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

[Pietro]

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.

I appreciate you trying to find a common ground, so I will not comment on this further.

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

 

Vajrahridaya, if you are going to take just one thing out of my message I would like you to take this:

When you train yourself as a scientist (but also as an archeologists, and an anthropologist, I know this because my mediatition teacher is an an archeologist, and he corrects me when I fail on this), you train yourself to doubt, and ask unconfortable questions. In particular you eventually realise that it is not enough to experience something to prove its existance. Let me repeat it:

 

experiencing something does not prove its existance.

 

I could enter into more details, but I would water down this message.

 

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.

Ok the lottery has too many people's thought attached to it. What about just letting me find a lot of money. Or find an old gem. I could then sell it for the same amount of money. And it would not crash into anyone else believe system.

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.

no comment needed

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.

so unless I believe what you believe I do not know the truth.

 

no comment needed

 

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

 

SO we reached the point that you believe something because you have experienced. ANd you will not accept anybody else critcism, because they had not have this experience. And then since you believe the experience are the ultimate proof or reality, you consider that what you experienced is real.

 

How is this different from what any evangelical Christian tells me, or what any person under the effect of an allucinogenic drug experiences?

 

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.

 

Or I might simply not believe that experience is the ultimate proof of reality.

 

Well, there is a consensus that my experience lifts me personally to a community of beings who share that experience.

leaving aside the term "lift" which is charged (it means that we are unworthy, or generally less valid), you are saying something. You had some experiences, and those experiences are validated by a community of people.

 

So you see, also you do not really believe that experience by itself is the ultimate test.

 

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.

 

Hmm, "I believe the language of the Buddha" does not really mean much: You believe a statement in a language. You don't believe the language.

 

But your general statement sounds like: I will be with my friends Buddhas that understand me, and you will be with all the other people. Yeah, taht is fine, except that I know enlightened being with which I have no problems to discuss with.

 

Your asking questions that reveal more of your attachment to your view and your reluctance to budge from it.

 

Why is it that if we are discussing, and I fail to convince you, and you fail to convince me. My failure to be convinced is due to my attachment to my view, while your failure to be convinced is due to your enlightened experience, and you being part of an enlightened group of people?

 

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.

 

Great, invite her to join the discussion! I am always happy to discuss with collegues. I tend to be as blunt, direct and unforgiving in the academic field as I am here. But as a professor she is probably used to the academic dialectic so she will not leave any openings in her discourse. I am sure we all can learn a lot from this. If she is too busy to participate (most professors usually are), maybe she can still read our exchange and then comment to you.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Pietro

[Pietro]

This is a post I wrote in the favorite quote section (page 1). I think it just fits here perfectly, in our discussion of with Vajrahridaya. The post was originally wrote the 23 of October 2005. A sign that my point of view hasn't changed much in the last 4 years.

 

I found the following quote to be extremly interesting, and extremly good in synthesizing my feeling respect to the general new age mentality that I found in cheap spirituality. It originally comes from Faber, this quote being from p. 116 of New Age Thinking. But I found it in the Blog of Vyoma. A couple of years ago.

 

What we have here, in essence, is the enormously popular and deeply influential New Age notion of anything goes: anything achieves philsophical or, better, epistemological status if I "experience it for myself"; and if I "experience it for myself" in an "altered state of consciousness," why, then, so much the better. It would be difficult, of course, to over-stress the vapidity, the vacuity of such a notion, yet it is a notion that resides at the theoretical centre of New Age thiking. Imagine the poor wretch at the inquisitorial stake, on the verge of incineration, crying out his innocence to the hooded executioner and receiving in return the reply, "Silence, sinner, I know you're the Devil; I've experienced you personally as the Devil on several occasions, and once when I was in an altered state of consciousness." Not only is such thinking philosophically bankrupt and undeserving of professional respect, it is dangerous. It closes debate before debate can get started: "I experience this for myself, baby, so shut up!" Only the converted can participate -- one at a time. Each "theoretician" inhabits a self-contained, monadic capsule from which he determines the authenticity of his own experience, and by extrapolation the truth of the world or the nature of reality, without logical or epistemological or informational criteria beyond his own subjectivity, without intermeshing social, communicational, observational materials, without rigorous discussion and dialogue -- in short, without any standards for judgement. The result: epistemological kick-the-can, a philosophical world in which every position is of equal value and therefore no position is of any particular value -- no matter how diligently, how skillfully it is presented. "Well, man, I think I see what you mean about the many ways an experience can be interpreted, but this was still real for me, OK?" This is among the very worst aspects of New Age thinking -- I mean from an ideational angle, and it attests psychoanalytically to the New Ager's absolute unwillingness to probe the meaning of his wish-fulfilling thoughts and sensations, the ones that restore him to the before-separation-world of symbiotic fusion and omnipotence. Any fool is free to jump in with his "story," and no one dare chllange its "personal" veracity. This is the tyranny of "doctrine" in reverse, the tyranny of "doctrine" from the other side: "I experienced this, so f____ off!" Every person, every egomaniacal guru, every mystic, every doper, every "beginning shaman," every borderline schizophrenic in every borderline cult becomes a shaper of reality, a pronouncer of the truth.

