I stumbled upon the discussion in "Buddhism under siege" and I can't help but notice how ironic it was that Herzog's view was trampled upon by a group of stampeding buddhist. Instead of engaging him/her constructively and finding out why he say the things he said many just threw into the pot canned replies without any insight or understanding. Herzog's view is a lot closer to Buddha's view than many of your view. I do not know herzog and I do not know any of you. Here is sharing a bit of my take and if you decide to stampede all over my post that would be fine as well 8-). Here's one of Eternal Now's reply.
Meditation and chanting done correctly is not a mere ritual but helps calm the mind and in gaining wisdom. Bare attention, mindfulness and observation, results in insights.
You can't lump meditating and chanting together. Each has its own characteristic. You can never gain insight from chanting. Chanting dulls the mind. Likewise meditation will not gain insight if you are going for jhana. Insight only emerge very much later. Only insight meditation can lead to insight prior to jhana.
What is "bare attention" ? You use that phrase a lot and you always throw in a whole bunch of words and phrases.
Many people do meditation and chanting as a matter of daily routine and it became ritualistic in nature. Such approach to buddhist spirituality doesn't get anyone anywhere. The sum total of buddhistic's path is confronting your delusions. When Herzog's use some "vulgarity" you should ask yourself why you thought it was vulgar ? Where does the meaning come from ? That's confronting your delusion.
Being aware of each moment in a fresh, unconditioned manner (by any sort of external/internal habitual programming), is not the same as mindlessly acting out something out of routine and habit. Even brushing teeth is no longer a routine habitual activity but something you are aware of in each moment.
That's what the book said. What do you understand by it ? Won't you get a headache ? Does this mean you know which teeth you are brushing at any moment ? What is the difference between concenctration and "bare attention" ?
Practicing in this way, wise actions spontaneously arise not due to conforming with rules but due to natural wisdom and awareness.
So if the wise action called for using vulgarity would you in your not-so-wise state say that the wise action is not wise ? Now I am getting a headache 8-) . Or was it in your conditioned state, which you thought were wise and pure, cast your own delusions on the action ?
Rituals cannot lead to liberation and blindly following of rituals without awareness (which is a form of cultural/religious conditioning) is known as a fetter and obstruction in Buddhism and cannot lead to the unbinding and freedom from all conditionings.
Rituals - whether it is done blindly or with awareness - cannot lead to liberation. Those who are not aware, rituals will not help them to be more aware. Those who are aware, rituals have no meaning or value. But why do Buddha still follow customs and culture as shown by many of his actions ?
From your posts, it is clear you have no idea what Buddhism is about, so it is best you stop making ridiculous comments and start learning Buddhism from authentic sources and teachers seriously instead of following your false ideas of it.
On the contrary. He knew the substance and spirit of buddhism while you have not even smelt the flesh of buddhism. Can a deluded person know what is authentic and what is not ? If you have to decide based on popularity or the opinion of others isn't this also taking in other people's delusion as your own ?
What was Buddha's advice in Kalama Sutta ?
I could sense and hear a stampede from far off 8-)))) .
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:I stumbled upon the discussion in "Buddhism under siege" and I can't help but notice how ironic it was that Herzog's view was trampled upon by a group of stampeding buddhist. Instead of engaging him/her constructively and finding out why he say the things he said many just threw into the pot canned replies without any insight or understanding. Herzog's view is a lot closer to Buddha's view than many of your view. I do not know herzog and I do not know any of you. Here is sharing a bit of my take and if you decide to stampede all over my post that would be fine as well 8-). Here's one of Eternal Now's reply.
No, it's the other way around. If you have observed him for years you will know he is an anti-religionists only concerned with stampeding Buddhism instead of learning from it.
You can't lump meditating and chanting together. Each has its own characteristic. You can never gain insight from chanting. Chanting dulls the mind. Likewise meditation will not gain insight if you are going for jhana. Insight only emerge very much later. Only insight meditation can lead to insight prior to jhana.
Chanting alone is shamatha. It does not dull the mind, it just focuses and calms the mind. However after gaining strength through chanting we can practice awareness. Being aware of the process of chanting itself, not on the words or meaning but on reality itself.
