|
Rhymenoceros posted:Enlightenment (the ultimate goal) is something that we can experience as ordinary human beings in our lifetime, if that's what you're referring to. Then what necessitates the need for the supernatural/mystical elements such as karma and rebirth? Or is it just depressing to say 'You have only one chance to find enlightenment, Go.' I can agree that the aspects of mindfulness and the way of thinking are beneficial but then to me it falls apart when it gets to things like karma and rebirth that can't be rationalized or measured. And if we did make a thinking feeling machine that can suffer, would that be good or bad in the eyes of the sutras? In a way we would have created a new creature from nothing and gave it the ability to suffer but if we went the human route of learning, humans learn through suffering what is good and what is bad the right way to do something and the wrong way. ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 6, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:I am just mainly wondering as an atheist if you guys believe we can achieve in our physical existence what religions promise through spiritual existence. Why not? If the cessation of suffering is the goal I don't see why responsible technological application can't get us there at some point. It just doesn't seem terribly likely at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
edit: goddamn phone
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Is it really the goal of buddhism to experience the world without subjectivity ? Where does this idea come from ? Because we have examples of human beings who do just that : newborn babies, and it doesn't look like a ton of fun. Even newborns experience the world subjectively through their senses. I've never heard of Buddhism as trying to erase all subjectivity, merely trying to view the world as free of mental judgement as possible. You can experience this directly in meditation; opinions disappear, there is no good or bad, just a relatively unfiltered view of the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 19:51
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:I am just mainly wondering as an atheist if you guys believe we can achieve in our physical existence what religions promise through spiritual existence. Rhymenoceros posted:Enlightenment (the ultimate goal) is something that we can experience as ordinary human beings in our lifetime, if that's what you're referring to. Cumshot in the Dark posted:Why not? If the cessation of suffering is the goal I don't see why responsible technological application can't get us there at some point. It just doesn't seem terribly likely at the moment. You guys are doing it again and being overly diplomatic to the point of not really answering the question he clearly meant (and even clarified). He's asking if Buddhism is fundamentally necessary for enlightenment, or if Buddhism is a theological crutch for a secular sense of enlightenment. So, to answer what you're asking, no. To achieve enlightenment in the sense that Buddhism defines it is to reach a state beyond just feeling awesome about the nature of reality; it's to escape the cycle of suffering entirely, which a strictly secular definition would run into issues with since the big escape is a given from a secular viewpoint. Buddhism also has the Fourth Noble Truth, which states that only Buddha's Dharma is the path to liberation. The reason I'm not sure that what you're thinking works is because you seem to be rejecting that "enlightenment" is inherently a supernatural/mythical term if you're going to think about the big picture of it, so of course you can't just remove all the "supernatural/mythical" of the religion and get the same end result, because in doing so you're fundamentally altering the nature of how you mean "enlightenment". Buddhism isn't just a self help book in the psychology section of a book store to help you cope with the world, it's a strict path that you can choose how seriously you want to follow but with a relatively unified end-goal. edit: I'm not trying to turn this into a rebirth fight, before the rest of the thread accuses me of that. From a Buddhist perspective you're never going to achieve enlightenment if you try and throw out the spiritual parts, though you might have a meritous existence anyways and have the fortune of being born a Buddhist in your next life. ShadowMoo posted:I can agree that the aspects of mindfulness and the way of thinking are beneficial but then to me it falls apart when it gets to things like karma and rebirth that can't be rationalized or measured. It's a religion, not a branch of physics. Everyone can benefit from practice no matter what they believe, but none of us are really expecting to be able to publish our worldview in Nature. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Is it really the goal of buddhism to experience the world without subjectivity ? Where does this idea come from ? Because we have examples of human beings who do just that : newborn babies, and it doesn't look like a ton of fun. Destruction of subjectivity is not destruction of personality. The personality does brighten, because ultimatleyt he personality is an emanation of the inherent tathagatagarbha within us all. Perfumed by countless karmas and dharmas, mind you. To elaborate- the removal of mental formations, ideation, is not so much the ultimate goal as much as it is a goal. The goal is the cessation of suffering, which requires the knowledge of what causes suffering. This is an abolition of ignorance. Part of ignorance is viewing the percept through the filters of non-perception and perception. I'm going to paraphrase one of my favourite lines of the trisvabhavanirdesac: "Gnosis is non-ideation, abandonment is non-appearance; Attainment is accomplished through the practise of non-dual perception. This is direct manifestation." If we acknowledge that a primal, underlying manifestation of clinging is the way through which we perceive the world, an ego-differentiated manner, then to remove this clinging to this illusory view is requisite for nirvana to attain us. The enlightened, including the Bhagavan, have attained the ninth Jnana beyond perception and non-peception. In palatable western terms- to experience the noumenon (Or ding-an-sich if you want to get all Hegelian up in here) is to dwell within the realm of perfect perception- experiencing dharmas without coneptual influences acting upon that experience. ShadowMoo posted:Then what necessitates the need for the supernatural/mystical elements such as karma and rebirth? Or is it just depressing to say 'You have only one chance to find enlightenment, Go.' It is worth noting that neither karma nor rebirth are supernatural elements. Both can be rationalized. We haven't invented instrumentation to measure causality to my knowledge- but we are capable of experiencing it and using empiricism to deduce the existence of it. I don't know why an atheist would take an occasionalist view, but perhaps you do! You had asked if the physical can attain what the spiritual promises- there is no distinction here. In buddhism the spiritual is the practise. The practise is done in this world. To practise is to be. It's asking "Can the physical attain that which is the physical?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Then what necessitates the need for the supernatural/mystical elements such as karma and rebirth? Or is it just depressing to say 'You have only one chance to find enlightenment, Go.' There is no "need" for those things. They are the observations Buddha made. They are true observations within the context of the faith. It has nothing to do with "well, it's sad if we're going to die permanently, let's pretend rebirth." That's nonsense, since impermanence and emptiness are concepts that essentially drive home that point anyhow. The need for those beliefs lies in that that is what the Buddha taught. If you believe Buddha attained enlightenment, then it is dumb to believe he was wrong about rebirth or karma or whatever. It is much more likely you or I am wrong about those things than Buddha. If you don't believe Buddha attained enlightenment, you're welcome to still follow the very practical teachings of Buddha, of course. It will make your life less suffering, even if you don't believe. But then your question answers itself. quote:I can agree that the aspects of mindfulness and the way of thinking are beneficial but then to me it falls apart when it gets to things like karma and rebirth that can't be rationalized or measured. It doesn't fall apart, you just don't accept it because of your own attachments. You require strict observable measurements for you to believe something. This must be terribly inconvenient, living in constant doubt of your experiences and the experiences of others because you don't walk around with recording equipment, but that's your own burden to bear. They absolutely can be rationalized, incidentally. The entire Buddhist canon is internally consistent and quite reasonable, each point supporting the other. It's not irrational to believe things based on personal experience and so on. So, Buddhism may not meet your arbitrary standards in terms of "burden of proof," but that's not a failing of Buddhism. That is your own conceptual fetters, your own limitations that you are attempting to impose on the world. If that's working for you, fantastic. If you're happy and satisfied and have no needs unmet, no problems and I am truly happy for you. If it's not, consider that perhaps your own self-imposed problems are affecting you adversely. "If it ain't working, try something else." ~ the Buddha
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
We can't do pseudo-buddha quotes without this gem though:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:It doesn't fall apart, you just don't accept it because of your own attachments. You require strict observable measurements for you to believe something. This must be terribly inconvenient, living in constant doubt of your experiences and the experiences of others because you don't walk around with recording equipment, but that's your own burden to bear. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Oh, I get it, this isn't actually a question it's "lol you're all dumb for having a religion"
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
