The thicket of views

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: The thicket of views

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:32 am

Greetings DN,

Dechen Norbu wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Dechen Norbu wrote:PS- FYI in the tribetan tradition it is asserted that we can leave this body while still being alive and coming back to it. Cool stuff, hum? :rolling:

In my "tradition" you can too... it's called going for a snooze and then waking up. :zzz:

Meaning?

Meaning that... "No phenomenon is a phenomenon, until it is an observed phenomenon" (J.A. Wheeler).

The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

The origination of a phenomenon means it becomes observed. If it is observed, it is experienced.

Being about the overcoming of samsaric experience, the Dharma employs a phenomenological (rather than ontological) approach.

[ Feel free to replace the above instances of the word "phenomenon" with "body" if you would like an applied example of this principle ]

(In my "tradition" of course...)

Maitri,
Retro. :)
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble
User avatar
retrofuturist
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The thicket of views

Postby ground » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:41 am

retrofuturist wrote:
The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

...
(In my "tradition" of course...)


Talking as someone outside of your tradition ... what would you say if I suggested "The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer contacted (referring to 'phassa')"?


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Josef » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:47 am

TMingyur wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

...
(In my "tradition" of course...)


Talking as someone outside of your tradition ... what would you say if I suggested "The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer contacted (referring to 'phassa')"?


Kind regards

The cessation of phassa could be achieved by getting black-out drunk.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby ground » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:49 am

Anyone wanting to comment seriously?
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Josef » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:51 am

TMingyur wrote:Anyone wanting to comment seriously?

That post was just as serious as the one it was responding to.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby ground » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:53 am

Well sorry then I cannot take it serious. So you may just refrain from responding to my questions. Especially if those are not adressed to you.
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby ground » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:55 am

TMingyur wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

...
(In my "tradition" of course...)


Talking as someone outside of your tradition ... what would you say if I suggested "The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer contacted (referring to 'phassa')"?


Kind regards


Retro

what would you say from your perspective?

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Josef » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:57 am

TMingyur wrote:Well sorry then I cannot take it serious. So you may just refrain from responding to my question. Especially if those are not adressed to you.

Your original suggestion was met with a reasonable and applicable example of the principle you proposed.
Sorry if it wasn't what you expected.
Have you ever considered that perhaps you aren't as clever as you think you are?
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby ground » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:02 am

Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Well sorry then I cannot take it serious. So you may just refrain from responding to my question. Especially if those are not adressed to you.

Your original suggestion was met with a reasonable and applicable example of the principle you proposed.
Sorry if it wasn't what you expected.
Is this what you want? :bow:


No issue with non expected opinions. However considering former postings where you just took partisan points of views and since we did not agree in any point even approximately I simply take notice of your opinion and that's it. I do not feel like investigating into it. You did not provide any rationale.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Josef » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:07 am

TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Well sorry then I cannot take it serious. So you may just refrain from responding to my question. Especially if those are not adressed to you.

Your original suggestion was met with a reasonable and applicable example of the principle you proposed.
Sorry if it wasn't what you expected.
Is this what you want? :bow:


No issue with non expected opinions. However considering former postings where you just took partisan points of views and since we did not agree in any point even approximately I simply take notice of your opinion and that's it. I do not feel like investigting into it. You did not provide any rationale.


Kind regards

Ha ha.
It wasn't an opinion actually.
You are certainly right on the point that we don't agree on things.
My rationale however is usually pretty sound and Im not a fan of "partisan views".
The simple truth is that your posts, attitude, and evaluations of dharma are juvenile.
Ever considered that the reason you so often end up in heated disagreements lies somewhere other than everybody else?
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Dechen Norbu » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:37 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings DN,
[...]
(In my "tradition" of course...)

Maitri,
Retro. :)

Greetings Paul.

And what's the relevance of that to the post I wrote? I jokingly commented TMingyur's sentence:
"This desire expresses itself through mere ideas. It is comparable to a desire to be able to leave one's body. But this body cannot be left because there is nothing except the body and consciousness depending on this body.


Informing him that in the tibetan tradition there are teachings about doing exactly this (e.g. Padmasabhava's The Profound Dharma of the Natural Liberation through Contemplating the Peaceful and Wrathful: Stage of Completion Instructions on the Six Bardos, or as being an outer sign of accomplishment of certain practices of yantra yoga and so on). The teachings, obviously, go beyond such phenomena, which in a way perhaps could be called a side effect of nightime practice. I wouldn't expect you to know that, neither to agree with it, but since this is DhaRma Wheel, we are not confined to the tenets of the Theravada tradition :quoteunquote: . I dispense that sort of remarks, since I was talking about a subject considered important by many Vajrayana practitioners. You are free to keep your beliefs. I'm still not convinced you aren't a cryptomaterialist.... :rolling:

Kyosan's joke was more benign, and perhaps encouraged by your example he too thought that what I had said was some sort of new agey thing, I don't know, and so I've joked back. Well, It's not, it's part of Vajrayana tradition, so respect is in order if we are all to get along fine.

