Who Is the Lord/God in the Tao Te Ching?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, what you are saying makes no sense to me. And the first problems are in this first phrase.

 

Lol... so literal... can you not see the implied meaning?

 

1) You take "ignorance" as the subject. How can ignorance do something? Even when we say "ignorance is spreading in society" what we mean is "people who know stuff are dying without passing on their knowledge". It is not ignorance that does something, people who are ignorant or not do something so that the end result is that ignorance is said to do something.

 

I mean beings who are ignorant of the true nature of consciousness manifest non-sentient forms of consciousness that don't seem to be made of consciousness at all, such as matter in order to shine into physical mortality realms that are based on "Prakrit" or the dimension of darkness, blackness which veils our illumination/consciousness into dense body vessels. In higher realms, we are able to manifest things directly from our own consciousness and "will" immediately, depending on how subtle the realm is as there are many levels. Some realms are illumined by the beings that are there and there is no need for a physical sun.

 

2) you say "a process that ignorance has" you mean that "a process that ignorance has to go through " or you are saying that ignorance is going through right now. In all cases I do not see how can ignorance be the subject.

 

Because conscoiusness that is ignorant of it's own true nature is the ignorance. Just as an awareness that is aware of it's own unlimited illumination potentiality is that wisdom.

 

3) you speak about being "dense 3 dimensions". Man is that how you usually spoke at school? I can see how this might have given you some problems. What do you mean to be "dense 3 dimensions"? Can you not explain yourself using simpler terms?

 

I can unpack. But don't project assumptions based upon your limited interpretation of my way of speaking. As I'm trying to use words to explain non-dual experiencing of limited dualistic dimensions. It's difficult to communicate such non-thing through the linearity of word structures. You have to read intuitively, like poetry and see intention of the words and not get literal or bound by rules. Much like reading poetry.

 

Because all this around us of the 3 dimensional realm is co-created by many consciousness' (plural), or many sentient beings, we are this matter, this density, this frictional experience dimension.

 

Ok, so this was the first phrase, I'll spare you the others. I am cool to discuss but please try to speak in a way that makes sense to non buddhists. One thing I learned from my teacher is that it is possible to explain complex meditative issues in a way that everybody understand them. The effort is on the speaker side, not so much on the listener side.

 

That totally depends, because you speak a different language when it comes to metaphysical break downs. If we are coming from the same school of metaphysics, then it's easier. But yes, this is all good... these questions, because I wish to have more clarity and ability to speak cross conventions.

 

And when this is not done it is either because the person who explains is lazy or because he does not want people to understand or because he does not have them clear himself, or maybe because he thinks that people can understand jargon.

None of the above. Well, sometimes I'm lazy... Or in a hurry because there are other things to do, or my girlfriend is tugging on my coat tales.

 

I will assume you think I can uderstand your jargon. Please do not assume so.

Oh boy....

 

Being unaware of our source of liberation...

the clarity and openness that is awareness...

which is the ungraspable nature of all things,

unrealized the mirror like quality of our awareness

regardless of it's ignorance of itself

manifests within it's own expansion

through the joint intermingling with other sentient unaware awarenesses

that have consensus of agreement on various levels, conscious of it or not

By sending reflections of desires based on a sense of lack into the mirror like quality of our awarenesses

The intensity of this desiring deflects back from awareness rigid images that shine dense and frictional,

forgetting that these images are made of our joint power of creative awareness....

we suffer the play that is inherently liberated,

due to having no intrinsic nature everything is inherently self liberated,

including awarenesses, even if ignorant of it.

It's liberation is also it's power of bondage,

because it's so liberated,

it can also be bound within it's own inherent liberation.

 

I hope that's a bit more clear for ya.

 

 

 

Buddhists don't believe in God or pray to gods... :?

 

We pray to Buddhas and bodhisattvas... we also pray to certain hindu gods that are either bodhisattvas or just for worldly stuff... Some Hindu gods are considered Buddhas too in fact.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The term natural becomes a term more often than not that excuses one's ability to investigate deeper. Nature is dependently originated. Most nature comes from the desire for survival which emanates from the fear of death, based upon identification with the body and the idea that we were born, and we will age and die.

 

Your conclusion lacks investigation in my opinion. This might make your ego angry... hearing this. It might get defensive.

 

You totally misunderstood what I said. Please read it again.

 

Try to think beyond the concept of man's nature or the nature of any living organism and into the natural processes of the universe.

 

Be well!

