|
Ruddha posted:Keep your story straight before I go Asura on your rear end, spiritually. Take it from me this guy's a real bad asura.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Ruddha posted:Keep your story straight before I go Asura on your rear end, spiritually. I haven't taken any precepts. That doesn't mean I can do anything I want. Anything else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:For someone with no attachments you're really determined for us to see things your way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Getting people mad has its own rewards I understand the idea that successfully trolling a thread full of literal meditating Buddhists is somehow a worthwhile challenge, but this post alone docks you a shitload of style points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:I understand the idea that successfully trolling a thread full of literal meditating Buddhists is somehow a worthwhile challenge, but this post alone docks you a shitload of style points. And I mean everything I say...not trolling with bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:53
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Getting people mad has its own rewards Oh good here's that puppet master claim I predicted.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
I just like to post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I haven't taken any precepts. That doesn't mean I can do anything I want. Anything else? I do have one final question. The fact that you have expressed views that have been challenged intelligently by Buddhist practitioners across several traditions, some of whom have been practicing and meditating for many years, doesn't cause you to stop for a moment to think "maybe I am wrong?". Like the idea that perhaps your understanding of suffering is wrong is so unfathomable that you would instead just assume everyone else has a flawed interpretation of the Dhamma, and extending to your conclusion that they aren't real Buddhists (whatever that means), even when your own understanding does't really mesh with what the Buddha said in very basic places like the 4 noble truths? That doesn't make you stop and think "Maybe these people have a point", even a little? The fact that when asked to show some proof in a sutra for your assertions, you were either unwilling or unable? Nothing there makes you think "drat maybe I am the one who is wrong here, not everyone else"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I do have one final question. The fact that you have expressed views that have been challenged intelligently by Buddhist practitioners across several traditions, some of whom have been practicing and meditating for many years, doesn't cause you to stop for a moment to think "maybe I am wrong?". Like the idea that perhaps your understanding of suffering is wrong is so unfathomable that you would instead just assume everyone else has a flawed interpretation of the Dhamma, and extending to your conclusion that they aren't real Buddhists (whatever that means), even when your own understanding does't really mesh with what the Buddha said in very basic places like the 4 noble truths? Manic religious delusion is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:I just like to post. I hope to achieve enlightenment once I reach 10 post per day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I hope to achieve enlightenment once I reach 10 post per day. It is said that the Buddha, upon the moment of his awakening, spontaneously said, "Wonder of wonders! All people are inherently enlightened, but because they don't post enough they do not see."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:59
|
|
Ruddha posted:It is said that the Buddha, upon the moment of his awakening, spontaneously said, "Wonder of wonders! All people are inherently enlightened, but because they don't post enough they do not see." Please don't stop posting.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I do have one final question. The fact that you have expressed views that have been challenged intelligently by Buddhist practitioners across several traditions, some of whom have been practicing and meditating for many years, doesn't cause you to stop for a moment to think "maybe I am wrong?". Like the idea that perhaps your understanding of suffering is wrong is so unfathomable that you would instead just assume everyone else has a flawed interpretation of the Dhamma, and extending to your conclusion that they aren't real Buddhists (whatever that means), even when your own understanding does't really mesh with what the Buddha said in very basic places like the 4 noble truths? Alright let's do this out again. Let's say some emotions are not pain. Let's say joy is not just a full blown emotion and also possible to feel without attachment. You can feel joy come and go, and not be attached to it, because it isn't pain. Would that be nirvana? No, because nirvana is beyond concepts and beyond emotion. So then, what is happening, if that isn't nirvana? Conditioned experience. Why would you be able to feel it without pain? Only if it were permanent. A permanent state couldn't come or go, and so it couldn't be wished for or missed, or hated or feared. Do we think nirvana is a permanent state of joy? No because nirvana is beyond concepts, Buddhist canon is very clear about this. How in the world could it