New Age and its misinterpretation on Je Tsongkhapa

[spiritnoname]

You can't tell a person's character until they are tested. If Joey was put to it, he says it would be justified to kill a psychopath in such a situation, so it follows that he would kill anyone who threatened him in the same way. He wouldn't kill psychos who aren't a threat, so it's not that someone is psycho, it's that they threaten him. Killing someone because they threaten you, that doesn't sound so bad right? But we know it is bad, because what happens in this social world when one person is willing to kill another over a threat is that one person becomes a threat, and more people find justification to kill.

You can kill a psychopath with compassion I think, then maybe it won't turn out bad.  But Joey didn't talk about killing a psychopathic murderer with compassion, he talked about killing a psychopath with fear. I think the reason we do things is more important than what we do ultimately.

This is all just what I think.   

okay...so that was how you intepreted it. I was talking about killing a psychopath so that less people would die. out of compassion. You're finally at where I wanted you to be, although your impression of me is a bit off. Firstly, it's just an example, and secondly, I'd rather be killed than to kill the psychopath.

The first thing we're taught in buddhism is actually to mantain a pure view and only see the good, and only take that as an example for our practice. If you are able to do just that, you can even be better than me in terms of dharma because yuo have a very sharp mind.

 You're really good with nitpicking with words and I'm really bad with words. Maybe you can help me doublecheck my posts to see if they can me misintepreted by some individuals.

 I can't know the meaning of what you say except through your words unless I'm psychic, so I can't double check without possibly offending you and assuming your meaning. And if I think you don't understand something and take the position of correcting you, rather than debating or sharing, I would be teaching, and I'm not qualified to do that, especially not in the lineage of H. E. Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, as far as I know. 

 For me, I know words are important, each one has a particular meaning and without knowing them well it is very easy to be confuses and misunderstood when talking about delicate particular things. I think you mentioned something about learning English, so if it is your second language it's understandable that you haven't had as much time as me to learn it as me. I only speak English so I have a lot of time to practice it.

[Joey]

You can't tell a person's character until they are tested. If Joey was put to it, he says it would be justified to kill a psychopath in such a situation, so it follows that he would kill anyone who threatened him in the same way. He wouldn't kill psychos who aren't a threat, so it's not that someone is psycho, it's that they threaten him. Killing someone because they threaten you, that doesn't sound so bad right? But we know it is bad, because what happens in this social world when one person is willing to kill another over a threat is that one person becomes a threat, and more people find justification to kill.

You can kill a psychopath with compassion I think, then maybe it won't turn out bad.  But Joey didn't talk about killing a psychopathic murderer with compassion, he talked about killing a psychopath with fear. I think the reason we do things is more important than what we do ultimately.

This is all just what I think.   

okay...so that was how you intepreted it. I was talking about killing a psychopath so that less people would die. out of compassion. You're finally at where I wanted you to be, although your impression of me is a bit off. Firstly, it's just an example, and secondly, I'd rather be killed than to kill the psychopath.

The first thing we're taught in buddhism is actually to mantain a pure view and only see the good, and only take that as an example for our practice. If you are able to do just that, you can even be better than me in terms of dharma because yuo have a very sharp mind.

 You're really good with nitpicking with words and I'm really bad with words. Maybe you can help me doublecheck my posts to see if they can me misintepreted by some individuals.

 I can't know the meaning of what you say except through your words unless I'm psychic, so I can't double check without possibly offending you and assuming your meaning. And if I think you don't understand something and take the position of correcting you, rather than debating or sharing, I would be teaching, and I'm not qualified to do that, especially not in the lineage of H. E. Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, as far as I know. 

 For me, I know words are important, each one has a particular meaning and without knowing them well it is very easy to be confuses and misunderstood when talking about delicate particular things. I think you mentioned something about learning English, so if it is your second language it's understandable that you haven't had as much time as me to learn it as me. I only speak English so I have a lot of time to practice it.

oddly however, I find your conduct in the forum contradict your signature.

