Vmarco

First,...when you awake, virtue, a man-constructed ideal, is dissolved, just like morality. A Buddhist once said, "Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. It can only be pseudo, false, a façade, it cannot become your real being…morality is bound to be nothing but a deep suppression. You cannot do anything while asleep; you can only suppress. And through morality, you will become false. You will not be a person, but simply a "persona"—just a pseudo-entity. . . . Only a dishonest person can be moral."

"If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of your self." Lao Tzu I wonder, if you took an honest survey, you'd be surprized with how many on TTB that would harshly condemn that.

Well, that's more than most do. Dissecting has a place, but only valid when in context with the whole. George Clooney said, "Directing is the key to filmmaking. Everything else is just paint." Nevertheless, for most scientists, mathematically dissecting the paint on a canvas is usually the standard method in which they seek to understand everything from a flower to the origin and evolution of life. The painting, however, is not the painter. Likewise, the film is not the director, nor is empirical evidence derived from the physical body our consciousness. The problem with the object-ivity of science for example is that its attachment to conditions will never reveal the unconditional. The idea of a Big Bang proceeds from an Aristotelean belief in cause and effect,...a beginning and an end. And yet there is no proof of cause and effect,...a beginning and an end. Imagine a rose. We can discuss the flower’s petals, pollen, stem, and stalk—its physical characteristics, or we can converse on the chemical nature of the flower, such as the quantity of nitrogen, phosphorous, and amino acids. The sciential mind partitions the rose by reducing and enumerating all its elements and says that such components are the totality of a rose flower. However, those who take this approach have not recognized the rose; they have merely analyzed the object that it reflects. Such is the sciential, object-ive way of understanding a rose. Through full-spectrum consciousness (FSC), however, the rose is understood beyond analyzing or chopping it into pieces. Instead, its totality is grasped, not as a conceptual individuality within a perceived shell, but as a discrete geometry, intimately connected with the discrete geometry of the observer. FSC is not limited to an interest in anatomizing the rose, physically, chemically, or biologically. FSC is not interested in dividing it through perceptual consciousness into subject and object. The dividing of things is a function of object-ive knowledge. Object-ive knowledge writes the numbers 1, 2, 3, and so forth, towards a supposed infinity. No attempt to reach the total of all numbers can succeed; such a conceptual totality can never be reached. FSC, on the other hand, is aware of the circular pulse of duality, that is, the simultaneous inverse of -1, -2, -3, . . . that moves and spins along with the perceived 1, 2, 3, . . . , the reverse flow of forward-moving-spinning things. Relative reality tries to grasp an object-ive meaning, a perceptual cognizance that is blind to the two-way motion-spin of duality. By looking at our rose object-ively, we will never reach the essence of the flower. However, when we simultaneously come back into ourselves as we go out, we can view ourselves and the flower as the same thing. This is similar to how any two perceived elements are essentially the same thing, but whose alternate assemblage points in the geometry of space give the appearance of two different shells to the object-ive observer. In other words, when we see through the encapsulated appearance of a perceived thing, the volume within is no different from the volume of anything else. The apparent singularity of objects arises from the perceived shell and its frequencies. We are not our shell, our bodies, or our ego. That is how a Bodhisattva sees. Before we allowed ego to divide ourselves into subject and object, we and the flower were the same thing. In reality, we are not really divided; we just think that we are when we put the I think before the I Am. Fortunately, we can transcend ego’s limiting perceptions. 　

Christians say, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is idealized by Christians, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs Buddhism is fully contrary to bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring. Tilopa said, that to transcend the mind's dualities all hope must die. "the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear." Christianity advocates hope and fear. Compassion or love can never be uncovered through hope and fear. In the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

As an accredited and honored expert on Christianity, and student of Buddhism, I can assure you that, at best, any compassion of Jesus was relative, whereas Buddha's compassion is absolute. It is dishonest to interpolate any Jesiisms with the absolute reality of what Buddha spoke. I understand that the inter-faith based insist on joining the two, but they are comparing apples and orange juice containers.

