| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jesson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
 |
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:bioqui$stj$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
| Quote: |
"naked ape" <naked_apes@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:CnP3b.769$vm2.81@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:881vkvg30angcr9kokfcvmaincj8a1q0ul@4ax.com...
On 29 Aug 2003 01:24:34 -0700, gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht)
wrote:
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
Not stopping conceptualization but seeing through it --
disregarding the normal power of concepts to rule us.
Attempting to stop thought is not good practice.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition
of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in
humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
Animals don't hate or brood.
They live in the moment, unbound by imaginary concepts.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
If the world is filtered through concepts we may
know concepts very well, but we'll not know the world.
Have you ever heard of zen?
All Buddhism is the rejection of false concepts
and ultimately the rejection of 'true' concepts.
It is nothing but concepts that bind us.
Concepts are the condom that prevents the fertility of being.
(Love those sexual metaphors.)
Concepts are the training wheels of life.
Concepts are our tiny fortress against big reality.
All the boogy men are false concepts.
Concepts are a prison and not a refuge.
Give em up. You are set free.
The cell door is open. Why just sit there?
"No concept is the carrier of life." Carl Jung
Ya! But the question is :
Is no-concept is the carrier of life ?
Gileht
is you is or is you ain't confusing, innit? |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
jesson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:27 am Post subject: Re: Gileht should stop lying |
|
|
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> wrote in message
news:3F4FFFFE.9070003@real.email.address.not...
| Quote: |
Lying is a great fault, the cause of people not believing what you say,
and being separated from true teachings in the future.
Tibetan buddhism does not teach a truly existent "pure consciousness"
nor does it teach that conceptualization is the root of attachment.
How sad to see you repay the generosity of Tibetan teachers by lying
about what they teach. This is not skillful, it is unskillful and
nonvirtuous. Truly, it is sad to see.
- Lhamo
|
do you use 'lying' in the sense of a verbal act,
-which implies deliberation and purpose in the act,
or in a wider sense than verbal, eg behavioural,
which admits inadvertant or unconscious deceipt?
i ask because people have differene understandings
of the word, and without clarification, i cannot compute.
and i felt like using a different voice.
actually, i've forgotten why i asked.
have you got a spare copy of the agenda?
what are we talking about?
am i in the right meeting?
jan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
George W. Cherry
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:25 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"jesson" <spacejan@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bip1j2$bs8pk$1@ID-104323.news.uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:%qL3b.296673$Ho3.42493@sccrnsc03...
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F4F35D7.80E684AF@metta.lk...
Gileht wrote:
So what do you think ?
i'm thinking why has george posted chan's post of gible's
question,
and why the hell am i posting this reply?
|
Ch'an responded with the null response (non-mentation).
I responded with another null response (non-mentation).
You broke the spell. The whole idea was to "diss" Gileht.
Gileht wanted to start a thread but Ch'an and I were pas-
sive-aggressive and anal retentive.
Here's T. S. Eliot (from The Wasteland)
'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you're thinking. Think.'
I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
'What is that noise?'
The wind under the door.
'What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?'
Nothing again nothing.
'Do
'You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
'Nothing?' |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> a
écrit dans le message de news:bHV3b.229311$Oz4.62717@rwcrnsc54...
| Quote: |
"jesson" <spacejan@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bip1j2$bs8pk$1@ID-104323.news.uni-berlin.de...
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu
wrote in
message news:%qL3b.296673$Ho3.42493@sccrnsc03...
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F4F35D7.80E684AF@metta.lk...
Gileht wrote:
So what do you think ?
i'm thinking why has george posted chan's post of
gible's
question,
and why the hell am i posting this reply?
Ch'an responded with the null response (non-mentation).
I responded with another null response (non-mentation).
You broke the spell. The whole idea was to "diss" Gileht.
Gileht wanted to start a thread but Ch'an and I were pas-
sive-aggressive and anal retentive.
Here's T. S. Eliot (from The Wasteland)
'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you're thinking. Think.'
I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
'What is that noise?'
The wind under the door.
'What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?'
Nothing again nothing.
'Do
'You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
'Nothing?'
|
Gosh man .. you are spoling the jokes by trying to explain
everything all the time ... :-)
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Return of the BWZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Gileht should stop lying |
|
|
Marshamallows anybody?
Sean
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F5007D1.B7B407C5@metta.lk...
"Gileht.com" wrote:
| Quote: | "Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> a écrit dans le message de
news:3F50020E.B5630560@metta.lk...
Lhamo wrote:
Lying is a great fault
yet you enjoy it.
what can be said
of "fault"? has the
"audience" suddenly
expanded?