Personally, I just do meditation, not much on chanting. But chanting can be helpful for some. However insight meditation can be practiced at any single moment. Why? Because reality is available whatever you are experiencing or doing. Whether chanting, sitting, or washing dishes. When we are practicing mindfulness, then nothing is mechanical, everything is alive, fresh. This has to be experienced.
What is "bare attention" ? You use that phrase a lot and you always throw in a whole bunch of words and phrases.
Without the use of labels, words, concepts, the direct touch of any pure sensate reality. Seeing a flower there is just that -- the shapes and colours in all its vividness. No words for it.
Many people do meditation and chanting as a matter of daily routine and it became ritualistic in nature. Such approach to buddhist spirituality doesn't get anyone anywhere. The sum total of buddhistic's path is confronting your delusions. When Herzog's use some "vulgarity" you should ask yourself why you thought it was vulgar ? Where does the meaning come from ? That's confronting your delusion.
| 1. | characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation. |
| 2. | indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture. |
| 3. | crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant. |
| 4. | of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses. |
| 5. | current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs. |
| 6. | spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue. |
| 7. | lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting. |
–noun
| 8. | Archaic. the common people. |
| 9. | Obsolete. the vernacular. |
That's what the book said. What do you understand by it ? Won't you get a headache ? Does this mean you know which teeth you are brushing at any moment ? What is the difference between concenctration and "bare attention" ?
Concentration is to concentrate on a single unmoving point, through solidifying an experience or state, and this leads to jhana. Awareness is awareness of the flow of sensations.
So if the wise action called for using vulgarity would you in your not-so-wise state say that the wise action is not wise ? Now I am getting a headache 8-) . Or was it in your conditioned state, which you thought were wise and pure, cast your own delusions on the action ?
If you want to question my actions, PM me. I don't entertain such things here.
Rituals - whether it is done blindly or with awareness - cannot lead to liberation. Those who are not aware, rituals will not help them to be more aware. Those who are aware, rituals have no meaning or value. But why do Buddha still follow customs and culture as shown by many of his actions ?
What customs? Anyway some customs are good (being filial to parents and elders, which may or may not be considered as a custom?), some customs are no good, e.g. animal sacrifice.
On the contrary. He knew the substance and spirit of buddhism while you have not even smelt the flesh of buddhism. Can a deluded person know what is authentic and what is not ? If you have to decide based on popularity or the opinion of others isn't this also taking in other people's delusion as your own ?
What was Buddha's advice in Kalama Sutta ?
I could sense and hear a stampede from far off 8-)))) .
It is obvious that you, like Herzog, not having grasped the essence of Buddhism (though thought otherwise), and is driven purely by ego to put down others.
Oh and by the way, that previous topic have gone off thread, so it was shut. If anyone wants to continue that discussion (no off topic messages) they can inform me. Or if they want to discuss something off topic, please start a new thread.
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408
Thusness: Ok. I think when we
view consciousness, we have to understand that there are a few
things. We cannot keep on thinking about the objective world first.
We must see how consciousness reacts. That is if we react very
intensely, strongly towards symbols, then whatever reactions will
go back deep into your consciousness. This is one thing. My
perspective is that when you chant, you are not dealing with our
luminous clarity. We're dealing with propensities deep in your
consciousness. Insight meditation itself deals directly with this
clarity. That is the luminous clarity. But if we were to continue
to chant, you are actually focusing more on the deeper layers of
consciousness that deals with propensities and the power of
concentration. Do you see what I mean? It's not so much of the
luminosity. However, the chanting itself, when it takes strength,
it creates a kind of momentum. A momentum that synchronises not
only with your sub-conscious or the deeper layers of your
consciousness, but also your conscious level. This means it can
sync the two layers into one. This syncing the two into one clears
your mind, clears your thoughts. And then at this time, you ask who
you are, that is, not letting the momentum take place, but just
feel and sense... then you ask what is it. At that moment, you
might see your reality. But your mind must be able to settle down
first. But you must know there is a difference between working at
the concentration level, dealing with the karmic propensities and
creating new momentums, and practicing insight meditation that
touch directly the clarity and the luminous nature, are two
different things. You see what I mean or not?
Participant 1: Yeah I think so.
