|
Prickly Pete posted:I have already stated this. I think the statement "all emotions are painful" and "all conditioned phenomenon" or "All the afflicted states are suffering" are fundamentally different. They are differentiated based on the presence of absence of clinging or craving. This is the second noble truth. Where are emotions? In the mind. Where are conditioned phenomena? In the mind. Where are afflicted states? In the mind. They all imply clinging or craving, or aversion, because they ARE those things. What is an afflicted state other than the clinging itself? You think it's somewhere else, like a quality it has, and you never find it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Have a state without being attached to it. This is an ideal that is impossible to reach. This is the basis of delusion. The uncomfortable truth that all Buddhism leads to. After this whole charade is over, you find freedom. Until that point, suffering.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I don't mean "don't have emotions". I have emotions every day. Don't supress them. But they are not going to take you anywhere you want to go. "Don't get carried away". The mind is a good servant but a poor master, as my teacher says. I would agree with that in terms of the deluded mind. The clarified mind is just fine. quote:you are still being obtuse though, and not understanding that all of Buddhist teachings can be taken together to paint a broader and clearer picture of what's going on. I have a pretty good understanding of the Buddha's teachings, as he taught them, despite what you seem to think. I don't have a good understanding of what subsequent teachers in your tradition may have said, but it tends to agree with what the Buddha said as well in my experience. However, when it doesn't agree, I go back to the early sources, as they are our best bet in understanding the original intent of the teachings. I hold teachers in my own tradition to this same standard as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad, I actually hugely agree with you for the most part, and I probably am one of the only people in this thread besides maybe one other person I won't out that thinks saying "If you reject or re-interpret the seals beyond how they've been understood you're not a Buddhist" (since I fundamentally agree there are serious problems with westerners claiming to be Buddhists then cherry-picking Dharma) but even I've never seen a translation like you've been using and I've heard multiple very learned monks argue against emotions = bad. Attachment to emotions is bad, but emotions themselves aren't inherently attachments. I'm pretty sure Buddha felt compassion,which last I heard was an emotion, and your thesis seems to butt against Buddha Nature to me. Seriously though, I agree with you that a lot of people in this thread claiming to be Buddhist aren't, and thank you for breaking down my comment about "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist" so well.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:ObamaCaresHugSquad, I actually hugely agree with you for the most part, and I probably am one of the only people in this thread besides maybe one other person I won't out that thinks saying "If you reject or re-interpret the seals beyond how they've been understood you're not a Buddhist" (since I fundamentally agree there are serious problems with westerners claiming to be Buddhists then cherry-picking Dharma) but even I've never seen a translation like you've been using and I've heard multiple very learned monks argue against emotions = bad. Attachment to emotions is bad, but emotions themselves aren't inherently attachments. I'm pretty sure Buddha felt compassion,which last I heard was an emotion, and your thesis seems to butt against Buddha Nature to me. Also, we've used 3 different translations at this point, and my recent point is they are all saying the same thing even if the wording is slightly different. So I am not just trying to use a funky translation. I am not arguing with the Buddha at all. I am actually not disagreeing with a single Buddhist teacher (I am certainly not trying to). I think people in this thread are the ones who don't understand them. And I agree with what the monks told you. They aren't disagreeing with me either. I am not saying to suppress emotions, but I am also saying that positive emotions are equally suffering, in relation to Nirvana. I think if you actually asked them straight up, they would say that emotions are inherently attachments. If they don't, I think they are not advanced enough. Ask a qualified teacher (like a Lama), not just any monk. I am not trying to make a No True Scotsman argument here. Because saying that emotions are not bad is not the same thing as saying they are not attachments. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:36
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Thanks for being reasonable. I'm going to stick with everything I've said though. I'm still convinced you're conflating emotions with attachment to those emotions, though maybe I'm wrong!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I'm still convinced you're conflating emotions with attachment to those emotions, though maybe I'm wrong! I plan to be a teacher relatively soon by the way, in as radical a way as possible. I might be saying something new (in the way that I am saying it), but it does NOT conflict with Buddhist teachings. It complements them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:45
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:If they don't, I think they are not advanced enough. Ask a qualified teacher (like a Lama), not just any monk. I have personally heard two lineage heads make a distinction between emotions and attachment to emotions. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 80+ year old monks who are regarded as emanations of Avalokitesvara are "advanced enough".
