Sunya

a dream character is telling me that a dream tree exists, LOL... that's funny! you should know from all your Nietzsche readings that our whole 'world' is just a projection, a creation, a dream. there is no such thing as 'tree' nor does 'exist' even make sense when you take away identity from form. 'tree' exists only relatively, imagine you're asleep dreaming.. everything you perceive is seemingly real and concrete.. but if you wake up to the dream and realize that its all just your projection... do ideas such as 'tree' and 'exist' and 'you' even make sense anymore? isn't it quite silly then to say 'you exist, trust me' to a dream character?

how to discern intuition from delusion? many people think they are following intuition but really its just a very very subtle conceptual grasping. for many people, their 'intuition' says that they exist. progress is always made when you go against intuition, especially in philosophy. for example, its your intuition that objects exist before you, that there is an external world and you are observing separately from behind the eyes, but that is false. there is no such thing as 'external world' vs 'internal world' and objects don't exist without perception. in actuality, whatever is experienced is phenomena and depend on mind for its existence, the solidity or concreteness of things is illusory; everything is Mind. to get to that realization you have to go beyond the 'intuition' that objects exist in and of themselves. we have to discern 'intuition' from 'delusion', going beyond delusion, beyond belief, is progress. intuition can never be wrong if intuition is a guiding light from wisdom, that is within all of us. so I ask again how do you discern intuition from delusion?

so teachers just sit on a throne all the time and don't mingle with people? LOL. you have a funny view of things, completely incomprehensible. all the teachers that I highly respect deal with people all the time, in fact they travel so damn much from country to country teaching students. they have no time to go on a forum and argue with people, they see that as fruitless and pointless. if the conditions are there for you to learn, you will pickup a book and learn. when you require a teacher, and the necessary causes arise, then you will meet the teacher somehow. my teacher didn't go looking for me, thats such a selfish view. he's so busy helping countless people everyday, people who are much more in need of help than I. i think the problem with this sort of thinking isn't that we need to knock down teachers from their pedestals, it's that we need to level everyone because we're afraid of hierarchy and losing our power. we hate authority and hate submitting to that authority, there is a fear of being swindled.. taken advantage of. and more so, there is a resistance to surrender completely because we want control. this is all ego. when you find the right teacher, you aren't surrendering to an external being who is just as deluded as you, you are surrendering to Buddha, pure wisdom, your true nature, whatever name you want to give it. the teacher is just a symbol. who knows what Laozi realized, the Dao De Jing is just a collection of poems and metaphors with no real methodology. Zhuangzi was more organized but still, could hardly be called purposeful in conveying method. I think that these early Taoist sages were solitary realizers who saw the emptiness of self and illusory nature of reality. their writings were just conveyances not actual methods to attain anything. picking apart the words doesn't really work since it's so difficult to see. like, nowhere in the Dao De Jing is the Dao ever posited to be a self existing thing, and in the right context you could say Dharmakaya is the source of all Things. it's all about context. so I sort of give up on trying to interpret Taoist philosophy; i don't know classical Chinese and Chinese is so contextual, especially Classical. its very different than modern. so we don't have enough information to conclude what these sages were really saying. its too cryptic for me, i like the concreteness of Buddhist philosophy so I stick with that. but in terms of comparison its just impossible IMO

there's no proof Laozi ever existed. the issue was always with the philosophy and methodology of Taoism. 'attaining the Tao' is a vague concept at best.

maybe he just realizes you're a lost cause? no, we have to create our own conditions. nobody can force wisdom upon you. openness and humility are necessary conditions before finding a teacher, those you have to create yourself to learn. much like learning to open your mouth is necessary before going before a fountain of water.

lol what does that mean? that simply crossing your legs in that fashion gives rise to wisdom, purifying all subtle concepts in the mindstream with no need to analyze or study or even perform meditative methods? it's just.. cross the legs. you cant' be serious Drew. Buddha never said such a thing

hm? i've never heard this. where did you learn this?

zencave. I called Drew a schitzo close to a year ago, maybe earlier. he's always had that sense of unbalance. seems very 'genius' but its just mental masturbation. there's nothing meaningful there. a book would be awesome. FULL LOTUS SECRETS AND GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACIES ALL WRITTEN IN FULL LOTUS WHILE GIVING O's at D's. hahah I appreciate everyone's posts.. and maybe you forgot but i'm the one who started to disagree with Drew in this thread in the first place. this has nothing to do with Vajra. lol. and i'm only teasing anyway

where did gay come from? I am open to all sentient beings.

just teasing Drew, i'm sure he realizes his posts border on schizophrenic ramblings sometimes.

there's a saying... never argue with a schizophrenic. ...it never ends..

