What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

You are right...but the merging is used in the relative sense...where there is an illusory difference between you and Tao. The merging in the absolute sense is simply a realization that you are Tao.

 

Free Will is a mechanism by which Karma can be actuated. Without free-will, Karma won't work. Without Karma, the relative world cannot be maintained.

 

Let me give an example:

 

The Taoist tries to harmonize with Nature/Tao so that his/her actions are in conformity with Tao.

The reason the Taoist tries to harmonize with Tao, is because he/she wants to minimize the impact his/her action has on his/her Karma. The farther one's action goes against the Tao, the more Karmic debt is accumulated.

 

Karma...so who is this agent that chooses? Where do our choices come from except that it is all a doing of this One and All thing.?

 

How does one realize anything when one is already an aspect of the One?

 

How can one harmonize with the Tao when it is already all there is. Actions go against it? Oh but then that would mean there is this "you" and there is this "Tao." But that would be dualistic!!

 

Even ignorance and separation is the Tao. No better and no worse than "merging" of any kind.

 

So there is absolutely no point to doing anything. Or not doing anything. Doing is done by no one. The Self just is...

 

All the suffering you see around you is inevitable. There is no hope, no purpose, and absolutely no salvation. .

 

This is your belief? How do you like the sound of it? Do you still like Krishna driving you around in circles showing you all kinds of magic tricks?? .

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Karma...so who is this agent that chooses? Where do our choices come from except that it is all a doing of this One and All thing.?

 

How does one realize anything when one is already an aspect of the One?

 

How can one harmonize with the Tao when it is already all there is. Actions go against it? Oh but then that would mean there is this "you" and there is this "Tao." But that would be dualistic!!

 

Even ignorance and separation is the Tao. No better and no worse than "merging" of any kind.

 

So there is absolutely no point to doing anything. Or not doing anything. Doing is done by no one. The Self just is...

 

All the suffering you see around you is inevitable. There is no hope, no purpose, and absolutely no salvation. .

 

This is your belief? How do you like the sound of it? Do you still like Krishna driving you around in circles showing you all kinds of magic tricks?? .

 

But there is no denying the Duality that we see all around. Your confusion is natural because you don't understand the two-level model of Reality, as posited by Vedanta as well as Buddhism.

 

The Lower level of Reality is real and dualistic. But it is only real within the constraints of the the lower level.

When contrasted with Absolute Reality (the higher level) it is illusory, since at the higher level, the differences don't exist.

 

It is like how Newtonian Mechanics are real in the Classical sense but fall apart in the realm of Quantum Mechanics (perhaps a poor analogy, but something materialistic enough that you can wrap your brain around it).

 

Also, actually there IS a Krishna driving us around in our chariots. But not a flesh-and-blood Krishna. The Krishna that is driving us around and opening our eyes to things beyond what the five sense organs can show us (can seem magical to some) is our Consciousness...the Self that is inherent in all Sentient Beings

Edited August 21, 2009 by dwai

[chicultivation]

Karma...so who is this agent that chooses? Where do our choices come from except that it is all a doing of this One and All thing.?

 

How does one realize anything when one is already an aspect of the One?

 

How can one harmonize with the Tao when it is already all there is. Actions go against it? Oh but then that would mean there is this "you" and there is this "Tao." But that would be dualistic!!

 

Even ignorance and separation is the Tao. No better and no worse than "merging" of any kind.

 

So there is absolutely no point to doing anything. Or not doing anything. Doing is done by no one. The Self just is...

 

All the suffering you see around you is inevitable. There is no hope, no purpose, and absolutely no salvation. .

 

This is your belief? How do you like the sound of it? Do you still like Krishna driving you around in circles showing you all kinds of magic tricks?? .

 

Why are you so offended and disrespectful? Please disagree but respectfully. Are all Buddhists like the ones on this forum, trying to tell others you are wrong, your beliefs are magical etc.? The only Buddhist I ever read was Nhat Hanh and was really interested in Buddhism from what he wrote. It seems you cannot co-exist or even respectfully disagree with anyone or even amongst yourselves. So, Buddhism is not that different from any other religion, is it?

