Re: [TBG] turning the wheel
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Steven Levey <sallev1@...> wrote:
> My friend
> Â Â Again, your perspective is valued, engrossing and interesting. And if there are those in the group who find fault with my attempt to explain that which is most illusive for language,
We had these exact type of discussions here 10 years ago.
As you follow this group better then myself, (I am just doing it for longest, but not that consistent). You know that there are very few people that actually post something, or ever did.
I am one of the people that sometimes posts, not often enough, I feel.
So, again, this group in it's founding is very much Guru Rinpoche, the Padmasambhava / Vajrayana / possibly or impossibly Dzogchen / Nyingma centred. With a very good level of inclusiveness from all other traditions and ways of thought that anyone coming in would wish to express.
Within Nyingma there is a whole range of literature that a follower gets told about and introduced through very basic preliminary teachings on four contemplations. In these teachings when time allows there is often a very clear description of realms / beings.
Now then if you are getting a drift here, dorjeshonnu is talking in a very interestingly worded English, but I can assure you, it is somewhat of a known element that he is expressing, not his "perspective".
Within Nyingma tradition of vajrayana literature there is nearly complete description of how to put it, nearly everything...
It is explained in a very direct and not illusive for language way.
>>>I can only hope that they will raise questions.--------------------------------------
You are participating here for very long time, you should actually read Sogyal Rinpoche Tibetan Book Of Living and Dying to see what the founder of this group was very exited about in 1998.
It is not illusive for words to express at all. It's just so that if you do not take the right book off the shelf with an open mind you will never find out what I am talking about. And will continue to conjecture based on something that you picked up for non-buddhist sources.
So far I have seen totaly non mainstream understanding from you in all of the following:
Deva, Realms of existence, karma, law, dharmapada
Try Rangjung Yeshe online wiki... You owe it to yourself.
On God realm, good article because it mentions a real great book:
Words Of My Perfect Teacher.
Here is a bit on karma:
Here is a taste on:
- 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.