Eckart Tolle - master of the park bench

[padma norbu]

To my knowledge, from what I have witnessed, none of the well-regarded teachers make a public fuss. Dalai Lama says it best: it is good to note the similarities, but equally good to note the differences. Short of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship, there is nothing we can do to stop people from having ideas and sharing ideas and it seems the most respected faces of Buddhism have chosen not to rant and rave about Tolle, making themselves look fanatical and unappealing in the process.

According to Tibetan Pedagogy, at least in the Kagyu tradition, there are two "modes" of presenting teachings--the mode of pointing out similarities, to a general audience, and the mode of highlighting differences, for the committed and serious practitioner.

So, yes, they don't make a "public fuss." But you can be sure that, in small groups of actively practicing students, the "errors" or "wrong views" would be noted very clearly.

Yes, we all know that, I think. I was referring to a "public fuss" in a way I thought was fairly obvious from the context. The Dalai Lama did not sit there beside Tolle and make a public fuss. He followed his own advice to note the similarities and differences without making a spectacle of himself, causing hard feelings, etc.

[padma norbu]

Dude, you STILL have not understood the simple fact that the 84,000 quote is not even the words of the Buddha, but the words of Ananda.

"Dude," I already clarified this on page 17 when I pointed out "I never said that." Please note:

Mutsuk is 100% correct, the gata you quoted to show Buddhas tolerance for other religions is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Actually, the gata itself was uttered by Ananda and not the Buddha:

I never said that, either. The original link says "This is a representative teaching to the Buddha’s tolerance for other religions." LINK: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... amma_doors ...If you have a problem with this language, take it up with David N. Snyder, owner of DharmaWheel, not me, but the language does not state that "this means religious tolerance," it says it "this is a representative teaching to the Buddha’s tolerance for other religions," which is different.

According to my reading, David N. Snyder is not wrong: "There is no rigid curriculum for Buddhist “education” although there are general guidelines...There are numerous ways...Each way is specifically devised for the caliber and temperament of the student. It is often situational and can even be spontaneously “designed”... Buddhist scriptures explains that from the single syllable AH uttered by Lord Buddha 84000 ways have been derived by sentient beings according to their own caliber and temperament. In other words, a “curriculum”, if there is such a thing, is not differentiated in the sense that profound meanings are hidden from those of a low caliber but each person will derive from it according to his or her need just as there are different antidotes for difference illnesses."

[padma norbu]

As for my personal feelings on the 84,000 doors, my point was that you can not even list 1,000 of them (none of us can)

Of course we can, just that it would be incredibly tedious and boring. All you have to do is scour the Canon (both Shravakayana and Mahayana) for teachings given by the Buddha (and Sariputta and Mausgalyayana and Mahakassapa and...) to Ananda. Keep in mind that just because a teaching was not directed at Ananda personally does not mean he was not there to receive it too. You see, there is no need to make everything all mystical and magical, a little bit of dry logic goes a long way.

You still don't understand and have said absolutely nothing to correct me. Shall I continue to repeat myself? Fine, then I will...

As for my personal feelings on the 84,000 doors, my point was that you can not even list 1,000 of them (none of us can), so why pretend to know precisely what that means? Is compassion 1 of the 84,000 dharma doors? I have read that it is. When we have compassion for other beings, we rejoice in their happiness, whatever it is, according to their capacities. We do not browbeat them and argue with them and cause divisiveness and bad feelings. Ranting against Tolle, for example, is a sure way to make Buddhism look bad and drive people away if something about Tolle resonates with them. I have given quotes from Lama Pema Wangdak and Lama Pema from Nechung Foundation to illustrate this point. Both of these lamas showed compassion and joy for people of completely different religious traditions, not just "watered down new agey Buddhism." In the case of Lama Pema of Nechung Foundation, he was even talking about a former student of his who rejected the dharma and turned to Islam! He was happy for her getting what she needs now, since the dharma clearly wasn't working for her. He affirmed "we all have to pay the bills, our karmic debts, but sometimes it takes a little longer, haha…" This is not a ringing endorsement of Islam or anything. But, he did not condemn her or her religion; he let us figure it out for ourselves. What's better, a husband, new house and a new car… or paying off karmic debts and achieving total liberation? Hmmm…

[dzogchungpa]

Shouldn't we be getting back to the topic of this thread, i.e. Is Eckhart Tolle an alien or not?