Edited August 21, 2009 by chicultivation

[Fruitzilla]

Why are you so offended and disrespectful? Please disagree but respectfully. Are all Buddhists like the ones on this forum, trying to tell others you are wrong, your beliefs are magical etc.? The only Buddhist I ever read was Nhat Hanh and was really interested in Buddhism from what he wrote. It seems you cannot co-exist or even respectfully disagree with anyone or even amongst yourselves. So, Buddhism is not that different from any other religion, is it?

 

Actually, what I found is that people aren't that different from other people. Religion makes less difference than usually assumed.

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

Why would accepting something mysterious be considered reification?

 

I don't think I can say that accepting something mysterious is reification. Many of the processes in nature are mysterious to me but I don't think I would try to reify the processes. I think that would be getting close to animistic religion practices.

 

And what is wrong with reification?

 

This is where the problem lies. If you and I are to discuss anything using the word 'reification' I think it is of the utmost importance that we agree on a definition of the word. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the concept of 'creating our own reality'. I have, in fact, done this myself. Thing is though, it is only my reality and it will never be totally valid for anyone else.

 

It is just like all the philosophies and religions of the world. One may be the best for one person but it would be the worst for someone else.

 

You see, if I were capable of explaining every aspect of my belief system to another person even before I got finished they would probably step back and say, "Your world is full of delusion." And I would have to agree.

 

Different strokes for different people and all that...

 

Totally agree. This is a good time for me to say something I normally end up saying when I am discussing philosophy and religion. If your belief system help you through your life without requiring you to intentionally do harm to others then I suggest that it is good for you. I don't care what it is. I enjoy discoursing with Buddhists because we have so much in common. Yes, there are some differences and we always find a way to point them out so that we can feel our way is better than the other way.

 

But, whatever floats your boat.

 

Taoism in it's highest level is about Merging with Tao, a non-dual idealism.

 

Absolutely. But it has nothing to do with denying the importance of the Manifest.

 

Internal Taoist alchemy specifically deals with this topic. Just the same as Tantric traditions do in Indic traditions. Literally the same thing...only names are different that's all (this is my humble opinion of course).

 

Hey! It is great that we have opinions. This shows that we have at least thought about the subject and we have decided to hold to the thoughts that feel right in our mind (conscious) and soul (subconscious).

 

I think that the most important thing about any philosophy or religion is that it should present to a person a way to find meaning in this physical reality life we have to live. If it helps you and harms none other then it is good in my opinion.

 

But I have seen some religions and philosophies that have been very harmful to non-believers and I think that this is not the way.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

 

 

I don't think I can say that accepting something mysterious is reification. Many of the processes in nature are mysterious to me but I don't think I would try to reify the processes. I think that would be getting close to animistic religion practices.

This is where the problem lies. If you and I are to discuss anything using the word 'reification' I think it is of the utmost importance that we agree on a definition of the word. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the concept of 'creating our own reality'. I have, in fact, done this myself. Thing is though, it is only my reality and it will never be totally valid for anyone else.

 

It is just like all the philosophies and religions of the world. One may be the best for one person but it would be the worst for someone else.

 

You see, if I were capable of explaining every aspect of my belief system to another person even before I got finished they would probably step back and say, "Your world is full of delusion." And I would have to agree.

Totally agree. This is a good time for me to say something I normally end up saying when I am discussing philosophy and religion. If your belief system help you through your life without requiring you to intentionally do harm to others then I suggest that it is good for you. I don't care what it is. I enjoy discoursing with Buddhists because we have so much in common. Yes, there are some differences and we always find a way to point them out so that we can feel our way is better than the other way.

 

But, whatever floats your boat.

Absolutely. But it has nothing to do with denying the importance of the Manifest.

 

The Manifest is as important the Mysterious. Only a fool or a lunatic will deny the reality that he/she exists in. But when someone has access to the mysterious...

 

Hey! It is great that we have opinions. This shows that we have at least thought about the subject and we have decided to hold to the thoughts that feel right in our mind (conscious) and soul (subconscious).

 

I think that the most important thing about any philosophy or religion is that it should present to a person a way to find meaning in this physical reality life we have to live. If it helps you and harms none other then it is good in my opinion.

 

But I have seen some religions and philosophies that have been very harmful to non-believers and I think that this is not the way.

 

Be well!

 

Well said. I do agree that some religions and philosophies have been harmful to non-believers. That's why when a Buddhist comes up to me and says "Buddhism is the Best and The Only way", I feel the necessity to correct them. Since exclusivism is a disease that separates. Exclusivism makes up false differences between "the Haves" and the "Have-nots", "the Right" and "the WRONG", "the in" and "the out".

 

Moreover, the thing about categorical frameworks is that they have limited access to the mysterious (if at all any). Since they deal with the manifestation(s) of the Mysterious.

So, based on the rules engineered (of categorization), the results will vary. Like I had pointed out to someone earlier, a Man's reality is different from that of Fish, or a Bird. That is because our categorical frameworks differ.

 

If tomorrow I were to become a dog or a tiger or a cat or a crow, I would perceive things differently and categorize them differently. Does that mean that the Man's view is superior to that of the dog's? Or does that mean that the two views are merely different. That was a result of having different apparatuses of cognition and perception.

 

Now consider man himself. Two men from two different socio-cultural backgrounds will have different rules based on which they create their reality. Someone had brought up the point about the "modern" way being superior to that of a "tibetan Yak Herder's from 200 years back". I would contend that they are simply two different views, based on different categorical frameworks. Neither is better than the other...they are simply different (at a certain level however, they can be different...but that depends on needs vs wants, etc).

 

Same thing with Religion. Every religion is based off a different categorical framework. In general we will find 3 major categories. The Abrahamic (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), The Dharmic (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism) and the Native (Native American, Native African, etc). They are variations of three primarily different ways of cognition-perception. None are better or worse at one level. They will only take the seeker as far as the framework allows. Some are closer to Mystery than others. Some rely on personal experience, while others rely on heresay and dogma. Those that are experiential tend to be closer to Mystery. Those that don't are closed from mystery.

 

Also, there is the difference in approach. Some of us like to see the commonalities (unless otherwise convinced that the differences are greater than the similarities) in a comparison. While others like to separate entities in a comparison. My contention is that one will see the similarities only after having inspected the differences (because otherwise the inquiry might not progress to the "similarities" phase). Usually the Commonalities phase follows the "differences" phase.

Edited August 21, 2009 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

But there is no denying the Duality that we see all around. Your confusion is natural because you don't understand the two-level model of Reality, as posited by Vedanta as well as Buddhism.

 

The Lower level of Reality is real and dualistic. But it is only real within the constraints of the the lower level.

When contrasted with Absolute Reality (the higher level) it is illusory, since at the higher level, the differences don't exist.

 

It is like how Newtonian Mechanics are real in the Classical sense but fall apart in the realm of Quantum Mechanics (perhaps a poor analogy, but something materialistic enough that you can wrap your brain around it).

 

Also, actually there IS a Krishna driving us around in our chariots. But not a flesh-and-blood Krishna. The Krishna that is driving us around and opening our eyes to things beyond what the five sense organs can show us (can seem magical to some) is our Consciousness...the Self that is inherent in all Sentient Beings

 

AH HA! It is illusory!

 

AND WHY IS THIS SO??

 

You're right I am confused!

 

Illusion...why is there this illusion when there is a higher reality that is so real and wonderful? But then again, isn't the lower reality also a part of a higher reality??? The lower "reality" MUST BE a part of an absolute reality. Thus you call one an illusion and other THE reality.

 

And so what creates and drives this "lower" reality? Ignorance? Ignorance of the True Self right? But who can ever be ignorant when there is no one in the first place?

 

Again, answer me!

 

HOW CAN I BECOME ENLIGHTENED WHEN ALL HAPPENS ACCORDING TO THE SELF?? WHEN ALL IS ALREADY THE SELF? WHERE IS THIS "I" TO DO ANYTHING? "I" COULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT THIS ILLUSION ABOUT BECAUSE THE ILLUSION IS BASED ON THE TRUE REALITY, SO HOW CAN "I" RID OF IT OR STOP IT FROM BEGINNING AGAIN?

 

One day I will become enlightened, the next day I won't, then after that I will be evil, but then there wouldn't be an "I" would it...because it is just the absolute reality appearing as illusion only to get sucked into its "truth."

 

An abject state of victory and defeat as God wills.

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

Hehehe. I started to respond to your post and say that we are at a point of agreement but noticed that you had added to your initial post so I ahd to go back and read the rest just to make sure I wasn't going to be telling a lie.

