Contraversy built on another contraversy, what are they really trying to do????!

[lightning]

<quote by Master Lu:
Buddha is sentient beings; upon enlightenment, sentient beings are Buddha.......
Practicing Buddhism is to concentrate on being like Buddha. There is no hindrance. Six Patriarch said, examine your self-nature, find the intrinsically pure mind, then you are enlightened. Accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment. More knowledge might actually create more karmic obstacles. >

Dear Dakini,
Before sharing, I would to know what are you agreeing to what was quoted earlier. Please kindly state your reasoning for supporting the above Dharma views in your best abilities, before I provide my answers. Regards,

Dear Lightning,

I'm just curious - why do you need to hear the reasoning before providing your answers? This is a forum for discussion, not a test. If Dakini has the wrong reasoning, are you wanting to hear it and condemn it before you share your 'right' view? If Dakini has right reasoning, then you will agree with her?

Sorry - i just don't see the point why you have to wait for her to respond before you share. Please just share

Love
Kate

Alright just to share...I may not have a prefect answer but I have better ones. Correct me if I am wrong, I am still learning, I am explaining in my best knowledge ...

1) A Budhha (Supramudane) cannot be a sentient Being (Mudane) , A sentient being cannot be a Buddha. A male  cannot be a female and a male cannot be female. Before attainment of Buddhahood, the practitioner is a Bodhisattva (path of seeing and above). therefore sentient beings cannot be Buddha upon enlightenment? If Buddha is sentient beings, then everyone should be enlightened, then why are we still in samsara?
2) If accumlating knowledge can be a cause for karmic obstacles, then we do not need to learn about the 3 kayas of Buddha. Buddha is all knowing, we need to get rid of the ignorance in order to attain enlightenment? Sit there and mediate like stone? We need samadhi and vipassana to be on the right track. We also need to aquire from the guidance of a qualified spiritual guide.
3) If we examine our self nature to be intrinsically pure, then we gain enlightenment? If our self nature is intrinsically pure. One day if we become attain intrinsically pure to become enlighten again. Then can we be inpure again and what is there for us to attain enlightenment for?

The above views was very far fetched, if you have some background in Madiyamaka topic, you should be able to agree what i pointed out that there is flaw in the above Dharma view. btw I am a nice guy, i won't condemn her, just interested why she agreed to Master Lu's view?

[Big Uncle]

I actually enjoyed the story of Master Lu and Dorje Shugden. I love the fantastic scenes and the way he describes Dorje Shugden. However, I found the story inconsistent. At times  Master Lu sounds accomplished and at times, he sounds like a comic hero. How can one's realisation and samaya with one's lineage masters be taken physically away by another being? ie The Garuda.... Isn't one's Samaya with one's Guru determined by one's action of body, speech and mind? Sorry, that was my huge gripe about the whole story.

On the point of Master Lu's quote, Buddha's do have the ability to emanate as sentient beings. They do not need to be practicing Buddhism or act in the conventional sense of how a Buddha should act. Hence, in the scriptures and prayers, the Buddhas can emanate as ghosts, men, women.... the Dalai Lama and..... even Master Lu. Don't be so quick to judge his fantastic story because he is actually benefitting a huge group of people in his own way.

Learning for just learning's sake can be detrimental because it is just knowledge. If knowledge is put into practice, then it becomes realisation and wisdom. Hence, there are many Geshes who know a lot through a whole lifetime of religious learning but go to hell because they don't practice what they learn.

Just my 5 cents worth...

Big Uncle

[lightning]

I actually enjoyed the story of Master Lu and Dorje Shugden. I love the fantastic scenes and the way he describes Dorje Shugden. However, I found the story inconsistent. At times  Master Lu sounds accomplished and at times, he sounds like a comic hero. How can one's realisation and samaya with one's lineage masters be taken physically away by another being? ie The Garuda.... Isn't one's Samaya with one's Guru determined by one's action of body, speech and mind? Sorry, that was my huge gripe about the whole story.

