This is not essential, it is relative. Ask a pyromaniac, for example, then ask somebody that is cold.
If it "our relationship to them" then it is relative and thus not essential
This is not essential, it is relative. Ask a pyromaniac, for example, then ask somebody that is cold.
If it "our relationship to them" then it is relative and thus not essential
And if one accepts the revelations received by Madam Blavatsky or by Billy Meier, or by a person accepted in the Buddha at the Gas Pump, for example.Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:57 pmAnd if one accepts the Vidyādhara piṭaka???
In sum, to address your fear of contradictions, the Buddha's higher teachings regularly conflict with the Buddha's lower teachings, and this is determined by content alone, and not provenance.
Are you seriously accepting those people as authoritative in the same way that we would accept sutra and tantra? Just want to understand if that's what you're really saying
see viewtopic.php?f=66&t=14956&start=20#p231554
OK, I see your point. No need to flog this particular dead horse further.humble.student wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:41 amsee viewtopic.php?f=66&t=14956&start=20#p231554
They are objects of desire because one desires them, not because sights, sounds, etc. are desirable in and of themselves. This is understood even in the agamas/nikayas.
The same is taught under the topic of transformation of emotions in The Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones, for example regarding anger (p 126):The problem of liberation is not to be quickly resolved by renunciation of the five objects of desire, rather, it is to be quickly resolved by relinquishing the ordinary conceptuality about the five objects of desire that is the root of all attachment and aversion.
You asked about the "essential difference" between them. Difference is relative. But then, why not you tell it?
The question that must be posed then is: how does sutra transform ordinary conceptuality? Seeing appearances as insubstantial does not transform them into pure phenomena that maybe be readily enjoyed by the practitioner.Astus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:24 am
But then, I don't see the sutras teaching anything else. Seeing things as they are is to see that appearances are insubstantial, that they are actually ungraspable and inconceivable. When that is clear, there is no basis for clinging. How are then the sutras saying anything different?
Well, I thought you might know the answer already.
It’s using wisdom to discern views rather than using views to arise at wisdom. When those who take the direct introduction, these qualities wisdom and emptiness or Mahaprajna is already present. Sutras do not teach methods of transformation, but a truly realized teacher from Mahaprajnayana can teach it in that very qualities at the very moment karma arises. Karma is caused and conditioned so can be manipulated or changed.Astus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:24 amThey are objects of desire because one desires them, not because sights, sounds, etc. are desirable in and of themselves. This is understood even in the agamas/nikayas.
'The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.'
(Kotthita Sutta)
Similarly, it is one's view of things that is changed, not the things themselves.
'One is not freed by existence;
One does not transcend samsara through non-existence;
It’s through understanding existence and non-existence
That the great beings are liberated.
Those who do not see ultimate reality
Grasp at samsara and nirvana;
But those who see ultimate reality possess
No pretentions of world and its’ transcendence.'
(Sixty Stanzas, v 4-5)
So, as in your quotes from Loppön Sonam Tsemo, the solution lies in 'having given up the intrinsic cause of bondage [i.e. deceived concepts,] the objects which [earlier] became the condition of that [bondage] [now] become the condition of liberation'; 'the ordinary ceases, everything will be given up'; 'non-conceptual samadhi removes conceptuality, all bonds will be respectively released'; and as a summary of the same: 'if the intrinsic nature of that cause is dispelled by the two methods [above], since the aspect of the objects has changed, again one can depend on objects since they have been transformed into assisting antidotes'. And you as well kindly summarised the main point:
The same is taught under the topic of transformation of emotions in The Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones, for example regarding anger (p 126):The problem of liberation is not to be quickly resolved by renunciation of the five objects of desire, rather, it is to be quickly resolved by relinquishing the ordinary conceptuality about the five objects of desire that is the root of all attachment and aversion.
'If you recognize the nature of anger as void, it loses all its power to harm and becomes mirrorlike wisdom; but if you fail to recognize its nature and give it free rein, it will be no less than the very source of the scorching and freezing torments of hell.'
And by others as well, like Thrangu Rinpoche's summary about Bringing Obstacles to the Path.
The reason I repeated and expanded on what I think you said about Vajrayana's unique approach is to try to ensure we are on the same page here. But then, I don't see the sutras teaching anything else. Seeing things as they are is to see that appearances are insubstantial, that they are actually ungraspable and inconceivable. When that is clear, there is no basis for clinging. How are then the sutras saying anything different?
These are just ideas about awakened state not the way to practice it. How can one distinguish a conceptual emptiness from the actual luminosity with these sentences? Methods with body speech and mind hone in on and make clear what Buddha is really talking about. Does not rule out one can be awakened from sutras if one has that merit.Astus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:24 amThey are objects of desire because one desires them, not because sights, sounds, etc. are desirable in and of themselves. This is understood even in the agamas/nikayas.