 

Yes, we are still in agreement. And it is true that I prefer discussing similarities it is normally because of one of the differences that a good discussion really begins.

 

So, regardless of what the Buddhists here think of me I really do respect their beleifs. I just don't think it is realistic for them to think that I am going to agree with and accept every aspect of their belief system. But on the other hand, I wouldn't expect them to accept every aspect of my belief system.

 

Hey! Neat how we brought the two threads together into this one, isn't it?

 

Be well!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why are you so offended and disrespectful? Please disagree but respectfully. Are all Buddhists like the ones on this forum, trying to tell others you are wrong, your beliefs are magical etc.? The only Buddhist I ever read was Nhat Hanh and was really interested in Buddhism from what he wrote. It seems you cannot co-exist or even respectfully disagree with anyone or even amongst yourselves. So, Buddhism is not that different from any other religion, is it?

 

I'm sorry about the Krishna bit. I do apologize. I respect all religions and everyone who struggles for higher truths. .

 

I never said Dwai was wrong or that I was right. Right now I am just asking questions in regards to his beliefs.

 

Inquiry is necessary to get around conditioning. I beat myself up with questions everyday!

[dwai]

AH HA! It is illusory!

 

AND WHY IS THIS SO??

 

You're right I am confused!

 

Illusion...why is there this illusion when there is a higher reality that is so real and wonderful? But then again, isn't the lower reality also a part of a higher reality??? The lower "reality" MUST BE a part of an absolute reality. Thus you call one an illusion and other THE reality.

 

And so what creates and drives this "lower" reality? Ignorance? Ignorance of the True Self right? But who can ever be ignorant when there is no one in the first place?

 

I could ask the same question about Dependent Origination. Who is ignorant if there is no Self?

Let me give an analogy:

 

Let's say you develop amnesia suddenly. Do you stop being You? Don't you forget your "identity"?

 

My friend gave me a great analogy once:

 

He said he considers Tao/Brahman to be like a bowl of Soup. The Soup is boiling and there are bubbles that rise to the surface and explode. If Tao is the Bowl of Soup, the Bubbles of Soup are like Samsarins who rise to the surface and think that they are separate from Tao. But once they explode they go back into the soup again".

 

I like this analogy...maybe the Soup needs to stay hot. So Karma, Freewill. Delusion is simply a by-product of this "boiling".

 

Or consider Brahman/Tao to be an Ocean and Samsara as it's waves. As the waves rise, they feel like they have their own existence (and in a relative sense they do). But they end up going back into the Ocean and there is no difference between the Ocean and the waves any longer.

 

Why does it happen (differentiation from Brahman/Tao ie)? It's just the way it is.

 

Again, answer me!

 

HOW CAN I BECOME ENLIGHTENED WHEN ALL HAPPENS ACCORDING TO THE SELF?? WHEN ALL IS ALREADY THE SELF? WHERE IS THIS "I" TO DO ANYTHING? "I" COULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT THIS ILLUSION ABOUT BECAUSE THE ILLUSION IS BASED ON THE TRUE REALITY, SO HOW CAN "I" RID OF IT OR STOP IT FROM BEGINNING AGAIN?

 

One day I will become enlightened, the next day I won't, then after that I will be evil, but then there wouldn't be an "I" would it...because it is just the absolute reality appearing as illusion only to get sucked into its "truth."

 

An abject state of victory and defeat as God wills.

 

From the perspective of the Absolute, the Relative is well...the Absolute. That is enlightenment...when the "sentient being that is Lucky" realizes that he is the Absolute. As long as Lucky remains encased in his physical existence (of relative reality), he will remain that way physically, but his consciousness will be grounded in the absolute. That state is called that of a "Sthita-Prajna" (one who is established in a spontaneously intuitive state of consciousness).

[Lucky7Strikes]

I could ask the same question about Dependent Origination. Who is ignorant if there is no Self?

Let me give an analogy:

 

Let's say you develop amnesia suddenly. Do you stop being You? Don't you forget your "identity"?

 

I am my consciousness/intent/potential/experience/reality. But right now, what I believe is irrelevant. I want to know to the full extent what you believe.

