Clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone

[Mark Foote]

 

'I, Hui-neng, knows no device,

My thoughts are not suppressed:

The objective world ever stirs the mind,

And what is the use of maturing Enlightenment?'[/i]

 

 

Love that!- "the objective world ever stirs the mind". Things as it is, as Shunryu Suzuki said.

 

ANYBODY GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?!?! ha ha, love you guys, even when my mouth is full of marbles!

 

less'ee, now, right foot first, then left... no, wait, left foot then... hmmm.

[Marblehead]

'I, Hui-neng, knows no device,

My thoughts are not suppressed:

The objective world ever stirs the mind,

And what is the use of maturing Enlightenment?'[/i]

 

These will be sufficient to show that Hui-neng, the sixth patriarch, was on the one hand no quietist, nor nihilist advocating the doctrine of absolute emptiness, while on the other hand he was no idealist either, in the sense of denying an objective world. His dhyana was full of action, yet above a world of particulars, as long as it was not carried away by it and in it.

 

It is not dependent on entering a state of thoughtless samadhi or trance. Rather it is the Great Samadhi, the Non Dual Samadhi with no entry or exit because it is an eternal truth and insight.

 

p.s. oh and, I have had passing non-dual glimpses while walking and doing other stuff, and it never hindered what I was doing. It is not anything like a loss of awareness or consciousness but rather is intensified and without subject-object division.

 

Boy! You Buddhists sure do talk a lot once you get started. Hehehe.

 

Yes, Hui-neng could be called a Taoist Sage.

 

And what you spoke of in your "p.s." would be called "equally immersed in 'wu' and 'yo' simultaneously.

 

I do like this area that I quote of yours as it really is very Taoist as well.

 

Chuang Tzu does have a couple stories of those who achieved the state of samadhi (as you described it) but they were people who totally detached themself from society and lived in the mountains. I would like that. (I wouldn't be able to see another pretty woman.)

 

Yes, the Zen "chop wood, carry water" is the Taoist "wei wu wei", that is, doing what needs be done - no attachment (or detachment) - no value judgements - we become a part of the wood being chopped and the water being carried.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

... even when my mouth is full of marbles!

 

Hey Mark! You leave my marbles alone! Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

The Buddha is definitely not talking about a metaphysical essence here.

 

OK

 

Just like I wasn't talking about metaphysical essence when I was talking about awareness, but that didn't stop you from arguing with me anyway. You detest the essence so much, eh?

[xabir2005]

OK

 

Just like I wasn't talking about metaphysical essence when I was talking about awareness, but that didn't stop you from arguing with me anyway. You detest the essence so much, eh?

My reply wasn't just intended for you. I just write what came up to mind.

[goldisheavy]

I know. But I have seen you, since I have been here, drifting away from Buddhist dogma into a more open-mindedness, well, except when you get irritated. Hehehe.

 

It is true, there is no need to label ourself. And I even think that it is best when considering those who hold to Taoist philosophy and Buddhist spirituality simultaneously.

 

Peace & Love!

 

When I look at Taoism as a practice and a philosophy of life as defined by the 3 great Taoist sages, I don't see anything there that is in any way inferior to Buddhism. Zhuangzi got interdependent arising covered, as far as I am concerned. I know this idea bothers the Buddhists a lot, because they like to think they have a monopoly on certain ideas.

 

I like Taoism because it appears to be less formal and less dogmatic. Buddhism is a lot more dogmatic and structured. That's just my perception.

 

Still, I do admire many Buddhist characters like Bodhidharma, various Chan/Zen patriarchs, Nagarjuna, Milarepa, Padmasambhava, Garab Dorge and I like Bonpo guys like Tonpa Shenrab/Tapihritsa, etc. And many others. If I list them all, it would be a very big list. I like some Native American and Siberian shamans and various odd people here and there, including some "Western" guys like Richard Bach.

[Marblehead]

Hi Goldisheavy,

 

Nothing more to say at the moment. All valid what you said. Just wanted to let you know that I read the post.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

My reply wasn't just intended for you. I just write what came up to mind.

