Author Topic: Going it alone?  (Read 4563 times)

Online IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2017, 06:18:19 pm »
Claims
There is nothing to claim. empty of meaning, empty of truth.

Ah yes, the old Emptiness ploy - the one used when someone doesn't really know what they're talking about and need to cover their butt.

This is an excellent example why a teacher is needed to fully explain  the Two Truths and their meaning.  It's something people who use the Emptiness Ploy know nothing about.

 :lmfao:

It's is perfectly ok, if you need someone to tell you what you have to claim. In that way you're not alone claiming whatever you like. That may support your belief  :teehee:

For one who directly perceives emptiness emptiness does not negate functionality but emptiness negates true existence, true meaning and truth.
E.g. if I cross the street not watching the cars I may get run over although the cars are empty of truth since they are empty of true existence. Why is this? It is because cars can be directly perceived you can be run over.

Now please check whether what so called 'teachers' tell you can be directly perceived  or whether they just try to instill beliefs into your mind :fu:

Valid knowledge is based on direct perception exclusively. Belief is not valid knowledge.

Well if you had "directly percieved" anything at all, I might actually follow your advice.  You don't even understand the term in a Buddhist context.

For as much as you seem to like tossing word salads and harping on others about their beliefs as if they were something smelly you found stuck to the sole of your shoe, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and your own beliefs are all the more obvious for your condemnations of them in others.

You see, you believe that you understand things.  You believe you're right.  That isn't so bad.  We all have our beliefs.  Where you really fall off the horse is that you don't realize or simply won't acknowledge that you're wrong and all that makes you a hypocrite.

THis is why you need a teacher.  Not a so-called teacher, but someone who actually has the realizations you'd like us to think you have and can teach you.  That will be difficult, because I don't think you have the capacity to learn this stuff.  It's much the same as Milarepa nd his search for Marpa.  Even after he found Marpa, the guru refused to teach Milarepa because he wasn't ready.  I don't think you're even ready for a reference to a teacher.

Offline Samana Johann

  • Not a member, just an endured/enduring guest.
  • Member
  • Posts: 580
  • Doing forest monk in Cambodia
    • View Profile
    • sangham.net
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2017, 07:44:47 pm »
On certain levels, isn't that most peoples problem as long as not really having taken refuge in the Gems? Once maya has arosen, only strong Dukkha could, can teach one a needed lesson.

As years ago said to Ground:

Quote
The Tree Pulls Itself Down

Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.

It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.


It's how ever not wise to judge in a way "you are not perfect, so I don't accept anything you say". First of all most would be not capable to recognize certain qualities because not direct perceived by one self and secound, even if not perfect, one is capable to tell true points, whether understanding really or not.

Everybody can learn a lot from Ground and it would be wrong not to regard his skill in regard of perceptions in the sphere of the mind door but one should train one self in the basics so to do not oversee the gross defilements while working on the fine. One fast cuts off the possibility to see that one is still heavy bound in the cosmos (five sense sphere) and still an ordinary householder, even if philosophical deny that matter, fully dependend and gross desiring physical food and touch.

As for cutting of the fine, Ground is a very good teacher, but such teachings are for the most not possible to grasp or lead easily to the same illusion of liberation as Ground is caught in.

So really no need to tend to aversion but good to do not forget a proper attidude of gratitude for "our" Consuming-Aharahat who is

Quote
Feeding the Hindrances

"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen? There is the theme of beauty. To foster inappropriate attention to it: This is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen.

"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is the theme of resistance. To foster inappropriate attention to it: This is the food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen.

"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen sloth & drowsiness, or for the growth & increase of sloth & drowsiness once it has arisen? There are boredom, weariness, yawning, drowsiness after a meal, & sluggishness of awareness. To foster inappropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen sloth & drowsiness, or for the growth & increase of sloth & drowsiness once it has arisen.

"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is non-stillness of awareness. To foster inappropriate attention to that: This is the food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.

