TzuJanLi

Yes, my family is from the Great Smoky Mountains area, and there are hunderds of miles of trails throughout the area, thanks to the CCC.. the TVA system, another huge public project, transformed the region, too.. those ideals are as valid today as they were then.. while technology drives people out of the factories, they can renew restoration of the nation's infrastructure.. there is no drop in resources, only in places to apply 'sustainable change'.. out of the tech jobs, into a transformational awareness of the planet's resources.. Be well..

Greetings.. What is clear is that the value system that distributes money to use as representative bartering, also uses money to establish and maintain a failing caste-system.. What is useful to civilization and the species, is to provide security to those that have been displaced by technology.. recalling the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) or the WPA (Work Projects Administration), there are very useful and fulfilling opportunities for people to reconnect with the environment.. advancing sustainable concepts away from urbanized contagions.. there are sufficient resources to be distributed equitably and maintain a higher standard of Living than is the median standard in any generally localized group.. allowing the mind to refocus on sustainable solutions. Suppose every went back to the jobs they were doing in the summer of 2007.. suppose you did everything just as you did then.. suppose you worked, you bought groceries, clothes, entertainment, medical procedures, etc.. but, no money changed hands, no money existed, and no accounting was taken.. everybody just went back and started doing the same things.. and, suppose the excesses wasted on the defense of ideologies and resources, was free to be redistributed to raise the standard of living for everyone.. if the 'industrial military complex' became the CCC, working to correct the injustices of the caste-system, the rationalization for 'war' is defeated.. Why do you suppose the Tea Party, the majority of the Republican Party, and the general beliefs of the Conservatives are to protect the wealthy 'job creators'? because they have been conditioned to believe that if the wealthy don't make enough money, they will punish society by not creating jobs.. that is not true. The wealthy will simply find more ways to make more money, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.. they have simply conditioned a segment of society, generally conservative, to give it to them and to punish those that would distribute it based on 'need' and sustainability.. it is very doable to simply produce and consume fairly, with less effort and greater result.. take the wealth option out of the equation, the wealth/effort each person puts toward the functioning of a healthy society, is rewarded fairly, and.. unrealistic excess is redistributed based on need... sounds horrible, huh.. keep hoarding while others starve, and they will take it from you forcibly and society will reset, in reverse.. history is clear on this. Be well..

Greetings.. Given the options, people choose what they believe.. the abandonment of freewill is fine, it's a choice people make.. if one is sincere about resolving the issue of freewill or no freewill, it's a simple matter of looking without the expectations/conditioning of what to 'see'.. "I" see a dynamic interplay of options and choices.. i see people that believe there is no 'freewill', telling others they should believe this, too.. which, would make no sense if the others have no 'freewill' to change what they understand.. Be well..

One can 'look', without believing what they think they see should be seen by everyone else.. then, one can continue looking, and there is satisfaction in this.. One can 'look', without expectations.. then, what is seen is authentic and direct, and there is satisfaction in this.. even if what is seen is undesirable, but it is authentic and pure, i derive satisfaction from experiencing the essence of 'looking'.. and, that is 'seeing'.. One can 'look' with unconditional curiosity, never accepting descriptions as substitutes for what can be directly verified by one's own 'seeing', and never being satisfied that what is seen is all that can be seen.. i derive great satisfaction when i am unconditionally curious, when i see the same door, to the same room, as if i had not seen it 5000 times before, and i am unconditionally curious about what is on the other side.. One can 'look', with a 'still mind', suspending that mind's inclinations to inform 'that' which is looking what that mind 'thinks' it should see.. i derive great satisfaction from seeing what 'is'.. When asked, one can report what one has seen with sincere honesty.. i derive great satisfaction from sincere honesty, when it flows from me, and when it is received.. I hope i have been helpful.. Be well..

Greetings.. Just look and see what 'is', you are endowed with the capacity to see clearly.. if someone tells you 'what' to see, be cautious.. if someone tell you 'how' to see, be cautious.. if someone says, "lets look and see", look and see.. neither the drunk in the gutter nor Buddha is greater nor lesser than you, look, and see this, too.. Be well..

