Friday, April 25, 2014

Actualism, Dharma, etc

H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche
Patrick Schwarz What's wrong with having an ego with inferiority complex? Like · Delete · 1 hour ago

H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche There is nothing wrong having an iferiority complex, so long as you are aware of it, most people who respond to me are engulfed by it, and have no idea it is this that motivates them, such people do not only hold themselves back from spiritual evolving but also hold up others, create all kinds of issues and misdemeanors... .So it is correct for me to point out this obstacle, and thus the sooner this obstacle is realised then over come will be the sooner the human race can come to inner peace, so does this answer your question?....If anyone attacks my posts because it makes them feel INFERIOR, and this is what they IMAGINE, and some times they have no idea it is because they FEEL inferior any and by thus acting so make it so, and the knock on effects are ongoing....Now I illuminate only the blocks to higher realiseations.....ego is a problem all the time he is your master, when he becomes your slave then, PEACE PREVAILS....I hope this answer does not like wise make you feel INFERIOR, because if it does, I will tell you..
Like · · October 25, 2013 at 5:29am

    Eric Blackburn likes this.
    October 26, 2013 at 7:04am · Edited · Like
    H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche The very fact that you REACT and do not seem to show any UNDERSTANDING of what I am writing about, clearly suggests that you confirm the point of the above posts, the NFERIORITY COMPLEX makes you reacte like a fish that cannot resist biting at the bait, what is even more remarkable about such a complex even though I can paint it out, still those who are subdued by this COMPLEX cannot reframe from such actions,, such is how deep it goes inside of those sufferers.
    October 26, 2013 at 8:08pm · Like · 1
    H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche And this is why further you will see me writing over and over again: You are in a prison you cannot escape, and it is only when you begin to see you are in a prison do you stand any chance of escape.....Now this will NOT make any sense to you as you are, but there are those who are further than you who will see and know what is meant, for them and not you there is a chance....But tomorrow is another day... Stay happy keep smiling
    October 26, 2013 at 8:14pm · Like · 1
    Dannon Flynn So the reasoning is that if somebody disagrees=reaction=inferiority?
    That seems like very faulty logic.
    Inferiority is an ego game and so is superiority.
    Both arise with comparison to others.
    Drop comparison.
    Don't try to feel superior or pump up
    your ego. Then any disagreement is seen as
    a threat and you will argue to try to convince
    people that they are inferior to you.
    This would actually be your inferiority complex
    protecting itself.
    The ego IS inferiority complex. The ego is always
    feeling an inferiority complex.
    But really, this is such a very basic insight
    October 27, 2013 at 3:47am · Edited · Like · 1
    October 27, 2013 at 3:47am · Like · 1
    Dannon Flynn Because he feels so inferior.
    October 27, 2013 at 3:48am · Like · 2
    Dannon Flynn But it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the Dharma. Just some basic self-esteem advice.
    October 27, 2013 at 3:49am · Edited · Like · 1
    October 28, 2013 at 7:40am · Edited · Like · 1
    Dannon Flynn Not all primates are verbally hostile. Like Orangutans?
    October 27, 2013 at 6:08pm · Like · 1
    Albert Hong [name redacted]

    Why does everything come down to af and richard?

    I'm just confused why everything correlates to that. All your posts lol.
    October 28, 2013 at 8:03am · Like
    Albert Hong Lol i suppose.
    I guess i don't know many people who talk about af or richard.

    It seems at times you validate his ideology.
    And at other times you critique it.

    I just don't "get" it.

    What is the deal!!
    October 28, 2013 at 10:59am · Like
    Soh Yes [name redacted], I AM realization is not the final realization for me, in fact it is merely the beginning - it is a PCE experience. There is no identity at all, it is mind's perception of itself without identity, or apperception*. There is complete certainty due to direct apprehension (without intermediary) of awareness/consciousness, of mind's (thought) luminosity. It is an awareness of consciousness. Apperception may in fact be a better term than "I AM realization" because in fact, "I AM" is an after-thought of the actual PCE experience - which is without identity, without emotions, feelings, conceptualization or separation.

