konchog uma

from Wandering On The Way: Taoist Tales and Parables by Victor Mair Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come were all four talking together. "Whoever can take non-being as his head, life as his spine, and death as his buttocks, whoever knows the oneness of life and death, of existence and nonexistence, we shall be his friends." The four men looked at each other and smiled. Since there was no discord in their hearts, they became friends with each other. Before long, Sir Chariot fell ill. When Sir Sacrifice went to call on him, Sir Chariot said, "Great is the Creator of Things! She's making me all crookedy like this!" His back was all hunched up. On top were his five dorsal inductories. His chin was buried in his bellybutton. His shoulders were higher than the crown of his head. His neck bones pointed toward the sky. His vital yin yang breaths were all out of kilter. Yet his mind was at ease, as though nothing were amiss. He hobbled over to a well and looked at his reflection in the water. "Alas!" he said. "The Creator of Things is making me all crookedy like this!" "Do you resent it?" asked Sir Sacrifice. "No, why should I resent it? Supposing that my left arm were transformed into a chicken, I would consequently go look- ing for a rooster that could call out the hours of the night. Supposing that my right arm were transformed into a crossbow, I would consequently go looking for an owl to roast. Supposing that my buttocks were transformed into wheels and my spirit into a horse, I would consequently mount upon them. What need would I have for any other conveyance? "Furthermore, what we attain is due to timeliness and what we lose is the result of compliance. If we repose in timeliness and dwell in compliance, sorrow and joy cannot affect us. This is what the ancients called 'emancipation'. Those who are unable to win release for themselves are bound by things. Furthermore, long has it been that things do not win out against heaven. So why should I resent it?" Before long, Sir Come fell ill. Gasping and on the verge of death, he was surrounded by his wife and children who were weeping. Sir Plow, who went to call on him, said to his family, "Shush! Go away! Do not disturb transformation!" Then, lean- ing against the door, he spoke to Sir Come: "Great is the Transforming Creator! What next will he make of you? Where will he send you? Will he turn you into a rat's liver? Will he turn you into a bug's leg?" "The relationship of parents to a child," said Sir Come, "is such that he simply follows their commands, no matter which direction they may point him. The relationship of yin and yang to a man is no less important than that of parents to a child. If they urge me to die and I resist, that is my ill-temper. What fault of theirs is it? The Great Clod burdens me with form, toils me through life, eases me in old age, rests me in death. Thus, that which makes my life good is also that which makes my death good. Now, the Great Smelter casts his metal. If the metal were to jump up and say, 'You must make me into Excalibur!' the Great Smelter would certainly think that it was inauspicious metal. Now if I, who have chanced to take on human form, were to say, 'Man! I must remain a man!' the Great Transforming Creator would certainly think that I am an inauspicious man. Now, once I accept heaven and earth as the Great Forge, and the Transforming Creator as the Great Smelter, I'm willing to go wherever they send me." Soundly he slept, Suddenly he awoke.

i also feel there is a lot of idealism surrounding the concept of "true people of old" then again, maybe it is really the accomplishment of the ancients to live in such a way. I agree though that few people today can attain that state. I don't remember being alive "of old" so i can't say much beyond that.

yeah its worth it! and i just saw chidragon commented on 6C where are all the people who used to talk about the chapters?! They converted to confucianism i think

Yeah i feel a little dogma too, but i always do when talking to people who are convinced that they understand the truth, or the nature of reality. I make no such claims, but i do interpret the heart sutra in much the same way as you mention... that is, designed to propel the awareness of the student towards greater realization of oneness, and of the limiting nature of concepts. But that is only my interpretation so when i talk about it i am not going to say "i am right!" i am only going to say "this is what i get from it!". Sadly, most buddhists are so convinced that they understand the nature of reality, that their minds have ossified and they are not open to the idea that their ideas are just ideas, like dust in the wind. Hahahah i don't have big ideas, but at least i know that what i think is just a pile of dung! So i am happy with my very limited understanding, because i am not trying to convince myself that i actually understand. I realized that life is an incomprehensible mystery, and that is my truth. Thinking that i could comprehend the nature of reality is just my ego vying for position. ever hear of sahajayana buddhism? It was codified by indrabhuti's sister (indrabhuti originated vajrayana) and its those ash covered, dreadlocked sadhus who go against the grain of the buddhist establishment. Some of them openly mock the orthodox understanding of things.. I always related to that. If i were born in the himalayas i think i would be a sadhu before i would be a monk. Well I could say the same of buddhism in general. All the intellectual buddhists i know, or buddhist scholars who are stuck in that modality, are just bummers. They think they know everything and instead of soft and yielding, their minds and hearts are brittle and fragile. But buddhists who have opened their hearts or apply buddhist "philosophy" like compassion to their actions, or in other words, that actually Practice buddhism instead of just talking about it, those are some of the most wonderful people i have ever met. So there is definitely a danger in buddhism that i have noticed of becoming too head-oriented, and not enough heart-oriented. I find the heart sutra very daoist too... probably all the paradoxical concepts. Avalokitesvara is one of my favorite deities!

