Shared Left Border

 

 

 

Help Yourself
And Others



Notices

What's New on
AYP Plus?

AYP Retreats
Worldwide Listing


AYP Teacher Training

Local Contacts
Meditation Groups,
Training & Retreats


Key L
essons

Start Lessons Here

Desire - Bhakti

Deep Meditation

Self-Pacing

Spinal Breathing
Pranayama

Chakras

Mulabandha

Sambhavi Mudra

Asanas - Postures

Siddhasana

Yoni Mudra
Kumbhaka

Uddiyana - Nauli

Navi Kriya

Kechari Mudra

Chin Pump
Jalandhara

Eight Limbs of Yoga

Samyama & Siddhi

Spinal Bastrika
Pranayama

Heart Breathing

Yoga Nidra
Cosmic Samyama

Mantra Enhancements

Solar Centering

Tantra

Brahmacharya

Vajroli Mudra

Whole Body Mudra

Yogic Diet

Fasting

Addictions

Hallucinogens

Shatkarmas

Amaroli

Nectar Cycle

Kundalini
Assistance

Sensitivity Issues

Spirits & Entities

Shaktipat

Self-Inquiry
Jnana - Advaita

End of Suffering

Karma Yoga

Dare to Dream

Evolution of Action

Prayer & Healing

Yoga for Children

Ayurveda

Summary of Practices

Time Management

Modifications to
Baseline System

Teaching

Retreats

Enlightenment
Milestones

Freedom


More Resources

AYP Plus

Public Forum

Plus Forum

AYP Survey

audioicon1.jpg (812 bytes)
AYP on Radio & TV

Yoga FAQ

Sanskrit Glossary

AYP Books & Audio

Downloads

AYP Books Flyer

Extended Booklist

International
Translations

Press Releases

Articles & Media

Promotional
Materials

Website Traffic

Links

AYP-Related Websites

Social Networks

Volunteer

AYP Public Forum
AYP Public Forum
AYP Home | Main Lessons | Tantra Lessons | AYP Plus | Retreats | AYP Books
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Forum FAQ | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 AYPsite.org Forum
 Other Systems and Alternate Approaches
 Buddhism, The Rainbow Body and Enlightenment
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 26

alwayson2

USA
546 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  09:36:32 AM  Show Profile  Visit alwayson2's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi

In reality, the Self, the little self, and the rest of the universe and other people DO exist.


People don't exist. Only in your own mind, do other people exist.

For example, if you think of your mother right now, she only exists as a flawed packet of memories in the mind. This packet also contains fictitious projections into the nonexistant future.

And similarly, in your mother's mind, her OWN identity is also fictitious.

Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 05 2009 09:42:35 AM
Go to Top of Page

chinna

United Kingdom
241 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  1:50:35 PM  Show Profile  Visit chinna's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:
Originally posted by gumpi

In reality, the Self, the little self, and the rest of the universe and other people DO exist.


People don't exist. Only in your own mind, do other people exist.

For example, if you think of your mother right now, she only exists as a flawed packet of memories in the mind. This packet also contains fictitious projections into the nonexistant future.

And similarly, in your mother's mind, her OWN identity is also fictitious.



......and when we have reached that realisation of oneness - it's all fictitious, concept, mind - then it is clear that there is no objective reality in this domain against which to define fictitious, concept or mind, and so the concepts vanish, including the concept of one's identity. 'What is left' may be called Reality by some, the Self by others, or they may decline to name it at all, which may be less misleading.




Go to Top of Page

chinna

United Kingdom
241 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  2:02:17 PM  Show Profile  Visit chinna's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ísel Dorje

Hi Chinna, Sure, one can rely on the inner guru, and outer guru may be represented by the whole universe. But this is the slow path.

It's not that some will need a guru and others won't. It's that some will be lucky enough to meet a wise guru, and others won't. That's just karma. Every, every, every great master of any tradition had a physical human guru. I guarantee you that any so-called master who claimed enlightenment from visions and dreams is not a master. You are free to believe what you like. I live in the human realm.

However, thinking and following thoughts goes nowhere. One must encounter methods to transcend thoughts. For example, alwayson describes bringing to bear thoughts that have relevance to the present moment. Whether a thing is relevant or irrelevant is a conceptual judgment. The conceptual mind is the obscuration. You cannot use an obscuration to reveal clarity. One must one way or another realize the ground of mind. That can happen spontaneously. But the fruition of enlightenment will not happen until the solitary realizer meets the methods from the guru.

What you describe as a profound yoga is not a profound yoga. Everything is not just thinking. Thinking is illusory. Which means there is a reality. To discover the reality you have to stop thinking and view the ground of the mind.

