3bob

It is well that She can not be caught, indeed it well! Om

Thanks for spending the time and making the effort Aaron!

Thanks, but don't worry death died although he was a tough cookie. As for VJ... when he rants on (and on and on) he hurts Buddhism imo. That all folks. Om

When it comes to being shrinks I don't think either one of us are good at it... which may be something we can agree upon? "Brahmins" (and all the rest) does not equate to Sat Guru. Buddhist monks (and all the rest) does not equate to "enlighened one". What seems or we make complicated is ultimately reduced to astoundingly simple Purity; (and its sisters so to speak) for Love is not complicated. Later, Om

Making presumptions about Vedic related pointers or Buddhist related pointers result in pretty much the same error. Btw, Vedic related teachings include a vast amounts of more teachings than your narrow and limited stereo-types VJ, thus imo such partially-baked misrepresentations about same would be a reasonable thing for you to consider holding back on your judgemental, know-it-all type forays... Om

"Buddhism" by what is recognized as the Buddha's own recorded words is likened to as a raft or vehicle. (and must be put down at some point instead hauled about when it is no longer needed) "I'm not enlighened" is your own admission VJ. yet you presume to talk, explain and make assumptions about that which you are not qualified to do. (Such as the upanishads pointing to, intending or resulting in higher re-births! It does not make a difference how much one reads if one then makes dogmatic statements about same. Om

VJ that sounds like a major and misleading generalization concerning the upanishads which you seem compelled to do: "...The first point to be noted is that the word Samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanishads upon which Sankara has commented. This is not a matter to be lightly passed over, for if the attainment of Samadhi is central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, as we can gather it is, judging by the statements of some modern Vedantins such as those cited above, then one would legitimately expect the term to appear in the major Upanishads which are the very source of the Vedanta. Yet the word does not occur. The closest approximation to the word Samadhi in the early Upanisads is the past passive participle samahita in the Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka Upanishads. In both texts the word samahita is not used in the technical meaning of Samadhi ,that is, in the sense of a meditative absorption or enstasis ,although the closest approximation to this sense occurs in the Brhadaranyaka. In the first reference (BU 4.2.1) , Yajnavalkya tells Janaka: "You have fully equipped your mind (samahitatma) with so many secret names [of Brahman, that is, Upanishads]." Here the word samahita should be translated as "concentrated, collected, brought together, or composed." In the second occurrence (BU 4.4.23), Yajnavalkya tells Janaka that a knower of Brahman becomes "calm (santa), controlled (danta), withdrawn from sense pleasures (uparati), forbearing (titiksu), and collected in mind (samahita). This reference to samahita is the closest approximation in the Upanishads to the term Samadhi, which is well known in the later yoga literature. However, the two terms are not synonyms, for in the Upanishad the word samahita means "collectedness of mind," and there is no reference to a meditation practice leading to the suspension of the faculties such as we find in the literature dealing with yoga..." All of this stuff at best is vehicles, including Buddhism. Om

Hello CowTao, I disagree with your interpretation of "beyond the beyond". Note: from the Dhammapada "26. The True Master Wanting nothing With all your heart Stop the stream. When the world dissolves Everything becomes clear. Go beyond This way or that way, To the farther shore Where the world dissolves And everything becomes clear. Beyond this shore And the father shore, Beyond the beyond,...." Also a quote from the Wanderling site that well describes what I was trying to bring up: "Before he became the Buddha, at the beginning of his spiritual quest, Siddhartha Gautama studied with two teachers. The first teacher taught him the First Seven Jhanas; the other teacher taught him the Eighth Jhana. Both teachers told him they had taught him all there was to learn. But Siddhattha still didn't know why there was suffering, so he left each of these teachers and wound up doing six years of austerity practises. These too did not provide the answer to his question and he abandoned these for what has come to be known as the Middle Way. The suttas indicate that on the night of his Enlightenment, he sat down under the Bodhi Tree and began his meditation by practising the Jhanas. When his mind was "concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability" he direct it to the "true knowledges" that gave rise to his incredible breakthrough in consciousness known in the sutras as Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, the Consummantion of Incomparable Enlightenment, beyond the beyond of the Eighth Jhana." From the Wanderling website Om

Some show appreciation for Buddhism without almost always tagging a but this or but that onto same and then proceed to go on about proclaiming their superiority in understanding above all else! Its amazing how we can fit and use a teaching for ego... Aggregate(s) (or identification or individual consciousness) suffer and do not have the cake and eat it to, period. "Beyond the beyond" is not an aggreate according to Buddhist teachings. Thus freedom is attained according to the Buddha via that pointed to in Udana 8.3. Om