[spiritnoname]

You can't tell a person's character until they are tested. If Joey was put to it, he says it would be justified to kill a psychopath in such a situation, so it follows that he would kill anyone who threatened him in the same way. He wouldn't kill psychos who aren't a threat, so it's not that someone is psycho, it's that they threaten him. Killing someone because they threaten you, that doesn't sound so bad right? But we know it is bad, because what happens in this social world when one person is willing to kill another over a threat is that one person becomes a threat, and more people find justification to kill.

You can kill a psychopath with compassion I think, then maybe it won't turn out bad.  But Joey didn't talk about killing a psychopathic murderer with compassion, he talked about killing a psychopath with fear. I think the reason we do things is more important than what we do ultimately.

This is all just what I think.   

okay...so that was how you intepreted it. I was talking about killing a psychopath so that less people would die. out of compassion. You're finally at where I wanted you to be, although your impression of me is a bit off. Firstly, it's just an example, and secondly, I'd rather be killed than to kill the psychopath.

The first thing we're taught in buddhism is actually to mantain a pure view and only see the good, and only take that as an example for our practice. If you are able to do just that, you can even be better than me in terms of dharma because yuo have a very sharp mind.

 You're really good with nitpicking with words and I'm really bad with words. Maybe you can help me doublecheck my posts to see if they can me misintepreted by some individuals.

 I can't know the meaning of what you say except through your words unless I'm psychic, so I can't double check without possibly offending you and assuming your meaning. And if I think you don't understand something and take the position of correcting you, rather than debating or sharing, I would be teaching, and I'm not qualified to do that, especially not in the lineage of H. E. Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, as far as I know. 

 For me, I know words are important, each one has a particular meaning and without knowing them well it is very easy to be confuses and misunderstood when talking about delicate particular things. I think you mentioned something about learning English, so if it is your second language it's understandable that you haven't had as much time as me to learn it as me. I only speak English so I have a lot of time to practice it.

oddly however, I find your conduct in the forum contradict your signature.

How so?

[Joey]

first off, you're trying to get compliments by posting things like that. And yet you tell people not to compliment you.

secondly, we do criticize you when you're wrong, but you plug your ears to it. another contradiction.

thirdly, nobody's rewarding you, but you keep demanding respect in subtle ways with your pretentious humbleness and you're never going to fix your problems because you refuse to listen. yet another contradiction.

If you come in here to learn dharma, it's all good but if you happen to be in here just to start and win debates based on twisted logic and words, I'm afraid not many people here will engage in that with you.

[Plinio Tsai]

Hey sampa, you said:

"There is no good or bad,thinking make it so.Thinking is the Ego mind and it must be subdued by skillful ways of religeous practice,including taking precepts.For one to benefit from buddhism,we must have faith in Lord Buddha's teaching on Annatta.Ego is the single biggest obstacle to seeing prajna."

I have a question here: Is the problem really the ego or the self-chereshing mind and the self-grasping mind?  The way you are putting seems that you are going agains the idea of an ego, but there is ego in buddhism, inside the Conventional Truth, right?  And correct me if I'm wrong on this: "Ego is emptiness, Emptiness is Ego, there is no Ego without emptiness, there is no emptiness without Ego", because Ego is, at least how common people perceive it, inside of the aggregate of form, due to the fact that this same people tend to believe body is also Ego or it can be found in the body, right? So, what do you mean when you use the word "Ego"?
Another thing:good and bad does not exist in terms of ultimate truth... and this must be experienced by the medititator... and unless we are a very very high level bodhisattva it is not possible... So, abding in the Conventional World, we have, accordingly to the Dammakapavatana Sutta, the extremes and seems to me you are falling in the extreme of nothingness when you say there is no good and bad... After all, if there is no good and bad, why then to avoid the ten non-virtous actions? Why they bring suffering if the cause is not bad? You may say it is mere labeled my mind, but yet this same thing that is perceived by mind exists, but not inherently, but still exists as a conventional modus... so, what you mean by "good and bad, does not exist"?

PS: Could you explain to me better than just a few words, please? I'm not that fast to understand in just four lines.....

