07-27-2010, 12:07 AM
Tiff wrote:
ninth octave wrote:
Tiff wrote:
The Zen forum...a new thread has not been created in a while. To explore other aspects of Buddhism, and there are many. I know Lex created this thread to discuss dependent arising. So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol. Those that do not support or are not sure, I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with us about it in a discussion. That's makes it worthwhile for both involved.
Those who just don't agree but don't care to discuss it, why not start your own threads about what you believe Zen is? Zen being a school of Mahayana Buddhism, BTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana (see schools)
And if this topic comes to an end anytime soon, I don't think Lex minds, I know I don't, and he and I can just go back to emailing each other about dependent arising, and more importantly, beyond that basic understanding. So it matters not, really. Not to sound ungrateful. I really appreciate those who sincerely engaged here. But if after all this discussion you still don't see the point of Nagarjuna, ok, we will both get tired of the back and forth going no where, and thats ok too. Those who just are not engaging for sincere reasons...but still getting involved here, you just are showing this topic bothers you in some way that you want to change its direction. But, just to put the idea out there, again, the Zen forum is open for anyone wanting to start a new discussion heading in a different direction...stating the obvious because it seems it needs to be stated.
"So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol".
Do you mean really understand the nature of dependent arising? What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?
Lex and I are the only ones trying to explain it in our posts. You have more of an on again off again approach to it. So I believe you do not support it in its entirely because you have not stated support of its entirety, only the parts you like and in the manner you feel they are of use to you.
"What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?"
Discussing true nature (as taught after teaching dependent arising to Buddhist students). But dependent arising is important to preceed that, otherwise delusions (on creator and essence) will remain intact.
And truly, everything is beyond dependent arising : ) I like exploring the Bodhisattvas. And Sutras. Buddhism is an enormously vast teaching. Dependent arising does not undermine other aspects of Buddhism, nor is it created to be an end-all, rather it supports other components in the teachings as the basic and direct understanding of emptiness and phenomena (objects).
Somethings don't need explaining to get one to understand. Cause and effect is demonstrated to us in the mundane and can be avoided to its extremes with creative visualization.
Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol . I well understand this by experiencing life in a a relatively different way and besides the fact I am older than you.. I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being in their field of awareness.. The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that doesn't believe in first cause. First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.
ninth octave wrote:
Tiff wrote:
The Zen forum...a new thread has not been created in a while. To explore other aspects of Buddhism, and there are many. I know Lex created this thread to discuss dependent arising. So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol. Those that do not support or are not sure, I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with us about it in a discussion. That's makes it worthwhile for both involved.
Those who just don't agree but don't care to discuss it, why not start your own threads about what you believe Zen is? Zen being a school of Mahayana Buddhism, BTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana (see schools)
And if this topic comes to an end anytime soon, I don't think Lex minds, I know I don't, and he and I can just go back to emailing each other about dependent arising, and more importantly, beyond that basic understanding. So it matters not, really. Not to sound ungrateful. I really appreciate those who sincerely engaged here. But if after all this discussion you still don't see the point of Nagarjuna, ok, we will both get tired of the back and forth going no where, and thats ok too. Those who just are not engaging for sincere reasons...but still getting involved here, you just are showing this topic bothers you in some way that you want to change its direction. But, just to put the idea out there, again, the Zen forum is open for anyone wanting to start a new discussion heading in a different direction...stating the obvious because it seems it needs to be stated.
"So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol".
Do you mean really understand the nature of dependent arising? What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?
Lex and I are the only ones trying to explain it in our posts. You have more of an on again off again approach to it. So I believe you do not support it in its entirely because you have not stated support of its entirety, only the parts you like and in the manner you feel they are of use to you.
"What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?"
Discussing true nature (as taught after teaching dependent arising to Buddhist students). But dependent arising is important to preceed that, otherwise delusions (on creator and essence) will remain intact.
And truly, everything is beyond dependent arising : ) I like exploring the Bodhisattvas. And Sutras. Buddhism is an enormously vast teaching. Dependent arising does not undermine other aspects of Buddhism, nor is it created to be an end-all, rather it supports other components in the teachings as the basic and direct understanding of emptiness and phenomena (objects).
Somethings don't need explaining to get one to understand. Cause and effect is demonstrated to us in the mundane and can be avoided to its extremes with creative visualization.
Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol . I well understand this by experiencing life in a a relatively different way and besides the fact I am older than you.. I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being in their field of awareness.. The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that doesn't believe in first cause. First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.