Do buddhists entertain the idea they mght be delusional abou
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
It's no use to warn others about trolling because you are a good example of a troll.
You and Laurie got together here to add fuel to fire to turn this into another Guantanamo...hehehe
well nobody is going to stop you here if you do not agree with Buddhism. I certainly do not agree there is a god, its power and the bible was written by man, so I was in EH.
but what you have done here, its like............no eyes see in cantonese speak. it just show that i have reasons to speak to adults only.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Haiz.....you did not contribute anything good at all in this forum so far. What are you calling yourself? A bigger troll?
Contribute by fighting anti-troll war against you and M&P etc
Singaporeans prevent christans from taking over civic organisation, we also can prevent them from trolling and taking over online religious forums
If we stand united, you guys are not able to lord over us with your religious ideas
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
Although I'm technically a Buddhist (gone through the 3 refuges ceremony), I still ask questions like the above, both towards myself and others. I have no clear and irrefutable answers to offer to any fellow human asking similar questions. I can only share my thoughts and feelings from periodic self-reflections, with anyone who are sincere and open-minded about listening to such kind of sharing.
So far only what the Kalama Sutta has taught is able to help me to move on with the clear sense of direction and understanding that anything we hear or see, we should take them as reference sources, never definitive. To remind myself constantly to develop a discerning, not discriminating mind to investigate and understand as thoroughly as possible, any concept or truths within us and around us.
I treat the guidelines recorded in the Kalama Sutta as sayings by a wise human; which means whether anyone accords the title of Buddha or the label of sutta to those sayings is quite immaterial to me.
And from the above replies so far, it seems probably you have realised something. Only you can convince and understand for yourself what is real and what is delusional in the ways in which some or maybe most people practise or understand Buddhist teachings.
Keep on investigating and analysing with an open mind and heart. At the same time, reflect on the feelings of frustration caused to yourself and to others (as observed from the replies), knowingly or not, that comes in from asking such questions to the Buddhist community at large.
I now refrain from asking such questions online or towards fellow Buddhists. They will merely answer you with answers that point to one word 'Practice'. Is chanting or meditation 'practice'? One really has to so-called trial and error, be willing to conduct countless life-long experiments, observations on various known approaches and think about new ones by using established viewpoints and concepts as good reference materials, with utmost perseverance and open-mindedness.
The historical Buddha is no longer with us. It is widely recognised as an irrefutable fact that only a sammasamBuddha (our historial Buddha, Sakyamuni Buddha) can teach difficult to grasp concepts or any kind of universal truth perfectly, by taking into full account the subtle and innate intellectual and spiritual capacities of each living being, and their karmic affinities with certain Dharma teachings - cultivated or have not yet been cultivated throughout countless rebirths.
Not even an Arahant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arahant_%28Buddhism%29) can be considered a perfect teacher.
So take heart in the above. You are not alone in asking such questions. People like us can only continue to search for our own answers, with guidelines from the Kalama Sutta as our lamp, our light.
By doing this, you are already practising Buddhism, within your understanding and your context. You have realised that everyone practises religion according to their understanding, most adhere to the moral code of their belief as a matter social coherence. Do no wrong, and for most part, you can carry on with your life. You must realised that you carry a different awareness, to people whom you asked questions.
Questions are contextual, in order for you to answer, you must relate in order make sense of it.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
well nobody is going to stop you here if you do not agree with Buddhism. I certainly do not agree there is a god, its power and the bible was written by man, so I was in EH.
but what you have done here, its like............no eyes see in cantonese speak. it just show that i have reasons to speak to adults only.
When you threw a challenge, I accepted it. Then you back out. You are not sincere to debate.
You are a pot calling a kettle black.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Contribute by fighting anti-troll war against you and M&P etc
Singaporeans prevent christans from taking over civic organisation, we also can prevent them from trolling and taking over online religious forums
If we stand united, you guys are not able to lord over us with your religious ideas
Who wants to unite with a bigger troll?Who wants to lord over who?I have never force anyone to believe anything. You contribute nothing good to Buddhism at all.
I expect AEN to be smarter than that to listen to your call.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Do you imply that these monkeys can come to EH to monkey around but not the other way round?
Don't assume. You will know that I'm a Christian when I tell you so.
That you're offended by certain persons, that much I can tell, how it is that they offended you.
Can you tell me their offenses, real or imagined, that they are deservedly of your wrath.
I am not ashamed to say I'm a Buddhist, what about you?
-
I advise you not to reply to troll here. if they do not agree with Buddhism, they are welcome to post here and the resident mod will reply to their queries. but what they are doing here, is like..........cantonese speak, no eyes see.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I like buddhist philosophy because one of the main ideas I gather from buddhism is that the world is an illusion and therefore people should know their own delusions.
