Dharma Wheel

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:59 pm I wasn’t responding to your post.

ok how does that change the context of my response as it is open to anyone with an opinion or answer for which there seems to be a wealth of until we broach the point I have asked several times?

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:20 pm

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:42 amIt's only helpful to demarcate the boundaries of what the Buddhadharma is vs. what is not the Buddhadharma.

Like Rangtong vs Shentong, for example...

Oh thats a pretty straightforward issue. The answer is 42, apparently.

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:35 amNo one can agree to what constitutes an anything though, I mean the same is true of politics etc.

Yup. So where are the "advantages" that Buddhism confers to it's followers if they act no differently than everybody else?

Is consensus an advantage? The implication of your comment is that to be an advantage, we should all agree, lock step.

That's idealistic.

If you consider Madhyamika, for instance, it is entirely a deconstructive analysis with a punch line that has to be read in the negative space that remains.

I come back to my point - debate is an essential part of the Buddhist path and has been from the beginning. Its how enlightenment is worked out. When its just us on the cushion, its breaking down experience to its elements, dissolving the conventional self. When we work it out with others, its discussion and debate.

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

Four Seals.

Refuge.

Some things that bind us all.

Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:23 pmIs consensus an advantage? The implication of your comment is that to be an advantage, we should all agree, lock step.

It seems that you have completely misunderstood my point.

Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:27 pm

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am Which begs the question. Why log on to a Buddhist forum which proclaims that there is no consensus about what constitutes Buddhism? To shoot the breeze a while? Have an argument? Or what?

Or could it be that there is in fact a consensus regarding what constitutes the teaching of various Buddhist schools, but little to support the idea of a pan-Buddhist approach.

Four Seals.

Refuge.

Some things that bind us all.

True. And discussion of those topics tends to generate light and not just heat.

Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:27 pmFour Seals.

Some traditions say that there are only Three Seals.

Refuge.

Guru, Deva, Dakini?

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:28 pm

Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:23 pmIs consensus an advantage? The implication of your comment is that to be an advantage, we should all agree, lock step.

It seems that you have completely misunderstood my point.

Just following your remarks, responses and replies. Misunderstanding is mine. No problem.

if practice is in part realized through elements such as karma and capacity how would everyone be in direct consensus even if we are all full engaged and developmentally relative?

Seems any expectation past that is delusional but apparently my mind is grasping and clinging furiously to the notion we all have a latent buddha nature and if I just went on full empty it would be realized instead of discussing it.

I wonder if that is all false dichotomy because it seems the combination of both is expressed in the process of realization.

If ego is triggered by talk like this is it a sign of unhealthy attachment?

Also it seems to me that compassion and emptiness both have their own appeal and thus drawn in different perspectives that get more value from either one or the other yet "proper" practice manifests both in balanced measure (If I understand correctly)

If we are empty and exit emptiness what are we filling ourselves with and how much of this is mindfully crafted to carry on what we learn from emptiness until we enter it again?

that is to say is the division we see a manner of reformation of thoughts that serve no purpose in the propagation of buddhadharma for us as individuals and for those sentient beings we personally encounter?

Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:31 pm

Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:27 pmFour Seals.

Some traditions say that there are only Three Seals.

That's a difference in how far the extrapolation goes, not of the fundamental teaching.

Refuge.

Guru, Deva, Dakini?

You forget Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. I left it vague intentionally. The function of refuge is fundamentally the same, and even in the various tantras, AFAIK, basically still refuge in the Three Jewels.

If we want to find difference, we can find it. If we want to find commonality, we can do that, too.

The problem is that we live in a political world. I have met spiritually advanced people from almost all traditions. Some traditions produce more than others. Tibetan Buddhism excels at making yogis but it's inverse is it produced a weak system of state governance. Religion is easily corrupted. Some traditions consider this corruption a feature and excel at creating political movements. One person holding a corrupted ideology is harmless. Once that is millions it turns criminal. History is controlled by those who are political and the Buddha could not save his own tiny kingdom.

There will always be a secret cabal of those who walk in the light. Taking innumerable forms in every imaginable tradition. But the vast bulk of religion is about identity and politics. It produces cruel hierarchies that enslave the planet. You say by corruption and I say after so many millennia it is by design. It is no accident.

Also Buddhism teaches emptiness of self and crushes all those silly stories and narratives that masquerade as truth. If getting to a heaven realm one more time is your highest ideal good luck with that.

tkp67 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:56 pm Also it seems to me that compassion and emptiness both have their own appeal and thus drawn in different perspectives that get more value from either one or the other yet "proper" practice manifests both in balanced measure (If I understand correctly)

If we are empty and exit emptiness what are we filling ourselves with and how much of this is mindfully crafted to carry on what we learn from emptiness until we enter it again?

that is to say is the division we see a manner of reformation of thoughts that serve no purpose in the propagation of buddhadharma for us as individuals and for those sentient beings we personally encounter?

Practice for oneself and for others. If your only aim is personal liberation, then that is the Small Vehicle. Various ways of acting to ameliorate the suffering of others is practice for others. Its not so much propagation but rather helping others free themselves from entanglements. Some people don't know they are entangled. Some realize it, but don't know there is liberation. Others don't know how to liberate themselves.

Nemo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:43 pm The problem is that we live in a political world.

The problem is that we're wired to be social animals, and that expresses as politics. Its not something outside... its us.

That's why a curriculum like Buddhism that aims at retraining the organism to see and act on reality as opposed to instinct and emotion is necessary. It leads to a different sort of organization of society. Unfortunately, that organization is weaker than samsaric logic in the short term.

I am sorry, while I am not able to understand all here, I am wondering something, since this topic turned into Buddha Dharma as different from other religions.