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I have personally heard two lineage heads make a distinction between emotions and attachment to emotions. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 80+ year old monks who are regarded as emanations of Avalokitesvara are "advanced enough".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You want to have your cake and eat it too. Have a state without being attached to it. This is an ideal that is impossible to reach. This is the basis of delusion. The uncomfortable truth that all Buddhism leads to. I find this fascinating coming from someone who practices Dzogchen, which is a Vajrayana practice which results in still-living enlightened practitioners. I think that this statement is overbroad and borders on nihilistic. An enlightened Dzogchen practitioner who has accomplished the path still experiences states, but does not suffer. The enlightened Buddha slept and woke, ate food and took drink, and lived just as a human being. The generally perceived ultimate realization of Dzogchen and Mahamudra both point to the idea that samsara and nirvana are illusory, separated only by the mind. They do not deny the relative reality, but rather seek instead to perceive the absolute reality of emptiness. Emptiness includes emptiness of suffering, and someone who has accomplished the path of Dzogchen is still an alive human being, interacting and experiencing and so on. They do so without attachment or aversion. That's why they are considered to have accomplished the path. It is entirely possible to have a state without being attached to it. It is not possible to want to have a state without attachment to it, but I think the very real, living examples of enlightened beings demonstrate that it is possible to attain enlightenment in this very life. quote:After this whole charade is over, you find freedom. Until that point, suffering. This I do agree with, but I don't know that I can agree with the broader statement that having a state mandates suffering. Samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I find this fascinating coming from someone who practices Dzogchen, which is a Vajrayana practice which results in still-living enlightened practitioners. I think that this statement is overbroad and borders on nihilistic. An enlightened Dzogchen practitioner who has accomplished the path still experiences states, but does not suffer. And I still suffer, by the way. I never said otherwise. But I see the "way out".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
I am not expecting you all to agree with me right here and now. I am getting to the heart of the whole problem. Disagreements are fine. Call it clearing up confusions, or attempting to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:States ARE attachment! You think you have control over whether you are attached or not! It's not a choice! You just have to keep looking until it breaks. You can't just walk away! (Or you ask for help, which is what I had to do.) I am not saying "I personally am capable of experiencing states without attachments." I am saying "it is possible." But here we are in a weird semantic turn where I'm not even sure about basic principle parts of language. So, when His Holiness the Drikung Kyabgon goes to bed at night, does he sleep? If he does, is that not a state? Is primordial self-awareness a state? Is primordial emptiness a state? I mean, "state" is so broad and so vague a term that I think I've lost the meaning of the conversation not because of an actual disagreement between us, but because we have obfuscated the language so far as to make it impenetrable. This does not demonstrate a rejection of conceptual thought, I think, but rather merely that a point is not being clearly made. Anyhow, I've got to head back to work but I do want to thank everyone who has participated and will participate in this conversation because I think it's been pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I am not saying "I personally am capable of experiencing states without attachments." I am saying "it is possible." I would say that primordial emptiness is not a state to oneself, but in order to be communicated to others, it becomes a state (at the expense of other ways of looking at the mind.) Same with HH Drikung Kyabgon sleeping. I do agree we are reaching the limits of language here. There is something between the words, that is the important thing. Also the fact that we are on an internet forum does not help. But I find in person I get caught up in other people's states of mind, as well as my own, obviously. (I've become sensitive in a weird way.) I am better when I type it out. I should do some work myself. Be patient, all! edit - Or should I say, take your time! the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
I am sure that the limitations of language caused some of the grief I was feeling. Sorry if I was short with anyone. We're all in this for the same reason. Never discuss dhamma on an empty stomach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 21:07
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:OK, they might have had a reason for that, there is plenty of nuance to make in that distinction, and I have done something similar. I didn't start off saying they were the same thing, because we feel the difference in a real way (this is the basis of ego). Or they don't understand the distinction, which is possible (age and lineage mean nothing when it comes to self-understanding). There is not enough in that anecdote for me to go back on what I have said. I have to know the whole context of what they said. quote:What premises or grounds do we have for accepting that mental afflictions can be ultimately rooted out and eliminated from our mind? There are absolutely good emotions that are worth cultivating and nurturing, these just frequently are associated with negative emotions such as attachment or fear [of losing that positive emotion]. A Buddhist can feel