 

You mean just the nature of co-emergent things processing regardless of the intention of survival...

 

Yes ok... sorry for being so dense.

 

But, you say fully armed and fighting all the way? For what purpose do you fight death which is merely a word describing change and not really a finality at all. Taoism believes that the mind stream lives on after the death of the body...

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

We pray to Buddhas and bodhisattvas... we also pray to certain hindu gods that are either bodhisattvas or just for worldly stuff... Some Hindu gods are considered Buddhas too in fact.

 

but the interpretation and view is different of these gods, where in Hinduism the Gods are seen as aspects of the One, that is seen as wrong view in Buddhism as there is no One. all Buddhas have the same qualities of wisdom and compassion but remain separate individual mindstreams.

 

as for "God", no there is no Theism in Buddhism. no Creator, no Divine Will. i'm not sure how this compares to Taoism since everyone has a different interpretation due to the metaphorical nature of Taoist philosophy. and there not being one main text. Historically, Buddhism is a tree, Taoism is a river. the tree grows from the one seed, while the river flows and takes whatever goes with it.

 

so I think this poses a problem in trying to understand Taoist philosophy, but the Dao De Jing can be said to be the one main sutra and in my understanding the view presented in Dao De Jing of the 'Dao' is different than the emptiness of Buddhism. where it seems that the Dao is nothing more than a very subtle non-conceptual state of mind beyond-thought that is made to be an Ultimate Reality that is the source of all things. Buddhists say that in meditation, this appears so, but only because of wrong view.

 

but since non-conceptual is grasped at by Taoists, they will easily dismiss what Buddhists say as too conceptual. It's too bad that Taoists have this repulsion towards understanding consciously their experiences, because they fail to see that it is impossible to be truly non-conceptual. the Dao De Jing, try as it might, is far from non-conceptual. One passage says you can't talk about it, and the other says its the source of all things. the 2nd is a very heavy concept. Non-conceptual is the goal we can say, but to get to that goal its necessary to question our subtle beliefs and make sure we have proper interpretation of experience.

Edited August 13, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Non-conceptual is the goal we can say, but to get to that goal its necessary to question our subtle beliefs and make sure we have proper interpretation of experience.

 

Non-conceptual is not the goal, but freedom from concepts and non-concepts is the goal.

 

The experience itself cannot be described but the path to the experience can be described, as well as what the experiences qualities are, which is inherently empty. Even the experience of Buddhahood is not considered an ultimate reality in Buddhism, just an ultimate intuitive understanding of the nature of all experience.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Pietro]

Lol... so literal... can you not see the implied meaning?

 

No. Being in academic I need to explain complex things all the time. I know the difference between trying to look cool, and really trying to get the other person to understand you. Part of the later require to be really explicit.

SInce my teacher is also able to explain complex meditative issues in a similar way, I reached the conclusion that all this mistery about spiritual mater is generated by people trying to explain what they don't really understand.

 

I mean beings who are ignorant of the true nature of consciousness manifest non-sentient forms of consciousness that don't seem to be made of consciousness at all, such as matter in order to shine into physical mortality realms that are based on "Prakrit" or the dimension of darkness, blackness which veils our illumination/consciousness into dense body vessels. In higher realms, we are able to manifest things directly from our own consciousness and "will" immediately, depending on how subtle the realm is as there are many levels. Some realms are illumined by the beings that are there and there is no need for a physical sun.

 

Ok, so at least now is a claim that makes sense. Now to accept that it is true we would have to enter into the buddhist believe system, but you have already explained to me that it is a believe system that is based upon the mystery card and the experience card, so we are not going there. At least I see what you are saying.

 

Because conscoiusness that is ignorant of it's own true nature is the ignorance. Just as an awareness that is aware of it's own unlimited illumination potentiality is that wisdom.

 

I am not sure you can mirror consciousness with ignorance. Like light and darkness only superficially they mirror each other. But light is composed of particles, but darkness is not. Darkness is a lack of something. It's a privative. As such I am really doubtful that you can make this comparison.

 

I can unpack. But don't project assumptions based upon your limited interpretation of my way of speaking. As I'm trying to use words to explain non-dual experiencing of limited dualistic dimensions. It's difficult to communicate such non-thing through the linearity of word structures. You have to read intuitively, like poetry and see intention of the words and not get literal or bound by rules. Much like reading poetry.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. When I want to read poetry I read poetry. Trying to read intuitively is the central way to feel good about yourself, and be in a real big confusion. No real understanding comes from there. I will read what you say line by line, and make sense of it, or protest. Or I will ignore your posts in block. Your choice.