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

[Plinio Tsai]

Hi spiritnoname

I guess what Joey is saying is that it is valid to commite a small bad deed in order to a bid good deed to happen or to be preserved, but I'm sure you already understood that, so, why you keep insisting on this, if you allow me to ask? And why you are acting so harsh on Joey knowing he only meant that?

Another thing: you mentioned "fear" and "not compassion", right? But since when to have compassion is not to have fear of commiting actions that will drive other beings to suffering? And when compassion left behind the idea of fear that others may continiously be trapped in samsara (the mind that has self-cherishing and self-grasping and manifests it by means of afflictive emotions)?

Of course, all of us leave in a more advanced society than before in terms of culture and State organization, and for our time it is not even questionable if someone could kill another person in order to prevent this same person to kill 10 more... it is simple not accepted because the core idea of State is that the State should protect people and call upon itself the conflict solutions... therefore, if you live inside a State your will is already given to the  State that will solve this kind of problem by means of laws and procedures (individuals form of reaction will only be accepted if it is accordly to the law)... but there was no State organization at the Milarepa's time... I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really and actuallity, don't you?

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

[Joey]

Hi spiritnoname

I guess what Joey is saying is that it is valid to commite a small bad deed in order to a bid good deed to happen or to be preserved, but I'm sure you already understood that, so, why you keep insisting on this, if you allow me to ask? And why you are acting so harsh on Joey knowing he only meant that?

Another thing: you mentioned "fear" and "not compassion", right? But since when to have compassion is not to have fear of commiting actions that will drive other beings to suffering? And when compassion left behind the idea of fear that others may continiously be trapped in samsara (the mind that has self-cherishing and self-grasping and manifests it by means of afflictive emotions)?

Of course, all of us leave in a more advanced society than before in terms of culture and State organization, and for our time it is not even questionable if someone could kill another person in order to prevent this same person to kill 10 more... it is simple not accepted because the core idea of State is that the State should protect people and call upon itself the conflict solutions... therefore, if you live inside a State your will is already given to the  State that will solve this kind of problem by means of laws and procedures (individuals form of reaction will only be accepted if it is accordly to the law)... but there was no State organization at the Milarepa's time... I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really and actuallity, don't you?

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

that's because spirit has a twisted sense of logic. I dont really blame him. His mind seems to be fine tuned to proving others wrong and proving himself right. Also, his mind is tuned to pick up weaknesses rather than strengths. He gets thrills out of proving that others are wrong.

we should have compassion towards him and not try to challenge him too much.

[spiritnoname]

Hi spiritnoname

I guess what Joey is saying is that it is valid to commite a small bad deed in order to a bid good deed to happen or to be preserved, but I'm sure you already understood that, so, why you keep insisting on this, if you allow me to ask? And why you are acting so harsh on Joey knowing he only meant that?

Another thing: you mentioned "fear" and "not compassion", right? But since when to have compassion is not to have fear of commiting actions that will drive other beings to suffering? And when compassion left behind the idea of fear that others may continiously be trapped in samsara (the mind that has self-cherishing and self-grasping and manifests it by means of afflictive emotions)?

Of course, all of us leave in a more advanced society than before in terms of culture and State organization, and for our time it is not even questionable if someone could kill another person in order to prevent this same person to kill 10 more... it is simple not accepted because the core idea of State is that the State should protect people and call upon itself the conflict solutions... therefore, if you live inside a State your will is already given to the  State that will solve this kind of problem by means of laws and procedures (individuals form of reaction will only be accepted if it is accordly to the law)... but there was no State organization at the Milarepa's time... I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really and actuallity, don't you?

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

 Let's see if I can answer these questions well.

 "I guess what Joey is saying is that it is valid to commite a small bad deed in order to a bid good deed to happen or to be preserved, but I'm sure you already understood that, so, why you keep insisting on this, if you allow me to ask?"
 A small bad deed to accomplish a big good deed would be good a good deed though wouldn't it? Though this isn't what is important, the important thing is to look at the motivation I think. If you do something with a bad motivation it will have a bad result on the mind I think.