No. Buddhism says to test and question correct? but how do you test and question something that cannot be proven/disproven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
It can be, you just need to accept that some things can only be tested and proven for yourself and not externally using karma mass spectrometers which can then be verified by the world at large by simply publishing your finding.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Then what necessitates the need for the supernatural/mystical elements such as karma and rebirth? Or is it just depressing to say 'You have only one chance to find enlightenment, Go.' ShadowMoo posted:I can agree that the aspects of mindfulness and the way of thinking are beneficial but then to me it falls apart when it gets to things like karma and rebirth that can't be rationalized or measured. I don't know what you mean by rationalized or measured here. ShadowMoo posted:And if we did make a thinking feeling machine that can suffer, would that be good or bad in the eyes of the sutras? In a way we would have created a new creature from nothing and gave it the ability to suffer but if we went the human route of learning, humans learn through suffering what is good and what is bad the right way to do something and the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:No. Buddhism says to test and question correct? To a certain degree, but not to the extent that a lot of people seem to want it to. Faith is also an important part of the path, which a lot of western/materialist/atheist Buddhist-curious explorers like to sweep under the rug - faith in the Buddha and his enlightenment, and his path, and that the practice of the path he laid out leads to the end of suffering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
As far as I understand it, Buddhism leans more towards Empiricism than Rationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
For me that is a chasm I am unwilling to leap across. Was very useful information though, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Be still, and know that I am Goku.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:For me that is a chasm I am unwilling to leap across. Was very useful information though, thanks. That's fine, we know that. That's something that someday, I hope you'll be able to get sorted. Regardless of whether you are able to overcome these hangups, I hope you find happiness. Since you're looking around religions, and you've mentioned you're unwilling to leap that chasm, it does look like you're looking for something. I do hope you find it, dude. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:Be still, and know that I am Goku. Is Ruddha the Buddha?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Spirit Bomb the heathens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:Is Ruddha the Buddha? There is nothing that is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
Ruddha posted:There is nothing that is not. -Deepak Chopra, quantum physicist
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer Quantumfate !
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:-Deepak Chopra, quantum physicist gently caress Chopra. Incidentally, I'd like to know a bit more about Dzogchen! Such as: what the hell is Dzogchen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
I'm ObamaCaresHugSquad's rereg. Seeing as I'm the only (former) Dzogchen practitioner that I've seen in this thread, I can answer any specific questions you have about it. The meditation thread where I wrote in depth answers about Dzogchen was deleted for some reason. Also, I should say I no longer consider myself a Buddhist partly because of the discussions in this thread, but it was going to happen eventually anyway. And I stick by everything I said in the thread before, if not its method of delivery at points. I can answer Dzogchen specific questions even so, although I'm not some grand master or anything. There are living Dzogchen masters alive right now, I suggest you find one, Dzogchen is done only under the guidance of a teacher capable of transmission. **Disclaimer**Keep in mind, from this point on, I am going to describe things with a little bit of distance, don't take it to mean I treat it all as gospel truth, it's just what Dzogchen practices are. In the end there is nothing to transmit, nothing to see, nothing to do to get anywhere on the path, no path in the first place, no fruition, no enlightenment, no samsara. I'm more with UG Krishnamurti than anyone at this point. It's not a Buddhist outlook. I admit this. Life is not therefore hopeless or senseless or absurd, but it is your conceptions about what you want that keep you from getting it, whatever that means. I don't know why I'm posting in this thread, I just don't see enough interesting stuff in this thread so I figured I would add again for anyone who's at the end of their rope like I was. I'm writing for anyone who was like me 5 years ago. Anyway. Dzogchen consists of two parts, Trekcho and Thogal. Trekcho is Cutting through, Thogal is Leaping Over. Both practices can only be done once you have received transmission from a realized