This means that I still need to do insight meditation?
Thusness: Yes you have to do
insight meditation. Even if you attain calmness you still have to
do insight meditation. You must feel the awareness... You must
sense it everywhere... That is very important for liberation. Now
when we talk about awareness, we don't call it Self or we don't
call it Mind. Why people call it Awareness is because they do not
want to call it Self, because there is no Self. The reason they
said Awareness, is because Awareness is not an entity. It is not a
thing. It is just a point of luminous clarity. It is just clarity.
But because we are so accustomed to thinking things in terms of
object and subject, we always take Awareness as something. It must
be somewhere inside, residing somewhere. Even if it is not residing
inside the body it must be somewhere, someplace. This is the
problem, you see. So when you say that letÂ’s be aware. We always
think of “how?” How to be aware? When we say “where is awareness”,
they always look for a place, they always look for a something.
This is how the mind react, this is what I call a momentum. They
always behave this way. They do not know how to say “Just do
nothing. Everything is expressing itself by clarity.” They always
want to react, you see what I mean?
Excerpt from
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Other/Anapana/anapana.html
Concept or Ultimate Reality?What we should know is that the object of samatha meditation can be either paññatti or paramattha. Paññatti means concept, paramattha means absolute or ultimate reality. The object of samatha meditation may be concept or ultimate reality. When we take a kasina as the object of samatha meditation, the object is just concept, not absolute reality. How? To use a red kasina as the object of meditation, you have to draw a red circle about the size of a plate on a wall or tree, about two feet from the floor so that your eyes can look at it easily. That red must be pure without mixing any other colour. When you focus on the red circle, you have to focus on the whole red circle, not half or quarter of the circle. So it is called kasina. Why? Because you want to concentrate on the form of the circle. You need not know the red, the colour. You need not know the texture. What you should do is concentrate on the form of the circle very well, very deeply. You have to look at the whole circle and focus your mind on it. Then when your concentration is good enough, though you close your eyes, you can see that red circle in your mind, that is the form of the circle. You concentrate on the red circle you see in your mind. The circle that you see in your mind is called the ‘PatibhÄ�ga Nimitta’. It means the nimitta that is similar to the circle on the wall. Some scholars translate it as ‘counterpart sign’. This is samatha meditation so you need not realise any physical or material processes of the circle. What you need to do is to concentrate your mind on the whole circle and absorb the mind in it. That is why you see the red circle in your mind when your concentration is good enough. The red circle is a form, it is just a concept. The form is just concept, not ultimate reality. The circle you see in your mind is not absolute reality. it is just something which is created by your mind; so it is just a concept. In this case the object of samatha meditation is just concept, not ultimate reality. |
||
Recollection of the BuddhaWhen you practise BuddhÄ�nussati, it is recollection of the chief attributes of the Buddha such as Araham, SammÄ�sambuddho, VijjÄ�carana sampanno, Sugato, LokavidÅ«, Anuttaro purisadamma sÄ�rathi, Sattha devamanussÄ�nam, Buddho, BhavagÄ�. Here the object is reality, paramattha. Say you reflect on the attribute, ‘Araham’. It means the Buddha is worthy of honour because he has totally destroyed all mental defilements. So to destroy these mental defilements he has the fourth stage of enlightenment, Arahatta Magga and SabbaññutÄ�, that is Omniscience. Then you have to concentrate on those qualities of the Buddha which destroy all mental defilements. These qualities are enlightenment and omniscience; so they are absolute realities, not concepts. If you repeatedly concentrate on these attributes, whenever the mind goes out you bring it back and reflect on these attributes. Then gradually you get concentrated. In this case, absolute reality, paramattha, is the object of samatha meditation. |
||