Greetings.. The Buddha-hood being talked about, is not the true Buddha-hood.. only Buddha was privy to that realization. The 'knock-offs' being presented as Buddhism are less than cheap imitations, at least an imitation understands its relationship with the original.. the aggressive and contentious Buddhist presence on this forum has diminished my interest greatly, both in Buddhism, and in this forum. I make the mistake of thinking that there is an interest in seeing what is so, and so i present 'understanding' to Buddhist Preachers, and i am rebuked with Scripture, Chapter and verse.. i sense no authenticity, no sincere will to 'know' among Buddhists and their thuggish RT step-brethren, only a deep contentment to do as told.. abandoning the only way to truth, the ability to look and see for yourself, as compared to looking and seeing as directed.. If i should follow my intuition and leave this Buddhist conquered forum to its own self-defeating demise, i should like to acknowledge a few decent 'selfs', keepers of the faith, as it were: Marblehead, Stigweard and his wealth of useful knowledge, Ya Mu's annoying but deeply appreciated fairness.. and a few others, which i cannot coax from the old gray stuff between my ears, but.. i am simply appalled by the lack of character (yes, i am judging) of people presenting Buddhist principles and 'no self' dogmas.. THIS is the source of true suffering, creating the illusion of no self such that it justifies whatever methods inflate the messianic self-imagery.. and, so it is.. i go to simply look, for a while, this talking has no result.. better to remove the splinter than watch it fester.. Be well..

Greetings.. So it is, that Harry Potter stories and ancient myths are pondered and bantered about intellectually, but no work is being done to resolve the inconsistencies and bring forth a functional working process.. the reciting of sutras or the mind-numbing Buddhist attachment to barren dogma, yields NO "feather waving mechanics".. it has, for centuries, trapped people in pointless beliefs.. a single focused reading of Buddha's story is sufficient to propel the sincere seeker on a journey of self-realizing, a journey with no destination.. Buddhism is scenery along the way, and Tao is the background against which the scenery is experienced.. more importantly, there is a 'you', and a 'me', and a 'we/us/Life' exploring this process independently AND together.. understanding the unification of experience releases dependency on dogma.. Be well..

Greetings.. Precisely.. it's a bit like inventing a problem so you can find a solution.. As i have posted previously, "We are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle".. Be well..

So much clarity, not distorted by attachment to beliefs.. just a sincere willingness to see what is so, and the honesty to accept what is seen/experienced.. Be well..

What is the fascination with D.O.? Everything exists in comparison with something that it is not. Your choosing to hold such inflexible beliefs, that without "intrinsic characteristics or core" no reality exists "in itself", is fundamentally false.. as you are not equipped, by reason of experience or apparatus of sufficient sensory range, to claim any certainty regarding existence or reality.. your claim of D.O. and realization is sufficient to impeach your beliefs, as it is a 'self-assured' belief, leaving no room for revision. Liberation is freedom from expectations.. you demonstrate no understanding of liberation, you expect a path to lead you where only your feet can find their way.. You do not understand suffering, and your delusion blinds you.. i have no understanding regarding your claim of being an "asshole", that is another of your 'expectations'.. existence is existence, until it isn't.. you, and some Buddhists and some RT fundamentalist evangelicals are attached to beliefs, you have selected your beliefs excluding other possibilities, your mind is no longer open. Your beliefs exist only conceptually, no actuality supports your beliefs, D.O. is an observable fact that is the fundamental basis of existence.. without it, nothing exists, no thought, no you, no anything and no nothing.. absolute absence. Buddha set out to avenge his misappropriated youth, he so feared suffering and pain, and aging that he contrived an elaborate pretense.. and, as you can see, people's weakness for escaping truth attracts them to such a provocative pretense.. Thinking happens, and we are that.. it is temporary, like the person through which the thoughts manifest, but the energy that animates the processes will change form, shape, and shift its mass to accommodate the evolution of the cosmos.. there is indeed a self, but you and Buddhists, and others so inclined have not yet understood that which you deny.. and, your denial is proof, you return for additional reinforcement that the interaction you encounter with others might validate the 'self' you claim is not so.. you claim there is no self, yet want to save us from it.. you create resistance where there was none. Be well..

Greetings.. Hi Marblehead: You are like a powerful spice, just a dash at the right time.. brings a dull stew to life.. Thanks for the support.. Be well..