About TMingyur's "declaration" regarding the Tibetan teachings... I find it funny. I always laugh when I see someone without scholarship or a few long retreats under his belt making such sweeping comments concerning a tradition one clearly doesn't know much about (not to speak about his dissertations concerning madhyamaka). Well, as long as it works for him, fine. I don't even know the fellow and clearly he doesn't know me either.
But you I know, Paul and honestly I expected better than this.
Anyway, as Namdrol said, the thread is a waste of time. My blame for letting myself being sucked...

Best wishes,

DN
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:54 am

" So basically if "we" use the "qualifier" "by means of" and if "we" punctuate every "concept" with quotation marks, if "we" say "relatively speaking" "this" cannot lead to "liberation" or ""this" is a mere "idea" and not an expression of the "ultimate"" ("relative" "concept" "not" "expressing" "ultimate" "reality" "by means of" which "I" try to "express" "my" "experience") then "we" finally become "TMingyurites" and "TM" has "achieved" "his" "goal" of "converting" "everybody" to his "obsessive" "compulsion" of "pointing" (to a "theoretically" "blind" "man") to "TM"'s "ALL" and "FINALLY" "TM" "will" "leave" "us" "all" "alone" "with" "OUR" "ignornace" "?" """""""""?""""""""""" "
" :namaste: "
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7939
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:23 am

retrofuturist wrote:Meaning that... "No phenomenon is a phenomenon, until it is an observed phenomenon" (J.A. Wheeler).

The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

The origination of a phenomenon means it becomes observed. If it is observed, it is experienced.

Being about the overcoming of samsaric experience, the Dharma employs a phenomenological (rather than ontological) approach.
So if, whilst walking on a country road, I happened upon a sacred cow, ie experienced it, and then further along the road I bumped into somebody and told them about the sacred cow: explained to them what it looked like, how it smelt, how it felt, how I felt about the experience, etc... and this guy rushes off to find the sacred cow but as he is approaching it stumbles and falls on the dusty path and gets dirt in his eyes and dust in his nostrils and overcome by his pain and anguish limps back and says to me: "I didn't see no sacred cow" does that mean my experience was invalid, non-existent, irrelevant, of no consequence?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7939
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Anders » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:41 am

TMingyur wrote:Well sorry then I cannot take it serious. So you may just refrain from responding to my questions. Especially if those are not adressed to you.


Dude, for someone so into 'real' wisdom, you seem to have so little lightheartedness about you. You have too much too learn still (a wonderful thing) to go around being so assertive about what is and is not wisdom, genuine practise etc. These habits just inhibit the genuine and humbling spirit of the wayseeker. Lighten up, have a laugh at the silliness of all your accumulated folly (mine cracks me up on a regular basis), don't take what you think you know so seriously and endeavour to study and learn from all things without becoming a 'wiser' or more 'knowledgeable' person/wannabe authority. You'll be better for it in the long run and you';; enjoy the journey a lot more to boot.

edit: Wrong post quoted.
Last edited by Anders on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Dechen Norbu » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:57 am

Greg,

Retro was referring to this idea:
"See the equally vital answer here! If mind is directly involved in creating
the very "thing" or "state" it perceives, as an active participatory observer,
then there cannot ever be any "objective observation" or "world out-there",
which is independent of the mind that intends, selects, and manifests it...!
It entails that 'mind' is inseparable from 'matter'. They are Siamese-Twins!
In early Buddhism, the Buddha coined this subtle yet dual Unity: Nama-Rupa!
Name-&-Form or Naming-&-Forming, since these are dynamic processes, that
in mutual dependence creates each other like 2 creepers, that only can grow
up, if growing up twisted & rotated around the other's stem like a DNA-helix."

(from: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=760)

His interpretation seems to be that because mind is inseparable from matter (bold above by me), then we couldn't travel outside our body. That would make many Tibetan lamas a bunch of liars and I'll have none of that. Also, the out of body experience has been reported in most cultures as have been near death experiences where people seem to be outside their body. Some nice studies are being made about this subject and so far there's no medical explanation for the whole range of phenomena described (don't believe pseudo skeptics propaganda and look at the data. If you don't know where, Dr. Pim Van Lommel published a good article in The Lancet about his research: http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archiv ... et_NDE.htm ; some materialists tried to find alternative explanations, but it's my conviction they haven't succeeded to refute him. It's one of many other studies being realized and there seems to be evidence pointing that something other than hypoxia (and other lame theories) is going on.
Anyway, this is not the point the author is making. Retro just decided to use it this way, maybe after I've asked about the meaning of his post. I took it as a joke, but seems there was more to it... you seem to have interpreted his words in a different fashion. If one doesn't experience something, then it isn't valid. I don't think Retro harbors such idea. It wasn't very clear anyway. Sounded more like an excuse to justify a sniping comment. :lol:
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Dechen Norbu » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:59 am

Anders Honore wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer observed. It if is not observed, it is not experienced.

