Harmonious Emptiness

Red light on the hills Oh God they're coming for me! Wait, no, they are not.

Though this wasn't directed to me, I'd ask that you read response #11 on page one of this topic, as I'm wondering how that, and Paulno's above response, sits with your position on this.

Dare I add a reply here and get sucked in to another disinfo battle with Vmarco? The last thing I said to him was that he just overlooks points that disqualify what he says, posts random quotes that could barely be stretched for any relevance while acting as if they've lended great authority to his position. The battle was useless and overly time consuming so I disengaged. Unfortunately he still continues with arguments such as: "To practice humility, is to practice pride" wtf. I can't be bothered. Right, of course, that makes perfect sense. I can see how you got there... whatever, lol.

meaning monks from a non-dual perspective, like waiters and actors? wups..

Good first comment I'll add, from Zibo, 16th Century China: "But say, when the One Mind is unborn, is it Buddhist, or Taoist, or Confucian? If you are immediately clear and without doubts about this then in Confucianism you are called a true Confucian, Taoism you are called a True Taoist, and in Buddhism you are called a true Buddhist... If you have clearly understood this Mind, then you can be a Confucian, a Buddhist, or a Taoist. If you do not understand this Mind then if you are a Confucian you are not a real Confucian; if you are a Taoist, you are not a real Taoist; if you are a Buddhist, you are not a real Buddhist. Work on it!" I posit that the non-dual non-clinging mind has much to do with attachment to the self, and without the attachment to self and things , there is peace love and harmony; where is there duality in the middle of that? Peace and harmony are mentioned more in Zen, but when there is no attachment to the self, there is immense generosity and openness. So what is meant by the vague word Love, in my estimation, is that generosity and openness that follows non-attachment to the Self. For other non-attachments, note how much attachment to money was denounced by Jesus, who gave up all his possessions and his followers had to leave their attachment to power and money, if not the power and money itself, to follow his path. So not being attached to all these things, would that not make for non-dual experience too? So, judging Christians by Zibo's standard, to have the True Heart of Christianity, or the True Mind of Buddhism (.....sweet; I think I just contributed a term ?!) Heart and Mind are easily interchangeable, especially when the Mind was believed to reside in the Heart. hmm.. this has been meditative People generally miss Jesus' message

Medicinal plants So generously giving Can we do the same?

Interesting question, especially to people who agree with both Buddhism and Indigenous spirituality, since Buddhism basically denies the existence of a soul. However, Buddhism basically denies the existence of everything on the Absolute level, so the soul could very much exist on the "relative" level, the same as hamburgers also exist on the relative level. I see some correlations between "soul loss" and having healthy Elemental Spirits in TCM. I wrote something about this in another post, but essentially, a lot of soul loss symptoms that I read of have to do with loss of Will, to be succinct, and a lot of the Elemental Spirit illnesses also show symptoms similar to this. This link, shared by dawei, has great summaries of Elemental Spirit health. www.fivespirits.com pce

It's true there does seem to be a major Taoist influence on at least the writing of Chan Buddhism if not the idea relating to Emptiness. Nonetheless, I think articulating Emptiness will always be misleading. It may not be a thing, but it is a thing in the same way that absence is a thing, so you could call it a thing, in a way, even though it's not one.

Actually you're right. Lavey was fairly high level law enforcement but not CIA. His "second hand man" who later started the Temple of Set was Lt. Colonel Michael Aquino who apparently specialized in mind control operations. there was an Alex Jones movie that showed some type of documentation but I can't find it now.

Dependent, but spontaneous in terms of Xabir's "no actor, things happen of themselves" this was the 666th reply to this topic, right after I made a post in the "serve in heaven or rule in hell" topic.

Hmmm, that's good. Everything is Emptiness and Absolute Reality = Everything is sacred Realizing this = spontaneous appreciation and respect (compassion if you like) for everything So Nirmanakaya can be said to be spontaneously arising from Absolute Truth?

I saw an interesting documentary that showed how Anton LaVey and his partner who started the Temple of Set were both high level CIA specialist in mind control sciences (you probably know about the whole CIA adopting the Nazi mind control scientists "so the Russians didn't get them" and all the weird shit the CIA did in experimenting with mind control. Tons of videos. I exhausted my interest in that stuff a long time ago...) Basically the CIA wanted to know if they could reproduce the mind control of a cult, and then these two former CIA specialists become leaders of this cult which afforded them lots of sex, drugs, and other benefits. What you want to study is not Satanism, but Anarchism. Anarchism is not at all about creating chaos. It is the same as Lao Tzu and Mencius' beliefs that people are naturally good and that forced authority is basically immoral, and that harmony will pervade a society who recognizes this 1 law: I don't force my authority on you, and you don't force authority on me. When someone steals from you, beats you up, they are robbing you of your right to choose what happens to you, so they forfeit their rights to live in this society and thus go to jail. The economic sides of it are tricky since they lean to different degrees of Socialism, Federalism, or Communism. My preference for the economic side is in Paul Goodman's "Communitas" where he talks about everyone working for about 2 or 3 years on the farms, gaining a sense of community in the process, and then they become capitalists or do whatever they want to do, while having basic food provided for everyone their entire lives. So if people want to compete in the rat race they can, or otherwise they can live in simple housing and be provided free food. Basically though, the philosophy of total individual freedom is not likely to be found in a Satanic cult. However, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudoun, they're not using the label of freedom to lure people into a mind control cult. The Church of Satan is probably best known for it's child sex rings with shady political coverups. Didn't one of Aleister Crowley's wives die because he made her have sex with a goat too? This stuff ain't cool at all.. Just a bunch of idiots trying to find boundaries by debasing themselves and others rather than seeing the fallacy of authority and rejecting constraints while enhancing their dignity and integrity in the process. -edit: The former leader of the Temple of Set is now a host on a Fox Network show, or at least recently, like as a newscaster. Connections, connections.