 

My friend gave me a great analogy once:

 

He said he considers Tao/Brahman to be like a bowl of Soup. The Soup is boiling and there are bubbles that rise to the surface and explode. If Tao is the Bowl of Soup, the Bubbles of Soup are like Samsarins who rise to the surface and think that they are separate from Tao. But once they explode they go back into the soup again".

 

I like this analogy...maybe the Soup needs to stay hot. So Karma, Freewill. Delusion is simply a by-product of this "boiling".

 

Ok. So don't say that the nature of Self is joy. It is one fluctuating thing that creates and destroys for no reason. Look around the world and tell me otherwise.

 

Or consider Brahman/Tao to be an Ocean and Samsara as it's waves. As the waves rise, they feel like they have their own existence (and in a relative sense they do). But they end up going back into the Ocean and there is no difference between the Ocean and the waves any longer.

 

Only for the waves to rise again endlessly. A hopeless cycle.

 

Why does it happen (differentiation from Brahman/Tao ie)? It's just the way it is.

Are you sure? And if this is the Truth, the end of the road of the Brahman realization, I'd rather not stop there. I refuse to stop at this understanding. It is defeating, and personally, tragic.

 

From the perspective of the Absolute, the Relative is well...the Absolute. That is enlightenment...when the "sentient being that is Lucky" realizes that he is the Absolute. As long as Lucky remains encased in his physical existence (of relative reality), he will remain that way physically, but his consciousness will be grounded in the absolute. That state is called that of a "Sthita-Prajna" (one who is established in a spontaneously intuitive state of consciousness).

 

LUCKY!! HAHAHAHAHA. I really did laugh out loud there. I know you didn't mean it that way, but yes! Enlightenment is just for those who are lucky!! Those whose existence was meant to re merge into the blissful Self as the Self deemed them (or itself) to be.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

I am my consciousness/intent/potential/experience/reality. But right now, what I believe is irrelevant. I want to know to the full extent what you believe.

Ok. So don't say that the nature of Self is joy. It is one fluctuating thing that creates and destroys for no reason. Look around the world and tell me otherwise.

Only for the waves to rise again endlessly. A hopeless cycle.

 

Indeed...

 

Experiencing even peeks of Non-Duality itself will balance you, make you tranquil and enhance your joy. Haven't you looked upon everything around you after a good Chi-cultivation session or meditation or Yoga and rejoiced them?

 

For me, everything takes on a different feel. It is hard to describe, except that it brings joy.

 

Are you sure? And if this is the Truth, the end of the road of the Brahman realization, I'd rather not stop there. I refuse to stop at this understanding. It is defeating, and personally, tragic.

LUCKY!! HAHAHAHAHA. I really did laugh out loud there. I know you didn't mean it that way, but yes! Enlightenment is just for those who are lucky!! Those whose existence was meant to re merge into the blissful Self as the Self deemed them (or itself) to be.

 

That is your prerogative. But why do you think it is defeating and personally tragic? I haven't tried to stop anyone from doing anything.

 

All I'm saying is that after a certain point, the experience becomes completely free of all baggage, philosophical, religious, personal, etc. All that remains is experiential knowledge. All Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta all are tools that take you to that same point, beyond which percepts and concepts don't have any value. Holding on the Theory of Dependent Origination is not going to do you any good any more than holding onto the theory of The Self. There is only Pure Subject there (in that state)...it is, simply (Thusness?)

 

The Tao cannot be named (ie described). If it can be named it is not the real Tao.

Edited August 22, 2009 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

Indeed...

 

Experiencing even peeks of Non-Duality itself will balance you, make you tranquil and enhance your joy. Haven't you looked upon everything around you after a good Chi-cultivation session or meditation or Yoga and rejoiced them?

 

I don't think this is relevant. I rejoice in them but I know them to be makyo and not true wisdom. I do Qi Gong, Kunlun, KAP, shinkantaza, vipassana, but non of it for joy in the sense of personal pleasure. They bring happiness, bliss, etc. etc., but that is not my purpose. They are side effects, tools, notes....

 

That is your prerogative. But why do you think it is defeating and personally tragic? I haven't tried to stop anyone from doing anything.

 

It wouldn't be defeating and tragic if the world was a truly joyful place ever filled with love and wisdom. But that is not so. I am not a pessimist, but it doesn't take long for someone to see that life is filled with suffering and loss. This is the world that the blissful Self has created in its playful musings? And if I scream at it, would it be the Self screaming at itself? At its own ridiculous condition?