Insight Meditators Must Know RealitiesHowever in vipassanÄ� meditation every object of meditation must be absolute reality, ultimate reality, paramattha. In vipassanÄ� meditation no concept can be the object of meditation. Concept cannot be the object of vipassanÄ� meditation because vipassanÄ� meditators need to realise the specific characteristics and general characteristics of mental and physical phenomena, which are absolute realities. So the object must be either mental or physical processes which are ultimate realities. If concept is the object of vipassanÄ� meditation, vipassanÄ� meditators cannot realise any characteristics of mental and physical processes because you cannot find any real characteristics in concepts. Concepts are created by the mind. Say your name is PaññÄ�nanda. Even though you might have died, if I memorise your name as PaññÄ�nanda, the name is there in my mind (though the actual PaññÄ�nanda has gone). Why? Because my mind memorises it, and makes it exist. This shows that a name is just a concept because it is created, memorised or made to exist by the mind. So concepts are not realities. They are things made up by the mind, so they do not have any characteristics to realise. If the red circle is the object of meditation, we see the form of the circle in our mind and concentrate on it. Gradually our mind becomes more and more concentrated on the red circle that we see in our mind. When the mind is totally absorbed in that circle, then we say we have attained jhÄ�na. However, that red circle is not reality, because the mind makes the object; so it is just a concept. It hasn’t any characteristics to realise. Even though you concentrate your mind on it for a hundred years continuously, you cannot realise any characteristics; because it is not an absolute reality, it is a mind-made thing — just a concept. |
||
Respiration MeditationThen as to respiration meditation (Ä�nÄ�pÄ�nasati), in the Visuddhimagga it is mentioned as samatha meditation, concentration meditation. In the MahÄ�satipatthÄ�na Sutta it is mentioned as vipassanÄ� meditation. Then how can we distinguish it between the vipassanÄ� aspect of respiration and the samatha aspect of respiration? If we are mindful of the absolute reality of respiration, that will be vipassanÄ� meditation. If we are mindful of the concept regarding respiration, then it will be samatha meditation. So the Visuddhimagga mentions the method of concentrating on the touching sensation whenever you breathe in and breathe out. When you concentrate your mind on the coming in and going out of the breath, then it is samatha meditation because you have to concentrate on the coming in and going out, not on the wind or air. When it is coming in you note ‘in’; when it is going out you note, ‘out’. ‘In, out, in, out’. Your mind is not on the breathing air but on the ‘coming-in’ and the ‘going-out’. ‘Coming-in’ and ‘going-out’ are not ultimate realities. Say you come into the room through the door and go out of the room through the door. We may ask, “What is this coming in and going out?” it is neither you, nor a person. It is just ‘coming-in’ and ‘going-out.’ It is just concept. In the same way, when you concentrate on the coming in and going out of the breath, it is just a concept. Since concept is the object of meditation, it is samatha meditation. You cannot realise any specific characteristics or general characteristics of ‘coming-in’ and ‘going-out’ because they are not realities, just concepts, so that’s samatha meditation. However, if you focus your mind on the point where the breath touches whenever it comes in or goes out, it touches the nostrils. When you observe this touching sensation and are mindful of it, then it is (ultimate) reality. That touching point is composed of the four primary material elements: pathavÄ« dhÄ�tu, hard or soft; Ä�po dhÄ�tu, liquidity or cohesion; tejo dhÄ�tu, hot or cold; vÄ�yo dhÄ�tu, movement or vibration. These four elements are there whenever you focus your mind on the touching sensation. So the object is absolute reality. What can we call it — samatha or vipassanÄ� meditation? It is vipassanÄ�. That is what the Venerable MahÄ�si SayÄ�daw wrote about the distinction between the samatha and vipassanÄ� aspects of respiration meditation. I appreciate it very much. So then we can say respiration meditation is vipassanÄ� meditation in accordance with the MahÄ�satipatthÄ�na Sutta. We can also say that respiration meditation is samatha in accordance with the Visuddhimagga. It is very subtle and profound to differentiate between these two aspects of respiration meditation, but I think those who have practised meditation very well can differentiate between these two aspects |
let me start by saying i'm not here to stamp on anyone, just here to share my 2cents and hopefully enhance my own understanding from these exchanges.
what many ppl feel are rituals are actually merely tools that help to lead one to insight. the teachings prescribe so many skillful means (meditation, chanting, visualization, logical analysis.. etc) just for purpose of benefiting ppl of varying dispositions. no one tool will universally works for all the ppl in the world. some ppl will gravitate towards chanting while others to meditation, and as long as there is beneficial outcome from that person's perspective i think its still a positive thing to do.