 "And why you are acting so harsh on Joey knowing he only meant that?
"
 I don't feel like I'm acting harshly. I actually like it when people take apart what I say and check the relative validity of it and tell me even the smallest mistakes. I understand what he meant I think, but I think also there is possibly a serious spiritual downfall there. I understand that there are serious consequences for someone who kills even a demon out of anything but the most skillful compassion.

 "But since when to have compassion is not to have fear of commiting actions that will drive other beings to suffering?"
 I don't know how to answer that question, not sure what you're asking really.

 "And when compassion left behind the idea of fear that others may continiously be trapped in samsara (the mind that has self-cherishing and self-grasping and manifests it by means of afflictive emotions)?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

 "I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really and actuallity, don't you?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

[Joey]

 Let's see if I can answer these questions well.

 "I guess what Joey is saying is that it is valid to commite a small bad deed in order to a bid good deed to happen or to be preserved, but I'm sure you already understood that, so, why you keep insisting on this, if you allow me to ask?"
 A small bad deed to accomplish a big good deed would be good a good deed though wouldn't it? Though this isn't what is important, the important thing is to look at the motivation I think. If you do something with a bad motivation it will have a bad result on the mind I think.

 "And why you are acting so harsh on Joey knowing he only meant that?
"
 I don't feel like I'm acting harshly. I actually like it when people take apart what I say and check the relative validity of it and tell me even the smallest mistakes. I understand what he meant I think, but I think also there is possibly a serious spiritual downfall there. I understand that there are serious consequences for someone who kills even a demon out of anything but the most skillful compassion.

you love intellectual orgasms, dont you? It's all good and nice until you need to face the real world where concepts and real life application is diffrent, and nitpicking on words can cause serious damage to yourself and others. If you understood where I'm trying to get to, you wouldnt think the way you are now. It shows that you're not even strong on your basics.

If you can misintepret such a simple statement, you can also misintepret every single sutra out there, no matter how well written it is.

 "But since when to have compassion is not to have fear of commiting actions that will drive other beings to suffering?"
 I don't know how to answer that question, not sure what you're asking really.
If you have compassion, whatever you do will ultimately be for the benefit of living beings. If a child plays too dangerously close to the road, the mother will yell at the child. The action itself appears violent, but the only reason why the mother yelled at her child was to save him from being killed by a car. And of course you have no idea what that means, because you're too absorbed in yourself and thinks that the world revolves around you.

 "And when compassion left behind the idea of fear that others may continiously be trapped in samsara (the mind that has self-cherishing and self-grasping and manifests it by means of afflictive emotions)?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

you dont want people to suffer mentally or physically because you have compassion.

 "I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really and actuallity, don't you?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

he means: you're trying to get intellectual satisfaction, arent you?

If you can barely understand what other people are saying because they do not fit your expectations and preconceptions on how things should be, do you think your expectations and preconceptions are true? If they are, they should be common to everyone.

[Plinio Tsai]

Hi spiritnoname

Joey have answered accordly to my intentions the two questions that you haven't understood...

The last one that you did not understood:

"I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really an actuallity, don't you?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

The texts are the ancient ones, such as the history about Marpa and Milarepa. What I meant is that in that time there was no State, no Modern State with the tri-division of powers, the Legislative, the Executive and The Juridical. There was no law and no "social agreement", it was just a different time... when you critize Joey's position on the cotation about Milarepa and Marpa you are putting the history he mentioned outside the historical context and therefore you make it impossible to be understood in the parameters of our time... of course, if we see the history in our time criteria it is something that doesn't fit, but this is because we are trying to understand it with our mind of Twenty First century... it is the same if we try to understand the Jakata tales, it will be apparently absurd, but in reality there is lots and lots of things we can learn if we will be able to understand the essence of it, don't you agree with me?