On the point of Master Lu's quote, Buddha's do have the ability to emanate as sentient beings. They do not need to be practicing Buddhism or act in the conventional sense of how a Buddha should act. Hence, in the scriptures and prayers, the Buddhas can emanate as ghosts, men, women.... the Dalai Lama and..... even Master Lu. Don't be so quick to judge his fantastic story because he is actually benefitting a huge group of people in his own way.

Learning for just learning's sake can be detrimental because it is just knowledge. If knowledge is put into practice, then it becomes realisation and wisdom. Hence, there are many Geshes who know a lot through a whole lifetime of religious learning but go to hell because they don't practice what they learn.

Just my 5 cents worth...

Big Uncle

Dear Big Uncle,
when a Buddha emanate as a ghost, an animal or mad man or anything else in order to lead sentient beings He must be able to explain the 3 Kaya of Buddha without flaws. if not how do we distinguish, He is the real deal? From the way one speaks, one can discern the standard of one's learning and wisdom.

Benefiting the sentient beings with wisdom or misleading sentient beings with wrong views are two opposites.You are right that Buddha is beyond practicing as They attain enlightenment, but Buddha like Je Tsong Kha Pa can appear to practice Buddhism from start to set an example for the sentient beings on how to practice. But why follow the "Buddha" who appear to teach the wrong view and obscure our path to enlightenment. How to differentiate whether a spritual guide is authentic or just another heretic, It is by distinguishing the teachings through sharp reasoning.

If learning is detrimental, then do you think you can awakened to Buddha hood by yourself without learning. As taught in LamRim, we must learn, contemplate and put to learning to practise, If one is not taught how to fish with a rod. Do you think he can catch fish with a fishing rod? Knowledge can make a difference!
 
Is there any Buddha who is ignorant?
My 2 cents worth...

[shugdenprotect]

Dear HoneyDakini,

Thank you for showing me the "other" way of looking at things. You are right, there are so many sentient beings who have varying needs. Therefore, the kind Gurus have continuously adapted themselves to utilize methods that best penetrate our deluded minds.

Great Gurus have appeared controversial and "crazy" in the past such as the book by John Riley. On hindsight, for each of these compassionate Masters, we know that they did all those "crazy" things to benefit their students. Because these Gurus do not have an ego, they do not consider how others think of them but focus fully on what the student or sentient beings require of them.

Before ending, I humble thank all participants because your sincere comments are in itself a rich well of Dharma information, sharing and experience!

[DharmaDefender]

Great Gurus have appeared controversial and "crazy" in the past such as the book by John Riley. On hindsight, for each of these compassionate Masters, we know that they did all those "crazy" things to benefit their students. Because these Gurus do not have an ego, they do not consider how others think of them but focus fully on what the student or sentient beings require of them.

Speaking of controversial lamas, I think a group who have done well to explain the 'crazy' methods of a lama are Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's followers, when they did Words of My Perfect Teacher. Having said that, do you think Master Lu's story could've just been a mistranslation of sorts? Because I've just read Singa Rinpoche's biography (http://www.singaclub.tw/en/about302.aspx) and well, the English is interesting, to say the least.

On the point of Master Lu's quote, Buddha's do have the ability to emanate as sentient beings. They do not need to be practicing Buddhism or act in the conventional sense of how a Buddha should act. Hence, in the scriptures and prayers, the Buddhas can emanate as ghosts, men, women.... the Dalai Lama and..... even Master Lu. Don't be so quick to judge his fantastic story because he is actually benefitting a huge group of people in his own way.

"How a Buddha should act"...is there any way a Buddha SHOULD act? Just by pigeon-holing them, don't we limit the methods they can use on us to cut through our delusions? We expect so much from our lamas - they should do this, they should be able to explain that, they should behave in this way - and our lamas expect so little of us (I say that relatively speaking, since mind transformation isn't easy when you're faced with lifetimes of delusions).

And as you've shown, 'emanate' refers to their physical body only, and not their mental state. These beings are inherently Buddhas since enlightenment is an unchanging state - the physical body will manifest in whatever way best suits the student. So in the case of Rinpoches and lamas and masters, they are still Buddhas, regardless of their outward appearance. So to some extent, it doesn't matter what a Buddha physically emanates as. They can be the most perfect lamas but then there are stories about perfect lamas going away from the Dharma because their students have poor samaya, or the lamas weren't nurtured properly by their students / attendants.

