Lankavatara Sutra Study

[naturesflow]

So far the Buddha is talking over and over again how everything, you, me the trees, emotions all arise from the mind and are not separate.

Tick to that bit..

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

Yab-yum is actually the practice of tantra. So how to practice if there's no sex and it's Hinduism and the Tibetan Buddhism which is not Buddhism that isn't Buddha Shakyamuni teaching.

..........

[Jeremy Bong]

Quote:
So far the Buddha is talking over and over again how everything, you, me the trees, emotions all arise from the mind and are not separate.[/

Tick to that bit..

That's why CSEe misled by this sentence as everything is Buddhism/Buddha.That's everything, you, me, the trees... .... This is----lead astray. You must truly know what Buddha wanted to say-- the essence but not by the fasical of the words.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

They did, Jeremy and naturesflow both posted they disagree with Buddha's statement there in no creator.

When I was in spiritual school or study groups, the intention behind studying a particular subject or book was to read and discuss the material. Not to disagree with or invalidate it, but to understand it. The thought of arguing specifics never crossed anyone's mind, that simply wasn't why we engaged in the study process. We studied the material to learn something about it.

Jonesboy seems to want to engage in that sort of study dialogue on this particular topic. Instead of "disagreeing with Buddha's statement," the conversation would be better served if people withheld their opinions. Simply read and reflect. Learning what Buddha had to say, and why, does not mean having to agree with it. Similarly, voicing contradictory opinions isn't necessary in order to read, reflect and learn. Opinions in fact hinder that learning and sharing process.

I acknowledge Jonesboy's attempt to start a book-study thread. I don't feel it's my place, nor would it be on-topic, to verbalize a personal opinion or belief that runs counter to what this book is teaching. The singular activity here as I see it, is to read and study the book. And now I'll exit this thread. :)

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Baile

When I was in spiritual school or study groups, the intention behind studying a particular subject or book was to read and discuss the material. Not to disagree with or invalidate it, but to understand it. The thought of arguing specifics never crossed anyone's mind, that simply wasn't why we engaged in the study process. We studied the material to learn something about it.

Jonesboy seems to want to engage in that sort of study dialogue on this particular topic. Instead of "disagreeing with Buddha's statement," the conversation would be better served if people withheld their opinions. Simply read and reflect. Learning what Buddha had to say, and why, does not mean having to agree with it. Similarly, voicing contradictory opinions isn't necessary in order to read, reflect and learn. Opinions in fact hinder that learning and sharing process.

I acknowledge Jonesboy's attempt to start a book-study thread. I don't feel it's my place, nor would it be on-topic, to verbalize a personal opinion or belief that runs counter to what this book is teaching. The singular activity here as I see it, is to read and study the book. And now I'll exit this thread. :)

When you are in study group firstly you have to agree what he's teaching but in forum we have to know more about the nature of everything. For example I just said about yab-yum. He should know that is it appropriate to introduce to the pure Buddhism thread.

And so far he didn't explain to the viewers all he was showing is the astral playground not the spiritual or material reality and I explain to him or to other viewers. He just rote what he can from the sutra and can lead astray when with no proper explanation and understanding. I don't think what I do is to reject the sutra or him but to make clear of it.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

Well not everything, consciousness does not arise from the mind. But then the previous sentence I just typed stating that did.

I think consciousness in the Buddhist context pertains to the senses.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think consciousness in the Buddhist context pertains to the senses.

I think the same, consciouness meets our senses triggering thoughts leading to physical/mental activity where feelings/sensations rise.

[jonesboy]

Here maybe this will help.

From chapter 2 still.

The assertion about individual marks that really have no existence, concerns the distinctive marks as perceived by the eye, ear, nose, etc., as indicating individuality and generality in the elements that make up personality and its external world; and then, taking these marks for reality and getting attached to them, to get into the habit or affirming that things are just so and not otherwise.

The assertion of philosophical views concerning the elements that make up personality and its environing world that are non-existent, assume the existence of an ego, a being, a soul, a living being, a "nourisher", or a spirit. This is an example of philosophical views that are not true. It is this combination of discrimination of imaginary marks of individuality, grouping them and giving them a name and becoming attached to them as objects, by reason of habit-energy that has been accumulated since beginning-less time, that one builds up erroneous views whose only basis is false-imaginations.

He continues on about the body, memories etc. and how they are forms of discrimination.

[sky]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

Well not everything, consciousness does not arise from the mind. But then the previous sentence I just typed stating that did.

Where do you think consciouness arises from if not from the mind ?

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Here maybe this will help.

From chapter 2 still.

The assertion about individual marks that really have no existence, concerns the distinctive marks as perceived by the eye, ear, nose, etc., as indicating individuality and generality in the elements that make up personality and its external world; and then, taking these marks for reality and getting attached to them, to get into the habit or affirming that things are just so and not otherwise.

The assertion of philosophical views concerning the elements that make up personality and its environing world that are non-existent, assume the existence of an ego, a being, a soul, a living being, a "nourisher", or a spirit. This is an example of philosophical views that are not true. It is this combination of discrimination of imaginary marks of individuality, grouping them and giving them a name and becoming attached to them as objects, by reason of habit-energy that has been accumulated since beginning-less time, that one builds up erroneous views whose only basis is false-imaginations.

He continues on about the body, memories etc. and how they are forms of discrimination.

I try to summarize for you :

All your habit and discrimination of personality is imagination.

Comment : imagination is thought.

Question : how to not be attached to this imagination?

Answer : to let go.. ....be a free man.