 

To his credit I have to admit that Vajrahridaya is not that bad, he does try to refer to a community of people that supposedly understand him, are understood by him, and share his experience about reality.

 

It's just that every discussione ends up either into "this is what I believe" or "this is what I have experienced", and on this he is not much better than the New Agers described here.

[Vajrahridaya]

='Pietro' date='

 

Vajrahridaya, if you are going to take just one thing out of my message I would like you to take this:

When you train yourself as a scientist (but also as an archeologists, and an anthropologist, I know this because my mediatition teacher is an an archeologist, and he corrects me when I fail on this), you train yourself to doubt, and ask unconfortable questions. In particular you eventually realise that it is not enough to experience something to prove its existance. Let me repeat it:

 

experiencing something does not prove its existance.

 

 

 

I've done that whole heartedly. That's why I don't believe any experience to be the absolute Truth, but merely a revelation of dependent origination.

 

I could enter into more details, but I would water down this message.

 

I've already understood this message and have done lots of practice of it. You have no idea. Which is fine.

 

 

so unless I believe what you believe I do not know the truth.

 

It all originates dependently. But if you think this is the only life and you've only verified that level of understanding and cannot see directly that this makes everything kind of more random and chaotic, and without reason. Than that's your prerogative.

 

But to me... yes. I believe what the Buddha believes as I've experienced the truth of that enough. We do create our own truth and our own world conditioned by our perception of experiences, conditioned by our experiences, add infinitum. Dependent origination.

 

 

SO we reached the point that you believe something because you have experienced. ANd you will not accept anybody else critcism, because they had not have this experience. And then since you believe the experience are the ultimate proof or reality, you consider that what you experienced is real.

 

I only consider experiences as sign posts and it's corroborated with reference to various current discoveries. My past life references has validity in this life. My experiences of other realms as well. It's really on and on and I only prove it to myself. You can criticize, that's fine, but you are doing so from a limited vantage point as you have no idea the depth of experiential reference I have for my words.

 

How is this different from what any evangelical Christian tells me, or what any person under the effect of an allucinogenic drug experiences?

 

It's corroborated by enlightened beings, those that have put lots of hard time towards meditation and contemplation without worldly distraction.

 

I find much of what Evangelical's say is based upon blind faith and the intensity of that faith originates the experience. Dependent origination. Many of my experiences are spoken about in every mystic branch of all spiritual traditions, it's just that I interpret them through the criticism of the Buddha, so I don't take them up as ultimate reality, just sign posts. As emptiness is not an experience it's the ultimate nature of experience or the quality of all experiences pointing to dependent origination, so it's an intuitive interpretation of experiencing of any sort. Still one can see directly the realms the Buddha speaks about, heaven realms, the 6 realms and the 31 planes and how they all link together and how the flow of all those states reflect meditation states from form to formless and from hell realms to heaven to formless realms.. how this is the macrocosm of my microcosm, but all inherently empty of intrinsic existence.

 

 

Or I might simply not believe that experience is the ultimate proof of reality.

 

There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism, merely co-dependent-arising/emptiness. There is no crutch to say, this is the final support of all things, like they say in Vedanta. It's just a selfless flow, but there are multiple dimensions of experience. We are not all merely physical. Either you believe that consciousness is a product of brain or that brain is the product of consciousness. If consciousness was merely the waste factor of reacting chemicals in the brain. That would pretty much be Nihilism in a nutshell.

 

Hallucinations are different from meditative experiences, very much so. Brain is a product of consciousnesses particles of desire coagulated into a vessel for 3 dimensional expression. This is the type of talk that utilizes imagination.