happiness, joy, amusement, any of these things, as long as they are fully aware and have internalized that these are fleeting and temporary states, and that the empty nature of these states isn't a bad thing even if it is in a way the root cause of suffering. Again, Buddha was described as being infinitely emotional, as compassion is an emotion. There is absolutely a distinguishing factor between good emotions (compassion, love, etc.) and bad emotions (sadness, anger, fear) and the negative aspects you're attempting to pin to all emotions clearly arise from bad that are frequently associated with good, even if they aren't the same emotions. Also, there are only five or six lineage-head Tulkus alive, and none have a poor grasp of the Dharma by any possible definition. It's a bit unskillful to imply that these people don't understand the distinction because it butts up against your understanding. It's seriously seriously grasping and not more than a little ego-centric. If you are discussing Dharma and great and wise teachers disagree with you, it would benefit you at the very least to be willing to re-examine your certainty before claiming they are ignorant in the Dharma. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There are absolutely good emotions that are worth cultivating and nurturing, these just frequently are associated with negative emotions such as attachment or fear [of losing that positive emotion]. A Buddhist can feel happiness, joy, amusement, any of these things, as long as they are fully aware and have internalized that these are fleeting and temporary states, and that the empty nature of these states isn't a bad thing even if it is in a way the root cause of suffering. Again, Buddha was described as being infinitely emotional, as compassion is an emotion. There is absolutely a distinguishing factor between good emotions (compassion, love, etc.) and bad emotions (sadness, anger, fear) and the negative aspects you're attempting to pin to all emotions clearly arise from bad that are frequently associated with good, even if they aren't the same emotions. They have faith in the experience of clear light to manifest compassion for others FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEADING THEM TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING. Not "idiot compassion" as Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche says. All of these positive qualities are solely for the purpose of helping others to understand. That's why there is such a thing as "crazy wisdom" and some teachers doing really wild things that don't coddle other people's feelings for example. These are not emotions in themselves. They are wisdom itself emanating. They don't feel good feelings to themself about teaching, do you understand? It's more subtle than that. You might still be misunderstanding me, and them. What they are describing when they talk about emotions are ACTIONS that appear to others as compassionate, and not intrinsic feelings in themselves. Enlightened people only feel what others feel, if anything. They have no feelings themselves. They have become irrelevant. And they only think what is absolutely necessary. Only useful thoughts, no chatter. So therefore they do not judge others based on their own self perception. This is the ideal at least. So I agree with your teacher. And I don't think he misunderstands. But I don't feel too bad about doubting him for a second, because you mischaracterized him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 21:35
|
|
quote:You might still be misunderstanding me, and them. What they are describing when they talk about emotions are ACTIONS that appear to others as compassionate, and not intrinsic feelings in themselves. Enlightened people only feel what others feel, if anything. They have no feelings themselves. They have become irrelevant. And they only think what is absolutely necessary. Only useful thoughts, no chatter. So therefore they do not judge others based on their own self perception. This is the ideal at least. This isn't dharma, it's nihilism. It's also an incredibly strange view I've never heard advocated (but I have heard rejected) by anyone of any tradition. Your certainty in your interpretation of the Dalai Lamas teachings despite numerous discussions by him on that exact topic that vehemently disagree with your core statement of enlightened people being emotionless outside dharma is strange, and your willingness to label contrary viewpoints as espoused by charlatans until you have had the opportunity to twist their statements into an affirmation of your worldview regardless of whether it actually agrees with you is akusala as hell. I'm not going to go to the extreme that you did when you called one of the two most knowledgeable posters in this thread (and at that one who angled his entire life trajectory with a lens of Buddhist compassion) not-Buddhist, but if you are what you claim to be then you should consider that there is a strong possibility that an understanding you hold deeply may be wrong when viewed through the eyes of someone with a better understanding of the dharma than you. The same poster you accused of being not-Buddhist recently turned me on to a teaching by a well respected Lama that essentially shook a part of the Dharma I was convinced was immutable, because I was able to see that regardless of my belief and understanding, I was directly contradicted by someone with a far more thorough understanding of the dharma than I will ever have in this lifetime. I've told you I agree with telling people they aren't Buddhist when they factually are not (lack of belief in rebirth/rejection of the four noble truths, for example), but no matter how convinced these people are of their hider standing of the Dharma, they can't come to their view without twisting meanings and teachings to fit their preconceived notions regardless of the intent of their teachings. This is exactly what you're doing, and you should really think long and hard about, frankly, how much of a dick you're being about your insistence on your interpretation despite clarifications from the very teachers you claim to be interpreting. I can't think of a single tradition that'd be okay with accusing the heads of other legitimate traditions charlatans because they disagree with you.