[WisdomBeing]

"How a Buddha should act"...is there any way a Buddha SHOULD act? Just by pigeon-holing them, don't we limit the methods they can use on us to cut through our delusions? We expect so much from our lamas - they should do this, they should be able to explain that, they should behave in this way - and our lamas expect so little of us (I say that relatively speaking, since mind transformation isn't easy when you're faced with lifetimes of delusions).

And as you've shown, 'emanate' refers to their physical body only, and not their mental state. These beings are inherently Buddhas since enlightenment is an unchanging state - the physical body will manifest in whatever way best suits the student. So in the case of Rinpoches and lamas and masters, they are still Buddhas, regardless of their outward appearance. So to some extent, it doesn't matter what a Buddha physically emanates as. They can be the most perfect lamas but then there are stories about perfect lamas going away from the Dharma because their students have poor samaya, or the lamas weren't nurtured properly by their students / attendants.

Yes - we are all so deluded, how do we judge? i know some people say we can examine but I'd just like to refer to one of Dorje Shugden's earliest incarnations as the Mahasidda Birwapa, whose name was literally 'bad man' because he was seen to have broken his vows by cavorting with women when in truth, he was being visited by Vajrayogini and her dakinis. To those without attainments, these holy deities appeared as ordinary women, therefore since we - or most of us - do not have attainments, how can we trust our own judgment? Especially of Lamas or Dharma teachers.

If we personally do not agree with a teacher's methods, we simply do not have to follow the teacher. It is not necessary to criticise the teacher because we really don't know for sure and he or she may be benefiting others. If we were to criticise a Lama because of our wrong view, we would end up accruing negative karma for ourselves. I think i have enough negative karma to last me quite a bit so i don't really need to add to it

[thor]

Dear lightning,

these are my thoughts

1) A Budhha (Supramudane) cannot be a sentient Being (Mudane) , A sentient being cannot be a Buddha. A male  cannot be a female and a male cannot be female. Before attainment of Buddhahood, the practitioner is a Bodhisattva (path of seeing and above). therefore sentient beings cannot be Buddha upon enlightenment? If Buddha is sentient beings, then everyone should be enlightened, then why are we still in samsara?

Buddhas can emanate as sentient beings, and are subject to many of the limitations of the form they choose to emanate. eg Dromo Geshe Rinpoche is an emanation of Tsongkapa yet has to eat, sleep etc.

2) If accumlating knowledge can be a cause for karmic obstacles, then we do not need to learn about the 3 kayas of Buddha. Buddha is all knowing, we need to get rid of the ignorance in order to attain enlightenment? Sit there and mediate like stone? We need samadhi and vipassana to be on the right track. We also need to aquire from the guidance of a qualified spiritual guide.

Knowledge alone can be a cause for karmic obstacles because without practice and realisation, knowledge may just lead to arrogance, superiority and larger ego. Only when knowledge is applied, then does it lead us to enlightenment

3) If we examine our self nature to be intrinsically pure, then we gain enlightenment? If our self nature is intrinsically pure. One day if we become attain intrinsically pure to become enlighten again. Then can we be inpure again and what is there for us to attain enlightenment for?

Our self nature IS intrinsically pure, that is why we all have the capability to become Buddhas ourselves. Its just that we have so much negative karma and bad habituations that we lose touch of our pure nature which is selflessness and end up being very selfish and egotistical always. And once we have attained that state of inner purity which is Buddhahood, there is no going back.

So with the main topic of this thread which is Master Lu - I don't agree with the logic of his story - attainments once gained cannot be taken away, and even more so if he is a living buddha. And I definitely don't agree with how Dorje Shugden is portrayed as a mundane protector or even a worldly spirit. If he is a truly a living-Buddha, then his actions will be for a greater good and are pure in motivation, however strange it may appear to our untrained eye. But with all respect, I will choose a different teacher whose teachings can be examined by logic and debate, and with less elements of mysticism within.