Actually it is not that the world is literally an illusion, but LIKE an illusion... there's an important difference between these two and although it might be a little off topic, I thought it is important to clarify the Buddhist view, and distinguish it from other non-Buddhist teachings.
The following excerpts is from a very enlightened yogi and teacher (he had attended more than a decade of meditation retreat and was given the titled 'Mahayogi Rinpoche' by his guru) and I have posted it in my blog on Thusness's suggestion. Anyone who still holds an ultimate reality to be real hasn't pass beyond Stage 4 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism... -
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the above.
Fortunately or unfortunately, it is also recorded in sutras and also spread by fellow Buddhists that certain questions like the above may be construed as slander, libel, or disrespectul questioning. The karmic consequences of slander, libel or disrespectful questioning are very severe.
That certainly explains a lot, why people outside of the buddhist organisations can benefit more from buddhist teachings than buddhists themselves.
"Kalama Sutra - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65
Teaching given by the Buddha given to the Kalama people:
Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them."
Type A
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know:" that is, you memorize what someone tells you ... that is bad
Type B
"Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:" that is, you find out for yourself, work it out for yourself... that is good.
Then AEN (mr cut and paste, and I suspect is Type A) confirms what you said:
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:- Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me:
I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that. I am only interested in opening up your wisdom of what is the truth of Awareness and directly point to it.Read what AEN was told: "I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that."
How can AEN work it out for himself, be Type B if he does not consider "who is right or wrong " and consider "all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions"?
This is certainly a revelation and solves a major puzzle for me. I always wondered why buddhists I know never seem to get what buddhism teaches although they are good at repeating the doctrines.
If what you say is true, apparently, the buddhist organisation is just like any other religious organisation. They want to control instead of liberating their followers.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually it is not that the world is literally an illusion, but LIKE an illusion... there's an important difference between these two and although it might be a little off topic, I thought it is important to clarify the Buddhist view, and distinguish it from other non-Buddhist teachings.
The following excerpts is from a very enlightened yogi and teacher (he had attended more than a decade of meditation retreat and was given the titled 'Mahayogi Rinpoche' by his guru) and I have posted it in my blog on Thusness's suggestion. Anyone who still holds an ultimate reality to be real hasn't pass beyond Stage 4 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism...When you say "it is not that the world is literally an illusion" but "LIKE an illusion".
I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you know what you are talking about, you would not put it that way.
You would say: "What people see is an illusion, what you see is not REALITY. It is also not what hindus believe, that it is non existing and there is another REALITY that exists".
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
That certainly explains a lot, why people outside of the buddhist organisations can benefit more from buddhist teachings than buddhists themselves.
"Kalama Sutra - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65
Teaching given by the Buddha given to the Kalama people:
Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them."
Type A
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know:" that is, you memorize what someone tells you ... that is bad
Type B
"Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:" that is, you find out for yourself, work it out for yourself... that is good.
Then AEN (mr cut and paste, and I suspect is Type A) confirms what you said:
Read what AEN was told: "I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that."
How can AEN work it out for himself, be Type B if he does not consider "who is right or wrong " and consider "all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions"?
This is certainly a revelation and solves a major puzzle for me. I always wondered why buddhists I know never seem to get what buddhism teaches although they are good at repeating the doctrines.
If what you say is true, apparently, the buddhist organisation is just like any other religious organisation. They want to control instead of liberating their followers.
Are you trying to be wowbagger?
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
see:
Why I "kachow" religious people?
Religious hatred simmers in terror suspect's homeland
By John Blake, CNNDecember 31, 2009 -- Updated 2041 GMT (0441 HKT)IMOHO.. i think the issue with religious tension primarily stems from the general attitude people have towards their religion. when a person decides to be a christian/buddhist..etc, we treat it like acquiring another worldly possession in life, like buying a new car, upgrading to bigger house, joining a prestigious country club.
when others say that your car is crap, your house is like a slum and your country club's status is going down the drain, you get angry and retaliate, refute, defend against the so-called insult, all in the name of setting the record straight and establishing the truth. but the actual problem really is that the ego is bruised by the so-called insult. because the ego feels that it "owns" the object of possession that was being insulted, the "how dare you" anger arises and resulting retaliation occurs. same with religion. you attack "MY religion" so i retaliate and attack "YOUR religion". self-righteousness taken to extreme can be a stimulating drug to the ego being mistaken as justice.
i can imagine if jesus christ and buddha were to see these petty exchanges today, they will be feeling a tad amused and dissapointed. since when have they operated these "VIP-member-only country clubs" for petty humans to fight over?
religious tension will persists so long as spiritual practice is not integrated into one's daily life and people still treat their religion at a superficial level like any of their worldly possessions - something to be acquired, polished and displayed at the shelf for showing off to the neighbours and friends.