teacher. quote:"A Dzogchen Master STARTS with "direct introduction" with everyone. If they don't That says it clearer than I could. Rigpa is what is there to be seen. The "nature of things". Clear light, expansive awareness, non-duality, whatever you want to call it. Overconceptualizing it is a trap. Looking for realization in others and not yourself is a trap. Rigpa destroys all delusions, either immediately, quickly, or gradually. It all depends on how much you fight the world I guess, how much you cling. I don't know. Rigpa exists before all ideas about it, and before all obscurations of it. This is the view of Dzogchen. Trekcho is the process of remaining in Rigpa. Thogal is an advanced visionary process involving skygazing and dreamwork. I've never done it. I don't feel the need to. Trekcho is a constant process for me, if it could be called that. My life is Trekcho. Rigpa has nothing to do with peace, or conflict, or happiness, or sadness, or anything at all. It is all of those things and none of those things. Creation and destruction. You have no way of seeing it in another, only within yourself. You have no way of identifying a realized person. You only have the way of realizing it within yourself. That said, and this will sound contradictory, find a teacher. Get off the internet and find an actual teacher. Or get serious all on your own. I have to intersperse abstract descriptions with statements like this. Dzogchen is about what you are doing right now. Not about some future state. The work has to be done immediately, or not at all. I'm no "Arahat", I just realized where I was wrong and I'm accounting for that slowly now. My past karma I have seen is particularly off the wall and I want no part in it anymore. That's really all there is to know. So I feel like I have something to say about the path and its pitfalls since I live it. If you met me I doubt you'd find anything remarkable about me. That doesn't matter anymore. I can answer specific questions if anyone has any..
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
And if you want stuff to read, here's a link that I never really found all that helpful but there's a lot written about Dzogchen here even so. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1870389411.html The book that convinced me that Dzogchen was my path, whatever I took that to mean as at the time, was You are the Eyes of the World. Also Old Man Basking in the Sun. I think they're both by Longchenpa. There's others and I have them all on PDF which basically means you could find them on the internet if you wanted to, but they were much more powerful to me in print than they were on my computer screen.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
I've got to make one last thing crystal clear while I have the thought. The only way to Rigpa is through a teacher. Rigpa is a conception of Dzogchen and Dzogchen alone. You can find "cessation" or "dissolution", or any other number of placeholders for the realization that striving is senseless, all on your own, but they won't be Rigpa, they'd be something else, and you could call it what you wanted even. Do you see what I am saying? This is the ENTIRE problem. Conceptual overlays that you take for reality itself. These conceptions will never not be placeholders, and they are not even placeholders for anything separately existing, they are the only thing existing. There is no separately existing conception of Rigpa apart from the descriptions of it. Reality doesn't care at all about our attempts to describe it. Language is a placeholder, but there is nothing it is holding the place of, it is the conception in itself. Maybe I'm making an argument against Platonic form and nothing else, I don't know. I wonder if now's the time where people say "oh you're not so smart". But the problems that cause us all to read and post in this thread are entirely basic, we're looking WAY too far ahead of ourselves. That's what I am trying to get across. It's about what you're ACTUALLY doing and thinking, not wish you were. The reason I say all this is because Dzogchen is considered one of the most advanced possible Buddhist disciplines, but what it is is the simplest. And a story. I went to India 4 years ago and went to the Andaman Islands. There were a lot of partying Israelies on one of the islands and an earlier group had set up a few hammocks on the palm trees facing the beach. I spent a lot of time lounging on one of the hammocks watching the waves come in and out while wondering about my predicament. It was enjoyable honestly. And the food was good and the people were friendly and I had a good month, even if I was totally wrapped up in my own dramas. 2 years ago I went back to the same islands, and I had a hammock with me this time, and set it up on one of the same palm trees and lounged about in it for the next couple days, basically in an attempt to recreate the experience and "do it better" even. There were far less people around, it was the off season this time. A day later, the hammock got stolen and I never saw it again. For that and other similar reasons I left the islands within a few days. Life isn't anything other than this (until it's not  ).