The "lying, thieving Albanian dwarf" Christopher Hitchens. Mother Teresa, the "friend of poverty" and advocate of rice-driven Christian indoctrination wasn't even relatively compassionate, as the book Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice explains. And yet for the Sheeple, Mother Teresa exemplifies the idea of compassion. No wonder so many reject the Bodhisattva definition.

Well sure,....but I was having a superficial dialogue with a superficial poster. Kind of like Buddha at Deer Park, whereas you want to discuss the Mahaparanirvana.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19803-what-is-light/

It is interesting that a Daoist Deity would use an owl as a name. Scientific evidence shows that owls not only have the smallest brains per size than all birds, but it is also the dumbest of all birds. To be told you are as wise as an owl is actually an insult,...which in todays new age is seen as a compliment. Of course, I never heard of a Daoist Deity,...such a phrase is an oxymoron invented by western theists who cling to their belief in a god while espousing a practice of Daoism. Lao Tzu said, "Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth. To do so is to place intermediaries between yourself and source, and to make youself a beggar who looks outside for a treasure that is hidden inside his own breast. If you want to worship the Tao, first discover it in your own heart."

Saying you know, when you obviously don't, is dishonesty,...even when you're being sarcastic. For example, your response to: please define the difference between a thesis and a truth. Can you give an example? For instance,...."there is no singularity because there is no time" is a thesis; whereas "there is no present in time" is an absolute truth. was: "Wow, you actually don't know the difference. Your lack of confusion is real." The question of what is the difference between a thesis and the truth was answered in my question,...thus your response was most ignorant and confrontational,...like your above post. Of course, because I'm shinning light upon your bullying nature means to you that I'm without compassion. While others would say otherwise. "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces." Chögyam Trungpa

There is no god. Undivided Light is proof that there is no god. However, people are not going to let go of this debilitating belief in "divinity" until they are either convinced otherwise, or become an authentic Buddhist or Taoist. Sakyamuni said, that dukkha is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are. Buddha did not say do not desire. He said, do not desire for things other than they are. What that implies, is that truth of the 4 Noble Truths is uncovered by seeing the way things are. The Bodhisattva of Compassion implied that a Bodhisattvas compassion arises from seeing the way things are. There is no real compassion without seeing the way things are. The way things really are, cannot be understood through the 6 senses or consciousness'. In other words, unless one has transcended the lower 6 consciousness', real compassion is impossible. For those who wish to argue this point, please don't argue with me,....argue with Avalokitesvara, Shantideva, Sakyamuni, or HH Dalai Lama. Desire is not a bad thing. A burning desire to realize the way things really are, is the path to enlightenment. Buddha's desire to understand dukkha, led him to enlightenment. A desire to understand a god, could equally lead to enlightenment. Keep in mind that I did not say a desire for god, as if a predisposition that a god exists,...but an understanding of god,...which will ultimately show that no god exists.

Let's consider HH Dalai Lama for a moment,...again. "If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva The above is why the internationally recognized student of HH Dalai Lama, Robert Thurman stated, "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." So,...back to Aaron's supposition,...how does one practice real compassion without a direct realization of emptiness (or, the awareness of the world as it really is, which cannot be understood through sentience? The prajnaparamita's are quite specific regarding what is real compassion,...and using that as a guide, I can guarantee that Aaron has not a clue about real compassion, as shown by his last 1400 posts. Of course, you (Aaron) are free to practice any illusion of your perceived choice,...or, we could discuss the Heart Sutra, especially by way of the easy to read commentary 'Heart Attack Sutra' by Karl Brunnholzl, who is recognized as one of the foremost scholars of the prajnaparamitas. From what I've read on TTB, that is, through all the threads I've been involved with, I am the only one here that sees like a bodhisattva, and thus, the compassion to which I, HH Dalai Lama, Shantideva, and Robert Thurman are pointing to, is so far unrecognizable here. If anyone here wishes to actually practice real compassion, versus relative, man-devised compassion, I suggest the above mentioned Heart Attack Sutra as a favorable beginning point.

