Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums

Goodie

Administrators
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goodie

  1. Tashi Delek, on www.kunkyab.com it is possible to download recitation of Sanghata Sutra by Lama Zopa Rinpoche. It's almost two hours long, but here's a little advertisment: Lama Zopa Rinpoche after about an hour of recitation says, that everyone who listens to this Sutra will get Enlightened. Boris
  2. Tashi Delek, I can't explain about these words, so I'll just copy/paste a part of the meaning from the online dictionary (http://www.nitartha.org). For whole meaning, it's best to search for yourself in this dictionary, because it's very long description. prajna (skt) = sherab (tibetan, write "shes rab" in nitartha search engine) jnana (skt) = yeshe (tibetan, write "ye shes" in nitartha search engine) sherab = shes rab - prajna, (-, absolute, sublime) wisdom, intelligence, (-, transcendent, analytical) knowledge, (-, appreciative) discrimination, discriminating awareness, appreciative understanding, knowledge * [sometimes contrasted to ye shes as intellectual knowledge vs [religious] wisdom, but sometimes = shes rab pha rol phyin and contrasted w shes yon giving a similar meaning w shes rab = wisdom]... yeshe = ye shes - jnana, (exalted, primordial) wisdom, (primal, transcending, original, unitary, authentic, pure, absolute, a priori, genuine, spiritual, ever-fresh, pristine) awareness, wakefulness, pristine cognition, mystic illumination, gnosis, understanding by peak experience, (intuitive, transcending, comprehensive, true) knowledge... Boris
  3. It seems to me that both can not be proved, however God theory can be disproved by logic, while karma theory can not be disproved by logic. Still because there's no proof that I know of to prove karma, one needs faith to believe in it.
  4. One of the methods I heard about is that if one stays in a state of deep concentration for long time, just for enjoyement, not to gain further realizations, this could result in rebirth in god's realms. Maybe this happens to advanced Hindu practitioners?
  5. Just a very short excerpt from the Sanghata Sutra: "Who wishes to see a Buddha, Sangh?ta is equivalent to a Buddha. Wherever Sangh?ta is, There the Buddha is, always." - ?rya Sangh?ta S?tra
  6. Hi, one way to offer the food before meal is to say the following prayer: Guru is Buddha, Guru is Dharma, Guru is Sangha also. Guru is the originator of all (goodness and happiness). To all Gurus, I make this offering. OM AH HUNG (3 times) There is also a small book written by Lama Zopa Rinpoche with more practices of offering food: The Yoga of Offering Food - Lama Zopa you can read it here, because it is out of print: http://www.lamayeshe.com/acatalog/yof_section.html (you can also borrow it in Dharmaling library) bye Boris
  7. these are not tibetan schools of buddhism, and they existed and were debated about already when buddhism didn't even reach Tibet yet. see this link, it is explanation of emptiness according to those four schools of thought http://www.kagyu.org/buddhism/cul/cul03.html there is also a free book, that deals with this topic: http://www.lamayeshe.com/acatalog/mow.html
  8. hi, where did you find that tibetan schools of buddhism sustain different view about emptiness? Because I think they hold the same view on emptiness: the view of Madhyamika Prasangika.
  9. If we do, then probably Root Lama can see that and teach us how to get rid of this attachment. And maybe in the worst case, this attachment to wrong idea about Shunyata probably wouldn't be present after we die and be reborn again :maybe:, so we can try to understand the correct meaning of Shunyata in next life.
  10. I think they really lived, because there actually exists a relic from Buddha Kasyapa! And yes, they lived on Earth, because it is predicted that all of these 1000 Buddhas are to become enlightened in Bodhgaya. Fortunate eon can be divided in 20 small eons. At the beginning of such eon the lifespan of a human is around 10 years, then it increases gradually until lifespan reaches 80.000 years and again keeps decreasing until lifespan is 10 years again. Then new small eon begins. This could explain why those Buddhas lived as long as 20.000 years - they lived in the period where lifespan of a human was so long. (you can find more info about eons in encyclopedia) So it could be that those three Buddhas lived in other small eons than this present one, but it could also be that they lived in this small eon but so long ago when the lifespan was so long.
  11. It means that in this eon 1000 Buddhas will come, and this is why this eon is called also fortunate eon. Four Buddhas already came, the first was Buddha Krakucchanda, the second was Buddha Kanakamuni, the third was Buddha Kashyapa and the fourth was Buddha Shakyamuni. Next Buddha will be Buddha Maitreya. I've found one short comment about fortunate (or good) eon from Patrul Rinpoche: "... before our eon arose, this cosmos of a billion universes was an immense ocean on whose surface appeared a thousand-petaled lotuses. The gods of the Brahma-world, wondering how this could be, through clairvoyance understood it to signify that during this eon one thousand Buddhas would appear. "This will be a good eon", they said, and "Good" became its name."