    But this PCE does not last, in fact, it often devolves into an ASC with an ultimate Identity being formed around it. (Hence "I AM")

    After the realization of anatta, identity (including an 'ultimate being') is dissolved, and this is not merely a temporary state or stage of PCE. That experience of lucidity, clarity, aliveness, luminosity, is experienced equally in all senses without self/Self (not just in the mind/thought realm), not as a stage with an entry or exit but as the effortless and natural state of experience without entering or exiting.

    *As in accordance with Richard's definition of apperception: "Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself."
    October 28, 2013 at 11:16am · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh I do not think he is really that open to being corrected honestly. But if he is, then my document is always up and available for consideration
    October 28, 2013 at 11:20am · Like · 1
    John Ahn Yes Soh, why are you not saving the world?
    October 28, 2013 at 3:29pm · Like
    John Ahn There are plenty of people out there teaching the dharma in their own variations and understandings, not to mention all sorts of spiritual practices under different traditions. Richard is teaching his own thing. It's not like he forces his followers to submit to his iron grip. It's the practitioner's choice to decide from his/her own experience and judgment what path is best suitable for his/her own well being. There are so many options available out there today.
    October 28, 2013 at 3:50pm · Like
    John Ahn Well, that's the AF position, that's AF "facts."
    October 28, 2013 at 4:00pm · Like
    John Ahn Spiritual practices are not merely conceptual. Conceptual spirituality is just a branch of spirituality using the mind and analysis, more so like philosophy.
    October 28, 2013 at 4:02pm · Like · 1
    Soh How can he do that when Richard's understanding of Dharma is so distorted to begin with? He's attacking his strawman's version of Dharma all along.
    October 28, 2013 at 4:13pm · Like · 3
    Soh You haven't even read my document. "Blessed One" is just a title people address him, it doesn't show anything
    October 28, 2013 at 4:15pm · Like
    Soh It is a fact that the Buddha is fortunate and happy.

    bhagavato: bhagavant-, N.m.: Blessed One (epithet of the Buddha, possessive form of the word bhaga-, N.m.: good fortune, happiness, prosperity. Bhaga- is derived from the verb root bhaj-, to share. Thus bhagavant means literally "having good fortune"). Dat.Sg. = bhagavato: To the Blessed One.
    October 28, 2013 at 4:19pm · Like
    John Ahn Of course if you go see someone telling you beliefs are false, while holding onto many faiths under Buddhism or Christianity, definitely those imaginations will come crumbling down. What AF may call fabrication, will be what others may hold as traditional belief. And to put this into a negative spotlight, just as many atheists do to religions, is very very limited and stupid. It's basically taking the position that one's current boundaries of perception and knowledge is actually the finality. Like a someone with his five senses decides oh, a rock, it is just a rock and nothing more to it because that's all I see and feel. But to someone with a microscope, or to someone who contemplates the relativity of physics, or to a chemist, a rock can never be just a god damn rock.
    October 28, 2013 at 4:32pm · Like · 1
    John Ahn [name redacted], I think it's actually fantastic to say, I don't want to believe. But along with that you also have to say I also don't disbelieve. Instead of seeking analytic conclusions, rather the effort should just be to extend clarity and ability of perception.
    October 28, 2013 at 4:36pm · Like · 2
    Soh [name redacted],

    As Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith pointed out:

    "...And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years..."

    "What the Buddha actually spoke is not really anybody guess, since there is sufficient evidence to prove that what is taught in the Pali canon/Agamas is more or less directly based on what the Buddha may have actually spoken.

    While it is certain that parts of these early teachings have certainly been renovated into sections of Mahāyāna sūtras, the real question is "Did Buddha actually, physically, as a historical reality, teach Mahāyāna sūtras." The answer must be, no he didn't, except in someone's pure vision."

    "The oldest known, physically surviving Buddhist texts exist on the Ashokan pillars.

