Sunya

yeah, I guess I don't. if to understand is to not understand, then i'm not interested i'd rather understand fully the nature of all reality, non-conceptually and conceptually. Buddhism recognizes that there are limits to the human intellect in understanding the unfathomable vastness but there is never a mystery, the Buddha knows all because the condition (emptiness, wisdom) of every being is the same. we all have access to that wisdom, to believe that you can not understand the mystery is to limit yourself since that 'mystery' is actually your true nature. therefore there is no mystery. there is only understanding your true nature and then interpreting that through language for the benefit of others.

then what does it mean then? the mother of all 10,000 things? i think every translation says basically the same thing. "there is no meaning. it just is". the Tao has no meaning? or the Tao Te Ching? nobody is saying that the Tao has meaning, rather that Laozi says its the source of all things. define exist

what does that even mean? you either know or you don't.

thank you for putting time into that post. but I must point out that making the Tao into a thing isn't the only way you can reify. if the Tao is merely the process then why do Taoists talk about merging with the Tao? disappearing into the Tao? if the Tao is the process of change, then there is nothing to merge with and there is no separate self from the Tao that is merging at all. you seem to have a really nice understanding, but do all Taoists feel that way? as Vajra pointed out, the Tao Te Ching does posit that the Tao is the mother of all, now as you say the Tao is just the process... but saying that the Tao is the source of all phenomena, then it cannot be said that the Tao is the source because the Tao is just the process. how can a process be a source? so far that sounds very much in line with Buddhism, but as soon as you start saying that the source and the manifestation are one, you are then positing the existence of a substratum that encompasses everything. you are then getting into a Monist position which Buddhists argue is idealistic and ungrounded in truth. maybe that's not what you are saying though.

dude I have pants like that that I got from India and they are so comfortable. i love them, but whenever I wear them in public people stare at me.

see thats the problem. teachers teach from the perspective of already being there, at a really high level. thats the problem i feel with Krishnamurity. he would just rail on you about how religion is all a joke and meant to inspire fear and complacency. if Adyashanti thinkts meditation isn't necessary, ask him if he would've gotten that same realization without meditating? meditating is very important, for everyone. how else will we overcome attachment to senses and thoughts? what is non-meditation? what is meditation? you have to define terms. usually when teachers say you don't have to meditate are actually redefining meditation to be something else. theres a good Dzogchen quote which shows that meditation shouldn't be the traditional "i'm sitting down now and meditating" thing. One day a visitor came to see the well known Dzogchen master Yundon Dorje Bal (1284-1365). The visitor asked "You Dzogchen practitioners, you are always doing meditation, right?" Yundon Dorje Bal answered "What am I supposed to be meditating upon?" "Ah", the visitor then said, "then you practitioners of Dzogchen do not meditate?" This time the master's reply was "When am I ever distracted?"

But it is. it's quite observable, while a source of phenomena isn't, irrespective of believing in it. you have assumptions. you believe that phenomena need a source, that 'power of causation' has to be external and is somehow separate from the process itself. power, change, creation, these are all ideas you have in your head. they don't exist. they are empty concepts. observe reality, where is there power of creation? there is only flow, with no source. and where is this source? you are taking quite a leap of faith in not only believing in this source, which is unfindable, but giving it reality, identity and a name. you're crossing the red line into absurdity. I wish you well that's what you believe, and that's fine. accepting the way things are is a step towards fixing it because the source is mental not externally or physically. Buddhist monks trying to free seagulls is an act of their compassion toward suffering beings, the real fixing is done inside by letting go of grasping and embracing the freedom of spontaneous selfless action without a doer. so there is absolutely something that every Buddhist and non-Buddhist can do about suffering, let go of that grasping. and see the emptiness of it all. Emptiness is a condition, not a source. not nothingness. Like a Rainbow is empty, it exists dependent on specific conditions and causes, and is compounded, and theres nothing there to grasp. try to touch a Rainbow. but its still there... its seemingly real. Emptiness is form and Form is emptiness.

Buddhists don't see that as the end of suffering because there is still a very very very very subtle grasping. no longer grasping at the self, you grasp at the Self, or God, or Cosmos, or whatever name you want to give to the All or the One. that is a subtle grasping at a Grand Ego and will still cause psychological suffering because there isn't true freedom. true freedom is free falling without holding on.

there is no such thing as pure shentong or pure rantong, they are dependent. shentong is used to counter nihilist tendencies and rantong to counter eternalist tendencies. but there is no such thing as purely rantong or purely shentong because both methods are used. specifically in Tantra, shentong is used for meditative purposes and rantong for contemplative purposes. both are used together. so you can meditation with the view o buddha nature as existent and experience that in meditation but then you re-interpret that through teachings on emptiness.

