. A vague attempt at capturing it would be; [the observer]-[the process of observing]-[the observation] are all one thing.

duckfiasco wrote:
Would meditating specifically on emptiness help here? I know you're not preaching some capitalized Truth, more like giving road directions, but I can't even understand the directions yet.


Meditating on emptiness is a cornerstone of the dharma and yes it would be helpful. So this would mean investigating into the fact that everything in experience is dependently originated... and that nothing has an inherent existence by itself.

duckfiasco wrote:
Is this your way of exhorting me to "come and see"? :) This is all so tricky. I can see what you mean, I think. If we fight the "I" then we just make another "I" that has to somehow be better than the "I" we're fighting. And it can be even more dangerous if this new "I" is clothed in emptiness, non-self, and other Buddhist concepts. How wise the "I" now seems!


I suppose it is somewhat tricky that's why it's a difficult process and requires skillful means to actualize. It's just saying that realization(on one level) is the loss of this "I"... so how can "I" lose the "I"? Any attempt to remove the self is done by the self. So it's a process of chasing ones own tail in a sense. Likewise if one does nothing to attain it, one remains stuck in delusion. So it requires effort, but effort skillfully, and the dharma provides the skillful means to actualize realization.

duckfiasco wrote:
I take it the way to cut through all this is investigation, pure and simple?


Yes but investigate keenly and the right way... the buddha left thousands of ways to do this.

duckfiasco wrote:
I've found your posts so instructive and helpful, start to finish. Thank you for taking the time to write them and help me along. I'm very grateful :)


Glad to help! Some of the stuff I've said may seem counterintuitive and/or unclear or weird at this point. My word of advice would be to keep at it and remain earnest and hungry for it. In my own experience, i found that whatever I didn't understand I would try my best to, and then I would leave it alone and return to it some time later, even months, or a year later, and it would make more sense then after I had assimilated other information and had other realizations in my experience. So if things don't make sense don't get frustrated and don't give up... the fact that this is possible, that these realizations spoken of can be actualized, is unparalleled in importance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:00 am
Posts: 26
gregkavarnos wrote:
Ummm... where did I use an ad hom exactly?

Interactions of human beings involving difficulties termed “projection” are natural phenomena.
Buddhism teaches its practitioners the importance of mindful observation of natural phenomena. Buddhism does not teach that mindful observations of natural phenomena made by non-Buddhists must be disregarded by Buddhists as contrary to Buddhism by virtue of those observations having been made by non-Buddhists.

Dimitri Halley poses some interesting personal observations for consideration on the natural phenomenon termed “projection.”
You claim “I'm not trying to prove any objective truth about the videos past the fact that they are not Buddha Dharma” but in no way have you proven that Halley’s particular observations of the phenomenon of projection are contrary to Buddha Dharma.

Key points of your ad hominem argument consist of :
#1 Dimitri Halley is “New Age” (ill-defined namecalling)
#2 Dimitri Halley is “not a Buddhist” and that “if he was a full blown Dharma practitioner I am sure it would have been pasted all over his facebook account and his blog profile…” (Really? What personal authority do you possess to determine how closely anyone’s practices in life follow the teachings of the Buddha?)
#3 You apparently compare Dimitri Halley to “Rajneesh and whole host of other new age guru types,” while making no valid argument for that comparison.

It is an unimpressive argument to begin with, but offering “Buddha mini gun” as your personal gift to this community on behalf of Buddha Dharma further undermines it by evidencing sufficient ignorance of Buddha Dharma to undermine your own credibility as a Buddhist practitioner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Posts: 614
Location: Oregon
I don't see how this helps those trying to learn more about observation and the mind. Could we please turn our attention back to the matter at hand? Perception surely deserves a closer look :)

Thank you :twothumbsup:

_________________
Namu Amida Butsu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Whatever appears is your own mind.
Your mind from the start is free from fabricated extremes.
Understanding this, do not take to mind [inherent] signs of subject and object...