    The Gandhari texts do not shown an overwhelming concern with Mahāyāna -- they reveal a few fragments of Mahāyāna texts dating to the 1st century CE, but we already know that Mahāyāna was in existence at this time due to the presence of 2nd century translations into Chinese. In order for me to be convinced that Mahāyāna was taught by anyone, let alone the Buddha, prior to the first century BCE, I would need to see some hard physical facts. Luckily for me, my soteriology does not depend on archaeology. Also my estimation of the capacity of Tibetans (or anyone else) to understand nonduality as presented in Buddhist texts does not depend on whether Buddha actually taught "nonduality".


    "You are confusing two different factors: Physical texts with age of a given tradition.

    The early Canon was largely oral. We know that by the time of Ashoka texts were starting to be written down.

    There is no record of an early reaction to Mahāyāna, as you would suppose there would be, since Ashoka purged the monastic sangha at the encouragement of the Vibhajyavadins. You see reactions towards proto Mahayāna ideas such as multiplicity of Buddhas and so on. But the first solid historical evidence we have of Mahāyāna texts is their translation into Chinese, and now a few fragments from Gandhara which support the idea that Mahāyāna was current in the Gandhara region during the first century.

    We have Buddhist texts written on Ashoka pillars that can be pinpointed and have been. We know that the Pali canon was written down in Shri Lanka during at the beginning of the first century BCE. We know that there were muliple canons. We also know that in Mahāyāna sūtras books are mentioned a lot. In the Pali sūtras, books are never mentioned even once. Clearly, the primary difference between the Nikāyas and the Mahāyāna canon is the difference between collection of texts that were recalled orally for centuries prior to being committed to writing to a collection of texts that are a product of a self-concious literary process of authorship."
    October 28, 2013 at 4:36pm · Like
    Soh [name redacted], did you read what I posted? The early teachings are written down not after centuries but very soon after Buddha's passing.
    October 28, 2013 at 5:08pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Even if Buddha left a book, you could argue that it wasn't "him"?

    What Buddhists Believe - Historical Evidence of the Buddha
    The Buddha is the greatest conqueror the world has ever seen. His Teaching illum...See More
    October 28, 2013 at 5:10pm · Like · Remove Preview
    John Ahn Sooo, you don't believe in archaeology?
    October 28, 2013 at 5:17pm · Like
    Soh You dont believe that radiation is deadly?
    October 28, 2013 at 5:28pm · Like · 2
    John Ahn Soh, sorry I sort of budged in on the conversation. But I think you should answer [name redacted]'s intended question.
    October 28, 2013 at 5:35pm · Like
    John Ahn "[message redacted]"
    October 28, 2013 at 5:35pm · Like
    Soh "[message redacted]"

    My writing is actually not directed to Richard, but for those who are open and willing to having an unbiased, based-on-Buddhas-teachings basis understanding of the Buddhadharma rather than based-on-Richards-misinterpretation misunderstanding of Buddhadharma.

    In other words, anyone who is interested to find out the facts for himself can always do a search and read it for him/herself. So far, Actual Freedom and Buddhism document has had 1141 recorded reads/downloads. It is very easy to find on the internet.

    In other words, any correspondent of his who is interested in having an accurate understanding of Buddhadharma could well do a search and read it for themselves. If the person is not interested to begin with then why bother? Even though I do try to discuss and put forth my understanding, I am not a very evangelical kind - I simply share when there is the occassion and interest. E.g. I do not even discuss these things with my friends except on very rare occassions.

    "many people are reading his website today. your corrections could have been among them."

    Many people are also reading my blog and many have read and opened "Actual Freedom and Buddhism".

    "ave you considered that you also are not be open to being corrected in the way you know Richard would have attempted to do and more thoroughly and ruthlessly than any correspondent you will ever have the good fortune to meet? so i'm surprised you did not avail yourself of that opportunity.""

    I am open to being corrected, however what I wrote are based on what the Buddha taught - particularly the T&T section (the first section is based on more experiential comparison and not necessarily with Buddha). It is not an "interpretation" of dharma but what the Buddha actually taught and shown. This is in contrast to Richard's misunderstanding of what the Buddha actually taught.

