contrivedname!

and it was a good one. though i read your point as serious in a playful way.

right and buddhism and vedanta have nothing to do with spirituality. and there is no possiblity of personal biases playing into this discussion of history, none.

a lot of this discussion seems to be going down the line of my religions dick is bigger than yours. scratch that. its more like my religion's dick is older than yours, and we all know how well old men's dicks work i can really see how this discussion raises the general conciousness

and then so the above is true wisdom and isn't insipid intellectualism? its not a 'bantering [of] their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say"'? i think most of the discussion on this site is what you termed 'bantering [of] their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say'. If someone else's experience is of no help why discuss anything? should we not agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree? how can someone have no familiarity with reality, its right in front of your face, just because we use our conceptual filter to self-define reality doesnt mean it isnt experienced; our view is biased and defined by said filters, but reality is still experienced, however narrow, skewed, or delusional the view. in fact i would hold that we use our subjective experiences of reality to form these filters, or what i call our experiential lens. after a time our experience of reality is filtered through these narrow paradigms nearly automatically. by clinging to our own narrow experiential paradigms we begin filtering reality through so many different filters that 'reality' could become indistinguishable from said filters/lens'/paradigms. These filters are useful, when not clung to as absolute reality, when they are clung to... that said i will partake in pretension and posit that i agree with much of what you said... except the absurd parts which i rebuked (damn that paradigm!)

3bob, you just hit on a great point. that is a huge barrier in discussing these topics and perhaps some of the reasoning that induced so many different 'masters' to use words to convey moving beyond words. when i speak of mind i mean conciousness, intent. when i speak of ego i am referring to the 'thoughtforms' and conditioned constructs we use to shape this conciousness, intent, our preception of reality. by fixation i refer to the habitual tendency of people to fixate on thoughtforms. thought to thought your mind should be free to come and go between, through, around, arising thoughtforms w/out fixation. this isnt negation of thought, a pure form of 'silence'. silence is a gap in thoughtform; if there were no thoughtforms, what would define 'silence'? if there was no silence, what would define thoughtform? emptiness and thought share the same ground, the original mind, the buddha-nature. Skillful means abound While the mind goes 'round and 'round Self and No Self are just like two, dualistic view If they dont help you to unskew, what good do they do?

@ Mikaelz: re-read TzuJanLi's commentary on that quote, he isnt calling him "wrong" he is expanding on it based on his paradigm. and further, yea its great to realize that those are just thoughts, good for you. not everyone realizes this intuitively so if some "buddhist master" goes around using no-self like a cure-all they could perpetuate a lot of suffering. i think CowTao explained my point better than i did. "Even if balanced, true self teachings still affirm fixation in some way. Instead of a small 'i' its a Grand 'I'. The little ego surrenders to the big ego and affirms its own existence through the ultimation of the Ultimate Subject. There is a subtle clinging/grasping happening there. It's hard to see, but its clearly evident to me. True self posits a ground into which you can surrender but still be safe. No self takes that ground away and thus is harder to comprehend since its so counter-intuitive. The mind wants a ground, but this ground is still a subtle concept and isn't real." not the way i precieve you using it. You just claimed that "no self takes that ground away"; that is a ground in itself my friend, the ground of cutting through ego/i/I, which can also be used to create ego fixation. and no it isnt harder, you make it 'harder' through your conception of subtle and hard. i agree the egoic mind wants a ground, and you are creating a great one for it by holding no self on a pedestal above others (thereby informing your ego that a diminishment of ego is accomplishment and furthering fixation). A similar analogy may be drawn regarding the greedy monk. The monk whom has renounced 'worldly greed' could still be as greedy or greedier than the "greedy businessman". By lusting after pure forms of egolessness and samadhi they have "spiritually materialized" their greed. consistently calling 'no self' "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization etc." one is partaking in spiritual hierarchies (who forms these hierarchies, anyhow?, people whom are seen as masters? whom are they seen as masters by? what concieves this respect and grants this authority?). whether self/no self/non-self is "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization" depends on you. Homage to the viewless view and all that. "The original mind is akin to a moment of surprised astonishment". this can mean that original mind is similar to the 'mind before conception'.