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad, I wanted to thank you for your posts here and in the meditation thread late last year, as well as the UG Krishnamurti namedrop, but I never got a chance before you got banned. I found your posts insightful, or at least, I stumbled across them at exactly the right point in my life. So thanks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 05:40
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:ObamaCaresHugSquad, I wanted to thank you for your posts here and in the meditation thread late last year, as well as the UG Krishnamurti namedrop, but I never got a chance before you got banned. I found your posts insightful, or at least, I stumbled across them at exactly the right point in my life. So thanks And part of what I am saying is don't climb someone else's ladder. Buddhism is one such ladder. The Buddha didn't want you to climb his ladder, he wanted you to see it for yourself. Taste it for yourself even. All the ideas of the world do not much more than confuse you if you only ever see them as someone elses' ideals to live up to (and not your own). Ideals are important until the point that you see they're only hoops made by other people for you to jump through. Find it all in yourself. Don't worry if this person is an Arahat or that person isn't. It really does not matter. Do you. Edit - But at the same time, there is a path and there is a Dharma, and so on. And "everyone has their own path" can turn into narcissistic special snowflake kinda bs, and so I guess I'm saying something aside from both these things. I guess, don't ever mistake the path for the thing itself, don't ever mistake Enlightenment with achievement or attainment, and don't ever think you need to get something that someone else has got. At the end of the day, you're the only one on your journey. And you might be using similar conceptions to all the rest of the practitioners of Buddhism, but they apply to your life in their own way and you have to recognize what those ways are instead of keeping it abstract and at a distance from yourself. There's nothing to attain and nothing to achieve. It's your life. And as UG says, What is it that you want? I am responding partly to all the drama about the author who called himself an Arahat and everyone is all "no he isn't, he crazy". Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, so what? I thought some of his maps were kinda interesting. Then I listened to him talk and I got a weird vibe like he thought he was climbing the furthest reaches of Buddhism like it was running for President or winning a triathalon or something. He hasn't made it personal (maybe it's true that he is using Buddhist teachings incorrectly, I don't totally care about that myself, I think he has contributed more than he has harmed). And I get the same sense from many in this thread. You haven't made this personal. Not that you need to show everyone in this thread, but you need to be honest with yourself. Not about anything in particular, just level with yourself. That's the whole path really. What the Sutras say in detail in the end does. not. matter. It's what YOU ARE DOING that matters. To you. Anyway I know I am writing stuff in a way that expects no reply and I need to stop that. Soapbox mode. I know someone will tell me this is off-base ("Where else are we supposed to talk about Sutras other than the Buddhist thread" Yes I get it) and maybe they're right in some way but I just need to say what I think because it will probably help at least one person, and that one person who's looking for some missing piece is who I always target my posts to, not the broad audience. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:I'm ObamaCaresHugSquad's rereg. Seeing as I'm the only (former) Dzogchen practitioner that I've seen in this thread, I can answer any specific questions you have about it. The meditation thread where I wrote in depth answers about Dzogchen was deleted for some reason. That's a nice little exposition, but here again words are just words and language is just language. Just before you got banned, you got into internet-dharma-battle mode where you were just dismissing each post and poster as being an idiot with a quick formulaic whatever, and of course the rest of the thread were filling in "opponents" for you. It was like a parody of a cartoon where you saw yourself a super warrior defeating enemies. It was as pathetic and familiar an ego-display as this forum or any buddhist forum sees, and exactly not what dzogchen purports to be. I suppose you've realized what an rear end you made of yourself since then? Not that self-rear end-making is any great sin, you can learn quite a bit from it. I like some of your posts and a lot of your attitude, because I think you take existence more seriously than most, and I was going to PM you just before you were banned. But, when you take that self-awareness that you do take things more seriously as meaning that your pov is more valid than that of others who don't see things as you do, you get problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 17:56
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:That's a nice little exposition, but here again words are just words and language is just language. Just before you got banned, you got into internet-dharma-battle mode where you were just dismissing each post and poster as being an idiot with a quick formulaic whatever, and of course the rest of the thread were filling in "opponents" for you. It was like a parody of a cartoon where you saw yourself a super warrior defeating enemies. Here's the thing about what happened then. What we were talking about almost the whole time, while I was in the thread, was the 4 seals. And I was saying that the 3 various translations of it were equivalent in meaning (why wouldn't they be). And that was a problem because the "all emotions are pain" statement wasn't accepted by some. But since I also made the claim, (and the Shambhala article said it first, it just gave me the impetus to) that if you didn't agree with the 4 seals then you weren't a Buddhist. So that puts a few people here between a rock and a hard place. Either they have to accept something they don't want to believe and don't see the value of believing, or they don't accept it but then they aren't a Buddhist. Since that's such a provocative distinction, the only other recourse is to attack my credibility for making that distinction. But we were only ever talking about the 3 various ways of translating the 4 seals! And now I don't believe the 4 seals anymore. I don't think there is such thing as Nirvana. There is no final state. That's the entire delusion in a way (nowhere to get to). So I'm not a Buddhist anymore. However: You said I went on a huge ego display in attacking my opponents. And it's true, I did, but over logical points. The arguments were based in logic, not because "this is what I say and I am a more realized person than you, bla bla". I don't think that. If anything, my argumentation comes from the fact that I think I am smart and am a little bit arrogant as a personality trait in that I have no problem with telling someone they're wrong (but also have no problem with admitting I am wrong about a logical point). I was like that LONG before any of this happened to me. Has nothing to do with being "realized", and those are just things I realized about myself, it's not some ground to stand on above others. I've always been this way. Maybe the edges are getting rounded out now, or something. However, my exchange with Wafflehound was pretty sad I must admit. I read it all through again later and I was like wow why did I think that was important. But I see why it happened. He was caught between the rock and a hard place about either being a Buddhist or not being one and so he couldn't admit he didn't agree with the seals because then he wasn't a Buddhist. The only thing left to do was attack MY credibility (as well as the credibility of the translations). I was trying to get him to see that. The whole problem was that I started that whole conversation with no reputation or background about myself or anything like that. It just shouldn't have been done on an internet forum. Too heady of a conversation. Then I went nuts towards the end cause I was going through kind of a manic phase (within my own head, out in public I was almost totally normal). In the end, Paramemetic actually ended up agreeing with me while saying he disagreed with me, and someone else gave a great synopsis of what I was actually saying and I think it all ended with me getting my (logical) point across. One more thing. Dzogchen makes NO distinction between "ego display" and "rigpa display". It is ALL a manifestation of Rigpa. If I were to read that thread and then say, with my understanding of how my mind 'happens', that I shouldn't respond in this way and I am above a display of anger or whatever, then I'd be lying to myself. That's not what I actually want to say. I am suppressing myself. I can only say what I actually mean, and at that moment I wanted to tell someone disagreeing with me illogically that they were stupid for doing so. Would I do that now? I don't know. I've been pretty chill in recent arguments on these forums. But to see that EVERYTHING is the display of Rigpa is THE view of Dzogchen. Once you realize that, then you are free from karma. And you never have license to hurt anyone while expressing what you want, but through seeing a glimpse of Rigpa you have no interest in hurting anyone anymore. You know you're essentially without ill-will. Did I hurt anyone? I don't think so. So I have no problem with how I acted. Is it how I would act now? Who knows. It doesn't matter. It's how I acted then. I think there's going to be a lot of problems with interpreting that part but I'm going to keep it there. And one more thing. I thought about it after and I really don't have a sustained experience of clear light or expansive awareness per se, only glimpses. I have something more akin to a piece of cardboard covering a headlight that just got turned on. I know the headlight is on although I get none of the benefits of its illumination. But just the knowledge that the headlight can turn on at all and I don't have