You remind me the Catholic Church dogma that says it is impossible to the man, and it is forbiden by God that the same man do a small evil act in order to get great good in the end, and this is justified by means of ignorance, in other words, the Cathecism of Catholic Church states clearly that due to man ignorance he is forbiden to use this skill or mean... but the same is not valid in Buddhism, specially at Mahayana tradition which the core is to help others, so, in order to fullfill this the bodhisattva can lie if he see a possibilitie to help many people or even a single one... but at Catholic Church, accordly to Saint Agostine, if you lie to save someone, even if it is your own father, you are not acting accordly to virtue and the Truth of God, therefore the result is even more suffering and the cut off from the God's grace.... The grace is the gift given by God through the death of his Son, in order to man have again friendship with Him by applying the teachings of the Gospels... cool points, isn't it? By the side of Mahayana tradition there is the compassion side or point of view, and the Saint Agostine side there is the moral conduct side or point of view, which one do you choose?

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

[spiritnoname]

Hi spiritnoname

Joey have answered accordly to my intentions the two questions that you haven't understood...

The last one that you did not understood:

"I believe to read this texts and get this point of views is more an exercise of reflexive thought than really an actuallity, don't you?"
 I'm not sure what you're asking here either.

The texts are the ancient ones, such as the history about Marpa and Milarepa. What I meant is that in that time there was no State, no Modern State with the tri-division of powers, the Legislative, the Executive and The Juridical. There was no law and no "social agreement", it was just a different time... when you critize Joey's position on the cotation about Milarepa and Marpa you are putting the history he mentioned outside the historical context and therefore you make it impossible to be understood in the parameters of our time... of course, if we see the history in our time criteria it is something that doesn't fit, but this is because we are trying to understand it with our mind of Twenty First century... it is the same if we try to understand the Jakata tales, it will be apparently absurd, but in reality there is lots and lots of things we can learn if we will be able to understand the essence of it, don't you agree with me?

You remind me the Catholic Church dogma that says it is impossible to the man, and it is forbiden by God that the same man do a small evil act in order to get great good in the end, and this is justified by means of ignorance, in other words, the Cathecism of Catholic Church states clearly that due to man ignorance he is forbiden to use this skill or mean... but the same is not valid in Buddhism, specially at Mahayana tradition which the core is to help others, so, in order to fullfill this the bodhisattva can lie if he see a possibilitie to help many people or even a single one... but at Catholic Church, accordly to Saint Agostine, if you lie to save someone, even if it is your own father, you are not acting accordly to virtue and the Truth of God, therefore the result is even more suffering and the cut off from the God's grace.... The grace is the gift given by God through the death of his Son, in order to man have again friendship with Him by applying the teachings of the Gospels... cool points, isn't it? By the side of Mahayana tradition there is the compassion side or point of view, and the Saint Agostine side there is the moral conduct side or point of view, which one do you choose?

Thank you
Plinio Tsai

 I still don't understand much of what you're saying as I should I think.

In the first paragraph you seem to be talking about how there was no law in Marpa and Milarepa's time, but the Dharma was the same then as it is now.

In the second paragraph you seem to be saying that it's not the action but the aim of the action that is important. I agree with you, which is why I said something about Joey's original post mentioning a psychopath threatening to kill 10 people.

 Honestly I don't understand the difference between good motivation and bad motivation, since both come from attachment which comes from our ignorance. I do understand how compassion can be beneficial in our striving to become liberated, it's like stopping a wild fire from spreading by doing a controlled burn I think. But I really don't know how to distinguish one of the fires from the other yet, hopefully one day when I'm older.   

[Joey]

I still don't understand much of what you're saying as I should I think.

In the first paragraph you seem to be talking about how there was no law in Marpa and Milarepa's time, but the Dharma was the same then as it is now.

In the second paragraph you seem to be saying that it's not the action but the aim of the action that is important. I agree with you, which is why I said something about Joey's original post mentioning a psychopath threatening to kill 10 people.

 Honestly I don't understand the difference between good motivation and bad motivation, since both come from attachment which comes from our ignorance. I do understand how compassion can be beneficial in our striving to become liberated, it's like stopping a wild fire from spreading by doing a controlled burn I think. But I really don't know how to distinguish one of the fires from the other yet, hopefully one day when I'm older.   