 

Because all this around us of the 3 dimensional realm is co-created by many consciousness' (plural), or many sentient beings, we are this matter, this density, this frictional experience dimension.

 

No, it's not. Or please prove it to me by making me win the lottery. Because honestly I wouldn't mind having a few million dollars.

 

That totally depends, because you speak a different language when it comes to metaphysical break downs. If we are coming from the same school of metaphysics, then it's easier. But yes, this is all good... these questions, because I wish to have more clarity and ability to speak cross conventions.

ok

None of the above. Well, sometimes I'm lazy... Or in a hurry because there are other things to do, or my girlfriend is tugging on my coat tales.

Oh boy....

 

Being unaware of our source of liberation...

the clarity and openness that is awareness...

which is the ungraspable nature of all things,

unrealized the mirror like quality of our awareness

regardless of it's ignorance of itself

manifests within it's own expansion

through the joint intermingling with other sentient unaware awarenesses

that have consensus of agreement on various levels, conscious of it or not

By sending reflections of desires based on a sense of lack into the mirror like quality of our awarenesses

The intensity of this desiring deflects back from awareness rigid images that shine dense and frictional,

forgetting that these images are made of our joint power of creative awareness....

we suffer the play that is inherently liberated,

due to having no intrinsic nature everything is inherently self liberated,

including awarenesses, even if ignorant of it.

It's liberation is also it's power of bondage,

because it's so liberated,

it can also be bound within it's own inherent liberation.

 

I hope that's a bit more clear for ya.

Boh!

[Vajrahridaya]

No. Being in academic I need to explain complex things all the time. I know the difference between trying to look cool, and really trying to get the other person to understand you. Part of the later require to be really explicit.

SInce my teacher is also able to explain complex meditative issues in a similar way, I reached the conclusion that all this mistery about spiritual mater is generated by people trying to explain what they don't really understand.

 

Oh yeah... I'm trying to look cool and gain friends who will put me on their shoulders. I'm actually interested in people have breakthroughs and experiencing the blissful epiphanies of comprehension that transcend the dualistic thought process, where one sees these truths spontaneously without having to label it internally and explain it to themselves, because they are the realization.

 

I don't think your ready to look at someone objectively who comes from a level of experience that you have not had. I think you'd rather just call them crazy. It's easier.

 

Go ahead... come on...

 

What's funny when people think they have someone pegged, but others have an entirely different experience and interpretation of the person they subjectively have pegged in a way that's like an entirely different universe. As if the person was completely different to the other person who's opinion and experience disagrees, but everyone thinks they are being objective and they are seeing the truth, because seeing is believing, right? Matter must be solid, it feels that way...

 

Ok, so at least now is a claim that makes sense. Now to accept that it is true we would have to enter into the buddhist believe system, but you have already explained to me that it is a believe system that is based upon the mystery card and the experience card, so we are not going there. At least I see what you are saying.

 

Yes, it would take initiation into a stream of enlightened beings or lineage of enlightened beings that would influence your previous influence to dis-enchant and open to a different experience. So, you might have to fight for the answers through your 5 senses for a while before you get tired of trying to find answers that way and just meditate and turn your awareness internally.

 

It's not really a Buddhist belief system. Actually there are many spiritual traditions that believe this, but Buddhism interprets how it happens in a different way at the point of it's basis for occurrence. Hindu's believe it's all made of consciousness too, but they believe it's one consciousness and not many conscoiusnesses.

 

I am not sure you can mirror consciousness with ignorance. Like light and darkness only superficially they mirror each other. But light is composed of particles, but darkness is not. Darkness is a lack of something. It's a privative. As such I am really doubtful that you can make this comparison.

 

You don't know what consciousness is though. When one meditates one experiences different realms of conscious experience of consciousness. Of course, you'd have to see it to believe it, as seeing this would change the interpretation of what you see through your five senses.

Thanks, but no thanks. When I want to read poetry I read poetry. Trying to read intuitively is the central way to feel good about yourself, and be in a real big confusion. No real understanding comes from there. I will read what you say line by line, and make sense of it, or protest. Or I will ignore your posts in block. Your choice.

No, it's not. Or please prove it to me by making me win the lottery. Because honestly I wouldn't mind having a few million dollars.

ok

 

Boh!