You gotta go with the flow...

Regardless of my post,...please define the difference between a thesis and a truth. Can you give an example? For instance,...."there is no singularity because there is no time" is a thesis; whereas "there is no present in time" is an absolute truth.

I have been instructed to apologize for using the term anal, in the context of a group of personality traits including meticulousness, compulsiveness, and rigidity believed to be associated with excessive preoccupation that lingers into adulthood. Although this common Americanism was not addressed to anyone in particular, I have been informed, that since this is a psychological disorder, and that since it is presummed that I am not a medical professional, that the term shall be removed. In order to not lose the meaning, I will ponder on an more appropriate word to replace it with at post #15.

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" House

"If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva

In addition... First, the term "skillful means" is a western translation of upaya, or expedient means. A Bodhisattva uses expedient means to help liberate sentient beings from their sentience. This idea of upaya in correlation with compassion has become neurotic. One does not somehow develop a knowledge of text book skillful means, and then is able to show compassion. That is empirical nonsense,...that is based on sensual knowledge.. Real Compassion only arises through seeing the world as it is. One does not see the world as it is, and then use Skillful or Expediant Means from the world as it is not. Sure,...express mundane compassion wherever applicable,...yet keep in mind, that 6 billion Mother Teresa's will not lift our spiritual predictament up one iota.

I said, "Those who point to the highest levels of compassion have already exceeded the limits of relative compassion." How you interpreted that as "Claiming that people who talk about the idea of "true compassion" are above common compassion" is incredible. If you read the context of why that reply was being giving, it may have afforded a better comprehension,...although unlikely. If there is no absolute truth (a common response by those who cling to their personal truth for their identity), then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, and thus an absolute truth. Factually speaking, truth is a frightening thing for most. After the realization of a single truth, a Canadian said: "Waking up is not necessarily pleasant; you get to see why all this time, you chose to sleep. When you wake up the first thing you will see is Reality does not exist for you, you exist for it. Shocking as it is when you let it in, there is rest. You do not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist; forcing something to be real that is not real. You and this life you have been living are not real .. In letting it in, even through the shock... pain... shattering, there is rest. Reality is when all you want to know is what is true ...just so that you can let it in and be true. Reality is not a safe place for you - the you that you have created. It is the only place where you would die; where there is no room for your hopes, your dreams. Once you have let it in, once you begin to re-awaken; to let Reality wake you up, nothing can get it out. That is the beginning of your end. Waking up can be much more painful than the agony of your dream, but waking up is real." If you ever get to that level of uncovering, let me know. I'm not a teacher or guru,...I have no desire to help you along your path. As for compassion,...you can invent all the feelings you wish to make it more palatable for your beliefs,...however, if you ever wish to understand compassion as a Bodhisattva, I'd recommend the 'Heart Attack Sutra' by Karl Brunnholzl.

"Contradictions in perspective among those Seeing the profound do not occur" Taranatha I have no interest in expressing my point of view. My point of view is irrelevant. I do not believe in any absolute truth, because absolute truth cannot be believed. For Avalokitesvara, her Gateway was through hearing,...she said, "As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated." Avalokitesvara Although everyone is different because of particular genetic and environmental imprinting, the way to uncover truth demands a certain level of recognizing what is false. First, your posts suggest that you are not even aware of a basic Taoist idea that there are 6 senses. As I am not a teacher, you'll have to research that for yourself, if you ever want to uncover a truth. From a relative or neurotic point of view, the Tao being in all is interpreted as part of One or Phenomena. This is not however true. "The All" effects its motion from the Tao, but anything in motion is absent of the Tao. If you were aware of a single truth, there would be no argument on this. The Tao is the present, or it could be said, the Tao is in the present,...however, all sentience is in the past. The 6 senses arise from phenomena, and can only view phenomena,...all phenomena is in the past. Prove that wrong,...can you see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or think in the present? No you cannot! It is impossible. The audio in the video mentioned is quite appropriate, in that only those who are seriously interested in truth would continue listening to this Youtube of McKenna's audio book recorded on a Tokyo train. I would agree however that the audio book itself is much better.

