"What the Buddha Taught" - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**lorryuncori** · 07-01-2011, 02:42 AM

Curious,

It is enough to not attach to a self; then we will be free about attachments to "anything". Non self includes everything and not otherwise.

That's interesting that you say that, Kaarine. I know a Soto teacher who says something very similar, so it is possible that is just the way Soto Zen frames it. I do feel it is possible to become attached to the idea of no-self. It's a duality thing. I could be wrong, though.

**Golotop** · 07-01-2011, 02:45 AM

What is then, E-Stasi?

**LomodiorCon** · 07-01-2011, 02:46 AM

Keith, what do you mean by this?

Hi Kaarine - they were posters at the E-sangha forum (which no longer exists)

Personally I only ever posted there about 5 times when I used to be a Vajrayana practitioner...because I found the atmosphere too stifling !

What is then, E-Stasi? A nickname for E-sangha.

**hellencomstar** · 07-01-2011, 02:47 AM

Keith, what do you mean by this?

whoops...I got some explaining to do. This was in no way a reference to e-sangha. Both individuals have been active at Zen Forum International from time to time, where I have been active for a few years. They are both scholarly types who would be helpful in answering srivijava's question. But, I guess that was a bit of faux pas. Sorry about that.
Keith

**Elitiachirl** · 07-01-2011, 02:47 AM

I do feel it is possible to become attached to the idea of no-self. It's a duality thing. I could be wrong, though.

Precisely the historical Buddha teachings are about skillful means [desing on purpose] to prevent such outcome.

**Evoryboypoto** · 07-01-2011, 02:48 AM

whoops...I got some explaining to do. This was in no way a reference to e-sangha. Both individuals have been active at Zen Forum International from time to time, where I have been active for a few years. They are both scholarly types who would be helpful in answering srivijava's question. But, I guess that was a bit of faux pas. Sorry about that.
Keith

Thanks Keith!

they were posters at the E-sangha forum (which no longer exists)

Thanks Aloka, I thought that one of them was one of the Chinese ancestors of the Cha'an Tradition

**Galinastva** · 07-01-2011, 02:50 AM

And just to be clear, I offer my comments in the spirit of the OP:

I came across this article and have placed it in our debating forum because I wondered if members would like to share their opinions about it in a spirit of friendship and support, according to their own personal study and practice. If my comments cause some kind problem for anyone, please feel free to ignore them.

**Marinausa** · 07-01-2011, 02:50 AM

Sorry about that.
Keith No problem Keith. Lets leave the subject of other forums behind now and move on !

**Retapleapse** · 07-01-2011, 02:55 AM

What is then, E-Stasi?

It is a comparison of the majority of the staff of the now-thankfully-defunct "E-Sangha" to the equally-now-thankfully-defunct communist East German Secret State Police.

**serius_06** · 07-01-2011, 03:04 AM

It is a comparison of the majority of the staff of the now-thankfully-defunct "E-Sangha" to the equally-now-thankfully-defunct communist East German Secret State Police.

Oh sure!

**DeedPatmeda** · 07-01-2011, 03:05 AM

Ok lets move on now, in spite of the lack of 'scholars' on our website..... lol only joking ! (Dave, where are you ?)

**ExelePlavisseu** · 07-01-2011, 03:05 AM

If my comments cause some kind problem for anyone, please feel free to ignore them.

Nice ruse.

**bubborn** · 07-01-2011, 03:12 AM

**vernotixas** · 07-01-2011, 04:02 AM

Ok lets move on now, in spite of the lack of 'scholars' on our website..... lol only joking ! (Dave, where are you ?)

I meant Mahayana scholarly types Aloka.

**duceswild** · 07-01-2011, 05:12 AM

I meant Mahayana scholarly types Aloka.

Presumably we are excluding those who are "scholarly" enough, and knowledgable enough about "mahayana" teachings to see and cut through the bunkum.

Sri was pointing out direct contradictions in the author's claims with respect to the Buddha's teachings. Not really necessary to call in the E-Stasi hordes to see the confused contradictions for oneself:

The first quote is clear he didn't but the following indicates he did??

**Muramoursuard** · 07-01-2011, 05:41 AM

I don't think there's much point in continuing with this topic, I made a mistake in introducing it in the first place.

Thanks for the contributions. One of the Global Mods can reopen it if they think there's any benefit in doing so.

Goodnight.