And this is where you are in total contradiction to the Heart Sutra and what the Buddha and Nagarjuna and countless sages have taught. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?" i don't reject Nirvana as false. And I don't accept it as the only truth. Maybe it was the only truth for Nagarjuna when he wrote that, and maybe it wasn't. Part of the problem when people rely on quotes instead of their own logic is usually that the quotes are out of context and don't directly address the issue. That being said, the Jina can proclaim whatever it wants, but it doesn't refute the idea of a dualistic reality. Samsara to my understanding isn't just the idea that everything has poles or yin/yang aspects. Samsara is the idea that by attaching oneself to cyclical reality one finds suffering even though one would seek pleasure. Nirvana to me isn't the dissolution of polar reality, its the cessation of attachment. This is what i think might have been meant by "nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana". In other words, cyclical rotation continues even tho one has no attachment to it. Oh i was just sharing a realization i had about observer/observed melting into one thing, i wasn't claiming that i agreed with the buddha in every aspect, or that i had comprehended the heart sutra. hahahahaha if only it were that easy... also, in my worldview, things exist. They just don't exist A. in the sense that they appear to and B. independent of each other. So my interpretation is that things have no inherent existance but that doesn't meam that they don't exist. Again, if nothing is real, stop eating for a couple months, and then we'll talk about there being actually no existance. hahhaha illusory as it might be, there seems to be an existance. and, i was using duality in a general sense to refer to the seeming truth that phenomena all have a positive and negative aspect, or a masculine and feminine aspect if you want. What you think of in terms of my failure i think of in terms of my being right where i should be. The buddha taught people not to believe things because the books said them, or because priests said them, or because everyone else believed it. He taught to believe things that were in accord with ones own logic and reasoning. So if you want to open my mind to the wonderful realities of the dharma, i suggest you approach my logic and reasoning, instead of quoting the sages and telling me i fail to understand emptiness just because i have my own interpretation. At least i don't fail to apply my own critical thinking instead of being a homogenized robot like religions tend to turn out. And that is more important to me than whether my idea of emptiness is in accord with yours or anyone elses. I agree with all that except for the last part about seeing things dualistically being the cause of confusion, but in light of what you said about the different definitions of duality i may just need to think about it some more. Thank you for replying to the whole message, not just the parts that you liked. I always appreciate that. I hope you have good times at camp.

i like that.

I really like how Mair's translation says "put life and death beyond him" instead of saying he "went beyond" them or that he was somehow on some higher level. It isn't phrased in terms of going beyond life and death, but just in terms of clearing them from the mind. Thats kind of profound to me I like the names at the end of Mair's too, it helps me understand what the author meant a lot more. keep it up marblehead... even tho nobody has commented on Chap 6 Sec C at all! aaaaa someone will i know it