'The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.'
(Kotthita Sutta)
Similarly, it is one's view of things that is changed, not the things themselves.
'One is not freed by existence;
One does not transcend samsara through non-existence;
It’s through understanding existence and non-existence
That the great beings are liberated.
Those who do not see ultimate reality
Grasp at samsara and nirvana;
But those who see ultimate reality possess
No pretentions of world and its’ transcendence.'
(Sixty Stanzas, v 4-5)
So, as in your quotes from Loppön Sonam Tsemo, the solution lies in 'having given up the intrinsic cause of bondage [i.e. deceived concepts,] the objects which [earlier] became the condition of that [bondage] [now] become the condition of liberation'; 'the ordinary ceases, everything will be given up'; 'non-conceptual samadhi removes conceptuality, all bonds will be respectively released'; and as a summary of the same: 'if the intrinsic nature of that cause is dispelled by the two methods [above], since the aspect of the objects has changed, again one can depend on objects since they have been transformed into assisting antidotes'. And you as well kindly summarised the main point:
The same is taught under the topic of transformation of emotions in The Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones, for example regarding anger (p 126):The problem of liberation is not to be quickly resolved by renunciation of the five objects of desire, rather, it is to be quickly resolved by relinquishing the ordinary conceptuality about the five objects of desire that is the root of all attachment and aversion.
'If you recognize the nature of anger as void, it loses all its power to harm and becomes mirrorlike wisdom; but if you fail to recognize its nature and give it free rein, it will be no less than the very source of the scorching and freezing torments of hell.'
And by others as well, like Thrangu Rinpoche's summary about Bringing Obstacles to the Path.
The reason I repeated and expanded on what I think you said about Vajrayana's unique approach is to try to ensure we are on the same page here. But then, I don't see the sutras teaching anything else. Seeing things as they are is to see that appearances are insubstantial, that they are actually ungraspable and inconceivable. When that is clear, there is no basis for clinging. How are then the sutras saying anything different?
Yes, and Madame Blavatsky, etc., are found to be wanting.Aemilius wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:28 amAnd if one accepts the revelations received by Madam Blavatsky or by Billy Meier, or by a person accepted in the Buddha at the Gas Pump, for example.
Are they determined by the content alone?
I don't have that experience.
Some people in the DW are allergic to names of these persons or others like them. After which no rational discussion is possible.
Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:15 pmThese are just ideas about awakened state not the way to practice it. How can one distinguish a conceptual emptiness from the actual luminosity with these sentences? Methods with body speech and mind hone in on and make clear what Buddha is really talking about. Does not rule out one can be awakened from sutras if one has that merit.
If by seeing them as insubstantial you mean a conceptual label, sure, that doesn't help that much. But that is a known mistake. However, if it is actually seeing their emptiness, in other words, not falling into extreme concepts about them, then that is no different from what is taught in Vajrayana about how to take appearances as/on the path. On the fourth Dharma of Gampopa, where both the Sutrayana and Vajrayana approaches are mentioned, Ringu Tulku comments:
That was not the subject of the post, so it shouldn't be something to look for there.Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:15 pmHow can one distinguish a conceptual emptiness from the actual luminosity with these sentences?
I suspect you might try this gambit, so checkmate.Astus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:27 pmIf by seeing them as insubstantial you mean a conceptual label, sure, that doesn't help that much. But that is a known mistake. However, if it is actually seeing their emptiness, in other words, not falling into extreme concepts about them, then that is no different from what is taught in Vajrayana about how to take appearances as/on the path. On the fourth Dharma of Gampopa, where both the Sutrayana and Vajrayana approaches are mentioned,
Sonam Tsemo comments:Although the goal is the same, since it is unconfused,
with many methods, not difficult,
and mastered by those of sharp faculties,
Mantrayāna is superior.
And:Now then, first, the goal is that same in that there is no difference in what is to be realized, the dharmadhātu, suchness; and the result to be obtained, Buddhahood, and the method of obtaining it, bodhicittz. But it is superior because of the four methods which cause those to arise in one’s continuum:
1) There is no confusion concerning the view to be realized.
2) Many methods to accomplish the result.
3) Awakening is accomplished with ease because there is no difficulty.
4) Since the result is accomplished rapidly, faculties are “sharp”.
Secret Mantra is superior because the wisdom which arises in the mind at the time of the descent of gnosis, or third empowerment and so forth, is freedom from proliferation realized directly.
So then statemements from Mahamudra and tregchod texts can closely resemble sutras, because they are talking about an experienceAstus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:43 pmThat was not the subject of the post, so it shouldn't be something to look for there.Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:15 pmHow can one distinguish a conceptual emptiness from the actual luminosity with these sentences?