to stumble around in the dark says SO MUCH. and also the knowledge that the cardboard does not need to be there and that all I have to do is remove it. What's stopping me? I don't know. Fear of how much light there will be? Fear of being illuminated? Anyway, Mr. Mambold, I always liked your posts in this thread. You're one of the people who can criticize me as much as you want and I won't change my opinion of you. Go nuts if you want. And I also take back my statement to you saying "then you don't understand Buddha nature" in response to something you said. That was not my call to make, I see that now. Not a helpful thing to say (I don't understand Buddha nature, I just know that mind is senseless). So anyway, thanks for looking out for me, or the Dharma, or whatever it is you're looking out for. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 18:30
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:However, my exchange with Wafflehound was pretty sad I must admit. I read it all through again later and I was like wow why did I think that was important. But I see why it happened. He was caught between the rock and a hard place about either being a Buddhist or not being one and so he couldn't admit he didn't agree with the seals because then he wasn't a Buddhist. Really? That's how you remember it? Not "I am going to mistranslate the seals, ignore the Sangha, claim to literally be an Arahat, then accuse others of not being Buddhist because I refuse to take my crazy pills because I don't believe the sixth part of the Mahavagga is actually a thing and then I'm going to try to endlessly get in touch with this poster in real life and get him to give me his personal information so that we can ham it up over the phone and I can calmly and totally not crazily explain to him that I am an enlightened being and he is not a Buddhist because he doesn't agree with my mistranslation." I don't know if I'll get probated again for even responding to you since my last post to you was met with the probation reason "Don't engage with crazies." but please just gently caress off forever, you've been the single most detrimental poster to this thread and you still don't see how you didn't go way the gently caress overboard both with your interactions with others with regards to your view of what makes someone a Buddhist, how absolutely ratfuck insane your claims to be a literally enlightened being, and more importantly your creepy as poo poo insistence on getting my personal information. Nothing about your return other than causally admitting you were wrong about being an Arahat (which means you're not Buddhist now?). I can't tell if that's where you're going (or if you're basically throwing out the Fourth Noble Truth) has given me or some others any indication that we're not in for a whole new crazy train prior to another banning yet again. You're still lashing out at everyone who disagreed with you in the past as if the entire shitstorm was anything other than you making outrageous and falsifiable claims that a lot of us don't want to have to deal with in a place where we're introducing people to Buddhist concepts, from your claims that feeling any emotions are suffering to your claims that seeking mental health medicine is violating the precept and that people should do as you did and discontinue secular treatment. You're going on giant rambling megaposts already one after the other with varying degrees of actual content but I see absolutely poo poo that indicates this is going to be any different than last time, especially because you're just handwaving away your own behaviour and blaming everyone else. WAFFLEHOUND fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
You should take your meds. I don't mean that snidely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 18:57
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Really? That's how you remember it? Not "I am going to mistranslate the seals, ignore the Sangha, claim to literally be an Arahat, then accuse others of not being Buddhist because I refuse to take my crazy pills because I don't believe the sixth part of the Mahavagga is actually a thing and then I'm going to try to endlessly get in touch with this poster in real life and get him to give me his personal information so that we can ham it up over the phone and I can calmly and totally not crazily explain to him that I am an enlightened being and he is not a Buddhist because he doesn't agree with my mistranslation." 1. I only posted existing translations of the Seals. I don't know Tibetan. 2. I never claimed to be an Arahat. I have no conception of what that word means. 3. You have no idea what I was going to say to you on the phone. I don't either actually. I just wanted to talk to you since you seemed to know me so drat well. Don't take me saying drat as getting mad, I'm not mad yet. 4. I don't know what else to respond to in all that. See the thing is, I don't want to condescend to you. If I were, I would engage with you all calmly and politely and act sanctimonious and fake politeness. I'm none of those things. I think your posts are ridiculous. You just went totally off your rocker just because I refuse to back down from my 4 seals argument. That's ridiculous. All emotions are pain, understanding what that sentence means will take you a long way towards being free from the ridiculous machinations of mind. The other side of emotions is not being a robot devoid of compassion. Something different seems to happen. I don't think you're crazy or stupid or a bad Buddhist, just ridiculous. You might think I'm crazy, that's fine. I have conviction about at least a few things. What do you have? Can we at least agree to disagree? I'm not making claims to any particular state. I think the 4 seals are important to account for. What else do you have to fight with me about?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 18:58