from - Wandering On The Way: Taoist Tales and Parables by - Victor Mair Sir Sunflower of Southunc inquired of Woman Hunchback, saying, "You are old in years, ma'am, but your complexion is like that of a child. How is this?" "I have heard the Way." "Can I learn the Way?" asked Sir Sunflower of Southunc. "Oh, no! You can't. You're not the person for it. There was Lotbridge Learner who had the ability of a sage but not the Way of a sage. I have the Way of a sage but not the ability of a sage. I wanted to teach him, in hopes that he would truly become a sage, you see? In any event, it should have been easy to teach the Way of a sage to someone with the ability of a sage . Still, I had to instruct him and watch over him. After three days, he could put all under heaven beyond him. Once he was able to put all under heaven beyond him, I watched over him again. After seven days, he could put things beyond him. Once he was able to put things beyond him, I watched over him again. After nine days, he could put life beyond him. Once he was able to put life beyond him, he could then see with the clarity of morning light. Seeing with the clarity of morning light, he could envision uniqueness. Envisioning uniqueness, he could eliminate past and present. Eliminating past and present, he could enter the realm of lifelessness and deathlessness, where that which kills life does not die and that which engenders life does not live. As for what sort of thing it is, there's nothing that it doesn't send off, nothing that it doesn't welcome, noth- ing that it doesn't destroy, and nothing that it doesn't bring to completion. Its name is Tranquility in Turmoil. Tranquility in Turmoil may be defined as that which is brought to completion after passing through turmoil." "Wherever did you learn all this?" asked Sir Sunflower of Southunc. "I learned it from the son of Assistant Ink. Assistant Ink's son learned it from the grandson of Ready Reciter. Ready Reciter's grandson learned it from Bright Vision. Bright Vision learned it from Agreeable Whisper. Agreeable Whisper learned it from Earnest Service. Earnest Service learned it from Sighing Songster. Sighing Songster learned it from Murky Mystery. Murky Mystery learned it from Share Vacuity. Share Vacuity learned it from Would-be Beginning."

i like how your intolerance is "Righteous" (capitalized even!) but other peoples intolerance is just ignorance btw. Thats cute. and i like how you can take umbrage at a tshirt saying kike in NYC but you come onto spiritual forum like TTB saying "oh that helps me understand your ignorance!" and other belittling rhetoric when you disagree with someone. How little difference there is, except your theoretical tshirt uses a well known racial insult, and you yourself just plain insult people in snide and subtle ways, and then try to pass it off as if you are somehow closer to enlightenment so its okay when you do it. Just thought i would point out some glaring hypocrisy in an attempt to help you understand your own ignorance.

I think that is what happened 109 years ago. And i don't speak for Hawaiians (as you can imagine) but i can imagine 94% of them not wanting guns put to their heads either. I dunno, tho, coulda been something else... no the honkie god is God, Jehovah is Jewish. And i dont know why the king does what he does.. probably because he wants a hawaii for islanders not a tourist trap for honkies. heheh could be something else tho

my qigong teacher (who teaches yijinjing and xisuijing) said that they aren't bodhidarma's. thats just shaolin "legend", and a practice more common than one might think; to attribute ones work to a famous master in order for it to gain popularity. i'm with decibelle, that looks like all that he said that was ever committed to writing, but i'm no expert, there might be more

i like how when faced with unavoidable facts you just change the subject. Intolerance and compassion/emptiness have nothing to do with each other. i would ask what my bizarre ideas are but i really don't need to know. thanks anyway. you've quoted that quote about compassion and emptiness 1000 times, but i actually stopped reading there. We can have this conversation in the future when you learn not to be condescending. There is such a marked difference between the widsom teachers you quote and your own words. hahaha as if by pointing out that the buddha never mentioned righteous intolerance i am now "anti-buddhist" Bwahahahaaaha you may have yourself fooled but you don't fool me. no need to reply unless you need the last word.

that makes a lot more sense. There's a big difference between not being greedy and giving up money.

Tatsumaru, do you meditate? I think you need to let go of unrealistic expectations. Most people do to some degree, but yours sound like they are really messing you up. Nothing is perfect, perfection is a theoretical thing. Life is messy, and the sooner you get happy in the mud, the sooner you will find the happiness you seek. Let go. Your burden is self-created, so you are the one who can choose to put it down and walk on without it.

the buddha never mentioned righteous intolerance, thats your own doctrine i think. And its not a very awakened one if i may say so. You're a crusader tho, and i'm not, so i'm sure our opinions are bound to differ. edit: in my case, the mantra propels me beyond intolerance of any kind. The heart sutra is about moving beyond dichotomous concepts like awakedness and ignorance. There is nothing in that sutra that feeds righteous intolerance. Hahahahha righteous intolerance... is there any other kind?!

if you had a beautiful island and then some honkies marched up to your queen and put a gun to her head and took it and made it a tourist trap you'd say things like "dumb haole" too.

