The Tantric Age: A comparison of Shaiva and Buddhist Tantra

[Tiago Simões]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

No they don't, only buddhism teaches emptiness of all dharmas.

[Malcolm]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying: I am saying that an intellectual understanding of Right View is not enough. Taking Right View as a mental object means that, like all mental objects, it can become yet another means of self identification: I have Right View, YOU do not have Right View. You see it happening all the time. For me, an intellectual understanding is not enough. Realisation through insight is essential.

Without an intellectual understanding of right view, realization through insight is impossible.

I did not say an intellectual understanding is not necessary, I said it is not sufficient.

No one said it was sufficient. All that was said is that it was necessary. Thus, you agree with the statement, "liberation is impossible without right view." The next point is, "In what Dharma can one find right view?" Only in Buddhadharma.

[Grigoris]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

I don't think it matters. If one has true insight into the nature of phenomena then somehow I don't think they will be wasting their time with theories, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

[dzogchungpa]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

I don't think it matters. If one has true insight into the nature of phenomena then somehow I don't think they will be wasting their time with theories, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

Or with DW for that matter.

[Malcolm]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

I don't think it matters. If one has true insight into the nature of phenomena then somehow I don't think they will be wasting their time with theories, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

If someone has true insight into the nature of phenomena, they will waste their time with the view to the extent that they are trying to communicate the view to others.

The reason for "wasting one's time" with theories is to eliminate concepts which one may not recognize as being a wrong view or a lower view.

Buddhadharma, despite some people's knownothingism, is not an anti-intellectual tradition. This should be obvious.

[odysseus]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

I don't think it matters. If one has true insight into the nature of phenomena then somehow I don't think they will be wasting their time with theories, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

If someone has true insight into the nature of phenomena, they will waste their time with the view to the extent that they are trying to communicate the view to others.

The reason for "wasting one's time" with theories is to eliminate concepts which one may not recognize as being a wrong view or a lower view.

Buddhadharma, despite some people's knownothingism, is not an anti-intellectual tradition. This should be obvious.

No need to be intellectual neither. No need to have an IQ of 180 to know Buddha. I had enough of the intellectuals who want to make it into a science. Thanks to everybody, I laugh.

[Grigoris]

Buddhadharma, despite some people's knownothingism, is not an anti-intellectual tradition. This should be obvious.

I never said it was, nor would I say it... I would be a hypocritical asshole if I did.

[Losal Samten]

If someone has true insight into the nature of phenomena, they will waste their time with the view to the extent that they are trying to communicate the view to others.

The reason for "wasting one's time" with theories is to eliminate concepts which one may not recognize as being a wrong view or a lower view.

How influenced by the afflictions are the aryas on the impure bhumis? They perceive things post-equipoise as completely illusory, but are still under the sway of kleshas, correct?

So for example, a first or second bhumi arya is reading his sutras, when a troublemaker comes along, kicks his texts around and tramples them, and runs off laughing; how would their angry reaction differ to that of a normal person?

Additionally, when tying the paramitas to the the bhumis, it's said that patience is perfected on the third bhumi; does this mean that a third bhumi arya will never have their anger affliction arise (although it would still exist latently)?

[odysseus]

Additionally, when tying the paramitas to the the bhumis, it's said that patience is perfected on the third bhumi; does this mean that a third bhumi arya will never have their anger affliction arise (although it would still exist latently)?

Don't worry, a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva will transfrom his latent anger into patience just like that.

[Losal Samten]

Don't worry, a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva will transfrom his latent anger into patience just like that.

Once on the 8th bhumi and above (and are on the pure bhumis as they're called), bodhisattvas have no afflictive obscurations left in their continuum, only cognitive obscurations which prevents them from omniscience; and so they never give rise to anger, desire and the like.

[DharmaChakra]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

No they don't, only buddhism teaches emptiness of all dharmas.

Namaste

It central to all dharma traditions however you label them to give up dharma when the time is right. From the essence of all Upanishads (Vedanta ) we have Bhagavad Gita~ moksha yoga 18.66 sarva-dharman parityajya

Sarva~ all
dharma~ ( does not fit into any English translation ), intrinsic nature of phenomenon
parityajya~ abandon, give up, let go of, leave behind

With Metta

[Tiago Simões]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

No they don't, only buddhism teaches emptiness of all dharmas.

Namaste

It central to all dharma traditions however you label them to give up dharma when the time is right. From the essence of all Upanishads (Vedanta ) we have Bhagavad Gita~ moksha yoga 18.66 sarva-dharman parityajya

Sarva~ all
dharma~ ( does not fit into any English translation ), intrinsic nature of phenomenon
parityajya~ abandon, give up, let go of, leave behind

With Metta

Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Verse 66

Abandon all types of dharma – come and surrender unto Me alone! Do not fear, for I will surely deliver you from all reactions.

I spy with my little eye, a dharma!