[conebeckham]

Yes, we all know that, I think. I was referring to a "public fuss" in a way I thought was fairly obvious from the context. The Dalai Lama did not sit there beside Tolle and make a public fuss. He followed his own advice to note the similarities and differences without making a spectacle of himself, causing hard feelings, etc.

I agree with your assessment of HH behavior, and note it is a presentation of "generalist" pedagogy.

Since we are here on a Buddhist board, I'd think we should all understand that there is no contradiction between such behavior, in public, and a critique of Tolle's positions or views, vis a vis various traditions of Dharma, here. There is a time and a place, simply stated......I'm not sure why there's such heat on this topic, perhaps I've stepped into the middle of something I don't quite comprehend. My point is that it is completely appropriate to point out errors and "wrong views," in the proper context, which in this case would be a discussion amongst serious, committed practitioners of BuddhaDharma. This sort of thing is not a display of religious intolerance at all. Saying, for example, that Tolle's doctrine is not one of the 84,000 doors of Dharma is not an intolerant statement, if it can be supported by doctrinal assertions and debate. It all depends on context and audience.

[padma norbu]

Yes, we all know that, I think. I was referring to a "public fuss" in a way I thought was fairly obvious from the context. The Dalai Lama did not sit there beside Tolle and make a public fuss. He followed his own advice to note the similarities and differences without making a spectacle of himself, causing hard feelings, etc.

I agree with your assessment of HH behavior, and note it is a presentation of "generalist" pedagogy.

Since we are here on a Buddhist board, I'd think we should all understand that there is no contradiction between such behavior, in public, and a critique of Tolle's positions or views, vis a vis various traditions of Dharma, here. There is a time and a place, simply stated......I'm not sure why there's such heat on this topic, perhaps I've stepped into the middle of something I don't quite comprehend. My point is that it is completely appropriate to point out errors and "wrong views," in the proper context, which in this case would be a discussion amongst serious, committed practitioners of BuddhaDharma. This sort of thing is not a display of religious intolerance at all. Saying, for example, that Tolle's doctrine is not one of the 84,000 doors of Dharma is not an intolerant statement, if it can be supported by doctrinal assertions and debate. It all depends on context and audience.

I agree. I think you might have missed some posts that were very heated, indeed, but of little actual substance. It seems when accusing someone of false teaching, charlatanism, complete and utter lack of bodhicitta, etc. that no proof of such claims are necessary, but if someone says something which seems to disagree with someone's personal views about the 84,000 doors then it turns into a "prove it" type of situation. So, that's where we are at this point.

[Berry]

In my own case, although I had studied spirituality for several decades, including seven years in a Catholic Seminary and three years in a Buddhist monastery, I was shown that none of my previous views really applied, and the distinct sense I had was that, on the contrary, all of them were based on false premises. It was unmistakably clear to me that the whole system and description of reality that we as humans buy into, based on our conditioning, is a somewhat humorous pretense (Divine Comedy). At best, it seems to be like a running software program within the confines of a holographic-type environment, one designed for immature beings who are just learning the rudiments of how to behave. This program includes all the religious and philosophical assertions which we as humans cling to and depend on to define our place in the universe.

This sounds similar to some of my experiences when I took LSD a few times when I was a student.

Moreover, non-identification with and non-dwelling on any views whatsoever, whether right or wrong, good or bad, pure or impure, positive or negative, etc., can reveal a spaciousness in which all opposites are recognized as void. Such practice is in fact a gateway to detachment and wisdom, and is recommended by the more advanced among us, the sages who have appeared to shine a light on the developmental process.

Sure, we can experience this spacious emptiness and awareness in meditation.(and post-meditation,sometimes)

Essentially, views (positions) are produced by and in turn produce mental conditioning in this virtual reality scenario called human life. They are fabrications of consciousness, interpretations on perception, and due to the limitations of the human perceptive mechanism, are based on insufficient information to actually correspond to reality. In other words, all human views are symptoms of conditioning within a dream-like realm, and since consciousness itself is impermanent (comes and goes) then no view is anything but provisional.

Wasn't it Milarepa who said "From an ultimate point of view there is no view" ?

“Does Master Gotama have any position at all?”

“A ‘position’ is something that a Tathagata (Awakened One) has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception . . . such are mental fabrications . . . such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’ Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, and relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making and obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.”

~ Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

I think that's sutta SN 12.5 which is mentioned in Ch15 of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Thank you very much for your kind response to my post, Bob.

Wishing you a very happy year in 2014

Berry

[muni]

The real danger is our own disturbed mind.
I have no idea why this talk is a problem for those considering themselves Buddhists. I suppose since there are similarities in the used tool, okay. Similarities can be found elswhere.
He is spiritual teacher, not Buddhist. So all fine, isn't it?

[padma norbu]

The real danger is our own disturbed mind.
I have no idea why this talk is a problem for those considering themselves Buddhists. I suppose since there are similarities in the used tool, okay. Similarities can be found elswhere.
He is spiritual teacher, not Buddhist. So all fine, isn't it?

I think as long as nobody says "it's the same thing" it should be fine and, as far as I can tell, nobody said that.

I can have a pleasant if uneventful conversation about Tolle with evangelical Christians and atheist non-religious types, so I should think it should be possible among a more enlightened group of people. The original post of this thread was really just about sharing this particular video with Buddhist practitioners to see if they got anything out of it.

I wonder if I would get the same kind of negative response if I had posted about The Relaxation Response.

[Grigoris]

As for my personal feelings on the 84,000 doors, my point was that you can not even list 1,000 of them (none of us can)

Of course we can, just that it would be incredibly tedious and boring. All you have to do is scour the Canon (both Shravakayana and Mahayana) for teachings given by the Buddha (and Sariputta and Mausgalyayana and Mahakassapa and...) to Ananda. Keep in mind that just because a teaching was not directed at Ananda personally does not mean he was not there to receive it too. You see, there is no need to make everything all mystical and magical, a little bit of dry logic goes a long way.

You still don't understand and have said absolutely nothing to correct me. Shall I continue to repeat myself? Fine, then I will...

As for my personal feelings on the 84,000 doors, my point was that you can not even list 1,000 of them (none of us can), so why pretend to know precisely what that means? Is compassion 1 of the 84,000 dharma doors? I have read that it is. When we have compassion for other beings, we rejoice in their happiness, whatever it is, according to their capacities. We do not browbeat them and argue with them and cause divisiveness and bad feelings. Ranting against Tolle, for example, is a sure way to make Buddhism look bad and drive people away if something about Tolle resonates with them. I have given quotes from Lama Pema Wangdak and Lama Pema from Nechung Foundation to illustrate this point. Both of these lamas showed compassion and joy for people of completely different religious traditions, not just "watered down new agey Buddhism." In the case of Lama Pema of Nechung Foundation, he was even talking about a former student of his who rejected the dharma and turned to Islam! He was happy for her getting what she needs now, since the dharma clearly wasn't working for her. He affirmed "we all have to pay the bills, our karmic debts, but sometimes it takes a little longer, haha…" This is not a ringing endorsement of Islam or anything. But, he did not condemn her or her religion; he let us figure it out for ourselves. What's better, a husband, new house and a new car… or paying off karmic debts and achieving total liberation? Hmmm…

Repeating the same old cr*p over and over does not count as intelligent debate/discusssion. I have already dealt adequately with this point. To further my point: I can be as happy as hell about a person being morally upstanding, regardless of which life philosophy they choose to justify their wholesome behaviour, but Buddhism is not just about fine behaviour is it? It is not just about accumulating positive karma or going to heaven, is it? It is about PERMANENT liberation from suffering for ALL sentient beings. Quite clearly, not all life philosophies have this goal.

[padma norbu]

Repeating the same old cr*p over and over does not count as intelligent debate/discusssion.

Neither does ignoring it.

I have already dealt adequately with this point.

No, you have only repeatedly commented on the gata. Never have commented about anything else.

To further my point: I can be as happy as hell about a person being morally upstanding, regardless of which life philosophy they choose to justify their wholesome behaviour, but Buddhism is not just about fine behaviour is it? It is not just about accumulating positive karma or going to heaven, is it? It is about PERMANENT liberation from suffering for ALL sentient beings. Quite clearly, not all life philosophies have this goal.

As if we have not already covered this?

In the Agama Sutra, the Buddha said there were 84,000 invisible sentient beings in a cup of water. What is the appropriate teaching for a bug? We do not know what the all the 84,000 teachings are for 84,000 different mindsets. To repeat: there is no rigid curriculum and may even be spontaneously “designed.”