What was all this about ?
Is this girly guy still abusing the name of a saint ?
Anyway, how can I open my mouth without lying ?
Show me one person who can and I will accept the fault.
Even the Buddha said: 'I never taught anything.'
meaning they were all lies.
Gileht
P.S. No absolute, only adapted skilful means.
|
P.S. one word and you're reborn in hell.
adapt some skillful means. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
George W. Cherry
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:24 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:bip9ou$3vp$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
| Quote: |
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> a
écrit dans le message de news:bHV3b.229311$Oz4.62717@rwcrnsc54...
"jesson" <spacejan@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bip1j2$bs8pk$1@ID-104323.news.uni-berlin.de...
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu
wrote in
message news:%qL3b.296673$Ho3.42493@sccrnsc03...
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F4F35D7.80E684AF@metta.lk...
Gileht wrote:
So what do you think ?
i'm thinking why has george posted chan's post of
gible's
question,
and why the hell am i posting this reply?
Ch'an responded with the null response (non-mentation).
I responded with another null response (non-mentation).
You broke the spell. The whole idea was to "diss" Gileht.
Gileht wanted to start a thread but Ch'an and I were pas-
sive-aggressive and anal retentive.
Here's T. S. Eliot (from The Wasteland)
'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you're thinking. Think.'
I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.
'What is that noise?'
The wind under the door.
'What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?'
Nothing again nothing.
'Do
'You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
'Nothing?'
Gosh man .. you are spoling the jokes by trying to explain
everything all the time ... :-)
Gileht
|
I will not cease from teaching until everyone
shares my misconceptions.
George |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Gileht will never stop lying |
|
|
"jesson" <spacejan@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:bip22f$bm7ti$1@ID-104323.news.uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> wrote in message
news:3F4FFFFE.9070003@real.email.address.not...
Lying is a great fault, the cause of people not believing what
you say,
and being separated from true teachings in the future.
Tibetan buddhism does not teach a truly existent "pure
consciousness"
nor does it teach that conceptualization is the root of
attachment.
How sad to see you repay the generosity of Tibetan teachers by
lying
about what they teach. This is not skillful, it is unskillful
and
nonvirtuous. Truly, it is sad to see.
- Lhamo
|
Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for their
opinion.
Anyway, you fight like a girl ! So keep the name.
Gileht
| Quote: | do you use 'lying' in the sense of a verbal act,
-which implies deliberation and purpose in the act,
or in a wider sense than verbal, eg behavioural,
which admits inadvertant or unconscious deceipt?
i ask because people have differene understandings
of the word, and without clarification, i cannot compute.
and i felt like using a different voice.
actually, i've forgotten why i asked.
have you got a spare copy of the agenda?
what are we talking about?
am i in the right meeting?
jan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
naked ape
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:50 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
LOLOLOL. ..
"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:4yW3b.130893$2x.38135@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
SNIP
| Quote: | I will not cease from teaching until everyone
shares my misconceptions.
George
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lhamo
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Gileht will never stop lying |
|
|
Gileht.com wrote:
| Quote: | Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for their
opinion.
|
I know you were lying because your argument for why conceptualization is
important for eliminating wrong views, both coarse and subtle, and for
realizing true nonconceptual wisdom that can stand up to conceptual
scrutiny is straight out of Tibetan buddhist textbooks, like those of
Jamyang Shebay. I bet you have some sources like this on your website
with your famous multi-colored commentaries. Therefore, you must know
that your view on this does not differ from what Tibetan buddhism says.
Furthermore, you stated that Tibetan buddhism teaches a self-existent
"pure consciousness" when you know very well that all schools of Tibetan
buddhism uphold the Prasangika Madhyamika view of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva,
Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti as the definitive one.
However, I grant you that you may have misread what you quoted. Reading
what you quoted more carefully, it doesn't say "conceptualization is the
root of attachment" as you said, it says "conception is the root of
attachment." The choice of "conception" to translate what I am
presuming is "vikalpa" (rnam par rtog pa) is interesting, because it is
open enough a word to suggest both (mistaken) conceptual, discursive
thoughts and the conception (birth, generation) of images in the mind
that are mistaken for the external object. Even animals have the
latter, and this can be explained very cleanly in the schema of the
twelve links.
| Quote: | Anyway, you fight like a girl ! So keep the name.
|
That is interesting you say that. I was JUST listening to a teaching
about the mother of Vasubandhu and Asanga. In her previous life she was
a very learned pandit who was debating with someone (I think he said
"Chenrezig" but it was kind of muffled) and in a heated moment he
exclaimed, "You debate like a woman!" And Chenrezig (?) informed him
that due to having said this, in his next life he would be reborn as a
woman, but since he had a capacity for the mahayana in his mindstream,
he would be able to benefit beings greatly in that form.
http://www.kunkyab.org/ (Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche Teachings)
Of course, this does not have anything to do with you, because you have
declared yourself to be a Foe Destroyer on the path of no-more-learning
who has conquered birth and death and will not return again to samsara.