[Sherab]

That was why I asked whether non-Buddhist system of practices actually teach the abandonment of all views (which logically should be at the end of the path). As I mentioned before, I don't think they do.

I don't think it matters. If one has true insight into the nature of phenomena then somehow I don't think they will be wasting their time with theories, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

I think it does. Just imagine telling a believer in an Almighty Creator who is the source of all lives including the believer''s, that he, the believer must abandon any idea of the Almighty Creator, ideas he was taught to be true and eternal. It would be entirely inconsistent with the philosophy of such a religion.

On the other hand, in the Buddha Dharma, it would be a logical follow through from the teaching of dependent arising and sunyata to the actual meditation of reality as it is. This is because reality is an illusion. We ourselves as phenomena cannot understand the actual reality through our mind which itself is a phenomenon, but through the reality that is already within us. (Hence, it is said that liberation and enlightenment cannot be given by others. Hence it is said that liberation and enlightenment cannot be attained in the sense there being something to attain or something that can be attained through a mind that is itself a phenomena. Hence it is said that liberation and nirvana are cessations.) That is why, abandonment of all views is necessary. In order for one to accept that abandonment of all views is necessary, one has to be taught the right view that is consistent with the need to eventually abandon all views. Only the Buddha Dharma does that in a coherent and consistent manner.

[Sherab]

No they don't, only buddhism teaches emptiness of all dharmas.

Namaste

It central to all dharma traditions however you label them to give up dharma when the time is right. From the essence of all Upanishads (Vedanta ) we have Bhagavad Gita~ moksha yoga 18.66 sarva-dharman parityajya

Sarva~ all
dharma~ ( does not fit into any English translation ), intrinsic nature of phenomenon
parityajya~ abandon, give up, let go of, leave behind

With Metta

Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Verse 66

Abandon all types of dharma – come and surrender unto Me alone! Do not fear, for I will surely deliver you from all reactions.

I spy with my little eye, a dharma!

And I spy with my little eye, an eternal dharma, Me.

[Malcolm]

It central to all dharma traditions however you label them to give up dharma when the time is right.

That is not what "the emptiness of all phenomena" means.

[Grigoris]

I think it does. Just imagine telling a believer in an Almighty Creator who is the source of all lives including the believer''s, that he, the believer must abandon any idea of the Almighty Creator, ideas he was taught to be true and eternal. It would be entirely inconsistent with the philosophy of such a religion.

Don't confuse post-meditative frameworks of interpretation, with meditational experiences. A person may not possess the language needed to express their experience. Take the language used in early translations of the Kungyed Gyalpo as an example.

[muni]

I agree with you learned ones, the intellect should be respected and taken good use of.
It is said ( Mipham) regarding "right view":

The "view" is completely free from conditions, concepts, and characteristics.

How can there be any object ( which has then characteristics)? Isn’t enlightened guidance freeing grasping subject to its’ grasping right/wrong objects”? Can there be “right view” as long as there is subject-object experience?
Because then things are very clear: you should understand that my view is right and others view is wrong, if you cannot understand that, you are wrong.

Bikshus and learned ones, just as gold is burnt, cut and rubbed, examine well my speech and then accept, not otherwise for respects’ sake.

Then this examination resulting in not conditioned by clinging? As examination leading to examination isn't that not holding on subject-object maintenance?

[Sherab]

I think it does. Just imagine telling a believer in an Almighty Creator who is the source of all lives including the believer''s, that he, the believer must abandon any idea of the Almighty Creator, ideas he was taught to be true and eternal. It would be entirely inconsistent with the philosophy of such a religion.

Don't confuse post-meditative frameworks of interpretation, with meditational experiences. A person may not possess the language needed to express their experience. Take the language used in early translations of the Kungyed Gyalpo as an example.

Perhaps you don't read religious texts within its own philosophical context. I do.

[Grigoris]

I think it does. Just imagine telling a believer in an Almighty Creator who is the source of all lives including the believer''s, that he, the believer must abandon any idea of the Almighty Creator, ideas he was taught to be true and eternal. It would be entirely inconsistent with the philosophy of such a religion.

Don't confuse post-meditative frameworks of interpretation, with meditational experiences. A person may not possess the language needed to express their experience. Take the language used in early translations of the Kungyed Gyalpo as an example.

Perhaps you don't read religious texts within its own philosophical context. I do.

I think that all spiritual experiences derive from the same source: our enlightened nature. How religions ( and individuals) colour over the experiences in order to explain them is not all that important to me. Personally I like the Buddhist colour scheme and so... But I cannot invalidate the spiritual experiences of others because they belong to a different religion. I will judge if their experience leads them to wholesome or unwholesome activity, whether it reinforces their aversion and attachment though, coz this much I can see.

[muni]

I do.

Then you may now kiss the bride.

Buddha Nature is kissing all the time to wake up out of right dreams.