 

It's group consensus with information gathered and conjoined over endless time of identifying with limitation. We can as a group of sentient beings on the planet completely change everything if we all let go of our limited identity based information processing based upon limited experiences, but that would mean the potentiality in sentient bugs and animals and every single human. I cannot will that experience for you because we are not collectively on that consensual level of conscious experience.

 

I don't think that this level of experiencing can really be talked about with you with any thought of having a break through as you would need to have some depth of remembered meditative experience that transcends your current paradigm of comprehension.

 

Oh there I go, trying to look cool! I use big words because they carry more meaning and need unpacking but it's better than writing really long posts with tons of small words. My posts are already very long.

 

Anyway yes... protest away, this is just practice for me. I have no illusions that I will actually change your mind. When I go to school for writing and philosophy, I will have seen what I've learned from here.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

So is the Tao just the continual process of recycling infinite cosmoses with no static "I" ness or beginning?

 

Exactly that, in my understanding.

 

Buddhism explains how this current universe came into existence based upon the end of the previous universe. There is no primary cause at all... it's just a cycle of endless causes and conditions, from formless multiplicity to form filled multiplicity back to formless multiplicity over and over again.

 

You just expressed my Taoist understanding except that we don't try to explain it because we weren't there to observe the event.

 

BTW Your rationale for the existence of a god (first cause) is faulty, IMO.

 

Be well!

Edited August 13, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

BTW Your rationale for the existence of a god (first cause) is faulty, IMO.

 

Be well!

 

But, I don't believe in a first cause and find that rational faulty to begin with. I didn't make it clear that I don't actually believe in a first cause, or a God behind everything? I think I was trying to reveal how faulty it is.

 

Well, Buddhists feel that due to reincarnation, that we were there and that different levels of the universe role out underneath, dimensionally the other one. Like denser universes with denser laws of existence are shorter lived and each emanate from the less dense one and are re-absorbed back into it in a layered big crunch effect, so we watch it happen on an inter dimensional level and can remember this experience through meditation.

 

I don't expect you to concur with this as you don't as of now believe in past lives or future lives or after life in different dimensions of conscious experience that are either denser (lower darker realms) or less dense (higher more illumined realms). This realm being an in between realm with night and day, and many physical laws that organize our generally unconscious consensus of group experiencing.

[Marblehead]

So then... is the Tao a first cause that itself is not an effect?

 

No, No, No, No, NO.

 

And I will say it once again just to make sure it is understood: NO!

 

My words and thought: "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. Things just take different form over time."

 

The cause is Tzujan. I know nothing about 'first cause'. The effect is the changes that Tao expresses.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

No, No, No, No, NO.

 

And I will say it once again just to make sure it is understood: NO!

 

My words and thought: "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. Things just take different form over time."

 

The cause is Tzujan. I know nothing about 'first cause'. The effect is the changes that Tao expresses.

 

Be well!

 

Ok... there doesn't seem to be a consensus on that though. As people seem to be able to fit their Theistic ideas into it. Maybe it's just an expedient means that allows for a person to focus on himself within a larger context? But is like a knife that is used to cut another knife.

[Marblehead]

But, you say fully armed and fighting all the way? For what purpose do you fight death which is merely a word describing change and not really a finality at all. Taoism believes that the mind stream lives on after the death of the body...

 

 

Hi again,

 

Actually, philosophical Taoists (me, at least) do not believe that the mind stream lives on after death of the body. It is our personal Chi (and all other essence of what I am) that lives on, but Marblehead will no longer exist in any form. When this body of mine dies Marblehead will no longer be. His essence will become something else (maybe) at some other point in time (time period unknown).

 

Yes, it is my understanding that I am supposed to live my life to its fullest potential. Early death in not Tao. Therefore I will do everything I can to prolong my life so that I may add as much as possible to the experiences of Tao.

 

Be well!

 

 

 

 

Other than the fact that you can do whatever you want of course, but from a Buddhist perspective I think...

 

If one wants to call the endless/beginningless process of infinite relativity God, just as a metaphor, that's fine... but one has to understand that upon investigation, that's just a metaphor and there really is nothing inherently there as a true and static self.

 

As I stated in that other thread, crop circles and gods are man-made concepts. They do not exist naturally in the universe. When man is gone these will no longer exist.

 

Be well!

 

 

change... is the guiding idea preceding everything...

 

It is my understanding that change is the only constant in the universe. All things, all non-things including Tao are subject to this process.

 

Be well!