May I accept that teachings pointing to not trust the dividing (grasping) mind, is completely not the same as Buddhism would not have its own teachings-methods? And so these are two different things?

The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes. Cultivating a close, warm-hearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. This helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter.

Thus we can strive gradually to become more compassionate, that is we can develop both genuine sympathy for others' suffering and the will to help remove their pain. As a result, our own serenity and inner strength will increase. H H DL

I was reflecting on this here above. Then no way to help to remove fellows pain by rejecting the available painkiller they have. Probably through own pain we come aware of the pain of others, who are seeking solutions, just like us.

And probably saying their religion is less or they are not able to awaken, is not removing any pain.

muni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:20 pm I am sorry, while I am not able to understand all here, I am wondering something, since this topic turned into Buddha Dharma as different from other religions.

May I accept that teachings pointing to not trust the dividing (grasping) mind, is completely not the same as Buddhism would not have its own teachings-methods? And so these are two different things?

The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes. Cultivating a close, warm-hearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. This helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter.

Thus we can strive gradually to become more compassionate, that is we can develop both genuine sympathy for others' suffering and the will to help remove their pain. As a result, our own serenity and inner strength will increase. H H DL

I was reflecting on this here above. Then no way to help to remove fellows pain by rejecting the available painkiller they have. Probably through own pain we come aware of the pain of others, who are seeking solutions, just like us.

And probably saying their religion is less or they are not able to awaken, is not removing any pain.

To the last line it isn't just not removing pain but if it makes them feel incapable/incompatible one wonders if it becomes a greater obstacle. Even if everything outside of the state of the teachings that lead to bodhi are simply understood to clinging what is it they are clinging to? As I understand it their mind is clinging on to existence because the ego like us fears death and when someone with that mental framework tends to cling harder in light of that fear.

How one untangles those minds seems to require (this might be me clinging to intellectualizing) dialog about what is in them and I am trying hard to avoid that trespass but I think I made the point whilst avoiding any offence.

Hopefully, at least.

I will say what attracted me was the minds behind the people who practiced before me, they seemed to carry themselves in a way that I desired to conform do once I had the chance to observe it.

Queequeg wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:22 pm OK, folks, we have unmistakably crossed into a comparative discussion - the moment we start suggesting what someone believes or doesn't believe outside the Buddhist sphere and arguing about that, we have left the scope of this site. You all are invited to take this over to our sister site, https://dharmapaths.com/

I didn't realize the boundaries in this regard and deeply regret offending anyone in the process.

Tolerating my questioning this point under these conditions is admirable and I will make my best attempts to be mindful in this regard.

I really didn't understand and that is failure on my part but it was not my intent.

Simon E. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:20 pm

ford_truckin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:39 am

PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am

No, I don’t. They do not teach, either in philosophy or experientially, the same view of emptiness. That’s abundantly clear for Sufism and Gnosticism. For Vedanta, as countless discussions on this site have shown, that tradition’s habit of borrowing Buddhist terminology makes the discussion a little more complicated. But since we were talking here about Judaism/Christianity/islam, I don’t think we need to go down that rabbit hole again.

If you’re saying that you think that, say, Gnosticism by itself leads to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, then you’re saying something in contradiction with every school of the the Dharma. Not that I have anything against Gnosticism or deny that it can make people better. But it is not the same thing as the Buddhadharma.

Just pulling your leg. I consider all these other spiritual traditions to be vastly inferior compared to the Buddhadharma

Let’s not go to the other extreme the fact is those Christians, Sufis etc who are accomplished in their own tradition are probably nearer enlightenment than most of we Buddhists labouring up the foothills. Which does not mean that the ultimate goals are the same. They are clearly not.

tkp67 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:02 am Even if everything outside of the state of the teachings that lead to bodhi are simply understood to clinging what is it they are clinging to? As I understand it their mind is clinging on to existence because the ego like us fears death and when someone with that mental framework tends to cling harder in light of that fear.

How one untangles those minds seems to require (this might be me clinging to intellectualizing) dialog about what is in them and I am trying hard to avoid that trespass but I think I made the point whilst avoiding any offence.

Hopefully, at least.

I will say what attracted me was the minds behind the people who practiced before me, they seemed to carry themselves in a way that I desired to conform do once I had the chance to observe it.

Hello ,

You say: "Even if everything outside of the state of the teachings that lead to bodhi are simply understood to clinging what is it they are clinging to?"

Please, what is out of the state of Bodhi?

How can there be clinging, other than by idea of being there phenomena-appearances which need to be avoided or hold on, phenomena which are wrong and other right?

When there is anything perceived out of the teaching of the Buddha, can it be the teaching of the Buddha? Since appearances-emptiness are inseparable, what 'we can see in meditation', it is completely impossible there is some thing or some phenomena out.

But possible, there can be a fear that the conventional dharma would be spoiled by other, by believes. Faith in the Buddha's teachings and very much Practice, can take this fear away. May all be blessed.

"And probably saying their religion is less or they are not able to awaken, is not removing any pain".

Hello again, sorry I cut that off, i am going to glue it here:

tkp67 wrote: To the last line it isn't just not removing pain but if it makes them feel incapable/incompatible one wonders if it becomes a greater obstacle.

It is. It is compassionless to take the trust in the aspirine (metaphor) away from suffering fellows. It clouds Bodhicitta, relative as well as ultimate (all-inclusive.)
It is then an obstacle for own Awakening since grasping-clinging is maintained. This can be very subtle and we all need to try to be aware of these subtle tendencies, which are often invisible habits, for which a light on it is very much needed.
Gratitude for that light.