Greetings.. The words "I" am posting now are arranged and intended so uniquely as to be solely sourced from the existence of that singular identity, "TzuJanLi".. so that it is observable, and self-evident, that the thoughts arranging and intending these words are based upon and sourced from the 'identity', as if identities were portals through which the source of All experiences itself through the unique identities of itself in multiplicity.. multiplicity, thoughts, and thinkers exist for the purpose of experience, so that 'That' which 'Is', can evolve and experience its own existence.. The contrary belief is that there is a benefit to pretending this is not so, in pretending the road to nowhere is a road to somewhere.. the insistence that the individual cultivate a belief that there is no 'thinker', no 'self', is contrary to the natural processes of Life, it is a belief that must be explained and cultivated as it is not a naturally evident experience.. the 'no thinker', no 'self' belief is a regression from the natural progression of evolution, 'no thinker/no self' is a contrived resistance to what 'is'.. Be well..

Greetings.. I'm not satisfied with anything at all, i keep sincerely 'looking'.. attaching to a preferred story, diminishes the sincerity of 'looking', it creates the expectations of the story.. but, yes, i do respect the illusion of deeper, in equal measure to the respect offered for those that are simply looking.. I am clear as to why i am here, it is to have my own direct experience with Life.. it is not to be manipulated by the beliefs of others, Buddhas, and Tao, and such.. and it's that simple. I question everything, you just prefer i didn't question your beliefs.. Be well..

Greetings.. Here's the 'thing'.. between you and Cow Tao there is this 'call-and-response' story-telling about stuff you 'believe' about animals and cats.. and, there is just the simplicity of, let's watch animals and cats in particular.. let's pay attention to what they 'do', not speculate on how their mind's work.. it seems there's always a 'story' told to reinforce the beliefs people favor.. there is a difference between telling stories about what we see and experience, and weaving beliefs and imagination into those stories.. this a very subtle agreement to join a 'support group', using a particular story theme to bond the 'group' into a defense against flying solo.. uncomfortable with, or unwilling, stepping into Life as who 'you' are is rejected in favor of a relationship with the 'story'.. When all of the stories are gone, 'you' are still there.. Be well..

Greetings.. Hi Seth: It's this 'story' you keep repeating, it seems so 'ruthlessly true' to you, but.. it's that 'thing' you are attached to, that keeps reappearing as variations on a theme.. "Dependently arising" or 'D.O.' or whatever version anchors you to your 'self', the 'story' that you repeat because it is how you identify 'you', it's a part of your 'self-reference'.. It is like the difference between Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu.. Chuang Tzu told very engaging stories that revealed a relationship between Tao and Life.. Lao Tzu used examples to explain Tao.. similar, but Lao Tzu had an agenda and a structure.. Chuang Tzu let Life tell its own story, and let the reader find their own way to Tao in whatever way they were capable of understanding it, nicely holistic.. The story you tell seems so sterile, so unrelated to the lives of the living.. well practiced, almost like it is being read from the 'study guide' for a course on 'Ruthless Truth Meets Buddhism', kinda like the following post.. Like so much of the Buddhist process, it seems so contrived, so formulated.. yes, i know, i'm not qualified to render meaningful opinion because i don't agree, but that's just it.. neither of us know if i agree or not. If i were of the nature to try to fit something spontaneous and organic into a formula that required a belief in someone else's interpretation of the 'spontaneous and organic' process i was already intimately experiencing.. i might suppose that your explanation and your formula was very agreeable, but.. i'm not inclined to abandon the spontaneous and organic truth i experience, to follow a formula and explanation that someone tells me will bring me the result i already experience.. similarly, it is likely you are not willing to abandon the story you know, for the story i tell, and you will probably not consider that i have discovered what you have, without agreeing with the story you tell.. I don't know what you have experienced, but.. from what i have experienced, the stories you tell are inconsistent with simply looking, and seeing.. because that's all there is to it, no 'dependent originating contexts' or 'false content', or whatever other stories are told beyond "look, and see what is".. you look, and see 'selfs' happening, then.. you 'think', you imagine, you compare stories and decide that you 'prefer' a story about no self, to what you see.... what did you see, when you 'simply looked'? of course, you see 'selfs' happening, if it were not so, you wouldn't be saying there are no selfs.. all of which is 'self-evident', though.. I hadn't meant to get this involved, but.. that's spontaneity for ya.. Be well..