The 84,000 teachings are not all listed in scriptures as you seemed to claim when you refused to list a mere 1,000 of the 84,000 on the grounds that it would be "tedious and boring." It would not just be "tedious and boring," it would be impossible. If it was possible, someone surely would have done so by now, as Buddhists are historically fond of lists and not particularly daunted by the notion of writing large volumes.

In the Flower Ornament Scripture, it states that "enlightening beings practice the six ways of transcendence for countless eons, attain the six spiritual powers, and read, write and master the canon of eighty-four thousand teachings, yet still do not believe in this deep scripture." Compare this to the Nirvana Scripture which says once the great enlightening beings saw the buddha-nature they all said, "We revolved in measureless births and deaths, always confused by selfless-ness." How could "great enlightening beings" master the eighty-four thousand teachings and still not know selfless-ness?

It is often said that this phrase "84,000 teachings" represents the 3 Turnings of The Wheel, but that is not something you can claim conclusively historically correct "according to the Buddha," as far as I know. The different paths of Buddhism do not agree on everything and accuse each other of "false views." Simply because the different groups eventually agreed on some core teachings that make them "Buddhist," does not mean the matter has been settled about what is definitively "buddhist" teaching. You can say 84,000 doors is figurative and means this or that, but someone else can say otherwise, for example...

"The 84,000 dharma doors mentioned in the Buddha Dharma are made available for the purpose of saving and taking across the 84,000 kinds of living beings. In reality, in the mind of any common person there exist these 84,000 kinds of living beings. Why is it so? This is because these 84,000 kinds of living beings dwell within one’s consciousness, constantly revolving around the 6 paths of rebirth." (which seems to agree with the Flower Ornament Scripture and the Nirvana Scripture)
- http://www.drbachinese.org/branch/CTTB/ ... rma161.htm

And to repeat and make myself perfectly clear, I am not saying Tolle represents 1 of the 84,000 doors. I am saying you have no idea what will lead one to Buddhism and you don't actually know what those 84,000 doors are, despite your protests to the contrary.

[Simon E.]

The real danger is our own disturbed mind.
I have no idea why this talk is a problem for those considering themselves Buddhists. I suppose since there are similarities in the used tool, okay. Similarities can be found elswhere.
He is spiritual teacher, not Buddhist. So all fine, isn't it?

I think as long as nobody says "it's the same thing" it should be fine and, as far as I can tell, nobody said that.

I can have a pleasant if uneventful conversation about Tolle with evangelical Christians and atheist non-religious types, so I should think it should be possible among a more enlightened group of people. The original post of this thread was really just about sharing this particular video with Buddhist practitioners to see if they got anything out of it.

I wonder if I would get the same kind of negative response if I had posted about The Relaxation Response.

Benson doers not claim to be a spiritual teacher. Neither has he been takn for one by Oprah Winfrey.

[padma norbu]

Benson doers not claim to be a spiritual teacher. Neither has he been takn for one by Oprah Winfrey.

Okay, so it's more about the man than the method he relayed specifically in the video which I posted and specifically explained why I posted it several times throughout this thread. Pretty amazing how claiming to be a spiritual teacher can completely invalidate everything you do.

[bob]

The different paths of Buddhism do not agree on everything and accuse each other of "false views." Simply because the different groups eventually agreed on some core teachings that make them "Buddhist," does not mean the matter has been settled about what is definitively "buddhist" teaching.

“The ancient Suttas and the Vinaya are not entirely reliable texts, having passed through both oral and orthographic transmissions and suffering from faults of memory, embellishments, insertions, deletions and other edits along the way. Modern techniques of textual analysis are useful in sorting the authentic from the inauthentic but no particular passage can ever be proven to be original. In fact, the inconsistencies in the early scriptures are so great that by cherry picking relevant passages one could attribute almost any position to the Buddha one wants.”
~Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore

[Grigoris]

In the Agama Sutra, the Buddha said there were 84,000 invisible sentient beings in a cup of water. What is the appropriate teaching for a bug? We do not know what the all the 84,000 teachings are for 84,000 different mindsets. To repeat: there is no rigid curriculum and may even be spontaneously “designed.”

Where in the Agama Sutra? The Agama Sutra is the ENTIRE Digha-Nikaya. It is not one teaching, it is over thirty long Sutta. So quote the relevant bit.