 

leaving aside the term "lift" which is charged (it means that we are unworthy, or generally less valid), you are saying something. You had some experiences, and those experiences are validated by a community of people.

 

So you see, also you do not really believe that experience by itself is the ultimate test.

 

No, I do not...

 

It's validated by the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha.

 

Hmm, "I believe the language of the Buddha" does not really mean much: You believe a statement in a language. You don't believe the language.

 

The language as in a metaphor for the meaning of the words within the paradigm of that interpretation of cosmos. Stop being so linear and literal. See what I mean, or my intentions in the words.

 

But your general statement sounds like: I will be with my friends Buddhas that understand me, and you will be with all the other people. Yeah, taht is fine, except that I know enlightened being with which I have no problems to discuss with.

 

I don't know what you will be with. I can just speak for myself.

 

Why is it that if we are discussing, and I fail to convince you, and you fail to convince me. My failure to be convinced is due to my attachment to my view, while your failure to be convinced is due to your enlightened experience, and you being part of an enlightened group of people?

 

Because for me that's true, from my perspective based upon the limits or freedom of my experiencings. What are you trying to convince me of? I'm just talking my truth and people are calling me a failure from their limited perspective, when other people have an entirely different experience of my words. Your perspective originates dependent upon your view, based upon your interpretations of your experience, and so on and so forth, and is not objective.

 

 

Great, invite her to join the discussion! I am always happy to discuss with collegues. I tend to be as blunt, direct and unforgiving in the academic field as I am here. But as a professor she is probably used to the academic dialectic so she will not leave any openings in her discourse. I am sure we all can learn a lot from this. If she is too busy to participate (most professors usually are), maybe she can still read our exchange and then comment to you.

 

 

LOL!! I don't feel inspired to do so. Nothing really exciting seems to be going on here between us.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[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.

 

Of course, I have been writing in a linear fashion. Therefore, you conclude that I am unable to think out of the proverbial box. I am not one dimensional and I use creative and intuitive processes everyday. As one who is very creative, I can use various aspects of myself in whatever way is required in the moment.

 

Please read this simplistic explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity and hopefully reach a real understanding of the theory.

 

BTW, have you seriously studied Einsteins' work? Quantum Mechanics?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

[Vajrahridaya]

Of course, I have been writing in a linear fashion. Therefore, you conclude that I am unable to think out of the proverbial box. I am not one dimensional and I use creative and intuitive processes everyday. As one who is very creative, I can use various aspects of myself in whatever way is required in the moment.

 

Please read this simplistic explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity and hopefully reach a real understanding of the theory.

 

BTW, have you seriously studied Einsteins' work? Quantum Mechanics?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

I read that... Some time ago in fact.

 

I haven't studied him in depth. I've only seen Down the Rabbit Hole and Further Down the Rabbit Hole which puts certain findings into perspective. Bohm is also a quantum physicist that I find has theories that give validity to the Buddhas findings of relativity basically dependent origination is a theory of relativity. It's pretty interesting how Einstein proves how subjective experience is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's just that every discussione ends up either into "this is what I believe" or "this is what I have experienced", and on this he is not much better than the New Agers described here.

 

Oh it's quite different from New Ager theory.

 

But your free to have your subjective ideas.

 

I just merely reveal the validity of the Buddhas teachings to me experientially. The Buddhas teachings you don't seem to have much knowledge of so you wouldn't understand how objective he was about experience.

[ralis]

I read that... Some time ago in fact.

 

I haven't studied him in depth. I've only seen Down the Rabbit Hole and Further Down the Rabbit Hole which puts certain findings into perspective. Bohm is also a quantum physicist that I find has theories that give validity to the Buddhas findings of relativity basically dependent origination is a theory of relativity. It's pretty interesting how Einstein proves how subjective experience is.

Oh it's quite different from New Ager theory.

 

But your free to have your subjective ideas.

 

You deny any absolute truth, with the exception of dependent origination. Yet, you state ad infinitum the isness of the Buddha's view. For your enlightenment, the use of is, denotes an absolute. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

 

ralis

Edited August 13, 2009 by ralis

[Marblehead]

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.

 

What a nice comment. Thank you. And I must say that you have been likewise kind. This really is important when we know that we will have differences where there is little room for compromise.

 

Okay. Back to my attack mode.

