1try80deny

How a-boot the rest of the post? Whats your stance on the framework of form I was speaking of in relation to such an event (big bang)? I finally chisseled it down to something that doesn't contradict your stance. Do you agree that Tai Chi/Nirvana would be the only non illusory state in this context and/or outside this context?

The funny difference is that you may be annoyed at the unimportance of these circles I'm running in thought where as I feel like I just climbed a mountain of understanding. I appreciate the engagement none the less. Nothing feels better than to come up on the fly with the way in which my personal ideology may or may not be illusory. I hope I was able to help you pin point a newly realized or of your own stances and investigations into the nature of existence.

Sure. Everything but Tai Chi, atleast in my belief on the matter. To your first point, thats what I'm saying. The Big Bang is the remnants of the last universe; the effect of the cause from a previous universe being destroyed in some cosmic event or brought together in a singularity of enlightment. I never meant to say there was a beginning if you payed attention to my circle metaphor. Of course scientists would simply place the cause for this event to the simple momentum from the last universe because they have little comprehension of consciousness. It is only a beginning in that pre-bigbang is a spaceless space where existence and non-existence meet up and the big bang is where they depart. Your ultimately right though, that there is no beginning but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm completely wrong (in a way). Its the classic Buddhist mistake we're making like a zen master saying there is no buddha or enlightenment is instant, where as Mahayana might say there is a Buddha and enlightenment happens in steps. Both of each argument is true its just that Zen tends to focus on what is ultimately true while the other learns much from the illusory interconnectivity and fluidity of layers paying attention to progress on the way. It was investigation in the middle layer where I now feel comfortable tackling the concept of the Buddha that you have been ignoring. There is much hope in the future of Buddhism in the realization that competing ideologies don't necessarily have to contradict and can Co-exist depending on interpretation, values, individual position in consciousness, resonance to personal experience, layer of focus, and relevance to the question at hand. Its the nature of water that I value most and I hope to demonstrate this at the end of this post. "Polarity arises from the Taoist veiw of the cosmological origins of the universe: Before existence was an idea --- an Absolute. The Chinese call it T' ai Chi, the supreme Ultimate. The absolute, in a sudden and tremendous desire to know itself, divided itself from nonexistence in a cataclysmic event resulting in endless cause and effect --- an event that neatly parrallels the so-called big Bang Theory. Instantly, space was formed and time began, and two charged states came into being, yin (negative) yang (positive). As a result were at first undifferentiated, seperated and regrouped into physical reality that became our universe."- R.L. Wing From my experience, we have the conscious ability to remain in this supreme ultimate or in some lower level of consciousness as well as the power to return to samsara and the world of duality by questioning self after knowing. The mechanics was something I experienced and my later happening upon this rare Tao of Power book (quote above) to legitimze my interpretation is the reason for this conclusion of a conscious catalyst rather than external circumstances of scienctific explanation being the catalyst. My point doesn't hinge on the idea of creation but rather (besides other veiws on ultimate consciousness) hinging on the idea that the universe (or the second place I put the word "god") had the choice to remain in a pre-big bang state for etnernity. On the other hand "eternity" might(?) mean nothing in a place beyond time so we could again both be right where the concious "absolute" experiences its Tai Chi awareness but inevitably makes the mistake of questioning self which in a timeless state (if you catch the relativity drift I'm getting at) times up perfectly with the big bang event that was (or was not) caused by external scientific circumstances appearing to itself that "it" caused the event. Who knows. Maybe both causes are true. Only one way to find out but to experience, in which case if my later compromising point is right, it would be illusory upon the mistake. What wouldn't be illusory, however, is that awareness before the mistake to get back to my first point of the post. Oyy vey! circles... 8 O can't live without them and can't live without them

Yeah. Thats the trouble with circles. It has no beginning and no end. The big bang simply being a point on that circle. So you are right to say that there was no creation but you are ignoring how there was a creation (without creating). Its simply a point in existence on this cirlce that repeats over and over. No god was needed to create something that already existed, but my point is that there was a conscious decision maker that chose to question self and start the procession of time out of the timeless, unified, pre-big bang state. God is a word I put in place of the Buddha you awake to that smiles upon you in the land of pure form since I believe that this phenomenon I explained is what people refer to as an experience of talking-with/meeting God that shows up in other traditions. The mechanism which pushes you out of this layer of consciousness back to the world of duality is the questioning of self after you already know. So, to deny the god I speak of is to deny the Buddha of the mind. This Buddha you awake to wouldn't exactly be the same conscious decision maker I'm talking about in this "creation" explanation since the responsible party would be spat back into duality with the big bang event while the Buddha remains. Simply a being that is alive today trying to right his wrong and return himself, others, and existence back into the state of nirvana/Buddhahood or what I refer to as a pre-big bang state. This is the only way I would justify an argument for some being like the Buddha (the man), Jesus, or Muhammed to be an incarnation of god. If you saw this the way I did you would see that the mechanics line up really well.

