Sunya

hmm.. is there a difference between 'seeing' and the 'image being seen' ? is there a difference between 'feeling excitement' and 'sound happening out there' ? are not these all just thoughts? just blips in the field radar of awareness? IS THAT NOT SO?

missed this place.. whenever I get all idealistic about society evolving spiritually, intellectually, and ethically..and wondering what a utopia would be like... I come here and get a reality check. The Tao Bums, a sure fire way to experience idiocy.. first hand! bahaha! priceless

I think there's a problem with this philosophical argument. 'drugs' and 'brain' don't truly have any real existence outside the mind labeling them. they are truly not separate at all from Tao or infinity; the distinction is only in our minds. so there is no such thing as 'finite', I think a better argument is that realization occurs when the dualistic mind is transcended, let go of, and that this is impossible to do with drugs since they only affirm the dualistic mind. A very strong dose of a psychedelic can give a glimpse but that glimpse will be distorted. I've met many who have had experiences on mushrooms/acid and think they don't need a path; they 'know'. The ego usually restructures even more strongly after a full psychedelic experience, attachment usually follows. I think a distinction should be made between 'drugs' and 'entheogens'. I do respect entheogens as they can be very useful for pointing out psychological errors and bringing us closer to, and right to the doorstep of, the Path. but the Path must be walked naked. One cannot depend on substances as they only limit once you get to a certain point; once you get beyond a certain stage. They must be let go. I think your argument that the reactions in the brain are effects and not causes is very good and I agree with it. you can cite Buddhist monks that have had brain scans done that show areas of the brain that light up relating to compassion and feelings of peace and contentment. If a person was given a drug to make those brain areas active would that mean that the person is of equal level as the Buddhist monks? If that were the case then depression could be solved by taking pills, but as any real psychologist will tell you.. that only delays the problem, sweeping it under the rug. There's so much that we don't know about consciousness and limiting it to just chemical reactions in the brain, and equating spiritual experiences to be just neurons firing in a certain way, is very reductionist. This would be like saying that World War 2 was just atoms, molecules, and chemicals interacting, ignoring the sociological, historical, and psychological elements. To reduce events to their minuscule parts is to ignore the bigger picture.

yes, true indeed. China got some Tantric texts from India (7th century) before Tibet (8th century), and then later from China to Japan (early 9th century). but Vajrayana didn't really take off in China and died out fairly quickly. In Japan its still around, as i'm sure you know. Glenn did mention interest in Mikkyo in his books... I'd trust a Japanese master of Vajrayana, but Chinese? I don't know. There was never a lineage of Tantra in China... and especially the guy that Drew quoted. if you see his wikipedia page, its obvious he's a fraud. I'm not saying the info he posted is wrong though, i'm sure he just read it somewhere. I'm just saying watch your sources.

Drew, you're obsessed. as you've been told time and time again. in Vajrayana, posture is only secondary to right view (through philosophical study), right intention (bodhicitta) and right method(proper meditation). go find a Lama and ask him to explain to you if you don't believe me. who the hell is master sheng yen lu? you're reading chinese sources for tibetan buddhism? that's like asking an american to teach to you native american shamanism anyway this guy isn't authorized and apparently is just a cult leader. maybe he hangs out with Dorje Chang Buddha Super King Bling VIII ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Sheng-yen anyway nobody is denying that the Vajra posture is important Drew, really. it's just you're giving it too much credit. it's just a means.. not an end. and there are other means as well. you're stuck. move beyond your attachment. stop sucking the thumb.

Nobody understands anything except you, Gold.

the mark of an idiot: he will hold on.. and keeping holding on... even when the futility of it all has been pointed out to him, he will still hold on simply for the sake of holding on. can't let go, man! can't let go! well that'll just be...crazy! and i'm sane, damn it! i'm real!

http://www.zhaxizhuoma.net/INTRODUCTION/DCBIII.html

you choose and control? really now? that's like saying you go into an amusement park and "choose" which rides to go on. all the paths have been created already, and the rides have been created. where is the choice? your choice is already predicated upon your beliefs, and conditioning. where did you get that conditioning? through past experience. the I is just a snowball rolling down a hill that collects things on its way and "thinks" that whatever pops to the surface is by its free will. i hear you. life is way better before you start thinking about truth and all that jazz. living in ignorance sure is bliss, but you can't go back. as much as you may try. it'll just be an act, and underneath will always be the looming shadow of 'this doesn't feel right'

6) he's a goofy fucker rofl what do you guys think about channeling? is it legit? and even if he is 'channeling' another being.. how do we know that the being is giving wisdom teachings? personally I think this Bashar is all an act. notice how the accent dies down the longer he talks. it really seems like he's faking it. and his advice? follow your joy, follow your passion.. ? ok I'll become a pornstar, thanks Bashar!