 

Good to know. Still, I've yet to read something from you that didn't slam the essence. While I share some of your enthusiasm in that area, I do think that at times, because you're so focused on finding essence-tainted thinking, that you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Sometimes it's good to take a step back and use normal language for a while. Buddhists have their own language. You must realize that. Buddhists have a ton of jargon and plus they have their own private meanings for many common words. Luckily I can speak 90% of the Buddhist language, and I say "luckily" because I do value Buddhist insights.

 

When you hang out with Buddhists a lot and when you talk about Buddhists topics, you tend to forget the language of non-Buddhists. This has been my experience in the past.

[Mark Foote]

[Marblehead]

[Mark Foote]

 

And you might want to hold your breath when chopping water else you will likely get a mouthful of water.

 

 

lol yeah well the way some characters around these woods put it, might as well be chopping water. I swear they are holding their breath!

 

uh-oh, I've done it now...

 

[C T]

When I look at Taoism as a practice and a philosophy of life as defined by the 3 great Taoist sages, I don't see anything there that is in any way inferior to Buddhism. Zhuangzi got interdependent arising covered, as far as I am concerned. I know this idea bothers the Buddhists a lot, because they like to think they have a monopoly on certain ideas.

 

I like Taoism because it appears to be less formal and less dogmatic. Buddhism is a lot more dogmatic and structured. That's just my perception.

 

Still, I do admire many Buddhist characters like Bodhidharma, various Chan/Zen patriarchs, Nagarjuna, Milarepa, Padmasambhava, Garab Dorge and I like Bonpo guys like Tonpa Shenrab/Tapihritsa, etc. And many others. If I list them all, it would be a very big list. I like some Native American and Siberian shamans and various odd people here and there, including some "Western" guys like Richard Bach.

I read somewhere that Taoism had played a part in shaping some of the Tibetan Buddhist teachings of today. The writer claims that at one time there were many Taoist masters living among the Tibetans and learning from one another, although she said that they would not acknowledge that they were Taoists when asked. She did not mention why this was so.

 

(I am wondering now if i will get into trouble for the above-mentioned??)

 

Here's a quote from Richard Bach -

 

"Every person, all the events in your life, are there because you have drawn them there. What you choose to do with them is up to you".

 

Be good!

[Sunya]

This is absolute, total, pure, unadulterated, unalloyed bull fucking shit. Even a great being like me, who loves all beings to some extent, is nonetheless not sentimental about it and I do not love anyone more than those same people love themselves. That's just absurd.

 

I come here and talk to you as one of you. I don't isolate myself and make you beat your way to my door. I don't tell you you need my teachings or else you're fucked. I would appreciate a similar attitude from these so-called "masters" and their willing peons.

 

 

I want to see your master come here and tell me, straight to my face, than I need him to be my master. Let's see this happen. If your master truly believes he will benefit me as a master, let him come here and declare that.

 

maybe he just realizes you're a lost cause?

 

no, we have to create our own conditions. nobody can force wisdom upon you. openness and humility are necessary conditions before finding a teacher, those you have to create yourself to learn. much like learning to open your mouth is necessary before going before a fountain of water.

[goldisheavy]

maybe he just realizes you're a lost cause?

 

It's possible. Or maybe he doesn't give a damn, as in, he hasn't even considered the issue and just worries about his next meal, shower and whatever else mundane detail that people worry about.

 

I am not so taken with myself as to think that various teachers come here scouting for students and specifically scouting and evaluating me from behind the scenes. In fact I am 99.9999% convinced that forums like this are ignored by all the famous so-called "teachers" (read: losers). It's a shame, because a lot of good could be created if these so-called teachers descended from their comfortable surroundings and mingled with the people, including and maybe especially on various internet forums.

 

I have a feeling that many of them fear this place because if they come down here, they won't get their customary cushion of the undeserved respect. Instead they will be treated like anyone else (and this just won't do for these soft egos), and people like me will argue with them and show them to be either fools, or equally bad, not in any way superior to a nobody like me and their little scam will be exposed.

 

no, we have to create our own conditions. nobody can force wisdom upon you. openness and humility are necessary conditions before finding a teacher, those you have to create yourself to learn. much like learning to open your mouth is necessary before going before a fountain of water.