Since I agreed with Xabirs post that this responded to, I'd like to take a shot at this. I would say that the Bodhisatva's self basically explodes when Annata is realized, and then he goes and puts his personality back together so that he can function in the relative world. This is why there is an actor, because the Bodhisatva knows that his personality is just an illusion, but it is required for him to be a part of the relative world and help other beings. So the personality and actor doesn't exist in absolute reality, but is reformed in order to take part in relative reality. The self still does not exist inherently, but it does exist in the samsara illusion that we are all taking part in. Nobody else might agree with this, but feel free to explode it

just my 2,000 cents of De.. hopefully not all wasted in the same place

Once again.. agreeing. Somehow, however, this looks like a rebuttal rather than mutual recognition..

I don't think Lucky would say that mind has inherent existence. I think that he just mistakes you for being on the emptiness-no-form extreme, and so you assume he is on the form no-emptiness extreme. The thing is that you're both arguing for a middle path, so the argument will never end until you both realize it. -- and as for the state issue.. obviously I know this. Where's your honed insight that should be able to perceive this and move past the word-choice.

Here, once again, you are agreeing with what I said, but attacking words superficially to disagree with the statement. So I put the statement softly rather than directly, but you still respond as if we disagree. Looking at the point I was trying to make with that and other posts, you obviously just agreed with my point. Yet, superficial wording is understood rather than the obvious implications of their point. Realization is not about the words that describe it. The words don't matter after the realization. See the point. The point is that you agree that forms exist, though they are actually emptiness, and that we know emptiness by the forms (which emptiness is the absence of, and so emptiness can be seen in forms as well). I think this is a "worded" perspective that all agree on, and maybe all these confusing word-forms can cease so as not to cloud the fact that they are not the same as Prajna, though some inspiring words can be found in these pages.

It doesn't matter what I call it. It is what it is, and it's not difficult to see that "nature of reality" is the same as what I meant by "state" whatever attachments you have to "state" in other uses. We're describing the virtually indescribable. All that matters is that one side understands what the other means, regardless of what words are used. My whole intention here is try to prove that you do not in fact disagree with what other people are saying, for the most part, but that the words and descriptions are being taken too seriously which is why everybody seems to disagree with you here when in fact they agree. It's just a misunderstanding of words and statements etc..

I think this also supports my point

This is an example where you seem to negate the existence of form, but your other quotations do not negate it, but see it almost inseparable from emptiness. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.. to toss in an old chestnut..

"no independent/inherent existence" could be called a state if it could be called anything. Your quotation seems to agree with my above post, no?

Personally, I'm just trying to sort out what is or is not Buddhism, since that seems to be why the argument is going on. I don't fully subscribe to any doctrines. I'm just thinking that this will either show that both sides actually agree underneath the words, or one will say "okay, I don't see it the Buddhist way, but this is how I see it" then the debate will find resolution and agree to disagree since there will not be any "you're wrong" about how someone just perceives it.

Thanks CowToa, that was insightful. I won't comment much on it now so as not to divert the previous questions, but I am going to use a part of it here to reiterate, namely: "If all form is precisely emptiness, emptiness nonetheless appears to us as form. Form is precisely emptiness but emptiness also is precisely form. Samsara and Nirvana are contrasting perspectives on the Unknown Nature that lies behind it all. The vision of the Mahayana is that both are true in a co-emergent mutuality which becomes the focus of meditation itself." Now, Xabir, hopefully you'll soon respond to my earlier question as well, as to whether you agree with that isolated quotation from The Heart Sutra. Thanks.

Emptiness to the mind could be called a thing, a noun. But, Emptiness just is, like a state of being/not being which is neither a thing. I say inherent because it's not going anywhere, it's not going to change, though the forms that arise from it could be perceived as part of it in a sense, which perhaps explains the middle way doctrine of the Heart Sutra: "form is no different to emptiness, emptiness no different to form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness, form." The mind comes from emptiness, like everything else, and things, like mindstreams, pass through it. The mind is both emptiness and form. By its form it can see it's emptiness. In knowing emptiness it also knows form and thus absence of form. Take a look at the above quotation; do you agree with it?

Well the mind is still a mindstream even when you see that mindstream arising from dependent origination, right? The characteristics of the minds arising are part of the mindstream though. The mindstream, whether coming from the mind itself or from Emptiness are still just clouds passing through the mind that is inherently Empty. Whether the thoughts are created or uncreated, they arise from Emptiness which one might say is the only inherent thing.