[Zmniubqr]

12 years old, and his 16 years of monastic study that resulted in the equivalent of a ph.d. in the study of the sutras - in order to have arrived at these rather dismissive conclusions?

Monks have had 20 years of monastic study and then disrobed so they could marry. There are millions of PHDs but more defilements than qualifications. Most who causes the GFC had PHDs.

That said if one googles Ponlop Rinpoche and reincarnation, one will find more than enough "religion".

As I said, the newspaper article is advertising. The fish swim to the dharma centre for the brainwashing.

http://dpr.info/media/www.DPR.info%20-%20Taking%20Refuge%20as%20a%20Pr otection%20Against%20Suffering.pdf

[Caregrasy]

The fish swim to the dharma centre for the brainwashing.

Think it was Lenin that said "women are like herrings"...of course l distance myself from this statement.

[rNr5Di3S]

Yet you claim a certain lama to be more enlightened than the suttas

I claimed no such thing.

The guru is teaching a doctrine of non-belief, which you believe, which makes it a belief.

Don't get me going about "enlightened", and probably best not to characterize what I believe since you only have the stories in your head to go on. You don't don't this lama or me well enough to be making such grandiose statements about either of us.

[SergZHy67]

Hi andyrobyn,

pink_trike said: The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

andyrobyn said: Hi Pink_trike .... would you agree that this can been extended to any " ism " really? sounds less terse - to use Frank's terminology.

Yes, an understanding of the Dharma dissolves any mental fiction, and any conceptual tool used to make a point.

It was and is meant to be terse. Terseness has its place.

pink_trike said: I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

andyrobyn said: Is it not in the intention of the person who is using the title?

Siddhārtha Gautama, aka "The Buddha" is a mythological and anthropomorphic conceptual tool that was carefully architected to reflect a classical shamanic-type journey/experience into the depths of the mind and the breadth of the world in a way that was intended to make this ancient journey/experience easily understandable and accessible to every human being.

This journey that "he" experienced and "his" dedication to sharing it is an anthropomorphic/ mythological story that was common all over the globe for thousands of years in various forms prior to the alleged life and times of "The Buddha". The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration.

I won't assume your intention for using the term - but I can't think of any intention that wouldn't be radically at odds with the realizations that the Dharma, as described in Buddhist mythology, is intended to provoke in us. When we refer to Buddhist mythology's central conceptual tool as "The Lord Buddha" and believe this fiction literally, we create the very clouds of delusion and obfuscation that an understanding and practice of the Dharma is intended to dissolve away.

The mythological story of Sid's excellent adventure falls into the same category as Alice's journey into Wonderland and Dorothy's journey into Oz. We understand them as conceptual tools designed to take us on a journey into the mind. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" is no different, even though the teachings are more thorough. Dorothy declined to the the Queen of the little people. No one bows to Alice or Dorothy and refers to them as "The Lord"...that would be just silly, wouldn't it? Worse than silly, it would be the very madness that the Dharma is the antidote for.

[YonkFiorc]

from post #29

Of course Andy, I feel Pink has a good point...

from post #28

What is a Buddha? Someone who has awaken... About what she/he has awaken... about her/his suffering, the origin of suffering and has realized the cessation of suffering through the Right View of the Eightfold Noble Path... About this, there is any kind of mystery.

[KraskiNetu]

The core of the teachings by this "human being" that is central to Buddhist mythology support the idea that referring to this conceptual tool as "Lord Buddha" is the antithesis of the clarity that "he" experienced in "his" journey into the depths of the mind and that "he" dedicated "his" life to passing on. Understanding "The Buddha" as a real person and elevating "him" to the status of "Lord" turns "him" into precisely what his teachings were designed to dissolve - a deluding obscuration.

Actually, offline I've heard more than one Tibetan Buddhist teacher use the term 'Lord Buddha' to refer to the Buddha.

[Jasonstawnosaa]

Yes, but even so nearly all experienced teachers are likely referring to a multilayered conceptual tool absent a literal belief in a flesh and blood human that lived sometime between 2,300 and 3,500 years ago who sat under a literal fig tree and grappled with literal armies of Mara.

Nearly all students of Tibetan Buddhism are commonly engaged with it at a very surface layer. All premodern mythology is multilayered - Tibetan Buddhist mythology is richly and complexly multilayered and multi-disciplined (the artificial borders between areas of knowledge that the West has carved aren't present in ancient perceptions of reality). Experienced Tibetan teachers know that in addition to this conceptual tool ("The Buddha") being the anthropomorphic face that serves as the focal point and road map of the journey/experience, it is also a very complex multilayered multifunctional symbol that directs those who are trained to far-reaching information and awareness regarding the processes and mechanics of the material/phenomenal worlds as well.

It's important to remember that in Tibetan Buddhist mythology (and all of Buddhist mythology) as with nearly all ancient mythologies/cosmologies, the distinction between "inner" and "outer" worlds, between the material world and the phenomenal world, is fluid and artificial, and both are represented by the same set of conceptual tools. The conceptual tool known as "The Buddha" reflects the axis of the journey (the being who is journeying/experiencing), the patterns of the journey/experience itself, and the corresponding patterns of the journey/experience as they appear and function in every aspect of the phenomenal and material worlds. As above, so below. As inner, so outer.

[ticskebasse]

Replying to Pink_trike:
from post #28

What is a Buddha? Someone who has awaken... About what she/he has awaken... about her/his suffering, the origin of suffering and has realized the cessation of suffering through the Right View of the Eightfold Noble Path... About this, there is any kind of mystery.

Yes, it's this simple and this profound. The multilayered conceptual map known as "Buddha" mirrors the nature and patterns of reality. Therefore, the nature and patterns of reality (including us) are the multilayered conceptual map known as "Buddha". We have a hard time grasping this in Western culture.

When we internalize and experience this map, dissolving our blinders, we recognize our integral Buddha nature...we see that we are Buddha.

[SasV7ReJ]

When we internalize and experience this map, dissolving our blinders, we recognize our integral Buddha nature...we see that we are Buddha.

This is similar to the concept of Buddha Nature in Zen tradtition hold from Bodhidharma to Dogen Zengi...

[BrodiKennedy]

No need to be a whore

Please be mindful with your speech, Frank. (Admin)

speaking of words...

In this usage "whore" is grammatically appropriate and culturally acceptable.

The word is no longer regarded solely as a noun with the limited meaning of one who engages in sexual intercourse for money.

In addition to the noun definition, Princeton University's wordnet defines it as a verb that means compromise oneself for money or other gains.

Merriam Webster defines it, in addition to being a noun, as a venal or unscrupulous person and to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire.

Noun: prostitute. Verb: immoral and corrupt.

[Erossycuc]

Lord Buddha conceptualises the ideal, the example to be followed, maybe?

Except that "lord" represents "authority" and "Lord Buddha" is an externalization of our innate authority...our innate authority and birthright is projected onto a paternalistic external father figure, creating the same infantilization and perceptual chasm that exists in Christianity...causing people to chase and grasp at "The Buddha" (external authority) instead of doing the work.

[Adfcvkdg]

causing people to chase and grasp at "The Buddha" instead of doing the work.

We call this to have suport in the teachings... not in the person.

[exchpaypaleg]

We can play with word symbols and will never pin it down completely

True...as Humpty Dumpty and Alice told us:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"