 

Be well!

[Li TaoRen]

People tend to lean too much on theory and philosophy. If as much time was spent practicing as reading, we would be able to explain things better, and probably agree more often. Both Buddhism and Taoism have much philosophy. Most of it is an attempt to convey the abstract, and various archetypal concepts. One is not correct, and at the base they are all the same- the same root- which is human evolution. Taoism and Buddhism talk about the same deities, different names. If I free myself from tradition, some colorfully named deity, might just be "Bob" to me.

Vajra, you are indeed knowledgeable, but I think are trying to reconcile Buddhism with Taoism with imbalanced knowledge. If you really know what is meant by emptiness in Buddhism, then you know what similar terms mean in Taoism. I don't think you need to rely on opinions.

 

To even understand Taoist writing requires intimate knowledge of Chinese culture, language and history. There is no fundamental difference between the two religions beyond dogma. Wipe it all away, and we have a few simple practical methods and virtue being very similar. Buddhist theory is far more organized and systematic. You seem to get very hung up on terms. When someone makes a reference to emptiness, you take a position based around the word, rather than the fact that someone was just trying to convey a concept. This is meant to be constructive, not that I know anything. There is much in Taoist teachings warning that too much focus on intellectual knowledge leads us down side roads.

We should all learn to focus more on what we experience and really"know" than on what we have memorized.

[Vajrahridaya]

You deny any absolute truth, with the exception of dependent origination. Yet, you state ad infinitum the isness of the Buddha's view. For your enlightenment, the use of is, denotes an absolute. You can't have it both ways.

ralis

 

It's the limits of language. Since dependently originated things are not inherently established in and of themselves and only relative, than neither is the explanation of dependent origination. D.O. is merely an explanation of how things work and not a thing in and of itself, so the concept of dependent origination originates dependently and is thus not inherently existent.

 

Your not familiar with Nagarjuna are you?

 

Anyway, since dependent origination is speaking of the co-dependency of mutually arising things and experiences, nothing really inherent exists on it's own, thus nothing truly arises, only seemingly so, as an apparition of co-emergents. Like looking into a solid object with a powerful microscope and finding movement of atomic particles that are themselves based on subtler and subtler particles and then finding more empty space than thing itself. Bohm's holographic universe comes to mind.

 

Thanks officer for making me unpack.

 

People tend to lean too much on theory and philosophy. If as much time was spent practicing as reading, we would be able to explain things better, and probably agree more often. Both Buddhism and Taoism have much philosophy. Most of it is an attempt to convey the abstract, and various archetypal concepts. One is not correct, and at the base they are all the same- the same root- which is human evolution. Taoism and Buddhism talk about the same deities, different names. If I free myself from tradition, some colorfully named deity, might just be "Bob" to me.

Vajra, you are indeed knowledgeable, but I think are trying to reconcile Buddhism with Taoism with imbalanced knowledge. If you really know what is meant by emptiness in Buddhism, then you know what similar terms mean in Taoism. I don't think you need to rely on opinions.

 

To even understand Taoist writing requires intimate knowledge of Chinese culture, language and history. There is no fundamental difference between the two religions beyond dogma. Wipe it all away, and we have a few simple practical methods and virtue being very similar. Buddhist theory is far more organized and systematic. You seem to get very hung up on terms. When someone makes a reference to emptiness, you take a position based around the word, rather than the fact that someone was just trying to convey a concept. This is meant to be constructive, not that I know anything. There is much in Taoist teachings warning that too much focus on intellectual knowledge leads us down side roads.

We should all learn to focus more on what we experience and really"know" than on what we have memorized.

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly what certain Taoist concepts mean experientially in order to possibly come to that realization that they do both indeed lead to the same realization. I don't know if that will happen in a board like this where different types of Taoism are represented and each type is quite different. Just that the description of A natural Law or Term such as "Tao" which is an experience that can be unpacked using an endless assortment of metaphors, it behooves one to come to an understanding of what the metaphors are meaning experientially by knowing the words that are being used, even if the words are faulty English translations of Chinese characters. My stepmom is Chinese and can speak Chinese but she can't read it. So, she's no help.

 

I don't know if Tao can equate with emptiness, it more equates I think with the term Dharma. Tao = The Way, and Dharma = Path or in certain contexts... Natural Law. Enlightenment in Taoism is considered, knowing the Tao beyond words, and in Buddhism a Buddha knows the Dharma beyond words.