 

 

But, I don't believe in a first cause and find that rational faulty to begin with. I didn't make it clear that I don't actually believe in a first cause, or a God behind everything? I think I was trying to reveal how faulty it is.

 

Hehehe. You were sufficiently clear. I was just picking on you.

 

Well, Buddhists feel that due to reincarnation, that we were there and that different levels of the universe role out underneath, dimensionally the other one. Like denser universes with denser laws of existence are shorter lived and each emanate from the less dense one and are re-absorbed back into it in a layered big crunch effect, so we watch it happen on an inter dimensional level and can remember this experience through meditation.

 

I don't hold to the concept of reincarnation so I really cannot discuss the subject. Transmutation is the word I use.

 

I don't expect you to concur with this as you don't as of now believe in past lives or future lives or after life in different dimensions of conscious experience that are either denser (lower darker realms) or less dense (higher more illumined realms). This realm being an in between realm with night and day, and many physical laws that organize our generally unconscious consensus of group experiencing.

 

You were very correct in your expectations.

 

Be well!

 

 

Ok... there doesn't seem to be a consensus on that though. As people seem to be able to fit their Theistic ideas into it. Maybe it's just an expedient means that allows for a person to focus on himself within a larger context? But is like a knife that is used to cut another knife.

 

That is one of the many beauties of Taoist philosophy. A Christian can be a philosophical Taoist. Many Buddhists are. (Hey, you were drawn to this site!)

 

Philosophical Taoism has no dogma therefore it is never in conflict with any of the dogma of any of the religious belief systems.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I'll be sure to be well!! Thanks Marblehead...

[Pietro]

Oh yeah... I'm trying to look cool and gain friends who will put me on their shoulders. I'm actually interested in people have breakthroughs and experiencing the blissful epiphanies of comprehension that transcend the dualistic thought process, where one sees these truths spontaneously without having to label it internally and explain it to themselves, because they are the realization.

 

I don't think your ready to look at someone objectively who comes from a level of experience that you have not had. I think you'd rather just call them crazy. It's easier.

 

Go ahead... come on...

 

Vajrahridaya, I am not saying you are crazy.

 

It is you instead who say that I just cannot understand (thus attacking me, instead of my argument), instead of admitting that it is on your side the responsability to explain yourself clearly.

 

Honestly, you don't know what I have, or have not achieved.

You just assume I am a newbie, because you hear me speaking as a kick ass materialist.

 

What's funny when people think they have someone pegged, but others have an entirely different experience and interpretation of the person they subjectively have pegged in a way that's like an entirely different universe. As if the person was completely different to the other person who's opinion and experience disagrees, but everyone thinks they are being objective and they are seeing the truth, because seeing is believing, right? Matter must be solid, it feels that way...

 

More philosophy. I am still waiting for my lottery winning ticket.

 

Yes, it would take initiation into a stream of enlightened beings or lineage of enlightened beings that would influence your previous influence to dis-enchant and open to a different experience. So, you might have to fight for the answers through your 5 senses for a while before you get tired of trying to find answers that way and just meditate and turn your awareness internally.

Ah, now you clain that not only you understand reality better than me, but you claim you understand what is my Karmic situation that stops me from experiencing reality as you (that is, correctly).

 

It's not really a Buddhist belief system. Actually there are many spiritual traditions that believe this, but Buddhism interprets how it happens in a different way at the point of it's basis for occurrence. Hindu's believe it's all made of consciousness too, but they believe it's one consciousness and not many conscoiusnesses.

It does not matter who shares a believe system.

The fact that more people share it does not make it more real.

People thought that the earth was round for millenia, the earth remained round.

 

You don't know what consciousness is though.

you don't know what I know

 

 

When one meditates one experiences different realms of conscious experience of consciousness. Of course, you'd have to see it to believe it, as seeing this would change the interpretation of what you see through your five senses.

It's group consensus with information gathered and conjoined over endless time of identifying with limitation. We can as a group of sentient beings on the planet completely change everything if we all let go of our limited identity based information processing based upon limited experiences, but that would mean the potentiality in sentient bugs and animals and every single human. I cannot will that experience for you because we are not collectively on that consensual level of conscious experience.

 

I don't think that this level of experiencing can really be talked about with you with any thought of having a break through as you would need to have some depth of remembered meditative experience that transcends your current paradigm of comprehension.

 

Again you use your experience card: if only I had that experience you had then I too would share this believe system. And the fact that I don't share it is the prove that I haven't had that particular experience.

