Running into walls again....ARGH!

[Vajrahridaya]

What I said your Buddhist Doctrine is:

"You do not recognize/actualize/realize DO thus you are going to die unliberated and unconscious into a Buddhist hell, and the reason is because you yourself are ignorant/deluded/ego-ridden subjective/angry/ ego projecting/ a believer in God/or a believer in spirit-self."

 

You just did in that post. Just as I said. But you are not flagged for it. And so you have set the tone for the debate, and so it goes.

 

You aren't seeing clearly that's why. The Buddha taught in the Pali that when you attach to a formless essence through meditation and contemplation, go to a formless heaven, you reap what you sow. Your interpretation is fanatical. This is why it's not flagged, because you are not understanding the implication that it's merely a revelation of cause and effect. That doesn't mean all Taoists and Christians do this. It's a debate about attachment and delusion or clarity, yes, according to Buddhist interpretation. Your after life experience originates dependent upon your view and focus. That's all this is saying. The formless heavens are not Buddhist hells, they are not even Buddhist.

 

And you have said the other things to me to: subjective, ignorant, deluded, angry. And if I believe in God or a spirit-self then of course I have not actualized Do (co-dependent arising), and so I miss the liberation, as you stated once again above:

 

This is what Buddhism states, not that you have to take it personally. You get so bent out of shape. Xabir has said the same thing, and so has Michaelz. Lucky also does not consider that there is a single essence to all things, a mysterious formless will that is behind all things. This is just a debate in view, not a personal attack saying you are all damned if you don't believe as I do. Your interpretation is extreme. As well as you are taking things way too personally and responding with bitterness. If you are angry and I say... "he's angry"... why is that off? If you are not angry, then why respond, why not prove that I'm wrong instead of reacting with these embittered responses?

 

VH: "It's just Buddhism is specific about what liberation means, and the Buddha said it means seeing co-dependent arising on a personal and simultaneously, on a universal level."

Put it all together, and you get the VH Buddhist Doctrine, as I paraphrased it.

 

No, you don't. That's your interpretation, but that's not my doctrine. I am just talking Buddhism, not VH'ism. For some reason you think it is, but me, Xabir, and Michaelz have supported our statements with Buddhist texts, poems from great masters in Buddhist lineage and modern scholars and yogis.

 

VH: "I've said that you might take rebirth into a blissful formless realm after death if you hold strongly and focus very intensely on a mysterious formless essence to all things. This is not at all a Buddhist hell, this is a formless bliss realm, a level of bliss that is far greater than some of the higher heavens. It's in fact the highest bliss one can experience outside of actually realizing the dharmakaya."

 

A "formless realm" IS a hell for a Taoist and it is not even the ultimate for the Buddhist as you said. This is no good news for a Taoist, and no help. It's a subtle lessening due to un-actualization of DO as you say.

 

This is what the Buddha taught. Not me. I've just experienced this to be true. I can understand and see exactly what the Buddha means. Also, because you interpret it as a hell... that doesn't mean that this is my intention. That's merely your interpretation. You are taking things too personally instead of merely debating the points. You want to attack the messenger instead of merely debating with the message for some reason?

 

VH: "I've even said that it's possible for a Taoist to become a Buddha if he or she see's the Tao as referencing mutual co-dependence or inter-dependent co-arising rather than an ontological and mysterious universal essence."

 

All that is saying is I should convert and I will be saved. Anyone can re-write their way and do that. But then one would not be a Taoist, and there is no way I know of to get around the "indestructible diamond-body" (spirit-self) and the Heavenly Realms of Form. This is not good news and no help. It is not an open ended response/option but an on (DO) / off (not-DO) mind set.

 

Ok, well that's Buddhism. We realize the indestructible drop through realizing D.O., it's not an inherent substance, it's merely the result body of realizing D.O. That's Buddhism and this is why it's different from Taoism. You don't have to take it personally, you are free to think that it's wrong. But attacking me for talking standard Buddhist teachings from the different vehicles is somewhat strange.

 

Let me be clear - I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO SAY YOUR BELIEFS ON THIS OPEN FORUM.

 

I'm simply saying let's be clear about your Buddhist doctrine, because others have other ideas on this big multi-cultural forum and will naturally want to respond with how they see things.

 

I have no problem with that. I never have. I have no problem with people arguing against what I consider to be standard Buddhism. This is what debating is for.

 

Why get all bent out of shape about it?

