TzuJanLi

Greetings.. It seems that 'I' am the gardener AND the garden.. 'that' which 'i' am, has 'grown' a plant/body-mind for exploring its ability to 'cultivate'.. that is to say, that Tao experiences itself through the garden it has grown, a garden possessed of its own awareness of its own existence.. so that the garden is capable of maintaining itself and flourishing, or self-destructing.. both of which are Tao, and gardens come and go.. Be well..

Greetings.. Tao accepts all things, as it is 'that'.. and, 'that' includes rejection, which is simply part of larger dynamic happening.. tao is the process, and that which it produces.. Be well..

It feels close.. as in near, familiar, and intangible.. too close to touch, too close to "want beyond need".. Be well..

Hi Marblehead, thanks for noticing.. Be well..

In passing, I blew the dust off the tiny Buddha statue It swirled, like the thoughtful impermanence of thoughts The statue, still and silent, seemed shinier, the dust Searching for another resting place, along with the thought That I should blow the dust away, found no rest. As time shuffled busily beneath that which would be Resting attachments to lifeless statues, colors changed As day discarded its brilliance onto the muted neutrality Of dust and thoughts, quietly conspiring another day. Be well..

Hi Seth: I 'got this' the same way you 'get' the following: Not only have i 'glanced', i've walked the walk, but it goes nowhere, a dead end.. no authenticity, no originality.. just followers of someone else's experiences, "Philosophical Cowardice"? these are the words of someone hiding at the other end of a cyber disguise, praying for the protection of the no-self invisibility clause.. You dialogue like the rest of the RT groupies, nothing is true that you don't believe is true or that Cirian won't let you believe.. will you think for yourself, can you? Be well..

How much more desperately will your ego deny that someone can make a sincere effort and not reach the same conclusions as 'you', the classic evidence of your self-ness.. Be well, Seth..

Greetings.. Thank you, Scott.. that is an excellent presentation, and i appreciate that the two perspectives are equally contrasting and complimentary toward the same understanding.. i hope we can enjoy a difference of perspective that has potential for understanding.. as time permits, i will put words down that expresses my understanding of 'self', in hopes we might ponder the uselessness of obstructing clarity with notions not relevant to the direct experience.. Be well.. PS: I am curious, is your handle a reference to XingYi?

Greetings.. What is awareness? it is a word, a description of ???... what IS it? If there is nothing to experience 'Awareness', there is no 'word', no description, no 'Awareness'.. it is the ability to relate to existence, to perceive the experience of that relationship.. which inspires 'That' which experiences to describe the process of perceiving as 'Awareness'.. Be well..

Hi CowTao: Now, i have read the posted link.. the use of self or no-self is trivial, the observation, regardless of what it is labeled, is of unique identifiable beings relating with their environment.. self hould not be an issue, Buddha should not be an issue, only the experience is the issue.. Be well..

This is the issue, Seth.. because i don't get it the way 'you' get it or Cirian gets it, i am somehow deficient.. that perspective, alone, is sufficient evidence that i don't wnat what you have.. at one point i wanted what Buddha taught to be true, and some of it is, but.. just like other great masters, their followers have so corrupted the potential as to render it meaningless.. I come to your understanding of 'no self' through the process of 'stilling the mind'.. no ritual, no rejection of what is plainly obvious, selfs exist.. i achieve the same clarity of 'no-self' through 'empty mind', and balance that with full on engagement with Life.. Please stop soothing your wounded desires that people believe what you do, by telling stories about how i haven't tried to understand.. i have tried, and there is no validity in the method or the result.. it's unfortunate that you can't accept that truth, you are becoming desperate.. Be well..

You cannot know this, so by deductive reasoning you claim extrasensory perception.. It seems the your idea of a 'microscope' is what the rest of know as a kaleidoscope.. look into your microscope and find 'Buddha-nature', too.. The effect of 'self' is self-evident, the unique self of Buddha is well regarded by those that understand his wisdom.. the unique effect of the Ghandi self changed a nation and a way of thinking.. the unique effect of the Jesus self has influence over millions.. the unique effect of the Hitler 'self' nearly wiped out the Jewish people in Europe.. Your fear and self-loathing betrays your affection for your own self.. Be well.. Be well..

I wish it were different because my compassionate nature hopes such energies as are expended in the beliefs of 'no-self' might be useful for improving the human experience, but.. it is just a grand deception, distracting seekers from their potential.. LOL, What hand??? Be well..

