3bob

"But I agree, "within" the universe there is no Absolute Nothingness. Beingness lies within the universe" By MH I can dig it; btw there is also that saying in the T.T.C., "that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be" which doesn't exactly sound like something going into absolute nothingness - being that there can't be an energy/beingness loss to the overall equation, thus and maybe more like a ceasing to be a certain part of the equation, yet at the end of the line so to speak some kind of algebra would be needed to balance the equation to overall Beingness. (?)

A&P, hope to God it's not Kuato, thus more like that time with him and Danny DeVito in "Junior"...

Gatito, Great quote and point in your locked string but most "traditional" Buddhists are also sticking to the traditional "no-self" interpretations. Btw and imo the historic Buddha did not make things any easier along these lines in relation to the point it sounds like you are trying to make considering most of His traditional and recorded doctrines... Thus and because of such key and fundamental differences about "Self" and no-self doctrines I think one has to question themselves if they believe they are speaking for Buddhism without the traditional and commonly accepted meanings - although there is still a very great deal to be appreciated about and learned from Buddhism. (aka common ground)

I can't roll over since I just found out that there (edit: might be) a darn grey alien with a case of beer is inside my belly, if only Arnold S. could see me now...

MH and others, It sounds to me like chapter one of the T.T.C. alludes to an absolute and eternal being-ness or source, on the other hand nowhere do I see an alluding to for an absolute nothing or absolute anti-non-source... granted there is "empty"-ness (in chp 11) but that empty-ness is not empty per-se thus being more like not blocking or getting in the way, also there is "Nothing" (in chap 43) but that nothing is not nothing per-se being that it could alluded to with the term no-thing. Still or yet that doesn't mean that the idea of two different yet absolute poles doesn't exist in other teachings, yet in that case how could they be termed absolutes? (with yin and yang not applying being that they are "born" from Tao)

I'd say ego is a shell and shells are made to be cracked open to let something out after the shell has served its purpose, also an ego will never be 100% fearless since fear in various ways is part of egos nature. (of dualistic doubt and division).

Some info from Buddhist doctrine: btw. apparently "world period" has the same meaning as "world cycle" unless someone has other information? From the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha, translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story 3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it." 4. But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind was influenced by Mara, he did not beseech the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!" 5. And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent. 6. Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you." And later on in... 56: "But you, Ananda, were unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting given you by the Tathagata, and you did not entreat the Tathagata to remain. For if you had done so, Ananda, twice the Tathagata might have declined, but the third time he would have consented. Therefore, Ananda, the fault is yours; herein you have failed." From Buddhist cosmology: Great Aeon or World Cycle (Maha-kappa) A maha kappa or aeon is generally taken to mean a world cycle. How long is a world cycle? In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison: • Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon. • Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

well I meant more like it wouldn't even exist if its founder had not said a word about it and thus there would not be a word recorded about it either. (thankfully for Buddhists a great god came along and helped spur the Buddha out of his indecision and doubt about saying a word about it as was recorded in doctrine)

wow, this thing is growing exponentially like my weekend beer belly, which doesn't all go away after the weekend is over even if its healthy type beer... (is the shot below even possible?!)

sure, it will do in pinch.

I guess that means it's a fortunate thing that what he said about clinging, etc. was written down for further contemplation. Also if one didn't start on the Buddhist path in the first place per or related to doctrine and a school then they wouldn't be anywhere else on path anyway for things to mostly depend on.

Is that really or completely so? If not for the doctrines and or carefully recorded teachings manifesting in schools and people that have been intensely involved with same and also handed down same what would you be practicing and who would there be to to practice it with?

If I remember correctly the Historic Buddha didn't exactly say physical body, (I'll have to get the text) but of course there are other forms of bodies such as heavenly type ones if you will... and which Buddhist doctrines are plum full of or over-flowing with per text and graphics. Btw, what the hell is your problem with saints anyway? Do you have a problem with Quan Yin and her heavenly being helping all beings? I wouldn't call such blind faith but fulfilled and true faith.

mind is a term used in different ways by different paths... one description I'll bandie about with is that mind is all things, while Self is not such or not limited to a being a thing, thus mind can ever reach Self and also remain mind although mind is connected to it through stages of transformation; reverse those transformations and what is still there as always - not a thing so to speak yet that does not mean nothing.

Then again and considering the manifest there can be no absolute nothingness per-se, it has to be absolute being-ness if one wants to pursue or make use of conceptual mind benders or blowers.

Thanks Michael, my head hurts, further how would you say an un-dividable or indivisible 'one' could implode into itself? (or did you already allude to that?)

Wow, sounds like some of you guys are throwing Buddhism for a loop if you are saying toss well recognized and recorded Buddhist doctrine? (with such doctrine sure in the heck not being something I dreamed up or am trying to superimpose upon in anyway!) Btw, CT you are also and now tossing another key teaching from the historic Buddha about finding proof for oneself in favor of a great and venerable somebody else's interpretation? And again, as for the "four-fold negation" I see it as a very important and key format related to non-clinging while also pointing to finding "proof" that is of a greater order than is commonly known by use of its formula of wisdom as a launching point.

umm, I was paraphrasing some very well recognized Buddhist doctrine as recorded about the historic Buddha and his Ananda ... now you are saying or implying to toss it? What is a Buddhist to do, pick and choose per their comfort zone from well recognized doctrine, and if that is case then all sorts of stuff could be tossed. as for the second part of your reply that is to much beating around the bush when imo one can just stick with the four-fold negation formula straight up. But thanks for taking a shot at it.

yet in a way it is paradox for that which springs forth from source is not of indifference in any way! Chandogya upanisad, Chapter XXVI — Self—knowledge 1. "For him who sees this, reflects on this and understands this, the prana springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory springs from the Self, the akasa springs from the Self, fire springs from the Self; water springs from the Self; appearance and disappearance spring from the Self, food springs from the Self, strength springs from the Self; understanding springs from the Self, meditation springs from the Self, consideration springs from the Self, will springs from the Self; mind springs from the Self speech springs from the Self, the name springs from the Self the sacred hymns spring from the Self the sacrifices spring from the Self—ay, all this springs from the Self."

Hello CT and others, I'm just dropping by and will soon drop out, but would you say that the historic Buddha at least and partially refuted the ideas given above in that He said he would remain for an entire cosmic cycle (or something to that effect amounting to eons beyond normal life even in the heavenly realms?) yet Ananda missed replying to him or asking further about it for 3 times so the Buddha then dropped the subject. (I could find the sutra for you to compare such with but then again I imagine you are already quite familiar with it?) As for the last sentence I see that as being counter to the four-fold negation if it is honestly plugged into that formula.

Bubbles, do you mean Sean has no alternative, ulterior or transmutational motives for the site? ( )

so the goat bucked the site into crashing?

enjoy:

while laughing we are not ever not laughing,

One can not be divided and unified at the same time... man that's a whole bunch of rhetorical like questions at once right now I'll the leave the others for the others. Agreed about the intensity - like having your having your head blown off although not being like that down the road from what very little I know.