 

All I'm saying is that after a certain point, the experience becomes completely free of all baggage, philosophical, religious, personal, etc. All that remains is experiential knowledge. All Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta all are tools that take you to that same point, beyond which percepts and concepts don't have any value. Holding on the Theory of Dependent Origination is not going to do you any good any more than holding onto the theory of The Self. There is only Pure Subject there (in that state)...it is, simply (Thusness?)

 

The Tao cannot be named (ie described). If it can be named it is not the real Tao.

 

 

Experiential knowledge, mystical, not namable....fine...I am fine with that. But tell me what it is and why it is. I want the Truth.

 

.

 

All you're saying...so you agree to my interpretations of the Self as a deterministic non-dual world where there is no individual, no choice, no enlightenment, no salvation..just a cyclical nature of Awareness separating and uniting back again? All at the whims of this Thing?

Edited August 22, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Not enough for me. IMO if there was indeed "something" "existing before Heaven and Earth", whatever that means, how could we say "it" was "formless" and "complete", let alone "reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted", etc? Sorry, but this is idealism extravaganza. I'll change my mind if I find that it's somehow a better categorical framework to work in.

 

Besides, idealistic positions like this are often used (by Indians, at least) to make claims like: the universe is conscious, evolution is deterministic, etc... Taoism doesn't say how much "it" should be reified at all, so I suppose it keeps an open mind about all possibilities without giving preference to any of them. This isn't necessarily either a good thing or a bad thing... an indecisive thing? a "don't care" mind? Dunno.

 

But it is made the source of everything, so that's reification, as it's the reality of all reality.

 

 

We Taoists do not reify anything. That action is the realm of Tao and Tao alone. It is Tao (its processes) that transmutate the Mystery into the Manifest. No man (nor man-made god) has the ability to do this.

 

Be well!

 

Yes you do... according to Buddhist undersatnding of reification. If the Tao is the source of everything, than it's the reality of everything.

 

No matter how immaterial you make it, its the existence of existence, because of the Tao, all this is. That's reification according to a Buddhist. There's no way around it. Of course you can argue, but this is why a Buddhist would not accept the Tao as a good way of explaining a way to liberation. Because the Tao has no cause, it's independent and exists from it's own. It's not dependent upon anything for being.

 

This does not hold up to Buddha's scrutiny.

 

 

 

So many words and nothing was said. He did try though.

 

Be well!

 

Because you didn't understand it just say's something else, really. It was actually worded for a Buddhist to read, so it doesn't surprise me. It wasn't directed towards you Marblehead.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

 

We Taoists do not reify anything.

 

Yes you do... according to Buddhist undersatnding of reification. If the Tao is the source of everything, than it's the reality of everything.

 

No matter how immaterial you make it, its the existence of existence, because of the Tao, all this is. That's reification according to a Buddhist. There's no way around it. Of course you can argue, but this is why a Buddhist would not accept the Tao as a good way of explaining a way to liberation. Because the Tao has no cause, it's independent and exists from it's own. It's not dependent upon anything for being.

 

I think we have arrived at the essence of our misunderstandings. I think it is very difficult, if not impossible for a Taoist to understand Buddhist philosophy from a Taoist's perception and likewise with Taoist philosophy.

 

We, the individual Taoist, do not reify anything. We, at least I do, hold to the understanding that everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be; things just take different form (and non-form) over time. Even Tao does not reify anything - it is only expressing itself in different form. There are two bacis forms of Tao: Oneness or Expression. Oneness cannot be defined. Expression is consists of the three basic aspects of its expression: Chi, Mystery, and Manifest.

 

Nothing is reified because everything already exists and everything is totally 100% real, whether or not it is definable. Tao is dependent on nothing because it is simply doing what its own nature (Tzujan) requires it to do. Therefore Tao is dependent only on itself which equates to total independence.

 

As to liberation: There is no need for liberation. We Taoists are not imprisoned. We understand that when a star explodes it is not the end of something but the beginning of something else. We realize that our physical existence is a phase between the beginning of something and the end of something which really is not the end but the beginning of something else.