Excellent quote and i liked your expansion on it... The quote above is a good differentiation between no self and non-self. non-self negates the conception of self and no self. these ideas are mutually dependent and require the conception of one to form the other; while in this instance non-self is used to equate the point of non-conception of either self or no self. its the middle ground, why posit for self or no self? one guy said: beauty creates ugly another guy said: no, ugly creates beauty chuang tzu said: A man who kept monkeys said to them, "you get three acorns in the morning and four in the evening." This made them all furious. So he said, "how about four in the morning and three in the evening." and they were happy. The number of acorns was the same, but the different arrangement resulted in anger or pleasure. We're all monkies. In response to SF Jane's earlier taoist/buddhist interaction here is a somewhat similar situation described in a Zen Sutra: There was a youth named Shen-hui from the Kao clan of Hsiang-yang; thirteen years old, he came from Jade Spring to call on the master. The Master said, "Friend, you've come a long way, a hard journey; have you brought the basis along? If you have the basis you should know the host. Try to express it." Shen-hui said, "Non-dwelling is the basis, seeing is the host." The master said, "how is it appropriate for you, a novice, to speak glibly?" Shen-hui then asked, "when you sit meditating do you see or do you not see?" The master then hit him three times with his staff and asked, "when i hit you are you pained or not?" He replied "both pained and not pained" the master said "and i both see and do not see." Shen-hui asked "What is it to both see and not see?" the master said "My vision is such that i always see the excess and errors of my own mind, while i do not see the good and bad, right and wrong of other people. Thus i both see and do not see." "You say you are both pained and not pained what about that? If you are not pained you are the same as wood or stone; if you are pained you are the same as an ordinary man so you get angry and resentful" "The seeing or not seeing you spoke of are two extremes; being pained or not pained are birth and death. You dont even see your own essential nature and yet you dare to play with people." -Thomas Cleary translation to me it seems part of the self/no-self teachings is to cut through egomania. i am thinking of egomania here as something of a continuum; there are different expressions. for a person with an inflated ego image, someone who always thinks they're right or are overly full of themself and thereby create suffering in this manner (rarely do we meet up to the standards of our illusions), no-self may be a good way to break up this "affirming" fixation. can you imagine the potential suffering that could be caused to a person via no-self, if they are highly depressed and have feelings like: its all pointless, i dont exist, i wish i was dead, my life sucks, etc.? this is another expression of egomania. to address ralis' mention to inflicted suffering, this is a differing situation. that is, there is a difference between self-inflicted suffering and externally inflicted suffering. thank you for pointing this out ralis. call me a weirdo, but i dont really buy into the idea that everyone who suffers is reaping their 'karma'.

it is interesting that a shamanic concoction in the amazon, with the partial purpose of "expelling" evil spirits, has been found by modern western science to "expel" many forms of waterborne parasites (read evil spirits?).

The Solar Myth Approach is a great album. i have heard other 'discordant' music before, but Sun Ra's still seems hmm to be more than just noise. i have listened to the album quite a bit and i can predict the 'movements' if you will but i still dont discern a technical 'pattern', at least on the really abstract, discordant songs. what made you want to bring up Sun Ra?

; that was the idea of my liezi quote, the author (lieh yu'kou? or no?) goes on to equate his situation to one near the way or resembling the way and when someone tried to force him to diverge on a different way... well, those were the results (i think it said he chased his son out of town or something like that). i will relate this to the zhuangzi story : "The ruler of the South Sea was called Light; the ruler of the middle sea, darkness; and the ruler of the middle kingdom, Primal Chaos. From time to time, light and darkness met one another in the kingdom of Primal Chaos, who made them welcome. Light and Darkness wanted to repay his kindness and said, "All humans have seven openings with which they see, hear, eat, and breathe, but Primal Chaos has none. Let us try to give him some." So every day they bored one hole, and on the seventh day, Primal Chaos died.

