rebelrebel

No, it's your opinion that those were just angry insults solely for the purpose of hurting. Don't confuse opinion with reality. Maybe the poster was trying to help? Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions there Ghandi

I have to chime in here. First of all, get off your high horse and quit pretending like you never get angry. Do you think that compassion means always being nice and kind? No, sometimes it means being rough and not beating around the bush. It means calling somebody stupid when they are being stupid so they can become smart. Telling it like it is.

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too). My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again. What are your thoughts on the I?

Hmmm well why do you care about creeping them out? I'm not sure if you're talking about a girl here but from the responses that seems to be the case. Anyway, if that is the case, just tell her what YOU think Taoism is. Don't be afraid to just say what you want. Just let it out. Just think, If she is creeped out by a simple explanation of your beliefs straight from your heart, then why would you want to associate yourself with her anyway?

Of course it is possible to know things. Remember the classic situation: if you say you can't know anything then you have just refuted yourself because you know that you can't know anything.

Hmm yes I see what you are saying here. The I in actuality is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. So really, truly, nothing can be said about it in the end. So the "I", the doer, the controller since all these or the notions of these arise dependently on causes and conditions they have never been any of the four extremes. So to say they were originally in any of the four extremes would be wrong. Best not to say anything. That feels more free to me than just simply to say "it is and always has been non existent."

Beautiful. What more do you need in life?

Cool Vajra. I like your response.

Xabir, you constantly speak in cryptic language that is impenetrable to a common person such as myself. I'm sorry dude but I have not understood a word of what you have just said. Now you speak of all objects being within a container like awareness yet you constantly expressed to thuscomeone that he was wrong when he tried to explain things in the same way, when he basically said the same thing. I'm sorry man but just what in the hell are you on about?

Thanks Vajra Krishnamurti also frequently said this. But I don't want to get into that again...

Hmm I will probably check this out. One more question, suppose someone did not know all the particulars of emanating and all that but just knew the way things are and thus was able to gain liberation at death? Would such a person/mindstream/whatever they were at that point just remain in a confused state of limbo for all of eternity ? Are there buddhas in the place that this mindstream/person has gone who can or do teach emanation?

Could you expand on this?

Hmm well my understanding of buddhahood/liberation is that one recognizes the true nature of things (emptiness appearances inseperability) and then, at death, when the clear light dawns, one recognizes the light as the pure dharmakaya (emptiness) and is liberated from the cycle of being reborn and thus is able to benefit all beings endlessly for all time.

And how does one really manifest buddhahood vajra? One more question, it is said that Milarepa attained buddhahood in one lifetime. What exactly is the status of a human being who has done such a thing while still alive? What would Mila have had to have done to achieve buddhahood or as you say, "manifest" it?

Incomplete how? He tells one why one suffers and how to end it. What is incomplete about that? Ok so it is the core aspect that all other displays of buddhahood emanate from. Then it is not the only aspect sure but it is surely the most important. And i mean really, if you can do that, what else really matters? What I find funny here Vajra is that now you seem to be trying to convince me that the main and utmost goal of buddhism is NOT to overcome suffering. It seems that you have resorted to arguing against your own religion/belief system just to try and make me feel wrong or to somehow "win" this argument