be experienced without pain, if it is impermanent? Do you see what I am doing here? I did this pages ago too by the way. quote:The fact that when asked to show some proof in a sutra for your assertions, you were either unwilling or unable? Nothing there makes you think "drat maybe I am the one who is wrong here, not everyone else"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I just don't like being misunderstood. Is that wrong? Wayullll little buckaroo.....in this world of samsara an shitpostin, I reckon ya gotta take a little misunderstandin' now an agin on yer way to the Far Shore. Ya'll come back now, yheah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Please don't stop posting. It is my nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Nobody is talking about nirvana. Anywhere. It is the statement that "all emotions are pain" that started this whole thing. It is a statement that I challenged, as did several other people, who cited plenty of examples as to why that isn't true, and cited sources (Tibetan ones I believe) that showed teachers disagreeing with the statement in those words. A few people listed alternative translations, such as "all tainted things are suffering", or "All conditioned phenomenon are suffering", which obviously are totally aligned with what the Buddha taught. Apparently this was not ok to you for some reason, even thought some of those things, such as the latter statement, are literally statements that are attributed to the Buddha himself depending on the translation Several people noted that emotions themselves are not pain. It is the clinging to temporary conditioned emotional states that lead to suffering, just as all clinging does. This is very basic Dhamma. The fact that it led to you calling out people as having flawed understandings of Buddhism is kind of shocking honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Like I said at the very beginning, anyone who is disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the four seals, and is therefore not a Buddhist. That's what I've said from the start. I don't know what you guys are doing in this thread, unless you are trying to figure out what the four seals viscerally mean. Because I know I'm not wrong. My whole point has always been based on logic and Buddhist canon, and that's mostly why I am still here, because I still can't believe that most of you don't understand what I have been saying. It's making me lose a lot of faith in the ability for people to understand, honestly. I am explaining to you all like I would have explained it to myself when I was younger. It's too bad I can't hold you all to the same standard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:
The four seals do not exist in any sutta that is attributed to the Buddha that I know of. If you have one to show me i will gladly read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Like I said at the very beginning, anyone who is disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the four seals, and is therefore not a Buddhist. That's what I've said from the start. I don't know what you guys are doing in this thread, unless you are trying to figure out what the four seals viscerally mean. Because I know I'm not wrong. I read this as I=Four Seals; Are you an Avatar?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Nobody is talking about nirvana. Anywhere. You didn't respond to my above post. "All emotions are pain" only makes sense in reference to nirvana, that's the whole entire point. That you refuse to bring it into the discussion shows how badly you don't want to understand my point. That's fine, just shut the hell up about it. I get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:The four seals do not exist in any sutta that is attributed to the Buddha that I know of. If you have one to show me i will gladly read it. edit - fixed. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:So you're a Theravada. I get it. I'm not. You're like a Jew asking a Christian to show where what he's saying is in the Talmud. It's in the New Testament which considers itself to build on the Talmud, that's the whole point. I'll actually accept any sutra that shows the 4 seals, Mahayana or otherwise. I already said I don't care about this in terms of tradition. I just want to see it attributed to the Buddha in some sense. I'm the only Theravada practitioner here that I know of. If I was that much of a fundamentalist and refused to discuss things in a cross-traditional sense I wouldn't get very far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I'll actually accept any sutra that shows the 4 seals, Mahayana or otherwise. I already said I don't care about this in terms of tradition. I just want to see it attributed to the Buddha in some sense. edit - I officially lost my cool. I'm out. I can't deal with this anymore. You guys win. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:For someone with no attachments you're really determined for us to see things your way. Not that I disagree with you, but policing other peoples' understanding of Buddhism out of frustrated attachment to one's own understanding and being right has been a prevailing theme of both the new threads and the old threads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:THE BUDDHA WAS DEAD BY THE TIME MAHAYANA TRADITION CAME AROUND. