How do buddhas contact people?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7091
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Astus » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:03 pm

Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Soma999
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Soma999 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:28 pm

Emptiness does not mean nothing exist.

You take a rose. It exists. You can smell it, you can touch it... so there is something. BUT your vision of the rose is an hallucination if you make that something real, existing idependently. 50 persons see the rose, and you have 50 different epxeriences of what is a rose. So, it's absolutly relative.

Also, considering absolute truth, the rose is just components upon components that form we arbitrarly decided to call "rose" like if it has a distinguished existence in the Universe, like an independent self. So, in absolute truth, there is nothing called a rose.

But in relative truth, there is a rose. From your angle, from your perception, from your experience, there is a rose.

This is, from my point of view, a deep mistake to neglect relative truth, and more especially when we don't live in absolute truth.

So this is the same for vision. You can clearly see something existing with "inner vision", that is a perception. Maybe the perception is fully relative, but can touch, be connected with something that exists. Even if this Buddha does not exist absolutly, it exists relativly. So it exists as a Buddha from your part, and it does not exist as anything separated from all in absolute truth.

So, one can have fantaisie, but they can also see real things, which exists in the invisible world.

For exemple, someone had a deep vision of Castaneda, and following his vision, he encountered Castaneda in real life, and received teachings from him. The vision was certainly not an halucination.

But some people do certainly fantasise also. They imagine things.

Generally, the feeling that comes with vision give you an indication. When you are touched to the core of your body, your heart vibrate, your body feels light, joy, and you are fully at peace, this is an authentic vision. When after this vision you understand things like if a light inside reveal some realities, that is something that has the taste of autenticity.

And vision comes with power. When you receive a true, powerful, authentic vision, dream, the energy to realise it comes with it. So, many things can change in your life, as with this person who encountered Castaneda : many doors and synchronicity manifested so that he met him "easily" (while many tried without success).

With the native indians, they can fast and practice for a long time in isolation to receive dream, vision. Sometime, such a vision, directly received from the spirit (Dharmakaya), can transform their life for ever. We are far from fantasie.

So, beware of eternalism (things exists idependently, which is the dark side of relative truth) and nihilism (where nothing exists, which is the dark side of absolute truth). Both are bulshit. Things are, and they come into existence relativly, but do not exist also absolutly like if they were separated from the totality.

You know, someone can say "nothing exists, it's just halluination", but if this person is slapped in the face, maybe that has no existence... but he will felt it. Something also to consider.

Sentient Light
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: Pacifica, California

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Sentient Light » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:10 pm

Astus wrote:
Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.
Oooh, I like that line. Never seen the logic framed that way before, very insightful. :namaste:
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:

User avatar
Admin_PC
Site Admin
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Texas, USA

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Admin_PC » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:18 pm

Sentient Light wrote:
Astus wrote:
Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.
Oooh, I like that line. Never seen the logic framed that way before, very insightful. :namaste:
Yeah, I like that line too! It brings new perspective to the Pratyutpanna quote. :thanks:
月影の いたらぬ里は なけれども 眺むる人の 心にぞすむ
法然上人

frank123
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by frank123 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:28 pm

Luke wrote:If we assume for a moment that Buddhas like Amitabha, Akshobya, etc. exist in different parallel universes, what is the mechanism through we which they can contact us and we can contact them?

It's clearly some faster-than-light mechanism...
Buddha's don't contact you. Your own mind is the Buddha.

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:17 pm

Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
The same way that a pen functions as "pen" in your experience.

Cessation is unfathomable because it is cognized individually.

What other form of validation could there be?
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:39 pm

Luke wrote:If we assume for a moment that Buddhas like Amitabha, Akshobya, etc. exist in different parallel universes, what is the mechanism through we which they can contact us and we can contact them?

It's clearly some faster-than-light mechanism...
Mind is faster than light and so are blessings.

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:44 pm

Astus wrote:
Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.
There is no Buddha for us other than our own actual experience of Buddha, but there are different appearances to different minds. Buddha has a different experience of us than we do of ourself, and he or she also has a different experience of him/herself than we do. We have shared karma but our appearances are different.

