5 ms·

There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? If any Buddhist monks or temple has Buddha's teachings, they should also have t

There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? If any Buddhist monks or temple has Buddha's teachings, they should also have the ways of life from the problems to the resolutions. But they don't have them, and instead they use meditation to trick people into giving up the real answers. It's the same thing as giving themselves up. This is an important point and the root cause of this needs to be informed to people in society. Every time I've gone to religious institutions, temples, etc. to verify, 99% of the time they turn out to be false gurus with self-contradictory or hypocritical claims - they just use words to get the better of people - and there's a huge gap in their level of consciousness and that of a truly Enlightened Being. The evidence that someone is Enlightened and a Tathagata (one who opened his/her eyes completely to the world) is that s/he can explain things in the living reality precisely and can answer all concrete questions on the spot with exact answers. But if I were to go to the Buddhist temples and give them some basic questions they might be very uncomfortable and tell me to leave. The only reason someone does not give an answer to a question is that they don't really know.

omarchowdhury 14y ago
Since when was enlightenment equal to having perfect phenomenal knowledge? You seem to be equating enlightenment with omniscience. Are you not? Please tell us what questions you are asking as a qualifier on whether or not someone is enlightened.
- rosstafarian 14y ago
  Why do hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight?
  - theorique 14y ago
    Mu.
- blueprint 14y ago
  > Since when was enlightenment equal to having perfect phenomenal knowledge? Yes, one of the abilities of someone who attains Enlightenment is that they become able to perceive things in the world exactly as they are, and can inform them to people exactly. > You seem to be equating enlightenment with omniscience. Are you not? Not exactly, but it's like that. I can say that their vision is greatly widened because they see from a much higher level. There are some things they can see which are very distant, and sometimes they can help people who are also very distant, using their power of consciousness. However, I've heard Tathagata say he doesn't use his mind very much, and that he simply sees everything that is inside an object when it is in front of him. There are many people who claim the ability to see through walls and tell where other people are (mediums). They do that by letting their consciousness contact and receive information latent inside energy that's in the air. They call that wandering energy by terms like spirits, ghosts, dead souls, etc. However, besides the fact that it can be very unreliable and dangerous to do so, a living Buddha never keeps company with the dead, and only informs people of what he saw with his own eyes. > Please tell us what questions you are asking as a qualifier on whether or not someone is enlightened. Answered this in a sibling question, let me know if you're left with any unanswered questions
  - omarchowdhury 14y ago
    Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic. From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment. Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right.
    - blueprint 14y ago
      > Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic. I've only claimed that Tathagata is a truly Enlightened being and asked you to confirm what happened to him. But your logic is flawed. There are certain axiomatic qualities of Enlightenment, and one of them is realizing things in the actuality. Therefore, what an Enlightened being says about truth and actuality should be verifiable (as well as stated falsifiably). So there are certain non-trivial things that ordinary people can know about the state of and get from the teaching of an Enlightened Being, even if they can't yet see from the same level or have as much virtue. The people who make claims that Enlightenment is not externally verifiable are usually practitioners of meditation or looking to sell you something. > From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment. I'm not sure the formal meaning of siddhi, never heard the term, but that's probably not what I'm indicating. The term ability can be applied to a wide range of things. How are you using the term (what abilities are you indicating)? > Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right. There are two categories we can put things in the world into: those that are visible and those that are invisible. To see the visible, we need to open our eyes and we need to learn about what exists and how it exists. To see something that is invisible, on the other hand, we need a principle. What is taught at universities, however, is just how to make logic, which can easily be fed different words or the wrong assumptions and can output the wrong result. There is no one at universities I've met who satisfactorily understands the principle of how the world is operated, so they cannot perceive things which are outside their own knowledge (that of human beings) or that which is derived from their own knowledge. That is why I sometimes may point out something which falls outside your field of vision. So I would like to point out that the accusations you've brought against me are actually more applicable to your situation.
gnaritas 14y ago
> There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? And here you are making all kinds of claims, without presenting a shred of evidence. Ponder on that.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    If he can't prove it (since you can't prove a negative) he shouldn't be claiming that he knows that it hasn't happened and everyone is faking it; worse, he claims to know it happened only twice in history; and worse that his master was the second one other than Buddha himself. He's the one making wild positive claims here, the burden of proof is upon him to support them with evidence. That's why I don't have to prove anything; I've made no claims at all, why would I have to prove anything? Don't throw your lot in with anyone making claims they can't back up; but make sure your paying attentions to who's making the claims and whether they're proper non negative claims.
    - kinleyd 14y ago
      Spot on, gnaritas. Karl Popper wouldn't change a word in your reasoning.
- blueprint 14y ago
  That's not true. Let's verify what you said. If you quote me on something you can't find a shred of evidence of, I'll see if I can tell you what it is.
  - lobo_tuerto 14y ago
    What about? "No one has attained Enlightenment through Zen nor meditation in human history." And: "Buddha himself never claimed he was enlightened through meditation." Look at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4165192 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4165192
Evgeny 14y ago
There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? If any Buddhist monks or temple has Buddha's teachings, they should also have the ways of life from the problems to the resolutions. But they don't have them I would really like to know how you test this - how do you approach the evaluation if someone is enlightened or just pretending?
- blueprint 14y ago
  The wall is that we first have to know what Enlightenment is very correctly to check if something meets the criteria for Enlightenment. The way to verify what something is, lies in the results it makes - just like our example of a fruit tree. Seeds and leaves may look similar across an apple, plum, and cherry, but we know instantly what it is when we see, smell, and taste the fruit. I've reported Master Tathagata's definition that Enlightenment is 'the opening of one's eyes to the world'. He's also said that Supreme Enlightenment (that of a Tathagata) is opening eyes to reality completely. So the first thing is - ask them any questions in reality - if they are unable to give the answer that can be verified in the reality (if they cannot realize what is in reality) then they have not completed their Enlightenment. A second thing I'll leave with you is like this. A bodhisattva cannot have attained Enlightenment completely - because if s/he had, then the one would be a Buddha.Yet it seems that a Buddha only comes to the world once every 3,000 years or so. The term of Bodhisattva means "gods who have good power and are seeking for the truth". (Sorry cannot cite as it was in yet-untranscribed audio from Tathagata) They protect Buddha, but could not remove their karma totally yet, so they are still seekers. However, sometimes some Bodhisattvas who have a power to stop their karma can get into the same dimension that the Buddhas reside in (paradise). So the second thing to check is whether they claim they are Enlightened. It's a red flag to me. The third thing is that an Enlightened Being never lies. Instead, they bet their life every day in order to inform people of the truth - this is the proof of their love for mankind, and it is the greatest teaching. So your continuous verification of what people say (imho, according to the facts in the world) is essential whether or not the person actually has evidence that they know truth, or is telling a lie. Hope this helps
  - lobo_tuerto 14y ago