"Subhuti said to Buddha: World-honored One, will there always be men who will truly believe after coming to hear these teachings? Buddha answered: Subhuti, do not utter such words! At the end of the last five-hundred-year period following the passing of the Tathagata, there will be self-controlled men, rooted in merit, coming to hear these teachings, who will be inspired with belief. But you should realize that such men have not strengthened their root of merit under just one Buddha, or two Buddhas, or three, or four, or five Buddhas, but under countless Buddhas; and their merit is of every kind. Such men, coming to hear these teachings, will have an immediate uprising of pure faith, Subhuti; and the Tathagata will recognize them. Yes, He will clearly perceive all these of pure heart, and the magnitude of their moral excellences. Wherefore? It is because such men will not fall back to cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. They will neither fall back to cherishing the idea of things as having intrinsic qualities, nor even of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities. Wherefore? Because if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold on to anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Good Law is to be likened unto a raft. The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!" "Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment? Has the Tathagata a teaching to enunciate? Subhuti answered: As I understand Buddha's meaning there is no formulation of truth called Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Moreover, the Tathagata has no formulated teaching to enunciate. Wherefore? Because the Tathagata has said that truth is uncontainable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is it not. Thus it is that this unformulated Principle is the foundation of the different systems of all the sages." "Buddha said: Subhuti, what do you think? In the remote past when the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha, did he have any degree of attainment in the Good Law? No, World-honored One. When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha he had no degree of attainment in the Good Law. Subhuti, what do you think? Does a Bodhisattva set forth any majestic Buddha-lands? No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because setting forth majestic Buddha-lands is not a majestic setting forth; this is merely a name. [Then Buddha continued:] Therefore, Subhuti, all Bodhisattvas, lesser and great, should develop a pure, lucid mind, not depending upon sound, flavor, touch, odor, or any quality. A Bodhisattva should develop a mind which alights upon no thing whatsoever; and so should he establish it. Subhuti, this may be likened to a human frame as large as the mighty Mount Sumeru. What do you think? Would such a body be great? Subhuti replied: Great indeed, World-honored One. This is because Buddha has explained that no body is called a great body. " "At that time Subhuti addressed Buddha, saying: World-honored One, if good men and good women seek the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, by what criteria should they abide and how should they control their thoughts? Buddha replied to Subhuti: Good men and good women seeking the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment must create this resolved attitude of mind: I must liberate all living beings, yet when all have been liberated, verily not any one is liberated. Wherefore? If a Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality, he is consequently not a Bodhisattva, Subhuti. This is because in reality there is no formula which gives rise to the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Subhuti, what do you think? When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha was there any formula for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment? No, World-honored One, as I understand Buddha's meaning, there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Buddha said: You are right, Subhuti! Verily there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Subhuti, had there been any such formula, Dipankara Buddha would not have predicted concerning me: "In the ages of the future you will come to be a Buddha called Shakyamuni"; but Dipankara Buddha made that prediction concerning me because there is actually no formula for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. The reason herein is that Tathagata is a signification implying all formulas. In case anyone says that the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, I tell you truly, Subhuti, that there is no formula by which the Buddha attained it. Subhuti, the basis of Tathagata's attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment is wholly beyond; it is neither real nor unreal. Hence I say that the whole realm of formulations is not really such, therefore it is called "Realm of formulations." Subhuti, a comparison may be made with [the idea of] a gigantic human frame. Then Subhuti said: The World-honored One has declared that such is not a great body; "a great body" is just the name given to it. Subhuti, it is the same concerning Bodhisattvas. If a Bodhisattva announces: I will liberate all living creatures, he is not rightly called a Bodhisattva. Wherefore? Because, Subhuti, there is really no such condition as that called Bodhisattvaship, because Buddha teaches that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of separate individuality. Subhuti, if a Bodhisattva announces: I will set forth majestic Buddha-lands, one does not call him a Bodhisattva, because the Tathagata has declared that the setting forth of majestic Buddha-lands is not really such: "a majestic setting forth" is just the name given to it. Subhuti, Bodhisattvas who are wholly devoid of any conception of separate selfhood are truthfully called Bodhisattvas. " "Subhuti, do not say that the Tathagata conceives the idea: I must set forth a Teaching. For if anyone says that the Tathagata sets forth a Teaching he really slanders Buddha and is unable to explain what I teach. As to any Truth-declaring system, Truth is undeclarable; so "an enunciation of Truth" is just the name given to it. Thereupon, Subhuti spoke these words to Buddha: World-honored One, in the ages of the future will there be men coming to hear a declaration of this Teaching who will be inspired with belief? And Buddha answered: Subhuti, those to whom you refer are neither living beings nor not-living beings. Wherefore? Because "living beings," Subhuti, these "living beings" are not really such; they are just called by that name." "Furthermore, Subhuti, This is altogether everywhere, without differentiation or degree; therefore it is called "Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment." It is straightly attained by freedom from separate personal selfhood and by cultivating all kinds of goodness. Subhuti, though we speak of "goodness", the Tathagata declares that there is no goodness; such is merely a name." "Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality. Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that ego is not different from non-ego. Subhuti, those whom the Tathagata referred to as "common people" are not really common people; such is merely a name. " "Subhuti, if one Bodhisattva bestows in charity sufficient of the seven treasures to fill as many worlds as there are sand-grains in the river Ganges, and another, realizing that all things are egoless, attains perfection through patient forbearance, the merit of the latter will far exceed that of the former. Why is this, Subhuti? It is because all Bodhisattvas are insentient as to the rewards of merit. Then Subhuti said to Buddha: What is this saying, World-honored One, that Bodhisattvas are insentient as to rewards of merit? [And Buddha answered]: Subhuti, Bodhisattvas who achieve merit should not be fettered with desire for rewards. Thus it is said that the rewards of merit are not received. " These are excerpts from the sutra. you can find a full reading of it here: http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamond26-33.htm. it is actually part of Mahaprajnaparamita sutra. Does this sutra reify a self or reify no-self? some of the buddhist toned discussions seem to revolve a lot about some of the things addressed in this sutra, one coming to mind (already quoted above): ...and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities.