 

That's absolutely true. This is why I am never without a teacher in reality. What this really amounts to is Vajrahridaya's suggestion that I find an acceptable teacher. See, this is not about me having no teacher. It's about me having a recognizable teacher with the various bona-fides and so forth. Conventional signifiers of authority and blessings. Things like that. I know this game well and I am the master of it. I think I must have run this scam myself in previous lives. Well, it was not exactly a scam, because I was sincere and wanted to help, but I was also deluded because I must have believed that for learning to occur, someone must be dominant (the teacher) and someone else must be submissive (the student). It just didn't occur to me that this mindset could do harm. But now that it occurs to me, I no longer stand for it.

 

P.S.: My bowl of pop-corn is enormous. I can do this for a very long time.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Seth Ananda]

 

I have a feeling that many of them fear this place because if they come down here, they won't get their customary cushion of the undeserved respect. Instead they will be treated like anyone else (and this just won't do for these soft egos), and people like me will argue with them and show them to be either fools, or equally bad, not in any way superior to a nobody like me and their little scam will be exposed.

 

P.S.: My bowl of pop-corn is enormous. I can do this for a very long time.

Fantastic!!! More More!!!

[rebelrebel]

 

I have a feeling that many of them fear this place because if they come down here, they won't get their customary cushion of the undeserved respect. Instead they will be treated like anyone else (and this just won't do for these soft egos), and people like me will argue with them and show them to be either fools, or equally bad, not in any way superior to a nobody like me and their little scam will be exposed.

That's absolutely true. This is why I am never without a teacher in reality. What this really amounts to is Vajrahridaya's suggestion that I find an acceptable teacher. See, this is not about me having no teacher. It's about me having a recognizable teacher with the various bona-fides and so forth. Conventional signifiers of authority and blessings. Things like that. I know this game well and I am the master of it. I think I must have run this scam myself in previous lives. Well, it was not exactly a scam, because I was sincere and wanted to help, but I was also deluded because I must have believed that for learning to occur, someone must be dominant (the teacher) and someone else must be submissive (the student). It just didn't occur to me that this mindset could do harm. But now that it occurs to me, I no longer stand for it.

 

P.S.: My bowl of pop-corn is enormous. I can do this for a very long time.

Wonderful post! Glad to see someone so in tune with reality! So blunt! Keep knocking them off their pedestals!

[Vajrahridaya]

Cosmos doesn't work in any particular way. It is empty, which means it is malleable and is in constant flux.

 

Then go ahead and change the way it works! I'd like to see your omnipotence. Which in Buddhism is not possible. No one is omnipotent according to Buddhism, which makes it different from all Theistic paths.

 

You can change your unconscious but you cannot change another's, unless they are open to it. The worst you can do is kill another's body, and the best you can do is love a person so totally that they see it and recognize their own live through your offering of it.

 

The rest of your display...? I won't even talk about.

 

Fantastic!!! More More!!!

 

Yes, inch on the megalomaniac. Very good.

 

Wonderful post! Glad to see someone so in tune with reality! So blunt! Keep knocking them off their pedestals!

 

Clapping at manure for the plants I see?

 

 

P.S.: My bowl of pop-corn is enormous. I can do this for a very long time.

 

You can have it self proclaimed Buddha of the internet.

 

Some day you'll find your humility bone, and see with real eyes.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

 

Some day you'll find your humility bone, and see with real eyes.

 

Wait a minute... Are you not the same Vajrahridaya who has attained Tao and gone beyond it, who is Capable of Enlightening Lao Tzu about his misunderstanding's of reality...?

[Sunya]

Wait a minute... Are you not the same Vajrahridaya who has attained Tao and gone beyond it, who is Capable of Enlightening Lao Tzu about his misunderstanding's of reality...?

 

there's no proof Laozi ever existed. the issue was always with the philosophy and methodology of Taoism. 'attaining the Tao' is a vague concept at best.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wait a minute... Are you not the same Vajrahridaya who has attained Tao and gone beyond it, who is Capable of Enlightening Lao Tzu about his misunderstanding's of reality...?

 

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Buddha

 

Blinded by the oceanic bliss of the Brahma realm, I could not see past the idea of "that" as being the source of all beings.

 

The Buddha saw past what Lau Tzu say's is a source of all things, a single, self existence that is the supreme cause of all the 10,000 things.

 

His conclusion in that sense, does not appeal, neither to me, or to what the Buddha has taught.

 

Not meaning to offend your sensibilities, but I just spoke what I have realized... What else?