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You offered an unqualified anecdote. If I agreed with the anecdote, then I would be saying everything I had just said was wholly pointless. But more to the point, I don't care if they are a lineage holder. There are charlatans everywhere. That said, what you pasted was more than instructive about the point of their teaching. And I don't disagree with them. It's more of a sentiment they are expressing than a description anyway. Chogyam Trungpa, are you quoting him as a source or as a charlatan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Chogyam Trungpa, are you quoting him as a source or as a charlatan? WAFFLEHOUND posted:This isn't dharma, it's nihilism. It's also an incredibly strange view I've never heard advocated (but I have heard rejected) by anyone of any tradition. Your certainty in your interpretation of the Dalai Lamas teachings despite numerous discussions by him on that exact topic that vehemently disagree with your core statement of enlightened people being emotionless outside dharma is strange, and your willingness to label contrary viewpoints as espoused by charlatans until you have had the opportunity to twist their statements into an affirmation of your worldview regardless of whether it actually agrees with you is akusala as hell. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:He's a little bit of both. But I quoted him as a source. I was in Boulder in those days. There's no little of both, he was a monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:I was in Boulder in those days. There's no little of both, he was a monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:24
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Hm OK. I guess I won't be coming back to this thread then. Status quo defended successfully. Congrats. Have fun If you're just going to call those who disagree with your highly suspect interpretation charlatans or not-Buddhist while using the same argumentative tactics employed by those who erroneously try to claim Buddha didn't actually mean rebirth when he said rebirth, then good. In the meantime, I'll continue respecting the interpretations of the Dalai Lama and monks like Kusala over your insistence that Dharma is nihilism. You're not discussing, you're not engaging in any kind of educational debate, you're just insisting without basis that every actual authority is wrong/misguided or that they somehow agree with you if you read between the lines of some of the things they say and outright ignore the rest. If you believe yourself to be Buddhist then you might as well start trying to be skillful instead of paying lip service to the concept.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:If you're just going to call those who disagree with your highly suspect interpretation charlatans or not-Buddhist while using the same argumentative tactics employed by those who erroneously try to claim Buddha didn't actually mean rebirth when he said rebirth, then good. In the meantime, I'll continue respecting the interpretations of the Dalai Lama and monks like Kusala over your insistence that Dharma is nihilism. You're not discussing, you're not engaging in any kind of educational debate, you're just insisting without basis that every actual authority is wrong/misguided or that they somehow agree with you if you read between the lines of some of the things they say and outright ignore the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I can see why you would think that. I like some of his teachings though, and I don't totally agree that he was a monster, just troubled. I go to Naropa now by the way. The school does not succeed at much of anything it sets out to do, and I guess it wasn't based on a very effective foundation. I'm happy to be a week away from graduating. The life of the man is the teaching, and "very troubled" is a B.S. excuse for the depredations and suffering that man caused. I reiterate, he caused suffering under the guise of 'crazy wisdom, he did not alleviate it. Chogyam even had all the cred coming out of Tibet, HHDL says yeah this guys great, etc. etc. A perfect example of what Gautama said about scrutinizing the would-be teacher, not what he says, what he is. Guys like him and Rajneesh were examples of extremely clever manipulative charismatic frauds. Oh yeah, wonderful books. What's the difference between a book and toilet paper? The TP has actual value. He literally damaged peoples lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:The life of the man is the teaching, and "very troubled" is a B.S. excuse for the depredations and suffering that man caused. I reiterate, he caused suffering under the guise of 'crazy wisdom, he did not alleviate it. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:43
|
|
Are you defending the dharma credentials of someone who, despite vows, did piles of coke, drank, and slept with his students while at the same time you're calling other well respected teacher charlatans?ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I guess I won't be coming back to this thread then. Status quo defended successfully. Congrats. Have fun Please remember the fourth precept.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
[in black lady voice] Y'all mothafuckas need zazen
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Are you defending the dharma credentials of someone who, despite vows, did piles of coke, drank, and slept with his students while at the same time you're calling other well respected teacher charlatans? I am saying Trungpa had some positive qualities, and for people who aren't fools, something can be learned from him. Please, continue to point out how I am a hypocrite though. I think it would make you feel better. Also I never called any teacher a charlatan. I said I had no problem with doing so, but I never actually did (well except for Trungpa, sort of??). I can call you one if you want. I think you want an ad hominem argument. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:[in black lady voice] Y'all mothafuckas need zazen
