contrivedname!

mickaelz, if you realized i was being sarcastic, why did you respond as though i claimed those quotes truly expressed monism? all is one; all is not one yay!!! before dismissing zen as being to focused on meditation forget not that Mr. Hui-Neng suggested that if behavior is "straight forward" meditation can be dispensed with. anyway, the intent of my post wasnt to further a discussion on this topic which seems to be of such extreme interest to a few here, it was actually just directed at Mr. Vajra. though thanks anyway for the responses, i liked the quote from hui-neng's disciple, hadnt heard of him before. suppose my point was similar to gold's; i feel that what you speak of is actually just skillful means and NOT the "true" way everything is. if folks are talking about middle paths without extremes, why state an extreme (ie buddhism is the only path to complete liberation)? there could be a very good reason, or the person saying it could just be an idiot... (yes; perhaps i just implied that Nagarjuna was an idiot, your pick ). Chris

great explanation carson, kind of reminded me of "avoid not temptation" (oops just slipped into the incomplete monistic discipline of christianity ). a friend of mine and i had a discussion about that phrase, or rather kind of shared a joke, he said something like by avoiding temptation you are doing the same thing when you were giving into temptation, sort of similar to the 2nd noble truth, or carson's commentary on it. the interesting thing about this friend too, is that he used to be a pretty hardcore addict of many substances. Chris oops just realized that that wasnt carson's commentary

yea when i found out that folks did that i was kind of astounded

"To make bombastic claims that Buddhism is better than Vedanta or Taoism demonstrates pure and simple ignorance on part of the claimant. Why? Because they fail to realize that while it might have worked better for them, given their psychological profile, it might not be the best for someone else. So it's not the system, but also the seeker who affects the efficacy of the system (dependent origination, no?)" excellent dwai "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." ... "The Great Way is not difficult, Just don't pick and choose. If you cut off all likes or dislikes Everything is clear like space. Make the slightest distinction And heaven and earth are set apart. If you wish to see the truth, Don't think for or against. Likes and dislikes Are the mind's disease. Without understanding the deep meaning You cannot still your thoughts... One is all, All is one. When you see things like this, You do not worry about being incomplete. Trust and Mind are not two. Not-two is trusting the Mind. Words and speech don't cut it, Can't now, never could, won't ever." *** "' What should one do not to fall into ranks or grades?' The Master said 'what work have you done?' he replied, 'i dont even work on the holy truths.' The Master said, "if you dont even work on the holy truths, what ranks or grades are there?' The Master deeply respected him as a vessel of the teaching and had Hsing-ssu lead the congregation." "The Master said 'If i said i had a doctrine to teach people, i would be fooling you. I just untie bonds according to situations. That is provisionally labelled samadhi... We should realize that all things come from our own essential nature. This is the true principle of discipline, stabilization and wisdom.'" interesting stuff. mostly zen but there is that one quote from the diamond sutra. to me these quotes from masters and shakyamuni buddha are in contradiction with many of the claims of Diamondheart. since you are obviously so enlightened and i am so ignorant, o' great master of buddhism w/ heart as hard as diamond, please explain these passages to me so that i may correct my "monistic" error.

based on my extremely limited knowledge of this, i understand that many scholars still dispute the meanings of many ancient chinese pictographs; also there are many different versions which have been discovered such as the mawangdui texts and the guodian laozi. there is also the so called recieved version, as well as that of wang bi, heshang gong and others. these are all different versions and different scholars translate different versions. some folks on the website www.daoisopen.com translate the TTC from chinese to english, they have a whole sub-forum dedicated to this. hope this helps a bit, chris

11:33 and tokoyo... great stuff i especially liked: "In short, anybody who is not engaged in "personal evolution" of what I would phrase the positive sort is a pretty dubious choice for a partner." true, to my perception. basically it comes down to evolving constantly as a person based upon your experiences conjoined w/ previous and expanding wisdom (due to the experience(s), though, as language being limited; 'expanding' isnt quite the right term, there really is no expansion or contraction, it just seems so to the lineal based ego preception). though as you say, few are likely to hit this 'range' lacking some sort of "spiritual identity". & "Something very common I see from spiritual folks is they want their partner to be spiritual too. They often feel as if the partner is holding them back. But really it is an excuse to not master themselves. It is a need to change them because you think they are holding you back from achieving. Really though they are there as a kind of testing ground to master yourself." right, you are probably projecting your own needs or wants or fallacies or whatnot onto the other person as though they were the cause of your impeding neuroses. haha

well i would posit that the answer is going to be different for everyone, but you probably are already aware of this. for me a "spiritual path" isnt too important; what is important is their actions. i could see myself with someone from any or no spiritual path if they are compassionate, open minded and at least somewhat interested in similar things (this goes both ways). i could give a shit less if they are muslim, taoist, buddhist, christian or sikh or jain or hindu (though i might have some trouble with jain diet ), or well whatever, it is their actions or karma yoga if you will, i dont give a fuck how they got there or are getting there or even are just interested in living a compassionate life style. so if you consider compassionate action and respect for all beings to be a "spiritual path" then my answer is yes its important, however, if you consider spiritual paths a possible way to attain this but not the only then the answer is no. i will posit that many spiritual paths such as buddhism are sort of a path to reach this state through dissolving barriers of the ego-mind which prevent many folks from being truly compassionate; however some forge their own path and others somtimes reach this state of being without a path i.e. almost unintentionally. of course many dogmatists would disagree with my last statement. chris

and yet he is crucified by those "swine" he gave his pearls (read wisdom, love, compassion, etc.) to (not his direct followers, but his message wasnt just for direct followers, imo, it was for all of humanity). or, gasp, perhaps what people wrote about him wasnt exactly his meaning (apply this to any sage (or any 'christ' if you will) that has existed); lets leave alone the subject of possible textual corruptions for the time being. and so sorry to be disagreeable with the infallible word of god as related through humans thousands of years ago (sarcasm intended), but i think carson is spot on about the "inner guru" statement. since you are so fond of quotations from the bible here's another: " 1: Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3: But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. 5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." okay so lets examine this: dont go to church, dont brag about "following christ", and dont use vain repetition, i.e. make up your own prayers (funny how many people mechanically repeat his example which is simply a few verses latter) hope you have as much fun with this as i just did Cheers, Chris @Carson: i too am familiar with the usual futility of attempting to discuss the meaning of christ's wisdom with professed "christians" (so much for non-idolatry), but i believe that, since we are on an open message board, perhaps someone whos not quite so pedanticly dogmatic may benefit or decide to join the discussion, or perhaps medic is one of these "not quite so pedantically dogmatic" christians, who knows? we arent him/her (i am erring towards him) No Love For You You non-believer! Chris

excellent pointe, that is definately the tricky part whether or not you actually got a "transmission" or whether you got an idea of the teaching, but filter it into a form of spiritual materialism. and: "You could get confirmation perhaps from someone who is further along the path at some time, perhaps, to check if you are getting it [such as consulting an intermediate or advanced student along the path, just a thought...]" sounds like a good middle path, but again, if you seek out the wrong person they may tell you the wrong thing (or you may build an attachment to such a "confirmation"), so really that's part of why i think there is the zen emphasis on "there is no buddha beyond mind"

an excellent point to make. what i was saying by wisdom has no school is that it is essentially "formless" but humans, needing formation, make use of formula to reach it. you are very correct to point out that some schools do and some dont, for example while buddhism and daoism point to a similar form of wisdom, i really dont think that satanism and buddhism do.

if by "deeper into your practice" you mean you are limiting attachment to externals and are thus able to live life with a minimum of greed, hatred, and anger (and all those negatives that come from clinging) as well as beginning to "produce" (limits of language) clear insight and developing compassion, then it is no wonder more women are attracted to you (though some would be turned off by that too, especially at 17 when it seems like a lot of girls go for the macho assholes). there is likely to be heartache in relationships, even non-romantic ones, but attachment is the issue isnt it? i think that there is a fine line between attached love and unattached love. loving a person for their beauty (read inner beauty) and realizing that there may be a time when y'all grow apart and no longer "have a relationship" but you can still love them all the same would seem to me to be unattached love. attached love, like you yourself point out, is attached to the outcome. I love this person. if they ever left me i would just die. why cant they think about my feelings (a sometimes justified complaint, but then the other party probably isnt practicing unattached love). these would seem to be examples of ego-attached love. your ego is attached to the feelings, emotions, and energies you associate with your lover and fears losing these "good vibes" and is therefore selfish and more of a love of self (read ego). your new found confidence could come from the very fact that you dont love people like an asshole, you care about their feelings, are there for them when they need you and dont do shit to hurt them. this is the best quality a lover could have; sex, while fun, is just a carnal urge on some levels. i dont think they are limiting at all, though at least for me, it does seem to be the area where it is most difficult to detach... and i dont think we should forget we are humans

and i would posit that the wisest individual could still have a lot to learn form the most Ignorant, arrogant, egotistical, and self-richest person around. may be like a reminder why they dont act that way and perhaps a preception into the times they themselves slip up and do/have.

why not both? why confine yourself to either extreme? the following is just some hypothetical musing but here it goes: i have seen some folks on here (cant remember, nor do i care who) claim that it is possible to get "transmissions" into "lineages" or "energetic states" simply by seeing a picture or video of someone or reading something they typed on the net. True or not, following that line of logic, couldn't then, with the correct state of mind, you recieve a "transmission" by reading a sutra or the daodejing or the bible or something from whatever "practice" you associate yourself with (actually i think the diamond sutra implies that this is possible)? sure, it may be easier to have a living someone hold your hand and wipe your ass, but may be for some that takes the fun out of being "wrong" at times and thus directly learning from their errors through their own effort (not saying that everyone learns from their errors). when i type the word fun please dont immediately jump to the conclusion that you should purposely be "wrong" for the fun of learning out of it. i feel like i beat this subject to death here at TB, but the "you must have a living human teacher to follow to attain anything spiritual" mentality deserves refutation. There are many wonderful teachers out there, of this i have no doubt, but it simply isnt the only narrow path to whateverment, the path is wide open, folks simply like to narrow it with their ego-driven mind. and like 11:33 points out " You may be up shit's creek with a teacher too, if they don't know what they are talking about, and then you listen to them and emulate them." so really it seems that clinging to teachers may be just as dangerous, if not more, than clinging to no-teachers (both would be forms of attachment, seemingly) -Chris

i've heard that the longer you steep it, it will have different chemical effects, does anyone know anything about this?

i could see how Mezcal could be precieved as a sacred liquor. it has an effect quite different from other liquors, even tequila (which it sort of tastes like). most i have seen have cacti eating worms in them, though i have seen a couple bottles with scorpions. it does feel very mildly psychadelic, if you dont go over board. chris

to each their own. but i would post a hypothetical question: does wisdom have a "school"? or are the various schools simply different interpretations and different apendages pointing to the same tao? also, didn't buddhism and daoism kind of "merge" to create ch'an? not to mention sikhism... but i really dont know jack about that "school/religion/practice" i really enjoyed "Would you be ok with being able to have the mental waves pass through you, and then leave you. No matter how big they are? Because asking to have waves only of a certain size is essentially asking to control life. And no amount of meditation can do that. On the other hand being unattached to your waves is something that can be reached, and many meditation can help you in this regard." consise and to the pointe -chris

why struggle mightily against that tendency? i would think for some one single practice is enough and others might cause distraction, whilst for others they may do better with multiple traditions, perhaps to "fill in the gaps" where other practices are lacking. does this tendency feel impulsive or contrived, or does it feel "natural"? just a thought, by struggling against that tendency perhaps you are precieving something that is occuring in your mind as "bad" and thus inducing your own "mental tidal waves" for no reason.

thats hilarious! thanks durkhrod. please explain to me why some people who dont practice that shit attain healthy longevity, or like dainin pointed out why some folks who are young get "struck" with death. why? were already overpopulated so making everyone live longer aint such a 'prize' idea imo (doesnt mean they wouldnt give him one ). but i agree with the point i think your making

so when one (read one of the 10 thousand things) attempts to order a wine container of dao or food container of de what is the inevitable outcome?

excellent thank you for the explaination(s) last here i missed the point ?

i think i remember reading somewhere that an ancient chinese emperor recommended marijuana for gout, though i am not sure how credible that is i am posting and not voting cause i dont know shit about TCM

i am not sure if lienshan has printed his translations to english yet, he changes them a lot; have ya, sir?

or kind of like the tibetan practice of "hearing" in the bardo (intermediary state) i.e. precieving the the space and energy btwn thoughts (between the "birth" and "death" of thought to thought) and this is more widely applicable than i have just mentioned.

you seem like a rather open individual as you are able to post something of this degree in an open internet forum. i would ask the question, how open is your relationship with him? ie do you both share your issues with each other and try to help each other through them or is he closed up and you feel like you have to guess how he feels? if the communication feels like it is going one-way or in conflict that could be a problem, like maybe there are somethings he feels deep rooted that he is uncomfortable even confronting himself, let alone with you. perhaps he has some unresolved issues still lingering in his past that make intimacy difficult for him? do you know the answers to any of the above questions? -chris