...
(In my "tradition" of course...)


Talking as someone outside of your tradition ... what would you say if I suggested "The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer contacted (referring to 'phassa')"?

Kind regards


Dude, for someone so into 'real' wisdom, you seem to have so little lightheartedness about you. You have too much too learn still (a wonderful thing) to go around being so assertive about what is and is not wisdom, genuine practise etc. These habits just inhibit the genuine and humbling spirit of the wayseeker. Lighten up, have a laugh at the silliness of all your accumulated folly (mine cracks me up on a regular basis), don't take what you think you know so seriously and endeavour to study and learn from all things without becoming a 'wiser' or more 'knowledgeable' person/wannabe authority. You'll be better for it in the long run and you';; enjoy the journey a lot more to boot.


Best advice I've read lately. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:10 am

'Scuse me if I am wrong but maybe the nama-rupa combination is just for human and animal existence? Even in Theravadra there exist formless realms (god realms for example) where mind exists without dependence on form. Or am I mistaken?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7939
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Malcolm » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:14 am

gregkavarnos wrote:'Scuse me if I am wrong but maybe the nama-rupa combination is just for human and animal existence? Even in Theravadra there exist formless realms (god realms for example) where mind exists without dependence on form. Or am I mistaken?
:namaste:


In early Theravada, it is asserted that formless realm beings have a very subtle form.

Also, in Dzogchen it is asserted that formless realm beings actually have subtle form.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The thicket of views

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:01 pm

Greetings,

TMingyur...

Talking as someone outside of your tradition ... what would you say if I suggested "The cessation of a phenomenon means it is no longer contacted (referring to 'phassa')"?

I would say I concur. (my tradition is Dhamma-Vinaya fwiw)

Dechen Norbu...

And what's the relevance of that to the post I wrote?

It was evidently a failed piece of subtle humour in relation to your "P.S.", nothing to do with the earlier discussion. Apologies if you took offense to it - it was certainly not an attack on any person or tradition.

Dechen Norbu, quoting Venerable Samahita wrote: 'mind' is inseparable from 'matter'

This isn't said by the venerable sir to make a mockery of any Tibetan masters. This is talking about nama-rupa, name-and-form. You cannot perceive matter without mind, in other words. I trust you would not disagree with this assertion?

As for myself I concede I have little or no interest in the subject of mind-brain duality. I certainly have no interest in using it as a barb against others. Even just as recently as a couple of days ago, I said... "I don't see how it matters. What would one be hoping to prove from a Dhammic perspective, by affirming or denying mind/brain dualism?". http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 52#p126012 - I'm sure one of you could give me plenty of reasons but from a pragmatic perspective I don't care, or see what I could do with the information anyway. The ancients thought that the brain was a snot factory that leaked out whenever they got a runny nose.... didn't stop them being Noble Ones though, did it?

I'm still not convinced you aren't a cryptomaterialist.... :rolling:

Oh, I always thought it was "crypto-annihilationist". :D But as you can see from my earlier post, making no statements about 'existence' or 'non-existence', it's hard to see how I could be advocating a transition from 'existence' to 'non-existence', when I adhere to the following teaching, which I believe was in fact also used extensively by Nagarjuna in his expositions - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html . That's actually a lot of the reason I'm following some of these discussions, because I'm interested in what traditions not rooted in the Mahavihara Theravada make of these deep matters:- dependent origination, sankharas, vipaka, sunyata, nirvana and so on.

In the context of "the thicket of views" I endeavour to avoid all views of an ontological nature.

Maitri,
Retro. :)
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble
User avatar
retrofuturist
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The thicket of views

Postby Josef » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:49 pm

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Dude, for someone so into 'real' wisdom, you seem to have so little lightheartedness about you. You have too much too learn still (a wonderful thing) to go around being so assertive about what is and is not wisdom, genuine practise etc. These habits just inhibit the genuine and humbling spirit of the wayseeker. Lighten up, have a laugh at the silliness of all your accumulated folly (mine cracks me up on a regular basis), don't take what you think you know so seriously and endeavour to study and learn from all things without becoming a 'wiser' or more 'knowledgeable' person/wannabe authority. You'll be better for it in the long run and you';; enjoy the journey a lot more to boot.


Best advice I've read lately. :thumbsup:[/quote]
Agreed. Well said.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JKhedrup, MSNbot Media, Norwegian, smcj, Son of Buddha, udawa and 18 guests

>