if you cant swim why would you relinquish the raft? to drown in ignorance? i agree with the statement ...is to accept that one cant swim... this is a part of it, hence the use of the raft. i was also trying to point out that once, as you put it, "non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord" is reached by rafting and you relinquish the raft... what then? Arhatship? to me the raft is a part of learning to swim in the ocean. once you learn to swim in the ocean (i.e. non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord) you dont need the raft. you are free to "come and go". in thinking of my statement i was also contemplating a couple of Zen teachings. The Oxherding pictures, and hui-neng's quote: "To search for enlightenment apart from the world is as absurd as to search for a horn on a hare." ... i understand that hui-neng's stance isnt one always accepted by buddhists. As another saying goes: "False views make up the world true views are the world beyond when true and false are both dismissed your buddha-nature will be manifest this is simply the straightforward teaching also known as Mahayana delusion lasts coutless kalpas awareness takes but an instant" The quote from the dhamapada is excellent, but it still holds to the dualism of wisdom/ignorance. the concepts ignorance and wisdom are "self-imposed conditions that create discord". xabir - As to profit and fame, these are conditions based on 'externals' and peoples true nature (buddha-nature if you wish) is obscured by this fixation. Profit can be understood as anything 'external' which the ego identifies with as benefitting its position, to lose identification with the source of profit, results in "loss". Fame can be understood as ego's preception of itself. If the condition of fame is lost, this results in the condition of infamy, worthlessness, etc. Cutting through the conditioning of profit and fame (or delusion and greed) is where this framework is similar to the buddhist.

how is reality actually? in your opinion? we're always directly experiencing reality, through what ever framework we chose (or feel compelled, forced, trapped, etc.) to use. the buddha-dharma is such a frame work. the objective to not be trapped by frameworks and thereby condition/create/form existence with/according to your ego. but it is still a framework. hence the saying quoted earlier "...you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas." crossing treacherous waters is good. learning to swim in the ocean is in the essence of the teaching.

