Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?

[Simon E.]

There are very very few people in the world who can ride two horses at once.
And practising the Vajrayana properly calls for a lot more focus and inner strength than riding a horse.
This is the case whether both horses are sound of wind or whether one of them is lame.

Attempting to ride two horses, or even riding one horse while gazing with nostalgia at another horse one used to ride is a waste of everyone's precious human life...at best.

Life is short. Dharma is a lot of hard work.

We need to shit or get off the pot. (as a certain Lama well known to me used to say )

[fuki]

Perhaps the Right View isn't getting "all the facts straight" because we can't anyway - they will be filtered and distorted by our defilements, no matter how hard we try.

Perhaps the Right View is just what we need right here and now to practice?

Yes indeed.

Q: What is the right view?
A: To perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever is the right view.

Q: What does "to perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever" mean?
A: Perceiving all sorts of things without grasping -- that is, not being clouded by the arising of any thought of love or hate, etc. -- is perceiving without any objects. If one can see without seeing any object whatsoever, that is using the Buddha-Eye, which is like no other eye. On the other hand, if one sees all sorts of things that cause thoughts of love and hate, etc., to arise, that is known as "perceiving objects" with ordinary eyes, and sentient beings have no other kind of eyes. This is true, likewise, with all of the other sense organs.

-----------------------

Q: What is wrong thinking, and what is right thinking?
A: Thoughts of existence and non-existence are wrong thinking, while no thoughts of existence and non-existence are right thinking. Thoughts of good and evil are wrong thinking, while no thoughts of good and evil are right thinking. Also, thoughts of suffering and happiness, birth and death, acceptance and rejection, like and dislike, love and hate, etc., are all wrong thinking, while no thoughts of suffering and happiness, etc., are right thinking.

Q: So what, in a nutshell, is right thought?
A: In a nutshell, right thought means thinking only of Bodhi.

Q: Can Bodhi be acquired?
A: No! You cannot acquire Bodhi.

Q: Since it cannot be acquired, how can one, reasonably. think only of Bodhi?
A: To name Bodhi is false, because it cannot be described or possessed. It is neither in front nor in back of one who tries to acquire it, because it cannot be acquired or thought about. Only not thinking about it is true and right thought. Bodhi, then, is not a thought-object and, thus, there is no mind whatsoever anywhere. However, all the various kinds of non-thinking which have been touched upon accord with the needs of particular circumstances, being merely expedient terms; and even though different names are used expediently, there is no difference whatsoever in the substance. There is only no mind whatsoever dwelling nowhere at all. When this stage is reached, one is, quite naturally, liberated.

https://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao ... ightenment

[Simon E.]

It is in accord with forum etiquette to name the source of quotes.

[fuki]

It is in accord with forum etiquette to name the source of quotes.

My apologies, I know this it's etiquette on any forum I have an account, I just sometimes forget.

the quote is from Hui Hai
https://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao ... ightenment

[Simon E.]

Thank you..

[Simon E.]

This highlights the underlying differences in what constitutes View between Chinese/Japanese traditions and Indo-Tibetan traditions.

[Malcolm]

How far a leap is it from mind stream to universal soul?

It's an uncrossable abyss.

[Malcolm]

Wayfarer has an aversion to Nāgārjuna, he understands it to be a form of nihilism.

The way Nāgārjuna is presented often is nihilistic. To say that nothing is real, or nothing exists, is nihilist, and it's also not what Nāgārjuna says.

He does say nothing is real. He does not say nothing exists.

Which is that things are empty of own-being, not merely or simply non-existent. Empty =/= non-existent. There are degrees of reality, that is why there can be 'two truths'.

No, the two truths are measure of how veridical a cognition is, it does not say anything at all about entities per se.

I recognise and salute the superiority of the Buddha, otherwise I wouldn't consider myself Buddhist. But I can't agree with the statement that Buddhism is the only source of truth.

So you think that other traditions permit people to a degree of realization which is absolutely commensurate, say, with the path of seeing in Mahāyāna?

What I see in the world's' wisdom traditions, are accounts of the encounter with the Infinite, which is clearly embodied in Mahayana Buddhism.

Always knew you were a perennialist at heart.

Buddhists have the best way of dealing with it - most consistent, most logical, and most profound. That's why I consider myself Buddhist. But it doesn't make everyone else's understanding wrong - that is just the kind of attitude that caused me to leave Christianity.

With respect to the nature of reality, all other religious understanding of it is wrong. If you believe otherwise, this means that you also believe that awakening has nothing to do with view. That is knowledge obscuration I hope you someday overcome. There is no common basis between Buddhadharma and tirthīka religions. HH Dalai Lama happily admits this, and with a grin, for example, is happy to state "When my Christian brothers want to talk to me about emptiness, I tell them emptiness is not their business."