 

My Taoist/Dzogchen friend Chris said that there is the concept of emptiness in Taoism, and it might be the term "Wu"?

 

What a nice comment. Thank you. And I must say that you have been likewise kind. This really is important when we know that we will have differences where there is little room for compromise.

 

Okay. Back to my attack mode.

 

Be well!

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

My Taoist/Dzogchen friend Chris said that there is the concept of emptiness in Taoism, and it might be the term "Wu"?

 

Yes. That is true. This would be the Mystery. It is empty of 'things' but yet it is full of 'potential' all things. It is out of wu (the Mystery) that yo (the Manifest) emerged.

 

Looking at it from a comical point of view, wu is the trash can where all the used up matter goes to be recycled.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes. That is true. This would be the Mystery. It is empty of 'things' but yet it is full of 'potential' all things. It is out of wu (the Mystery) that yo (the Manifest) emerged.

 

Looking at it from a comical point of view, wu is the trash can where all the used up matter goes to be recycled.

 

Be well!

 

Ok...

 

Hmmm...

[nac]

We pray to Buddhas and bodhisattvas...

... who are egoless entities only present within our minds. They can't grant us material favors either. Meh... some gods

[Vajrahridaya]

... who are egoless entities only present within our minds. They can't grant us material favors either. Meh... some gods

 

Vajrayana doesn't think that they are only in one's mind. They are realized aspects of our own potentiality for enlightenment. They are also ascended Masters who were at one point just like us walking the path of human Buddhism, or non-human versions of Buddhism and then ascended. I experience them as real as you and me, they just don't have physical bodies anymore, or they might again project a Nirmanakaya through the Sambhogakaya anchored in the Dharmakaya realization. Deepending on how open you are, they most certainly can grant wishes, as that's one of their powers.

[nac]

Vajrayana doesn't think that they are only in one's mind. They are realized aspects of our own potentiality for enlightenment. They are also ascended Masters who were at one point just like us walking the path of human Buddhism, or non-human versions of Buddhism and then ascended. I experience them as real as you and me, they just don't have physical bodies anymore, or they might again project a Nirmanakaya through the Sambhogakaya anchored in the Dharmakaya realization. Deepending on how open you are, they most certainly can grant wishes, as that's one of their powers.

Didn't the Dalai Lama say that unlike God, the Dharmakaya is only a quality or potential present in our minds? Hmm, must have been somebody else....

 

PS. I disagree that Buddha-nature is somehow already manifest in nature and can bestow material favors BTW. I hereby split off the nac school of Buddhism. Introductory membership fee: $5.00 only!

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

I disagree that Buddha-nature is somehow already manifest in nature and can bestow material favors BTW. I hereby split off the nac school of Buddhism. Introductory membership fee: $5.00 only!

 

Buddha is not equal to Buddha Nature. Buddha nature is the potentiality for you to become enlightened, inherent to every individual. a Buddha is an enlightened mindstream, completely identified with the Dharmakaya wisdom, manifesting Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya bodies to help all beings.

[Vajrahridaya]

Didn't the Dalai Lama say that unlike God, the Dharmakaya is only a quality or potential present in our minds? Hmm, must have been somebody else....

 

You misunderstand what he means by that. The Dharmakaya is an individual realization, yes. But that doesn't make it any less conventionally real for everyone that realizes it. A Nirmanakaya can indeed give you a gift as easily as your mother or father could. So, a living version of the 3 kayas, or even a dead version of the 2 upper kayas can and do offer blessings and grant gifts accessible depending upon the seekers accumulative merits.

PS. I disagree that Buddha-nature is somehow already manifest in nature and can bestow material favors BTW. I hereby split off the nac school of Buddhism. Introductory membership fee: $5.00 only!

 

The 3 kayas is not the same as potentiality to realize them. As one has realized them as Buddhahood it's not potentiality anymore. A person who has realized the 3 Kayas is a Buddha, and once the Nirmanakaya dies away, the Sambhogakaya of that Buddha still acts on in a highly ascended way and comes to a person through visions to grant blessings if that seeker has access to that level of pure vision, which that person would have to be a high level Bodhisattva to do so according to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. To have a vision of someone who attained the Jalus doesn't take as much merit because that's part of the reason why a Buddha would realize the Jalus in order to extend the capacity to reach people easier through a Nirmanakaya that has merely dissolved into a dimension that is right next to our current one.