Buddhism is not about suffering? What the hell kind of buddhism have you been studying? I don't know about you but I've been studying the buddhism whose founder said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering." Yes ok not every aspect of it is about suffering but it is pretty damn important and overcoming it is in fact the goal of the entire practice. Well omniscience too I guess. Compassion comes when one has abandoned the causes of suffering. Well if you have never studied his teachings yourself, your criticisms are meaningless. period. You are operating completely on hearsay. You consistently ignore the understandings of his that I have laid out in this thread and the fact that they directly coincide with buddhist understandings but are just phrased in different ways. And again I ask you, as you have still not answered this, what is buddhahood if not ending suffering? As for the guru thing, he never denied teachers, he denied turning teachers into gurus. See these are two different things to him. Of course K would accept teachers? Who wouldn't? If you don't know something, you go to someone who does and they teach you what they know. Any moron knows this. But what he was against is this concept of gurus as sort of...saviors. As in it becomes so one cannot wipe their own ass without asking their guru if it is ok. He was just saying question everything even him. I'll put it like this...people often think that other people are correct solely because they come from a position of authority or because they have some sort of title such as "lama", "rinpoche" "zen master" etc. People are easily convinced by titles. So they go to these people and expect them to automatically know everything about everything. In short, he was not against teachers just worship of teachers. One other reason for this is that nobody is perfect, nobody knows everything. The teacher student relationship should be one in which the student knows that he and only he is the one who is going to come to realization so he can only depend on himself in the end. No guru or master is going to save him. He must put in the work to understand himself. He uses the teacher as a guide, a signpost, he does not worship the teacher. He rows the boat himself. Thuscomeone, a poster on this forum, is a perfect example of this. The dude has no master, lama or guru. He has very high realization in 8 months simply by learning from the internet. Now he had teachers (not formal teachers), everybody does. But, in the end, his understanding came from his own self reliant hard work. And vaj, I am very sorry but nobody and I mean nobody is omniscient. That in my mind is an absurd and stupid goal. Don't try to tell me that omniscience is different in the buddhist understanding either. Omniscience means knowing EVERYTHING that it is possible to know. If it something different to buddhists, it is not omniscience. Do you know how crazy that is? If things/the universe/reality are really infinite, you would have to know an infinite number of things. Therefore you would never be able to know everything. There would never be a point where it would end and you could actually say "I am now omniscient, I know everything." Here is one thing that I have always found strange as well with Buddhism. It is said that Buddha recalled all of his past lives during his enlightenment. If there is no beginning to anything and there is only infinity, how could he have known all of his lives? He would have had an infinite number of lives to remember. Anyways dude if you end suffering, who gives a shit about omniscience? Live right in this life, avoid the causes of suffering, don't harm people and then what do you have to worry about in the future? Live right here and the door is open. See, this omniscience stuff is actually why I prefer K over most buddhists. He is just so simple. Find out what causes suffering and avoid those behaviors. Through this, you end suffering. Now that is of course, easier said than done. But still, does it need to be any harder than this? Yeah you can learn all the specifics of dependent origination and impermanence and emptiness, there is nothing wrong with knowing these things. But if you know the cause of suffering and you cut it out thereby ending your suffering in your life, who really cares if you learn them or not or if you get this or that piece of knowledge? Learn them, don't learn them, whatever. But for godsakes first find out what causes suffering and avoid these things like you would a deadly animal - first rid yourself of fear, conflict, struggle, comparison, craving, feeling incomplete, division, inward battle, hurt etc.

What is the actual experience of buddhahood if not overcoming suffering? If not ending the craving to become? I mean, dude, come on... You can heal people? levitate? And you still have not explained how what I said before is different from the buddhist realization "emptiness is form" which brings liberation... "I am talking about experiencing openly and unreservedly whatever arises at any moment without taking the identification of it to be "what is" - it itself. This is the same result as the buddhist realization that emptiness is form" How is the view not the experience? Isn't experience predicated on view? I mean, the other 7 steps of the eightfold path which all involve experiencing the world all come after right view. So I assume the experience and view are pretty tightly linked.

He focused on the most important aspect of things in all of his talks. He cut right through the bullshit and that's why I love him. He focused on suffering itself, it's cause and how to end it. According to him, you see why you suffer and you stop those behaviors. Crazy huh? But that is pretty much a summary of his teachings. What more do you want than that ? Oh wait...omniscience... As a side note... K was also reported to have powers of healing, clairvoyance and thought transference. I once heard him say that when one's energy is not being dissipated through constant struggle (suffering) in daily life, it is then gathered and all these powers can come. Something to think about. Makes complete sense to me. This was one of the clearest explanations of how these powers come that I have ever heard.

I gave you a perfectly good answer. You just didn't like it What is wrong with krishnamurti? The man saw suffering, it's causes and how to end it clearer than you ever will. A normal mortal? What is wrong with being mortal? What of emptiness is form? if truth is the way things are, then what is truth for you vajra? Or do you not believe in truth? What of nirvana is samsara? Look, if emptiness is form and emptiness is truth then everything is truth because everything is emptiness. There is no thing that is not dependently originated. But of course emptiness is just a quality and not a thing. So, what is present right now is truth because it is empty, dependently originated. For the last time, I am not denying the buddhist realization. I am talking about the same thing in a different, much easier way. I am not disagreeing with the buddhist understanding. You cannot see that it can be talked about in any different way because you cannot see past you're own buddhist conditioning. God damnit, I am talking about experiencing openly and unreservedly whatever arises at any moment without taking the identification of it to be "what is" - it itself. This is the same result as the buddhist realization that emptiness is form. You still subvert my pointing out the real causes of our sufferings. You still pay no attention to that which is most important. You sound like an arrogant buddhist and somebody I would never want to meet personally. Now I can see ralis' pov.

