Re: [TBG] help
- Steven Levey <sallev1@...> wrote:
>a lot of this seems confused.
> This is because those whose powers on subtle planes are in fact
> present, are fully aware of the karmic error of attempting to do
> that, which is metaphysically foolish and more importantly,
> lawfully unethical.
devas are not particularly karmically prudent for instance.
to answer the broader context of the topic -
importance and legitimacy of the worldly accomplishments depends entirely upon whether the practitioner works toward an abiding or non-abiding cessation. there is no other basis upon which to determine the varying 'pernicious irrelevance' vs 'integral necessity' of such intentions. in their best sense they are valuable adornments of the clear light (if you like) and in their worst sense a terribly inefficient waste of accumulated positive causes. so much depends upon view.
so a practitioner should really know which view they can honestly use.
- Well saidSent from Windows Mail
"rajkiran_ingle" <rajkiran_ingle@...> wrote:
>it seems this man had some personal ideas, and some categories with which he judged religion in general. buddhism best suited his social interests, out of a handful of broadly conceived religious systems, and only after he used the machete of his personal ideas to cut the buddha dharma into pieces most convenient to him.
> he directed the path of buddhism by comparing the knowledge of all
one can find comparisons of view which are more legitimate, thorough, and substantive, especially in the lineages from padmasambhava. perhaps they should not be reproduced here in full, from the chalpas to the nine yanas, but some person may know of a publicly available text that you could consult. or perhaps some details can appear here if some interest is displayed.
> and you question about meditation which is just like a question thatif one is not trying to wake up, why use this word budh in any way? social reform can be beneficial, but one cannot confuse dana with prajna and so on. so a question about method is precisely this: what was this person doing to wake up.
> does your parents do the same thing as you are doing. that, they
> left this on people and people study buddhism and practise
gautama taught that right view is particularly important. regardless of whether you or your parents are performing actions to wake up, there will be a view involved with those actions, which informs the purpose, causes and effects, of that activity. if there is no activity related to wakefulness, there is no soteriology in praxis, and what you have is no longer a religion but merely a social movement.