- Lhamo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> a écrit dans le message de news:3F505858.9080908@real.email.address.not...
Gileht.com wrote:
| Quote: | Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for their
opinion.
|
I know you were lying because your argument for why conceptualization is
important for eliminating wrong views, both coarse and subtle, and for
realizing true nonconceptual wisdom that can stand up to conceptual
scrutiny is straight out of Tibetan buddhist textbooks, like those of
Jamyang Shebay. I bet you have some sources like this on your website
with your famous multi-colored commentaries. Therefore, you must know
that your view on this does not differ from what Tibetan buddhism says.
Furthermore, you stated that Tibetan buddhism teaches a self-existent
"pure consciousness" when you know very well that all schools of Tibetan
buddhism uphold the Prasangika Madhyamika view of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva,
Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti as the definitive one.
However, I grant you that you may have misread what you quoted. Reading
what you quoted more carefully, it doesn't say "conceptualization is the
root of attachment" as you said, it says "conception is the root of
attachment." The choice of "conception" to translate what I am
presuming is "vikalpa" (rnam par rtog pa) is interesting, because it is
open enough a word to suggest both (mistaken) conceptual, discursive
thoughts and the conception (birth, generation) of images in the mind
that are mistaken for the external object. Even animals have the
latter, and this can be explained very cleanly in the schema of the
twelve links.
| Quote: | Anyway, you fight like a girl ! So keep the name.
|
That is interesting you say that. I was JUST listening to a teaching
about the mother of Vasubandhu and Asanga. In her previous life she was
a very learned pandit who was debating with someone (I think he said
"Chenrezig" but it was kind of muffled) and in a heated moment he
exclaimed, "You debate like a woman!" And Chenrezig (?) informed him
that due to having said this, in his next life he would be reborn as a
woman, but since he had a capacity for the mahayana in his mindstream,
he would be able to benefit beings greatly in that form.
http://www.kunkyab.org/ (Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche Teachings)
Of course, this does not have anything to do with you, because you have
declared yourself to be a Foe Destroyer on the path of no-more-learning
who has conquered birth and death and will not return again to samsara.
- Lhamo
As I said befor it is not just an error of translation. It is really what the commentator think. Read his comments again. The commentatore really thik what I said.
Leveling out all Conceptions, by the precious spiritual teacher Protector Serlingpa
A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" Source
Seeking refuge, I pay homage to the precious spiritual teacher Protector Serlingpa, and to the entire lineage of this master and his disciples. Pray, bless me!
Embodiment of wisdom and great compassion, the protector Serlingpa once said to Atisha:
'O my son, if you wish to serve others in these degenerate times, you must distill the sacred words of all three collections of discourses, scriptures, and reasonings, as well as all the heartwood instructions of the spiritual teachers, and practice them in one sitting. To accomplish this you need the teachings I shall now give you, teachings that will make you invulnerable to sickness, harm, interference from obstructive forces, demons, or upholders of false teachings, and any other adverse conditions and impediments.'
Then, he taught the following:
1. Level out all preconceptions,
2. Bring forth the force of all antidotes,
3. Cultivate the aspiration that embodies all wishes,
4. And seek the path where all paths converge.
These are the antidotes, the four enlightened factors.
They are essential to tame places that are far from dharma,
They are essential too in times of degeneration
To help bear negative samsara and its misguided ways.
The meaning of these verses is as follows. It is essential to level out conceptions whenever they arise, to crush them at their very source. Examine them, reflecting, 'Where does this conception appear? To what sense faculties does it appear? In what shape and color does it appear?' Treat it like a venomous snake or rabid dog, not allowing it near you. Flatten it the moment it arises by applying its antidote. Never let yourself be influenced of laziness. It is stated in sutra,
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
(i.e. The root cause of all suffering is ignorance, the belief in inherent existence. And that is a pre-conceptual source, an innate ignorance. The problem is not conceptualization since 99.999999% of the sentient beings stuck in samsara do not even have the capacity for conceptualization. Anyway, the problem is not concept but grasping at subject objects and concepts, all things and beings of the three worlds. So conceptions cannot be the cause of grasping or attachment. And the solution cannot be to drop all conceptualization. Enlightenment is not gained by stopping the mind. So what are they saying here? Just to do it while doing Shamatha, without grasping it.)