 

But we accept the fact that our physical body is real and we should care for it just as much as we should care for the essence that provides us life. All aspects of Tao are of equal importance. We speak mostly of the Manifest because that is the only aspect of Tao that is definable and therefore discussable. But we understand that when we speak of the definable we are not speaking about the totality of Tao but only of one of its aspects.

 

Because you didn't understand it just say's something else, really. It was actually worded for a Buddhist to read, so it doesn't surprise me. It wasn't directed towards you Marblehead.

 

Well, no darn wonder I didn't understand it - you weren't talking to me. Hehehe

 

Be well!

Edited August 22, 2009 by Marblehead

[Tao99]

[Marblehead]

[rene]

As to liberation: There is no need for liberation. We Taoists are not imprisoned. We understand that when a star explodes it is not the end of something but the beginning of something else. We realize that our physical existence is a phase between the beginning of something and the end of something which really is not the end but the beginning of something else.

 

I agree that there is no need for liberation.

 

For me, however, it's not because there is no "end" - but because "ending" is natural. Every moment, every action and non-action, is one of simultaneous creation and destruction. Both an ending and a beginning. Such is the way of tao.

[xabir2005]

I agree that there is no need for liberation.

 

For me, however, it's not because there is no "end" - but because "ending" is natural. Every moment, every action and non-action, is one of simultaneous creation and destruction. Both an ending and a beginning. Such is the way of tao.

Yes, in other words everything self liberates spontaneously.

 

Self-liberation does not mean that a self liberates himself or herself from delusorily valued thoughts or delusory experiences; what it means is that delusorily valued thoughts and delusory experiences liberate themselves spontaneously (which may take place in three main ways). (Source: http://eliascapriles.dzogchen.ru/self-liberation.pdf)

 

The Great Undoing

 

When disturbing mind states are simply left unrejected and unaltered, it is seen that they undo themselves naturally, without effort or struggle. It is seen that all states, all experiences whether labeled as positive, negative or neutral are forever undoing and resolving themselves, moment by timeless moment.

 

Self-Liberation Upon Arising

 

To practice is to realize that no practice was ever necessary.

 

To rest is to see that everything is always and already naturally at rest.

 

To maintain awareness is to see that awareness is self-maintained.

 

To allow everything to be as it is is to see that all things self-liberate upon arising.

 

- John Astin

 

...The particular method of Dzogchen is called the Path of Self-Liberation, and to apply it nothing need be renounced, purified, or transformed. Whatever arises as one's karmic vision is used as the path. The great master Pha Tampa Sangye [south Indian Yogin of the 11 century (ed.)] once said: It is not the circumstances which arise as one's karmic vision that condition a person into the dualistic state; it is a person's own attachment that enables what arises to condition him. If this attachment is to be cut through in the most rapid and effective way, the mind's spontaneous capacity to self-liberate must be brought into play. The term self-liberation should not, however, be taken as implying that there is some 'self' or ego there to be liberated. It is a fundamental assumption...at the Dzogchen level, that all phenomena are void of self-nature. 'Self -Liberation', in the Dzogchen sense, means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself. Practicing in this way the seeds of the poison tree of dualistic vision never even get a chance to sprout, much less to take root and grow.(p33)

 

So the practitioner lives his or her life in an ordinary way, without needing any rules other than one's own awareness, always remaining in the primordial state through integrating that state with whatever arises as part of experience -- with absolutely nothing to be seen outwardly to show that one is practicing. This is what is meant by self-liberation, this is what is meant by the name Dzogchen - which means Great Perfection - and this is what is meant by non-dual contemplation, or simply contemplation....

 

~ Dzogchen teacher, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

Edited August 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

Nothing is reified because everything already exists and everything is totally 100% real

 

you do realize that's what reifying means, don't you? saying everything is real?

[Marblehead]

you do realize that's what reifying means, don't you? saying everything is real?

 

Hehehe. So why have we been disagreeing all this time?

 

Be well!

 

 

Every moment, every action and non-action, is one of simultaneous creation and destruction. Both an ending and a beginning. Such is the way of tao.

 

That's a nice way of looking at it. Thanks.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Nothing is reified because everything already exists and everything is totally 100% real,

 

That's reifing.

 

You reify everything as Tao is the ultimate existence of everything, continueously and always. You ultimate a substratum.