Hi Scotty

the teachings of Shakyamuni were indeed about suffering and liberation, the goal being Arhat. but that s not the highest goal, and indeed it is known by Theravadins that Buddhahood is a vastly different goal than Arhat. Enlightenment is not the same as liberation. A Buddha is like a really powerful super hero. I know it sounds cheesy. and I apologize for my lack of eloquence in metaphors but in essence, that's what a Buddha is. Buddhahood = total omniscience, and having the power to help anyone by manifesting in whatever form is best. An Arhat no longer suffers but still has defilements, does not have omniscience, and does not have the means to help other beings. the Rainbow body is the highest goal of Dzogchen, now technically someone who rests in Rigpa constantly does not suffer at all, and thus is liberated... but still practices to attain Rainbow Body because this is practically having infinite power of manifestation to help all beings. V- correct me if i'm wrong

haha I meant post that in the youtube video not here but thanks. i figured out that the reason youtube was giving me issues with posting was because I had a URL and they think i'm spamming.

far from it. Krishnamurti had a very high realization of anatta and his teachings were absolutely necessary for the many spiritually materialistic shoppers present at his time, and now as well. he also had memories of being a disciple of Buddha in past life, and would always praise the Buddha. he was an unBuddhist Buddhist, since labels themselves are contrary to the Dharmic understanding. I think he has a lot to offer for the modern seeker. also, he doesn't deny the relative... lol. if he did then why did he teach? his view of sudden awakening was very similar to zen view, and it's more about emphasis. when you are constantly emphasizing the now, and not the past or future, then everything happens only now so an awakening can only be sudden. of course when you step back and see things more broadly, then awakening is dependently originated; gradual.. but not emphasizing that does no harm, and the two views do not contradict each other.

very wonderful post rebel, I edited out the unnecessaries..and now it truly shines

touchy touchy nobody's saying your experience is wrong, what is being said is that the belief was apriori to the experience and thus the experience and your subsequent belief cannot fully held to be true.

"we"?? why do you keep using "we" if not to feel all fuzzy and warm inside?

cause and effect exist only relatively, ultimately cause and effect is illusory [heart sutra] what is wrong with positing endless regression? why must there be an apriori cause of all phenomena? remember Buddhists don't believe in linear time. a Buddha does indeed know all. I guess I can compare this to the age old determinist argument that if you knew where all the set pieces were in the universe, you could predict the next step. the Buddha in essence knows infinity and the 'set pieces' are not removed from him, recognizing emptiness gives rise to wisdom and knowing, this doesn't sound very 'mechanical' to me. of course Buddhists see existence as undesirable, you should too. existence is dependent on non-existence. the ultimate reality is completely beyond such limitations. to 'exist' is to 'crave', because there is awareness that you're standing on only one half of a coin. it's not existence that is the problem though, its the attachment to such dualistic concepts as existence and non-existence that is the problem, because 'to exist' is simply to be attached to that principle. this is dependent origination

Marble, not sure about the point of continuing this since its obvious that whatever i'm saying is just coming out as "!*@!*!)!!@!@)@*!" to you, but I would really recommend you that you read some good phenomenological works or meet a good teacher who can point all this out to you since I'm quite terrible at this. I'm trying to convey very subtle here, and you keep glossing over and generalizing and assuming. I'm not saying that when you go to sleep at night the world ceases to be.. it's more like "your" world ceases to be because "your" world is quite different from THE world. and in THE world there are no such thing as trees, people, colors, shapes, time, space, blah, bleem, bloop, and jab. we make that world up. what's Nietzsche say about morality? he says the same thing for math and science. it's all man-made. Nature is completely devoid of any distinction so how can math and science be true? Nature is completely devoid of time and space so how can location and time be true? Our whole world depends upon breaking reality up into separate subjects, objects, based upon our interpretation of what they look like through our limited, and defunct, sensory perceptions . and reason? logic? sure they are wonderful but they can only take you so far. the height of reason is the realization of absurdity,contradiction, and chaos. without x=x 'logic' falls apart. no, not intuition, rather the height of logic. and I don't believe it.. how can I believe it? beliefs are whimsical and based on projection and desire.. nothing to do with truth. it is the conditioned intuition that keeps telling you that you DO exist. and it is this stupid intuition that keeps people from seeking endlessly and solemnly themselves. that stupid intuition that you exist is the prime cause and condition for the state of Lack that everyone and I mean everyone is in. this feeling of lack is projected into the world and the desire is there to BECOME REAL. I am.. but I lack.. I must become! I MUST BE! This is why we suffer, because we believe that we're real; but not quite. if we truly believed it then why are we suffering? because there's also a hidden inner feeling that you're wrong.. that you're not real, maybe we can call this 'unconditioned intuition', and it is this feeling that creates anxiety when we keep trying to fill that lack. because deep down we know that filling that lack is like filling a black hole.. its impossible. the only solution is to free fall into yourself and accept the groundless nature of self.