 

Introductory membership fee: $5.00 only!

 

Not a bad price at all! You must have bodhichitta!

Edited August 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

I'm sure even Christians would agree that one's understanding of God isn't actually God himself. Oh well, then I'm just staying with Chan/Zen/Seon, I guess. I don't care much for doctrine anyway...

[Sunya]

nac, mindstreams always remain individual. when we say nobody gets enlightened that means there is no longer a sense of I, or ego, but that doesn't mean that the mindstream does not exist individually. cessation as spoken about in the pali suttas means cessation of ignorance, cessation of the belief in an I, not disappearance entirely. so Buddhas still exist individually and act. there is no becoming one with the universe. union in Buddhism only goes as far as complete access to wisdom not merging with the universe and no longer existing individually

 

I'm sure even Christians would agree that one's understanding of God isn't actually God himself. Oh well, then I'm just staying with Chan/Zen/Seon, I guess. I don't care much for doctrine anyway...

 

lol you can't get away from doctrine. even Zen emphasizes study, especially Heart Sutra. you need proper view or you get lost.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm sure even Christians would agree that one's understanding of God isn't actually God himself. Oh well, then I'm just staying with Chan/Zen/Seon, I guess. I don't care much for doctrine anyway...

 

Zen has triple kaya too. As all Mahayana does have that elaboration. In Zen ascended masters are real, they just don't have Nirmanakaya anymore.

 

Well, the lovely thing about Buddhism is that the doctrines arise from the wisdom mind of Buddhas and are expressions of direct experiencing of Buddhas, thus the clarity is unparalled. So in Buddhism, Buddhahood is more closely linked to the doctrines than other traditions where realization is equated with a state of beyond thought, which is not so in Buddhism, where Buddhahood is equated with a completely integrated intuition of emptiness with all dimensions of experiencing, thinking, expressing, the infinite things.

[nac]

But Zen also has the doctrine of no doctrine. If I simply accepted someone else's version of "how things are", I'd be flouting Zen doctrine. Why do Zen masters tell us to kill the Buddha and the patriarchs if we saw them? They have no independent existence apart from our minds. Would you kill Manjushri if you saw him? I'm looking forward to it.

 

lol you can't get away from doctrine.

Oh yes I can. Watch me!

[Sunya]

But Zen also has the doctrine of no doctrine. If I simply accepted someone else's version of "how things are", I'd be flouting Zen doctrine. Why do Zen masters tell us to kill the Buddha and the patriarchs if we saw them? They have no independent existence apart from our minds. Would you kill Manjushri if you saw him? I'm looking forward to it.

Oh yes I can. Watch me!

 

you misunderstand Zen. I suggest you find a good teacher.

 

you can use this site to find a center in your area

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

Edited August 14, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

No, you misunderstand me. I don't want to "understand Zen". I want to find the truth on my own, even if it takes me a billion years.

[Vajrahridaya]

But Zen also has the doctrine of no doctrine. If I simply accepted someone else's version of "how things are", I'd be flouting Zen doctrine. Why do Zen masters tell us to kill the Buddha and the patriarchs if we saw them? They have no independent existence apart from our minds. Would you kill Manjushri if you saw him? I'm looking forward to it.

 

Yes, but that realization of doctrine of no doctrine is dependent upon realizing the meaning of doctrine.

 

So, the realization of transcendence is merely understanding through direct intuitive experience, the eminence of emptiness.

 

No, you misunderstand me. I don't want to "understand Zen". I want to find the truth on my own, even if it takes me a billion years.

 

So you inherently exist all alone as a self pointing self to no-self without any influence from outside forces? You're an Island?

[nac]

Yes, but that realization of doctrine of no doctrine is dependent upon realizing the meaning of doctrine.

 

So, the realization of transcendence is merely understanding through direct intuitive experience, the eminence of emptiness.

You know, I understand the position of Buddhist doctrine. I just happen to disagree with it in places.

 

So you inherently exist all alone as a self pointing self to no-self without any influence from outside forces? You're an Island?

Sorry, I was talking to mikaelz in a different way.

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

You know, I understand the position of Buddhist doctrine. I just happen to disagree with it.

 

So you only have intellectual understanding. Well, this is fine. Not everyone is ready for a teacher and they want to take the long way, that's really fine. I wish you blessings on your journey!