Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 There is no definable source. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted August 20, 2009 It signifies exactly what I wrote. If this world that you see is an ever joyful and playful world, people might disagree. But it isn't. Furthermore, "you" can't see the Self as everything. Everything already IS the Self. You can't "see" anything because you are already it. You have no choice but to be it even in this very state of whatever feelings or thoughts that may arise in you. All meditative states you go through don't bring you closer to the Self, because every living moment is its manifestation. You can't get close to that which you already are. Why do "I" meditate? Hmm...so that I can get off Krishna's chariot. Clever, eh? silly child! you don't know what you are saying. It is not getting "closer" to the Self. It is dropping the Non-Self. BTW, how was the ride on Krishna's Chariot? Did you have you balls in your mouth the entire time? ;D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 It is dropping the Non-Self. Yea!!!!! I get to agree with Dwai!!!!! (Please don't say anything - we are good at the moment.) Hehehe. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) There is no definable source. Be well! That is true..."Yea...I get to agree with Marblehead!" That lacked enthusiasm: !!!YEAAAAA!!!!!!! I get to agree with Marblehead!!!!!! Edited August 20, 2009 by dwai Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 That is true..."Yea...I get to agree with Marblehead!" That lacked enthusiasm: !!!YEAAAAA!!!!!!! I get to agree with Marblehead!!!!!! Thanks for the laughs - thanks for the understandings. Be Well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted August 20, 2009 silly child! you don't know what you are saying. It is not getting "closer" to the Self. It is dropping the Non-Self. BTW, how was the ride on Krishna's Chariot? Did you have you balls in your mouth the entire time? ;D There is no such thing as a non-self! So how can you drop anything???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 There is no such thing as a non-self! So how can you drop anything???? Hi Lucky, I know Dwai and you are looking at this from different perspectives. Actually, you both are right. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fruitzilla Posted August 20, 2009 The immaterial consciousness thought the material into it's vessel... It's quite simple. Like electricity and wires... We produce electricity but are also products of it. interdependent origination. Hehe, and so we keep going around and around. I'm not a mahayana buddhist ( of the non-Zen kind ), so I don't agree with your explanation. You're not of my ilk, so you won't agree with my interpretation. By the way , does the electricity appropriate a new wire after the wire disintegrates? I don't think we're anywhere near the same wavelength alas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) In conclusion, If you like platonic idealism or "spirituality" better: go with Advaita/Taoism/... If you like modern monistic philosophies like materialism or hardcore skeptical atheism (of the Dawkinsian kind) better: go with Mahayana/Zen/... Fin. This is the only major difference in perspectives that I've been able to detect. The only thing which can cause problems beyond this is that Taoism is pushing the boundaries of idealism, while Tibetan Buddhism is pushing the limits of materialism, but that's only to be expected in any form of rigid, dualistic separation. Am I wrong? Edited August 20, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fruitzilla Posted August 20, 2009 In conclusion, If you like platonic idealism or "spirituality" better: go with Advaita/Taoism/... If you like modern monistic philosophies like materialism or hardcore skeptical atheism (of the Dawkinsian kind) better: go with Mahayana/Zen/... Fin. This is the only major difference in perspectives that I've been able to detect. The only thing which can cause problems beyond this is that Taoism is pushing the boundaries of idealism, while Tibetan Buddhism is pushing the limits of materialism, but that's only to be expected in any form of rigid, dualistic separation. Am I wrong? Probably If you read the Chang Tzu (the only Taoist book I really read) , you'll see lots of skepticism (although much softer than the Dawkins kind) and not much idealism. But I do think we can conclude that not everyone is in need of the same cure. Reptillian heaven is mamallian hell! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) If you read the Chang Tzu (the only Taoist book I really read) , you'll see lots of skepticism (although much softer than the Dawkins kind) and not much idealism. It's still skeptical idealism, a school of philosophy. (although less of it than usual) I'm not saying you can't be a skeptical Taoist or Advaitin! Visit Dawkins' Philosophy subforum and you'll see what I mean. Buddhism has idealism too, but comparatively less than any other eastern tradition I've seen. It's nearly absent in Zen from the philosophical perspective, but there's lots of it from the practical standpoint. Edited August 20, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 ... but that's only to be expected in any form of rigid, dualistic separation. Am I wrong? I agree. Any time we make distinction between this and that we have entered the world of duality. It is extremely difficult to speak without speaking from the perspective of duality. That is why it is often said that the Taoist Sage rarely speaks. (Have y'all noticed that I'm not there yet?) Be well! Probably If you read the Chang Tzu (the only Taoist book I really read) , you'll see lots of skepticism (although much softer than the Dawkins kind) and not much idealism. But I do think we can conclude that not everyone is in need of the same cure. Reptillian heaven is mamallian hell! Yep. The hard core idealism is found mostly in the Tao Te Ching. Chuang Tzu was a skeptic, especially when it came to government. On heaven and hell: the cat's heaven is the mouse's hell. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Yep. The hard core idealism is found mostly in the Tao Te Ching. Chuang Tzu was a skeptic, especially when it came to government. Oh for heaven's sake, I haven't said you can't be a skeptical Taoist or Advaitin! Idealists make great skeptics and rationalists, but idealism is still idealism. Edited August 20, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 ... but idealism is still idealism. Hey! I'm not disagreeing with you. Hehehe. But like I said in the other thread, idealism is worth reaching for if it is for the good. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I mean as a philosophical grounding. There's nothing wrong with templates. The Buddhas are "empty" ideals. PS. (philosophical grounding) ... where you're asserting action/effects by forces other than mundane phenomena, or deriving mundane phenomena from something supra-mundane. Or even choosing to look at things that way. That's plain idealism whichever way you look at it, whether it's infused with it's "creations" or external to it. Utterly incompatible with Dawkins-ite philosophy. Zen on the other hand, (along with most schools of Buddhism) takes the position of "nothing external" or "nothing else". Anyway, got to go. cya later! Edited August 20, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Hi Lucky, I know Dwai and you are looking at this from different perspectives. Actually, you both are right. Be well! Well, He has to see how it applies to practical everyday life. NIHLIST! Edited August 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 PS. (philosophical grounding) ... Interesting. You keep that up and you nay just end up teaching this old dog some ner tricks. (Well, words, at least.) I have always just called that "doing what needs to be done." Be well! Well, He has to see how it applies to practical everyday life. NIHLIST! Yes, I know. It is a challenge to get these mystics to come back to reality once they have seen La La Land. But as we Taoists say "You can always come back because you can never unattach from Tao. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 Interesting. You keep that up and you nay just end up teaching this old dog some ner tricks. (Well, words, at least.) I have always just called that "doing what needs to be done." Be well! That's great! Sorry for the terrible wording. Taoist philosophy however, is not only idealistic, it's actually animistic: all things are infused with the life spirit, etc... Zen rejects this concept and hence it's not idealistic in this respect. I'm not using the word "idealism" as an insult or anything, but as recognition of a philosophical stance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2009 That's great! Sorry for the terrible wording. Taoist philosophy however, is not only idealistic, it's actually animistic: all things are infused with the life spirit, etc... Zen rejects this concept and hence it's not idealistic in this respect. I'm not using the word "idealism" as an insult or anything, but as recognition of a philosophical stance. Yes, this wording is much better. (I noticed my typoes above. Hehehe.) Yes, animistic, but not in as we assign any greater importance than we do to any other of Tao's creation (Don't misunderstand the word 'creation', okay?). Yes, all life has its personal Chi. (Virtue could replace the word Chi but I like to use virtue sparingly because the word, in philosophical discussions, often creates confusion.) Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 21, 2009 There is no definable source. Be well! But for your guys there is a mysterious source. The Tao... Hehe, and so we keep going around and around. I'm not a mahayana buddhist ( of the non-Zen kind ), so I don't agree with your explanation. You're not of my ilk, so you won't agree with my interpretation. By the way , does the electricity appropriate a new wire after the wire disintegrates? I don't think we're anywhere near the same wavelength alas. It can if conditions are appropriate as such, otherwise it goes into a potentiality, into the air... water... recycling... to be reused again as the conditions arise to support it's conjunction through wiring. But electricity was just a metaphor and is not nearly as complex as consciousness. So, no we are not of the same ilk. Yes, you have questions, I have answers, but you won't agree with my answers, so you'll keep asking the questions until your ready to hear the answers. Which can take eon's and eon's and eon's. Alas.... Go ahead... tell me how egotistical I am.... It's interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustARandomPanda Posted August 21, 2009 Cognito ergo sum- Decarte coined that one I think... But...there would be a self without the body in my experience... several here have had out of body experiences that deny the body/mind construct as non- dispersable... also, too much thinking can do real harm in some folks' minds....let go of all this banter and LIVE!!! just go out side and do somethiong vigorous and healthy- love to all-Pat Just thought I'd toss this in as I've always loved philosophy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fruitzilla Posted August 21, 2009 Go ahead... tell me how egotistical I am.... It's interesting. I won't, I've had enough. Goodbye Vajra, have a good trip Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Goodbye Vajra, have a good trip Thanks... Love your name by the way... thought you should know now that I always thought so. Godzilla, except made of fruit... Edited August 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Sorry, I don't speak English very well, but I can compose it when I'm not in a hurry and addled by cold medicines. Yes, animistic, but not in as we assign any greater importance than we do to any other of Tao's creation (Don't misunderstand the word 'creation', okay?). Yes, all life has its personal Chi. (Virtue could replace the word Chi but I like to use virtue sparingly because the word, in philosophical discussions, often creates confusion.) I suppose in Zen "virtue" would be intention, skillful action, etc. and non-sentient objects wouldn't have any of this. Do non-living objects have Chi? I don't know, the idea (or view) of any supramundane substance, force or quality suffusing and "creating" (or serving as a substratum for) all matter and energy in the known (& directly measurable) universe seems irredeemably idealistic to me. (especially if it's, eg, providing equal oppurtunities to all) Visit Dawkins' Philosophy and Formal Debate subforums for clarification by philosophy professors and the like... BTW you don't believe the blue haze around galaxies theory that's been going around this forum, right? Edited August 21, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 21, 2009 Nac, Blue haze? If your talking about seeing into the blue space of infinite... you'd have to meditate deeply for a long time to get there... Anyway, The supermundane substance is infinite consciousness' co-creating... all inherently empty of any self substance, and also co-dependently originated. Think 12 links simultaneously, throughout endless time... rounding and rounding through infinite beings. You'd have to meditate deeply for a long time, not just talk some book stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