In emptiness there is no observer, and nothing observed. To the mind that rests in non-dual awareness, all such labels are meaningless. But to me the key words of the heart sutra are "in emptiness...". The model doesn't work on the dual level of existance. One of the points of difference that i have noticed between your worldview and mine is that you repeatedly negate the reality of dualism, citing non-dual luminosity as the nature of reality. In my worldview i see duality as natural and accept it as a truth. Everything that exists does so in duality. Beyond that, reality is both dual and non-dual, and that is a duality, and a non-duality, so there is really no way of talking about it that makes sense, except maybe to say that on one dimensional level of being, there is oneness and lack of observer or observed, and on another level of dimensionality, there is observer and observed, as well as all the dualities that reality produces. These dimensionalities overlap and are "happening" so to speak at the same time, so you can say "there is no duality" and to me, you are talking about the oneness of reality, and i can say "there is duality" and i am talking about the dual nature of reality. The two, to me, are not mutually exclusive. So since we are all familiar with dual reality, and usually not familiar with nondual reality, we strive through meditation and contemplation to have direct perception of oneness and emptiness, which to me are two sides of the same coin. But that does not mean that when we are done resting in the transcendental state, that you can wish away all the everyday concerns of the world and say "i won't eat dinner because rice doesnt exist!" hahah dinner and rice don't exist while contemplating and perceiving the nondual, but try going without them and you will be dead in 3 months. So there is a reality and we are experiencing it. That is why we are typing this. Interestingly, while you were commenting on this thread, i was commenting on yours, and I said something which began to scratch the surface of this. Thanks for the link, interesting article, but I maintain my worldview

Saying 'there is no sun' is like typing 'i am not typing this'. It might be half-true, but it begs the question: whats that thing in the sky? I think it alienates people from buddhism to speak about non-existence in absolute terms. The sun might be D.O. and have no existence independent of the rest of reality, but if the rest of reality exists, so does the sun. Hence half-true. You can say "well reality does not exist" but i dont think that is what the sages were trying to say. Reality obviously exists, if you think the truth ends with "reality does not exist" you are not realized. That is, as someone noted, nihilist and escapist. Dealing with reality on its own terms, as something that does exist and needs to be reconciled with all its illusions and tricks, is much much more difficult than the cop-out "reality? oh that doesn't exist, therefore i'm done considering it". That is not the core of (my) buddhism.

Thanks! Thats interesting. Do you know of any high daoist masters who teach the public for free?

Hi. Welcome. I'd ask what you're doing, but then... you know

sinfest youre an honorary westerner i think that the dabbling/focusing dichotomy comes down to personal nature more than culture. Like astrology, some people are some way, some are another. I think some people dabble their whole lives and become "jacks of all trades", while others dabble til they find something they can focus on. Still others are born to just focus, and aren't happy dabbling. I think its a question of personal nature moreso than asian/anglo or east/west

hahahaha I might have heard sillier but i'd have to think about it @brother12: your point of view sounds mighty um entitled. To put it nicely. Daoists don't take vows of poverty and don't have anything against making money by their teachings. In some parts of the world, its considered respectful to pay a teacher. In the end, if its not worth it to you, don't go, y'know

Thanks RyanO! I was sitting tonight and had a pretty awesome experience of emptiness/oneness. Self and not-self totally depended on each other for 1/10th of a second and then POP it was just one thing. I was able to stay there for a couple minutes and then spontaneous burbles in the thoughtstream brought me down to more immediate (but after that somehow less real) levels of awareness I think that the interdependent nature of all things, especially observer/observed, has more to do with the heart sutra saying that void is form and form is void than, say, nothingness, or non-being, or a more western idea of emptiness (one that says that matter is 99% empty space for example). I think that the idea that Avalokitasvara was conveying with his paradox is that phenomena are empty of independent existence. Y'know, the big D.O. As long as it is approached from a point of view of observer or self, or the other point of view, "observed" or things, it can't be broken through, but when both of them become dependently arising, they can be seen as one thing and then the oneness and the emptiness are one thing. Like wuji. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in buddhist theory can correct my mistakes, but thats how i see it.

quite so!

I am working on emptiness, sitting in insight meditation after saying the mantra 8 or 108 times and focusing on the emptiness of phenomenona and of reality. If anyone has any advice, commentary, or anything helpful to offer, please feel free to do so.