07-01-2011, 02:42 AM	#21
lorryuncori Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 395 Senior Member	Curious, It is enough to not attach to a self; then we will be free about attachments to "anything". Non self includes everything and not otherwise. That's interesting that you say that, Kaarine. I know a Soto teacher who says something very similar, so it is possible that is just the way Soto Zen frames it. I do feel it is possible to become attached to the idea of no-self. It's a duality thing. I could be wrong, though. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:45 AM	#22
Golotop Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 366 Senior Member	What is then, E-Stasi? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:46 AM	#23
LomodiorCon Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 480 Senior Member	Keith, what do you mean by this? Hi Kaarine - they were posters at the E-sangha forum (which no longer exists) Personally I only ever posted there about 5 times when I used to be a Vajrayana practitioner...because I found the atmosphere too stifling ! What is then, E-Stasi? A nickname for E-sangha. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:47 AM	#24
hellencomstar Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 386 Senior Member	Keith, what do you mean by this? whoops...I got some explaining to do. This was in no way a reference to e-sangha. Both individuals have been active at Zen Forum International from time to time, where I have been active for a few years. They are both scholarly types who would be helpful in answering srivijava's question. But, I guess that was a bit of faux pas. Sorry about that. Keith Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:47 AM	#25
Elitiachirl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 662 Senior Member	I do feel it is possible to become attached to the idea of no-self. It's a duality thing. I could be wrong, though. Precisely the historical Buddha teachings are about skillful means [desing on purpose] to prevent such outcome. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:48 AM	#26
Evoryboypoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 377 Senior Member	whoops...I got some explaining to do. This was in no way a reference to e-sangha. Both individuals have been active at Zen Forum International from time to time, where I have been active for a few years. They are both scholarly types who would be helpful in answering srivijava's question. But, I guess that was a bit of faux pas. Sorry about that. Keith Thanks Keith! they were posters at the E-sangha forum (which no longer exists) Thanks Aloka, I thought that one of them was one of the Chinese ancestors of the Cha'an Tradition Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:50 AM	#27
Galinastva Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 512 Senior Member	And just to be clear, I offer my comments in the spirit of the OP: I came across this article and have placed it in our debating forum because I wondered if members would like to share their opinions about it in a spirit of friendship and support, according to their own personal study and practice. If my comments cause some kind problem for anyone, please feel free to ignore them. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:50 AM	#28
Marinausa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	Sorry about that. Keith No problem Keith. Lets leave the subject of other forums behind now and move on ! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 02:55 AM	#29
Retapleapse Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 480 Senior Member	What is then, E-Stasi? It is a comparison of the majority of the staff of the now-thankfully-defunct "E-Sangha" to the equally-now-thankfully-defunct communist East German Secret State Police. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 03:04 AM	#30
serius_06 Join Date Oct 2005 Age 50 Posts 506 Senior Member	It is a comparison of the majority of the staff of the now-thankfully-defunct "E-Sangha" to the equally-now-thankfully-defunct communist East German Secret State Police. Oh sure! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 03:05 AM	#31
DeedPatmeda Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	Ok lets move on now, in spite of the lack of 'scholars' on our website..... lol only joking ! (Dave, where are you ?) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 03:05 AM	#32
ExelePlavisseu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 528 Senior Member	If my comments cause some kind problem for anyone, please feel free to ignore them. Nice ruse. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 03:12 AM	#33
bubborn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 449 Senior Member	Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 04:02 AM	#34
vernotixas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 514 Senior Member	Ok lets move on now, in spite of the lack of 'scholars' on our website..... lol only joking ! (Dave, where are you ?) I meant Mahayana scholarly types Aloka. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2011, 05:12 AM	#35
duceswild Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 464 Senior Member	I meant Mahayana scholarly types Aloka. Presumably we are excluding those who are "scholarly" enough, and knowledgable enough about "mahayana" teachings to see and cut through the bunkum. Sri was pointing out direct contradictions in the author's claims with respect to the Buddha's teachings. Not really necessary to call in the E-Stasi hordes to see the confused contradictions for oneself: The first quote is clear he didn't but the following indicates he did?? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

07-01-2011, 05:41 AM	#36
Muramoursuard Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 588 Senior Member	I don't think there's much point in continuing with this topic, I made a mistake in introducing it in the first place. Thanks for the contributions. One of the Global Mods can reopen it if they think there's any benefit in doing so. Goodnight. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote