contrivedname!

yo

not really egotistical, i did ask sure it is recorded that he said that but just because it is written doesnt make it so, he may have or he may not have. plenty of people have put words in the mouth of lao tzu... (though it is obvious that this is held to be true w/in the tradition you associate with) hmm i think your right about meditating though i will say that it is not the act of meditating that helps someone else it is the fruit of the meditation, also i will posit that not everyone would apply their meditative, contemplative or whatever practice to the aid of beings. also to take your words literally: "He didn't say that I am the light, the way. But, he said that a particular realization about the nature of reality is the only way." part of my point is that different folks with differing dispositions and mentalities may need different tools to open up such a realization; i dont think the realization is dependent on buddhism, though i believe buddhism is dependent on such a realization, if that makes any sense (i.e. buddhism was founded as a tool to help others to such a realization, not as a narrow dogmatic interpretation of existence).

again thanks for the reply. its funny that you can psychoanalyze me so well and you dont even know me . i need third eye opening? what conclusive data do you have either way on that subject?, you read my contrived posts and then when i post seriously you muddle the two. fake kindness? tell me sir, how do you practice true compassion in your life to have such a clear view to see through my fakeness? how do you know i am not reading your posts objectively and then refuting what i feel to be an error? i really truly disagree with the only path to liberation trip. i just have fun on these forums bro, i dont take them too seriously, my sarcasm is intended, i can just as easily post angrily, happy, sad, you name it, because posting is usually contrived, when it isnt, for me at least, they are usually shorter posts. so what do you do in your life to liberate others? what compassionate action do you take? i am not interested in meditation practices or personal practices, those dont liberate anyone but yoself . one last thing: how do you know i havent been being "Wrathful" with you? senge dradrok always did look cool with those flames and stuff oh and the questions werent just aimed at you, it was for anyone to contemplate Chris

how is praising the king-of-fixation-on-buddhism off topic? he is the supreme self pervading all existence (of course while dependently originated ) but i am sure this is a subtlety you are missing non-buddhist. @ vaj: right now i am actually flirting with you and your girlfriend; i hate leaving others out @micaelz: uhoh another abusive post from Mr. ad-hom-people-for-their-precieved-ad-homs better watch out i might cry man. by the way dude i am the master of sock puppetry so jesus freak musta bean me (sorry, read: my split-internet personality) @songs: cant you tell? he already knows what makes a buddha and what they experience, so he must already have rainbow boday (intentional sic, you idiot) its just since he is already a fully realized bodhisattva TM, he returns to the make the foray into our ignorance to make us enlightened today now in seriousness, apologies for not responding to your answers to my question in the other thread, vh, it just kind of exploded and i saw no more need to give input there. heres an interesting thought (off topic for this thread): if existence is so beginningless, etc. how did one dude begin a religion that narrowly explains this infinite quality of existence, and all the other dudes who sought to do the same are wrong? what is it that gives this exclusive claim on the knowledge of reality as filtered through one human's experiential lens? can the human mind even comprehend ultimate "truth"? if it can, given different circumstances and temperments, would all term it in the same way? if it cant are all these spiritual traditions (yes even the exhalted buddhadharma) only partial truths or non-truths? is it possible to attain "buddhadharma" w/out being a buddhist or even being ignorant of the existence of buddhism? how does a buddhist claiming exclusive interpretation of reality differ from a christian doing the same? besides the fact that one denies eternalism or nihlism and one endorses eternalism? is it possible that the buddha, who none of us knew personally, sought to refute what he felt were errors in the teaching of his teachers, not necessarily errors in vedanta, and that the chasm of difference was created later on by people attached to one system or the other? maybe if one is fixated on a 'middle way' the best medicine wouldnt be the doctrine espousing a middle path? this may beg another question: if one is fixated on what is considered a middle path are they truly free from the extremes of eternalism or nihlism, or merely attempting to suppress ideas such as this? does the understanding of brahman necessarily imply a state of absorbtion into an infinite will dictating the universe? if not necessarily is it possible that brahman could be a moniker pointing to the interconnectedness of beings? these are all thoughts that come to me when i read through the pages and pages written on these topics. does anyone else have some similar thoughts? would anyone care to hazard some answers to these questions? chris

i guess i dont really have a favorite ddj translation, though i was initially interested by Legge's translation and then sought out others, perhaps i have studied John C.H. Wu's translation the most. however in regards to zhuangzi i would recommend Feng/English translation all the way. burton watson was my first encounter with zhuangzi and is good, though i prefer the Feng/English translation. gotta love the stories of the horse and the praying mantis Terebess is a good site, plenty of ddj translations to keep ya busy plus a few zhuangzi ones as well a question: is english a second language for you? oh, a good compliation of some daoist writings along with sections from ddj and zhuangzi is Vitality, Energy and Spirit by Thomas Cleary. he also has sections in there from wen-tzu, huai-nan tzu, and liezi (lieh tzu).

just cause i wouldnt want to go through pages and pages of posts means you should think i am not sincere? i did have a motive for asking (are there ever not motives behind questions?). the motive was to see your answers and determine, whether, to my preception, they have any basis behind them and to possibly discuss your actual reasoning for thinking the way you do (in the phenomena thread i read some of the reasoning, but wanted a refresher without reading 14 pages of posts)

always with the pointed responses eh Mr. Findley? what does it require to become a "master" besides earning recognition and preception as such? and who, i wonder, are the folks giving these titles? as to finding your own people, i would suggest nothing, yes nothing. enjoying your posts, ...?

thanks for the response. i am wondering, from what mind state is it that you feel you have the "correction" for peoples "confusion"? according to your mind, not nagarjuna or buddha or anyone else, what is the cause of monism or nihilism leading to samsaric rebirth while the ways of the folks stated above wont do so? sorry about all the questions, but they are sincere not sarcastic or anything like that (in this case )

no thanks, i wouldnt of asked if i felt like googling it, i was more curious to get one of your or mikalez descriptions of it. if your all about middle path free from extremes why do you keep arguing an extreme stance? it just seems to me your refutation of monism is just about as extreme a view as a completely monistic view... then again, what do i know? chris

what the hell is dark zen?

an interesting point is that Thomas Cleary translates Samadhi in platform sutra as Stabilization.

hi lin, i wasnt thinking about the dude who said he was "entering samadhi" though that is an example of what i meant by referencing upaya, and stating: "for me, the most interesting part of this sutra are the different situations with various students and the methods hui-neng uses according to their dispositions". i was thinking more along the lines of "when it is alive it will sit when it is dead it will lay. a set of stinking bones, how could it establish success" or something to that effect, but there are quite a few instances where he down plays the importance of meditation (perhaps because so many during his time were fixating on this practice). i dont think he was completely refuting monastic tradition in the sense that he was trying to destroy it or subvert it, what i meant was he refuted certain aspects of it according to the situation (some folks may need to be pushed towards monastic life while others should probably steer clear of it, again upaya). so i think we are actually saying close to the same thing . he may have taken precepts, though this doesnt mean he didnt attempt to refute peoples attachment to them, this is a verse he spoke to an assembly: "The Patriarch added, "Learned Audience, those who wish to train themselves (spiritually) may do so at home. It is quite unnecessary for them to stay in monasteries. Those who train themselves at home may be likened unto a native of the East who is kind-hearted, while those who stay in monasteries but neglect their work differ not from a native of the West who is evil in heart. So far as the mind is pure, it is the 'Western Pure Land of one's own Essence of Mind'." Prefect Wei asked, "How should we train ourselves at home? Will you please teach us." The Patriarch replied, "I will give you a 'formless' stanza. If you put its teaching into practice you will be in the same position as those who live with me permanently. On the other hand, if you do not practice it, what progress can you make in the spiritual path, even though you cut your hair and leave home for good (i.e., join the Order)? The stanza reads:-- For a fair mind, observation of precepts (Sila) is unnecessary. For straightforward behavior, practice in Dhyana (contemplation) may be dispensed with. On the principle of gratefulness, we support our parents and serve them filially. On the principle of righteousness, the superior and the inferior stand for each other (in time of need). On the principle of mutual desire to please, the senior and junior are on affectionate terms. On the principle of forbearance, we do not quarrel even in the midst of a hostile crowd. If we can persevere till fire can be obtained through rubbing a piece of wood, Then the red lotus (the Buddha-nature) will shoot out from the black mire (the unenlightened state). That which is of bitter taste is bound to be good medicine. That which sounds unpleasant to the ear is certainly frank advice. By amending our mistakes, we get wisdom. By defending our faults, we betray an unsound mind. In our daily life we should always practice altruism, But Buddhahood is not to be attained by giving away money as charity. Bodhi is to be found within our own mind, And there is no necessity to look for mysticism from without. Hearers of this stanza who put its teaching into actual practice Will find paradise in their very presence." i like cleary's translation a bit better, but cant find that one online What Hui-neng refuted was neither monasticism nor laity He refuted that which obstructs peoples mind While obscurations may take many forms In essence they are of the same root When the root has been cut, what are the use of myriad methods? IdiotMan

thanks, yeah it is, i just made it up on the spot

one thing that is interesting about hui-neng is that he both existed within the monastic tradition, while at the same time refuting it (or aspects of it). he even went so far as to tell some students that sitting meditation will not help you realize essence of mind (upaya perhaps?). for me, the most interesting part of this sutra are the different situations with various students and the methods hui-neng uses according to their dispositions. Whether you face the center Or face the wall What is it that obscures you original face? Chris

... and if Terrance McKenna is to be believed (the source i read this bit of info in), some gov't agencies thought LSD would be a good mind controlling agent; it was swiftly placed on the highest illegal drug 'schedule' when the opposite was found to be true. and in the case of efficacy in treating alcoholism i would posit that the individual needs to be pretty self aware and willing to dig into the roots subconscious fixation on said substance and the emotions and compulsions surrounding it. in a case such as this i believe they can be very effective.

what is the price current to exhume a dead horse?

c9Kx_t6ko1k the reptiles make their presence known at 4:10!! everyone watch out!

thanks for differentiating, good points, and i feel my post may have conflated the two too much. i tend to get a bit frustrated when folks group things like meth, heroin, crack, pharmaceuticals, etc. with substances such as peyote, mushrooms, etc. and i just sort of did it myself. i was mainly addressing "psychadellics" and not so much the others.

uhh why the need for the "ad hom" he was just stating his opinion and wasnt even adressing you. uhh no you havent. there are sooo many different psychoactive chemicals, both natural and synthetic, anyone making this statement is really overshooting the mark. if you want to retain any benefit from said experience it requires awareness and discipline (two things many people claim "drugs" diminish... if an external source can so easily diminish your awareness and discipline in such a way, maybe you should question your self?) no middle ground in this topic? i think there is and it can be summed up by Titus Lucretius Carus' quote: "What may be food to one, may be poison to another". if you think all "drugs" do is bad things, then by all means dont do them. If you find them to be a useful tool then i'm not stoppin' ya. i think it is equally erroneous to say that "drugs are all bad" as it is to say that "drugs are the answer to everything". two extremes. i think it is more accurate to say that some individuals simply fuck themselves up on drugs while on the other hand some individuals actually obtain some benefit, etc. from the experiences. i think one of the important pointes here is the individual, not the drug (on a side note: i feel people are too ready in our society to blame the drug(s) for their poor circumstances, experiences, etc., as opposed to taking personal accountability for their actions, i.e. it is/was their choice to ingest said substances) whatever type it may be. Braindance was right on imo with " At the end of the day though it's still your own thoughts. The thoughts and experiences someone has on an acid trip weren't inside the couple hundred micrograms of powder, it didn't create them, they were there all along." and i would add that sometimes these thoughts may have been "inaccessible" before because they were buried in the individuals subconscious. could they have reached their subconscious through meditation or another similar practice? sure probably, but with some folks it may catalyze an interest in spirituality, working though their attatchments, etc. and to echo uriahr, of course we neither can or cannot say whether these historic spiritual individuals used substances or not (unless someone here is claiming reincarnation status on one of those gurus ). though with the buddha's supposed upbringing i wouldnt doubt it... one last time for good measure, UMPH!! (kicks the dead horse)

one of the better posts in this thread, i agree; adat sounds very interesting, i like the premise of: the system of respecting many diverse religious/spiritual belief systems i feel similarly about any ism; dogmatism clouds what can be great tools to greater realization; it seems pretty laughable that people attach to their tools. that tool analogy by enzenvy was great actually despite mickaelz pessimism. think of the bike as your mind... does everyone have the same obscurations? would you try to use a wrench to pump up your tires or a hammer to remove some screws? heh, it seems that some here think buddhism=pedantry

good topic (on a side note i have no idea why you apologized for posting too much, many of your posts are interesting enough, though you did delete it so i dont know what you were saying) my take is that the three poisons are of one source (read: one obscuration). wanting reality to be something it is not. folks whom allow themselves to get angry on a constant basis; their way of coping seems to be to try and destroy whatever it is that is conflicting with their version of reality. greed seems to be born of desire; desire for more and more and more of what ever your greed (ego) fixates on and isnt a part of your reality. delusion seems to be a coping mechanism for interpreting reality how you want to, esp. in the case of spiritual materialism. sometimes these methods are "successful", by this i mean that some times an angry person is able to destroy what they wanted with their anger, sometimes a persons greed is fulfilled by the constant focus on it (the object(s) of greed), and sometimes someone fools themselves into an "amiable" delusive mind state. though these "successes" would be very impermanent and when the notion of "success" is gone the wheel of samsara keeps on a spinnin so what is inherently wrong with this? the poisons create suffering either of oneself or others and often times both. this perpetuates the cycle of samsara. greed is often self perpetuating, like the symbolism of the person who has a normal sized head and mouth but their neck is so small that they cannot digest the object of their greed which continues the cycle of greed (there is never enough). Anger often fixates on things already past (like my favorite sports team lost, wah, or someone cutting someone off in traffic) and therefore there is no resolution except letting it subside until the next loss or slight to your ego, when it cycles back into style. delusion is sort of like willful ignorance, though it isnt always overt or even recognized, and sometimes is ingrained by society. it is usually a way of coping with extreme mental physical or really any kind of anguish by pretending things are different, though the person probably doesnt think they are "pretending". all of these poisons are inextricably interconnected and one can lead to the other. like Ben said, to be mortal is to be afflicted by these poisons. the question is do you fixate on them and "give into" them? or do you allow them to rise and fall without fixation and see them as a source of contemplation? if you can follow them to their root you may be able to topple the tower of ego or hey maybe even just chip away at the ol' block chris

a text i would recommend is: The Cycle of Day and Night: Where One Proceeds Along the Path of the Primordial Yoga : An Essential Tibetan Text on the Practice of Dzogchen by Namkhai Norbu i only partially read a friend's copy, and then ordered it on my own, will probably get it tomorrow. this text cuts right through a lot mind chatter (if you read it with the proper focus) and emphasizes non-attachment. this literally "blew my mind" in a sense when i read it; very "sudden". this is of course my preception after just scratching the surface and not digesting it for a long period. i believe you can apply Mr. Screwtape's "absorbing into self" w/ spiritual teachings in general. someone here made a comment about "hardcoding" a practice on your mind to the point where you "forget it". i feel like i am being obscure here, what i am trying to say is that once one has absorbed a teaching/practice/spiritual path they manifest it both consciously and subconsciously without effort. by without effort i dont mean the person does nothing, i mean that they spontaneously manifest the teaching rather than having to contrive it; sort of like "meditation in action". for people interested in daoism, my personal favorite is chuang tzu. it is always nice to have spiritual concepts presented in a humorous way . another important pointe i would stress would be to have "spiritual friends", friends also interested in spiritual development whom you progress with rather than some high and mighty guru who you look up to like a parent figure. (that comment isnt intended to "bash" guru's). often one of the best "gurus" can be your own reflection in a still pond... @ scotty: NO it is Beer not Tea!!!!! oh and a nice thing about the first text i mentioned is that the translator renders pretty much all of the terms for those of us who cant remember all of those damn sanskrit terms

hello mikalez, it is absolutely disgusting that you would use a mentally challenged child in an attempt to slander your "opponents" by trying to make them look "retarded"; good job on the compassion there (i think i want that prize, that kid looks ecstatic about it...) buddhism has never had violence? where the fuck did you get that from? the air? you can even use youtube to find clips quite to the contrary check out the thai monks who recently got in a brawl over "sects". of course their view is probably wrong because they dont agree with your stary eyed view of buddhism, oh well. lets not forget that Mr. Trungpa Rimpochee said something to the effect of "a bodhisattva wouldnt just stand there and be killed he would strike back" if you need the direct quotation of that i may just oblige you, though i would have to dig through all of his books i have as i cannot remember which it is in. of course i am sure he must've had "wrong view" because he was a drunk who smoked cigarettes (lets keep attatching to appearances folks ). i suppose, though, i have slipped into the error of ad hominem argumentation and any response of course would not be considered such, so i will depart (methaphorically and for the time being ) signing out, chris

why do people feel the need to post regulatory posts such as this on a forum that is practically unregulated? (i will take into account that in this instance it could've been a joke, but this happens a lot e.g. the suicide thread)

just because you put that disclaimer there doesnt mean your ego isnt soaring