Lucky7Strikes

I read Zhuang Zi as an analytic meditation

The relationship between the unmanifest condition and the manifest experience is not as clear cut or established at all. It is a mirage like nature of existence, which is reflective, as in I can only know myself through a contextual you. Think of Yang as the energy of manifest movement and Yin as the conditions of stillness that complement it. We usually see the conditions and the manifest experience--the presence, the luminosity--as separate and distinct and real. The right view is that there is really no distinction between the contents of the manifest and the unmanifest, both are equally illusion like in that the manifest becomes unmanifest and the unmanifest manifest. They are interdependent and all is so impermanent. The interplay of the two is ungraspable and unknowable, as in you cannot know the unmanifest nor can you know the manifest because experience itself is the manifest. There is nothing to know beyond this! The right view is no view. The right knowledge is no knowledge. These words here cancel themselves out.

What's the name of the classic called? And I think the 'nothingness' in the context can be translated as 'emptiness' also.

Why do you feel that this discussion darkens your existence? The very fact that you view things this way says plenty about the intentions behind the thread. If you feel threatened by such views, just move on. I've had much lengthier debates, and very nasty indeed (most on my part), against the so called Buddhists on this forum. We worked through the issues in discourse, through misunderstandings and interpretations (mostly due to language), but I really don't see an effort on your part to understand. We're figuring this out together, ey? Anyway, Just as the dogma with religion can cloud views, the dogma against religion/tradition can equally be damaging.

Enlightenment is practice. CowTao outlined it in his quote nicely!

Don't you see how he's very disturbed? I didn't mean it so literally anyway.

Fear, I sense. Of the Truth!

Inter-dependent doesn't mean One. Here is your misunderstanding. Can you expand on the meaning of "eternal" you?

I think my mistake in the past has been trying to know everything. As in, why? then...why that? why this? Now I believe this is impossible, because any knowable concept will eventually be defined by another, unknowable, concept. Really, I think that's all anyone can know. It's liberating, knowing that I can't know anything. It's really not as bad as I thought it would be, the ephemeral, unknowable, ungraspeable experience. And maybe this is what Taoism is all about. Perhaps this is where concept ends and wisdom arrives. Well, haha! I don't know. Good day everyone! .

This is the chicken or the egg debate. They are inter dependent. So no chicken or the egg is established separately or inherently.

I remember you once boasted about how you learned to give cancer to others from your master. The way you've conducted yourself here speaks volumes, quick to accuse then boast. As with Santiago's posts above. Max and Jenny have showed great respect to other cultivators and traditions. The bliss was there to attract people initially, but it has been clarified that it is not the point of theirs or any other practice. Nor is martial prowess, or powers to move weather or shoot energy or kundalini bliss. Compassion, self healing, and non-dependence on teachers has always been the central message. I post this for others to read an judge. I've read over the controversy over Kunlun since the beginning. I have had my doubts (which have greatly hindered progress), been to KAP, met Santiago, Max, and Jenny. Max and Jenny's humility speaks for itself.

Yes, grasping onto the mentality to "Let go" is yet another cage. Responsibility and irresponsibility both are shackles. There is no free will to give up. Ultimately there has never been such a thing in the first place. This is very difficult to accept, because of one's attachment's to self. The selfless compassion is an effortless compassion. It is not where you go "oh I am responsible for saving humanity." It becomes your nature. One even forgets about one's enlightenment and goes barefoot into the market place with a hearty laughter!! Anyways, all this is left better unsaid. All things said should be to negate the untruth of what has been said. It is important to abide in the middle, and the middle is undefined and unspeakable. It really hit home for me when a fellow here said that non-duality is indeed indescribable.

More like a Taobums greatest hits. .

On the other hand, Max has showed respect for other systems. The marketing of the book aside, I speak from what he has actually said, even recently. To respect each tradition.

The first part reminds me of being plugged into the Matrix. Can you share your own experiences regarding this super information cognition? As for the second part, yes! One may never know everything within the universe, it would be impossible really. But one can deduct the nature, the way, a pattern, to how these things relate. By the way, your writing has dramatically changed than a year ago. Just another observation. .

I went to see Santi once and when I mentioned Kunlun Posture I, he sort of mockingly dismissed it. That kind of turned me off. But I still do some stuff from KAP. This isn't totally relevant, but sort of in roundabout ways.

Responsibility is attachment. It is ego's activity. It is another shackle. Ultimately, no self-aware will is free. And really, there is no such thing in the first place. Everyone is serving their part within the interdependent matrix. Let be, everything already is, and self-liberating. .

I don't know. This discussion was not about an undercurrent source or a creator or how BUddhism is set apart. You brought it out of seemingly no where. Not many people are prone to the whole "source to everything" belief. People usually believe in their individual selves and souls. Science believes in materialistic varieties. The "source to everything" is simply another view. I do think it's important to talk about, and it doesn't rub me the wrong way. I find is quizzical your strong attachment to it. .

I think you are imposing your attachments to the "no there is no source view" too much. You always mention it even when it is irrelevant, like an atheist who keeps shouting that there is no God to no one in particular but only to disavow deep seated personal history with the concept of God. It's become something like a catch phrase for you. .

Everyone approaches the understanding of interdepedence in a different manner. Each of our worlds have different histories of development and attachment, or rather--if you want to address the issue of time--different aspects. And for some poetics on this: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/jk_path.html

If there is a law by which this conditioning of wills happens. Then we can call that law universal. And we can call it the universal will.

Let go. The mandala is already perfect. .

You know, Gold can probably like.... DECAPITATE THAT MOFO BY JUST THINKING ABOUT HIM GETTING DECAPITATED!!! WHOOOOAAA