This does not mean that all world religions are not based in some sense of moral responsibility and compassion for others, but compassion cannot eradicate afflictions which cause rebirth.

[Malcolm]

Q: What is the right view?
A: To perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever is the right view.

This is absolutely correct, but there is a right way to arrive at this view of no view, and a wrong way.

The right way is to analyze phenomena and find that there are no phenomena which stand up to analysis. The wrong way is to take this "no view" as a statement of dogma and start barking it at everything you see.

Now, in the West we have many people training in Zen who do not even know the rudiments of Buddhadharma. This was not the case in China and Japan, where Zen/Chan training was engaged in by people who were well trained in Sūtra, Abhidharma, and so on.

So, it is not surprising in the least that in Zen circles there are people who are unable to distinguish at all what is Buddhadharma and why it is truly unique in the world. The same thing is true of Vipassana.

[fuki]

Q: What is the right view?
A: To perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever is the right view.

This is absolutely correct, but there is a right way to arrive at this view of no view, and a wrong way.

The right way is to analyze phenomena and find that there are no phenomena which stand up to analysis. The wrong way is to take this "no view" as a statement of dogma and start barking it at everything you see.

Now, in the West we have many people training in Zen who do not even know the rudiments of Buddhadharma. This was not the case in China and Japan, where Zen/Chan training was engaged in by people who were well trained in Sūtra, Abhidharma, and so on.

So, it is not surprising in the least that in Zen circles there are people who are unable to distinguish at all what is Buddhadharma and why it is truly unique in the world. The same thing is true of Vipassana.

Well ofcourse I see this zen sickness all of the time, but usually only with "online Buddhists" who just read something about Zen and think they got it and have no need to study DO, the 8th fold path etcetera, or get a teacher or guidance from a friend in the dharma.
But I wouldn't even quote this to them.

[fuki]

Wayfarer has an aversion to Nāgārjuna, he understands it to be a form of nihilism.

The way Nāgārjuna is presented often is nihilistic. To say that nothing is real, or nothing exists, is nihilist, and it's also not what Nāgārjuna says.

He does say nothing is real. He does not say nothing exists.

"The task of philosophy is to show that reality conceived within the relativity-field is conceptual, and hence it has no essence of its own, i.e., it is not what it would be in itself"
- Nagarjuna

Understanding Nagar. is actually the true middle way, which is neither the extremes nor the middle, since the middle only designates the extremes.

[Malcolm]

The way Nāgārjuna is presented often is nihilistic. To say that nothing is real, or nothing exists, is nihilist, and it's also not what Nāgārjuna says.

He does say nothing is real. He does not say nothing exists.

"The task of philosophy is to show that reality conceived within the relativity-field is conceptual, and hence it has no essence of its own, i.e., it is not what it would be in itself"
- Nagarjuna

Understanding Nagar. is actually the true middle way, which is neither the extremes nor the middle, since the middle only designates the extremes.

Where is this from? The translation is a little strange.

[Simon E.]

This is absolutely correct, but there is a right way to arrive at this view of no view, and a wrong way.

The right way is to analyze phenomena and find that there are no phenomena which stand up to analysis. The wrong way is to take this "no view" as a statement of dogma and start barking it at everything you see.

Now, in the West we have many people training in Zen who do not even know the rudiments of Buddhadharma. This was not the case in China and Japan, where Zen/Chan training was engaged in by people who were well trained in Sūtra, Abhidharma, and so on.

So, it is not surprising in the least that in Zen circles there are people who are unable to distinguish at all what is Buddhadharma and why it is truly unique in the world. The same thing is true of Vipassana.

Well ofcourse I see this zen sickness all of the time, but usually only with "online Buddhists" who just read something about Zen and think they got it and have no need to study DO, the 8th fold path etcetera, or get a teacher or guidance from a friend in the dharma.
But I wouldn't even quote this to them.

So in your view are Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings the same as Buddhadharma? Do they include Dependant Origination for example?

[Sherab]

I think you could be conflating between criticism of ideas and criticism of the people holding those ideas. Any set of ideas and beliefs must allow itself to be criticised, whether that set is Christianity or Buddhism, etc.

Sure - nothing should be beyond criticism. But what I meant was, join most Christian forums, and what would you expect to read there? ‘Hey, Buddhists might be really good people, they might have sound ethical teachings, but they’re not on the one and only way, which is ours alone’. Not all Christians are like that, however - there are Christians who listen deeply to Buddhists and practice meditation according to Buddhist principles, and so on It was the former attitude I was talking about.

What are the Buddhist principles upon which the Christians were basing their meditation practices on?