    If he wants to correct whatever I said he can always do so on his own site.
    October 28, 2013 at 5:47pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh Go read my site applies to everyone regardless whether Richard, actualist, or buddhist. As the document can only be accessed in my blog.

    I do not correct "dharma students" - I simply correct false points being made, then it is up to the "dharma students" or "Richard" or "actualists" to actually read and understand what I wrote.
    October 28, 2013 at 6:45pm · Like · 1
    H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche Danon Flynn...Noo that is your logic, there are those who question first try to first understand what is meant then after this aproach come to understand some thing that has been said, on this merit of thinking and reasoning then put forwards what they have come to.....Now the way to see if some one is suffering with an INFERIORITY COMPLEX is they follow none of the logical proceedure mentioned above, they only know they do NOT LIKE what they read, they do NOT QUESTION themselves and why they do not like what they read, hence it is not recognised that their behaviour of attack attack does not carry any logic, thus they respond UNCONSCIOUSLY from the energy of feelings of INFERIORITY COMPLEX, and I will tell you most of the responses come frrom such people, so for now I am going to focus my attensions and those who read my posts that it is this energy level they are on and thus where they are coming from, if this is not brought out then few people are going to be able to change to a higher state of consciousness, plus these people hold up groups of other genuine seekers because those who suffer with INFERIORITY COMPLEXES bring every discussion down to name calling and all that menial evel of communication, no doubt in my experience there will be a number of such people here, these people create the most amount of communication.
    October 28, 2013 at 6:47pm · Like
    Soh Also, I do not go around everywhere in the internet to correct people - there are a lot of Buddhist forums that I do not engage in despite their misunderstanding of dharma. I do not have that much energy to focus on too many places.

    I think it is a good choice to write it into a word document because Richard's misunderstanding of Buddhadharma is so large that it elicits such a 81 page response from me and I cannot do it elsewhere other than putting it into a word document
    October 28, 2013 at 6:52pm · Edited · Like · 3
    H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche Yes it takes time, persistance is only for those who can donate the time and energy, the world need such donations.
    October 28, 2013 at 6:54pm · Like
    H.h. Ozay Tulku Rinpoche S it is caused by ego need to be recognised, then when you polish an ego they will polish your ego, even if what you say has more use in a sewer that grows tomatoes
    October 28, 2013 at 7:11pm · Like · 1
    Soh "[message redacted]"

    Can you give an example of this?
    October 28, 2013 at 7:18pm · Like
    Soh AF is certainly not just another version of the Buddha Dharma. Buddha Dharma is in my experience a further step beyond AF. A permanent PCE without sense of self/Self (however, in Buddhism the focus is not on cultivating PCE but on insight and actualization of anatta in which all traces of identities are eliminated, and effortless/natural/without-entry-exit PCE is just a side effect) is just the start and does not eliminate subtle delusions about the nature of phenomena - leading to various forms of clinging like grounding/clinging to a Here/Now/physicality.
    October 28, 2013 at 7:37pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh "[message redacted]"

    This is not true. First of all, the Buddhadharma does not lead to a transformed Self - the original teachings of the Buddha leads to the complete relinquishment of all self/Self. In my experience this is the case. For me, the sense of a Soul or transcendental identity/Self has been terminated for good and no longer arise at all for years. I have been through the stage where there is identification with the transpersonal Self/I AM, and then such identification is put to an end with further insights into anatta.

    This is why Buddhadharma is radical.

    As Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith wrote before:

    "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."

    And as Thusness wrote to me in 2005 way before we knew anything about AF's Richard Parker (late 2009):

    The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
    difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
    'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when u
    will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you
    must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of
    Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the
    so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has
    placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true
    essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in
    Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies.
    If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and
    Bhagavat Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if
    we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is
    authentic and not to be confused.