The 84,000 teachings are not all listed in scriptures as you seemed to claim when you refused to list a mere 1,000 of the 84,000 on the grounds that it would be "tedious and boring." It would not just be "tedious and boring," it would be impossible.

No it wouldn't. I have already answered to this.

In the Flower Ornament Scripture, it states that "enlightening beings practice the six ways of transcendence for countless eons, attain the six spiritual powers, and read, write and master the canon of eighty-four thousand teachings, yet still do not believe in this deep scripture." Compare this to the Nirvana Scripture which says once the great enlightening beings saw the buddha-nature they all said, "We revolved in measureless births and deaths, always confused by selfless-ness." How could "great enlightening beings" master the eighty-four thousand teachings and still not know selfless-ness?

Interesting but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It is often said that this phrase "84,000 teachings" represents the 3 Turnings of The Wheel, but that is not something you can claim conclusively historically correct "according to the Buddha," as far as I know. The different paths of Buddhism do not agree on everything and accuse each other of "false views." Simply because the different groups eventually agreed on some core teachings that make them "Buddhist," does not mean the matter has been settled about what is definitively "buddhist" teaching. You can say 84,000 doors is figurative and means this or that, but someone else can say otherwise, for example...

You can say anything you like about anything you want to, it doesn't make it true.

...and you don't actually know what those 84,000 doors are, despite your protests to the contrary.

Sez you.

Happy new year!

[Simon E.]

The different paths of Buddhism do not agree on everything and accuse each other of "false views." Simply because the different groups eventually agreed on some core teachings that make them "Buddhist," does not mean the matter has been settled about what is definitively "buddhist" teaching.

“The ancient Suttas and the Vinaya are not entirely reliable texts, having passed through both oral and orthographic transmissions and suffering from faults of memory, embellishments, insertions, deletions and other edits along the way. Modern techniques of textual analysis are useful in sorting the authentic from the inauthentic but no particular passage can ever be proven to be original. In fact, the inconsistencies in the early scriptures are so great that by cherry picking relevant passages one could attribute almost any position to the Buddha one wants.”
~Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore

It's the lineage that makes the text live. Not vice versa. No lineage no authentic dharma..just tolle and adyashanti et al.

[Simon E.]

Benson doers not claim to be a spiritual teacher. Neither has he been takn for one by Oprah Winfrey.

Okay, so it's more about the man than the method he relayed specifically in the video which I posted and specifically explained why I posted it several times throughout this thread. Pretty amazing how claiming to be a spiritual teacher can completely invalidate everything you do.

Not at all amazing. It's the crux of the whole issue.

[dzogchungpa]

“The ancient Suttas and the Vinaya are not entirely reliable texts, having passed through both oral and orthographic transmissions and suffering from faults of memory, embellishments, insertions, deletions and other edits along the way. Modern techniques of textual analysis are useful in sorting the authentic from the inauthentic but no particular passage can ever be proven to be original. In fact, the inconsistencies in the early scriptures are so great that by cherry picking relevant passages one could attribute almost any position to the Buddha one wants.”
~Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore

This is a good point. People should have a look at Tilmann Vetter's "The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism" before they decide they really know "what the Buddha taught".

[bob]

It's the lineage that makes the text live. Not vice versa. No lineage no authentic dharma..just tolle and adyashanti et al.

Once a pile of steaming dung was gathered up from the pasture, taken to town, and passed from one person to another. Every hand that touched it was soiled. Nevertheless, one person took the dung, formed it into a kind of shrine, and began worshipping it every day. After some time, this person experienced a profound sentiment about the dung, and word quickly spread, until a whole group of people came to worship at the dung shrine, in order to partake in the same ecstatic reverie. The amazing power of focused thought should never be underestimated, regardless of its object! Over time, rules of dung worship were established and codified, priestly masters were created who could teach newcomers about proper dung etiquette, and a lineage of dung transmission was initiated. True believers abounded.

Meanwhile, back in town, another person who had originally received the dung went in a somewhat different direction about the whole matter, figuring that the dung was actually best appreciated by drying and burning it, accompanied by certain chants and rituals. After some time experimenting with this practice, the person achieved an insight about the benefit of dung burning that aroused a fervent devotion, and subsequently went about the land sharing the insight, until another whole group of people formed around that person’s practice, mimicking the methods of drying, burning, chanting, and so forth. As with the first group, this dung fellowship also established rules and so forth, priests and doctrines, and a parallel lineage was created.

