- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
NOT trying to pick on you here! You seem to have become a de facto representative of Buddhist doctrine on this board. Here’s what I notice: every time that we disagree, if I rearrange my words to suit a Bagua-style vocabulary then we start to agree! But do you really want to agree that way? It seems that we then have to use words you like… why?
Before, I said that you did not understand what Michael was saying. You said you did, but my question needed to be ‘reworded’. Here are 3 more questions for you, and I am trying to use your language from the start this time so you do not ask for a rewording again. You could also consider these to be rewordings of my original question. In other words they are all the same question.
1. You say that to become enlightened is to give up the self. You also say that both Buddha and Lao-tzu were so enlightened. Therefore neither has any longer any ‘self’. What then is the difference between them?
2. You say that the ego is ‘false’, but you also say that you do not wish to eradicate it, merely to give it its place beneath what is more true. But these statements are incompatible! If the ego is false it is not even slightly true. So you can give it no place at all, not merely a lesser place. This is the standard Buddhist doctrine. So how can you say that you accord it a lesser place?
3. You say that you practice Nei dan and qigong because not looking after the body is unhealthy. But since the body gives rise to a false consciousness, why look after it?
Best NN :]
Hello NN:
My feedback to you.
1. You say that to become enlightened is to give up the self. You also say that both Buddha and Lao-tzu were so enlightened. Therefore neither has any longer any ‘self’. What then is the difference between them?
*********************************
I never said this, You say it.
One will realize the roloe of Ego and its benefits and limitaitons, when this is realized the ego is never veiwed and experienced the same. The answer is “MU”, or if you prefer clap your hands loudly and experience the sound.2. You say that the ego is ‘false’, but you also say that you do not wish to eradicate it, merely to give it its place beneath what is more true. But these statements are incompatible! If the ego is false it is not even slightly true. So you can give it no place at all, not merely a lesser place. This is the standard Buddhist doctrine. So how can you say that you accord it a lesser place?
********************************
Ego as most know it, what it has become, false attachement to it as its true nature is the problem, the ego has a role, one needs to understand it. It is not false, its gone extreme.3. You say that you practice Nei dan and qigong because not looking after the body is unhealthy. But since the body gives rise to a false consciousness, why look after it?
*****************************
Did Damo think the body was not important? He created yi jin jing and xi sui jing.I speak from my personal experience of primarly Chan, others know much more about the teachings of buddhism.
bagua
Best NN :]
* 3 questions for Bagua: (10) Nnonnth (321) – –
Hi NN,
Bagua does not take such a Buddhist role on the traditional views, he prefers to keep things simple, I do. So my answer my shed a different light.
>You say that to become enlightened is to give up the self. You also say that both Buddha and Lao-tzu were so enlightened. Therefore neither has any longer any ‘self’. What then is the difference between them?>You say that the ego is ‘false’, but you also say that you do not wish to eradicate it, merely to give it its place beneath what is more true. But these statements are incompatible! If the ego is false it is not even slightly true. So you can give it no place at all, not merely a lesser place. This is the standard Buddhist doctrine. So how can you say that you accord it a lesser place?<<
*Immortal Ziyang said, "Some ask if the basic spirit and the thinking spirit are one or two. Mind, essence, and spirit are one … When this basic spirit is later moved by emotional consciousness, the basic spirit sinks into emotional consciousness and turns into the thinking spirit."
Fajin
>>They were themselves<<
How, if they had given up their self?
Understand, I know what you mean!
I am only trying to point out how ludicrous this whole idea of 'giving up self' is *as a linguistic paradigm*. You never, ever, ever give up self. Ever!
NN
Giving up their egos for their true selves. How can it get more simple. You seem to be baffled by this?
– becoming enlightened does NOT mean giving up the self.
– there is nothing wrong with ego unless it is misused.
– the body is important.
This is what Michael is saying.
So you agree with Michael!
Yay!
NN
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.