    When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you
    will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly
    unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the
    'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the
    wisdom of Emptiness.
    October 28, 2013 at 8:45pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Soh And it is not just I or Thusness or Malcolm who is saying so - Buddha himself is saying so.

    Taken from accesstoinsight:

    "Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.] - , the Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]"
    Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar
    1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in ...See More
    October 28, 2013 at 8:38pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
    October 28, 2013 at 9:29pm · Edited · Like
    Soh Hi [name redacted],

    Buddha did not reject only one view of self/Self but 84 kinds of views about Self - including the view that Self is the unchanging Consciousness or soul that survives after death in the Brahmajāla Sutta. Also in the Mulapariyaya Sutta/MN 1, the Buddha was speaking to a group of ex-Samkhya followers who became converted and became his monks. Even though they have converted, they still held the belief in the Purusha (pure consciousness/awareness) as changeless Self or Soul, and they believed in a "root" or Source: an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things.

    Because the Buddha knew the monks still held onto this belief/view/position, he began the discourse with "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena". He described a whole range of phenomena that can be experienced, including subtle states accessible in meditation like the "infinite consciousness", "infinite space", "nothingness" and so on. In each of these experiences, he declared that they are not to be established as Self, not to be viewed as a Source out of which things emerges from. Even Nirvana/unbiding (the termination of all passions, aggression and delusion), he declared, is not to be established in terms of a Self or to be viewed as a Source.

    Interestingly, this is the ONLY teaching the Buddha taught that at the end of the discourse, the monks were unhappy and dissatisfied. ("Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.") As obviously the monks wanted the Buddha to affirm their belief/view/position/experience instead of rejecting or refuting it.

    Fortunately, by paying heed to the Buddha's teachings, the monks practiced and eventually overcome all false views and conceits of "I Am" and attained complete Nirvana.

    By "cleansing True Self", Thusness means one's experience of consciousness is cleansed of ALL traces of self/Self including any form of identifying with a "True Self". As Thusness stated back in February 2006, "The different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it. But in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", (the sense that) there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion. There is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained. So for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"? For one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?"

    "In light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary. The so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging. There is hearing, no hearer...etc (This) is already beyond "True Self". Yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self". If there is no hearing...then something is wrong. There is hearing but no hearer. Put your time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness. "

    The wisdom of "no-self" or "emptiness" is the realization that there is no actual self/Self/soul/any kind of substantiality. This realization releases all delusions and bondage. Otherwise, one can have PCEs but the delusion of identity can persist. This is why I posted the "No mind and anatta" thread.

    Sensate experience is immediately direct gapless without identity or reifications, in the direct actualization there is naturally no concepts, no emotions, no separation, stillness, without a sense of vantage point/center to measure movement, etc.
    October 28, 2013 at 9:37pm · Edited · Like · 2
    Soh Hi [name redacted], the conceit of I Am, all traces of self/Self of any kinds, are eliminated in Buddha dharma.
    October 28, 2013 at 9:41pm · Like
    Soh In the following teaching, the Buddha describes seven obsessions that are to be eliminated/being eliminated in Nirvana - one of them is conceit, which does not merely mean "pride" but more precisely it is asmi mana i.e. "The conceit that "I Am!"". Any trace of Self is being terminated.

    "Monks, with the abandoning & destruction of the seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled. Which seven? The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance. With the abandoning & destruction of these seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled.

    "When, for a monk, the obsession of sensual passion has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising; when, for him, the obsession of resistance... the obsession of views... the obsession of uncertainty... the obsession of conceit... the obsession of passion for becoming... the obsession of ignorance has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: this is called a monk who has cut through craving, has turned away from the fetter, and — by rightly breaking through conceit — has put an end to suffering & stress."
    October 28, 2013 at 9:44pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Albert Hong The whole teachings of the dharma deal with kleshas and such teachings are in the twelve links of dependent origination.
    October 28, 2013 at 9:52pm · Unlike · 2
    Albert Hong Well in buddhism ignorance is what is taken care of through insight.

    If you take the seeds of assumption out then there is no fuel for the kleshas.