If you said everything is awareness, you'd be closer to the mark.




We-ell.....

Ramana Maharshi.

There is no recipe for THAT of which we speak.

Different traditions use words in different ways, and on this basis dismiss only caricatures of one other.

Freedom is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realise your true nature. There are many windows to this realisation, and why should there not be, since it is one's birthright, it is who or what one truly IS? It's the illusion that needs the special teachers!!

chinna

Edited by - chinna on Aug 05 2009 2:24:26 PM
Go to Top of Page

gumpi

United Kingdom
546 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  2:33:34 PM  Show Profile  Visit gumpi's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
all of you misunderstood.
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  4:05:12 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by chinna

quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ísel Dorje

Hi Chinna, Sure, one can rely on the inner guru, and outer guru may be represented by the whole universe. But this is the slow path.

It's not that some will need a guru and others won't. It's that some will be lucky enough to meet a wise guru, and others won't. That's just karma. Every, every, every great master of any tradition had a physical human guru. I guarantee you that any so-called master who claimed enlightenment from visions and dreams is not a master. You are free to believe what you like. I live in the human realm.

However, thinking and following thoughts goes nowhere. One must encounter methods to transcend thoughts. For example, alwayson describes bringing to bear thoughts that have relevance to the present moment. Whether a thing is relevant or irrelevant is a conceptual judgment. The conceptual mind is the obscuration. You cannot use an obscuration to reveal clarity. One must one way or another realize the ground of mind. That can happen spontaneously. But the fruition of enlightenment will not happen until the solitary realizer meets the methods from the guru.

What you describe as a profound yoga is not a profound yoga. Everything is not just thinking. Thinking is illusory. Which means there is a reality. To discover the reality you have to stop thinking and view the ground of the mind.

If you said everything is awareness, you'd be closer to the mark.




We-ell.....

Ramana Maharshi.

There is no recipe for THAT of which we speak.

Different traditions use words in different ways, and on this basis dismiss only caricatures of one other.

Freedom is the surrender of all self-concern. It cannot be done. It happens when you realise your true nature. There are many windows to this realisation, and why should there not be, since it is one's birthright, it is who or what one truly IS? It's the illusion that needs the special teachers!!

chinna



I already agreed with re: inner guru and world as external guru. But I would not agree that Maharshi was enlightened. This thread is about buddhism. According to buddhism, Maharshi obtained deep level of samadhi, but did not exit samsara. His samadhi was at the level of the god realm or possibly within the four formless realms. The Buddha stated that his samadhi was beyond all realms.
Go to Top of Page

chinna

United Kingdom
241 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  5:08:51 PM  Show Profile  Visit chinna's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  6:15:04 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by chinna

Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna




Discussion about what Maharshi meant by "self-realization" aside... Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.

According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.

There are many reports of buddhist practitioner attaining high realization in a variety of ways. However, buddhahood, which is beyond realization, involving actualization of wisdom power, requires specific methods.

What comes to my attention re Maharshi is that his realization came from bliss of encountering the linga. Bliss a feeling and is in the desire realm. If Maharshi use bliss as a support to go beyond all realms, then that would not be self-realization, but the realization of emptiness.

This brings us back to the point of this thread. If Maharshi realized emptiness, then he would have attained the rainbow body, because realization of emptiness involves the dissolution of one's elements (which arise due to attachment) into the nature of wisdom.

I do not rule out that non-buddhists attain rainbow body. But I do assert that emptiness is the basis of the rainbow body, because emptiness is the basis of total non-attachment to all possible concepts.

Ísel Dorje

Edited by - Konchok Ísel Dorje on Aug 05 2009 6:25:04 PM
Go to Top of Page

alwayson2

USA
546 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  7:18:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit alwayson2's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Osel,

Can you describe specifically what the Buddha's omniscience actually entails, with supporting evidence?

I am not knowledgeable in this area.
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  7:55:20 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2

Osel,

Can you describe specifically what the Buddha's omniscience actually entails, with supporting evidence?

I am not knowledgeable in this area.



Well I don't have time to do research and provide citations, but it involves knowledge of the three times, past and future lives of all sentient beings, the relationships between all phenomena, knowing the minds of all beings, knowing the methods for attaining buddhahood, and knowing how to teach any level of dharma for all the different capacities of sentient beings. Most importantly he acts spontaneously, without thinking or planning, for the benefit of any being under any circumstances.

Edited by - Konchok Ísel Dorje on Aug 06 2009 12:58:55 AM
Go to Top of Page

Christi

United Kingdom
3893 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  9:11:06 PM  Show Profile  Visit Christi's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna



Hi Chinna,

No need to apologise!