for example, to force chanting exclusively onto a person who's not suitable to benefit from that tool is obviously not skillful at all, because maybe it puts him/her to sleep. but to say that, therefore, chanting is not a good tool for anyone in this world is also not an accurate statement, because maybe it may attract someone to leave a prior decadent life to be interested in chanting and perhaps starting living a more wholesome life, which then leads to other spiritual practises as well. so i feel its just a matter of the right medicine for the appropriate illness. no one pill can cure all illnesses in this world.
though we typically like to label everything in this world (in this case, chanting) to be black and white, 1 and 0, good or bad, but in reality, the world do not work that way and hence we end up struggling and arguing to make sense of why things are not like the way we say they are. for me, i've learnt from buddhism to think more in terms of grey shades rather than black and white, and hopefully enabling me to be more open and accepting to all the diversity in this world.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, it's the other way around. If you have observed him for years you will know he is an anti-religionists only concerned with stampeding Buddhism instead of learning from it.
Chanting alone is shamatha. It does not dull the mind, it just focuses and calms the mind. However after gaining strength through chanting we can practice awareness. Being aware of the process of chanting itself, not on the words or meaning but on reality itself.
Personally, I just do meditation, not much on chanting. But chanting can be helpful for some. However insight meditation can be practiced at any single moment. Why? Because reality is available whatever you are experiencing or doing. Whether chanting, sitting, or washing dishes.
Without the use of labels, words, concepts, the direct touch of any pure sensate reality. Seeing a flower there is just that -- the shapes and colours in all its vividness. No words for it.
vul⋅gar
–adjective 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation. 2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture. 3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant. 4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses. 5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs. 6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue. 7. lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.–noun
8. Archaic. the common people. 9. Obsolete. the vernacular.
Concentration is to concentrate on a single unmoving point, through solidifying an experience or state, and this leads to jhana. Awareness is awareness of the flow of sensations.
If you want to question my actions, PM me. I don't entertain such things here.
What customs? Anyway some customs are good (being filial to parents and elders, which may or may not be considered as a custom?), some customs are no good, e.g. animal sacrifice.
It is obvious that you, like Herzog, not having grasped the essence of Buddhism (though thought otherwise), and is driven purely by ego to put down others.
It's not driven by ego but duty to show reality as per se and not some other awareness where not many can experience that is proven throughout history.
Originally posted by Jamber:let me start by saying i'm not here to stamp on anyone, just here to share my 2cents and hopefully enhance my own understanding from these exchanges.
what many ppl feel are rituals are actually merely tools that help to lead one to insight. the teachings prescribe so many skillful means (meditation, chanting, visualization, logical analysis.. etc) just for purpose of benefiting ppl of varying dispositions. no one tool will universally works for all the ppl in the world. some ppl will gravitate towards chanting while others to meditation, and as long as there is beneficial outcome from that person's perspective i think its still a positive thing to do.
for example, to force chanting exclusively onto a person who's not suitable to benefit from that tool is obviously not skillful at all, because maybe it puts him/her to sleep. but to say that, therefore, chanting is not a good tool for anyone in this world is also not an accurate statement, because maybe it may attract someone to leave a prior decadent life to be interested in chanting and perhaps starting living a more wholesome life, which then leads to other spiritual practises as well. so i feel its just a matter of the right medicine for the appropriate illness. no one pill can cure all illnesses in this world.
though we typically like to label everything in this world (in this case, chanting) to be black and white, 1 and 0, good or bad, but in reality, the world do not work that way and hence we end up struggling and arguing to make sense of why things are not like the way we say they are. for me, i've learnt from buddhism to think more in terms of grey shades rather than black and white, and hopefully enabling me to be more open and accepting to all the diversity in this world.
But do you realised that your mind is now reconditioned to accept certain things as truth when it is not so. First, consider things from a null standpoint and not from a biased standpoint.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It's not driven by ego but duty to show reality as per se and not some other awareness where not many can experience that is proven throughout history.
