|
|
 Up |
  |
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Jan 31, 2008 16:14
Lifeform wrote:
> Anyways, religion has a way of setting standards
> that only some have the ability to meet. This
> self-empowers the egos for those who are capable
> of meeting the standards and subsequently results
> in individuals feeling, "I must be right". Whether
> they are "right" or not is irrelevant: they could
> be right or wrong. The important thing is that they
> have a sense of "being right" and as a result lose
> humility. "No humility" leaves little or no room for
> grace.
You have summarily imposed your criterion
on others, in that to you, grace seems to be
the saving factor, and absence of humility
conflicts with it.
|
| Show full article (2.70Kb) |
|
| |
41 Comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind
Date: Jan 31, 2008 13:45
This is a long chapter. Here's my summary:
After summarizing some of the earlier talks, Trungpa depicts the
following vicious circle:
When I try not to deceive myself, this is also a form of
self-deception. How do I break out of this?
Trungpa claims that we have to solve this one ourselves. No guru can
help us here.
But he suggests some strategies: compassion (also with oneself),
friendlyness (including towards oneself), generosity.
With these qualities, meditation is "becoming friends with oneself".
Without these qualities, the spiritual path becomes spiritual
materialism: even high meditative attainments are then like a candy
which we gobble up and then want another one of.
Trungpa introduces the bodhisattva path, and the paramitas
("perfections"), among them generosity and compassion.
Love and compassion, the "open path", lies in knowing things as they
are, instead of fighting them.
(I'm skipping the question-and-answer session at the end so this post
won't get too long)
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: dand386dand386
Date: Jan 31, 2008 05:42
On Jan 31, 8:03 pm, Tang Huyen gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:>> If you look at a flower without any thought of what it is, then it
>> tells you what it is, wordlessly. You simply let the flower be what it
>> is so it can reveal itself to you. If you then ask the serious
>> question 'what is it?' then you have lost it. Because then you are
>> asking thoughts to tell you what it is but thoughts can't tell you
>> that. That's the trick that the mind pulls in getting us to believe
>> that thoughts have any underlying meaning to them. Thoughts don't have
>> any meaning to them so they can't get to any answer that has any
>> meaning. Real meaning is in the experience itself.
>> When we read complex descriptions of what someone says is their
>> experience the words immediately form ideas in our mind of what they
>> are trying to describe. So we try and understand what they are
>> describing through an idea and see if our experience matches up to it.
>> But there's no way that experience can match up to an idea. We end up
>> holding a description in our mind of what the right experience should
>> be and try to get to that. That's not going to work because by trying
>> to get to the idea we have of what the right experience should be we ...
|
| Show full article (1.98Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: _Mu_Mu
Date: Jan 29, 2008 23:02
Is anyone else in this group following the news on Ram Bomjon/Palden
Dorje?
_Mu
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: PyroPyro
Date: Jan 29, 2008 14:15
Hi,
I am looking for a place to rent for daily (weekday) meditations. I
need some space for a couple of hours everyday, which I am unable to
secure at home.
I am not really looking for any classes. Does anybody know of a
fitness/yoga place that offers this kind of service? I know this is a
long shot, but considering the number of meditation groups popping
up these days, I feel that such there is a finite chance that one
should be able to find such a place.
Thanks.
Pyro
|
| |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism
Date: Jan 28, 2008 14:41
The Lost meaning of Avijja / Avidya (agnosis)
The 'secret' principle
behind Emanationism
(Monism,
Platonism, original Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta)
Copyright
2006 Author: Webmaster attan.com
What is avijja (agnosis) specifically? To refer to said term as
merely 'ignorance' is a misnomer. This very short exposition of the
lost and metaphysical meaning of avijja is meant to expose the...
|
| Show full article (14.67Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism
Date: Jan 28, 2008 14:40
These 17 designations made in sutta are given only as regards the
citta, no other proper noun is given such status. Nothing but the
citta itself is lauded in so many proprietary and
important ways as is the citta below. There is no higher acclaim in
Buddhism than these 16 which are said only of the citta.
You will not find this list anywhere on the internet, and sad to
say, also in no book on Buddhism either in print or out. Many
thousands of hours were spent compiling even this
small list of irrefutable facts about the most important word, the
citta (will) to Gotama the Buddha as reflected in his teachings. This
list is quite possibly the most important list here
on attan.com
What is the meaning of the most important word in Buddhism, the
Citta, in short?
The Citta is the ontological will, or metaphorically in the
scriptural context of Buddhist doctrine (as well as the...
|
| Show full article (22.66Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism
Date: Jan 28, 2008 14:38
It has been asserted by modern so-called Buddhism-in-name-only that
Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/
Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be
doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu'to
(attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly
liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or
mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman
that one who is "wholly awake" has "become." For (1) the comparatively
limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and
(2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S
1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous
births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is
meaningless and...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism
Date: Jan 28, 2008 14:37
ust as a steaming pile of cow shit attracts little but flies and their
maggots, so too is modern Buddhism a pile which attracts its specific
lot of peoples. How so? By examining the principles of modern
Buddhism (in name only) we can see who it attracts and why; also we
gain a great insight into why 'Buddhism' is a joke religion in general
to other groups.
What does modern Buddhism espouse that it attracts such a
disgusting and utterly repulsive lot of peoples? Namely the most
repulsive and lowest denominator variant of modern pseudo-Buddhism is
that
of Madhyamika and most other varieties of Vajrayana ("Tibetan
Buddhism"), its emptiness dogma it espouses is on par with Theravada
who deny the Subjective self, the Soul which attracts a group of
peoples who find the best of both worlds as it were. They can both
have a 'religion' and not be answerable for their actions after death
or in the next life, for if one denies the Soul or that which carries
on,
from one life to the next, there is no worry for them at all of
anything they do. This principle is incredibly attractive to demon-
minded atheistic types who cleave to this pseudo-Buddhism with great ...
|
| Show full article (3.63Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