You have not gotten what I am trying to say. Neither has Vajra. It is easy to miss, don't feel bad.

Um well seeing as how you are using these experiences to validate progress on the path...and the path, I assume, is the path to end suffering. So how far along one is on the path, how close you are to ending suffering, is determined by how many experiences you have gotten - bliss, chakra, visions. Therefore it is determined by how much you have acquired. Therefore it is based on becoming, getting more and more. "How many of these direct experiences have you had RR?" This quote is a perfect example. It is intended to invalidate my feeling liberated through making me question whether I have acquired enough experiences yet. I'm not good enough yet because I don't have enough "stuff." No, I've followed you very clearly from your posts. If I insult you, I'm sorry. I get ahead of myself Jesus dude. How am I clinging by saying that what is present in front of me right now is actual, is the only truth? I'm not saying anything else about it other than that it is present. That's all. Typing on this keyboard - that's truth. Drinking a cup of tea - that's truth. The wind blowing on my neck - truth. Have you ever heard of emptiness is form? I'm just saying that in a different way. A much easier way, if I might add. How does it happen? How it happens. According to the basic laws of nature and reality. Do you want something more?

You still think liberation is about interpretation? It has nothing to do with that. If anything, interpretation is the very opposite of liberation. Oh well, keep on thinking what you want I guess...

There you go again. This is exactly what leads me to believe that you don't know the cause of suffering yet. Your forms of "progress" along the path here are all forms of comparison, measurement. I can see that you have not yet seen the dangers of these things. If you did, you would relinquish all forms of comparison right away. If you keep on this path, you'll never end craving. You always need another experience, another sign, more knowledge to be free - you'll never stop wanting to become. More more more. Your entire approach is based on "getting" something, "acquiring" something - certain experiences, recognition, validation of your experiences by your gurus. From what you write, it seems that you think it is craving that is going to liberate you from the cycle of death and rebirth. You are deluded. I've seen through this game vajra. Don't try to subject me to it. Vajra you are making this so difficult. This is my whole point. It is so simple. Why do you do this to yourself? I'll make things very easy for you. The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering." 1.) The cause of suffering is identification and craving. 2.) Identification leads to craving. 3.) See the danger of identification and avoid it like you would avoid a deadly animal or a bottle of poison (avoid it in the sense that you only use it as a functional tool and you do not take it to be "what is") See? Done. Honestly, do you need to devote yourself to a guru to see this? As for truth. Truth is just what is present at this moment. What is actually happening. Not your interpretation/identification of what is happening but what is actually present as a fact. What else could truth be? Anything away from what is actually happening right now is illusion - untruth. Again, do you need a guru for this? No actually, it is not. You are not getting what I am telling you. You are taking the word to be the thing. A thought is dependently originated but a thought is NOT the same as the all encompassing process of dependent origination which is present as a fact at all times. And what you are doing is taking the process and the thought to be the same. The identification of that obviously present process as "dependent origination" is just an interpretation/translation of that process and NOT the all encompassing process itself. Is this not obvious? As I said before, if you saw this, you could stop clinging to your precious dependent origination. Not existent, not non existent, not both existent and non existent, not neither existent or non existent. That is what I meant. We both acknowledge dependent origination as being the way things are. On that point, we do not differ. I have said over and over that I do not deny dependent origination. Where we differ is that you are zoning in on it specifically and putting it as a special feature of reality which leads to liberation when understood in and of itself in it's structure and all it's implications. I am saying that yes, it is present, and yes it is the way things work...but it does not need to be specifically focused on, zoned in on as means to liberation any more than gravity does. It is just one feature of reality. Just like change, gravity, air and space are features of reality. One's liberation depends on certain factors and one's bondage depends on certain factors. Ok...so what? One just needs to focus on what causes suffering and cut that out. That ending of suffering is dependently originated. Alright, we accept that. But one does not need to pick out dependent origination and then zone in and become fixated on it like you do.

Expand a little bit more on what you mean,