So far nothing in this thread has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is just an endless round of 'who has read more books than so-and-so', 'who has accumulated the most amount of mental knowledge', 'who has done the most number of hours of meditation in one week... , 'who's teacher is more enlightened than someone else's teacher', 'my sect is better than your sect', and so on ad infinitum.

All of this has nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught, and in fact is the very antithesis of his teaching. In a nutshell, this is the worst kind of spiritual materialism. It isn't even the beginning of the spiritual path.

Even if this were a Buddhist discussion (which it is not), all the forum members would be free to participate, as Buddhists naturally welcome discussion and contributions from spiritual practitioners of every tradition.

Christi
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  9:20:32 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Christi

quote:
Thank you. If that is true, then I think Buddhism's estimation of the Maharshi is indicative of the kind of problem I am referring to. The Maharshi's samadhi is also recognised by his followers as 'beyond all realms'. That is where self-enquiry points, for sure. The words are so often misleading and can't be relied upon - they get interpreted out of context in different frames of reference. Means get interpreted as ends, for example, and it becomes a dialogue of the deaf, except for the remarkable few who truly inhabit several traditions, at a level accepted by each tradition.

You are right, though, this is a Buddhist thread and I am a cuckoo in the nest. Apologies.

chinna



Hi Chinna,

No need to apologise!

So far nothing in this thread has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is just an endless round of 'who has read more books than so-and-so', 'who has accumulated the most amount of mental knowledge', 'who has done the most number of hours of meditation in one week... , 'who's teacher is more enlightened than someone else's teacher', 'my sect is better than your sect', and so on ad infinitum.

All of this has nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught, and in fact is the very antithesis of his teaching. In a nutshell, this is the worst kind of spiritual materialism. It isn't even the beginning of the spiritual path.

Even if this were a Buddhist discussion (which it is not), all the forum members would be free to participate, as Buddhists naturally welcome discussion and contributions from spiritual practitioners of every tradition.

Christi



Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.
Go to Top of Page

Parallax

USA
347 Posts

Posted - Aug 05 2009 :  9:23:47 PM  Show Profile  Visit Parallax's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you Christi

I have feeling this thread may go on for another 13 pages...
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  12:49:37 AM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.
Go to Top of Page

chinna

United Kingdom
241 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  07:45:55 AM  Show Profile  Visit chinna's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ísel Dorje




Discussion about what Maharshi meant by "self-realization" aside... Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.

According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.



Ísel Dorje
[/quote]


You are clearly unacquainted with the Maharshi's siddhis. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, because in the tradition of advaita, a focus on Siddhis is frowned upon, and regarded as sign of immaturity, and so little is recorded. Texts cannot resolve this question, except for one whose faith is placed in revelation or authority. Advaita vedanta has a rather different perspective. Your knowledge and faith in your tradition's perspectives is awesome, but the reifying of concepts makes a deeper discussion with conflicting perspectives problematic.

chinna

Edited by - chinna on Aug 06 2009 08:02:33 AM
Go to Top of Page

grihastha

USA
184 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  08:25:19 AM  Show Profile  Visit grihastha's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
I have a feeling this thread may go on for another 13 pages...



Great!

gri
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  11:27:19 AM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by chinna

quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ísel Dorje




Discussion about what Maharshi meant by "self-realization" aside... Perhaps, by Buddhist standards, Maharshi managed to attain the level of an Arahat or even Prateyakabuddha (solitary realizer) due to past life karma. This is not out of the question.

According to the Buddha, specific siddhis attend complete enlightenment, miraculous powers, psychic ability and omniscience. Based on that, Maharshi would not be a buddha.



Ísel Dorje




You are clearly unacquainted with the Maharshi's siddhis. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, because in the tradition of advaita, a focus on Siddhis is frowned upon, and regarded as sign of immaturity, and so little is recorded. Texts cannot resolve this question, except for one whose faith is placed in revelation or authority. Advaita vedanta has a rather different perspective. Your knowledge and faith in your tradition's perspectives is awesome, but the reifying of concepts makes a deeper discussion with conflicting perspectives problematic.

chinna

[/quote]

This is where you inform us.

Buddhism teaches there are siddhis shared between buddhas and non-buddhas: many hindu yogis can do them, flying, disappearing, etc.

