Why buddhism?

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

No you don't.

If I don't know as you don't know anything then how can I learn so many from my mentors? You're just the simple understanding also hard to know then how can a person like you to learn the metaphysics which is highly depending on precise understanding otherwise you're not even touching the edge of the truth.

1) Just a test to you, is Buddha Sakyamuni alive in the spiritual realm as a Buddha or as a God?

2) What's the difference between Buddha and God? Or are they the same , only difference in name?

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by markings

What is reborn are one's unresolved emotional residues. This happens on an energetic level.

Yes, I suspect my little tiny unease with ground and my big fat unease with the feminine was showing my yin/yang residue still in place. I did go out this morning and watched the rising sun and the setting moon align as one source today. That was a real turning point...

Its interesting how the after affects play out from the other, she shared she would have rather given me a sweet than a hit and release. Her compassion arose, but her unease wanted to feed me something nice, I found that interesting..

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

it is a private believer's bull**** and an insult for all that want to validly know what can be validly known.

A highly recognized Theravada monk teaching dharma is just some ** private believer?

Wow and you think you should teach Buddhism?

Enjoy your conversation with others because I see no reason to continue.

All the best everyone.

[Jeremy Bong]

I know why Ground like to quote scriptures text for the reason practices in Tibetan Buddhism tradition.



Skepticism Edit
Skepticism is an important aspect of Tibetan Buddhism. A critical attitude is encouraged to promote abilities in analytic meditation. In favor of skepticism towards Buddhist doctrines in general, Tibetans are fond of quoting sutra to the effect that one should test the Buddha's words as one would the quality of gold.[24]

[Jeremy Bong]

What you are spreading here is no more than Tibetan Buddhism.




Geoffrey Samuel sees the character of Tibetan Buddhism in the West as

that of a national or international network, generally centred around the teachings of a single individual lama. Among the larger ones are the FPMT, which I have already mentioned, now headed by Lama Zopa and the child-reincarnation of Lama Yeshe; the New Kadampa, in origin a break-away from the FPMT; the Shambhala network, deriving from Chögyam Trungpa 's organization and now headed by his son; and the networks associated with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (the Dzogchen Community) and Sogyal Rinpoche (Rigpa).[42]

[markings]

Originally Posted by Ground

yeah, that's not buddhism. Why? Because 'ego' isn't an expression in authentic buddhist texts.

What about the self, in contrast to Self?
Small mind versus Big Mind?
Self-referential in contrast to Universal?

Most people would equate self, small mind and self-referential with ego.

Are we talking about ego simply as a word or as an idea?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by markings

What about the self, in contrast to Self?
Small mind versus Big Mind?
Self-referential in contrast to Universal?

Most people would equate self, small mind and self-referential with ego.

Are we talking about ego simply as a word or as an idea?

Authentic buddhist texts know aggregates, sense spheres and illusion-like self.

'Ego' originates from western psychology and western philosophy. And these do affirm the illusion-like self that is negated in buddhism. And they often do not even negate their 'ego' but psychologist often speak of 'healthy ego' and 'unhealthy ego'.

So it is one thing to speak about buddhism and another to speak about what is different from buddhism. if one mixes different systems confusion will prevent valid knowledge.

And if you come up with your own terminology what's the use of this? you may understand your own terminology but thus you will not understand buddhism.

[Jeremy Bong]

This is where the ego of Tibetan Buddhism come into place. They imagine they've enlightened before or just practice of meditation and that ego implant to their mind so they're already enlightened that's before practicing meditation. Their mind is egoism practicing then their talking is following as they're already a "Buddha" but they're following different Buddhas with the Chinese Buddhism.



This is because Vajrayana requires the practitioner to imagine himself or herself as the Buddha or other enlightened Buddhist deities during the process of the practice. In other words, the practitioner uses the perception that he or she has already achieved enlightenment, as the main vehicle of practice in order to attain enlightenment quickly.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Ground

What are aims that are worthwhile to pursue?

They must be directly perceptible in order to be existents.

There must be an immediate benefit realizing these aims which must be directly perceptible too.

Their realization must neither cause unease nor add to pre-existent unease but must either reduce or eliminate pre-existent unease.

If there is the slightest uncertainty whether the realization of an aim may be beneficial then it is not worthwhile to pursue because it is not based on valid knowledge.

Therefore only an aim which is the cessation of what is already validly known and which is validly known to be or to cause or to add to unease can be based on valid knowledge of the benefit of its realization. Why? Because it is the current presence of that which is or causes or adds to unease so that the cessation of its presence and the resulting reduction or cessation of unease necessarily is beneficial.

In contrast to these aims that are worthwhile to pursue aims that are the realization of what is not validly known necessarily are a case of doubt because the realization strived for is based on speculative thought and belief in benefits which are merely objects of hope. Such aims are not worthwhile to pursue.

This shows that the buddhist approach to strive for the realization of cessations (negative phenomena) necessarily is a valid approach provided unease and its causes are validly known.

From that it follows that enlightenment and buddhahood are not aims that are worthwhile to pursue. Why? Because both cannot be directly perceived and thus there is no basis that would support their existence.

So again, only cessations are aims that are worthwile to pursue because that which shall cease can be directly perceived, i.e. validly known, and thus its cessation, i.e. its absence, can be validly known too.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

From that it follows that enlightenment and buddhahood are not aims that are worthwhile to pursue. Why? Because both cannot be directly perceived and thus there is no basis that would support their existence.

So again, only cessations are aims that are worthwile to pursue because that which shall cease can be directly perceived, i.e. validly known, and thus its cessation, i.e. its absence, can be validly known too.

Then can you cease the karma effect and then cessation is classed as can't be directly perceived. As long it's life not all things can be directly perceived. So the philosophy of teaching is not reliable. That's either a life cease and rebirth can't be directly perceived. Then what's Buddha teaching most of them can't be directly perceived by human being but it can be directly perceived by Buddha Sakyamuni aafter he's enlightened.