[Big Uncle]

Dear lighting,

I don't think you understood me or what some of us here are saying. Knowledge is not bad or good! It is how we use it. If knowledge is just acquired like some art piece, just to be admired then it is detrimental. Why is it detrimental? It is bad because how can we admire Buddha's teachings and gain enlightenment by just admiring it? Buddha's teachings are meant to be practiced so we should acquire knowledge of Buddha's teachings so we can apply. There is a huge difference between the two.

On the topic of emanations of Buddhas, how do we know that they are emanations? We can't ascertain ourselves but if you look at the actions of these emanations, it will always result in benefit. They don't need to be able to explain the 3 kayas....well Buddhas can even emanate as non-Buddhist and propagate love and compassion through action like Mother Teresa. Her actions was clearly Bodhisattva-like although she has never taken the vows of one nor even believe in the Buddha. Her actions reveals her state of mind and like that we have a rough guide.

I hope I am clearer this time around.

Big Uncle

[WisdomBeing]

Dear lighting,

I don't think you understood me or what some of us here are saying. Knowledge is not bad or good! It is how we use it. If knowledge is just acquired like some art piece, just to be admired then it is detrimental. Why is it detrimental? It is bad because how can we admire Buddha's teachings and gain enlightenment by just admiring it? Buddha's teachings are meant to be practiced so we should acquire knowledge of Buddha's teachings so we can apply. There is a huge difference between the two.

Lovely sharing, Big Uncle. In the UK, i find that there is a group of spiritual seekers who are very well read, scholastic, and good at debate. However, for them, it is more of an intellectual exercise rather than an application of the teachings. Yes there is a huge difference. I've met some wonderful people who couldn't quote one sutra from another but fantastic in their compassion for others.

On the topic of emanations of Buddhas, how do we know that they are emanations? We can't ascertain ourselves but if you look at the actions of these emanations, it will always result in benefit. They don't need to be able to explain the 3 kayas....well Buddhas can even emanate as non-Buddhist and propagate love and compassion through action like Mother Teresa. Her actions was clearly Bodhisattva-like although she has never taken the vows of one nor even believe in the Buddha. Her actions reveals her state of mind and like that we have a rough guide.

Buddhas definitely can emanate as non-Buddhists. There is no limit to a Buddha's abilities. I think Jesus was a Buddha too

I hope I am clearer this time around.

Big Uncle

[DSFriend]

Dreams, visions, mysticism  exists in pretty much every religion/faith that I've come across. I've learnt to stay neutral, not sure if it's a good or a bad thing. From my personal observation, people tend to find it easier to believe miracles which happened long ago. Anyway, best way to judge the tree is by its fruits.

May we meet the perfect dharma and holy masters in each and every lifetime until we achieve freedom from all delusions..

[lightning]

Big Uncle, I am curious why you think Jesus was a Buddha?
Christianity is as portrayed as an Open Arms Approach
Whereas the Buddha portays his approach in the Lotus Position.
A Christian might pull you back from an approaching bus
A Buddhist might let you step off the curb
It's you karma!
Make any general sense?
As the Dalia Lama stated"We brought the dharma to them
Not they to us
I do not care" if they stand on their heads and walk with their hands
We brought the dharma to them."
Whereas Jesus might have said, Go forth and spread the good word

I agreed that Jesus is not a Buddha. Do not mistake a crystal for a diamond, ulitimately, if we want to learn Buddhism, we need to choose a spritual guide who can really lead us to supramundane attainments(path of seeing), not be misleaded into staying longer in samsara. I am kinda of busy this 2 days, will give my input soon. As mentioned from, one's speech, we can roughly gauge one's understanding in Buddha Dharma. Duldizin has something in common with me, can discern some wisdom from his speech. but I still have something to debate on his points provided.

Aside to Big Uncle, may I ask you? How can you confirm and tell apart whether a person is a real emanated Buddha or a layman?

Aside to Wisdom Being and everyone else, you may share your understanding of how to tell apart too.