 

 

V,

 

I have only questioned your belief system and that is fair in a debate. Then when you can't handle the questions, you respond with insults.

 

Exactly what terrible things have I said? Remember, you called me a moron a few days ago.

 

ralis

 

Yes, after you called my way of writing basically retarded, called me stiff, all sorts of things. Ralis you have constantly insulted me, over and over again. You are not being very honest. I have answered your questions, just not in a way that you think is clear. But, I answered them in ways that I thought were clear. We obviously think differently and what you think is clarity I think is delusion and vise versa.

 

EDIT: What's interesting is that you take it upon yourself to get into conversations just to insult my writing, over and over again when I'm having conversations with other people who seem to be having absolutely no problem understanding what I'm saying. I'm debating with people who are reading my words and gleaming meaning, and I'm not even talking to you, but you come in and have to insult my writing, everywhere I go. Sometimes I don't want to post in a thread even jokingly because you or Songs take it upon yourself to blow everything out of proportion and take to personal insults.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

You aren't seeing clearly that's why. The Buddha taught in the Pali that when you attach to a formless essence through meditation and contemplation, go to a formless heaven, you reap what you sow. Your interpretation is fanatical. This is why it's not flagged, because you are not understanding the implication that it's merely a revelation of cause and effect.

 

 

Like I said - I DON"T WANT IT FLAGGED. (Please read my posts more carefully, what you would say to me.)

 

But once you start claiming a poster is doing "shitty projections" through "brown-stained glasses", you have set the tone. And you can expect that some will object to this haphazard affront, and will say "right back at you, the shitty projections are all yours."

[Vajrahridaya]

Like I said - I DON"T WANT IT FLAGGED. (Please read my posts more carefully, what you would say to me.)

 

But once you start claiming a poster is doing "shitty projections" through "brown-stained glasses", you have set the tone. And you can expect that some will object to this haphazard affront, and will say "right back at you, the shitty projections are all yours."

 

But, you are... That's just the truth as I see it, so it's relative to my interpretation and not an absolute, this is what you are doing according to me. You are taking my posts and re-defining them according to your own conditioning.

 

Please read my posts more carefully and see what I say from it's own side instead of pre-defining everything without seeing the larger context. Or not.

 

You can continue this if you wish.

[ralis]

 

 

Why get all bent out of shape about it?

Yes, after you called my way of writing "retarded". Ralis you have constantly insulted me, over and over again. You are not being very honest. I have answered your questions, just not in a way that you think is clear. But, I answered them in ways that I thought were clear. We obviously think differently and what you think is clarity I think is delusion and vise versa.

 

 

When did I say your writing was retarded? I believe I said when you called me a moron and moron is defined as slightly retarded. Show me the quote.

 

I have stated that you can't use Einstein's work or physics to prove you are right. It is obvious you don't understand science very well and if that is an insult, that is your problem. I an extensive background in math and science. If you make faulty arguments, then expect me to ask questions.

 

Did the Buddha contemplate the explosion of the singularity (big bang)? Did he expound on it?

 

I have also demonstrated time and again that your responses are extremely reactionary and are projected from an authoritarian mindset.

 

 

ralis

Edited October 22, 2009 by ralis

[Tao99]

But, you are... That's just the truth as I see it, so it's relative to my interpretation and not an absolute, this is what you are doing according to me. You are taking my posts and re-defining them according to your own conditioning.

 

Please read my posts more carefully and see what I say from it's own side instead of pre-defining everything without seeing the larger context. Or not.

 

You can continue this if you wish.

 

But YOU are... That's just the truth as I see it, so it's relative to my interpretation and not an absolute, this is what you are doing according to me. You are taking my posts and re-defining them according to your own conditioning.

 

Please read my posts more carefully and see what I say from it's own side instead of pre-defining everything without seeing the larger context. Or not.

 

You can continue this if you wish.

[Stigweard]

I don't really know who threw the first stone and I don't have the time to go through it all to find out, but we do have a very clear "No Insult Policy" http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showtopic=11707&st=0

 

Buddhist / Taoist debate is welcomed and encouraged, but perhaps the dialogue guidelines that I suggested once could help: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=144200

 

Let the debate be passionate and wild, but do lets try and refrain from personal insults OK?

 

<-- The Mod Squad -->

[Vajrahridaya]

When did I say your writing was retarded? I believe I said when you called me a moron and moron is defined as slightly retarded. Show me the quote.