I explained to you pretty thoroughly why the word reification is used and how it directly relates to what is being said. why did you spend 20 minutes writing such a useless post? i'm sorry if that sounds offensive but i'm pretty astonished at how much mental masturbating people do to avoid something that is staring them in the face. it's as if you're purposely avoiding what is being discussed.. one more time. reification is to make real. "real" in a metaphysical context means to exist independent of conditions, synonym for "true". truth cannot be dependent on circumstance, conditions, or causes. truth simply is. since reification is to make 'real' it is considered wrong in Buddhism because 'truth' is unmanufactered, so in essence when you reify the Tao you are making it real but only subjectively. since that 'Tao' or whatever you want to call it is dependent upon the idea of Tao, and not irrespective of your believing in it. to hold an abstraction as true means you will create that reality for yourself and leading yourself to error in actually experiencing truth. reality isn't generated, reality is empty, so are the 'subunits'. you are new to non-duality I take it. that's ok. I suggest checking out David Loy's books the whole is dependent on its parts and the parts are dependent on the whole but you are basically saying i'm a reductionist but that isn't so. there is no reducing. there is no grand 'whole' and there is no essential 'part' or building block. the chair is as real as the molecules that make it up, both chair and molecule are empty phenomena.

if you are positing the existence of source than the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. how do you know there is a source? why would there not be endless regress? change, cause and effect, is the only observable consistency. Without succumbing to idealistic unprovable fantasies about a creator, how would you explain there not being endless regress? if you do take the idealistic stance of a First cause, then the burden is on you to explain how it makes sense that this First cause is Itself without a cause. when you try to explain that, you start talking nonsense like infinity and beyond concepts, which is what Buddhists say about reality itself irrespective of a separate source or creator. It's taking the creator out of the equation and saying reality itself is ongoing infinite creation without a creator.

no, but since Buddhism is alien to Western languages unlike Sanskrit or Tibetan... it's difficult to find proper words and usages... gotta do the best we can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29 "Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified." what Vajrahridaya is saying about reification is not simply making an abstract idea into a reality.. but rather taking that definition one step further. because in Buddhism, ideas make up your reality. they are a filter. therefore having an abstract idea about reality will interpret your experience according to that abstraction and thus make that abstraction concrete and real. The abstraction and conceptualization pertaining to the nature of things is seen as an error in Buddhism specifically due to this point.

lol it's just a post on my discussion forum for my Phil class, not an actual paper. it's cool now that most classes use "black board" which is a site where you can upload assignments and communicate. it's really useful for philosophy classes and our Prof is really trying to promote some good discussion there. i'm going to post this and see what transpires !

love it. I'm going to "borrow" it, if you don't mind

vsaluki, first of all you should learn how to use quotes, your posts are very annoying to read. secondly, how are you free? you hold your freedom to the utmost but where is that freedom? what are you free from? please show me that freedom exists. I don't care about arguing politics. I never said that I support big government or any political system, I support the evolution of mankind. and until that happens, it doesn't matter which political system exists.

specifically, the whole death panel bullshit. broadly, the lie that you keep repeating about Obama wanting to get rid of all private companies and have Government control everything and everyone and we'll have 1984 on our hands. your predominant emotion is fear, be aware of that. do what well? treat people? that's what the Doctors do not health insurance companies. and Doctors should have a more compassionate selfless motivation than just money. which brings me to my next point No. because the problem isn't with big government or small government or corporations.. its with people, and our selfish greedy mentality. it's not the proper motivation. Laissez faire doesn't work, that was proved pretty well in the early 1900s when children worked for 12 hours in factories under terrible conditions. and people still hold on to that view... that pure capitalism actually works. greed as the motivator will never produce a utopia, and that is what we all want. so government is getting bigger to keep corporations in check, rules were nessary, government intervention was necessary. this is a natural reaction to what was happening, and still is. but the prime essential factor is not really changing all that much: the human need for the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others. sure we are more ethical, more moral,theres no longer slave labor or child labor and the living standards are much better.... but theres now rampant materialism and greed is still a factor. so until the human condition evolves, than it won't really matter if there is big or small government. and your freedom that your cherish so much, my friend, is bullshit. you have no freedom. you will suffer and die like everyone else.

yes.. just because you don't want to have health care doesn't mean others feel the same. there was a recent study at Harvard that 45,000 die a year because of lack of coverage. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-deaths-a-year/ you remind me of the kid from Into the Wild that got fed up with society and hitchhiked up to Alaska and died. you should try that if you hate society so much. most of us like the hive. we're all interconnected, Laozi and Chuangzi weren't radical individualists, they recognized that there is no concrete individual self and only lived as hermits to cultivate the awareness of the Tao, not because of disdain for society and a need for the augmentation of the self.