Even if someone broadcasts all kinds of unpleasant remarks
About you throughout the three thousand worlds,
In return, with a loving mind, speak of his good qualities...


http://tralvex.com/pub/spiritual/37prac.htm Some verses here. :namaste:

Harmful actions are arising out of suffering. Humble deep compassion, seeing their true nature and great kindness.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:59 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Aura wrote:
Buddhism does not teach that mindful observations of natural phenomena made by non-Buddhists must be disregarded by Buddhists as contrary to Buddhism by virtue of those observations having been made by non-Buddhists.
You obviously do not read what I write, but latch onto specific details that feed your current object of (negative) obsession. Feel free to let go of it whenever you are ready.
Quote:
Dimitri Halley poses some interesting personal observations for consideration on the natural phenomenon termed “projection.”
You claim “I'm not trying to prove any objective truth about the videos past the fact that they are not Buddha Dharma” but in no way have you proven that Halley’s particular observations of the phenomenon of projection are contrary to Buddha Dharma.
I didn't say they were contrary to Buddha Dharma.
Quote:
Key points of your ad hominem argument consist of :
#1 Dimitri Halley is “New Age” (ill-defined namecalling)
#2 Dimitri Halley is “not a Buddhist” and that “if he was a full blown Dharma practitioner I am sure it would have been pasted all over his facebook account and his blog profile…” (Really? What personal authority do you possess to determine how closely anyone’s practices in life follow the teachings of the Buddha?)
#3 You apparently compare Dimitri Halley to “Rajneesh and whole host of other new age guru types,” while making no valid argument for that comparison.
So if I went to a Christian forum and in their section on "Exploring Christianity" I posted a number of Buddhist teachings and somebody came along and labeled me a Buddhist, like other well known Buddhists, and not a practicing Christian (on the basis of my profile on various public sites) they would be engaging in ad hom?
Quote:
It is an unimpressive argument to begin with, but offering “Buddha mini gun” as your personal gift to this community on behalf of Buddha Dharma further undermines it by evidencing sufficient ignorance of Buddha Dharma to undermine your own credibility as a Buddhist practitioner.
Is this better?
Attachment:
yamantaka_t.jpg
yamantaka_t.jpg [ 8.97 KiB | Viewed 651 times ]

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:16 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Quote:
Enjoying things,
unstained by things;

Plucking a lotus,
untouched by water.

So is the yogin
who flows to the root:

untroubled by things,
enjoying things.


Quote:
From the start
the sky is pure;

looking and looking,
you only block the view.

Stopping up the sky
like that

Flawed in his inmost thought,
the fool is uncomprehending.

Saraha in "Tantric Treasures: Three Collections of Mystical Verse from Buddhist India".

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Posts: 614
Location: Oregon
Some questions before I forget. I feel like I'm going in circles, but I hope it's actually a spiral... albeit a very, very gradual one :D

From a relative point of view, we see objective outside being observed by subjective inside, so we can go, "He's rude" and feel like quality X out there is observed empirically by person Y in here. The substance of our being is this experience which we create with our aggregates. It still seems obvious to me though that there is something aside from those aggregates that influences them. Is it still inaccurate to say they're part of the continuum of existence, like cells in a body, even if the aggregates are not a discrete, enduring self? I can see how changing the process of observation can change what is observed in the sense that the observer has no other referents, but why would that have any substantial bearing on the thing itself, and therefore how others might perceive it? I feel like I'm getting two messages... that our experience of a thing isn't the thing itself, but then there is no thing, just our experience of it. It feels like it all boils down to subject-object again. I remember reading in one of my books that thinking, "I don't exist" and "Only I exist" are nearly the same wrong view. It's frustrating that those options keep popping up in my head.

When I meditate on emptiness of self, I dissect all the parts of myself and try to locate where this sense of solid "self" comes from. It's not in my fingers, bowels, eyeballs, brain... it's not in a memory, thought, opinion, or even consciousness which can be knocked out. And not a single one of these exists in its own right, but has a gazillion causes and matter helping them be what they are, while they in turn influence everything else. There's not even really control by something over something. It's just stuff being caused and creating other causes. So then things start to get very weird. If this is so, what in the heck is observation really, just change by a different name? How is it so clear that there is no observer when I search for one with a fine-toothed comb, then one magically appears as soon as I get off my meditation cushion? And if there is no solid, controlling observer in the ultimate sense, how could there be influence over the process of observation? It feels like it's all smoke and mirrors.

And in the big picture, if there is no witness/observer to the aggregates of self and their observations, what is it that causes change from delusion to right view then experiences it?

I suppose in all honesty, I have no clue how to approach this problem. I can do all the thinking and intellectualizing I like (and believe me I have!) but it doesn't feel like I really know how to apply it. It's like I've studied music theory inside and out, but have yet to play a piano and for that matter, where do you even get one?

Thank you all very much for this very, very stimulating conversation. I feel like I'm learning a lot and getting prodded to think in ways I hadn't before. I know I ask a lot of questions :lol:

asunthatneversets wrote:
It's not so much a thing you "live like", as if it's adopted as an idea and then you're set. It has to be actualized in your experience, beyond belief.

