| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: Broadcasts on kunkyab.org |
 |
|
"Hokousha" <hokousha2001@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:67aee454.0308302328.617354bc@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | Lhamo <lhamo@real.email.address.not> wrote in message
news:<3F505858.9080908@real.email.address.not>...
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)
Oddly enough I heard the same "broadcast" the other night. Do you
know
if there is a schedule for these programs? I've heard several good
lectures over the past week or so, but it's hard to follow them
consistently without a schedule. Unfortunately they didn't respond
to
E-mail.
Tim
|
It is probably distributed via private maling list.
Like it is for Lamrim Radio.
See Yahoo groups for their maling lists.
ex. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fpmt/
searching ....
Yap. That is it.
Their last post about this:
=================
From: Roy Harvey
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:01 am
Subject: This Week - FPMT Radio Live - Ven. Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche
ADVERTISEMENT
Dear Listeners --
We are pleased to announce a live broadcast Tuesday and Wednesday
evenings
(California time) of Ven. Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche's Uttaratantra
teaching
and commentary from Land of Medicine Buddha, in Soquel, CA.
http://www.medicinebuddha.org/
Schedules (and technology) permitting, we'll also try to bring you
other
broadcasts from the series as well as the option to download the
teachings
in MP3 format.
Tuesday, August 26th
7:00PM PST (19:00 UTC)
Wednesday, August 27th
7:00PM PST (19:00 UTC)
FPMT RADIO http://www.fpmt.org/radio/
Please note that the teaching will last approximately 2 hours,
though the
start and end times are estimated.
To calculate the broadcast time in your listening area:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
....
bla bla ba
IMPORTANT NEWS
* The Uttaratantra teaching series in MP3 format should be available
for
download later tonight on FPMT radio, details to follow. Very
special
thanks for Ven. Lobsang Drimay for handing the live recordings and
post-processing work!
* We apologize for the late notice on our live broadcasts. Given the
dynamic teaching schedules and our resource availability for
providing the
broadcasts, we often don't have insight into our broadcast schedule
until
the last minute.
===========================
Gileht |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Anders Honore
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message news:<biotsq$1c8$3@news.eusc.inter.net>...
| Quote: | I would agree if "to break through conceptual knowledge" means to
transcend it, in the sense of the Middle Way: not accepting any of
it as absolute, not rejecting all of it as completely useless.
In fact we need to transcend everything, conceptualization has no
special status in this matter.
But, still, the point is that some Buddhist traditions (including
Tibetan) are proposing a model and a path based on "good direct
consciousness" vs. '"bad conceptual consciousness", and are
proposing to purify the mind from its conceptual consciousness, as
if this was the problem.
That I cannot accept for the reason mentioned above.
|
I find the teachings on the 8 consciousnesses and the four wisdoms
provide a good perspective on all this. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chet Osmond
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q4d4b.69872$Sq.13102459@twister.nyc.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:%%c4b.2772$Lk5.2384@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4jb4b.69858$Sq.13034748@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8%94b.2519$tw6.2155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so that
one
can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get
something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet
Of course it is, but he would sooner die than admit it.......(that is,
even
if he did have the subtlety of thought to determine it to be so).
--
Evelyn
Can one be real without taking any particular view or position as to
what
reality actually is?
Sure. As long as you don't try to explain it to anyone.....
|
That's the beauty of Mipham and his Beacon of Certainty. He
explains, to the n'th degree possible, how to explain the *taking
of no position* without any of the intellectual faults that those
that try to defend a position, rather than explain *no position*,
fall in to. If one tries to defend a position, once taken, they get
into the fault of mental elaboration outside of merely *explaining*
how they take no position. They are no longer explaining but
telling someone else how it is and defending their position. Mipham's
*no position* only needs faultless explanation rather than defensive
argumentation.
Chet
| Quote: |
--
Evelyn
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is,
having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well
burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Raan" <raan@one.org> wrote in message
news:VI44b.3359$O05.733883@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:biotsn$1c8$2@news.eusc.inter.net...
"tiresias" <me@mine.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:bin44m$b70mr$1@ID-167739.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
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.
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 sentient beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment and
identification
with concepts that is being indicated as the error. The freedom
from
conceptualisation is the art of not-grasping at that which appears
to
awareness which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft mis-quoted
Christian
teaching that it is the love of money which is the root of all
evil.
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
Hi T.
I would agree with you on what is the real cause of suffering:
grasping and the cause of grasping being ignorance, thinking things
and beings really inherently exist, on their own ...
But it looks like many Buddhists, including Tibetans, think it is
"conceptualisation" itself that is bad, and their path is
aiming at abandoning this.
They seem to think that there is a pure consciousness under all
conceptualization, and that it is enough to stop all
conceptualisation to "merit" enlightenment some how.
The whole trip about "direct perception" is about this.