there is no ultimate metaphysical essence, period. Mind is not a grand container that contains phenomena. phenomena is mind, let go of the need to have a container. so instead of this duality there is simply the observer? how is that not dualistic? emptiness applies to luminosity, luminosity is not separate from phenomena.. phenomena IS luminosity. luminosity is not a container that contains phenomena.. there is no container.. there is simply the flow of phenomena and that IS luminosity. who's awareness? who creates? awareness is a conscious being that creates? 'You' depends on 'other', if you get rid of 'other', there can no longer be a 'you'. the sense of 'I'ness continues because of past karmic affiliations with the subject.

i'm voting for this guy actually http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/vote/mykelm/ btw this can't be serious http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/vote/aaroni/ 00:30 "the road head will be tough" HAHAHA my Saturday night is now amazing thanks to you, Drew. Michael gets my vote for best campaign video http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/vote/michaels/

ROFL i really hope this "IHC" is a joke, look at their ambassadors.. 15 year olds and pedophiles alike, the very best! http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org...or/gallery.html WOW... which creepy guy do you want as a leader of the "post 2012" world ? http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/vote/ LOL this is hilarious!! i'm voting for the guy with the mustache

"You're trying to reduce Buddha's doctrine to a set of definitive statements. Basically I'm a moron when I quote the Buddha to support my view of an absolute substratum." LOL cmon guys lets be civil!

"dead" is a concept. why do you keep trying to apply concepts, which are themselves limiting, to infinity? loaded question, implying that an answer exists. there is no 'Who' again, loaded question, there is no 'you' there is perception, but no perceiver. and this perception is no separate from causes and conditions. mind is not separate from karma. in fact - karma is mind. Mind is beyond concepts such as 'ones own' which arise due to attachment to a self there is no 'you' that can own anything. why are you enlarging your ego to encompass the cosmos? let it go man btw Lucky, i really urge you to read the links I sent. specifically the ones written by Thusness, he's a very clear teacher and his articles are vastly more eloquent than anything I can communicate to you

yep...but then how do you go from this to this next sentence? you haven't gone far enough if you are only left with I non-dual presence is empty of I or any such labels. the feeling of 'I AM' is only perpetuated because of the consisting need to grasp and identify with a subject see: 4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ Self Inquiry as per Advaita and Ramana Maharshi ask "Who Am I" with the assumption that you will realize that there is indeed an I, its just of a different form, a much Grander form. Buddhist 'Anatta' has no such assumption. There is no I, period.

if memory serves me right, Ingram thinks that true self and no self teachings lead to the same realization.. but this is because Ingram is of the Vipassana technique which skips over the I AM experience and goes straight to Anatta. Non dual presence is automatically seen as empty of self because 'anatta' or 'no-self' is one of the 3 characteristics that are meditated upon in his tradition. So he never had the I AM experience, he skipped over it.. so he isn't really qualified to say what the True Self teachings lead to since he has never experienced that realization, he went beyond it.

there are no objects either. there is no singularity, there is no 'the mind', you're placing labels onto empty space. Luminosity is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Everything is Mind but not 'the' Mind, it just is, and it's not 'your' mind either. there is no subject or object, the point of Buddhist philosophy is not to explain conceptually the true nature of thing, that is impossible. the point is to question the one who questions. and to keep negating even the non-dual I AM-ness as there is still a subtle clinging to that state, since a conceptual barrier arises. the purpose of Buddhist philosophy is to have purely non-conceptual vision. and all of Buddhist philosophy is a means to have that. any form of attachment to identity (such as I AM THAT) is seen as conceptual limitation

me go buy it. thanks ya! beautiful

lol you're getting very defensive over a joke, but really.. i think you're a bit dense if you can't realize that you're just projecting here. nobody is as arrogant as you, I have done the mathematical formulations, and the numbers don't lie Songs, you don't have to teach me about humility and self-reflection.. you embody those aspects, it's like.. you ARE humility itself, and your arrogant sarcasm and complete lack of contribution is just skillful means to teach us to become humble. Thank you.

there can be no identity...with the subjective mindstream,, nor with the all pervasive Dharmakaya, because 'identity' is a thought construct, if you are using Yogachara Mind-Only view, then you can see that everything is Mind, but how can there be an I attached onto Mind? there is nothing there to label. even 'self' is Mind, and 'I' is Mind. but Mind is empty and no labels or attachments can be put onto Mind. how can there be different universes? you are really going too deeply into this self concept, like subjective Godheads. since mindstreams are interdependent they lack self-nature. how can separate 'universes' exist if they depend on others for their survival? what you are doing is collapsing reality onto the Subject and really attaching to that Subject, afraid to let it go. but you have to negate that subject and see its interdependency with objects, see stage 3 - http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewt...p?f=12&t=48 non-dual presence is completely non-conceptual and is free of both the concepts of subjec and object. so the Mind is like one grand being that dreams reality and chooses to experience itself through the human medium? might as well replace Mind with Brahman and you'd be a Hindu Guru It's all one Grand Dream, just dream characters in the one dream of the Godhead. The Buddhists tear this view up simply by pointing out that you're projecting your ego onto reality, instead of a small dreamer there is now a Grand Dreamer. this is Anthropomorphizing at its finest