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND. Thanks, I am quite aware of the timeline of the various schools. That doesn't change the fact that there are sutras that are considered canonical by Mahayana schools that Theravada doesn't recognize. I don't care about the why and how of that. I just want a source of these four seals. I am assuming it is a Tibetan thing but I do not know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Not that I disagree with you, but policing other peoples' understanding of Buddhism out of frustrated attachment to one's own understanding and being right has been a prevailing theme of both the new threads and the old threads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:THE BUDDHA WAS DEAD BY THE TIME MAHAYANA TRADITION CAME AROUND. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND. Haha drat, sounds hard to be so close to being awakened. A lotta pressure. I'm six feet from the edge and I'm thinkin' Maybe six feet, ain't so far goooone
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Thanks, I am quite aware of the timeline of the various schools. That doesn't change the fact that there are sutras that are considered canonical by Mahayana schools that Theravada doesn't recognize. I don't care about the why and how of that. I just want a source of these four seals. I am assuming it is a Tibetan thing but I do not know. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_seals See, we could have had a whole discussion on whether the four seals could be considered canon or not. But we didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
If i am the first person who made an arahant this mad I'm not going to be able to live with myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Wait what point? Go back to the part where we were talking about the three separate translations of the four seals, and tell me where my logic was flawed. The thing you're missing is that non-conceptual thought and freedom from attachment and aversion does not magically make things like emotions stop arising and falling. A sentient being exists. His Holiness the Dalai Lama tells jokes. He laughs. He enjoys himself. He is sad when he thinks of some things. He is happy when he thinks of others. He is a human being. That he is also an enlightened being means that he is free from suffering. He is free from suffering because he sees things how they truly are - illusory, transitory, lacking ultimate reality, empty. Because he realizes things are empty, he does not suffer, even in sadness. Your attachment to your conceptual understanding of non-conceptual thought is perhaps preventing you from seeing clearly the very point of Rigpa, that this world we're in just is, that the suffering of samsara is not an intrinsic part of reality, but rather an obscuration of reality caused by conceptual thought and grasping, and that without this conceptual thought and without the grasping, the sun still sets at the end of the day, and rises again tomorrow. This has been my point from the first: emotions are just another event, another phenomenon, arising and falling. They are no different than the sun, or the clouds, or the waves. They rise, they fall. This is a thing that happens. And yet, it is empty from the first, merely cause and effect, dependently originating from interconnected nothingness. Emergent. And yet a being who has attained rigpa, or attained mahamudra, still sees the sun rise and set, still sees the waves ebb and flow, and still feels bodily sensations. However, without mental obscurations and the delusion of conceptual thought, he or she is able to see them the way they really are, primordially empty and pure, and so is caused no suffering by them. Your logic is also fairly inconsistent. An enlightened being can feel joy, feel sadness, and let both come and go without attachment and aversion, because without the clouding of conceptual thought they recognize both as empty. Since both are empty, they do not grasp for it. It merely happens. When joy happens, they feel joy. When joy leaves, they feel no joy. It simply happens. You are obfuscating and complicating it by insisting that all experience is samsaric when, by the description of enlightened individuals, that is not true. It is the teaching of great and accomplished Lamas that samsara and nirvana are two sides of the same hand. The only difference is the observer - an enlightened being in a hell realm is in nirvana, whereas an unenlightened being is in a world of considerable suffering. This is why great bodhisattvas can take on the suffering of other beings, substitute themselves for others, allow themselves to be beaten, chopped, hated, and so on, and they do not suffer: because they see it as it truly is, empty, and they do not attach to or avoid it. Even in the hell realms for a million kalpas, the bodhisattva knows that it is impermanent and empty, and so they do not suffer, whereas the unenlightened mind, feeling that pain, becomes ensnared by conceptual thought and so suffers due to believing their pain is real, and that it is unending, and so on. These are the descriptions I have been taught, and they are consistent with the bulk of Buddhist canon. I am amused where this thread went and really enjoyed it, but at this point I think this conversation is perhaps exhausted. So, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Who feels that joy and sadness?