9th

hang on - wut?

Saint Augustines girls. Sponsored by Saint Paul's channel radio station

good job dao bums

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/food-03d.html

No point. No match.

Hoping for better then on to fearing the worst interesting times

Understanding the macro level goes hand in hand with understanding the micro level. Human concerns alone are a very slim aspect of the total equation - and civilized society is an even slimmer portion of that very slim aspect. Spend your time wisely. Think like the bacteria do. Think like the Elder Gods do. From whirling atoms to whirling galaxies. Its all cosmic. Go up and down at the same time. Then you might start to get the full picture of the natural order. And by all means, dont stop there - because once you start, you better finish. Life is short. Finish it before it finishes you. Go ahead - be immortal. And good luck to you all.

This singing art is sea foam. The graceful movements come from a pearl somewhere on the ocean floor. Poems reach up like spindrift and the edge of driftwood along the beach, wanting! They derive from a slow and powerful root that we can’t see. Stop the words now. Open the window in the centre of your chest, and let the spirits fly in and out. - Rumi

there in the limelight the universal dream for those who wish to seem

and in between the wake of ripples in the ocean the echoes of your life

im quite sweet inside the taste of flowers buzzing nectar of the gods

the true spirit of unbending intent is the essence of ignorance taken to the point of no-return, where blind focus on the non-specific latent awareness of all possibilities gives rise to the one specific possibility which unfurls into the manifold ten thousand things the yin reaches fullness and produces a point of yang, which reaches fullness and produces a point of yin, and the cycle continues endlessly throughout all dimensions of transient activity, and engenders the apparent relative motion of zero to infinity all oscillations of all wave functions occur within this continuum, and without the continuum there is no relative position to unfold hand in hand, the dancers will spin around in circles by falling into line - moment by moment, for as long as the moments persist for it is that which is projected between the images which gives the forms shape and movement to begin and end with

dao doing its thing and not-doing the doing all at the same time

This is an article I discovered on a blog a while ago. It gives some fascinating insight into the origins of the apparent likenesses which Advaita has to Buddhism and yet the stark differences and opposition against it that was promoted by Shankara at that time. Shankara was a Upanishadic philosopher who aimed to provide the correct meaning of the ancient Indian texts at a point when both the Buddhist and the Hindu communities in India were showing signs of disintegration, corruption and decay. Shankara lived in the 8th and early 9th century, born of Brahmin parents in the village of Kaladi on the Malabar coast (today's Kerala, South India). He mostly frequented Varanasi however, the stronghold of Brahminical Hinduism and was taught within the lineage of Gaudapada, a Upanishadic teacher strongly influenced by Buddhism. This period of Indian history saw immense religious conflict and social change. Hinduism was disunited and had split into many groups and sects, each with their own views. Buddhist philosophy appeared pessimistic to the general populace. According to Shankara, literalists and ritualists alike had missed the spirit of the Upanishads while even worse, nihilists and iconoclasts were contradicting the sacred scriptures. He accused Buddhism of teaching non-existence and even portrayed the Buddha as an incarnation sent to lead the wicked astray and hasten the end of the Kali Yuga. Meanwhile in Varanasi, Buddhism was gaining popularity with the local elite: new ideologies of renunciation were emerging in Northern India which opposed ritualism and superceded Brahminism with its accent on caste inequalities and the privileged position of priests. Fierce competition broke out among the Indian philosophical schools for royal benefaction and economic security. To secure his survival as a spiritual teacher, Shankara assimilated Hindu and Buddhist ideas into a new form of Vedantic Absolutism which continued to endorse the authority of the Upanishads and his lineage teacher, Gaudapada. The Upanishads speak of an ultimate reality named Brahman which is eternal. This was also the teaching of Gaudapada. However Gaudapada (who lived in the 8th century too) was also strongly influenced by Yogacara Buddhism and Madhyamaka Buddhism. Since the Upanishadic Brahman was ultimately real, he readily accepted the Yogacara teaching that by contrast the world was unreal and illusory (māyā) being a projection of the mind. However whereas Madhyamaka Buddhism taught the doctrine of non-origination (anutpāda), which said there was no ultimate reality (like Brahman) to ever come into existence, Gaudapada decided to keep the Upanishadic Brahman and say instead that it was 'unoriginated' (ajativāda). He did this to avoid contradicting the authority of the sacred texts. As a result Shankara argued for Gaudapada's "unoriginated Brahman" stating that Brahman was unchangeable, infinite and imperishable. This continued to uphold the authority of the Upanishads since Brahman remained the supreme reality but it also pandered to new fashionable Buddhist ideas since the Upanishadic Brahman was recast as nirguna or "without attribute": that is, formless and indescribable. But Shankara's Brahman was also non-dual. This reinvented the traditional Hindu concepts of jiva, Atman and Brahman and reconfigured their relationship, which once again put the Upanishads head and shoulders above the rest. Shankara had sidestepped the literalists by sweeping away the theism of early Vedantins (which later culminated in Ramanuja and Madhva). He had countered the Hindu ritualists because he had embraced the Buddhist idea of non-violence (ahiṃsā) and its rejection of animal sacrifice. Shankara also continued to distance Hinduism from Buddhism by vehemently criticising the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā). This reiterated the popular perception that Buddhism was pessimistic and conveniently disguised the fact that he and Gaudapada had borrowed ideas from the Yogacara and Madhyamaka schools. Shankara's philosophy - just as all spiritual philosophy - was political. This is now having serious implications for today's Advaita: Advaita is outmoded and does not recognise modern theoretical physics. Because Gaudapada and Shankara accepted Yogacarin ideas that the world is illusory (being a creation of the mind), Advaita argues that ultimate reality is experienceable, non-illusory, and eternal. This rules out by definition the existence of theoretical entities such as electrons, protons and neutrinos since they cannot be directly experienced or perceived. It is stuck in absolutism. In subverting the Madhyamakan theory of non-origination which states there is "no birth", Gaudapada and Shankara taught instead "there is an unborn" in the form of an unoriginated Brahman. Madhyamakans suggest that an ultimate reality is impossible because existence is co-dependently originated (pratītyasamutpāda). If all things arise interdependently, they can have no independent essence of their own, in which case they cannot be said to have ever arisen. Advaita however argues for an ultimate reality and says instead that it is this which is unoriginated. This is where Shankara's teaching short-circuits. Shankara stated that all levels of reality culminate in Brahman as the substratum of anything we experience. For him the world is an illusory appearance in Brahman. All things are therefore unreal and subject to change but due to ignorance (avidyā) we mistake them for being real - an ignorance which must be destroyed. Here the Advaitic Brahman is something "that is already there" despite us being unaware of its existence. Shankara turns his Nirguna Brahman into an absolutely existent object skulking in the shadows. The problem with objectifying anything is that it is then found not to truly exist - because like all phenomena - it is subject to change. This is a circle which cannot be squared ... These absolutist ideas manifest in the ridiculous schism between Traditional and Neo Advaita, which is the legacy of the weaknesses of Gaudapada and Shankara's political philosophy. In recent times, Dennis Waite and James Swartz have initiated an acrimonious attack on those who dismiss methods and focus on the non-existence of the "I". Waite and his cabal call themselves "Traditional Advaitins"; they insist that a method is necessary for realisation; and they accuse their critics of the heresy of nihilism, labelling them "Neo Advaitins". This is the same argument that Shankara had with the Buddhists. Shankara rightly accused Buddhism of nihilism: the Sarvastivada and Yogacara schools taught the complete non-existence (as well as the total existence) of phenomena. But here Shankara was guilty of exactly the same absolutism. While the Sarvastivadins and the Yogacarins argued for the complete non-existence of something, Advaita was arguing for the complete existence of something (that is, Nirguna Brahman). This is nihilism and eternalism respectively. Advaita and Buddhism were playing off the same chess board, just positioned at opposite ends ... In exactly the same way there are now modern Advaita teachers who say either "no method" or "no I" (e.g. Papaji, Karl Renz) - and also - "there is only the Self" or "there is only Consciousness" (e.g. Lakshmana Swamy, Nisargadatta). These statements are absolutist too since they insist that the Self and Consciousness completely exist (eternalism) or something like a method or the "I" completely don't exist (nihilism). Dennis Waite and his cronies are culpable of exactly the same crime they are accusing their critics of. Traditional Advaita's criticism of Neo Advaita is the song and dance of separation still playing to the same ill-starred tune: a Greek chorus of personae acting out the sequel to the Gaudapadian drama! The conceit of Traditional Advaita has become a mirror image of their consumerist cousins the Neo Advaitins. They are locked together in an eternal struggle which neither can win. This is like a still from the opening of the Russian movie Nightwatch where the forces of polarity - light/dark, order/chaos and eternalism/nihilism (call them what you will!) - are locked into a Mexican standoff of epic proportions. Traditional and Neo Advaita are both purveyors of a dogma/anti-dogma which is stale and strangely irrelevant - and their only contribution has been to add a new historical layer of mental confusion over a complete absence of any spiritual realisation whatsoever. They are engrossed in a petty, factional fight and their day is done. Traditional and Gaudapadian Advaita have failed to address the arguments of Madhyamaka Buddhism. This too is the legacy of Gaudapada's political formulation of Advaita. We know that Gaudapada borrowed from the Madhymakans and reinterpreted their thesis of non-origination without crediting them. Unlike the Sarvastivadin and Yogacarin positions, the Madhyamaka teaching of non-origination was not nihilist. Its main teachers Nagarjuna and Candrakirti - now classified as Prasangika Madhyamaka - rejected outright both nihilism and eternalism. They advocated instead a new interpretation of the Buddha's Middle Way which says (as modern theoretical physics confirms) that absolutes are impossible. There cannot truly be any enlightenment, Self or Brahman to attain - nor can there truly be any jiva, "I" or method to attain it. This position does not say "no I" or "no method". It says all things including the person exist as empty, co-dependent arisings which are neither totally existent nor totally non-existent. Methods may happen, methods may not - what happens simply happens - and whether someone practises a method or not is completely irrelevant ... Traditional Advaita does not even faithfully represent Shankara's teaching. Waite and Swartz are likely unaware of the precise historical currents they are shaped by. But even if they are aware of them, they don't understand them. For example their dogmatic insistence on "rigorous practice" flies in the face of the fact that Shankara, rather ironically, didn't really advocate a method for realisation! Because Gaudapada and Shankara theorised the world as unreal, the jiva in its ignorance was in need of unification with Brahman. This meant the jiva and Brahman were two separate entities and something was needed to connect them. Shankara therefore suggested the new idea that Brahman resided as Atman within the jiva, stating that Brahman could not be attained. Rather, the jiva could only hope that their ignorance would be destroyed by the jnana of an enlightened guru. Giving up desire for worldly pleasure and reflecting on the meaning of Atman as identical to Brahman would help but it could not bring about liberation itself ...

To be fair, Id agree that the author has some bias and also some general confusion about "what the truth should be" or so forth. My main interest in the article has to do with the historical information regarding the context of the relationship between Advaita and Buddhism, which was certainly a big deal in Shankara's time. I have no interest in his personal interpretations of the issues whatsoever. However, Shankara was known to be a very popular debater of philosophy and would travel far and wide to argue his points and address the issues which he saw as incongruent with his version of the truth. When he speaks of a "failure to address" and so forth, it should be taken in this context - as Shankara most certainly did develop his ideas in response to his environment and especially the surrounding philosophical systems of his time. Shankara took it upon himself to address many issues of many systems with his own divergent thinking and statements and debates - and he would often compare and contrast the ideas directly to the ones which he was attempting to reform or repudiate. This is very common throughout history, and especially in India. Siddhartha did the exact same thing when he founded Buddhism. Here is where I would disagree with you. If anything, neither Advaita nor the author has to address a thing. But if one is to be held accountable, then all must be accountable. There is no preferential treatment to be found outside that which you personally ascribe to the situation, and this is where you show your own bias. Advaita is responsible for the ideas it promotes and if it fails to address a particular issue (either by omission or misapprehension), then that is something that may be a concern for some people. If it is not a concern for you, great - enjoy yourself. However that is only your own personal bias - in exactly the same way the author has a bias which prompts him to use terminology such as "ridiculous schism". If you do not think he should have any expectations to this topic, then you as well must be true to this by having no expectations yourself. Otherwise you will also quite clearly demonstrate your own kind of "schism". You speak of the author "harboring discontent bordering on anger", and yet the content of your response here could also be said to demonstrative of the same exact thing. But what is the point of such subjective judgements in the first place?

Id (once again) urge the rest of us, you especially, to consider this message:

Thats basically it, yes. Its definitely rare for a reason. As Luke says above, plenty of people are on a different arc of the cycle altogether. But it is a cycle. Everything that goes around, comes around. Eventually.

from the mind of void the space between endless realms divides and unites

When you speak of things such as "how to be self-less" you may have already put it into a somewhat strange category of abstraction without realizing the implications. In the strictest sense, Id say that what you are speaking of is less about being "self-less" (which is itself a bit of an existential debate and can lead to very complicated theoretical musings) and more about releasing the fixation upon your own personal welfare at the expense of that which is around you. In other words, the idea is to navigate your life from a position of open awareness - rather than from a position which is fixated on the importance of your own self, in your own body, with your own mind, living your own life. So, I would say it has much more to do with "not being selfish" rather than the more existential concept of "being selfless". That is why the most common prescription to approach this kind of reality is to engage in a voluntary public service of some sort, feeding the homeless, donating your time and energy to help others, etc. and so forth. In this case, a precept or prescription or recommendation which motivates a person to engage in such public service in this way is intended as a remedial activity for those who have not already truly understood the value of not being selfish - for if they already understood, they would already be serving everyone around them in the best capacity they could. If you have not engaged in such service, then you obviously would not be familiar with the benefits involved - and these kinds of things are prescribed for that reason. As you ACT in a way that is not selfish, you come to learn and understand the implications of doing so much more thoroughly than simply hearing descriptions about it, or reading stories about it. So in this way, the ACT of not being selfish is used as a bridge to actually BEING a person who is not selfish. People who are looking to skip over the activity and simply become that through some other means may not be prepared for the implications or consequences of such a path. It is one thing to already be a person who is not selfish and somewhat inclined to harmonious integration with the world, and therefore be able to skip ahead by virtue of this - however it is quite another for someone who is fixated on their own self-importance to an extreme degree to skip through all of their own misunderstandings and unhealthy actions that they create for themselves. While it certainly is indeed possible to have your world "drop out from below you" in such a way that your very being itself is forced to change radically - I really dont think people appreciate the magnitude of such a scenario. And even if something like that were to happen - such radical change does not even begin to denote any kind of maturity or integration in terms of higher functions and total understanding and so forth. Thats a bit like asking how to make an oak grow from a seed into a 20 foot tall tree in one day. Its going to take a huge fucking miracle, dude. So - I wouldnt count on it.