omarchowdhury 14y ago

Since when was enlightenment equal to having perfect phenomenal knowledge? You seem to be equating enlightenment with omniscience. Are you not? Please tell us what questions you are asking as a qualifier on whether or not someone is enlightened.

rosstafarian 14y ago
Why do hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight?
- theorique 14y ago
  Mu.
blueprint 14y ago
> Since when was enlightenment equal to having perfect phenomenal knowledge? Yes, one of the abilities of someone who attains Enlightenment is that they become able to perceive things in the world exactly as they are, and can inform them to people exactly. > You seem to be equating enlightenment with omniscience. Are you not? Not exactly, but it's like that. I can say that their vision is greatly widened because they see from a much higher level. There are some things they can see which are very distant, and sometimes they can help people who are also very distant, using their power of consciousness. However, I've heard Tathagata say he doesn't use his mind very much, and that he simply sees everything that is inside an object when it is in front of him. There are many people who claim the ability to see through walls and tell where other people are (mediums). They do that by letting their consciousness contact and receive information latent inside energy that's in the air. They call that wandering energy by terms like spirits, ghosts, dead souls, etc. However, besides the fact that it can be very unreliable and dangerous to do so, a living Buddha never keeps company with the dead, and only informs people of what he saw with his own eyes. > Please tell us what questions you are asking as a qualifier on whether or not someone is enlightened. Answered this in a sibling question, let me know if you're left with any unanswered questions
- omarchowdhury 14y ago
  Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic. From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment. Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right.
  - blueprint 14y ago
    > Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic. I've only claimed that Tathagata is a truly Enlightened being and asked you to confirm what happened to him. But your logic is flawed. There are certain axiomatic qualities of Enlightenment, and one of them is realizing things in the actuality. Therefore, what an Enlightened being says about truth and actuality should be verifiable (as well as stated falsifiably). So there are certain non-trivial things that ordinary people can know about the state of and get from the teaching of an Enlightened Being, even if they can't yet see from the same level or have as much virtue. The people who make claims that Enlightenment is not externally verifiable are usually practitioners of meditation or looking to sell you something. > From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment. I'm not sure the formal meaning of siddhi, never heard the term, but that's probably not what I'm indicating. The term ability can be applied to a wide range of things. How are you using the term (what abilities are you indicating)? > Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right. There are two categories we can put things in the world into: those that are visible and those that are invisible. To see the visible, we need to open our eyes and we need to learn about what exists and how it exists. To see something that is invisible, on the other hand, we need a principle. What is taught at universities, however, is just how to make logic, which can easily be fed different words or the wrong assumptions and can output the wrong result. There is no one at universities I've met who satisfactorily understands the principle of how the world is operated, so they cannot perceive things which are outside their own knowledge (that of human beings) or that which is derived from their own knowledge. That is why I sometimes may point out something which falls outside your field of vision. So I would like to point out that the accusations you've brought against me are actually more applicable to your situation.