That's the main trouble I have. I love to collect ideas and think about them, like a mental junk shop as I think Chogyam Trungpa said. It's difficult to experience ideas opposed to how you've viewed the world your whole life.
asunthatneversets wrote:
The barrier certainly is a package of habits! Although if it's tidy or little I don't know, is can certainly seem large and daunting to some.

Oh, I didn't mean literally small and tidy. I meant it in the sense that it seems completely self-contained, like one of those puzzle boxes where you can't even figure out how to open the damn thing :lol:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Yes but investigate keenly and the right way... the buddha left thousands of ways to do this.
Glad to help! Some of the stuff I've said may seem counterintuitive and/or unclear or weird at this point. My word of advice would be to keep at it and remain earnest and hungry for it. In my own experience, i found that whatever I didn't understand I would try my best to, and then I would leave it alone and return to it some time later, even months, or a year later, and it would make more sense then after I had assimilated other information and had other realizations in my experience. So if things don't make sense don't get frustrated and don't give up... the fact that this is possible, that these realizations spoken of can be actualized, is unparalleled in importance.

Thank you again, and thank goodness that the Buddha not only figured all this weird crap out, but decided to share it with everyone. If it weren't for the three jewels, I would've given up this whole line of thinking ages ago as too weird and confusing.

_________________
Namu Amida Butsu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:52 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Quote:
The intellect cannot see that which is beyond conceptual mind,and you will never realize that which is uncreated throughcreated dharmas. If you wish to attain or realize that which isbeyond the intellect and is uncreated, then scrutinize your mind and strip awareness naked.
Tilopa

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am
Posts: 3996
Topic moved from Exploring Buddhism to the Lounge.

Temporarily locked for review.

Regards,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Thread re-opened. Members, please remain focused on the topic.

Thank you.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:35 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
duckfiasco wrote:
The substance of our being is this experience which we create with our aggregates. It still seems obvious to me though that there is something aside from those aggregates that influences them.
This is about as close as you can get to reality via conceptualisation. The next part is to see that the creator, creation and the created are all ultimately empty of existence. This is where the teachings in the videos stumble and fall: they posit the emptiness of phenomena (ie reality is projected) yet do not see the emptiness of self (ie projected by who/what?). Refer to abovementioned quotes by Saraha and Tilopa.
Quote:
Is it still inaccurate to say they're part of the continuum of existence, like cells in a body, even if the aggregates are not a discrete, enduring self? I can see how changing the process of observation can change what is observed in the sense that the observer has no other referents, but why would that have any substantial bearing on the thing itself, and therefore how others might perceive it? I feel like I'm getting two messages... that our experience of a thing isn't the thing itself, but then there is no thing, just our experience of it. It feels like it all boils down to subject-object again.
Let's say that you have a car and one day you decide to pull the car apart into its constituent components. Is that pile of parts still a car? There are four wrong answers: yes it is, no it is not, it is and it isn't, it neither is nor isn't. The truth lies somewhere in between these four extremes.
Quote:
When I meditate on emptiness of self, I dissect all the parts of myself and try to locate where this sense of solid "self" comes from. It's not in my fingers, bowels, eyeballs, brain... it's not in a memory, thought, opinion, or even consciousness which can be knocked out. And not a single one of these exists in its own right, but has a gazillion causes and matter helping them be what they are, while they in turn influence everything else. There's not even really control by something over something. It's just stuff being caused and creating other causes. So then things start to get very weird. If this is so, what in the heck is observation really, just change by a different name? How is it so clear that there is no observer when I search for one with a fine-toothed comb, then one magically appears as soon as I get off my meditation cushion? And if there is no solid, controlling observer in the ultimate sense, how could there be influence over the process of observation? It feels like it's all smoke and mirrors.
Refer to previous answer.
Quote:
And in the big picture, if there is no witness/observer to the aggregates of self and their observations, what is it that causes change from delusion to right view then experiences it?
Right view was always there, nothing changes, you've been experiencing it all along, you were just unaware of the experience. When the clouds part and you see the sun it's not like the sun was never there.
Quote:
I suppose in all honesty, I have no clue how to approach this problem...
Find your self a good teacher!
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:00 am
Posts: 26
I do not understand why this thread was moved such that it was difficult to find. I regard it as a good discussion on the phenomenon of projection and Buddhism.