 

Not exactly retarded, but in many more words. Incoherent, dilidant, all sorts of things. As if I pay you to be my English professor? It's rude to follow me around and insult my writing over and over again in thread after thread when I'm not even talking to you. If you can't remember these things, I will not waste time searching for your posts because the flood control doesn't seem to allow me to look up a single persons posting history.

 

I have stated that you can't use Einstein's work or physics to prove you are right. It is obvious you don't understand science very well and if that is an insult, that is your problem. I happen to have an extensive background in math and science. If you make faulty arguments, then expect me to ask questions.

 

I said that the Buddha saw universal relativity. I took examples of Einsteins two theories of relativity. Special and General. It made sense to me. I'm satisfied with that. I can read it and see dependent origination. His theories show connectivity, relativity, how subjective interpretation of experience can be through different frames of reference. I can't get into the details of his theories, because I don't know how to. I'm not a scientist and don't have the details of these theories memorized.

 

Did the Buddha contemplate the explosion of the singularity (big bang)? Did he expound on it?

ralis

 

Yes, he talks about how universes cycle and crunch, then expand again and crunch again. He talks about the causes and conditions for this cycling as well.

 

Read Myriad Worlds. I'm not so much in the mood to have this conversation with you. I think you need to read more Dzogchen texts, as a Dzogchenpa. If you are one.

 

 

 

Let the debate be passionate and wild, but do lets try and refrain from personal insults OK?

 

<-- The Mod Squad -->

 

 

 

But YOU are... That's just the truth as I see it, so it's relative to my interpretation and not an absolute, this is what you are doing according to me. You are taking my posts and re-defining them according to your own conditioning.

 

Please read my posts more carefully and see what I say from it's own side instead of pre-defining everything without seeing the larger context. Or not.

 

You can continue this if you wish.

 

LOL! Amusing. Look, if being reborn in a formless bliss realm is a Taoists idea of a hell, then that's your interpretation, not my intention. That's all I'm saying. Don't put quotes around your interpretation of my posts and say I said that. Because that's not me, that's you.

 

Take care.

[ralis]

Not exactly retarded, but in many more words. Incoherent, dilidant, all sorts of things. As if I pay you to be my English professor? It's rude to follow me around and insult my writing over and over again in thread after thread when I'm not even talking to you. If you can't remember these things, I will not waste time searching for your posts because the flood control doesn't seem to allow me to look up a single persons posting history.

I said that the Buddha saw universal relativity. I took examples of Einsteins two theories of relativity. Special and General. It made sense to me. I'm satisfied with that. I can read it and see dependent origination. His theories show connectivity, relativity, how subjective interpretation of experience can be through different frames of reference. I can't get into the details of his theories, because I don't know how to. I'm not a scientist and don't have the details of these theories memorized.

Yes, he talks about how universes cycle and crunch, then expand again and crunch again. He talks about the causes and conditions for this cycling as well.

 

Read Myriad Worlds. I'm not so much in the mood to have this conversation with you. I think you need to read more Dzogchen texts, as a Dzogchenpa. If you are one.

LOL! Amusing. Look, if being reborn in a formless bliss realm is a Taoists idea of a hell, then that's your interpretation, not my intention. That's all I'm saying. Don't put quotes around your interpretation of my posts and say I said that. Because that's not me, that's you.

 

Take care.

 

 

You said you are going to college. Well, if you can't take criticism for your writing style then you are in for a rough time. Many times your writing makes no sense (incoherent) and why do you defend that? You did say you were not fond of English.

 

In terms of Einstein's work, the general theory is about gravitation. Also it deals with the expansion of space time and the effects on massive bodies in space. It also deals with warped space and how that effects light.

 

ralis

Edited October 23, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You said you are going to college. Well, if you can't take criticism for your writing style then you are in for a rough time. Many times your writing makes no sense (incoherent) and why do you defend that? You did say you were not fond of English.

 

I'm saying that this is subjective. Because other people make sense of my writing and have said that it's very clear. I think it's because you don't understand the content. I have no problem with criticism when it's actually made from a loving heart and a trusting source. I don't trust you as a source and I don't feel your love when you make these criticisms, though that is actually changing recently as I am finding you are coming across with a much softer intent and I can actually feel your heart more now. But, because you, Blasto, and Songs can't make sense of my writing doesn't mean it's incoherent, it just means that you are having a hard time deciphering the meaning of the whole through the way I am using the words. But yes, I of course would like to improve, but there are people who do understand the things I say and find agreement, so they must be understanding my posts, even the ones that you do not.