yes...go on... so you're arguing that Buddhists are dogmatic by saying the view of no-view is all encompassing and say "stop accusing me of clinging to subtle attachments!"..Then you go off saying you surrender to a universe as if the universe is a conscious singular being? do you not see the subtle attachment to that dogmatic concept? who is truly dogmatic here Seth?

***************** i'm trying to remain on topic here and the segue is: intuition is conditioned since it cannot be separated from belief. I will have to redefine terms: delusion/conditioning is concluding truths based on assumptions and ignorance. intuition is following your heart, belief is a psychological yes response to a proposition, wisdom is the inherent quality of Mind to know. by 'mind' (lowercase) I refer to 'mindstream' or 'subjective perspective' 'or' 'Sem' irrespective of brain. 'Mind' uppercase is non-localized awareness. or 'Rigpa' so, if you say intuition is conditioned since it is based on belief, which I argue to be true, then there can arise a propensity to go to the extreme of denying all intuition as conditioned. is there such thing as non-conditioned intuition? this is what I would call wisdom. before I defined wisdom as all-encompassing view but I will change that. the all-encompassing view (emptiness) is the necessary method to accessing wisdom. why? because the method of the view is what stops conditioning. intuition is no longer conditioned because beliefs are let go of, conceptual barriers are dissolved, and wisdom is no longer filtered through as 'intuition' where it can now be rightly called 'Wisdom'. the all encompassing view of Emptiness has logic as a necessity. so about Intuition and Logic, which is the topic: Logic is necessary to decondition intuition as Wisdom.

I will realize a tree is real because I'll walk into it? because there will be a sensory response to it? do you think the physical body is real too? because you "feel" it? i'm not saying that the 'world' is an illusion, well I am.. except i'm saying that the illusion is dependent on mind. i'm saying that it doesn't exist as you think it does, in fact mind creates the world entirely because everything you experience is dependent on mind. it is conditioned, your whole reality is conditioned. everything is dependent on mind as a necessary condition, without that condition its just potentiality. that's because you don't understand phenomenology, it's only illogical because you hold onto assumptions as axioms. the assumption that 'objects as representations' exist independent of your perception. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ wow, I thought you studied Nietzsche? you're going to hold a Descartian view of cogito ergo sum ??? Fred totally rips apart that fallacy since the 'I' is inferred, there are just thoughts... where's the I? if it is 'you' that thinks. then.. stop your thoughts, right now. stop them.. and see what happens when you try. the 'I' is just another thought, yet more subtle than conscious thoughts. the 'I' is just a conditioned thought just like every other thought and action. that's why there is no such thing as free will because every thought is conditioned and there is no "I' separate from those conditioned thoughts that is doing anything. what is 'head' and 'computer desk' ? they exist only as ideas dependent on mind. there's truly no such thing as 'head' or 'computer desk' I'm learning Nietzsche from a Logician/Metaphysician who himself wrote a book on Fred. My professor is a smart dude, http://www.ericsteinhart.com/ and he teaches the subject very practically. there's no room for interpretation in our class. If you don't see the similarities between Nietzsche, Buddhism, and Taoism in terms of the dream-like reality of this mind-created world, then you don't understand any of the 3 philosophies. Nietzsche went to great lengths to show that our whole reality is a delusion, the brain has evolved for the role of survival.. not truth, we are programmed for error.. this was his "theory of errors". The belief that things exist as you perceive them is as false as a belief in a God living up in the clouds judging everyone. Nietzsche wrote so much about this topic, how all the 'sciences' only provide theories not actual explanations because they rely on the senses. to see truth is to face the abyss, which is the absurd, the illogical. you have to go against intuition and what 'seems right'. for Taoism its the same thing, take Zhuangzi and his metaphor of the butterfly. or other Mystics from every tradition. they all refer to this reality as a dream that must be woken up to. in essence that means that everything you perceive to be true is false. all beliefs and intuitions are false. the only way to awaken from the dream is to let go of perceived notions of 'what is real' and embrace the absurdity that everything you hold to be true is actually false including the belief in an 'I'