"the individuated consciousness can expand past things and time" VJ The individual consciousness is an aggregate by Buddhist teachings, thus you can not have your cake and eat it to. Btw, the near constant condescension going on here related to I am is about as good as a used car salesman can slip it to ya. Om

related origins of the symbol: http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm

Right Speech: Abbess Taitaku Patricia Phelan http://www.intrex.net/chzg/pat28.htm

"There is a beginning. There is no beginning of that beginning. There is no beginning of that no beginning of beginning. There is something. There is nothing. There is something before the beginning of something and nothing, and something before that. Suddenly there is something and nothing. But between something and nothing, I still don't really know which is something and which is nothing. Now, I've just said something, but I don't really know whether I've said anything or not" Chuang Tzu (c.360 BC - c. 275 BC)

Strange... since there were some responses to VJ in there? As far as "stones" go I suggest getting off it.

I imagine most everything you have read is also from a translation of some kind or another... (or recopies of recopies that tend to lose a little after each recopy) So your "so" is not the main point or even a very good point to try and nail someone with. I have no problem with the Zen Patriarchs meanings, but apparently you do based on projected word play? It is clear (as follows in my experiences) that there is truth in the noble eight-fold path. It is clear there is wisdom in the meanings of four-fold negation, It is clear that the core of Buddhism is pointed to in Udana 8.3 and that without that posibility the rest (methods) would be in vain instead of in preparation, it is clear that the historic Buddha was a being of compassion as further demonstrated through many of his students, it is clear that not everything in all the variations of Buddhist texts are agreed upon by all members, it is clear that many Buddhist masters are humble, kind, keen and of good cheer - it is clear that beating points or people up over and over again gets nowhere. It is clear that the Buddha had a truthful witness: Om

Belief is not always backed by experience... Being in overdrive to nail those believed to be eternalists down, (whoever or whatever that really is?) is counter productive since it results in also nailing oneself down with an attachement/motive to such a view. "When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail. The way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess. Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things. Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner feelings of emptiness. Be serene without striving activity in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves. When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness. Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial" From Hsin Hsin Ming, the 3rd Zen Patriarch (note his use of the word oneness if you will) Om

Where is this eternalist projection,(?) lets not forget the four-fold negation. What the Buddha taught (Udana 8.3) is for each to find out (or otherwise) without being hammered with heavy-handed harping that "stinks of Zen" or harping from of any other school of Buddhism for that matter. Such also applies to any other form of true spiritual teaching... Om

I see so it sounds like you trying to refute a well known Zen Koan (question) as probably being mis-based or whatever? Considering that, and on basic impression it sounds to me like you do not understand the Koan and thus proceed to launch into another "they" or such schools are likely wrong or even are actually wrong compared to your superior understanding of all such teachings and or counter teachings. Btw, how I may or may not think of you is not eternal... none-the-less there is Udana sutra 8.3 (thus imo projections about the future after cosmic dissolution are badly missing the mark but you can have such a view if it makes you happy) Om

I beg your pardon...? More projections, labels, assumptions, lecturing, misunderstandings, foot in mouth, etc.. Zen asks the right question: "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?" Om

(argumentive) talk of the mark = missing the mark

Change a word or two and it sounds you are describing your modus-operandi quite well. Om

Hello CowTao, See post 318, which is an edit of an earlier text that apparently got through to you? As far as misunderstanding goes it often doesn't matter much if we write one sentence or volumes does it? (or even one word for that matter) Om...

"You might want to study up, if you care to know the difference" VJ, To really "know" beyond what can be gained and what can be lost is not a matter of study or knowledge in an intellectual or mental sense, thus I feel that most any of us, including yourself, could end up "stinking of Zen" or in other words falling into the "trap" that such alludes to by following such a recommendation. Om

Hehehe,

GIVEN TO THE DYING "This body is not me; I am not caught in this body, I am life without boundaries, I have never been born and I have never died. Over there the wide ocean and the sky with many galaxies All manifests from the basis of consciousness. Since beginningless time I have always been free. Birth and death are only a door through which we go in and out. Birth and death are only a game of hide-and-seek. So smile to me and take my hand and wave good-bye. Tomorrow we shall meet again or even before. We shall always be meeting again at the true source, Always meeting again on the myriad paths of life". From Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear (taken from the Anguttura Nikaya sutra) I'm not going to pick at this, just putting it out there for your consideration. Om