[Big Uncle]

Dear TC and lighting,

Perhaps my point was not clear, I said perhaps Mother Teresa not Jesus or whomever.... is a Bodhisattva. I say that based on her actions and results of her actions. If only we had an ounce of her compassion, we would progress so much on our own spiritual paths. If you say Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can only emanate and benefit only by teaching Buddhism, you limit their capability to benefit others into a box. Why a box? Not all beings have the karma to receive teachings. Hence,  Buddhas and Bodhisattvas will even emanate as great teachers of other religions to benefit those beings who don't have the karma.

I know you may not agree with me but I still hold strongly that they are able to do this to bring a certain group of beings to spiritual maturity. Remember, it takes quite a lot of merit to receive and understand Buddha's teachings and even more so to practice Lama Tsongkhapa's teachings. If Buddhas can emanate as bridges, spirits, demons, men, women and children, why not a holy being, saint etc of another religion.

As for differentiating an emanation from an ordinary person is not about how... it is about do we have the wisdom and clarity to perceive the qualities of that being. If we do not have the wisdom, we don't judge or make assumptions. Hence, even if we do not agree with Master Lu's teachings and stories, we don't be so quick to judge because he does have millions of followers.

There must be something that he is doing that is benefitting them. Perhaps these people need his style of teaching to develop faith in the Buddha. Since he can benefit so many, isn't he more beneficial than most of us here who benefit only a handful and some of us can hardly benefit ourselves. At the end, I don't have the wisdom to judge either so I am not saying he is definitely an emanation and that he is a Buddha or benefitting these people but I am saying the possibility is there. Don't you think?

Big Uncle
 

[honeydakini]

Sorry, I've been away for a few days, but here's my reply below:

<quote by Master Lu:
Buddha is sentient beings; upon enlightenment, sentient beings are Buddha.......
Practicing Buddhism is to concentrate on being like Buddha. There is no hindrance. Six Patriarch said, examine your self-nature, find the intrinsically pure mind, then you are enlightened. Accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment. More knowledge might actually create more karmic obstacles. >

If anyone has been to Lam Rim or Madhyamaka classes are able to detect the flaws within this type of sentence. I will not further comment on about TBSN. You guys are not aware of happenings in South East Asia...

I think that much of the confusion can arise from the simple problem of semantics and language. This is also why I think it is important to understand the full context of the teaching and to consider many other contributing factors, such as the teacher's style of speaking, language barriers, translations etc.

My understanding is as follows:

Buddha is sentient beings; upon enlightenment, sentient beings are Buddha.......
I take this to mean that all sentient beings have the potential to be enlightened and contain within them Buddha nature. Upon attaining full enlightenment sentient beings too become Buddhas - it is not we are here forever as samsara as sentient beings and the Buddhas are "up there" in a far away place that we can never attain. I take this sentence to mean that every single sentient being can attain the fully enlightened state of mind, thereby becoming a Buddha.

Practicing Buddhism is to concentrate on being like Buddha.
This is very much like the higher tantric practices on the Yidams, where we focus on the qualities of the Buddhas and strive to develop and embody those enlightened qualities also. In these practices, we identify with the Buddhas and strive to become one with them - this naturally "spills" over even in our daily, mundane activities, where we practice and focus on embodying these enlightened qualities in every aspect of our thought, speech and mind.Ultimately, we are striving to become Buddhas ourselves and therefore, "concentrate on being like the Buddha", adopting his qualities.

examine your self-nature, find the intrinsically pure mind, then you are enlightened
the intrinsic nature of our mind is one of purity and great clarity. It is only by many lifetimes of delusions that his pure, clear mind has become clouded over and covered. It is like a clear lake, which has become "polluted" and dirtied over the years by rubbish and pollution. Ultimately, the nature of the water itself is still clear and pure. In the same way, if we can uncover this intrinsically pure mind - by removing our delusions and obscurations - and begin to live by it, we begin to identify with and awake the intrinsically pure nature of our mind: the Buddhanature within every one of us which can bring us to full enlightenment.

Accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment.More knowledge might actually create more karmic obstacles
For sure knowledge alone cannot lead us to enlightenment. think of all the hundreds of scholars out there who study and write volumes of books about Buddhism who are still not enlightened. There are universities who have entire degrees dedicated to the study of Buddhist philosophy and many, many academics who dedicate their whole lives to Buddhist philosophy. They have probably more knowledge of the Buddhist texts than many of us here, but for them, it remains purely an academic exercise. They are not enlightened by it. Knowledge remains only as knowledge if we don't put it into practice, and that too will be lost when we die.

More than that, knowledge can definitely also create more karmic obstacles for us. Instead of being a tool for us to become better people, practise and gain attainments, having more knowledge can actually just make us more arrogant and proud. We think, "I have more knowledge than you, I am better than you" and become puffed up with pride. Our egos and self-cherishing mind becomes even greater. We may even use the knowledge to put others down, or use it decetifully to cover our lies, deception, laziness, or use it for selfish gains (such as to get more money, fame, power). In this way, the knowledge doesn't help us at all in our spiritual path; it just makes our egos and selfishness bigger, which is opposite to everything we're trying to achieve in our spiritual practice!

This is my interpretation of this passage of teaching (I am not commenting on the whole thread that was posted by Harry Nephew; only this passage in isolation as quoted by Lightning).

Like I said before, I take it to be a positive teaching that is not at all contradictory to the Buddha's teachings. I'd be interested to know if, after having considered this interpretation, you still think that these teachings are flawed and wrong?

I don't mean to be arrogant or challenging, but am sincerely interested to understand why you are quite quick to regard these teachings as flawed? It's worrying to me to hear how people are quick to criticise teachers and their teachings, instead of trying to understand them first or clear their doubts. So I'd like to know why you'd see these teachings as flawed?

[lightning]

Hi All, ultimately the bottomline is that we have to reconginesd who is truly a spiritual guide who can really lead us to enlightenment. I am trying to point out that from the Dharma instructions expounded, we can distinguish whether this spiritual guide deserves to be followed. Buddha can manifest in many forms, He may appear not explain the 3 Kaya of Buddha but He must know 3 kaya. Upon tested, He must be able to explain such teachings effortless without contradictions.

 I know personally about the background of this Master, that is why I picked up some of the quotes. In hoping that anyone with strong Lam Rim or Madiyamaka background able to see what I discern.

Dulzin is able to perceive what I am seeing. Honey Dakini is able to produce excellent explanation to back up her ground, but did not see what I have pointed out. I felt that the statement from this spiritual guide is bizarre and misleading. He is trying to advertise his spiritual power to attract ignorant followers and using the "big" name like Yamantaka, Dorje Shugden etc. to show how mighty he is. The surest way to find out whether He is the real deal is by quoting his statement and let us examine whether it displays the essence of all Sutras and all Buddha's teachings, Whether he is able to explain the essence of 3 Buddha kaya properly.

It is important that the spiritual guide should have for lineage tracing back to the Buddha (original source). As the teachings are passed down orally without flaws in understanding the underlying meanings to Buddha's Dharma instructions from Buddha Shakyamuni down to all the lineage masters till our generation. These authentic teachings are the password to the meaning as expounded on the sutras or Lamrim etc. From receiving this type of oral instructions from qualified spiritual guide, then only there will be hope in reaching supramundane attainments. No one can ever guessed these underlying instructions without "passwords" handed down from the lineage masters.

Nowadays, there are people who claim themselves to be Buddhists without even truly understand about taking refuge to triple gem. Understanding about triple gem is not as simple as what many think. Do you really think that we should take refuge in All Buddhas, All Dharma and All Sangha, then you have been greatly mistaken! Because there are a lot of "dissecting process" to understand Buddha Dharma. For example, when we talk about taking refuge to Sangha. It does not mean taking refuge to all the monks, but it means to take refuge to the Enlightened beings who have attained the path of seeing and above (Arhats, Bodhisattvas). To mistaken into taking refuge to all Dharma is also wrong, Because we cannot take refuge in evil Dharma etc. Understanding these teachings may throw some into confusion and takes time to absorb.