just a thought. people may treat it as pure nonsense when you say that the earth is round before the actual scientific discovery is made. but the earth do not need this belief or proof to be round since it has always been so. the only one that needs the belief and the proof is the ego. spiritual practice is something like that.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
- Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me:
I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that. I am only interested in opening up your wisdom of what is the truth of Awareness and directly point to it. Read stage 6 and my comments. All the points are inside but it is difficult to see. Reality is like an illusion, but not an illusion. It is like a dream, but not a dream. Everything is a magical display. And everything is mind. :)
What does that mean? The mind is always wrongly understood, from "I AM" to non-dual experience. We cannot understand the truth of this mind therefore we can't see mind. Just like u can't see the essence of the article. We have a pre-conception.
Everything is mind. And Everything is like a magical display. That is why I said there is no mirror, there is only reflection. The key is to know the nature of mind. To see that everything is reflection, transcience. Everything is Mind is what that must be derived from anatta (the truth of no-self) and emptiness (dependent origination). But we do not know what "everything" is and what mind is. Therefore we cannot 'see' and cannot experience. We cannot see the essence of it. So anatta and emptiness are taught.
What is Everything? It is like magical display, like an illusion. But it is not an illusion. Like a dream but not a dream, which many misunderstood. Therefore when we experience sounds, thoughts, see colors, forms, dimension and shapes... all is empty. Like an illusion. Like dreams. Like the 'redness' of a flower. Like the 'selfness'. Like the 'hereness'. Like the 'nowness'. Yet empty, nothing real.
If you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity, and see only emptiness, you are mistaken. The 'redness', the 'nowness', the 'hardness', the coldness, all are as luminous, as clear, as vivid, we must fully experience it. Yet they are not real, nothing concrete, no solidity, nothing substantial, nothing graspable, no findable, empty, thus non-dual luminosity and emptiness. We see this union, in all transcience, passing phenomena. In emotions, in feelings, in thoughts, in sounds, in sight, in color, in dimension, in shapes, in taste, in hardness, coldness, in sweetness, in sky, in the sound of chirping bird, all experience are like that, empty yet luminous. Then we realise that it is the same as mind. It is mind. If we don't see these 2 nature of mind thoroughly, we can't see, we distant, we seek, we find. Because of its emptiness nature, the manifold, we cannot know what mind is. Therefore the ground is taught, the view is taught - empty yet non-dual luminosity, so that you can see and experience directly that the transience are mind, yet there is no self nature. Then you experience what is one taste. We do not know what mind is, we cannot experience mind. We do not know. That is why insight is important. However if you do not know what is non-dual luminosity and emptiness, how is a practitioner going to experience mind everywhere and know that whatever arises is mind? Therefore first anatta (non-dual luminosity), then emptiness, then spontaneous arising.Buddha said do not preach more than 3 times to people who has no affinity with Buddha. Buddha knew there will be people like that long ago. May be he will have affinity with Buddha in his next life. ä¸�åº¦æ— ç¼˜è€…ã€‚
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
I advise you not to reply to troll here. if they do not agree with Buddhism, they are welcome to post here and the resident mod will reply to their queries. but what they are doing here, is like..........cantonese speak, no eyes see.
Don't drag them into the fray. I'm against you, the real troll, not them.
I have not engage with AEN in a debate about his belief, in case you did not notice.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Don't drag them into the fray. I'm against you, the real troll, not them.
I have not engage with AEN in a debate about his belief, in case you did not notice.
since you do not believe in rebirth and karma, whats stopping you commenting your case against the concept. AEN will be happy to provide you his replies and you can take it from there if you are not happy with his reply.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
That you're offended by certain persons, that much I can tell, how it is that they offended you.
Can you tell me their offenses, real or imagined, that they are deservedly of your wrath.
I am not ashamed to say I'm a Buddhist, what about you?
I study Christianity and Islam.I have some knowledge in Judaism and Buddhism too. It's just one of my favourite past time.
I have no special interest to frustrate Buddhists.
If you have noticed, Roony9 and Laurie are both in EH and here. I just follow them wherever they go.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You have to prove that the soul exists first.
As for the mind on the other hand, all the evidence points to the fact that the mind is a function of the brain.
If you take certain drugs, you can alter your mind. What does that tell you? The drugs affect the brain, the brain affects the mind.
If "there is no evidence or not enough evidence to prove that certain things exist" then you assume that it does not exists because it also means that it (the thing that does not exist) will have no effect on you or anything around you.
If it affects you, that is proof it exists. Your believe in the non existing thing might have effects on you but that only proves that your belief exists, not the non existing thing.