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:31 pm

tingdzin wrote:
Luke wrote:How does one distinguish between actually contacting a buddha mentally and one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions?
This is not something one has to worry about. Better to practice more -- then there's some kind of chance that there will be genuine contact.
Yes, lately I have also been thinking the same thing. I don't need to have some "grand unified theory of Buddism" in my head to gain lots of benefit from my own Buddhist practice. However, it is quite interesting to discuss such things on a Buddhist forum. :D

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:33 pm

Astus wrote: Everything, the entire realm of experience, is the product of "one's own wishful thinking/fantasies/delusions". If one encounters a buddha or several buddhas in one's meditation, that is actually seeing a buddha. To think that there is a buddha besides one's actual experience, that is assuming an independent self.
Even Shakyamuni Buddha who was a historical figure is/was "just a product of my own wishful thinking"??

And secondly, lumping all ideas proposed by humans as "delusions" completely skips over the fact that some ideas are very useful, beneficial, and accurately predict phenomena; whereas others are not useful, not beneficial, and don't accurately predict phenomena. For example, scientific laws and theories are some of the most useful "delusions" that there are!

Being completely closed off to anything non-scientific is a very "safe" position that prevents one from making foolish decisions in most situations. But the opposite view which results from one completely deactivating one's "B.S. filter" and believing everything is a total disaster! ("You say that magic crystals can heal me? Okay I believe you. You say that you saw Jesus yesterday? Okay, I believe you. You say that you saw Zeus having a picnic with Bigfoot yesterday? Okay I believe you." lol)

It's not clear to me how sophisticated Mahayana Buddhists have recalibrated their "B.S. filters" to let in the minimum amount of essential Mahayana concepts while safely keeping out total nonsense. Saying "all is mind" seems to me to be embracing a world of undifferentiated nonsense, which doesn't seem to me like a very useful view to have...

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7091
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Astus » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:06 pm

Luke wrote:Even Shakyamuni Buddha who was a historical figure is/was "just a product of my own wishful thinking"??
You have not seen nor touched Shakyamuni, you merely think of him. So it is a good example of purely mental existence, that you nevertheless propose as something absolutely real.
And secondly, lumping all ideas proposed by humans as "delusions" completely skips over the fact that some ideas are very useful, beneficial, and accurately predict phenomena; whereas others are not useful, not beneficial, and don't accurately predict phenomena. For example, scientific laws and theories are some of the most useful "delusions" that there are!
Visions of buddhas are relevant to the practice of Buddhism, in particular a type of meditation. It is neither a scientific nor an economic doctrine or method. As far as I'm aware, no one has suggested that one should visualise buddhas in order to explain earthquakes or improve internet connection.
It's not clear to me how sophisticated Mahayana Buddhists have recalibrated their "B.S. filters" to let in the minimum amount of essential Mahayana concepts while safely keeping out total nonsense. Saying "all is mind" seems to me to be embracing a world of undifferentiated nonsense, which doesn't seem to me like a very useful view to have...
One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is that everything exists in context. So, if one says that there is anything that exists and/or has a meaning regardless of context, that is B.S. All teachings of Buddhism are within the context of perpetuating liberation. Once one forgets that context and tries to interpret the Dharma as something else, it ceases to be in accordance with the teaching of the buddhas.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Admin_PC
Site Admin
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Texas, USA

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Admin_PC » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:19 am

Astus wrote:
Luke wrote:Even Shakyamuni Buddha who was a historical figure is/was "just a product of my own wishful thinking"??
You have not seen nor touched Shakyamuni, you merely think of him. So it is a good example of purely mental existence, that you nevertheless propose as something absolutely real.
And secondly, lumping all ideas proposed by humans as "delusions" completely skips over the fact that some ideas are very useful, beneficial, and accurately predict phenomena; whereas others are not useful, not beneficial, and don't accurately predict phenomena. For example, scientific laws and theories are some of the most useful "delusions" that there are!
Visions of buddhas are relevant to the practice of Buddhism, in particular a type of meditation. It is neither a scientific nor an economic doctrine or method. As far as I'm aware, no one has suggested that one should visualise buddhas in order to explain earthquakes or improve internet connection.
It's not clear to me how sophisticated Mahayana Buddhists have recalibrated their "B.S. filters" to let in the minimum amount of essential Mahayana concepts while safely keeping out total nonsense. Saying "all is mind" seems to me to be embracing a world of undifferentiated nonsense, which doesn't seem to me like a very useful view to have...
One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is that everything exists in context. So, if one says that there is anything that exists and/or has a meaning regardless of context, that is B.S. All teachings of Buddhism are within the context of perpetuating liberation. Once one forgets that context and tries to interpret the Dharma as something else, it ceases to be in accordance with the teaching of the buddhas.
:good:
Your initial comment on Shakyamuni really hits home for me.