This is silly. Awareness is already here, it is the nature of your mind or what you really are, you just haven't taken a good look at it. Actually it is what is looking, what is seeing these words, hearing the sounds, already. Without that you couldn't be here writing this post. It is not some other awareness, it is your ordinary present awareness. It is not something to be experienced, it is your ongoing experiencing.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Chanting alone is shamatha. It does not dull the mind, it just focuses and calms the mind. However after gaining strength through chanting we can practice awareness. Being aware of the process of chanting itself, not on the words or meaning but on reality itself.
i happen to have experience from both perspectives. during my younger days of following my elders to temple for chanting, it actually puts me to sleep without fail because i didn't understand why/what i'm doing :-)
more recently after having some stability in meditation practises for few years, i experimented by using chanting as an object of my meditation instead of the usual breath. interestingly, chanting as a meditational object serves the same purpose of bringing the mind to rest just like using the breath.
so yes, chanting with a reasonably stable mindfulness is a means leading to shamatha and certainly does not dull the mind. but chanting with a dull mind is no doubt a good cure for imsomnia :-]
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:This is silly. Awareness is already here, it is the nature of your mind or what you really are, you just haven't taken a good look at it. Actually it is what is looking, what is seeing these words, hearing the sounds, already. Without that you couldn't be here writing this post. It is not some other awareness, it is your ordinary present awareness. It is not something to be experienced, it is your ongoing experiencing.
No, it is your trying to condition my mind. What you see and sense is not what I see and sense.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
No, it is your trying to condition my mind. What you see and sense is not what I see and sense.
What you are seeing and sensing is different from me.
But you can't deny you are seeing and sensing and aware. Like a mirror, it reveals everything without separating itself from anything. The content changes, the luminous capacity to reveal everything and its empty nature doesn't.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What you are seeing and sensing is different from me.
But you can't deny you are seeing and sensing and aware. Like a mirror, it reveals everything without separating itself from anything. The content changes, the luminous capacity to reveal everything and its empty nature doesn't.
And it may not even reveal anything for there is nothing to reveal and vice versa.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
And it may not even reveal anything for there is nothing to reveal and vice versa.
It is always revealing something unless you are in deep sleep. In that state, awareness remains in a state of potential but temporarily not aware of objects. However, if someone wakes you up, awareness reflects immediately the world, again, without a moment's notice.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But do you realised that your mind is now reconditioned to accept certain things as truth when it is not so. First, consider things from a null standpoint and not from a biased standpoint.
i understand where you're coming from. my take on this is that in reality, it is impossible to consider or opine about anything from a null or purely unbiased standpoint because we are conditioned since birth to lean towards a certain "bias-ness" depending on our upbringing and environment, whatever that may be. an opinion is itself a conditioned and biased response. believing in spiritual practise is a conditioned bias. disbelief in spiritual practise is also a conditioned bias. i don't think there is such thing as a totally unconditioned, unbiased standpoint.
because we live in a relative world, without one thing compared against the other, without any "bias-ness", there would be no relative meaning, nothing to discuss or talk about. no long stick without comparing to a short stick, no left side without comparing to right side. so in a strange way, by saying "my truth", i'm also taking into consideration "your false", vice versa. one has no meaning without the other. there is no standalone "truth" existing by itself in a relative world like the way we usually tend to believe. interesting point for me to contemplate indeed...
but back in the relative world of my own opinions and views about budhism, it is certainly not blind acceptance. its more like a science experiment. i read the texts, think and analyse about it, and in the end check if it is consistent with my direct experience.
as a rough example, it is like telling a caveman that there is this thing called the Internet today. while it may be very real and absolutely the truth for us modern ppl, this is not so for the caveman. the right conditions has not manifested for the caveman to enable him/her to experience the Internet in direct experience. so from a subjective experience per se, both are equally valid experiences, and you can't say one is true while the other is false.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is always revealing something unless you are in deep sleep. In that state, awareness remains in a state of potential but temporarily not aware of objects. However, if someone wakes you up, awareness reflects immediately the world, again, without a moment's notice.
Wrong, because the human mind may purposefully choose not to process certain to prevent information overload.