 

You see everything as ultimately real.

 

 

 

you do realize that's what reifying means, don't you? saying everything is real?

 

Isn't that funny...??? "NO! We don't reify, everything is just 100 percent real!" Oh my...

Edited August 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

This is the essence of all the Buddha's and every single teaching by all Buddhas. This is the essence of the very first uttering of the Buddha after he got out from under the bodhi tree. "The mind and it's phenomena is uncompounded, unborn, free and pure since beginningless time." He said this teaching was too profound for the people, so he laid out a structure of methodology "buddhism" leading right to this contemplation below...

 

...The particular method of Dzogchen is called the Path of Self-Liberation, and to apply it nothing need be renounced, purified, or transformed. Whatever arises as one's karmic vision is used as the path. The great master Pha Tampa Sangye [south Indian Yogin of the 11 century (ed.)] once said: It is not the circumstances which arise as one's karmic vision that condition a person into the dualistic state; it is a person's own attachment that enables what arises to condition him. If this attachment is to be cut through in the most rapid and effective way, the mind's spontaneous capacity to self-liberate must be brought into play. The term self-liberation should not, however, be taken as implying that there is some 'self' or ego there to be liberated. It is a fundamental assumption...at the Dzogchen level, that all phenomena are void of self-nature. 'Self -Liberation', in the Dzogchen sense, means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself. Practicing in this way the seeds of the poison tree of dualistic vision never even get a chance to sprout, much less to take root and grow.(p33)

 

So the practitioner lives his or her life in an ordinary way, without needing any rules other than one's own awareness, always remaining in the primordial state through integrating that state with whatever arises as part of experience -- with absolutely nothing to be seen outwardly to show that one is practicing. This is what is meant by self-liberation, this is what is meant by the name Dzogchen - which means Great Perfection - and this is what is meant by non-dual contemplation, or simply contemplation....

 

~ Dzogchen teacher, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

 

To this master I offer endless obeisance!

 

Thus my quote below...

[JustARandomPanda]

...

Edited August 23, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Marblehead]

That's reifing.

 

You reify everything as Tao is the ultimate existence of everything, continueously and always. You ultimate a substratum.

 

You see everything as ultimately real.

 

Isn't that funny...??? "NO! We don't reify, everything is just 100 percent real!" Oh my...

 

Now see. You keep telling me what I am doing. I am doing nothing. I have not reified anything. I have not reified Tao. I had absolutely nothing to do with it. It already existed before I was born.

 

Everything around me exists because of cause and effect. I am the result of cause and effect. Yes, there are some things I cause to happen. I can even take parts and make a whole. (A chair in a box containing many pieces that need be put together when you get it home. Until you have put it together you do not have a chair, you have parts.)

 

Yes, the only things I can see are those things I can see. I know, you have this wonderful ability to see ghosts. I'm not knocking your ability. I am knocking your delusion.

 

So you keep talking about what I do but you have never specified what you do. You knock others' understandings but all you do is quote from some ancient mystical document.

 

You did say you have a mother. I saw that somewhere recently. Did your mother actually have any children? I mean the real kind? Like one who had a toy as a child and the child said, "That is mine!"

 

I know you enjoy sitting up there in the clouds and watching the silliness of we mortals but don't you really, every now and then, wish to come down to earth and play with us?

 

Be well!

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the essence of all the Buddha's and every single teaching by all Buddhas. This is the essence of the very first uttering of the Buddha after he got out from under the bodhi tree. "The mind and it's phenomena is uncompounded, unborn, free and pure since beginningless time." He said this teaching was too profound for the people, so he laid out a structure of methodology "buddhism" leading right to this contemplation below...

To this master I offer endless obeisance!

 

Thus my quote below...

 

Good try but totally unacceptable, in my opinion.

 

I quote:

 

If this attachment is to be cut through in the most rapid and effective way, the mind's spontaneous capacity to self-liberate must be brought into play. The term self-liberation should not, however, be taken as implying that there is some 'self' or ego there to be liberated. It is a fundamental assumption...at the Dzogchen level, that all phenomena are void of self-nature.

 

This is so illogical it is actually funny. (From this Taoist's perspective.)

 

Be well!

 

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Don't worry; Be happy!

 

You are real for the moment. Get up and dance!

 

Be well!