Looks to me like they were guilty of anthropomorphism when
attributing
the capacity of conceptualization to all sentient beings and saying
that the solution is to get rid of the conceptual mind.
More later ...
Gileht
At the source of conceptualization is self identification rooted in
reflection. To mistake the reflection for the reality is ignorance. The
illusion of self existence emerges from this. However one need not
abandon
conceptualization any more than one need abandon breathing. One needs to
see through the error of identification in reflection even as reflection
continues. The real error at this point is to compound the mistake by
conceptualizing what is not illusion with paradoxical self contradicting
nonsense formulations and taking it for truth.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
|
sky blue is your favorite |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Anders Honore
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Is is possible to get past relativity ? |
|
|
| Quote: | "tara" <Minoomini-Giizis@invalid.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:0001HW.BB76A2E4019C81E608CBA820@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Ahhh Everything is relative so every answer is relative. ok
But I can't
know that beyond relativity there is or is not an absolute. I
wonder if it
is possible to get past relativity.
|
Well, I suppose one could shake an empty fist out and say 'yes there
is - keep going' but personally I would just say 'that is relative
too'. pop. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
| Quote: |
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
|
then what are we searching for? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F511690.1AF5EA73@metta.lk...
| Quote: | Tang Huyen wrote:
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
"There's always something more I can do without."
-- unknown
|
as soon as you know what it is, you can do without it |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Evelyn Ruut
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:W8n4b.3651$Lk5.1320@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q4d4b.69872$Sq.13102459@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:%%c4b.2772$Lk5.2384@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4jb4b.69858$Sq.13034748@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8%94b.2519$tw6.2155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so
that
one
can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get
something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet
Of course it is, but he would sooner die than admit it.......(that
is,
even
if he did have the subtlety of thought to determine it to be so).
--
Evelyn
Can one be real without taking any particular view or position as to
what
reality actually is?
Sure. As long as you don't try to explain it to anyone.....
That's the beauty of Mipham and his Beacon of Certainty. He
explains, to the n'th degree possible, how to explain the *taking
of no position* without any of the intellectual faults that those
that try to defend a position, rather than explain *no position*,
fall in to. If one tries to defend a position, once taken, they get
into the fault of mental elaboration outside of merely *explaining*
how they take no position. They are no longer explaining but
telling someone else how it is and defending their position. Mipham's
*no position* only needs faultless explanation rather than defensive
argumentation.
Chet
|
Few are so articulate as to pull that off in the first place, and even fewer
are able to experience enough to even begin to know what to 'try' and
articulate.
I read "Beacon of Certainty" a while ago and it is right here in my
bookcase. Thanks for reminding me of it. I will take a new look at it.
--
Evelyn
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tang Huyen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:45 pm Post subject: Buddhism in a fridge magnet (was Re: Why would anyone) |
|
|
dogwalker wrote:
| Quote: | as soon as you know what it is, you can do without it
|
Tang Huyen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chet Osmond
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"dogwalker" <d@g.com> wrote in message
news:hBn4b.1074$Kj.30714@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
then what are we searching for?
|
Perhaps an explanation of why all *finding*, once verbalized, is faulty,
at least intellectually.
Chet
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chet Osmond
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
| Quote: | Sure. As long as you don't try to explain it to anyone.....
That's the beauty of Mipham and his Beacon of Certainty. He
explains, to the n'th degree possible, how to explain the *taking
of no position* without any of the intellectual faults that those
that try to defend a position, rather than explain *no position*,
fall in to. If one tries to defend a position, once taken, they get
into the fault of mental elaboration outside of merely *explaining*
how they take no position. They are no longer explaining but
telling someone else how it is and defending their position. Mipham's
*no position* only needs faultless explanation rather than defensive
argumentation.
Chet
Few are so articulate as to pull that off in the first place, and even
fewer
are able to experience enough to even begin to know what to 'try' and
articulate.
I read "Beacon of Certainty" a while ago and it is right here in my
bookcase. Thanks for reminding me of it. I will take a new look at it.
--
Evelyn
|
Same with me. I just happened upon it the other day, after reading it a
few
years ago, and it jumped out to me fresh and I saw the beauty of getting rid
of the very subtle intellectual holds that we don't even notice when we take
any position that needs defending.
It's so easy to explain the fault with any system that takes an apriori
position
and then elaborates on it through definition, meaning, and ideas. Nothing
wrong with a song from the heart but when the intellect gets involved, even
if it
does light the fire of devotion, it usually leaves ashes that still have to
be swept
from the intellect. Chet
| Quote: |
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is,
having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well
burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa
|
In the end all that's left to us is a good laugh, more so because once
stated, even Longchenpa's
intellectualization contains obvious faults. Only the explanation of the
faults
that can be found in any statement, that itself takes no exclusive one sided
position,
can remain faultless. It's context is not to take a position but only
explain the faults
inherent in clinging to any position whatsoever.
Chet
PS: Enjoy your read. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
