Dharma Wheel

Kaccāni wrote:You cannot ignore that which is already conditioned into you.

That's pretty much what perfect samadhi is, undoing learned behavior and even some you were born with

Johnny Dangerous wrote:but since it's imaginary anyway..

Maybe you find this interesting kun-brtags

You really have no grasp for the Buddhist concept of love That is the definition Regarding the definition of realization, do you have a book you could recommend so that I can learn it as well as you? :smile: you are just arguing against the standard Mahayana explanation of Buddha activity as I unde...

Are you suggesting that there is some "dogness" that makes us think a dog is a dog? If so, this seems more akin to Platonism than Buddhism. You know when you talking about the three natures, specifically the "imaginary nature".. "dog" is an example of one of these thin...

By the time there is a Buddha, as you describe it, bodhicitta has been realized. It appears in the love of the Buddha habitually, it is the love of the Buddha. It is the Bodhisattva who sets out to do that, so that the realization of it can happen. Buddhas realize bodhichitta, then they give it up?...

Having it conceptualized as "cup" shapes your experience of it. Otherwise it's not a cup. It's not true, "cup" is a concept which is the appearing object of a conceptual mental consciousness. Whereas the thing that the word refers to is the appearing object of a nonconceptual aw...

I think this is incorrect, in terms of how it's usually described at least... A Buddha does not have to "try" even an iota to help sentient beings, nor to desire it..comparing to the "wanting" of an ordinary sentient beings is mistaken. So in the end we conclude, buddhas help ot...

Where did all these people that assert the annihilation of subject and object come from? Who's fault is this? I would argue, instead, that nongrasping involves the renunciation of subject and object. You can't grasp at a self when you recognize the emptiness of self and other, and that's nongrasping...

things don't actually begin What does that mean? Nothing exists since nothing started? There is no cup without the word "cup". It's irrelevant, I'm not talking about the word I'm talking about what it refers to valid basis? The thing the mental label is established in relation to It is im...

If you insist on calling that desire, it is your free choice. It doesn't lead you anywhere though, also not in this discussion. It leads you to not wasting time trying to turn into a rock, trying to develop the non-skill of being unable to discriminate what is constructive and what is destructive, ...

There are not things they are imputed onto as such, because if you continued your analyses into the constituent parts of cup, you would only find more constituent parts. But you would not ever annihilate the three natures into one identical soup The "imaginary" part is so-called because i...

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Three Natures this would be the imaginary nature I guess...

Gotcha, I'm talking about the things they're imputed onto

Btw are imaginary natures changing or unchanging..

Mahakaruna for what, a thing that doesn't exist / have no regard for? And isn't mahakaruna a subject? Yes, Mahakaruna is said to be "objectless" compassion, AFAIK. Objectless just refers to emptiness, it doesn't mean "there is no object". Also by definition compassion must have ...

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Cup and broken cup are just designations/labelling, they are imaginary.

Have to provide some commentary, and I don't mean definitions..

apart from a cup that has broken and a cup that has not broken, there is no breaking cup (at present). At the time of the cup there is no broken cup.. But only a thing can be broken. Unmade things can't be broken.. there is no such thing. Meaning it's not correct to say "there is no breaking c...

As for a Buddha being a "person", technically, a Buddha is not what we would call a "sentient being." From the standpoint of our afflicted, karmic perception we see Buddha's as a person (just as we perceive other sentient beings), but this is not what appears to a Buddha. I cann...

But no, pointing out that a self is a byproduct of delusion is not "nihilism" just as pointing out that a rope lying in a dark room is not a snake (in order to help someone who mistakes it for a snake) is not nihilism. Persons are not a product of delusion, buddhas are persons. There is n...

Consider a cup that is falling and a moment later breaks on the floor The cup has to be there to break, in which case, its not broken/didn't break. Then when does the cup break, if not at the time of its breaking? Suppose someone says then, the cup doesn't have to be there to break, in which case, t...

As long as you attribute meaning to it, it probably is the point for you. I daresay the entire meaning of buddhadharma went over your head if you say that The buddha's whole point is that the self is not one with its parts, nor independent to them. Similarly, if a particular physical object possess...

"If the word 'cow' were to directly signify an individual cow, it would be impossible to use the same word to denote another one. Since the word I learned directly referred to the particular I first saw, I would not be able to apply it to any other cow. The opponent may answer that [this form]...

the "oneness" of reality Yes this produces the main wrong view, true existence "If the word 'cow' were to directly signify an individual cow, it would be impossible to use the same word to denote another one. Since the word I learned directly referred to the particular I first saw, I...