The point was raised "I consider Halley's observations potentially useful"
The point was raised "Halley is not a Buddhist, his observations are not BuddhaDharma"
The point was raised that there was some evidence that the second statement might also apply to the individual who made it.
All of this poses excellent food for thought on the nature of the phenomenon of projection.

When it comes to awareness and observation v. projection and defilement, the story of Berkeley on the train is a classic:
Berkeley’s secretary looked out the train window and remarked that the sheep in the field had just been shorn…
Berkeley corrected his secretary:
We observe that this side of the sheep has been shorn, but we may make no conclusion about the other side of the sheep.


It is an extreme example, but it highlights the point:
When we start speculating about the other side of the sheep that we have not observed nor experienced directly (awareness and observation of phenomena)...
we can all too easily easily fall into the realms of projection and defilement, where we cease observing the sheep (we cease working on our awareness and observation of phenomena) in favor of simply placing our own thoughts onto them and/or onto one another (projection and defilement).

Our experience is that we observe the sheep via our sensory faculties.
The viewpoint and extent of our observation, our awareness, is always limited.
We observe that this side of the sheep has been shorn
We may draw no conclusion about the other side of the sheep.

We observe and experience phenomena. We avoid drawing conclusions about that which we do not directly observe and experience.

As Buddhist practitioners, we strive to increase our awareness. Increasing our awareness necessitates that we focus on our direct experience and observations of phenomena, and that we remain mindfully aware of the limits of our experience and observations.

Increasing our awareness also necessitates that we strive to maintain mindfulness while sharing our own experiences and observations with other sentient beings, and respectfully consider the experiences and observations of other sentient beings as not somehow inherently less than our own. If one follows BuddhaDharma, all sentient beings have Buddha nature and are to be treated with respect, compassion, and skill.

When we fall into projection and defilement, it is because we fail to focus on our own direct experience and observations,
we fail to remain mindfully aware of the limits of our individual experience and observations,
and we fail to respect the direct experience and observations of others as no less valid than our own.

When we fall into projection and defilement, we project our own ideas onto the sheep (the phenomena).
We make vague cursory observations and sweeping judgments of them rather than mindful direct detailed observations of them: (Those must be short-haired conservative sheep not NewAge liberal longhaired sheep!).
We turn our attention away from the sheep (the phenomena) perhaps refusing to discuss the sheep (the phenomena) at all...
We distance ourselves from the phenomena and one another in preference of defining (defiling!) the phenomena and one another...
by projecting our own vague unsubstantiated thoughts and invalid arguments onto one another:
(You are not like me, you are a _____ ! (fill in the blank) You are just saying that because you are a _____!(fill in the blank).

It is all too easy to defile one another and ourselves by treating one another with much less than the respect, compassion, and skill that Buddhist practice demands
It is all too easy to demand that others be Naropa…. while conveniently forgetting that we ourselves are also not Naropa!
It is all too easy to attempt to excuse our unacceptable behavior by pointing out that nothing in this world has any inherent reality….and so others must accept our otherwise unacceptable behaviors or invalid arguments.

It does not matter that according to BuddhaDharma neither we nor the sheep have any inherently permanent self or reality in the cosmos...
BuddhaDharma demands that we endeavor to observe phenomena and endeavor to improve our powers of observation and awareness, that we be mindful of the limits of our individual observations and experience,
and that we dutifully endeavor to increase our awareness….
all the while dealing with the sheep (the phenomena) of this world, and dealing with one another with respect, compassion, and skill in accordance with the teachings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:27 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Halleys theory does not fulfil one of the four seals of Dharma: "ALL phenomena are empty" ,thus it is not Buddha Dharma.

This is Mr. Halleys facebook profile outlining his personal interests:
Quote:
The Psychology of Paranormal Phenomena, Jungian Psychology, Connection Depth Psychology & Quantum Physics, Clinical semiotics, Spirituality, Psychic side of Sports, movie making and movies for archetypes and as dreams, dream interpretation, Dream Healing Energy, simulation.


Notice how the Buddha Dharma is not mentioned anywhere?

Now please feel free to talk about half-shorn sheep, I can understand and even agree with a lot of what your are saying, but at some point in time you may wish to differentiate between a sheep and a goat. You see New Agers don't differentiate between sheep and goats, they figure if it's got hooves then it must be the same. Unfortunately though, horses have hooves, cows have hooves, donkeys, mules, giraffe, deer and pigs have hooves. Even camels have rudimentary hooves. But guess what?! They are not all the same. Well, except for the fact that they have hooves.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group