Yes,...what would such a dialogue look like? Like Avalokitesvara and Buddha in the Shurangama sutra? At this level, I'm suggesting what if sentience, that which we hold most dear, is a liar. René Descartes, concerning the senses, articulated, "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once." That may be a good place to start. Lao Tzu and Buddha implied the same thing. Lao Tzu said (as I post over and over), "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." Lao Tzu said, "the only way to understand [the Tao] is to directly experience it." And again and again, to the chagrin of many, I say be intolerant of everything that steps between you and every sentient being, and yours and their direct experience. Yes,...most believe that their personal truth is the truth. Was Lao Tzu abidding by wei wu by saying it is not? What would a world that is interested in truth look like? Perhaps as implied by the Kalachakra.

Yes,...that is an excellent point. In my interpersonal life I do so instinctually,...on an impersonal forum the activity is different, because I personally know some here who are reading, and often respond through an on-forum means. Quite often in personal contacts, those who are not disposed to truth, will fall asleep or otherwise be distracted. Internet forums like TTB offer a wholly different dynamic. Here I do not have to walk away from a disinterested person. And yes, your post indicates that you do have a fear of truth, and a compelling need to enable those also in fear. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder,...truth is not a personal thing,...truth is not relative. Those are notions of those who fear truth. Only someone unaware of a single truth would espouse stuff like "Just because you feel your perspective is more accurate does not make your "truth" more valid." What you're talking about is belief, not truth. All belief is false,...it is the inherent nature of belief to be false. A Buddhist said, "We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…A child is born in a society, and a society is already there with its fixed rules, regulations, behaviors and moralities which the child has to learn. When he will grow he will become false. Then children will be born to him, and he will help make them false, and this goes on and on. What to do?" What I get from your posts is that you perceive the Tao through a relative point of view. The Tao is not relative. Lao Tzu said, "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." The 6 senses cannot perceive truth. I have no desire for you or anyone to believe that the 6 senses cannot perceive truth,...I'n suggesting that you prove it is not truth. A New Age purveyor said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself" It could be said that you do not fear the truth,...for how can one fear something that they never been exposed to. But you must admit that you fear the recognition that everything you thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless. Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth." There is actually very little discussion on this planet about truth. I'd love if there was,...and can imagine that awesome dialogues that would manifest. If you really believe you have no fear of truth,...you may enjoy this:

That can be problematic. What we need is good freezed-dried beer,...just add filtered water from a stream.

A few points,...one is a motto I acquired in the 70's,...I have every right to sow, but none to reap what I sow. In Buddhism it would be called letting go of expectations. Second,...if you are somewhat physically fit, join this group,...and get out. http://www.meetup.com/The-Intrepid-Ones/ If you visit the Santa Fe area, let me know,...I'll take you into some spectacular and rarely seen places. I generally do 3-4 significant hikes per week. However, romance is not included,...although I see people matching up quite regularly. Here, the average female to male ratio among hikers is about 7 out of ten (7 women/ 3 males). For some trivia,...I lead around 60 different people per month on hikes, and unlike TTB, have never received a bad review. If asked, they say my compassion and consideration are my most noteworthy traits, which allows them to feel safe and encourages their empowerment.

I disagree. Those who point to the hghest levels of compassion have already exceeded the limits of relative compassion. This is partially why the most compassionate beings in history discuss things (as in the Heart Sutra), such as how a truly compassionate being sees. "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible." The Way of the Bodhisattva "If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara" HH Dalai Lama