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:[in black lady voice] Y'all mothafuckas need zazen Is FYAD cultivating Good Speech? It's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Is FYAD cultivating Good Speech? It's pretty cool. My practice is posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:[in black lady voice] Y'all mothafuckas need zazen New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:My practice is posting. I like this. There's something to be said for this. Subhuti asked, "Master, should we post good posts or bad? What kind of posts should we do? When we post should we punctuate or not?" The Tathagatha replied, "  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:21
|
|
It's not that I want to call you a hypocrite, it's that I want to see you honour the precept vows which I assume you've taken.ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I am saying Trungpa had some positive qualities, and for people who aren't fools, something can be learned from him. The most positive lesson that can be taken from him is what not to do. The quality of the teachings is directly correlated to the quality of the teacher, "crazy wisdom" isn't just "I'm going to do whatever the hell I want while teaching Buddhism" it's "I'm going to live Dharma, but not how might be expected. Understanding of how it is Dharma will help you learn." Crazy wisdom is a life made into a koan. What you just said is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen anyone post in this thread, it's no different than if someone in a thread on catholicism came in and defended pedophile priests because they were particularly godly men in rhetoric in spite of their worldly actions. We shouldn't be defending monsters in our faith because of perceived usefulness of their teachings, because their teachings are essentially empty if they don't have the wisdom themselves to take anything from it. You cannot be an effective teacher of Dharma if you yourself are pretty much Mara. Just because some of his students turned out well isn't a statement of his great teachings in spite of his character, it's a statement of his students' great wisdom in spite of his teachings. I think it's deplorable to defend him from a dharma perspective while on this very page you basically said you'd have no problems calling one of or all people people (Tenzin Gyatso, Ngawang Kunga Tegchen Palbar Trinley Samphel Wangyi Gyalpo & Jigdal Dagchen Sakya [and to an extent the Sakya family], Ogyen Trinley Dorje & Trinley Thaye Dorje (debatably)) who have a serious claim to have a far deeper understanding of Dharma than either you or Trungpa is a charlatain without foundation. You didn't straight up say you believed they were, but the fact that you said you would be willing to while at the same time you say: ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I don't feel qualified to judge the extent of the damage he caused, and I am not sure why you do. What did you see? And not just hear...there's always rumors. Is enormously hypocritical. You feel comfortable expressing a willingness to label great and respected teachers who might disagree with you as charlatans, but you don't feel comfortable passing any meaningful judgement on a known violator of the oaths of his order who basically didn't have a bone of actual Dharma in his practice because hey, look at the good things that came out of his teachings. Back to my original point, you don't seem to have an actual interest in learning about Dharma, you seem to really want to have your worldview reinforced at all costs and you're willing to vilify those who disagree with you and lionize those who, regardless of their failings, might be eloquent in a way you respect. You never even engaged the very real point that your view of emotions among Arahats is unsupported by Dharma, you just said you weren't going to come back and then promptly pretended the fourth precept wasn't a thing, because frankly I'd be okay with either you keeping your word or engaging in a real discussion with someone who actually knows their stuff, which you've so far been unwilling to do in exchange for meaningless debate style that, pardon my butchering of Latin here, basically seems to be argumentum ab caput ex asine. It's not that you're a hypocrite, it's that you have no interest in learning about Dharma yet seem to be willing to present yourself as a fitting judge as to the Buddhist status of others. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
This is getting really tiring, and I'm only still here so I can put off finishing my final paper. I also keep getting misunderstood, which is frustrating. My point of view was well articulated and clear, and is based on the 4 seals, and 3 various translations. I think my point has been avoided. I don't believe a single Buddhist teacher in any lineage would disagree with the point I made about it, although I know many of you yahoos who think they understand Buddhism but don't would be confused by what I am saying. Many of you have already expressed humility in this regard. I'm getting bored with your insistence, Wafflehound, that I have gone against the Buddhist grain. I don't even know why you keep saying it. And I've taken no precepts. No precepts in my tradition. I can do whatever the hell I want, lol.. And Chogyam Trungpa is enormously controversial. I personally think he had good qualities. He also had a lot of lousy ones, which he was very upfront about. Most of his students weren't really that bright though, and just wanted to pursue hedonistic nonsense. That's the sense I get. If you're trying to trap