"All is mind" sure sounds a lot like "Mind precedes all things" found in the earlier material, so not strictly a Mahayana thing for sure. I guess it's kind of difficult to process the idea that anything we experience is shaped by our mind, especially when some blindly cling to faith in an external, objective reality.
月影の いたらぬ里は なけれども 眺むる人の 心にぞすむ
法然上人

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:28 am

Admin_PC wrote: "All is mind" sure sounds a lot like "Mind precedes all things" found in the earlier material, so not strictly a Mahayana thing for sure. I guess it's kind of difficult to process the idea that anything we experience is shaped by our mind, especially when some blindly cling to faith in an external, objective reality.
Oh, on the contrary, I find it very easy to see that everything I experience is "shaped" (filtered/interpreted) by my mind, but to me, this is very different than saying that all external reality "is" my mind.

To me, if something "is" my mind, then I should have some degree of control over it, and I obviously can't make the sun disappear while I am staring at it just by thinking that I want it to disappear. This lack of control which I have over phenomena is what implies to me that there are some "real" (or "kind of real") external objects which are not very dependent on my mind.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Losal Samten » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:45 am

Luke wrote:what is the mechanism through we which they can contact us
Via the three types of nirmanakaya.
and we can contact them?
They are omniscient, thus, when we think of them, they know.
Malcolm wrote:A mind is both unimpeded and unimpeding by nature.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
Admin_PC
Site Admin
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Texas, USA

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Admin_PC » Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:00 am

Luke wrote:Oh, on the contrary, I find it very easy to see that everything I experience is "shaped" (filtered/interpreted) by my mind, but to me, this is very different than saying that all external reality "is" my mind.
If there's an external reality that you cannot experience, how would you know about it? Have you ever looked into the double slit experiment and its ramifications?
Luke wrote:To me, if something "is" my mind, then I should have some degree of control over it, and I obviously can't make the sun disappear while I am staring at it just by thinking that I want it to disappear. This lack of control which I have over phenomena is what implies to me that there are some "real" (or "kind of real") external objects which are not very dependent on my mind.
You can't make the sensation of pain go away when your hand's on fire either. Nor can one easily dismiss psychosomatic symptoms or "phantom pains". The amount of control we have over the results of our actions is minimal. What you're talking about (ie having control over things) is more consistent with European Idealism and not Buddhist Yogacara/Cittamatra teachings. The two are extremely different. Your concept of "mind" also doesn't seem to be very consistent with Buddhism either. Vasubandhu does a better job explaining it than I ever will. You should probably read him. If you're still interested in your original post, you may also want to read "The Interpretation of the Buddha Land" available from BDK.
月影の いたらぬ里は なけれども 眺むる人の 心にぞすむ
法然上人

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Anders » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:23 pm

Luke wrote: To me, if something "is" my mind, then I should have some degree of control over it,
There is your mistake right there.

  • "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"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
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:19 pm

Admin_PC wrote:If there's an external reality that you cannot experience, how would you know about it?
From scientists and scientific instruments. For example, I can't see infra-red light, but I believe that it exists because of the writings of scientists about it.
Admin_PC wrote:Have you ever looked into the double slit experiment and its ramifications?
Yes, I am familiar with the famous double-slit experiment, but I haven't thought much about it in years.

However, a lot of New Age writers throw in the word "quantum" whenever they want to make something sound more legitimate and more impressive, so I am hesitant to make to many sweeping statements linking quantum physics to religion. But if you can recommend some article about the possible connections between Buddhism and physics which isn't silly New Age fluff, I would be interested in reading it.
Luke wrote:Vasubandhu does a better job explaining it than I ever will. You should probably read him.
Maybe I should.

I would like to mention that I have attended the dharma talks of traditional lamas for many years, but it is unfortunate that their talks didn't give me any solid grasp of Buddhist philosophy.

