Lucky7Strikes

WHO DAT??? WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???

DUDE THAT'S, UM, YEA, LIKE... SOOO AWESOMEE....COOOLL YOU KNOW I DON'T LIKE GOING TO THE TOILET EVERYDAY AND LIKE THIS PHYSICAL DECOMPSING THING TOTALLY SUCKS!!

YOU SOOO GOLDEN!!! AWWWWW!!! SOO POWERFULLL SOOOO SPECIALLLLL SOOOO MUCH HARD WORK!!! DID YOU BREAST FEED YOURSELF TOO???

AWWWWWWWWWWW HELL NOO!!!! YOU AIN'T SPECIAL!! TURN AROUND, ACT LIKE YOU KNO!!

So with all the struggle and lengthy posts I've written on the supposed "free will" of individuals, and the mental theories I've made to defend it, I return to where I was years before: That there is no free will. We can't do anything. Because there is no "we." Everything happens on its own. There is nothing to do. The Buddha is as on an equal plain as a mad dog, the sage might as well be another carbon life form like Hitler. There is no direction, no creator. Only the created, purposeless, meaningless, and all headed no where. All our realizations and efforts are simply a part of this existence. We can ONLY be true to it. My own understanding of all this is also simply another realization. Just another part of all that is happening. It isn't particular, it doesn't belong to "me," it's just another part of all THIS (individual mindstream or not, who cares?) There is no enlightenment. If there was, it's just another thing that happens. Nothing escapes existence. So what can I say?

It means that the duality of Samsara is like a mirage in that it was never true. There was no such thing as suffering or liberation from suffering. All things already reside in Nirvana. It's not that consciousness has impact. There are just various modes of consciousness. I think what you are referring to is the movement of consciousness energy during meditation employed in internal exercises like the MCO, focusing on the Dan Tien, Tummo, and things of that sort. But again, it's not that consciousness is interacting with the object that is those locations producing an impact, it is simply the transition of phenomena-awareness from one conditioned moment to another because that moment is likewise dependently risen. Time and space only happen in context. "Does the location in mind sit when I sit"....Haha! I can't possibly wrap my mind around that phrase!

Hi Mark, I can hardly make sense of what you wrote above either! But I think there might be an understanding. My personal take on posture meditations such as zazen, zhan zhunag and such is the movement of consciousness energy from what we perceive to be external to internal. The body is a product of mental attachment and can itself be seen as a blockage, but we are too busy living in the illusionary experience between the internal and external, night and day, me and other. Therefore stillness meditation should be done with non-dual insight to break down these walls, and finally of the notion of a physical body itself, or else it just becomes sitting. The action of simply sitting (sorry Drew, but I don't think sitting in full lotus bring you to complete liberation) does not correlate with wisdom or enlightenment, or else people who can sit the longest would probably be enlightened beings. Once one begins to investigate into every phenomena as empty and dependent, destroying all concepts and notions of a reference point or a valid perspective, it is impossible to describe precisely because describing is conceptualizing it, and conceptualizing it is giving it boundaries to that which is boundless, like seeing flowers in the sky. I can't even call this an experience, it's more like an end to experience. I don't know, I'm still at a very raw stage. (CowTao explained it better above I think. .) But this now reminds me of a phrase I read when a student asked his master, "why has suffering come about?" and the master replied "it has never come about." Kind of like Papaji's thing about Nothing Ever Happened. When we say occurrence of consciousness has impact, but as you pointed out, awareness, consciousness itself IS action. And I had a hard time understanding this, that consciousness is not a noun, it is not a thing, but a property of existence, like space and form. Existence had the property of being consciousness, just as it might have form or not have form. The word BEING is very precise in this sense. There is no witness, and never was, as there is also no objective world apart from our consciousness.

Understandings and experiences feed off one another. They are not so distinct as you might imagine. There is no unhappiness because the self might be a fiction. It might be that it is difficult to accept (as I did the past two years) because of the story of individuality we have built for ourselves. The glory of effort, personal struggle, its triumph, its achievements, its failures, are some of the many attachments that hinder a true evaluation into the no-self teachings. But this is very much dependent on individual histories. The inquiry in to the truth of experience must be for the sake of that truth alone, not for happiness or unhappiness, not for whether you might like it or not, but because there is a deep seated desire to know precisely what all this is. Yes the experience of clarity is important , the experience of bliss is important, the experience of anger is important, the experience of anything really is important because they are all function of reality of which we are a part of. But to know oneself is not to experience but to gain insight into the underlying law of all these existences. Only that which abides in this truth can be eternal because all experiences that come about from meditation and practice are essentially conditioned: they've been brought about through a cause, which is practice, and hence will inevitably also fall away. The mind still or in movement, the abiding in truth is consistent. It is what makes it the truth, that precisely whatever you do, where ever you are, you are and have always abided in it. One must simply recognize it through deep inquiry.