The special buddhist siddhi is omniscience
Go to Top of Page

chinna

United Kingdom
241 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  4:52:24 PM  Show Profile  Visit chinna's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Ramana's omniscience is well attested. I have come across no examples of his flying or disappearing, which I feel he would have regarded as pointless. Indeed, I imagine he'd have regarded the omniscience as pointless too, ultimately.

chinna

Edited by - chinna on Aug 06 2009 4:56:05 PM
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  6:10:03 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by chinna

Ramana's omniscience is well attested. I have come across no examples of his flying or disappearing, which I feel he would have regarded as pointless. Indeed, I imagine he'd have regarded the omniscience as pointless too, ultimately.

chinna



Everyone will achieve buddhahood. <-Lord Jigten Sumgon
Go to Top of Page

alwayson2

USA
546 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  6:30:09 PM  Show Profile  Visit alwayson2's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Osel,

I have a weird question.

What is the relationship between the syllable/sound AUM, and a Buddha's omniscience?

I have a reason why I am asking, and no it has nothing to do with hinduism Brahman.
Go to Top of Page

Christi

United Kingdom
3893 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  7:30:21 PM  Show Profile  Visit Christi's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.

quote:
FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.



Hi Osel,

There is a difference between a discussion, and getting lost in arguments over fixed views. This is exactly what the Buddha asked his monks not to do. When they continued to do it, he walked away, disappointed. He saw that they were missing the whole point of the spiritual life, which is to abandon all fixed views, not to bolster them up and put them to the test in argument. These days this kind of thing is commonplace amongst people who call themselves Buddhists. People bicker over this aspect of the Dharma, or that aspect, attempting to strengthen their own position, whilst putting others down. And all this is done under the name of spirituality.

To be honest with you, it is all nonsense.

You may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Buddhism, or anything to do with the spiritual life. The Buddha walked away from it 2500 years ago. Anyone with any degree of insight would be wise to walk away from it today.

What the Buddha really taught was a path of spiritual practice, restraint and self-inquiry. He taught his followers to live in harmony together, and to live with humility and respect for each other. He taught compassion, and peacefulness.

Spiritual practice is really the key thing here because all the rest... compassion, humility, equanimity, harmony, peace, inner joy, samatha, samadhi, nirvana... are the fruit of that.


Christi
Go to Top of Page

alwayson2

USA
546 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  7:39:25 PM  Show Profile  Visit alwayson2's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Christi,

The disagreement in all of this thread is mainly down to me not realizing that Osel followed essence Mahamudra.

Wikipedia's Mahamudra article does a fairly good job of explaining it.

When I use the term Mahamudra, I only mean anuttarayoga. Osel means something else entirely.

Now that the distinction is realised, I think we are reconciled.

Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 06 2009 7:50:35 PM
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  7:46:20 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Christi

quote:
Christi, Your comments are not fair. This is an open discussion. We are discussing what the Buddha actually taught. If you want to add something that the Buddha taught, why don't you just go ahead and do so. Venting your emotional output doesn't clear anything up or help anybody.

quote:
FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha.



Hi Osel,

There is a difference between a discussion, and getting lost in arguments over fixed views. This is exactly what the Buddha asked his monks not to do. When they continued to do it, he walked away, disappointed. He saw that they were missing the whole point of the spiritual life, which is to abandon all fixed views, not to bolster them up and put them to the test in argument. These days this kind of thing is commonplace amongst people who call themselves Buddhists. People bicker over this aspect of the Dharma, or that aspect, attempting to strengthen their own position, whilst putting others down. And all this is done under the name of spirituality.

To be honest with you, it is all nonsense.

You may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Buddhism, or anything to do with the spiritual life. The Buddha walked away from it 2500 years ago. Anyone with any degree of insight would be wise to walk away from it today.

What the Buddha really taught was a path of spiritual practice, restraint and self-inquiry. He taught his followers to live in harmony together, and to live with humility and respect for each other. He taught compassion, and peacefulness.

Spiritual practice is really the key thing here because all the rest... compassion, humility, equanimity, harmony, peace, inner joy, samatha, samadhi, nirvana... are the fruit of that.


Christi




Your view of what "the Buddha" taught is very fixed and limited. I know you think you know what the Buddha taught, because you read some books, but you are missing the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings. There is a living tradition of these teachings you don't know about.

You are the one putting people down and asserting your fixed views about what the Buddha taught. Each one of your criticisms of us is evident in your own comment. Funny really. Just serving as your reflection.

Edited by - Konchok Ísel Dorje on Aug 06 2009 7:58:00 PM
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  7:49:26 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2

Osel,

I have a weird question.

What is the relationship between the syllable/sound AUM, and a Buddha's omniscience?

I have a reason why I am asking, and no it has nothing to do with hinduism Brahman.



It has to do with emptiness, generation, appearance, dissolution and interdependence.
Go to Top of Page

divinefurball

USA
138 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  7:54:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Konchok Osel Dorje, you said (responding to Christi's view of the thread above, I believe):

"FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha."