User avatar
Admin_PC
Site Admin
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Texas, USA

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Admin_PC » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:57 pm

Luke wrote:Yes, I am familiar with the famous double-slit experiment, but I haven't thought much about it in years.
So if merely observing alters the paths of the electrons, what does that tell you? And while we're on the subject quantum entanglement operates so quickly over distances that information would need be traveling over 10 times the speed of light if it was going linearly - so we already have proof of a faster-than-light mechanism (to reference your first post).
Luke wrote:However, a lot of New Age writers throw in the word "quantum" whenever they want to make something sound more legitimate and more impressive, so I am hesitant to make to many sweeping statements linking quantum physics to religion. But if you can recommend some article about the possible connections between Buddhism and physics which isn't silly New Age fluff, I would be interested in reading it.
Backlash at any mention of quantum physics is predictable, but in this case it's unwarranted. It's directly related to the discussion. Quantum in the Lotus is the book you want to check out.
Luke wrote:I would like to mention that I have attended the dharma talks of traditional lamas for many years, but it is unfortunate that their talks didn't give me any solid grasp of Buddhist philosophy.
Then I suggest you sit down and ask Malcolm any questions you have in a respectful manner and he might answer them. But you may want to tone down the rhetoric. Some skepticism is healthy, but acting like traditional teachings are hooey (ie. accusing people of 'deactivating one's "B.S. filter"') is disrespectful and antagonistic.
月影の いたらぬ里は なけれども 眺むる人の 心にぞすむ
法然上人

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:44 pm

Admin_PC wrote: So if merely observing alters the paths of the electrons, what does that tell you?
It tells me that the mind has some influence on the physical world, but exactly how much and to what extent is still unclear.
Admin_PC wrote: And while we're on the subject quantum entanglement operates so quickly over distances that information would need be traveling over 10 times the speed of light if it was going linearly - so we already have proof of a faster-than-light mechanism (to reference your first post).
Hold on, it is my understanding that most physicists don't believe that quantum entanglement can be used to transmit information. This is exactly why I am hesitant to try to use quantum physics to support spiritual concepts. Perhaps if I had an advanced degree in physics, I would be more daring about speculating, but I don't want to abuse and misinterpret the theories of physicists.

"Note: This non-locality in quantum mechanics only relates to the specific information that is entangled between the two particles - the spin in the above example. The measurement of A cannot be used to instantly transmit any sort of other information to B at great distances, and no one observing B will be able to tell independently whether or not A was measured. Under the vast majority of interpretations by respected physicists, this does not allow communication faster than the speed of light."
http://physics.about.com/od/quantuminte ... heorem.htm
Admin_PC wrote: Backlash at any mention of quantum physics is predictable, but in this case it's unwarranted. It's directly related to the discussion. Quantum in the Lotus is the book you want to check out.
I don't think the fact that I am cautious about misinterpreting physics is as negative a thing as "backlash." If a bunch of mainstream physicists come around to your interpretation, then I would take more notice. Thank you for the book recommendation.
Admin_PC wrote:Then I suggest you sit down and ask Malcolm any questions you have in a respectful manner and he might answer them.
Yes, he is a great source of information and our forum is lucky to have him.
Admin_PC wrote:But you may want to tone down the rhetoric. Some skepticism is healthy, but acting like traditional teachings are hooey (ie. accusing people of 'deactivating one's "B.S. filter"') is disrespectful and antagonistic.
You are misquoting me and you misunderstood what I wrote.
My question simply about how one creates mental criteria that let in essential Buddhist ideas, but which won't let in every religious and New Age idea under the sun.
By "B.S. filter," I simply meant "our set of criteria by which we decide what is 'sensible' and what is 'nonsense.'"

Sorry if my terminology offended you. I just enjoy writing a bit creatively, since I rarely get a chance to do so anymore.

And additionally, a bit of controversy can often get new members to join the forum who are motivated to discuss these issues. :)

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Location: Europe

Re: How do buddhas contact people?

Post by Luke » Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:56 pm

Astus wrote:
Luke wrote:Even Shakyamuni Buddha who was a historical figure is/was "just a product of my own wishful thinking"??
You have not seen nor touched Shakyamuni, you merely think of him. So it is a good example of purely mental existence, that you nevertheless propose as something absolutely real.
I don't know if I consider Shakyamuni Buddha as "absolutely real" (I am not sure about what the definition of that would be) but I do consider him "as real as Charlemagne was" because there is historical evidence for the existence of both.

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Seeker12 and 50 guests