And again, you claim to have read many sutras and the commentary to many tantras, but yet fail to understand such basic things in buddhism? That's just, wow. it's like building a skyscraper without a foundation. good motivation is the original intent or reason on why an action is done. If the original intent is good, good karma will be generated and if the intent is motivated by the 8 worldy conditions, its what we call as bad motivation and bad karma is generated.

you dont even understand the most basic thing in buddhism, the law of karma yet you claim to read all the exotic sutras out there, do mantras and have visions? hahahahahaha. you're a big joke.

like I've told you many times, start again from the basics.

[Plinio Tsai]

"Honestly I don't understand the difference between good motivation and bad motivation, since both come from attachment which comes from our ignorance".

Good motivation is not related necessarily with practices of virtues in context of a Lamrim Initial Scope... in other words, if you have the a small sense of emptiness and also a little bit of intention on to become a Buddha to benefit all, the imprints or karmical seeds will not be the same as doing good acts by good motivation without the sense of emptiness combined with the two senses of compassion (aspirational and engaged)... Bad motivation is generated by our own desire for power, lust and so on.. How come you cannot see the difference between then?

Good motivation comes from attachment if you do not have any sense of the Dharma of emptiness and compassion... Bad motivation comes, then you are right, by means of ignorance....

Joey is right, we have to go back to the basis allways to check if we are not going out of the track by some conclusion we could get ...

Don't get angry with Joey, try to see that - If someone does not care, he will say exactly you wish to read or hear, but if he does care, he is a friend, a good one, and he should be valorized because there is no much people who have the guts to say stuffs we do not want to hear... you are not the last and not the first he came and help... He had helped me a lot when he gave me this kind of answer too... and that is the most important thing, to make us think by ourselves....

(Because I said "you are RIGHT", "a good one", sampa will come to non-duality stuff saying that there is no right or wrong, good or bad and so forth... but this kind of approach does not apply here, we are dealing with the conventinal world and conventinal results, and therefore suffering results or happinness results, ... although they can be contaminated by ignorance and impermanence, and on this sampa is right, correct... and he will say again, there is no right and wrong...I'm just kidding with you sampa, remember that...)

[spiritnoname]

"Honestly I don't understand the difference between good motivation and bad motivation, since both come from attachment which comes from our ignorance".

Good motivation is not related necessarily with practices of virtues in context of a Lamrim Initial Scope... in other words, if you have the a small sense of emptiness and also a little bit of intention on to become a Buddha to benefit all, the imprints or karmical seeds will not be the same as doing good acts by good motivation without the sense of emptiness combined with the two senses of compassion (aspirational and engaged)... Bad motivation is generated by our own desire for power, lust and so on.. How come you cannot see the difference between then?

Good motivation comes from attachment if you do not have any sense of the Dharma of emptiness and compassion... Bad motivation comes, then you are right, by means of ignorance....

Joey is right, we have to go back to the basis allways to check if we are not going out of the track by some conclusion we could get ...

Don't get angry with Joey, try to see that - If someone does not care, he will say exactly you wish to read or hear, but if he does care, he is a friend, a good one, and he should be valorized because there is no much people who have the guts to say stuffs we do not want to hear... you are not the last and not the first he came and help... He had helped me a lot when he gave me this kind of answer too... and that is the most important thing, to make us think by ourselves....

(Because I said "you are RIGHT", "a good one", sampa will come to non-duality stuff saying that there is no right or wrong, good or bad and so forth... but this kind of approach does not apply here, we are dealing with the conventinal world and conventinal results, and therefore suffering results or happinness results, ... although they can be contaminated by ignorance and impermanence, and on this sampa is right, correct... and he will say again, there is no right and wrong...I'm just kidding with you sampa, remember that...)

:p I'm not going to get angry with Joey any time soon so no worries there.

 I don't know why I don't see the difference between good motivation and bad yet. I mean, I see why you could call one good and one bad due to their results. But they have the same origins in attachment or just because. What makes one good and one bad? Just that you're mindful of the outcome?

[Joey]

:p I'm not going to get angry with Joey any time soon so no worries there.

 I don't know why I don't see the difference between good motivation and bad yet. I mean, I see why you could call one good and one bad due to their results. But they have the same origins in attachment or just because. What makes one good and one bad? Just that you're mindful of the outcome?

good motivation is done without attachment. When you start mixing around with people, you'll know.