    I don't see how af is beyond the obvious and pragmatic praxis of buddhadharma.
    October 28, 2013 at 9:56pm · Unlike · 2
    Soh Buddha is talking about the termination of latent tendencies with "its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising;".

    I wrote in my e-book last year: "in MN 64, the Buddha denounced the idea that awakening could be a temporary state by using the example of a toddler: “Malunkhyaputta, to whom do you know me preaching, the lower bonds of the sensual world in this manner. Wouldn’t the ascetics of other sects find fault with this foolish example. To a toddler, who moves about with difficulty, there is not even a self. How could a view arise about a self?”

    In other words, if you say that awakening is simply a temporary state – without a sense of self, or without afflictions, or without thoughts, how is this any different from a baby? The baby would have been the most enlightened person in the world if this were the case, but it is not true.

    The Buddha later goes on to say, “Ananda, the learned noble disciple who has seen noble ones, and Great Men, clever in their Teaching and trained in their Teaching abides with a mind not overcome with the view of a self. He knows the escape from the arisen view of a self, as it really is. His view of the self, fades together with the latent tendencies.”

    In other words, it is not only the temporary fading away of the sense of self, but that the “latent tendencies that give rise to the sense of self” is uprooted permanently, never to allow the sense of self to arise again. Or in the words of the Buddha, it is “destroyed at the root, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.” The Buddha explains that the removal of “fetters” is not merely the disappearance or absence of afflictions like ill will and so on. Fetter is defined by Buddha as such, "An untaught ordinary man who disregards noble ones … lives with his heart possessed and enslaved by the embodiment view, by uncertainty, by misapprehension of virtue and duty, by lust for sensuality, and by ill will, and he does not see how to escape from them when they arise; these, when they are habitual and remain uneradicated in him, are called the more immediate fetters." Therefore, fetter does not simply mean sense of self, ill will, desire, etc as manifested, but it is that it becomes “habitual” as a latent tendency in him – and such latent tendencies, though not manifested in infants, are present even in infants as a karmic potential waiting to ripen in future. This is why a baby, despite not having lust or even a sense of self, nonetheless cannot be said to be free from fetters.

    The uprooting and permanent elimination of craving, aggression and delusion is the purpose of the dharma, and there are four progressive stages from stream entry to the state of an arahant where these afflictions are irreversibly removed by the uprooting of latent tendencies through real wisdom. When you cut off the leaves, it will still grow back, but when you uproot the plant from its roots, there is no possibility for future growth again. Likewise, afflictions and suffering may be temporarily suppressed in peak experiences or states of samadhi/absorption, but it is through awakening that they are burnt away from its foundations permanently.

    I am writing this so that people do not heed the words of those ignorant of the nature of awakening. Real awakening is NOT a peak experience, it is NOT a temporary or reversible state which you can go in and out of. This is why real wisdom is important – not merely peak experiences. Only real wisdom can end afflictions permanently through the removal of ignorance."
    October 28, 2013 at 10:00pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh The so called "instincts" is just "latent tendencies". The latent tendencies towards passion, aggression, delusion, fear, and so on are terminated in Nirvana (i.e. Nirvana is that termination of those afflictions and latent tendencies towards affliction)
    October 28, 2013 at 10:24pm · Like
    Albert Hong If the notion of birth is seen through then all considerings that follow after birth kind of become moot.

    Like the verb to be. All language structures follow after to be. To find to be invalid is to see that all of it is invalid.

    In af how does one end the instinctual habits?

    Is it purely staying with the moment to moment clarity?

    And if so is that enough to end the habit of reptilian mind?

    Buddhism would say no.
    October 28, 2013 at 10:28pm · Unlike · 2
    Albert Hong Insight is prized over experience. As insight is waking up from the dream of solidifying a concrete self and world.

    The emphasis on experience or the immediate only leads to a clinging towards clarity.

    Its in the species of hinduism or any garden variety sprituality.
    October 28, 2013 at 10:31pm · Unlike · 2
    Albert Hong But alas i dont have personal experience of af or richard. I am just responding to your posts within the limits of my interpretation.