Konchok Osel Dorje, I'm both glad and sad to hear that you are not sensititve.....

The Buddha was not "ESPECIALLY verbose". He was not verbose at all. To say so is offensive in the extreme. Unlike yourself, the Buddha said only what was necessary. The Buddha's Dharma was offered out of personal experience and compassion, and was/is therefore not something to be argued about, but tried and judged on the results, by each - as he himself recommended. Yogani offers his teachings in the same way. Those with real experience don't have anything to argue about, and don't put forward "positions", etc. They ripen and give fruit to be tried. The interdependent exhange of real fruit is the real nature of the Sangha (not a "test of views"). Everything else offered as "teaching," "debate," or "discussion", is pretentious, self-involved palaver and only stands in the way of y/our realization; while leading others astray in illusary drama, and discursive miasma, that is far removed from liberating thought in the Dharmakaya - as the taste of fruit can. Comparing such to the Buddha's Dharma is exceedingly bad karma to say the least, and at best, an indication that self-enquiry is urgently required.

By The Way, the definition of verbose is: "containing more words than neccessary {as this thread does}: wordy: impaired by wordiness; given to wordiness, wordy. (Websters)."

For Y/Our Enlightenment In This Lifetime, dfb
Go to Top of Page

Konchok Ísel Dorje

USA
545 Posts

Posted - Aug 06 2009 :  8:04:22 PM  Show Profile  Visit Konchok Ísel Dorje's Homepage  Reply with Quote  Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by divinefurball

Hi Konchok Osel Dorje, you said (responding to Christi's view of the thread above, I believe):

"FYI, Buddhism students ENJOY discussions and debates. We are not sensitive and don't just verbally hug and pet each other. We test our own view against others as a way to look into the mirror. This is the nature of interdependence. The Buddha was ESPECIALLY verbose. The Buddha's sutras fill entire libraries, not including the thousands of volumes of commentaries and practice manuals. That is true for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Buddhism is very fascinating and those who get involved with it LOVE to meet other dharma students and discuss everything. During practice time, in retreats, we don't talk at all. That is the nature of the Sangha."

Konchok Osel Dorje, I'm both glad and sad to hear that you are not sensititve.....

The Buddha was not "ESPECIALLY verbose". He was not verbose at all. To say so is offensive in the extreme. Unlike yourself, the Buddha said only what was necessary. The Buddha's Dharma was offered out of personal experience and compassion, and was/is therefore not something to be argued about, but tried and judged on the results, by each - as he himself recommended. Yogani offers his teachings in the same way. Those with real experience don't have anything to argue about, and don't put forward "positions", etc. They ripen and give fruit to be tried. The interdependent exhange of real fruit is the real nature of the Sangha (not a "test of views"). Everything else offered as "teaching," "debate," or "discussion", is pretentious, self-involved palaver and only stands in the way of y/our realization; while leading others astray in illusary drama, and discursive miasma, that is far removed from liberating thought in the Dharmakaya - as the taste of fruit can. Comparing such to the Buddha's Dharma is exceedingly bad karma to say the least, and at best, an indication that self-enquiry is urgently required.

By The Way, the definition of verbose is: "containing more words than neccessary {as this thread does}: wordy: impaired by wordiness; given to wordiness, wordy. (Websters)."

For Y/Our Enlightenment In This Lifetime, dfb




Well then I guess what I meant to say was the Buddha's sutras are INCREDIBLY LONG and the 84,000 teachings are IMMENSELY VAST.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 26 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
AYP Public Forum © Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.08 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000

 

 

 

Join the Mail List:
News and Events
Near You


AYP PLUS PREVIEW


Direct Downloads

eBooks - PDF, EPUB
and MOBI-KINDLE

FREE eBooks with
MP3 AudioBooks

SAVE  with Bundled
Multi-Title Downloads


Preview
AYP Books

(PDF Books Flyer)

Easy Lessons

Advanced Yoga Practices Book



Spiritual
Adventure Novel

The Secrets of Wilder Novel


Enlightenment Series

Deep Meditation Book


Spinal Breathing Pranayama Book


Tantra Book


Asanas, Mudras & Bandhas Book


Samyama Book


Diet, Shatkarmas and Amaroli Book


Self-Inquiry Book


Bhakti and Karma Yoga Book


Eight Limbs of Yoga Book


Eight Limbs of Yoga Book



Questions & Answers

 

 

Public Home | Plus Home | Main Lessons | Tantra Lessons | Topic Paths | Interviews | Videos | Site Search | Links Section | Testimonials | AYP Survey | Books | Downloads | Contact