I guess I was just dreaming when every store I went to accepted credit cards. Visa too, except most didn't take foreign credit cards because they don't like dealing with exchange rates. even Walmart wouldn't take my Visa.. lol and I also must've been dreaming when I was invited to a dinner party with a business owner and his employees and everyone got wasted off bai jiu (literally white wine but tasted like vodka), every 5 seconds someone was doing a toast and its customary to drink. they need these rituals to loosen up and open up because being spontaneous and free isn't customary. so many chinese drink to loosen up and let go of these social restrictions it's a little more complicated than that. the issue isn't with private health care, its with the millions that can't afford it, and therefore are unable to receive medical treatment. the Gov't is only providing a public option, people are getting way too crazy about this because of all the misinformation spread by the health care companies. nobody is forcing anyone to get gov't health care, its just an option. and btw theres nothing wrong with earning a profit but when it comes to receiving medical treatment it shouldn't be an issue. people especially in America are sooo misinformed, look at this big march that happened recently infront of the White house protesting the reforms. people are comparing Obama to Hitler, they are scared of "big government" but really.... will anything change? we already have a huge government... the US is not Capitalist at all, way too much government intervention to be pure capitalist (and I view that as a good thing). I think people are deathly scared of Socialism because of all the Capitalist propoganda spread by corporations and people with money "look at all these nice things you have.. you want them don't you? you NEED THEM DONT YOU?".. they are scared of losing money and cry about "freedom" but really it all comes down to profit. they use examples like: well the Nazis tried it! look at the UK, look at France, they do OK with socialized health care. the issue isn't with Socialism or big gov't. its with proper spread of information and allowing real participation of the people in gov't actions. this is not the case in China, but it is so in the UK where its a nice blend of socialism and capitalism and there are many parties to choose from. people in the US think we are so grand and elite and have all this freedom but thats complete BS. we are slaves to the corporate economy, pawns in the machine. , well you have to grow up and get a good education and get a good job and buy nice things and have kids yes! yes yes! that is the LIFE! how is that freedom?

I'm sure you've traveled a lot through China, but really that isn't a valid credential for understanding Chinese politics. China is NOT going towards Marxism. I've lived in China for 5 months at Nanjing University and studied with Political professors who are also members of the Chinese Communist Party. I've learned first hand from the elite what Chinese politics is all about, not some village beggars. It is completely totalitarian. where a small number control the masses according to their agenda. youtube is blocked, facebook is blocked, so many websites are blocked. It is illegal for journalists to criticize the Communist Party and the people do not have a choice over electing a different party. This party claims to be of the people but its actually a small number of leaders that make all the choices. There is a massive propaganda campaign where values and ideas are shoved down peoples throats, no freedom of thought. For example: the whole Dalai lama thing. only the Chinese side is given, not the Dalai Lamas, and i've spoken with many people who view him as the devil. There exists this propaganda effort in the US as well, example being Saddam Hussein. Americans were forced to believe that he was dangerous and had crazy weapons... but due to free speach and freedom of journalism, nowadays most non right-wingers understand that it was all bullshit and the Iraqi war was a mistake. This sort of back pedaling towards the truth does not happen in China. The Tianamen Square massacre is still not talked about. only recently has the Cultural revolution been acknowledged as a mistake. my friend...stopping in towns to eat sleep and pee isn't enough to understand a countries politics.. I put your first sentence in italics because I found it really funny, especially after the second part. Did you forget about the Great Leap Forward when people were forced to live in communes under terrible conditions and millions died of starvation? (estimates are between 15 and 40 million deaths) Most Chinese intellectuals view Mao as a failure. the real China began with Deng Xiao Ping and thats because he brought in Capitalism and got rid of Mao's dumb policies. Now i'm not a Capitalist zealot, but I think you have to be fair and view things as they are. and China certainly is not Communist. by the way... there's no way that the Chinese will "destroy the USA economy" lol. China's economy is dependent upon Americas. who do you think buys all their shitty products? (lol, just kidding. their production is getting better but i'd still trust Japan over China any day for a product)

if you think China is Communist you obviously have no idea about Politics or Chinese history. China is Socialist with a pseudo Capitalist market system and a pretty Totalitarian political regime. instead of a dictator there are different "branches" and "leaders" but its all one party and people have no control really. Communist would be small gov't not big gov't and there would not be different social classes. Communism never worked because its an artificial attempt at change through external means. Communist will never work until people change and greed/selfishness is eradicated. It has always failed because greed is still in the human mindset therefore causing corruption and failure last time I checked, Bush isn't president anymore.

missed it, again. I have shitty karma.

can you find another job? sometimes it's wiser to just walk away instead of staying and trying to bear the storm