I don't believe in deities or Buddhas. Just a Buddha and the Buddha. The soul participant and the ultimate mind; seperate yet unified. Your trying too hard alwayson. Take your time. Ask questions if you don't understand the theme and wholeness of my message beneath the words. Empty your head of what God is along with all predetermmined and common definitons other people use. I'm an individual trying to understand my individual experience not one trying to prove others' experiences and attempted theories to make sense. Not a single question on my first post #86, really buddy? The Big Bang of course. From Tai Chi to a world of Dualism. Spread out in time yet still existing in singularity, indestingushed and undivided. The way things can be seperate yet one. The curious, elsuive, and some times frustrating nature of existence. and thank you for bringing this point up to help the understanding of mechanics in Buddhist thought... for this is thought to how we will get back to Tai Chi/nirvana not thought on how it came to this but where we can potentially go. Symmetry! The conlusion of thought to understand that it is whole after understanding how it interacts and interconnects in its noncontradicting seperateness. This is similar theme you are making the mistake of over and over again picking one part of my post to contradict and make a stance on instead of understanding the fluidity, interconnectedness, and entriety of the nature of existence I am TRYING to capture.

I'm quite bummed you didn't even look into my point on the third body of the Buddha, the buddha of the mind, that which we awake to. I guess I should get use to being surrounded by people who base there inner education primarily on scripture outside themselves along with an ignoration from a lack of value and interest in ideas that originate here. If anyone wants to cut through all this red tape and get an interesting perspective on "god" and lack thereof in buddhist thought the post is #86 pg6. People are still choosing to ignore despite my attempt to draw some attention. God is a word which I interchange with the Buddha, not a word from some predescribed condition or theory on some beings involvment with an existence that we have little understanding of. My definition of God starts from that experience at the core of existence and also where it does and should end. Much like a point I will make next, to describe the world, consciousness, and their interaction one must understand how it is that they came to be from an inner understanding outward. From the seed to the plant. From my understanding of that particular space and time or lack thereof (#86), your right, God was not needed to create each part of the whole. Creation rather was able to happen without anything ever needed to be created like a seed which only needed a conscious push to get the momentum going of events that allowed for the Big Bang to take place. The flower stem, pedestals, bud, and pollen didn't need to be created individually but rather the ingredients for all that it was to be was already in that seed. Its the same mechanics which pushes you out of that space of the Land of Pure Form and the formless world beyond down into a world of duality. The moment you question self after knowing that you know that you know, you instantly leave that non-dual space of light at the hinge of consciousness and the history of existence. God, in a way, was a conscioussness that made a necessary mistake. A heavily burdened soul balanced in glory and shame with the choice to sacrafice self, create time and all that would come next in a dual state or to remain content in the womb of existence. This form is parrallel to the taoist story of creation from Tai Chi (the supreme ultimate) into a world of duality. A story which also convenitently enough parrallels the Big Bang theory. Pretend that everyone did reach enlightenment. This is what could potentially happen to start the cycle of time all over again after we make that completed journey into being Tai Chi. This is my definition of what God was in relation to creation but my definition of what god is is stated in post #86... similar to the difference between the Buddha and the Buddha if you are comprehending the wholeness of the picture I'm trying to paint.

Good points. I stand corrected on my follow up antagonizer except for the whole facilities and encouragement in this way: I said facilitate (not facilities) as in he didn't want to discouarge individual spiritual inquiry. To say that the Buddha did not take any consideration into making sure he didn't discourage individual spiritual inquiry is an ignorant position. (but then again you might not be saying that) Just like you are assuming that I am ignoring the fact that the Buddha didn't leave some good directions on how to go about such individual inquiry and ways to avoid pointless methods of questioning. Ask questions. That is something most important in Buddhism and to the Buddha. Try to argue that fact. The post # is 86 on pg 6. I would respond more but I'm afraid you'll just pick apart this rather than WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT in the below post. Please respond to post #86 if you wish to engage a person somewhere in between this dicotomous stance you are taking of either the Buddha or not the Buddha. Sure there was no one like the Buddha but not all of us base our learning from books. My learning comes from within with the help from my comfortability with reading the Tao Te Ching to make sense of experience. My attempt to share it with you in a way meaningful to Buddhism on the otherhand does require some books like a man who never really knew too much about the subject until a clearly lit moment allowed him to make sense of a repressed memory launching him into an investigation of putting truth into words. Please please please read. Again #86. Look at the form and the essence behind the words rather than picking a couple points to run off on while ignoring the entirety of my stance. Again. Why is everyone ignoring the Buddha of the mind?

Sure whatever he thought that the term God was implying. What about the Buddha? Did the Buddha deny the Buddha? Way to pick apart a closing antoginzer to get someone to engage rather than attempt to chew the heart of the point I'm trying to make. Did you even read my post? Take a few deep breathes alwaysontheATTACK and try again.

I would appreciate it if someone took a gander at the point I'm trying to make and do a cross comparison with the texts you are quoting. You could argue all day about who said what and what that means in context to "God" or you could examine the crux of the issue based in the attempt to make sense of a rare human experience that I wish to share through what has resonated with me through my education in Buddhist thought. While the Buddha may have been reasonably silent about such things, I don't have the responsibility of starting a religion where it is important to facilitate and encourage individual inquiry and diversity. When trying to pin point what the Buddha thought, many highly underthink what it was like to be the Buddha and to have this sort of responsibility. Why has no one mentioned the third body of the Buddha which is what we awake to; which is what he awoke to?

Through my understanding of it, God is represented in Buddhism when you look at the definiton of the Buddha. The Buddha being the man himself, the teachings (dharma), and that which we awake to. That which we awake to is that we are all the the Buddha. To explore the concept a little more one can look at the form of thought that comes up time and time again in the stories of peoples' near death experiences. It is said that the Buddha smiles upon us in our time of death and relieves us of our suffering. Christian beliefs reflect this as it is believed one meets their maker after death. Some Buddhist schools believe that there are thirty two levels of consciousness. The categorization of the layers go as following: the world of five sense, the world of pure form, the formless world (infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither consciousness nor unconciousness) and finally the world/realm. To explore the god concept and lack thereof, one must look to the world of pure form. In this layer, one is only able to see, hear, and think. Like in a dream, you are not able to see yourself as if you were simply a central point from which the world is percieved. I don't know whether this is at the uppermost layer of pure form before crossing into the next, but regardless, one sees the "Buddha". The German philosopher Max Weber, says that God is man's need for a father figure. I agree but would respond to Weber that, if one is in need of a motherly figure or a friend, the buddha becomes just that. Your mother, your father, your closest friend, someone you look up to or your relatives; whoever you need comfort from in that space of pure light or whoever you wish to comfort. Many will still be caught up in some wrong doing or another form of unworthiness of self. Through the accute understanding of the bad situations we are put into or born, innocence in ignorance, and forgiveness from the Buddha and the persons "he" becomes, one finds solace in the feeling of being forgiven/worthy. The buddha comforts you by becoming that figure in your life (sight) that you trust to help ground you and build trust. The Buddha comforts you with words through that familiar voice (sound), and basically the Buddha's prescence "who" also uses non-verbal communication/understanding (thought). God, in a way, is a comforting medium between jumping into the scary thought of being all alone at the end of it. So you see, God/Buddha is a reflection of your own self mimicking and reacting to your own thoughts and needs producing the image that you create. There are two ways of practice in Buddhism. Devotionalism (similar to Christianity) where the Buddha is prayed to and the focus of your devotion, and the second where the goal is to become the Buddha. There is a direct correlation between the process of ones suffering lessening as the need for comfort through familiar faces and voices calms into contentment as one learns of the true nature of oneself. Through the help of your own inner ability to come to the truth on your own along with the confirmation of thought by the Buddha before you (the same thing), the visuals and sounds subside and you can move on to a higher/inner level of consciousness through realizing the truth of one's self being that you are the Buddha. This is why Buddhists are fine with saying that there is and isn't a god, and the reason for why there is a diversity of answers to that question depending on who you talk to and where you are at in your own consciousness. Many Buddhist scholars (with an absence of holding them above) would say no, there is no God. I personally agree that this is ultimately true since the Buddha's prescence is in a middle layer of consciousness (world of pure form) both beneath the ultimate destination and above the world of the five senses we are so use to. For the sake of diversity with the help of an understanding of the layer concept, I think that the answer varies throughout the process of the raising of ones consciousness. I hold this belief of both God and no god because I believe what you hold only gets in the way of fulfilling this process of moving on in consciousness to the formless world nearer to nirvana/Tai Chi.

