Posts
krodha commented on
I was curious to what the "spirit" word in the first quote was. It's a translation for the word gandhabba, for anyone else interested. The pali translation gives two definitions on that same link:
If the embryo forms when a heavenly being decides to take up residence in the fertile conditions of the womb
Not a heavenly being. There are different uses of gandhabba. “Gandhabba” in this context is a term used to denote the series of aggregates in the intermediate state between lives.
Kaccayana Gotta was just the name of a person asking The Buddha a question. If you read the Sutta, The Buddha explains to him Cessation.
Nondual in Buddhism really means a freedom from extremes. Thus the Kaccānagotta sutta and others do teach of Buddhist nonduality [advāya].
could you teach me what dualistic grasping is ?
Any psychophysical activity that is based upon, and also reifies, a subject-object division.
Load more comments
It means he thinks I am speaking false Dharma.
Squizzle Yana as in my own personal theories - divorced from any Dharma yana.
I am Mara incarnate, here to damn beings to the lower realms with my corrupting, non-Buddhist theories about...
checks notes...
compassion.
It means he thinks I am speaking false Dharma
This is a bit extreme. I think the post has value. Do the Vajrayāna tantras teach something like this explicitly? Not exactly. But if the takeaway is bodhicitta then that is a multi-layered topic, and sure, this is your personal, lived experience of applying aspirational and engaged bodhicitta.
It is obviously good to be virtuous in the context of our relative condition. In some Vajrayāna settings we have to be mindful and walk a fine line with “virtuous” conduct, as we are meant to be somewhat more free without the need for it, but as there is also no need for misdeeds, there is no problem.
Interesting. Does Vajrayana teach this stuff?
The squizzlebizzleyāna does.
I like the premise, seems like a cool sub, I somehow hadn’t heard of it til today.
Some elements of Buddhism are very clearly separate but coming from an Indic worldview (Theravada) whereas others developed in parallel with Hinduism and the two influenced each other (Mahayana). For example, the closeness and thus eternal rivalry between Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta. Saying one ripped off the other is simplistic and child like.
Saying one ripped off the other is simplistic and child like.
Although the Advaita luminary, Gaudapāda admitted he adopted Madhyamaka dialectics in order to refute Dvaitins or dualist Vedantins.
"There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.
There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes.
This really isn’t true, and is an idea that is exclusively peddled by Thanissaro Bikkhu.
Moreover, not only does the Buddha explicitly state there is no self in any phenomena [sabbe dhamma anatta], he goes as far as he to be certain that it is understood there is no self or svabhāva in any dharma both conditioned or unconditioned.
The definition of anātman, or selflessness is very clear in texts such as the Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā which defines it as such:
Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness [anātman].
The misconception of a self is what lies at the heart of samsara, and in realizing anātman it is directly known that such a self never existed at any point in time. The self is nothing more than a stable deception that depends on certain afflictive conditions. When those causes and conditions are exhausted, then the misconception of the self is exhausted, and that is liberation.
The Dzogchen opinion:
When vidyā is practiced, since hells do not exist, the one who designates hells has been taken by Māra. When vidyā reaches its full measure, it is shown that neither buddhas nor hell beings were ever established. Therefore, it is shown that there is not the slightest difference between Buddha Samantabhadra and the King of Hell, Dharmarāja.
— Vimalamitra
This dovetails with buddhafields or “purelands.” There can be pure and impure buddhafields, but ultimately no matter if the buddhafield you perceive is relatively pure or impure, all buddhafields are ultimately pure. This Sahalōka is Akaniṣṭha-ghanavyūha even now, you just cannot see it.
Below the path of seeing we treat our vidyā like a mirror. Whatever is reflected in a mirror does not affect the mirror, nor does the mirror accept or reject.
But, lofty words, nightmares can be terrifying, as Norbu Rinpoche always said: “just do your best.”