Several centuries passed, and then one day a reformer came along, who had spent years contemplating dung, eventually coming to the startling realization that dung itself was a compounded phenomenon, with no inherent self-nature. He then went about preaching the emptiness of dung, as well as its dependent origination and impermanence. He gathered a large and devout community of adherents, but as each community member arrived at the realization that dung, being empty, was nothing special in particular, they eventually resumed an ordinary life, and the sect passed into quiescent extinction without remainder.

Nevertheless, both of the original lineages are still active to this day, having been transmitted down through the ages, crossing over into neighboring cultures, and all around the world – spreading their particular Way of Dung, and generating numerous sub-lineages. Occasionally, followers of the various groups will clash with each other over the right understanding and appreciation of dung. Though onlookers might marvel that anyone would make such a big deal over what essentially is nothing but excrement, the adherents of the conflicting dung lineages will often persist in their disputes nevertheless, even to the point of ferocious dung wars being waged.

Historically, there have been occasional attempts to bring the two groups together, stressing the common factor of dung devotion that they both share, but religious zealots can be obstinate, and so treatises are still composed extolling one method over the other, debates rage on dung forums, dung one-upmanship prevails, and all the while, the peculiar fragrance of dung permeates the dung halls, spreading its unmistakable aroma, while fresh dung is piled upon even more dung yet.

[padma norbu]

In the Agama Sutra, the Buddha said there were 84,000 invisible sentient beings in a cup of water. What is the appropriate teaching for a bug? We do not know what the all the 84,000 teachings are for 84,000 different mindsets. To repeat: there is no rigid curriculum and may even be spontaneously “designed.”

Where in the Agama Sutra? The Agama Sutra is the ENTIRE Digha-Nikaya. It is not one teaching, it is over thirty long Sutta. So quote the relevant bit.

Am I the only one who needs to provide proof? Find it yourself with the aid of Google.

The 84,000 teachings are not all listed in scriptures as you seemed to claim when you refused to list a mere 1,000 of the 84,000 on the grounds that it would be "tedious and boring." It would not just be "tedious and boring," it would be impossible.

No it wouldn't. I have already answered to this.]

No, you have made a statement that you have not backed with proof. You ask me for proof, I am asking you for proof. Prove it.

In the Flower Ornament Scripture, it states that "enlightening beings practice the six ways of transcendence for countless eons, attain the six spiritual powers, and read, write and master the canon of eighty-four thousand teachings, yet still do not believe in this deep scripture." Compare this to the Nirvana Scripture which says once the great enlightening beings saw the buddha-nature they all said, "We revolved in measureless births and deaths, always confused by selfless-ness." How could "great enlightening beings" master the eighty-four thousand teachings and still not know selfless-ness?

Interesting but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Sez you.

It is often said that this phrase "84,000 teachings" represents the 3 Turnings of The Wheel, but that is not something you can claim conclusively historically correct "according to the Buddha," as far as I know. The different paths of Buddhism do not agree on everything and accuse each other of "false views." Simply because the different groups eventually agreed on some core teachings that make them "Buddhist," does not mean the matter has been settled about what is definitively "buddhist" teaching. You can say 84,000 doors is figurative and means this or that, but someone else can say otherwise, for example...

You can say anything you like about anything you want to, it doesn't make it true.

That is also true for you. Where is your proof, anyway?

...and you don't actually know what those 84,000 doors are, despite your protests to the contrary.

Sez you.

Happy new year!

Happy New Year!

Here are a list of questions you have not answered:

1. Is compassion 1 of the 84,000 doors?

2. What is the method for teaching a donkey? Or a bug?

3. If the enlightening beings have mastered the 84,000 doors, why did enlightenment still escape them?

4. Is this teaching right or wrong and by what definitive grounds do you say so?:
""The 84,000 dharma doors mentioned in the Buddha Dharma are made available for the purpose of saving and taking across the 84,000 kinds of living beings. In reality, in the mind of any common person there exist these 84,000 kinds of living beings. Why is it so? This is because these 84,000 kinds of living beings dwell within one’s consciousness, constantly revolving around the 6 paths of rebirth." (which seems to agree with the Flower Ornament Scripture and the Nirvana Scripture)
- http://www.drbachinese.org/branch/CTTB/ ... rma161.htm