Again [we read in sutra],
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
The Entering the Middle Way [verse 160 or VI.117, Chandrakirti] states,
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
All the sacred words and treaties of the Great Vehicle, like these here cited, state that conceptions are a great obstacle to the attainment of enlightenment. It is therefore vital to not let laziness overcome you. This means that if you harbor too many thoughts you will not reach the final goal. Therefore even in relation to the profound truth that will liberate you remain without proliferation [of thoughts] and concentrate all your energies on this single objective, destroying the conceptions.
It has also been stated in sutra that all forms of mental engagement are the acts of negative forces. Therefore coordinate all your aspirations, relate all the grounds and paths, such as the paths of accumulation, seeing, and meditation, to the destruction of conceptions as they arise by applying their antidotes. Continue this until the attainment of full enlightenment and the state of omniscience.
In brief, ensure that every time a conception surfaces there too is its antidote, because you concentrate all your aspirations into destroying the conceptions by means of their antidotes. In just this way, always walk any path treading and crushing conceptions. These four factors, belonging to the class of enlightened phenomena, are to be adopted.
* * * |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"cupcake" <t@r.slrup> a écrit dans le message de
news:_QY3b.37$9n2.1363@news.more.net...
| Quote: |
Lame-O wrote:
Gileht.com wrote:
Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
[13]http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for
their
opinion.
I know you were lying because your argument for why
conceptualization is
important for eliminating wrong views, both coarse and subtle,
and for
realizing true nonconceptual wisdom that can stand up to
conceptual
scrutiny is straight out of Tibetan buddhist textbooks, like
those of
Jamyang Shebay. I bet you have some sources like this on your
website
with your famous multi-colored commentaries. Therefore, you must
know
that your view on this does not differ from what Tibetan buddhism
says.
Furthermore, you stated that Tibetan buddhism teaches a
self-existent
"pure consciousness" when you know very well that all schools of
Tibetan
buddhism uphold the Prasangika Madhyamika view of Nagarjuna,
Aryadeva,
Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti as the definitive one.
for somebody who has been insisting over the past
two weeks that yu have no Vajrayani teachers and
not knowledge of Tibetan Vajrayanism, yu certainly
are being awful vehement about all this shit, yu
little Vajra dirt bag
|
He or she is definitively trying to hide something big.
And making projections all the way ...
Gileht
| Quote: | However, I grant you that you may have misread what you quoted.
Reading
what you quoted more carefully, it doesn't say "conceptualization
is the
root of attachment" as you said, it says "conception is the root
of
attachment." The choice of "conception" to translate what I am
presuming is "vikalpa" (rnam par rtog pa) is interesting, because
it is
open enough a word to suggest both (mistaken) conceptual,
discursive
thoughts and the conception (birth, generation) of images in the
mind
that are mistaken for the external object. Even animals have the
latter, and this can be explained very cleanly in the schema of
the
twelve links.
Anyway, you fight like a girl ! So keep the name.
That is interesting you say that. I was JUST listening to a
teaching
about the mother of Vasubandhu and Asanga. In her previous life
she was
a very learned pandit who was debating with someone (I think he
said
"Chenrezig" but it was kind of muffled) and in a heated moment he
exclaimed, "You debate like a woman!" And Chenrezig (?) informed
him
that due to having said this, in his next life he would be reborn
as a
woman, but since he had a capacity for the mahayana in his
mindstream,
he would be able to benefit beings greatly in that form.
[14]http://www.kunkyab.org/ (Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche Teachings)
Of course, this does not have anything to do with you, because
you have
declared yourself to be a Foe Destroyer on the path of
no-more-learning
who has conquered birth and death and will not return again to
samsara.
- Lhamo
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Will lhamo stop crying like a baby ? |
|
|
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> a écrit dans le message de
news:3F505858.9080908@real.email.address.not...
| Quote: |
Gileht.com wrote:
Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for
their
opinion.
I know you were lying because your argument for why
conceptualization is
important for eliminating wrong views, both coarse and subtle, and
for
realizing true nonconceptual wisdom that can stand up to
conceptual
scrutiny is straight out of Tibetan buddhist textbooks, like those
of
Jamyang Shebay. I bet you have some sources like this on your
website
with your famous multi-colored commentaries. Therefore, you must
know
that your view on this does not differ from what Tibetan buddhism
says. |
I know that some Tibetan share some of my view and some other ones
are completely fucked up in their views and methods. That is the
point.