Though I didn't really like you, I agree with what you said, if the world was really false, then no one would probably even die if their heads were slashed by a knife xD.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
I study Christianity and Islam.I have some knowledge in Judaism and Buddhism too. It's just one of my favourite past time.
I have no special interest to frustrate Buddhists.
If you have noticed, Roony9 and Laurie are both in EH and here. I just follow them wherever they go.
Not only Roony9 , there is still dkcx, out to troll in EH.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Not only Roony9 , there is still dkcx, out to troll in EH.
....and Dawnfirstlight too.
-
so its an eye for an eye to you taliban chris, I see. what I post there or anyone else there at EH is my business or their business.
If you perceive that buddhists attacking christians, then you are really and truly lame and narrow minded. no wonder the impression and perception on chris are not good to others. this is a case in point here.
-
no wonder in the history of your religion, there were so much bloodshed, thanks to you zealots no less.
-
Sorry but bloodshed was caused by Islam who believed that men will go to heaven if they ngage in a Jihad.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
That certainly explains a lot, why people outside of the buddhist organisations can benefit more from buddhist teachings than buddhists themselves.
"Kalama Sutra - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65
Teaching given by the Buddha given to the Kalama people:
Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them."
Type A
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know:" that is, you memorize what someone tells you ... that is bad
Type B
"Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:" that is, you find out for yourself, work it out for yourself... that is good.
Then AEN (mr cut and paste, and I suspect is Type A) confirms what you said:
Read what AEN was told: "I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that."
How can AEN work it out for himself, be Type B if he does not consider "who is right or wrong " and consider "all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions"?
This is certainly a revelation and solves a major puzzle for me. I always wondered why buddhists I know never seem to get what buddhism teaches although they are good at repeating the doctrines.
If what you say is true, apparently, the buddhist organisation is just like any other religious organisation. They want to control instead of liberating their followers.
Looks like you have dictated but not read, by taking statements out of it's original context, defeats the purpose of acquiring understanding. Buddhism do not exist in a void, minds can only be engaged when there genuine sincerity, not to score points, not for sound bite. thoughts in your mind are too loud! -
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Sorry but bloodshed was caused by Islam who believed that men will go to heaven if they ngage in a Jihad.
are you so cocksure your religion did not cause any bloodshed in history?
I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that. I am only interested in opening up your wisdom of what is the truth of Awareness and directly point to it. Read stage 6 and my comments. All the points are inside but it is difficult to see. Reality is like an illusion, but not an illusion. It is like a dream, but not a dream. Everything is a magical display. And everything is mind. :)
What does that mean? The mind is always wrongly understood, from "I AM" to non-dual experience. We cannot understand the truth of this mind therefore we can't see mind. Just like u can't see the essence of the article. We have a pre-conception.
Everything is mind. And Everything is like a magical display. That is why I said there is no mirror, there is only reflection. The key is to know the nature of mind. To see that everything is reflection, transcience. Everything is Mind is what that must be derived from anatta (the truth of no-self) and emptiness (dependent origination). But we do not know what "everything" is and what mind is. Therefore we cannot 'see' and cannot experience. We cannot see the essence of it. So anatta and emptiness are taught.
What is Everything? It is like magical display, like an illusion. But it is not an illusion. Like a dream but not a dream, which many misunderstood. Therefore when we experience sounds, thoughts, see colors, forms, dimension and shapes... all is empty. Like an illusion. Like dreams. Like the 'redness' of a flower. Like the 'selfness'. Like the 'hereness'. Like the 'nowness'. Yet empty, nothing real.
If you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity, and see only emptiness, you are mistaken. The 'redness', the 'nowness', the 'hardness', the coldness, all are as luminous, as clear, as vivid, we must fully experience it. Yet they are not real, nothing concrete, no solidity, nothing substantial, nothing graspable, no findable, empty, thus non-dual luminosity and emptiness. We see this union, in all transcience, passing phenomena. In emotions, in feelings, in thoughts, in sounds, in sight, in color, in dimension, in shapes, in taste, in hardness, coldness, in sweetness, in sky, in the sound of chirping bird, all experience are like that, empty yet luminous. Then we realise that it is the same as mind. It is mind. If we don't see these 2 nature of mind thoroughly, we can't see, we distant, we seek, we find. Because of its emptiness nature, the manifold, we cannot know what mind is. Therefore the ground is taught, the view is taught - empty yet non-dual luminosity, so that you can see and experience directly that the transience are mind, yet there is no self nature. Then you experience what is one taste. We do not know what mind is, we cannot experience mind. We do not know. That is why insight is important. However if you do not know what is non-dual luminosity and emptiness, how is a practitioner going to experience mind everywhere and know that whatever arises is mind? Therefore first anatta (non-dual luminosity), then emptiness, then spontaneous arising.