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:You should take your meds. I don't mean that snidely. I don't really want to get banned again. If the guy who asked about Dzogchen doesn't want to know about Dzogchen then I'm not doing anything here. Barring some all important Wafflehound reply, I should probably stay out of here. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Yes you do. I don't have medication to take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 19:02
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:Then see a psychiatrist and get on some. I'm really not saying this to put you down, trust me.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:OK. Haha, gently caress, here we go again (let's don't, ffs), my bad, my bad. And Wafflehound has already risen to the slap. gently caress me. Let me say a thing- logical argument is all about ego-intellect I'm right/he's wrong and it's all poo poo. It's all poo poo. Logic is all poo poo, even though so much of buddhism seems ultimately logical, which I think is sort of a trap. You can think all you want whether Nirvana exists or not based on what you've read, you also state somewhere else that people saying or thinking a thing has no base. The 2nd part is true. I can assert for Nirvana, but I can also agree there is no final state, and that the notion of Nirvana being a final state is, well, someone else's problem. Gautama didn't 'invent' Nirvana or Buddha Nature, or Parinirvana. Or MahaParinirvana. Or HahaParinirvana. They either are, or aren't. He tried to describe states of consciousness the best he could using the poor tools of the language of his day which is a tool of intellect, which shuts off long before any of those are experienced, so. But asserting there's nowhere to get to, and that's the delusion- well, I've seen people make that same assertion long before you, and they called themselves Dzogchen. Because they got tired of all the effort and little or no visible results. What you write about being in the dark but knowing the light's on the other side- well, that's one of the few genuine things I've seen in this thread. It tears at your guts, doesn't it? And it should, it should drive you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:20 |
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:1. I only posted existing translations of the Seals. I don't know Tibetan. Yes, you did claim to be enlightened. At length. It was pointed out multiple times that your translation was incorrect according to basically every source and commentary. ThePriceJustWentUp posted:3. You have no idea what I was going to say to you on the phone. I don't either actually. I just wanted to talk to you since you seemed to know me so drat well. Don't take me saying drat as getting mad, I'm not mad yet. The fact that you don't see how crazy headfucked the whole scenario was really bothers me. I'm actually going through and trying to scrub more personal info from my post history now that you're back, since I'm genuinely not comfortable with a crazy person trying to contact me in person. ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Can we at least agree to disagree? I'm not making claims to any particular state. I think the 4 seals are important to account for. First, if you think they're important then maybe you should actually, you know, use a translation that makes sense in context of the commentaries or what's actually written down. Secondly, no, I actually don't think we can agree to disagree here because of one very important detail: ThePriceJustWentUp posted:All emotions are pain This is incredibly hosed up and wrong from a Buddhist perspective. Someone coming here to learn about Buddhism might read that and either be turned away from Buddhism or worse, actually believe it. Emotion is a very important part of Buddhism, love and compassion are to be cultivated, not eschewed, recognizing emotions for what they are is important. Multiple times in the Sutras Buddha is referred to as experiencing emotional states. You can insist over and over that you're right, but this isn't a subtle disagreement, this is somehting that by every tradition and record on you're basically going "lol gently caress the middle way" and then spreading to others. It's wrong, and it's exceedingly harmful.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 19:06
|
|