quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

"Longchenpa states that that all internal and external phenomenon as they appear in the present moment, prior to reification and conceptualization, can be identified with the dharmakaya."

-Approaching the Great Perfection

---

That's not a quote from Longchenpa. I don't agree with this assertion.

The Dharmakaya is emptiness. It is not the present moment. The present moment cannot even be found to exist. The above objectifies emptiness as an identifiable.

If one is meditating on the present moment, then that is grasping the present moment.

---

Maybe you should read "Approaching the Great Perfection" and write a critique on the book. The author strikes me as extraordinarily knowledgeable.

You could probably borrow it for free with an interlibrary loan

P.S. I agree taking Mahayana refuge, which you can do on your own by visualizing the Buddha in front of you, would supercharge everyone's practice

---

quote:

---

"Longchenpa states that that all internal and external phenomenon as they appear in the present moment, prior to reification and conceptualization, can be identified with the dharmakaya."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

The fundamental distinction between the paths is refuge in the Three Jewels. The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha makes the two paths very different. Realization is just realization; there's not a lot special about it. This is where the two paths diverge. The full realization of emptiness can only happen with the help of the Three Jewels. One must rely on them with faith; then, the blessings of the lineage arrive as extra juice, power for complete cleansing, traversing the paths and bhumis, and transformation into full buddhahood.

I'm not saying Buddhism is superior. All I'm saying is that if we are going to be truly holistic, circumspect and open-minded, then Buddhism must be understood, right Chinna?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

The fundamental distinction between the paths is refuge in the Three Jewels. The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha makes the two paths very different. Realization is just realization; there's not a lot special about it. This is where the two paths diverge. The full realization of emptiness can only happen with the help of the Three Jewels. One must rely on them with faith; then, the blessings of the lineage arrive as extra juice, power for complete cleansing, traversing the paths and bhumis, and transformation into full buddhahood.

I'm not saying Buddhism is superior. All I'm saying is that if we are going to be truly holistic, circumspect and open-minded, then Buddhism must be understood, right Chinna?

---

Thanks Osel,

Yes, I acknowledge that my understanding of Buddhism is very limited, and my questions are asked in pursuit of that understanding. My understanding really only encompasses Zen, which I suppose one might characterise as Buddhist jnana, though with the difference as you say of refuge. A jnani will of course be devoted to his/her teacher, the one who offers nothing but the demand that you find it out for yourself, and will recognise that the teacher is truth itself, encompassing everything, and that the communion of devotees who have realised this is indivisible from the teacher and also from oneself. But a key difference for many jnanis might be that this recognition is as a result of realisation, rather than as a result of taking refuge at the outset. I have no doubt that the same realisation comes to the non-buddhist as the buddhist, albeit using different language. I recognise that (per Dogen) assuming the truths represented by 'refuge' from the outset might be helpful, but it seems to me that this is for a certain type of person (the same type of person who might, say, accept/take refuge in the truths of the christian trinity before realising them in him/herself). For others, the strength is in accepting nothing, speaking only from experience at every step, and as a result eventually realising the 'three jewels' (in whatever culture/language) from experience. So I suppose my only disagreement might be with the idea that advaita means stopping at a lesser realisation which doesn't include what buddhism calls the three jewels, and which are represented in different words in other traditions. In other words, I don't think Buddhism owns the three jewels or what it means to recogise the non-duality of them and of oneself.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

'A Teacher, a Teaching and a Congregation' is also not even close to what these three represent when their truth is realised. So what's different? These too are emptiness, in all its liberating power.

And I didn't say that the christian Trinity resembles Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. I said that it is the same kind of person who will be able to take Buddhist refuge (ie in something which has not yet been personally realised) as would be able to adopt a similar stance towards christian doctrine without having realised it for themselves. I was unable to do either.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Well in any event, one must rely on a teacher. That's refuge. Everyone takes refuge one way or another. You can't have a realization before that. You had faith in someone's words before you took up some practice. There's no getting around it.

The Three Jewels is so prominent in Buddhist practice, because the Buddhahood is the goal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
I actually own the book, and all the books Longchenpa wrote that have been translated to English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Well in any event, one must rely on a teacher. That's refuge. Everyone takes refuge one way or another. You can't have a realization before that. You had faith in someone's words before you took up some practice. There's no getting around it.

The Three Jewels is so prominent in Buddhist practice, because the Buddhahood is the goal.

---

Yes, I agree with that. I was encouraged by several teachers to believe that my experience was true, and that I didn't need others to tell me what to think or experience.

chinna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
I actually own the book, and all the books Longchenpa wrote that have been translated to English.

---

And which books are these? Just curious. I might want to obtain them.

P.S. So if I provide a quote of Longchenpa with source talking about the present moment, you would call that a mistranslation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje


In Buddhism, we believe that Buddhahood cannot be done on one's own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by machart
Are you saying one needs a physical guru?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

quote:

---

Originally posted by chinna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Well in any event, one must rely on a teacher. That's refuge. Everyone takes refuge one way or another. You can't have a realization before that. You had faith in someone's words before you took up some practice. There's no getting around it.

The Three Jewels is so prominent in Buddhist practice, because the Buddhahood is the goal.

---

Yes, I agree with that. I was encouraged by several teachers to believe that my experience was true, and that I didn't need others to tell me what to think or experience.

chinna

---

And then you were taught Advaita and now you teach it. Of course, you should scrutinize, and think for yourself... That is fundamental.

In Buddhism, we believe that Buddhahood cannot be done on one's own. The Buddha Shakyamuni made offerings and received teachings from countless Buddhas before attaining Buddhahood. It is the same for anyone who achieves the body of transformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alwayson2

quote:

---

Originally posted by machart
Are you saying one needs a physical guru?

---

I believe Osel is simply saying one needs to take Mahayana refuge, which can be done on one's own without anyone.

Once you take Mahayana refuge, it opens the magical door.


Just like in evangelical Christianity, you can't be saved without verbally accepting Jesus as your savior, you can't obtain Buddhahood without Mahayana refuge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by machart

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje


In Buddhism, we believe that Buddhahood cannot be done on one's own.

---

Hi Konchok...

I enjoy your contributions to the forum but don't understand some things you say due to my ignorance in Buddhism...can you help me on some fundamental issues...

1) Who is "we"? ...are you speaking for all Buddhists?
2) When you say "...cannot be done on one's own". Are you saying one needs a physical guru?


My limited understanding of Buddhism views it as a beautiful scientific method of mind control and not a religion...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AnEternalNow
Mahayana does not require taking guru as refuge, that is Vajrayana.

---

quote:

---

And I didn't say that the christian Trinity resembles Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. I said that it is the same kind of person who will be able to take Buddhist refuge (ie in something which has not yet been personally realised) as would be able to adopt a similar stance towards christian doctrine without having realised it for themselves. I was unable to do either.

---

quote:

---

I would agree that 'on one's own' is the primary illusion, and that we are never that.

So we repeatedly find that we come at the same realities with different emphases, but not really disagreeing when we delve deeper. Which I would say is how different traditions can sometimes best be illuminated, rather than speaking only for themselves. And one reason why this forum is so interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christi

Hi Chinna,

quote:

---

And I didn't say that the christian Trinity resembles Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. I said that it is the same kind of person who will be able to take Buddhist refuge (ie in something which has not yet been personally realised) as would be able to adopt a similar stance towards christian doctrine without having realised it for themselves. I was unable to do either.

---

For many Buddhists who take refuge the Buddha represents the Awakened mind, the Dharma represents the true teachings and practices which lead to the realization of awakening, and the sangha are the community of spiritual practitioners who study the teachings and follow the practices. Taking refuge in the awakened mind, simply means believing that awakening is a possibility and is attainable through practice. Taking refuge in the Dharma simply means that you believe the practices taught are likely to bear good fruit. Taking refuge in the sangha means that whatever happens, you know that there are many other people arround you who will support you on your path.

It's not at all a big deal.

quote:

---

I would agree that 'on one's own' is the primary illusion, and that we are never that.

So we repeatedly find that we come at the same realities with different emphases, but not really disagreeing when we delve deeper. Which I would say is how different traditions can sometimes best be illuminated, rather than speaking only for themselves. And one reason why this forum is so interesting.

---

Yes, it is beautiful when you begin to see that all religions are really pointing to the same thing, and all lead, ultimately, to the same goal. Neverending bliss and outpouring divine love.

Christi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje

Alwayson, What you say is true. But I'm also talking about the physical guru. The Three Jewels here is inseparable from the Three Jewels there, down to the nature of mind itself, and the three kayas.

---

quote:

---

Then Buddha asked Subhuti, "What do you think, Subhuti, has the Buddha arrived at the highest, most fulfilled, most awakened and enlightened mind? Does the Buddha teach any teaching?"

Subhuti replied, "As far as I have understood the lord Buddha's teachings, there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, awakened or enlightened mind. Nor is there any independently existing teaching that the Buddha teaches. Why? Because the teachings that the Buddha has realized and spoken of cannot be conceived of as separate, independent things and therefore cannot be described. The truth in them is uncontainable and inexpressible. It neither is, nor is it not. What does this mean? What this means is that Buddhas and disciples are not enlightened by a set method of teachings, but by an internally intuitive process which is spontaneous and is part of their own inner nature."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gumpi

Actually, Osel said 1) a physical TEACHER.

Of course Buddhism isn't a religion, not Buddha's instructions anyway. THe rest of it is religion.

All this talk about magical bodies has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And you are not your own guru if you believe that the Buddha's mind is beyond conception. You worship the Buddha. This is not standing on your own two feet and being a man. That is EXACTLY what Buddha taught you should do. Instead, you are talking about minds of religious icons that cannot be possibly understood by your own mind or anyone else's. This, obviously, is not logical sense.

I do not apologise for the tone of this post because i insulted no person.

---

quote:

---

Thank you Christi. That reflects the kind of understanding of taking refuge which I have imagined it might in essence mean. And if that is refuge, you can count me in.

chinna

---