But you are a too easy fish to catch as Tang would say.
| Quote: | Furthermore, you stated that Tibetan buddhism teaches a
self-existent
"pure consciousness" when you know very well that all schools of
Tibetan
buddhism uphold the Prasangika Madhyamika view of Nagarjuna,
Aryadeva,
Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti as the definitive one.
|
see above.
| Quote: | However, I grant you that you may have misread what you quoted.
|
I don't think so. soo the other post.
See th comments of the commmentator.
| Quote: | Reading
what you quoted more carefully, it doesn't say "conceptualization
is the
root of attachment" as you said, it says "conception is the root
of
attachment."
|
They are the same in my disctionary .. all about conceptualisation.
| Quote: | The choice of "conception" to translate what I am
presuming is "vikalpa" (rnam par rtog pa) is interesting, because
it is
open enough a word to suggest both (mistaken) conceptual,
discursive
thoughts and the conception (birth, generation) of images in the
mind
that are mistaken for the external object. Even animals have the
latter, and this can be explained very cleanly in the schema of
the
twelve links.
|
That is much better.
Now you are getting to the point instead of crying like a baby.
Now it would be very nice to exlain in much detail what is this ...
and how is it different than conceptualisation ... and how it
applies to animals that do not have any capacity for
conceptualisation.
That is what I was expecting from you .. in much more detail.
| Quote: | Anyway, you fight like a girl ! So keep the name.
That is interesting you say that. I was JUST listening to a
teaching
about the mother of Vasubandhu and Asanga. In her previous life
she was
a very learned pandit who was debating with someone (I think he
said
"Chenrezig" but it was kind of muffled) and in a heated moment he
exclaimed, "You debate like a woman!" And Chenrezig (?) informed
him
that due to having said this, in his next life he would be reborn
as a
woman, but since he had a capacity for the mahayana in his
mindstream,
he would be able to benefit beings greatly in that form.
http://www.kunkyab.org/ (Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche Teachings)
Of course, this does not have anything to do with you, because you
have
declared yourself to be a Foe Destroyer on the path of
no-more-learning
who has conquered birth and death and will not return again to
samsara. |
I don,t know what you are talking abiout here.
Is that another of your lies coming right from your little
frustrated heart ?
Try to be more proud of yourself here and act like a man. Defend
your point logically for crying out loud.
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lhamo
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Gileht should stop lying |
|
|
Gileht.com wrote:
| Quote: | "Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> a écrit dans le message de
P.S. one word and you're reborn in hell.
adapt some skillful means.
====
Nope. The snake is mortal only if it bites you.
If you do not try to grasp it it will not kill you, and thus you
will not heve to be reborn.
Gileht
|
Here's where you claim to be a never-returner.
What other meaning can this have in the context of a reply to what Ch'an
Fu wrote?
Not that I'm not happy for you, you are very fortunate and this brings
me only great joy.
- Lhamo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lhamo
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:38 pm Post subject: Why would I play into Gileht's underhanded slanders? |
|
|
Gileht.com wrote:
| Quote: | That is much better.
Now you are getting to the point instead of crying like a baby.
Now it would be very nice to exlain in much detail what is this ...
and how is it different than conceptualisation ... and how it
applies to animals that do not have any capacity for
conceptualisation.
That is what I was expecting from you .. in much more detail.
|
That is why your attempt to be skillful is unskillful. There is no need
to not speak the truth. Trying to be skillful with lies will only fail
and bring harm to yourself (and to a lesser extent, to others). It is
the cause of being separated from true teachings in the future. So
speak the undistorted truth, for crying out loud.
- Lhamo
| Quote: | Try to be more proud of yourself here and act like a man. Defend
your point logically for crying out loud. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Gileht should stop lying |
|
|
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> a écrit dans le message de
news:3F5061A4.3050701@real.email.address.not...
| Quote: |
Gileht.com wrote:
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> a écrit dans le message de
P.S. one word and you're reborn in hell.
adapt some skillful means.
====
Nope. The snake is mortal only if it bites you.
If you do not try to grasp it it will not kill you, and thus you
will not have to be reborn.
Gileht
Here's where you claim to be a never-returner.
What other meaning can this have in the context of a reply to what
Ch'an
Fu wrote?
Not that I'm not happy for you, you are very fortunate and this
brings
me only great joy.
- Lhamo
|
lol
You are still hallucinating or what ?
I don't see the link between the two at all.
And I am very sorry if I am disappointing you, but who cares.
Looks to me you are still lying out of frustration.
tut tut tut
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