 

Except that you don't know what I haven't experienced, and thus you are just guessing

 

Plus the fact that a certain experience gives you a certain view of the world does not make that real. Take a bit of LSD, jump out of a window trying to fly, you are still going to die.

 

Oh there I go, trying to look cool! I use big words because they carry more meaning and need unpacking but it's better than writing really long posts with tons of small words. My posts are already very long.

 

Anyway yes... protest away, this is just practice for me.

 

That is the difference! For you is practice, while I am honestly trying to connect with another human being. And is frustrating because this human being keeps on speaking in tongue.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya, I am not saying you are crazy.

 

Ok...

 

It is you instead who say that I just cannot understand (thus attacking me, instead of my argument), instead of admitting that it is on your side the responsability to explain yourself clearly.

 

I don't think I'm attacking you. I'm sorry if it feels that way. I'm just saying that you aren't able to configure my words into an understanding that resembles my intention too well. This is bound to happen when you don't have the same inner reference book.

 

Honestly, you don't know what I have, or have not achieved.

You just assume I am a newbie, because you hear me speaking as a kick ass materialist.

 

If you've seen the Nile there's no way that you can deny it's existence.

 

More philosophy. I am still waiting for my lottery winning ticket.

 

See, you don't follow the line of reasoning that explains why I and you cannot to do this, the mutual experience of limitation is based upon lifetimes of consensus for it intertwined with all the people that experience it as so. I can remove my own mind from this consensus but my body is tied into these karmas in a way that generally disallows one to attain the body of light except through lots of practice.

Ah, now you clain that not only you understand reality better than me, but you claim you understand what is my Karmic situation that stops me from experiencing reality as you (that is, correctly).

 

Well yes, of course I do claim and think that I understand reality better than you. I'm not going to lie to you or myself for the sake of false humility, that has more to do with cowardice than truth.

 

It does not matter who shares a believe system.

The fact that more people share it does not make it more real.

People thought that the earth was round for millenia, the earth remained round.

you don't know what I know

 

I know that you don't know how you and the universe came into existence. Or what it's made of. That's because you don't believe me, or the validity of my experience. Why should I lie... we disagree.

 

Again you use your experience card: if only I had that experience you had then I too would share this believe system. And the fact that I don't share it is the prove that I haven't had that particular experience.

 

Yeup. That's right... that's what I believe.

 

Except that you don't know what I haven't experienced, and thus you are just guessing

 

It's an assumption based upon reading your responses to my words and others. That's all, I don't have the book of your life in front of me. You could be lying too. I know that I'm not lying and I trust myself. You might not though.

Plus the fact that a certain experience gives you a certain view of the world does not make that real. Take a bit of LSD, jump out of a window trying to fly, you are still going to die.

That is the difference! For you is practice, while I am honestly trying to connect with another human being. And is frustrating because this human being keeps on speaking in tongue.

 

Well, there is a consensus that my experience lifts me personally to a community of beings who share that experience. This can seem like a foreign language to you. It's fine if you don't connect to me, you can connect to plenty of other people. Through my own direct experience, I believe the language of the Buddha and I believe the language of the Dzogchen Masters, Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti as well as many, many others. I don't need your approval. I don't mind talking with you. But, if you don't ask specific questions then I can't get specific. Your asking questions that reveal more of your attachment to your view and your reluctance to budge from it.

 

For me, it feels like I'm talking to an alien. I've been on Earth for a very, very long time. I've been human for a very long time. So it's all quite fine. I'm not assuming that you are an alien, but my side of the equation seems alien to you and yours is alien to me as I grew up my entire life with a Mom who is a practicing Advaita Shaivite who's view is quite close to Dzogchen, the path that I practice now. So, this view and understanding is down to Earth home for me. Both me and her understand the language I'm using as we have pretty much the same reference books. She's a PHD in women's arts and spirituality, she's not poor white trash dumby. She's a college professor.

[ralis]

Vajra,

 

I would like to point out several ways in which you can communicate more succinctly to your audience.

 

1. Read and use Strunk and White's excellent guide to communicate to your audience more clearly.

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-50th-...9009&sr=8-1

 

2. William Zinser has written an excellent guide.

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-An...9126&sr=1-1

 

Your writing style contains inherent contradictions, does not follow logically from a premise, and is condescending to your audience. Your appeal to authority (logical fallacy) is an attempt to create and image of an academic. Instead, you insult the intelligence of your audience.

 

So called spiritual discourse does not preclude reason.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 13, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra,

 

I would like to point out several ways in which you can communicate more succinctly to your audience.