  12. There are several commentaries, but I don't know how many of them are translated. One commentary was written by Master Asanga (~350 A.D.) and one by Master Kamalashila (~750 A.D.). These two were written in Sanskrit. Another commentary (written in Tibetan) is "Sunlight for the Path to Freedom, a Commentary on the Diamond Cutter Sutra", written by Choney Lama Drakpa Shedrup (1675-1748). There exist translation in English, but only "more important" parts are translated. Link: http://www.world-view.org/media/text/cours...6/C6Reading.pdf This is written in Sutra, and in this Sutra Lord Buddha Shakyamuni also gives an answer which is: "Why is it so? Because, o Subhuti, such beings are purifying non-virtuous karma from the entire string of their previous lives, karma that would have taken them to the three lower realms. As they purify this karma, it causes them to suffer here in this life..." You can read additional explanation about this in the linked commentary. Note also, that the commentary says that it is possible (and not necessary) that suffering will arise after reading such a Sutra.
  13. Tashi Delek here is the link to the text Wheel of Sharp Weapons: http://www.bodhicitta.net/The%20Wheel%20of...p%20Weapons.htm
  14. I don't think there's much difference in faith.
  15. Yes, I think I'd like one too, especially after discussing on forum half day on Mahayana precepts day 8) Algorythm is understandable, I was just curious which exotic progamming language did you use.
  16. Yes, I don't think there is a self existant Buddha.
  17. Nice point and maybe you're right, but I think there's no difference (as far as falling in belief of self existence of that being is concerned) if you establish that someone is a Buddha by faith or if you establish that someone is a Buddha by that algorithm. And we probably agree, that to establish that someone is a Buddha by faith doesn't necessarily mean that you think of him as self existant, right?
  18. How does computer do this? What sensors/perceptors does it use to actually perform the operation "read"? Because it must be different to read a being's mind from reading bytes from hard disk. Also, what would be the output of 'write("testing-mind")'. Just a side non-buddhist question: what kind of programming language is it that you used? is it pseudo code or actual programming language? It has no matter in whole discussion, I'm just curious, because I don't remember to have seen it before.
  19. Maybe our way of logic really isn't the way out. I don't know. :? But for me personally, I have the feeling that it helps. Now if it really helps me or not, this I don't know. I can get some little devotion easier if I think that someone is a Buddha than if I don't. Why then many people follow wrong teachers, if this is so evident?
  20. Tashi Delek, I never refered to ultimate truth. Is the knowledge if one person is a Buddha ultimate truth? I think that ultimate truth refers only to emptiness. I think that in this degenerate age, when there are a lots of self proclaimed false teachers, this would be of some use, no?
  21. In the case of figuring out who is a Buddha and who isn't then it would mean that you need to know all the realizations of two beings in order to make the relation. And this an ordinary being can't do. So sorting beings by their realizations is (unfortunately) much more complicated than sorting pebbles. No, because I think that you didn't give me satisfying arguments yet (however, it's true that it's a bit hard to give me satisfying arguments ). Ok, I see that you like math and I read that you know programming, so I ask you to do this: Write here an algorithm which tells for any being if he has achieved a state of Buddhahood or not. I'm asking you this because algorithm would be a good proof, since it uses only logic, no faith, no believes. - If you can write such a program, then I happily buy you a pizza . - If you can't write such a program, then that means you can't check using (only) your logic to tell who is a Buddha and who is not.
  22. Exactly, you accept it on faith. Not so fast . If you just pick someone to be a Buddha, that's no proof, that's only a choice made by faith. How do you know for example that he was not 'only' 10th level Bodhisattva?
  23. Tashi Delek Wangmo You need to have faith in that definition, because I think it's quite difficult for ordinary being to prove that Buddha has a mind which has no limit. So he accepts this because of faith. But if you have such a proof, then please write it, I would be very thankful And whether such a proof exists or not, it is even harder (if not impossible) for ordinary being to prove that certain person is a Buddha or not. And for this proof I would be even more thankful and I'd buy you a pizza in the next pizza retreat I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
  24. It's easy to prove that in this example. But if you do the analogy and say that a professor is like a Buddha and students are like monks and nuns it becomes more difficult. However, it's very hard to prove that professors are correct. Even if you ask professor if student is right, you still need to believe and have faith that professor's answer is right. Number of people that agree about one thing is irrelevant. You know a lot of people belive in God, and according to our point of view this is completely wrong. I still think that you need to have faith in the teachings of Lord Buddha because there is (unforunatelly ) simply no way for some of the teachings to be 100% proved. Personally I like the approach that I think someone already mentioned: that you gain faith in Lord Buddha's teachings because His other teachings are correct (maybe the ones you can prove using axioms that you can't prove) and that His teachings don't contradict each other.
×
×
  • Create New...