Human beings consist of man and woman. Man cannot be a woman, because they are opposite. Man cannot be human beings because there are woman, (This is taught within Madiyamaka topic)
Therefore Buddha cannot be Sentient Beings, because there are sentient beings that have not attain complete enlightenment like Bodhisattvas, Arhats and unenlightened humans etc. I have to add that Jesus is like Buddha as both have compassion, but the biggest difference is that Buddha is stainless and complete, stainless from mental and all knowing obscuration and complete in 3 Buddha Kayas and 5 Dhyani Buddha wisdom, whereas Jesus do not have such attainment. In comparison with both teachings, we can see the difference. From here, we can see that Jesus is not the manifestation of Buddha.

Similarly, we cannot mistake compassion as Bodhicitta, as Bodhicitta's magnitude is so much stronger than compassion. If we have Bodhicitta, we have compassion.

Buddha and enlightenment beings can manifest murder, mad man, prostitute etc. He can even display great magical power to attract Dharma followers or whatever suitable methods to tame sentient beings. But ulitmately from the Dharma instructions given, one can almost straight away recongised whether He is an enlightened being and qualified spiritual guide.

Anyway thanks to honey dakini, Big Uncle, Dulzin and many others for replying

[lightning]

<quote by Master Lu:
Buddha is sentient beings; upon enlightenment, sentient beings are Buddha.......
Practicing Buddhism is to concentrate on being like Buddha. There is no hindrance. Six Patriarch said, examine your self-nature, find the intrinsically pure mind, then you are enlightened. Accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment. More knowledge might actually create more karmic obstacles. >

If anyone has been to Lam Rim or Madhyamaka classes are able to detect the flaws within this type of sentence. I will not further comment on about TBSN. You guys are not aware of happenings in South East Asia...

<I think that much of the confusion can arise from the simple problem of semantics and language. This is also why I think it is important to understand the full context of the teaching and to consider many other contributing factors, such as the teacher's style of speaking, language barriers, translations etc. >

I agreed to your above statement.

My understanding is as follows:

Buddha is sentient beings; upon enlightenment, sentient beings are Buddha.......
Buddha is not sentient beings because there are those who are not fully enlightened, If Sentient beings are Buddhas, we are completely enlightened! why do we need to pick up Buddhism? Sentient beings have the potential to become Buddhas (like matches can light up fire). But that does not match the point that sentient beings are Buddhas.

Practicing Buddhism is to concentrate on being like Buddha.
At least this quote seems logical, but concentrate on being like Buddha seems funny. But Honey Dakini provides valid explanation.

examine your self-nature, find the intrinsically pure mind, then you are enlightened
the intrinsic nature of our mind is one of purity and great clarity. if it is pure originally that meant we were enlightened originally and if we attain enlightenment, we may one day revert back to unenlightened state. Similarly if a pearl was originally clean and after sometimes it becomes dusty. After cleaning it becomes bright again and later it will become dusty again. We will be forever wiping that pearl?
Our mind is neither pure or inpure, our mind can hold either good or bad thoughts, not both at the same time. What we are purifying is our negative karma. From my understanding, there is a more complete view to perceiving emptiness, that is the Nagajurna or Chandrakriti's view of emptiness, which provides better explanations (sorry I can't explain due to my mingle learnings and understanding of the topic)

Accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment.More knowledge might actually create more karmic obstacles
From his statement, I would interpret that he is trying to discourage accumulating of knowledge, though I agreed that accumulating knowledge may not lead you to enlightenment. This is a bizarre view and incomplete statement which will mislead countless people who would follow him.

From my understanding we need to accumulate knowledge that leads us to full enlightenment such as how to practise Bodhicitta, correct view of perceiving of emptiness, learning how to reach samadhi and vipassana etc. Accumulating such knowledge that lead us to supramundane attainments has more benefits than disadvantages. Only those who accumulate such knowledge for own gain will become obscuration to their advancement. Overall it is better to have such knowledge. In lam Rim, we are encouraged to learn, contemplate and put into practice. Not to discourage learning

I know that you are worried as i am, but my point is that one should examine and able to differentiate truth or fake from Dharma instructions, even by quoting some points out.