If anyone does try and cipher this tongue twister of dimensional analysis please consider this:That which is against the tao does not show truth. Truth and illusion are both intertwined in my opinion to form this reality. Truth is not complete without illusion in this layer of reality we find ourselves (ie not tai-chi). The biggest example of this is dream and reality. The point I'm trying to make is that truth is not on one side or the other but on both; intertwined; interconnected; both dependent on the other to help create the form of formlessness.

This approach of course leaves the sixth dimension as a huge unkown and if scientists are right of there being twelve dimensions how could we possibly figure out the rest of them. Seams impossible. It also seams impossible to fold a piece of paper to reach the moon. Yet, it only takes 42 folds of a piece of paper to reach the moon. Coincidentally, the super computer in the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was asked to figure out the meaning of life and came up with the answer 42 leaving the people to figure out what the question is? Bare with me... A computer, however, not being a CONSCIOUS being, would easily misunderstand the answer which in my opinion is better interpretted as nothing four two nothing. A computer would also not understand that conscioussness (as traditionally thought) is not complete without unconciousness. At that, I leave ya'll with the question: How does one percieve dimensions in and out of conciousness? Who, what, where, when, why, and how? To answer the question of how many dimensions are there or is it fractal in nature, I would agree with scientists that there are twelve dimensions, yet it is also fractal in nature. It is a human error to think that two answers are mutually exclusive. The tao helps teach us this.

I don't blame you. My point, however is that dimensions are not other worlds but dimensional aspects of this present world around us. That is what Lao Tzu was speaking of. Open to higher dimensions of consciousness to better understand and heal the world around us not to go chasing after far off worllds. For 1-4 see the above posts. 5th dimension above time would be something the Buddhists refer to as Tushita which is heaven or(place of the divas) which is apart of this world. This can be compared to the otherly world Pure Land (heaven) created by the Bodhisattva Amitabha. Wether you believe in such things it is beyond the point which is in the comparison itself. I am open to our awareness of such dimensional aspects of reality being more than just pragmatic and manifesting differently but, I mainly believe in and speak of the pragmatic understanding of such things for the sake of raising consciousness rather than pushing people away. For example, one could say heaven is just a state of mind in which one experiences a higher plain of consciousness aware of the world above time. I am only saying this so that you can look at the world differently not to encourage you to seek higher dimensions. That would be somewhat of a wild goose chase. Strive for other goals and you may just happen to find yourself laughing one day strolling about in the green fields of grass I am making up which exist in Tushita ; ) knowing that it is also your half maintained back yard that you have overlooked time and time again too busy to notice its intrinsict beauty. My other posts about this topic are also in a pragmatic sort of light. No astral plane projections in my understanding of the topic. So after saying this. What do you mean by your goal is to be "aware and expanded in this dimension"? Which dimension? The third? That would be ignoring #1, 2, 4 (time) making you not so aware of this world. It would also be quite boring. Or... are you simply stating "in this world" fostering the idea that this world is a dimension in itself in comparison to another reality/dimension? not directed toward you exactly but, WHAT ABOUT THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS DIMENSION? Should we go beyond without focusing on the world around us first? distractions to a solution in my opinion.

