oushi wrote:futerko wrote:"Without guilt, there are no expectations, and no suffering." - and who has facilitated this change thereby taking responsibility for their own mental and emotional state? Not only is this circular, adding nothing to my original reply but confusion, but also as Andrew wrote, its looks like an attempt to be smart rather than helpful.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. Could you emend?
- your claim was that by realising one was not responsible for one's thoughts, this thereby removed guilt, expectations, and suffering, but who is the one realising this?
oushi wrote:futerko wrote:The OP asked about the right direction to which your answer was, "The right direction is no particular direction, that is why it encompass all directions." - which may well be useful to someone locked on to seeking enlightenment as a goal, but in the context of someone new to Buddhism asking about some way to orient their meditation it comes across as unhelpful and an attempt to just look "smart"
That is your view, mine is different. Taking advantage of the "beginner mind", a solid basis can be developed, making all kinds of spiritual practice easy, not "difficult and often painful". Hitting the great wall of doubt is just one way of practicing. I present something different, something that people may not be aware of. Do you see it as harmful? If it's not valid, refute it, otherwise don't play good uncle that knows it's unhelpful. Aren't you trying to be "smarter" then me, just for the sake of being smarter? How do you know it's unhelpful? I doubt that you understand it at all, but it doesn't stop you from judging it as unhelpful.
- there seems to be some transference occurring here. No one else said anything about it being difficult, painful, or harmful. I have no reason to refute someone who agrees with me, whether they realise it or not.
oushi wrote:futerko wrote:Longchenpa felt the need to write 250 pages but you condense it into just a few lines so you risk serious misinterpretation by taking those quotations out of context.
What are you trying to say, that I should post entire 250 pages every time I want to refer to his teachings? Those 250 pages cover all sort of different spheres and phases which are not needed here. Can you find, in those 250 pages, confirmation of the approach you suggested on the first page of this topic?
No, and that's because I am not teaching Dzogchen here, I am replying to the OP in terms that might make sense to them. If you think Longchenpa is appropriate reading in this case then say so.
oushi wrote:futerko wrote:Technically you may be right on some points, but given the context it would seem inappropriate to take such an approach
Once again, how do you know that? Can you predict the consequences, or you are just trying to look "smart"?
I made no claim to know, but I have seen the consequences of your posts on this and other sites so no prediction is necessary - To paraphrase Chandrakirti, if the relative truth is degenerate, then you do not have a complete path.
oushi wrote:futerko wrote:PS. In astronomy a black body is one which does not reflect light but just radiates, so yes, the sun is black.
I'm not good in astronomy, so tell me, what absorption has to do with emission?
Nothing, they are just conventional categories, no different to the categories in your original question.