Yes, and when we see where those beliefs and habits come from, it comes from interacting within the world and others. But of course, there is no objective world beyond sentience (note: consciousness and its object are are not nouns but adjectives/adverbs) all sentient beings are conditioning and being conditioned by one another, an infinite matrix of dependence. But as for practice, I think Cow Tao's thread on Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is on point about effortless abiding: once it is realized that the light is on, there is no need to continuously press the light switch. Right. We can't do anything, and we couldn't have done anything all along. But this must be understood with emptiness and no-self teachings, otherwise it can be abused as an excuse to certify the ego's desires. It took me a long time to come to terms with this, Xabir and I bickered (well at least I did) for more than 20 pages on the existence of free will. It is hard to accept that all the suffering and evil are also an intricate part of whole of existence and that there is no one to blame. That everything is already in perfect harmony (the Buddha supposedly resides in the middle, so he eternally acts as an equalizing agent deploying skillful means to...bring balance to the force? He serves the world consciously, being awake, and everyone else does but unconsciously, as if asleep). The spiritual path, its struggles, suffering, practice, realization and enlightenment are all conditioned risings of existence. It is extremely humbling to realize this and for me personally, I felt very thankful to...well...no one!! (well I should thank Xabir for taking my crap). Just very thankful, freeing, abiding in what has always been, and letting the path reveal to me whatever effortlessly arises.

The usual "live life fully!" propaganda leads to much suffering, and it's really a meaningless greeting card expression. .

Very good, my child.

That's very very ironic!! Considering what this thread is about! But there's nothing wrong with wrestling. Trying to not wrestle is also very undaoist! .

Vajra, my comment wasn't about whether Taoism is superior or Buddhism is superior. It was really about effective communication. When you out right declare that Taoism is inferior or that they "don't get it", people tend to ignore or want to ignore what you might say after hand because you come out as a bigot (and you are not). People usually don't like that. Anyways, I wouldn't insult Taoism so readily. It's language can suit Buddhist reality just as well. And it's not as mysterious as you might think. Just look at TCM and its modern influence. But this is besides the point. Skillful means is important in Buddhism right?

This really doesn't help anyone! .

It's difficult to have an inquiring discussion with non-Buddhists using Buddhist related terminology. It just lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding. All this is fine I think. Each has his own path. I myself prefer Daoist vocabulary. I find it much more poetic (reason I signed up here in the very fist place). But rarely use it because I've been wrestling with Buddhists here ever since. .

I use to think that the dichotomy of observer dependent on the observed held true, but all such distinctions themselves do not hold. Phenomena and awareness are one not because they are two elements, but both are characteristics of any experience in itself. Experience has always been non dual. Neither phenomena not awareness can be found.

Free awareness. It's not a freedom of will, but a freedom from will.

I think it's important to distinguish the difference between the phrases "free to" and "free of." And I believe you mean "free of" in the phrase above. This is all tremendously humbling to all the Buddhas, masters, etc. I've delved deep into inquiry trying to deny this, but now I see that there is no way but to accept it. *sigh... I guess it was a necessary thing to go through, just as with everything everyone is going through...

Ok, so the Buddha doesn't have so called "free will." Annnnd sure he is a nice guy. Okey dokey. Just another part of the play.

It is a dead end for me, but also a new ally. I don't see much in spirituality in hthe sense that it will bring me immortality or a golden body etc., other than that they can bring peace to the mind like a good jog can. I don't think I will meditate to become enlightened or anything like that, but meditate for the sake of just meditating. I like doing zazen sometimes. I don't like other times. I like doing Kunlun and tai chi kind of things. But sometime I like to watch tv too. But thank you. I think we have an understanding on some level. I think I'll be ok. .

:lol: Sorry!

The arhat doesn't die. He realizes that there is no one there to have died in the first place. Hence it isn't wrong to say he has "ceased to exist" or "annhilated," but not in the sense you would think. I don't fully know, this is just my interpretation. The arhat's efforts most likely go to harmonizing any experience he encounters as is true to his realization, meaning, he acts according to conditions, and his condition is to be self-less, which translates into compassion (but again, not a purposeful compassion, but an effortless compassion, which are different). Think of the final stage of the ten ox hearding stages where the arhat forgets even his enlightenment and walks into the market place bare-footed because he is enlightenment itself.

You know, I kind of don't like your pretentious one liners. I don't know who you are trying to emulate or what kind of message you want to get across, but they aren't that insightful or poetic. .