    So i apologies if we won't actually meet in conversation.
    October 28, 2013 at 10:32pm · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik "you speack with such certainty without proof that the Buddha even existed." <- Yeah. Damn paleontologists talking about dinosaurs as if they knew anything xD
    October 29, 2013 at 7:25am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik The idea that the Universe is expanding and that it was smaller?
    October 29, 2013 at 7:29am · Edited · Like
    Robert Dominik Pangea lol? Ice age?
    October 29, 2013 at 7:32am · Like
    Robert Dominik Pilars, historic records, suttas
    October 29, 2013 at 7:35am · Like
    Robert Dominik I mean you can be sceptic about things instead of believing everything... but that doesn't mean hitting the other extreme and disregarding all relative human knowledge about history and other fields of study. It's all matter or probability. Everyone will find their balance. Discussion like this are rarely productive if there are two sides with completely different paradigm.
    October 29, 2013 at 7:36am · Like
    Jackson Peterson [name redacted], you may find more what your looking for in Dzogchen. In Dzogchen no afflictions or instincts need to be gotten rid of, transformed or purified. The problem is most don't recognize the most subtle, most essential aspect of Consciousness that is primordially pure and ever present. It's never had any defects to be removed. All these other approaches which attempt to polish the dust off the mirror, get rid of the self etc. , will never arrive. It's an endless task. Only a flash of profound insight will release the ignorance that has never been an obstacle but was was seen incorrectly to be. This wisdom is transmitted directly from mind to mind, not as a process of study, meditation and practice. Your nature has never changed from its original perfection.
    October 29, 2013 at 7:39am · Like
    Robert Dominik That said and leaving Buddha aside people can read Buddhist suttas, scriptures, study Buddhist methods and figure out on their own if they're useful or not. Something is going on if there are people who can change their body temperature thanks to highly developed concentration (and that isn't a story from 2500 years ago - it was researched a few years ago - if that meets anyone's criteria)
    October 29, 2013 at 7:39am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik Hello Jax
    October 29, 2013 at 7:39am · Like · 1
    Albert Hong where is the line between sensate reality and the conceptual reality?
    October 29, 2013 at 7:51am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik "if being a skeptic frees the thinking brain from mistaking its thoughts for actuality i'm all for it. but so far ive found sensate experience far more dependable, intelligent and benign than living in the imagination with all its paradigms" <- Yeah. But somehow you have to make sense of all these letters here. How can you read them without a language paradigm (here I would say something smart about two truths in Buddhism)? Or how would you find the right train at the train station without some assumptions, imagiantions and the so called subconscious doing its work?
    October 29, 2013 at 7:51am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik Prosopagnosia is a funny case. You can actually have a disease where you cannot distinguish between people's faces
    October 29, 2013 at 7:55am · Like
    Robert Dominik There are also cases of blind people who thanks to experimental theraphies gained fully working eyesight. They reported that they had sensate experience of images but they couldn't make sense of these and for the first few weeks they were clumsy and clueless as very little children when it came to dealing with objects by the means of using their eyesight
    October 29, 2013 at 7:58am · Edited · Like
    Robert Dominik But there is more. Optical illusions, Bonnet's disease, hallucinations. I know a guy (he went to the same basic school as me) who was training in visualisations. He developed the capacity to just visualise things as vividly as visual objects. The sad part is that he didn't really train in things such as meditation, concentration, insight etc. Was just playing with his mind. He ended up with schizophrenia
    October 29, 2013 at 8:03am · Edited · Like
    Robert Dominik "one recieves data via the sense organs the other never sees the light of day, they remain a 'process only' of the neurons." <- Isn't in this context "light of the day" and "data" just a 'process only' of the neurones? In XIXth century there were experiments with stimulating brain with electricity which caused people to actually see light.
    October 29, 2013 at 8:05am · Like
    Albert Hong where is the center?

    we as materialists say the brain.

