Pratimoksha- and Bodhisattva vows

[tommi]

So when you say "untrained mind", you mean something more specific still, untrained "in the sense of Dhamma"? So what does that mean?

Tommi, normal education (worldly education) is about learning concepts and ways of thinking and its also about remembering them. One does not train to observe mind, one is not trained to observe inside the frame of references.
Most parts are actually fully in the other direction. It does not mean that there are certain trainings in concentration but as told, also a hunter is trained in concentration (samadhi).

This still sounds a bit vague. What do you think is the "correct stage" for watching the earlier mentioned YouTube video, for example?

So are you now saying that the quote you posted regarding the 11th boddhisattva root downfall (based on Tsongkhapa's commentary) is incorrect? If you think it is incorrect then why did you post it here in the first place?

No, it means that it actually has also a second reason, a coloring, which does not fit to the original problem/danger. Although this colored intention would prevent for doing wrong in regard of the uncolored.
That means that the precept it self is correct, while the commentary is incorrect in its detail end partly (when one looks at the motivation) even against a Bodhisattva-intention. How ever, at least it could prevent others form giving them a field of ripping, even ones own intentions, why not giving such a field, is not wholesome at least.

So are you saying that when you first posted the Tsongkhapa commentary, you meant it as an example of a wrong interpretation? So what makes you think that Tsongkhapa is wrong and you are right?

You would not find one and you would not find many "Starter classes" where this is not the main discussion point.

What is this "main discussion point"? Are you saying that in almost all buddhist communities the main discussion point is how to misuse the concept of emptiness, for example "it doesn't matter if you steal or are violent, because everything is empty anyway"?

[Johann]

So when you say "untrained mind", you mean something more specific still, untrained "in the sense of Dhamma"? So what does that mean?

Tommi, normal education (worldly education) is about learning concepts and ways of thinking and its also about remembering them. One does not train to observe mind, one is not trained to observe inside the frame of references.
Most parts are actually fully in the other direction. It does not mean that there are certain trainings in concentration but as told, also a hunter is trained in concentration (samadhi).

This still sounds a bit vague. What do you think is the "correct stage" for watching the earlier mentioned YouTube video, for example?

I don't know. If followed the discussion you would have seen that I have not seen the Video. Furthermore the discussion arouse on a point which is not cut out of the original topic. It was in regard of Samadhi as a "sure good thing", which is not. And the detail about our talk here was about if emptiness is something everybody should be taught.

So are you now saying that the quote you posted regarding the 11th boddhisattva root downfall (based on Tsongkhapa's commentary) is incorrect? If you think it is incorrect then why did you post it here in the first place?

No, it means that it actually has also a second reason, a coloring, which does not fit to the original problem/danger. Although this colored intention would prevent for doing wrong in regard of the uncolored.
That means that the precept it self is correct, while the commentary is incorrect in its detail end partly (when one looks at the motivation) even against a Bodhisattva-intention. How ever, at least it could prevent others form giving them a field of ripping, even ones own intentions, why not giving such a field, is not wholesome at least.

So are you saying that when you first posted the Tsongkhapa commentary, you meant it as an example of a wrong interpretation? So what makes you think that Tsongkhapa is wrong and you are right?

It looks like that, because it even violates other root vows and is not very coherent. What let me think that it might be wrong? Investigations. Try it, you would also find that it is not coherent with others.

You would not find one and you would not find many "Starter classes" where this is not the main discussion point.

What is this "main discussion point"? Are you saying that in almost all buddhist communities the main discussion point is how to misuse the concept of emptiness, for example "it doesn't matter if you steal or are violent, because everything is empty anyway"?

That the issue "emptiness" is totally above such basic topics like gratitude, respect, generosity and obligingness. Such is a fact and you can look for yourself.

And yes, the concept of emptiness and equanimity is often used to promote or belittle wrong doings, and not seldom within many forums. Also this you could observe everywhere, in modern worlds forums about Buddhism.

All in all Tommi (just saw that there is also a Tomi, I hope I never mixed it), you seems to be busy, not fully involved, so let yourself time, no need to hurry and make the topic simply go on.

[Johann]

Thanks for you practical sample, so we have also a actually sample to understand what the topic is about.

Very wrong, very wrong! Perfect nowadays misleading.

You what mate?

I am not sure if I did get you right: you're implying that shamatha-meditation and/or four foundations are somehow basis for wrong view?

Yes. If there is no right view, there will be no right release, right knowledge... The Path does not start with factor samadhi. Even a killer or a hunter has samadhi, but in no way samma samadhi. He also has a certain ditthi,... but no samma ditthi..

Anyway, here's an excellent interview, which touches the (commonly misunderstood) subjects: Shunyata, Buddha-nature, Buddha, etc.

This are not even topic on this stage, to teach somebody on such a stage about Shunyata is even a violation of the root Bodhisattva vows. He is also not really a sample of somebody who have found a real foot hood, so he might be a Bodhisatta but not somebody who can teach the Dhamma. Great worlding and most honorable form this view, he gave also many people much food for thoughts and will be a good worldly sample, but at least he also cuts of many off of the still possible way.
Personally I like him very much and I really wish him to get the final amount on saddha to make it unshakeable what might be guessed.

[sininendraakki]

Sanskritinkielinen Bodhisattva pratimoksha sutra, englanninkielinen artikkeli http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BH/bh117539.htm