Greetings.. There is only 'That which is', whatever 'That' is.. Stillness simply allows clarity to reveal 'That which is'.. "be still, and know".. Be well..

Greetings.. If i'm reading your post appropriately, i experience the space beyond 'views', and the way i understand the experience is to reference it as 'isness'.. as in there 'is' that space, as in there 'is'........ and, just let another experiencer have their own experience of it, without 'me' influencing their experience with unnecessary 'words'.. your post suggests that you understand this perspective, or.. more appropriately, i understand your post in that manner.. crap! now i tripping over my own 'words', i hope you understand my meaning.. Be well..

You cannot 'know' about my meditations practices.. what differs is your expectations programmed by your beliefs, and my lack of expectation such that truth might be revealed.. someone has already told you what your truth will be.. mine is fresh and new each moment.. Be well..

Greetings.. Well, i understand my preferences a bit more clearly, now.. but, i need neither Taoism nor Buddhism for complete eradication of psychological suffering.. and, unconscious rebirth is an oxymoron, if you are unconscious of it, it is just birth.. reincarnation is a belief without substantiating evidence.. the version i can reconcile. with simple observation, is the redistribution of the energies that once animated prior physical bodies, and the resonance of those energies increasing the probability of recalling memory fragments and creating an illusion of prior incarnations related by belief structures.. Be well..

Greetings.. It's so much simpler than that.. just 'look'.. you wrestle with words, blaming words upon people and beliefs upon words and, people upon selfs and, ..... cripe, so much words.. what i might have said: 'walk outside, feel the wind blowing'.. Be well..

Greetings.. I'm not sure of the relevance of what i'm about to post, it just feels appropriate.. i am neither Buddhist nor Taoist, i am simply paying attention.. it has been quite some time since my realization that 'paying attention' was the most productively revealing process i had encountered, it continues to reveal itself in that manner with stunning consistency. The other realization, circa same time frame, early 1980s, around my age 30, was that simplicity has a cleansing and clarifying effect on the perceptions of my existence.. together, these realizations have remained as my primary means of usefully employing awareness to inform me of my relationship with Life and existence. Regarding the relationship between Buddhism and Taoism, recalling that i consider myself as neither, but.. i find the principles of Taoism more closely approximating my understandings than those of Buddhism.. i am quite fond of paying attention, especially when my thought processes are diminished or suspended.. which, as one might suspect is a fairly simplistic perspective when you're 'there'.. Between the presentations of Buddhism and Taoism, made by the many different presenters, written and live, Buddhist and Taoist, there has been a noticeably more simple process of the Taoist perspectives than of the Buddhist perspectives.. of course, that's 'my' simple inclinations influencing my understanding, and i do try to understand the bias effects.. It seems that Buddhists have a tendency to tell others 'how and what' to see/experience.. and Taoists tend to suggest that the experiencer see and experience independently, and seek common understandings through comparative discourse, a process i favor, too.. and, that evaluation may also be biased by my previously stated preferences, but.. it is my experience that if i continually 'shoot' for 'simply looking', i am more likely to get closer to that target.. so, as i said, i have no idea of the relevance of this rambling post, but it seemed appropriate at the time.. Be well..

Greetings.. Hi SJ: I am very familiar with Anatta, and with Tao.. and i reject both as distractions from 'isness' (that which is), i simply find Tao to be slightly less distracting.. and, neither will take you all the way 'there'.. Be well..

Greetings.. I understand the meaning and appreciate pointing at the infinite eternal, then.. 'that' which is aware of this conversation, is also aware that without the vehicle of 'self', this conversation and this awareness of the infinite and eternal would not 'be'.. so, an abiding and deep appreciation for the vehicle that manifests awareness of existence arises, dependent on the vehicle and its differentiation.. the 'story' isn't told without the 'teller' that experiences its relationship with existence and non-existence.. Be well..

Greetings.. Who catches "a glimpse of not-self"? does 'not self' experience its 'not selfness'? Who tells this story about 'not selness'? 'self' tells itself a story, and tells others a story about how it hides from itself, but.. it can't, look and see the 'selfs' functioning in plain view in the forum, then.. look and see the 'story' selfs try to convince each other is true.. in its entirety, the self is not relevant, except when it is used to create the confusion of a 'self vs. no-self' distraction from living Life sincerely.. Be well..