 

1. Read and use Strunk and White's excellent guide to communicate to your audience more clearly.

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-50th-...9009&sr=8-1

 

2. William Zinser has written an excellent guide.

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-An...9126&sr=1-1

 

Your writing style contains inherent contradictions, does not follow logically from a premise and is condescending to your audience. So called spiritual discourse does not exclude reason.

ralis

 

Other people seem to understand just fine and not find it condescending. Though sometimes I am a bit condiscending right back at people, yes.

 

I find that this logic thing is far more subjective than people make it out to be.

 

Also, I am trying to explain a non-dual type of realization through a dualistic medium. My Mom with a PHD can make sense of my writings and understands them just fine. Plenty of people are dumbfounded actually by certain peoples lack of ability to understand my writings.

 

I am not saying that things don't need to change in the ways of my expressing from person to person. But, mostly I'm writing to see myself talk and learn from myself about myself. Mostly those that I talk to are those that are not at all going to agree with much of what I say and are going to challenge me to reach inside and be more succinct about my experience mostly to myself. Plenty of people I don't feel like talking to, either they will just totally agree or I just don't feel inspired to talk with them.

 

Sometimes I'm writing without having slept all night as sometimes I have insomnia. I haven't slept all night last night and I've noticed that I've had to edit really silly typo's. Sometimes I have a hard time sleeping with someone else in my bed so I just don't sleep.

 

I also don't believe this idea that logic is just logic. Like I said before, without a certain level of belief in reincarnation and life before and after death, none of my posts will make any sense. If you do accept these as facts and find them logical, then you will most likely find my posts much more logically congruent. As the formulation of my words precede from a certain paradigm of not popularly accepted facts.

[ralis]

Other people seem to understand just fine and not find it condescending. Though sometimes I am a bit condiscending right back at people, yes.

 

I find that this logic thing is far more subjective than people make it out to be.

 

Also, I am trying to explain a non-dual type of realization through a dualistic medium. My Mom with a PHD can make sense of my writings and understands them just fine. Plenty of people are dumbfounded actually by certain peoples lack of ability to understand my writings.

 

I am not saying that things don't need to change in the ways of my expressing from person to person. But, mostly I'm writing to see myself talk and learn from myself about myself. Mostly those that I talk to are those that are not at all going to agree with much of what I say and are going to challenge me to reach inside and be more succinct about my experience mostly to myself. Plenty of people I don't feel like talking to, either they will just totally agree or I just don't feel inspired to talk with them.

 

Sometimes I'm writing without having slept all night as sometimes I have insomnia. I haven't slept all night last night and I've noticed that I've had to edit really silly typo's. Sometimes I have a hard time sleeping with someone else in my bed so I just don't sleep.

 

I also don't believe this idea that logic is just logic. Like I said before, without a certain level of belief in reincarnation and life before and after death, none of my posts will make any sense. If you do accept these as facts and find them logical, then you will most likely find my posts much more logically congruent. As the formulation of my words precede from a certain paradigm of not popularly accepted facts.

 

 

I have experienced non dualism and from my perspective your attempts to explain fail miserably. I have been in a number of retreats with Namkai Norbu and his explanations are succinct. You are causing much confusion in the minds of your audience.

 

Your appeal to your mother's PhD is for? In a recent post you made the claim that Buddhism and science were somehow compatible. I asked for an explanation and you quoted Einstein. Your explanation was a philosophical point of view from Einstein and not scientific reason. I am very well versed on Einstein's General and Special theories of relativity and nowhere is Buddhism part of it. That quote was from "Out of My Later Years".

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I have experienced non dualism and from my perspective your attempts to explain fail miserably. I have been in a number of retreats with Namkai Norbu and his explanations are succinct. You are causing much confusion in the minds of your audience.

 

Your appeal to your mother's PhD is for? In a recent post you made the claim that Buddhism and science were somehow compatible. I asked for an explanation and you quoted Einstein. Your explanation was a philosophical point of view from Einstein and not scientific reason. I am very well versed on Einstein's General and Special theories of relativity and nowhere is Buddhism part of it. That quote was from "Out of My Later Years".

ralis

 

His theory of relativity seems to be quite compatible. Because you can't see it doesn't mean a thing to me. Some people have a certain type of mind that appeals to a linear view and compartments and they can't make the abstract leaps. They think they are grounded and well balanced. They like seeing A,B,C,D. My mind doesn't seem to work that way.