back to the examination at hand... one basic point that is key is that both seemed to challenge the moralities of their day. This is supported by various examinations within their work. a major point of departure would be the style. of course this is my preception w/out either in the original language. its much easier to read 'darkness' into nietzsche's philosophy. -- "The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys several times the same good things for the first time." i could actually relate that to a story from liezi about an old man who basically had what today we would term alzheimers. the family, distraught, sought out a healer to 'fix the problem'. upon being 'fixed' the man flew into a rage, and when he had calmed some explained that in such a state profit and loss (in a broad sense) had been forgotten. thats my paraphrase from memory, didnt feel like a copy and paste . thats not too off topic is it Marb? didnt want to diverge from the thread more than i already did as to the mention that something is our only our opinion, thats of course true. i just get tired of writing imo, or typing it our all of the time you must have my computer hacked marble... i reread my posts before tossin' em up and corrected that before posting...

an insult marblehead-stonegourd they're somewhat synonymous (as some folks call the head a gourd for slang) so i thought it would be humorous. i was initially going to say 'brickface' but i thought that smacked a bit too much of insult... ...and the nazi's used the idea of 'Superman' in their propaganda. good reason i suppose. i felt my statement was actually raising up Jesus, and Christians whom wouldn't sanction such atrocities as inquisitions, etc.which would by default mean all of the professed christians i have spoke with on this board, by their statements, obviously wouldn't seem to support what you call 'violence in the name of love'. a funny thing i just noticed when i was typing; on my last line i had typed 'obviously would' and omitted the three characters "n't". viewed without those characters this would've been a pretty big insult (or could be preceived as such). an interesting thing i have noticed on boards is that it is very easy to misconstrue someones meaning, without body-language interaction and voice inflection.

thanks for expanding on what you meant carson, now its much clearer. i am largely in agreement, not much further to comment on. Amrita, a name of many meanings perhaps?

i like this rendering more, it seems clearer i see it somewhat similarly. however i would posit that for a lot of people they create a 'self' (ie they conceive an ego identity) then as time passes and this 'self' is extinguished as the ego shifts dependent on conditions, and another is born. thus one is subject to constant "birth and death". i can relate this to the concepts surrounding profit and fame, in daoist philosophy. to me this is another condition. if phenomena are devoid of intrinsic qualities, what is it that informs us they are devoid?

i did?

here is a scholarly article on religious buddhist violence for those interested: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm Titled: Buddhist Nationalism and Religious Violence in Sri Lanka.

Hey Carson, What do you mean by 'meditation'? what do you mean by 'silence'? if there is a twice daily 'form' of meditation required, isn't this happiness dependent on conditions? if silence is required, is that yet another condition? is there such a thing as abiding in true happiness? if you can abide, is it also possible to depart? -Chris how long ago was that pic? is the child born yet?

bingo! if you dont take your illusions as reality how illusive are they?

Confucius said to master Sanghu, "I have twice been expelled from Lu, had trees chopped down on me in Song, had my tracks wiped away in Wei, came to the end of my resources in Shang and Zhou, and was surrounded on the border of Chen and Cai. Why is it that while i have encountered these many troubles my family and relatives have grown ever more scattered?" Master Sanghu said, "Are you the only one who has not heard of the man who left Jia? Lin Hui cast away a jade disc worth a thousand dollars, put his baby on his back and hurried off. Someone said, "Did you do it because of the price? But the price of a baby is so small! Or did you do it because of the trouble? but the trouble of a baby is so much! Why would you throw away a thousand dollar piece of jade and hurry off with a baby on your back? Lin Hui said, "I was brought together with that one by profit, but i was joined with this one by heaven. Things brought together by profit, when pressed by misfortune and danger, will cast each other aside; but things joined by heaven, when pressed by misfortune and danger, will shelter each other. The difference between sheltering each other and casting each other aside is really distant indeed!" -Zhuangzi (Shaughnessy translation)