[fuki]

Where is this from? The translation is a little strange.

that so-called basic concepts are in no way better than other concepts. Candrakiirti makes a distinction between general relativity (ana^ngii-k.rta-arthavi`se.sa) and specific relativity (a^ngii-k.rta-artha-vi'se.sa).[19] Relativity as a basic tendency of mind may be compared to a field which is given to the mind to play in. Within this relativity-field our mind encounters other things, but, conditioned as it is by the relativity-field, it takes those specific objects in the light of relativity. To say that this relativity is associated with mind without any beginning is to assert indirectly that it cannot go beyond its field. Mind is confined to the field of relativity; only concepts and not things can be legitimately relative; hence, mind cannot know the thing-in-itself. The Sautraantikas think that, although the realities cannot be directly known, they are many, momentary, and efficacious. This view is rejected since to say that reality is many involves the concept that relation, momentariness, and efficacy are not possible without the concept of causation. The very logic which rejects oneness of reality (viz., in knowledge only the manifold is given, and thus monism is fictitious) compels us to disown plurality also, since not the manifold real but only the concept of relation is given to play with. Thus reality-in-itself is neither one nor many.

Relativity-field is interpreted as the general law of causality, which is expressed in the formula "this being, that arises," which means that given a concept it will lead to another concept. The causal formula of the Master--pratiitya-samutpaada-therefore shows that reality is not born, nor does it die. It is neither momentary nor efficacious. Naagaarjuna discusses this relativity-field in the first chapter of his famous book and various particular concepts, such as motion, conjunction, time, space, emancipation, and soul that arise as a result of this relativity, in subsequent chapters.[20] He invariably comes to the conclusion that all these are mere concepts rooted in their mutual dependence, and hence they cannot describe the real-in-itself. The task of philosophy is to show that reality conceived within the relativity-field is conceptual, and hence it has no essence of its own, i.e., it is not what it would be in itself (svabhaava-`suunya).
~The Madhyamika Philosophy: A New Approach*
By R. C. Pandeya
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... w23056.htm

[Soma999]

Dependent-origination is not a belief, it's just how things works.

I have personaly seen indian (from america) who spoke of dependent origination in their own way.

But i have found people from every tradition who think they are right and all the others are wrong. It must be something universal.

[fuki]

So in your view are Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings the same as Buddhadharma?

No not the same.

Do they include Dependant Origination for example?

Yes, non-duality and the void of own-being of that which arise, is at the heart of his teachings.

Actually all his books are transcriptions Q&A from taped recordings of his visitors, he never wrote a word down or has a philosophy, so what you read and the answers he gives are dependend on the questionair and what he is able to hear ofcourse.

[Malcolm]

hence they cannot describe the real-in-itself.

There is no "real-in-itself." This is just an importation of Kantian transcendental idealism into Nāgārjuna. But it is a wrong interpretation.

[fuki]

hence they cannot describe the real-in-itself.

There is no "real-in-itself." This is just an importation of Kantian transcendental idealism into Nāgārjuna. But it is a wrong interpretation.

Ofcourse there is not that's the clue, since you cannot describe the real in itself there is no real in it self.
That was my immediate understanding and interpretation.

[Soma999]

All those discussions may be interesting, but i think it will lead nowhere. Because it's a "play with words". Sacred text are quoted, but with the intention to prove something we already believe. Someone would believe something else, he would quote the texts in another way. That's also why it's said without a Guru, texts can be misleadings. because we use them to justify what we already think is true instead of letting the true spirit of the text awaken our own deep inner truth - devoid of all concepts - inside.

The heart is a point, and mental activity is the periphery. The more one in on the periphery, the more differences he will find. The more centered he is in the heart, the more rigidity will be dissolved, and seemingly different views can be embraced together.

It's a matter of heart and energy. It uses more energy to think and departs from "the conventional truth adopted by a tradition" then to passivly accept what "is to be believed". That is someone who lack energy can't find freedom because the "gravity" of what is appropriate to think will be overwhelming, leaving no place to really give a place to differences in thinking based on personal experiences. That is, there will be dogma.

And also, the more one is centered on mental discussion, argumentation and "clinging to the texts", the more differences and duality will emerged. In India, it is well know, and pandits are often criticised because the are blinded by what they think they know, while basic and simple practitionner who put all there heart into practice directly perceive the light that is hidden into the texts. But one can be a scholar and also a devoted practitionner.

That's why those discution serve nothing. Everyone - me also - is already convinced. Changing one's perspective can be truly threatening to some. That's ok. There is places for everyone.

Everyone is right from his own point of view. We can still, maybe, create something positive by focusing on the heart instead on our "mental" differences.