gnaritas 14y ago

> There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? And here you are making all kinds of claims, without presenting a shred of evidence. Ponder on that.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- gnaritas 14y ago
  If he can't prove it (since you can't prove a negative) he shouldn't be claiming that he knows that it hasn't happened and everyone is faking it; worse, he claims to know it happened only twice in history; and worse that his master was the second one other than Buddha himself. He's the one making wild positive claims here, the burden of proof is upon him to support them with evidence. That's why I don't have to prove anything; I've made no claims at all, why would I have to prove anything? Don't throw your lot in with anyone making claims they can't back up; but make sure your paying attentions to who's making the claims and whether they're proper non negative claims.
  - kinleyd 14y ago
    Spot on, gnaritas. Karl Popper wouldn't change a word in your reasoning.
blueprint 14y ago
That's not true. Let's verify what you said. If you quote me on something you can't find a shred of evidence of, I'll see if I can tell you what it is.
- lobo_tuerto 14y ago
  What about? "No one has attained Enlightenment through Zen nor meditation in human history." And: "Buddha himself never claimed he was enlightened through meditation." Look at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4165192 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4165192

Evgeny 14y ago

There are huge numbers of claims, but who among the multitudes has the evidence? If any Buddhist monks or temple has Buddha's teachings, they should also have the ways of life from the problems to the resolutions. But they don't have them I would really like to know how you test this - how do you approach the evaluation if someone is enlightened or just pretending?

blueprint 14y ago
The wall is that we first have to know what Enlightenment is very correctly to check if something meets the criteria for Enlightenment. The way to verify what something is, lies in the results it makes - just like our example of a fruit tree. Seeds and leaves may look similar across an apple, plum, and cherry, but we know instantly what it is when we see, smell, and taste the fruit. I've reported Master Tathagata's definition that Enlightenment is 'the opening of one's eyes to the world'. He's also said that Supreme Enlightenment (that of a Tathagata) is opening eyes to reality completely. So the first thing is - ask them any questions in reality - if they are unable to give the answer that can be verified in the reality (if they cannot realize what is in reality) then they have not completed their Enlightenment. A second thing I'll leave with you is like this. A bodhisattva cannot have attained Enlightenment completely - because if s/he had, then the one would be a Buddha.Yet it seems that a Buddha only comes to the world once every 3,000 years or so. The term of Bodhisattva means "gods who have good power and are seeking for the truth". (Sorry cannot cite as it was in yet-untranscribed audio from Tathagata) They protect Buddha, but could not remove their karma totally yet, so they are still seekers. However, sometimes some Bodhisattvas who have a power to stop their karma can get into the same dimension that the Buddhas reside in (paradise). So the second thing to check is whether they claim they are Enlightened. It's a red flag to me. The third thing is that an Enlightened Being never lies. Instead, they bet their life every day in order to inform people of the truth - this is the proof of their love for mankind, and it is the greatest teaching. So your continuous verification of what people say (imho, according to the facts in the world) is essential whether or not the person actually has evidence that they know truth, or is telling a lie. Hope this helps
- lobo_tuerto 14y ago