"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen uncertainty, or for the growth & increase of uncertainty once it has arisen? There are phenomena that act as a foothold for uncertainty. To foster inappropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen uncertainty, or for the growth & increase of uncertainty once it has arisen.

« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 07:52:24 pm by Samana Johann »
[ sangham.net Online monastery ✦ accesstoinsight.eu ✦ old used account Hanzze ]

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2089
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2017, 11:36:31 pm »
Claims
There is nothing to claim. empty of meaning, empty of truth.

Ah yes, the old Emptiness ploy - the one used when someone doesn't really know what they're talking about and need to cover their butt.

This is an excellent example why a teacher is needed to fully explain  the Two Truths and their meaning.  It's something people who use the Emptiness Ploy know nothing about.

 :lmfao:

It's is perfectly ok, if you need someone to tell you what you have to claim. In that way you're not alone claiming whatever you like. That may support your belief  :teehee:

For one who directly perceives emptiness emptiness does not negate functionality but emptiness negates true existence, true meaning and truth.
E.g. if I cross the street not watching the cars I may get run over although the cars are empty of truth since they are empty of true existence. Why is this? It is because cars can be directly perceived you can be run over.

Now please check whether what so called 'teachers' tell you can be directly perceived  or whether they just try to instill beliefs into your mind :fu:

Valid knowledge is based on direct perception exclusively. Belief is not valid knowledge.

Well if you had "directly percieved" anything at all, I might actually follow your advice. 

IdleChater obviously lacks eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and body. IdleChater must be a bot.

How could a living one with functioning senses like me advise a bot?  :fu:

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2089
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2017, 11:40:04 pm »
On certain levels, isn't that most peoples problem as long as not really having taken refuge in the Gems?
Look what the buddha did advise:
Quote
"Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other; ... Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things
SN 22.43

Offline Samana Johann

  • Not a member, just an endured/enduring guest.
  • Member
  • Posts: 580
  • Doing forest monk in Cambodia
    • View Profile
    • sangham.net
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2017, 12:39:51 am »
To his Noble disciple, having the Dhamma already, yes. Not to wordlings struggle to gain even basics. Like Ground said on other place, they would just regard their ideas about Dhamma as Dhamma, not directly perceived by themselves. Still believers, faith-follower and like Ground Dhamma-follower. (wish is also already a step torward Nibbana, yet not secured)

The attribute of even the lowerst Noble One is to have unsakeable faith in the three Gems naturally through direct having perceived its benefit among virtue that is pleasing for Noble Ones.

So like always a own-arguments fundation removing try to slip out of the facts, in picking out that what would fit to constuct ones ideas out of the Buddha Dhamma, then later if needed, even say the Buddha was wrong.
Quote
"Monks (e.g. one who lives the holly live), be islands unto yourselves,[1] be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma (received through the Buddha or Sangha, teacher) be an island and a refuge to you, having no other. Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things:[2] 'What is the source of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair? How do they arise?' [What is their origin?] (This being the advice of a teacher, to understand the deed that needs to be done with each of the noble truth)

(And it starts with what?)

"Here, monks, the uninstructed (one who relays on his defiled own perception, refusing teaching and teacher, or not met) worldling [continued as in SN 22.7.] Change occurs in this man's body, and it becomes different. On account of this change and difference, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair arise. [(And afterwards:) Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' (and 'consciousness'].


So far valued Aharahat.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 01:08:38 am by Samana Johann »
[ sangham.net Online monastery ✦ accesstoinsight.eu ✦ old used account Hanzze ]

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2089
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2017, 01:21:53 am »

"Monks (e.g. one who lives the holly live), ...



 :lmfao:

Offline Samana Johann

  • Not a member, just an endured/enduring guest.
  • Member
  • Posts: 580
  • Doing forest monk in Cambodia
    • View Profile
    • sangham.net
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2017, 01:27:30 am »
Just kept a door open for the homeless Aharahat to possible feel not excluded, but there is no way that he would not cut himself of piece by piece.
[ sangham.net Online monastery ✦ accesstoinsight.eu ✦ old used account Hanzze ]

Online IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2017, 05:41:47 pm »

IdleChater obviously lacks eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and body. IdleChater must be a bot.