    as dharma practitioners we say the sense fields interepentrate.

    dzogchenpas say from the heart to the eyes.

    be it a thought or a sound.

    i'm not sure anyone really knows.
    October 29, 2013 at 8:08am · Like · 1
    Albert Hong that is why for me magic or science. both hold the same ground. we can use vast narratives. or deconstruct data into parts.

    forget value, function, purpose, etc.

    forget a unifying principal, a commonality.

    even diversity, or a notion of infinity.

    its a mind game we play, as if we really can tangibly, articulate, grapple "this".

    each word is fingers trying so hard to make something real. will you read this and fall into my trance? my spell? will we all pretend to actually understand?
    October 29, 2013 at 8:11am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik A nice discussion. It is funny to assume one context or another to accomodate the needs of the moment. Anyway I'dd add that if we regarded things in terms of brain and neurons (like you here: "one recieves data via the sense organs the other never sees the light of day, they remain a 'process only' of the neurons.") then we should remember that various functions of the brain and senses interpenetrate. What we see can affect what we hear and vice versa (the web is full of funny excersises). Also the brain regions that are responsible for interpreations, concepts, reactions are linked to the brain regions responsible for the senses.
    October 29, 2013 at 8:14am · Edited · Like
    Albert Hong yeah, also don't forget other conditioning factors such as attention, volition, conceptual overlay, intention, feeling, perception, and contact.

    the jump from thought aversion to sensate reality is a common jump.

    but really is there a true difference between a thought and say a sound or even a smell?

    and i have no idea if there is or isn't.

    but i guess my question is for people who are watching.

    i know how healing the sensate reality can be to beings. but does it lead to buddhahood in the buddhist praxis?
    October 29, 2013 at 8:19am · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik Actually it is funny because whatever subject you will approach then you will find examples for emptiness, interdependence, causes and conditions etc. It's actually quite simple since that's how it is (:P) xD
    October 29, 2013 at 8:21am · Like
    Robert Dominik Magic or Science The funny thing is that this division was assumed by our civilsation but when we look at the beginnings of modern science we will discover that it has roots in fields of knowledge such as alchemy etc. For example astronomy has roots in the ancient in astrology etc.
    October 29, 2013 at 8:22am · Edited · Like · 1
    Robert Dominik So yeah. On the relative plane (as if it was something different than the absolute plane he he - of course not to dismiss relative value of the Two-Truths doctrine) you can treat people with Tibetan Medicine, shamanistic rituals, yoga and energy practices or you can use MRIs, stem cells, angioplasty. Play of various causes and conditions.
    October 29, 2013 at 8:25am · Like
    Robert Dominik Thanks guys for this nice convo
    October 29, 2013 at 8:29am · Like
    Soh Hey [name redacted], my point is that the baby is different from an adult or an enlightened being. I'm not suggesting they are the same.

    Buddha-nature is simply a provisional, skillful concept coined in Mahayana Buddhism and is non-existent in early Buddhism or Pali canon. Such a concept is slippery and requires a ton of skilled interpretation by experienced hands otherwise it turns into a monster, another sort of Hindu atman. One interpretation is the Buddha-nature is the "potential" for all of us to become awakened. In no way should it be interpreted as an inherently existing Self.
    October 29, 2013 at 3:26pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson [name redacted], yes that is an excellent idea! (in reply to your comment regarding mine)
    October 29, 2013 at 5:41pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson A "must read":
    Amazon Search The Buddha's Brain: Kindle Store
    October 29, 2013 at 5:53pm · Like · Remove Preview
    Jackson Peterson S, there are deeper aspects of the brain that move into the quantum holographic brain model as discussed by Karl Pribram and many others. There seems to be a "classical physics" brain function as you describe, but there is also a "quantum" brain processing and functionality that operates on a completely different platform which allows for processing non-local signals and many of the aspects as described in ESP. I discuss all of this at length in my book "The Natural Bliss of Being", Chapter 6. "Non-Duality and Quantum Physics".

No comments:

Post a Comment