 

The Theory of the Holographic Universe seems to fit quite nicely. Many things in Down the Rabbit Hole. Plus Further Down the Rabbit Hole seem to co-inside with many of the Buddha's findings. Not that I agree with all those interviewed in the movies, but it's very nice. I like "Waking Life" as well and much of what's discussed in that.

 

Your welcome to your opinion and I guess I'm not talking to you. Also Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche doesn't talk about the things I talk about for the most part, I'm getting into metaphysical details that recall directly from my experiences and insights supported by my understandings of the scriptures involved. I've been having transcendent experiences of meditation and dream my entire life. I haven't had a normal American upbringing so my mind probably won't function in a normal way.

 

I and plenty of others can read my posts and find clarity. Because you cannot does does not make me sad. We have not really gotten along since the very beginning. We don't have a history of agreement at all.

 

I appeal to my mother's PHD because she has received her doctorate through study of various spiritual texts that I have read from and by appealing to her own spiritual experiences she has written on the meaning through her own words and has graduated with flying colors. She is quite a brilliant person.

http://www.rosemarieprins.com/

 

She's an idol of mine... and she has really good insight.

 

Who's finding confusion? You? Some others? Not some others as well who seem to find clarity. There are those that find clarity and those that won't. I'm sorry that I can't appeal to you. Que sera sera!

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Well, I am gald that someone (2 actually) has been keeping Vajrahridaya occupied while I was gone.

 

Be well Y'all!

[ralis]

Well, I am gald that someone (2 actually) has been keeping Vajrahridaya occupied while I was gone.

 

Be well Y'all!

 

 

Someone has to do it. LOL!!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, I am gald that someone (2 actually) has been keeping Vajrahridaya occupied while I was gone.

 

Be well Y'all!

 

They're not as nice to me as you are. I prefer talking to you. Though we know we disagree on many points. Your always cordial and don't insult me personally so I always feel naturally nice to you.

[ralis]

His theory of relativity seems to be quite compatible. Because you can't see it doesn't mean a thing to me. Some people have a certain type of mind that appeals to a linear view and compartments and they can't make the abstract leaps. They think they are grounded and well balanced. They like seeing A,B,C,D. My mind doesn't seem to work that way.

 

The Theory of the Holographic Universe seems to fit quite nicely. Many things in Down the Rabbit Hole. Plus Further Down the Rabbit Hole seem to co-inside with many of the Buddha's findings. Not that I agree with all those interviewed in the movies, but it's very nice. I like "Waking Life" as well and much of what's discussed in that.

 

Your welcome to your opinion and I guess I'm not talking to you. Also Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche doesn't talk about the things I talk about for the most part, I'm getting into metaphysical details that recall directly from my experiences and insights supported by my understandings of the scriptures involved. I've been having transcendent experiences of meditation and dream my entire life. I haven't had a normal American upbringing so my mind probably won't function in a normal way.

 

I and plenty of others can read my posts and find clarity. Because you cannot does does not make me sad. We have not really gotten along since the very beginning. We don't have a history of agreement at all.

 

I appeal to my mother's PHD because she has received her doctorate through study of various spiritual texts that I have read from and by appealing to her own spiritual experiences she has written on the meaning through her own words and has graduated with flying colors. She is quite a brilliant person.

http://www.rosemarieprins.com/

 

She's an idol of mine... and she has really good insight.

 

Who's finding confusion? You? Some others? Not some others as well who seem to find clarity. There are those that find clarity and those that won't. I'm sorry that I can't appeal to you. Que sera sera!

 

 

There you go again, proceeding from incorrect conclusions about what I said. Einstein was making a philosophical statement about Buddhism and not about "Relativity". Do you even understand the theory or are you making an appeal to authority. Dilettante's love to banter notions of "Quantum Mechanics" and Einstein's work to prove some spiritual point.

 

To say that I do not understand and think in a non linear way is to fabricate incorrect assumptions about me.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

To say that I do not understand and think in a non linear way is to fabricate incorrect assumptions about me.

ralis

 

No, you think in a linear way.

 

I think in a non-linear way, more abstract way.

 

I was saying that relativity seems to work with Buddhist findings... The relativity of perception.

 

I wasn't saying that Einstein mentioned so.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

No, you think in a linear way.

 

I think in a non-linear way.

 

Prove it!

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Prove it!

 

ralis

 

I don't have to prove it to you. You asking for it is a revelation of your linearity. It's proven by many of your statements concerning my posts.