Ethics

one need look no further than the Ch'an tradition to find clear examples of highly regarded Buddhists running about engaging in all sorts of actions which are proscribed for Buddhists.... so what could be going on?

as each being is at a different place on their journey to the Other Shore there seems to be tools provided for beings in their myriad variety within the Buddhadharma.

all i really know is that you better leggo my eggo or i'll stab your hand with a fork.

metta,

~v
 
Lunatik said:
It is quite impossible because I have never been with a teacher... it is further impossible because the experience was not of mind, it occurred exactly because mind had been subdued. Certainly, it is mind which describes it today, and as such it is impossible to do it justice - mind doesn't even comprehend it fully, words cannot say what has happened because the designers of these words have not experienced it. It is quite frustrating, in many ways, because it is something so simple to know but impossible to say.
Click to expand...
That is impressive.
 
Vajradhara said:
as each being is at a different place on their journey to the Other Shore there seems to be tools provided for beings in their myriad variety within the Buddhadharma.

all i really know is that you better leggo my eggo or i'll stab your hand with a fork.
Click to expand...
That could be one of Buddhism's explanations for the existence of ethics.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Dream said:
That is impressive.
Click to expand...

What is impressive about it? I have merely managed to remove all lies from my consciousness, this is not an achievement, it would be an achievement if I had managed to never put lies in perhaps...
 
Lunitik said:
What is impressive about it? I have merely managed to remove all lies from my consciousness, this is not an achievement, it would be an achievement if I had managed to never put lies in perhaps...
Click to expand...
Do you consider your word as proof? Am I allowed to doubt you?
 
Vajradhara said:
one need look no further than the Ch'an tradition to find clear examples of highly regarded Buddhists running about engaging in all sorts of actions which are proscribed for Buddhists....

~v
Click to expand...

Pants or drugs?
 
Snoopy said:
Pants or drugs?
Click to expand...

both..

there are stories of Ch'an masters simply walking around getting drunk all day and others where they leave their robes or garments behind whilst they tool about.... there are even stories regarding those beings taking the life of other sentient beings.

the long and the short of it, in my estimation, is that within the rubric of Buddhadharma there are appropriate tools for each being dependent upon their capacity, potential and current situation along the Way. the Buddha makes this point explicitly several times throughout the Suttas when he uses the expression "84,000 Dharma Doors".

84,000 is a symbolic number within the historical millieu during which the Buddha taught and was used throughout the region. it is used to denote a number beyond counting, a linguistic place holder if you will, which allows for each being to use the parts of the Dharma which are apropos for them on their journey to the Other Shore.

some beings, for instance, no longer have any particular need for ethical considerations whereas a larger bulk of beings do and thus the teachings are there.

within the particular context of my Yana the idea is one of progressive teachings. we start with the foundations, ethical practice and concerns, meditation and so forth and move further into the Dharma as we grow and develop (even though such terms are fraught with unintended meaning) along the Way.

thus the teachings that a being needs, generally, when they start the practice are different than when a being has made some progress along the Way.

metta,

~v
 
OK. I know of such stuff of course but wondered why you single out Chan. Surely none has been worse than Chogyam Trungpa? (and dharma heir)
 
Snoopy said:
OK. I know of such stuff of course but wondered why you single out Chan. Surely none has been worse than Chogyam Trungpa? (and dharma heir)
Click to expand...

i typically cite Ch'an and Zen for such things simply due to the fact that in my own personal library i have more Ch'an/Zen books that talk about these things than others.

indeed, many of the Vajrayana and tantric lineages have beings that seem to be quite happy to flout the conventions of the Sangha.

...and... i suppose that i usually think of a particular story of a respected abbot of a monestary that was invited to a party hosted by a local noble and was turned away because he showed up in his normal monestary attire. he went back to the monestary, changed into his formal robes and returned to be admitted to the party. he took his place at the table then took his clothes off, put them on the chair and announced that the noble and guests clearly wanted to invite only his clothes since he was turned away at the door, turned and walked out leaving is clothes behind.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
i typically cite Ch'an and Zen for such things simply due to the fact that in my own personal library i have more Ch'an/Zen books that talk about these things than others.

indeed, many of the Vajrayana and tantric lineages have beings that seem to be quite happy to flout the conventions of the Sangha.

...and... i suppose that i usually think of a particular story of a respected abbot of a monestary that was invited to a party hosted by a local noble and was turned away because he showed up in his normal monestary attire. he went back to the monestary, changed into his formal robes and returned to be admitted to the party. he took his place at the table then took his clothes off, put them on the chair and announced that the noble and guests clearly wanted to invite only his clothes since he was turned away at the door, turned and walked out leaving is clothes behind.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

LOL! Good for him! :D

pro·pri·e·ty/prəˈprīətē/Noun

1. The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
2. The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties"​
Tao Te Ching 38
(Those who) possessed in highest degree the attributes (of the
Tao) did not (seek) to show them, and therefore they possessed them
(in fullest measure). (Those who) possessed in a lower degree those
attributes (sought how) not to lose them, and therefore they did not
possess them (in fullest measure).

(Those who) possessed in the highest degree those attributes did
nothing (with a purpose), and had no need to do anything. (Those who)
possessed them in a lower degree were (always) doing, and had need to
be so doing.

(Those who) possessed the highest benevolence were (always seeking)
to carry it out, and had no need to be doing so. (Those who)
possessed the highest righteousness were (always seeking) to carry it
out, and had need to be so doing.

(Those who) possessed the highest (sense of) propriety were (always
seeking) to show it, and when men did not respond to it, they bared
the arm and marched up to them.

Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, its attributes appeared;
when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence
was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared.

Now propriety is the attenuated form of leal-heartedness and good
faith, and is also the commencement of disorder; swift apprehension is (only) a flower of the Tao, and is the beginning of stupidity.

Thus it is that the Great man abides by what is solid, and eschews
what is flimsy; dwells with the fruit and not with the flower. It is
thus that he puts away the one and makes choice of the other.​
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Do you consider your word as proof? Am I allowed to doubt you?
Click to expand...
Honestly this question also occurred to me. For me I consider his/her word to be proof enough, mainly because I have started to like Lunatik. So many, many times I didn't believe people; and its never gotten me anywhere. Seriously mine is a sad story. Believing people may be as important as telling the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top