 

Yes, I do at times find English tedious. Like "c"'s and "s"'s and "f" and "ph"... for instance I wrote "desifering" and it underlined so I opened up the spell check dictionary and it couldn't even find the actual word I was looking for, because the "f" in place of the "ph" threw the spell check search out of whack, even when I replaced the "s" with a "c". so tedious. But, thus my patience is tried.

 

In terms of Einstein's work, the general theory is about gravitation. Also it deals with the expansion of space time and the effects on massive bodies in space. It also deals with warped space and how that effects light.

 

ralis

 

Yes, but the Wiki used some examples from everyday life. Anyway... it shows to me interconnectivity, and interdependence. It's wonderful that you have a mind for such things. I've never pursued studies in the sciences.

[Mal]

[Tao99]

[C T]

COEXIST.

 

It is not very apparent in this thread.

 

Looks more like *America's Got Talent* bootcamp. Sorry for this negative input. But this thought stayed with me for the 3 times i checked in here.

 

It does sound a little strange - guys who find V's writing so objectionable, yet who persistently read his posts and offer helpful advice. Hmm, it does create cause for wonderment laced with bewilderment!!

 

Have a good one - the weekend, Halloween...life!

 

CT

[Marblehead]

Yep. There really is something going on in this thread. There is a debate concerning debate techniques with emphasis on personal respect of all posters.

 

Like Stig say, (I paraphrase, hehehe) it doesn't really matter now who threw the first stone because this has been going on for quite some time.

 

There will be personality difference involved in nearly any discussion. This board is designed so that a very wide range of subject matter can be discussed.

 

I think it is a given that if more than one religion is allowed to be discussed there will be conflicts. That's the nature of religions (and one of the reasons I hold to none).

 

And any time a member asserts that their way is the only true way all that member is doing is instigating an arguement. Once the arguement starts emotions will be come involved and personal slander will soon follow.

 

Sure, there are going to be misunderstanding and disagreements. But the moment a personal attack is made it is almost a given that the subject of the initial thread post will be forgotten and the thread will devolve into a pissing contest.

 

That's probably why Mal hasn't been reading all the posts in this thread. And I don't blame him.

 

That's all I have to say at the moment.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

COEXIST.

 

Hehehe. You made me laugh. You have checked in here 3 times to see if anything of value is being discussed and have found nothing. I was even surprised to see you post here.

 

Yeah. You have a good life too!

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

And any time a member asserts that their way is the only true way all that member is doing is instigating an arguement.

 

 

That's not really what I'm arguing. My argument is that there is only one way that the universe really does it's thing and that's interdependent co-arising. To see that truth through any spiritual tradition would lead to the same result, as result originates dependent upon view. For me, God can be a metaphor for the interconnectivity that is the creative matrix of infinite consciousness' manifesting. As long as there is no attachment to some final identity, or personal being around this view, you'll be fine. I've mentioned what I feel would be an "awake" way to see the "Tao" as the way things mutually co-arise. Shiva is the auspicious paradigm of universal vision, seeing infinite potentiality that is the emptiness of all things. I'm passing out while writing... so I should probably get off and I would rather relate this through a clear mind, which is not happening when the very words I type are. It's been a strange day of seeing multiple universes simultaneously while awake, like dreaming with eyes open and seeing. I want to see this expressed with clarity. So, I'll say it tomorrow I suppose. The liberating factor is "right view" really meaning, correct cognition, or liberated interpretation of experiencing.

 

I feel strange right now though, like I'm in that TV show Fringe or something?

Edited October 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay V.,

 

We'll see how you do tomorrow or whenever you get back to this.

 

My argument is that there is only one way that the universe really does it's thing ...

 

I agree with this statement but only because I cut you off short. (Yes, I am allowed to find ways to argee with you.)

 

... seeing infinite potentiality of the emptiness of all things.

 

And remember, I have said this same thing except I have used different words and, of course, I had to include the Taoist concept of the Manifest.

 

I'm passing out while writing...

 

Well, get some rest and I'll see you when you get back.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay V.,

 

We'll see how you do tomorrow or whenever you get back to this.

 

My argument is that there is only one way that the universe really does it's thing ...

 

I agree with this statement but only because I cut you off short. (Yes, I am allowed to find ways to argee with you.)

 

LOL! Well...

 

... seeing infinite potentiality that is the emptiness of all things.