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Here's a link. Phil Stanley just so happens to teach at Naropa, he generally knows what he is talking about. Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. So the four seals were elaborated by a Tibetan monk who lived around 1300 or so. And this, to you, makes it the defining metric by which someone is a Buddhist or not? Also, the version given here is "all that is tained is suffering", which is very different than your original "All emotions are pain". Which is the entire thing everyone has been arguing about this whole time. The 4 seals are basically the same as anicca, anatta, dukkha, and nibbana being the ultimate goal. All traditions agree on this. They just don't describe dukkha as "all emotions are pain", because that isn't what the Buddha said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:If i am the first person who made an arahant this mad I'm not going to be able to live with myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. And I could never find a better metric so I put this one up for debate. That was the whole point, if you read my first post. I wasn't going to steer it that way if no one else was. And maybe emotions aren't tainted... but I am going to act as if they are until I can't push through any longer. I am going the distance, I don't give a gently caress. I want to be free of all the bullshit. If I overshoot the mark at first, so be it. This is my path. You all don't have to agree. But it's almost like I hit a nerve. Your precious feelings the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I am saying that emotions are tainted I know. I just think that isn't correct, and that saying "attachment to emotional states" is more in line with the spirit of the noble truths. That's really what we've been talking about this whole time. I don't think it is a dealbreaker of a difference, it just requires reflection. I certainly wouldn't ever call someone "not a buddhist" becuase they held your view. I'm surprised you would do the same, since the link you posted, saying "all that is tainted is suffering" is something I would agree with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Here's a link. Phil Stanley just so happens to teach at Naropa, he generally knows what he is talking about. Hey I like that you linked that. You might note that the four seals given there do not include "all emotions are pain" and that perhaps it is imprudent to condemn as non-Buddhists people who are specifically disagreeing with the statement "all emotions are pain" while totally accepting other more conventional translations including the exact translation you just linked. For example, I totally agree with the four seals in the link you just posted. I use rigpawiki fairly regularly because it's a quicker reference than the books in the other room. I think that the four seals as translated there are just swell. I disagree that "all emotions are pain" is a valid translation of the four seals. It is not consistent with the second seal in the translation in the link you just gave. For example, it is not consistent because "emotions" and "pain" are not words that are featured in that sentence in Tibetan. So, I mean, you can insist that it is a valid translation, but given that not one word in the phrase ཟག་བཅས་ཐམས་ཅད་སྡུག་བསྔལ་བ། means "emotions" or "pain," you would just be plain wrong. So, I would argue that it is perhaps poor form to call people out for not being Buddhist enough when you are asserting that a phrase which is not present in a canonical work must be unconditionally accepted based on your insistence that it means the same thing because you say so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
This is what I was trying to say, but better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:I know. I just think that isn't correct, and that saying "attachment to emotional states" is more in line with the spirit of the noble truths. That's really what we've been talking about this whole time. I don't think it is a dealbreaker of a difference, it just requires reflection. I certainly wouldn't ever call someone "not a buddhist" becuase they held your view. I'm surprised you would do the same, since the link you posted, saying "all that is tainted is suffering" is something I would agree with. Me- "what are emotions?" Lama Surya Das - "Conditioned mind" He said that verbatim..why did I not say this before. It clarified so much for me. I've always had to know what emotions are. It is my own intellectual curiousity. I don't just want to live in the woods. I want to get out and say something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Who feels that joy and sadness? A being, ultimately empty. A Tathagata, in the example I've given. An arisen phenomenon. This question isn't really relevant, if an emotion arises, then there is a being experiencing it. The emotion and the being arise together and are dependently arisen, one upon another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So, I would argue that it is perhaps poor form to call people out for not being Buddhist enough when you are asserting that a phrase which is not present in a canonical work must be unconditionally accepted based on your insistence that it means the same thing because you say so. And read my above post. My own teacher said that. Do you think he is wrong too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:33
|
|