Thank you, Seth.. you exemplify my earlier point. I have no validity in your perception until i conform to your beliefs, you assert that i lie about my efforts to realize 'no-self', when in fact the efforts were sincere and extensive.. how many times do i put my hand into the fire, hoping for the promise of 'no pain'? do i put it in until the hand is burned away and we can rejoice in the 'no hand ~ no pain' solution?? You claim some extrasensory knowledge of 'my' efforts regarding 'following instructions', and you are incorrect.. again, exemplifying the differences of 'selfs'.. the differences of understanding are besed on existent selfs, unique identities engaged in relationshipes with Life and existence.. and, as much as i had hoped that such passion as revealed by the beliefs of 'no-selfs', i cannot deny the actuality that there is self asking a self not to believe in its self.. there is simply no evidence to the contrary, i looked with sincere intent and found word-play and games.. i wish it were different, but it is not. Be well..

Hi Jetsun: it is my experience that by saying there is a self, you acknowledge the 'experience' of self.. there cannot be an 'experience' of no-self, as self is a necessary component of the experience.. Be well..

Hi Marblehead: I'm just asking for sincere and reasonable dialogue, without which i just become a mirror.. Be well..

Do you suggest i accept everyone's opinions in opposition to my own awareness of what is so? i see what 'some' people believe about me, are you certain it's 'everyone'? Yes, it's easy to exaggerate and embellish to make your-'self' seem right, Lucky.. see how the 'self' works, it occasionally shoves its bloated self-image at others, polishing its self-righteousness with its superiority.. So, Lucky, you responded to an excerpt that asks you to address the differences of understanding, and.. as is the 'way', you reveal your 'selfness', asserting its viability by choosing to ignore the critical issue and resort to your preference of mockery and ridicule.. you make this so easy. Be well..

It is a real and existent belief, look and see that it is so, else why is there the difference of understanding??? why is there the difference of understanding??? do not avoid this critical evidence or dismiss it with clever word-play.. Be well..

You are 'self', you speak uniquely through your individualized 'self', the reference point of your perception, an existent identity evidenced by your words.. nothing is more simple than accepting what 'is'.. i need no instruction to believe other than what is self-evident.. the 'no-self' doctrine requires belief and faith.. i need neither to 'know' self exists, it is 'self'-evident.. Be well..

Originally, i asked for for dialogue and discussion at Ruthless Truth.. what i got was harsh and crude instruction.. rational discussion that might reveal the weaknesses and illusions of the 'no self' doctrine are rejected.. of course i am willing to revise my understandings if you can support your claims with something more than 'if/then' word-play that will not survive rational scrutiny.. and when some members wanted to actually have rational discussions, i was banned.. What i discern, between the Ruthless Truth site and TTB, is that the 'no self' dogma breeds intolerance, referencing the typical Seth Ananda or Cow Tao type response, that it is acceptable to impose doctrine/dogma.. even if you do the work, and i did, and conclude differently, it is unacceptable.. see Seth's or Cow Tao's adjudication of me.. that is the issue, totalitarian intolerance with such uniquely 'self' attitudes.. the very arguement offered is fundamental evidence that the arguement is invalid.. the 'no self' dogma is advanced through intimidation due to lack of subatance.. the entirty of the 'no self' doctrine is an insincere intellectual game. As Seth says, "Good Honest expression".. Be well..

Thank you for at least making the effort to verify something for yourself.. now, i ask you, if someone, even a group of people, say to you, "put your had in the flames, it will not hurt", how many 'hurts' do you endure before you identify a solution? You did not read all of my postings at RT, some were taken down, you did not read the private exchanges between Cirian and myself, and.. of that that you did read, how often did i ask for answers and got only ridicule in return??? will you answer? or, will you judge my requests for answers as insincere? will you ever know, for you have judged me even now, through the filter of your own 'self', judged superior to those whom you judge.. ah, the seething self-righteousness of Buddhists, they season my soul consistently.. such a prideful judgement of me, i feel your 'seasoned' and practiced righteousness, do you? can you feel your familiarity with with your own saucy arrogance seasoning your righteous indignation.. MORE, i feel it in there, let it go brother, let your inner Buddha out!! Absolutely astounding.. Be well..

Buddhism.. Be well..

Hi Scott: Thanks for the clarity! We can agree that there is Life.. whether it is suffering or bliss, is revealed in general accordance with the experiencer's beliefs, as i understand the process.. is that a Green Light? Be well..