 

And remember, I have said this same thing except I have used different words and, of course, I had to include the Taoist concept of the Manifest.

 

I came back with a little bit of clarity to offer. Had some last minute business emails that came through so had to stay up dealing with those which woke me up a bit. Plus Alana woke up asking for her Mommy, so I have to play Mommy right now.

 

I'm passing out while writing...

 

Well, get some rest and I'll see you when you get back.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Thank you!

 

C YA!

Edited October 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Mal]

If you didn't read the thread how do you know nothing serious has been discussed?

 

Might have been, might be in the future, but there is no obligation to read an entire thread as the concept is very simple. Keep posts civil and play nice.

 

Bewonderment indeed but we haven encountered Godwin's Law yet, which is actually sort of surprising.

[Marblehead]

... but we haven encountered Godwin's Law yet, which is actually sort of surprising.

 

I don't know nuttin' about Godwin's law but I know that Murphy's Law in reverse work with me nearly every time, that is, if there is a way to screw something up I will almost always try that way first.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Hey Mal

 

BEWONDERMENT - What a beautiful word you have thought up! Here's one for you, as a return gesture: "The SPECTRUMATIC nature of the spiritual path is such that words are often less than adequate to describe one's innermost relationship with it, let alone attempt to share this intimate knowledge with those whom we have absolutely no relationship with".

 

Permit me to share a few words for reflection taken from a book i'm currently reading. I think it is quite relevant in this thread. If any one reading this finds it totally off-subject, i apologize in advance. This reflection is taken from *The Heart Treasures of The Enlightened Ones* by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (pages 46/47) -

 

"If your actions conform with Dharma, you will antagonize everyone; If your words are truthful, most people will get angry; If your mind is truly good and pure, they will judge it a defect. Now is the time to keep your own way hidden". (page 46)

 

"The mouth is the doorway of sin. Words tumble out of our mouths with the greatest of ease, yet the consequences they bring can be far-reaching and heavy. Most ordinary conversations are mainly expressions of attachment and animosity. If you speak too much, you will run into trouble, just as a parrot ends up in a cage. So give up unnecessary chatter". (page 47)

 

If you like this, i thank you for accepting its wisdom. Otherwise, please forgive this old fool who knows nothing.

 

Cheers everyone!

 

@Marblehead - Murphy's Law in reverse... hehehe - me can relate to that!!

[Mal]

Nice quotes.

 

Now I just need a David Attenborough voice and a sentence along the lines of

"Behold the passion and beauty of a TTB thread in all it's spectramatic bewonderment"

[C T]

Nice quotes.

 

Now I just need a David Attenborough voice and a sentence along the lines of

"Behold the passion and beauty of a TTB thread in all it's spectramatic bewonderment"

Good on you Mal! You have gifted me smiles for the weekend...and its only Friday hahaha!

[Marblehead]

 

That's all.

 

Peace & Love!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

Permit me to share a few words for reflection taken from a book i'm currently reading. I think it is quite relevant in this thread. If any one reading this finds it totally off-subject, i apologize in advance. This reflection is taken from *The Heart Treasures of The Enlightened Ones* by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (pages 46/47) -

 

"If your actions conform with Dharma, you will antagonize everyone; If your words are truthful, most people will get angry; If your mind is truly good and pure, they will judge it a defect. Now is the time to keep your own way hidden". (page 46)

"The mouth is the doorway of sin. Words tumble out of our mouths with the greatest of ease, yet the consequences they bring can be far-reaching and heavy. Most ordinary conversations are mainly expressions of attachment and animosity. If you speak too much, you will run into trouble, just as a parrot ends up in a cage. So give up unnecessary chatter". (page 47)

 

 

 

@Marblehead - Murphy's Law in reverse... hehehe - me can relate to that!!

 

 

Ah...that applies to me and a few others...I shall endeavor to apply these wise words...I wonder if V would consider that these words also apply to him? Or is he excused because his way is the Highest and is the Ultimate Truth, so he is allowed to "speak too much" because it is "justified"?

[Mal]

[Marblehead]

Ah...that applies to me and a few others...I shall endeavor to apply these wise words...I wonder if V would consider that these words also apply to him? Or is he excused because his way is the Highest and is the Ultimate Truth, so he is allowed to "speak too much" because it is "justified"?

 

Hi Songs,

 

Give it some time, Please? Let's see how the next couple days go.

 

Peace & Love!