me here, I don't care. I am going to defend him to the extent that he was eloquent and made interesting connections. I admit the way he lived his life was slightly ridiculous. But what are you looking for, a God? He came from Tibet, an enormously conservative and even backwards society, and realized quickly he could probably have sex with any white woman he wanted. He had charisma. And so he took advantage of it. What would you have done? Then he was in a bad car crash and was in a lot of pain the rest of his life and over-medicated. I can see why the things in his life happened the way he did, and so I think I almost understand him. I wouldn't have done what he did, but then again I wasn't in his shoes. Why do you want me to vilify him so bad? It doesn't matter. You're looking for a hero to look up to. There are no heroes. The only way to remain unscathed is not to play. Everyone gets dirty in this world. The last teacher I can think of who was completely without controversy was Ramana Maharshi and he lived on a single hill for his whole life! What are you looking for? And I don't care about having my worldview reinforced. You think I am offended by your disagreements? I'm not sure you understand what happens. Anyway, you haven't given me anything good yet, and my worldview has already borne too much fruit, not that it was what came first. It is just a way to articulate what has happened to me. You're mad that someone thinks they know more than you, because you don't think they do. All that pettiness is boring to me now. I don't care about what I know and don't know (or at least I care much less) You just don't get it. I don't need to learn about Dharma anymore (but I will). I reached the end (well, near it). And I am trying to show the way. I only need to learn about Dharma to the extent it helps me explain to others. You don't need to validate this to me, but I am just trying to explain why I don't care about your slanderings (unless they show me where I am inexact about a characterization, which I have seen in the discussion about states for example). quote:You never even engaged the very real point that your view of emotions among Arahats is unsupported by Dharma, you just said you weren't going to come back and then promptly pretended the fourth precept wasn't a thing, because frankly I'd be okay with either you keeping your word or engaging in a real discussion with someone who actually knows their stuff, which you've so far been unwilling to do in exchange for meaningless debate style that, pardon my butchering of Latin here, basically seems to be argumentum ab caput ex asine. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:42
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Many of you have already expressed humility in this regard. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:You just don't get it. I don't need to learn about Dharma anymore (but I will). I reached the end (well, near it). And I am trying to show the way. I only need to learn about Dharma to the extent it helps me explain to others. Holy loving poo poo are you claiming to be a loving Arahat?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
At one time there was a master and his disciple walking in the mountains. They passed two boys with a stand, selling live frogs for people to take home and eat. The young disciple told the old master to take a rest, saying he'd be right back. He bought all the frogs from the boys, who happily returned home. He threw the frogs one by one back into the river, who very happily swam and jumped. He returned to his master, who asked him, "You look happy, what happened?" the young monk replied "Oh, no problem! I saved the frogs!" The master said mournfully, "Oh, YOU saved them? Too bad! Now YOU go to hell!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I know many of you yahoos who think they understand Buddhism but don't would be confused by what I am saying. ... quote:You just don't get it. I don't need to learn about Dharma anymore (but I will). I reached the end (well, near it). And I am trying to show the way. I only need to learn about Dharma to the extent it helps me explain to others. You don't need to validate this to me, but I am just trying to explain why I don't care about your slanderings (unless they show me where I am inexact about a characterization, which I have seen in the discussion about states for example). You show enormous levels of conceit, ego, and disdain for the learning of others, even when shown repeatedly that your interpretations are unorthodox and contrary to the teachings of others. Your natural response to that is to assume that those who disagree with you are inferior, and that is very telling. If you truly are intending to become a teacher of Dhamma, I sincerely hope you take a good look at the way you interact with others, and realize how truly abrasive it is. However, considering that you think you've reached the end of the path while clearly displaying tendencies of someone who has hardly even started, I doubt you will listen to this, as you have refused to listen to anyone else in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Holy loving poo poo are you claiming to be a loving Arahat? I said this pages ago and no one batted an eye! I even said it in a meditation thread and no one said anything except thanks for the advice. But once I say something controversial that challenges someone's world view completely, suddenly I'm a liar! I should have expected this, lol. And I used my own words, not Arahat or whatever else. Prickly Pete posted:... the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I said this pages ago and no one batted an eye! I even said it in a meditation thread and no one said anything except thanks for the advice. But once I say something controversial that challenges someone's world view completely, suddenly I'm a liar! I should have expected this, lol. It's okay, I'm Mahakala.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:54
|
|