Sort of on my own thought track here... Before I was speaking of the dimensions of self in their order of soul, mind, body, and interbeing. Before I go ion, I just want to clearify soul (of the first dimension) is not exactly a single dot persay but more as the center from which you percieve the world: the base of consciousness. The observer of the void that is realized to be non-seperate from yourself. The feeling of sinking back and down where the percieved world of 3-d shapes melts into an ocean in which you are the waves and the troughs. I mentioned the dimensions of self first because that is the best way and only way (my opinion) to start out. Experience and know yourself. The dimensions of consciousness also fits perfectly into a similar analysis of the dimensions of consciousness. The most important part of upper dimensions is the ground from which they arrise. "Do we really know which way the river flows." (Poorly written but the idea beneath my words is there). Don't get caught up and held back in thought by scientists saying that, it is impossible for human beings to comprehend what a fifth dimension is. I don't know : ( ? Great! Thats the best place to start. Learn the first four, how they flow and then understand that the fifth is not something to comprehend but something that is experienced. To live not to define and measure. Rather than waste effort on define, measure compare- right mind processes, value and focus also on curving the flow of thought. Bring them in unison and in harmony. Wisdom tells knolwedge how to move and knowledge tells wisdom how to curve. Dimensions should not be thought of as different worlds in reference to Lao tzu's comment, like typical sci-fi tends to think of it but as aspects of this existence. Not two; this world and the spiritual but one in which you can apply simple geometry to gain and understanding of self and of the layers of consciousness. The order of the dimensions of self which I referred to will be hard to picture if you are applying the dimensions commonly spoken of in cubical form (line, width+heighth, cube) but rather in a spherical dimensional analysis. The sphere (body) with a center point (soul) that is nothing in itself and the flowing mind which connects the two. Air into water, water into ice, ice into water, water into air. Air, water, ice; soul, mind, body. The cubical analysis does not allow time to be encorporated into the first three dimensions to show the interconnectedness and transformation of all things like the sphere analysis does to help compliment taosist philosophy. Time is apart of the dimensions below it. Its the fifth in which time is solved. Lets start from the bottom. Single dot+time= line, but our existence is not linear. In lower states of consciousness you think you must move toward happiness on the line but happiness and sadness are not two extremes. Realization: circle! 2-d. A circle can also be demonstrated across time by the wave and trough or sine function. Ups would not exist without the lows and waves would not either with out the troughs. You raise consciousness by realizing happiness and sadness are connected by ____ hepling you become a more evolved being no longer suffering from the ups and downs of life. Embrace your lows and avoid holding up the highs. Take solace in the middle which you cross twice as much as the others. As if you were atrracted to the center like a magnet, use the flow of momentum to shoot right back up. Connect many circles (previously thought linear ideas) of different angular aspect with a central point with the help of relativizing their size/significance and you have a complete sphere. A sphere might wax and wane in size over time but it remains complete. Or another helpful concept... still the line and become aware of the dot. In a tao sort of way, they are the same action. In a way... in a way... in a way... After discussing the spherical dimensional analysis with a fellow college student a while ago, she said that she had a close friend of a sophisticated science background who discovered (how? i don't know) that the cubical form better captures the structure of molecules/atoms/n' what not (sorry not a science person=hazy understanding) than does the spherical form in order to discredit my train of thought. I do not disagree but all of nature has a duality. While one may express structure would not the other one express interconnectedness and the transformation of all things. The particle/wave duality of light is an example.

Where were we? The third dimension of self in this organization I constructed is the body. I know one is use to hearing mind over body but think about the opposite for a second. Taoist practitioners and Buddhists alike put their bodies to practice with peaceful flowing movements to help soothe the mind. In time through good conduct and peaceful action, the concepts found in both traditions start to become inherent to the individual and the mind itself too becomes calm and peaceful. Like throwing mud into the river, one must calm the river in order for the murkiness (suspended sediment) to settle on the bottom. The river becomes clear and true insight can take place. This is seen where calming meditation generally comes before insight meditation in Buddhist practice. The second dimension of self is mind. It fits perfectly in my opinion in that the mind is what connects body of the third with soul of the first. Soul and body becoming one. Mind helps solve issues of the soul and is what helps us solve and realize what our souls are. You could go even farther to say that the experiencing of soul is where one realizes and solves emptiness. Emptiness being the great base at the bottom of this philosophical structure. As Allen Watts states (roughly)... "Its not nothingness in that it is nothing but that we are unaware of it." How so? Because soul is all and to become all is to be unaware of the nothingness. Quite an interesting contradiction. To experience oneness is to experience emptiness. Think about what it would be like to be a one dimensional dot. This is the non-feeling at the base of consciousness. Please forgive my "this is the way it is" use of language. This is just my opinion. Feel free to chop it up, challenge it, and disagree.