Originally posted by Jamber:i understand where you're coming from. my take on this is that in reality, it is impossible to consider or opine about anything from a null or purely unbiased standpoint because we are conditioned since birth to lean towards a certain "bias-ness" depending on our upbringing and environment, whatever that may be. an opinion is itself a conditioned and biased response. believing in spiritual practise is a conditioned bias. disbelief in spiritual practise is also a conditioned bias. i don't think there is such thing as a totally unconditioned, unbiased standpoint.
because we live in a relative world, without one thing compared against the other, without any "bias-ness", there would be no relative meaning, nothing to discuss or talk about. no long stick without comparing to a short stick, no left side without comparing to right side. so in a strange way, by saying "my truth", i'm also taking into consideration "your false", vice versa. one has no meaning without the other. there is no standalone "truth" existing by itself in a relative world like the way we usually tend to believe. interesting point for me to contemplate indeed...
but back in the relative world of my own opinions and views about budhism, it is certainly not blind acceptance. its more like a science experiment. i read the texts, think and analyse about it, and in the end check if it is consistent with my direct experience.
as a rough example, it is like telling a caveman that there is this thing called the Internet today. while it may be very real and absolutely the truth for us modern ppl, this is not so for the caveman. the right conditions has not manifested for the caveman to enable him/her to experience the Internet in direct experience. so from a subjective experience per se, both are equally valid experiences, and you can't say one is true while the other is false.
If buddhist belief is an experiment, so where's the control set? If the caveman is a human, then he or she must have a learning curve.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Wrong, because the human mind may purposefully choose not to process certain to prevent information overload.
Awareness has no choice but to reflect everything. Even if the sound is noisy, the air is smelly, awareness still reflects as it is.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Awareness has no choice but to reflect everything. Even if the sound is noisy, the air is smelly, awareness still reflects as it is.
Are you sure it is omnipresent in all humans? Not everyone can hear and not everyone can see and not everyone can feel.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Are you sure it is omnipresent in all humans? Not everyone can hear and not everyone can see and not everyone can feel.
Even if you close your eyes, shut your ears, you are still aware.
If there are no sounds, you don't cease to be aware, you are simply aware of no sounds. Awareness continues.
Hence it is not the ear that knows, the eyes that knows, but mind that knows. When conditions are there manifestation arises, and that is all the manifestation of mind, the presence of knowing.
The original title of the thread was Buddhism under siege, the subject was interesting to me but unfortunately, was side tracked. I expect, if this to be a discussion among peers, then allow it to be conducted with each other with decorum and treat each other with dignity. Counter statement constructively, point by point rebuttal, if neccessary, nobody will think any less of you. Agree to disgree, avoid sweeping statements with a preconcieved notion, is not productive. Neither are vulgarities neccessary, it shows the lack of emotional maturity and composure!
Let me offer to way of criticism, which is preferable :-
1, Your mind is like glass full of water, how ever much I pour, it will flow away, empty your thoughts, then you may recieve !
2, You brain is like a clogged toilet bowl. It is so stuff with shit that nothing can go through! Someone needs to shove a plumber to flush out the crap out of you before it can flow again.
Originally posted by Weychin:The original title of the thread was Buddhism under siege, the subject was interesting to me but unfortunately, was side tracked. I expect, if this to be a discussion among peers, then allow it to be conducted with each other with decorum and treat each other with dignity. Counter statement constructively, point by point rebuttal, if neccessary, nobody will think any less of you. Agree to disgree, avoid sweeping statements with a preconcieved notion, is not productive. Neither are vulgarities neccessary, it shows the lack of emotional maturity and composure!
Let me offer to way of criticism, which is preferable :-
1, Your mind is like glass full of water, how ever much I pour, it will flow away, empty your thoughts, then you may recieve !
2, You brain is like a clogged toilet bowl. It is so stuff with shit that nothing can go through! Someone needs to shove a plumber to flush out the crap out of you before it can flow again.
Buddhism was, is and always has been under siege due to certain illogical weakness in its rituals and practice. I mainly stated one of the main weakness and the whole thread starts to unravel.
Rituals and practice is and has always be practise by man since time immemorial and by all religons at some point. Pray tell me to what it is you have unravelled. I used rituals as a way of focus,discipline, reinforcement of normalcy.At some point should I not need it, I will discard it.
Buddhism has methods, not rituals.
Not doing things for no reason other than to follow traditions.
BTW no doubt certain parts of Buddhism in the world are corrupted and degenerated into mere rituals, etc. And this is a cause of Buddhism being seen as superstitious, etc.
However they do not represent Buddhism as a whole.