Nah, Chaz is cool.

Where you mess up is thinking that you're direct perception is the the deal.  Sems to me you rely on sense perception, which is fine, but you fail to realize that direct perception via the senses is non-conceptual.  Jamgon Kongtrul says it best:

Quote
The defining characteristic of the first of these is [bare] consciousness consisting of extraneous awareness, which arises without conceptuality and without bewilderment, directly from the physical sense organs that constitute an individual’s own predominant condition.

So if you think it's a car coming at you, you're not percieving this directly.  A car is a concept.  Even to recognize it is to conceptualize it.

What really goes on with our sense faculties is when they come in contact with their sense objects electrical impulses are sent to the brain.  Our mind formulates those impulses into appearences that we are conditioned to recognize in certain ways.  Those appearences can be anything.  What appears to you can be different that what appears to but we'll still call it the ame thing.

I'm a software engineer.  I can make a computer do whatever I want.  If you have an MS Word file open on your desktop, you can press the "H" key and that character will appear on the screen.  I can write software that will intercept the electircl impulse between the keyboard and the OS so that when you press that key the screen turns the color of my choice instead. I will call it Beefheart. I can further modify the software so that if instaled on different machines it can use the systems unique identification to create different colors for Beefheart.  We can can talk about Beefheart, but until we can see each others screen, we're just talking.  We think we're percieving it directly, but the most direct perception will reveal that all there is are electical impulses and even then, ultimatelt there isn't even that.

If we are percieving directltly there is no car.  Something may strike and kill you, but there is still no car.


Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2089
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2017, 10:00:02 pm »

IdleChater obviously lacks eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and body. IdleChater must be a bot.


Nah, Chaz is cool.

Where you mess up is thinking that you're direct perception is the the deal.  Sems to me you rely on sense perception, which is fine, but you fail to realize that direct perception via the senses is non-conceptual. 

you fail to realize that concepts are either based on direct perception as their source or do not have any source other than creativity of mind. E.g. 'tree' is a concept based on direct percetion and thus tree may be validly known but 'buddha' is based on creativity of mind alone and thus is merely an idea and merely an object of belief and cannot be validly known.
This distinction is the essential basis for science being possible and without this there would be no scientific progress and you would not even have this internet communication.
Therefore only the directly perceptible is real and can be validly known and thus is empty of the speculation of belief.

...Jamgon Kongtrul says it best:....
If we are percieving directltly there is no car.  Something may strike and kill you, but there is still no car.
:lmfao:
you shouldn't follow so called 'teachers' if you end up with such irrational and inconsistent conclusions. if you don't directly perceive a car when there is a car witnessed by others then perception has ceased but if perception has ceased then there would neither be 'something' nor 'strike' nor you.

Direct perception of the car's emptiness of inherent existence does not negate the simultaneous direct perception of the car. This is what you seem to have trouble with due to following irrational philosophies.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 10:44:14 pm by ground »

Offline Reesa Hufnagle

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2017, 11:17:32 am »
It is nice to know I am not the only one that is going it alone. At this time I am with out a way to get to a Sangha so I turned to an online one and I read a lot to learn more about Buddhism. 

Offline leeben

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Going it alone?
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2017, 09:18:21 am »
Awesome thread!

As a western buddhist, yes, i can relate. But i don't think it's 100% associated with being western, i think it's more of a personal thing. Living in a country with only ~5000 buddhists (and 5mil people in general) is a bit tough, but the fact is, there are temples here :O. There is this theory that people can be divided in to 2 groups:

Introverts and Extroverts.

Especially young people in non-buddhist countries are simply too shy to communicate with other ones on face to face. But know what: that's why there is this forum. I am introvert myself, and i am very grateful that i can write and read here anonymously without having to talk to people. But, it's completely up to you, everyone is different, and i respect everyones own way of learning and practicing. The fact is: buddhism is buddhism, with or without community, with or without teacher. It's always a great way of living, no matter what.

Peace :buddha:

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal