Apech

Where's Marblehead?

That's not Samsara its mud!

prism's projection a rainbow without the rain colours but no gold.

My system has six seals: so that beats yours any day.

Yes, I know we have been through this before. We experience a duality that is non-dual, there is no 'non-dual' as being a thing or state or whatever - that is just a way of speaking it is just that the dual while not being the same are not different.

That is not my point. To say one sees oneself suggests that there is a self observing and self to be observed - but by putting it in the third person this is kind of side stepped.

not tea-cup...in wind... the cucumber sandwiches... are responsible.

Hi alwayson, I thought that Milarepa's lama was Marpa the Translator (a hero of mine) ... can you reveal your source for Nyingma lamas? Thanks John

REPEAT QUOTE "When others out of jealousy treat me badly With abuse, slander, and so on, I will learn to take on all loss, And offer victory to them." :)

You see I think there may be a problem here and that is just the need to talk about yourself in the third person as if this means that there is no person there. I think (yes, I, me) that the word clarity implies that something is clear to somebody, otherwise what does clarity signify, why can't it be opacity or ... something. One seeing through oneself is also an interesting idea, since I suppose it implies that one sees through the illusion of one's self - since this is Buddha-speak. Just to make it clear I have no problem with Dzogchen or dependent origination ... but I do have a problem with the kind of contorted formulations it comes up with in order to express the inexpressible. Better in my view to start by saying that the 'it' that can be spoken about is not the real 'it' ... and then start to talk about the implications of the 'its' and the 'not-its' and how the dual arises from the non-dual ... oh hang on ... someone has already done that ... hey I'm a Taoist after all.

What! You link capacity for Buddhism with your posts! A little arrogant don't you think? Have you practiced mind-training at all? "When others out of jealousy treat me badly With abuse, slander, and so on, I will learn to take on all loss, And offer victory to them."

A clarity then, that is not self existent but is self-discerning (?) The clarity sees itself ... so the clarity is a thing or a state of mind? The image that comes to mind is like clear water, transparent ... limpid water ... but this may be just because you used the word clarity ... which suggests to me that it has to be clear to someone or something ... clear in what sense is I suppose my question. Can you also give a source or link to this clarity idea? Thanks

Think straight, be here now... Bend like starlight round a sun Know not where or when.

waves of pavement stretch solid white line in the road no overtaking.

Great post -O-.

My attitude towards language is not pejorative in the slightest. My point is that often when we discuss the meaning of say, consciousness, we are actually debating the limits of the application of that term ... usually without defining that term in the first place for ourselves. It is best, I think first to define terms and then debate how they may be applied. If concepts are an 'extension of the mysterious' then we should acknowledge the mysterious and the 'playing with terms' then becomes an enlightening process rather than just a game.

changing; stars in place it's on Ptolemy's astrolabe futures are written.

Some people talk about consciousness (because it is to do with knowing or being aware) as a predicate to the thing perceived … 'tree' and 'consciousness of tree' - both arising dependent on each other. Other people mean by consciousness the formless field of awareness in which things are presented as being (or not) and that this consciousness can be without objects when its only focus is its own emptiness. Some people talk about self as being an autonomous entity or perhaps the essence of a being which somehow encapsulates what that thing is. While others attempt through logic to show that this putative self does not and cannot exist. Some people like to talk about 'no-self' or 'no-mind' which is rather like the waiter dealing with the 'absence of cream' but with the added problem of there never being any cream in the first place. It is defined by negating something which the speaker does not believe exists in the first case which puts it in another category. The fact that we can be aware of absence … as in Satre's own example of being aware of the absence of his friend Pierre in Being and Nothingness… means that we can speak of the absence of things as if they are things - which becomes even more perplexing. Lets face it, all we are doing is playing with terms, stretching them, holding them up against each other to see how they compare, mixing them up, dying them different colours … its great but ultimately will look a little disappointing when we truly realise what its all about … then we will speak with new tongues.

So. Aha! Only a true conspirator would deny that they are part of it. So come on ... what's the deal, Mrs Shape-shifting lizard new world order masonic alien!!?!!!

Cloudhand, I like what you have written and for this reason I don't want to tamper with it ... but we are sticking to the Haiku form of 5,7,5 syllables and using the last line of the preceding haiku as the first line, on this thread. John.

Oh dear ... that is not the Buddhist position. In fact all the Buddhists I know are positive about science - if you strip off all the cultural stuff at the heart is a kind of science of the mind anyway.

Welcome back GiH! While I agree with a lot of what Mr. Harris says I do think he falls into the trap of mixing literal interpretation with what you might call illustrative non-verbal communication. I don't think Buddhism basically encourages people to believe rather than find out for themselves or experience for themselves - but people being people love to adopt beliefs in the place of this. All (I think) tantric deities are visualized as being 'born' from a lotus because they emerge from the mind directly - this be understood in the context of any particular sadhana. To suggest that the historical figure of Guru Rinpoche was born this way is an example of confusion.

'That can lead to fire!' *Throws lighter onto fuel dump* Wuuumph!!!!! See what I mean?