[Sunya]

It's possible. Or maybe he doesn't give a damn, as in, he hasn't even considered the issue and just worries about his next meal, shower and whatever else mundane detail that people worry about.

 

I am not so taken with myself as to think that various teachers come here scouting for students and specifically scouting and evaluating me from behind the scenes. In fact I am 99.9999% convinced that forums like this are ignored by all the famous so-called "teachers" (read: losers). It's a shame, because a lot of good could be created if these so-called teachers descended from their comfortable surroundings and mingled with the people, including and maybe especially on various internet forums.

 

 

 

so teachers just sit on a throne all the time and don't mingle with people? LOL. you have a funny view of things, completely incomprehensible. all the teachers that I highly respect deal with people all the time, in fact they travel so damn much from country to country teaching students. they have no time to go on a forum and argue with people, they see that as fruitless and pointless. if the conditions are there for you to learn, you will pickup a book and learn. when you require a teacher, and the necessary causes arise, then you will meet the teacher somehow. my teacher didn't go looking for me, thats such a selfish view. he's so busy helping countless people everyday, people who are much more in need of help than I.

 

i think the problem with this sort of thinking isn't that we need to knock down teachers from their pedestals, it's that we need to level everyone because we're afraid of hierarchy and losing our power. we hate authority and hate submitting to that authority, there is a fear of being swindled.. taken advantage of. and more so, there is a resistance to surrender completely because we want control. this is all ego.

 

when you find the right teacher, you aren't surrendering to an external being who is just as deluded as you, you are surrendering to Buddha, pure wisdom, your true nature, whatever name you want to give it. the teacher is just a symbol.

 

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Buddha

 

Blinded by the oceanic bliss of the Brahma realm, I could not see past the idea of "that" as being the source of all beings.

 

The Buddha saw past what Lau Tzu say's is a source of all things, a single, self existence that is the supreme cause of all the 10,000 things.

 

His conclusion in that sense, does not appeal, neither to me, or to what the Buddha has taught.

 

Not meaning to offend your sensibilities, but I just spoke what I have realized... What else?

 

 

who knows what Laozi realized, the Dao De Jing is just a collection of poems and metaphors with no real methodology. Zhuangzi was more organized but still, could hardly be called purposeful in conveying method. I think that these early Taoist sages were solitary realizers who saw the emptiness of self and illusory nature of reality. their writings were just conveyances not actual methods to attain anything. picking apart the words doesn't really work since it's so difficult to see. like, nowhere in the Dao De Jing is the Dao ever posited to be a self existing thing, and in the right context you could say Dharmakaya is the source of all Things. it's all about context. so I sort of give up on trying to interpret Taoist philosophy; i don't know classical Chinese and Chinese is so contextual, especially Classical. its very different than modern. so we don't have enough information to conclude what these sages were really saying. its too cryptic for me, i like the concreteness of Buddhist philosophy so I stick with that. but in terms of comparison its just impossible IMO

Edited October 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Then go ahead and change the way it works!

 

What do you think I am doing now, fool? Do you think the cosmos is the same as yesterday? It's working subtly differently every second, and it's all intentional on my part. It's a slow process at the moment because I am not committed to a drastic and fast change at this time.

 

I'd like to see your omnipotence. Which in Buddhism is not possible. No one is omnipotent according to Buddhism, which makes it different from all Theistic paths.

 

It all depends on what you define as omnipotence. In any case, our sphere of influence is incalculable. Maybe not omnipotent, but it's larder than you imagine. And by "our" I am including you, even though you're just a little turd off to the side, by your own admission, oh humble one.

 

You can change your unconscious but you cannot change another's, unless they are open to it. The worst you can do is kill another's body

 

No I can do worse. I can kill a person's spirit. I can change the person's subtle body, their mental body, not just their physical body. And by spirit I don't mean metaphysical essence. I mean destroy the person's ability to enjoy life for a long time. Destroy their belief in their own power. Destroy their belief in success or love, etc.

 

Killing the body is nothing. That's the materialist's worst nightmare, but it's not the worst that can be done.

 

, and the best you can do is love a person so totally that they see it and recognize their own live through your offering of it.

 

Close, but you make it sound very sentimental. The best I can do is to show the person their own potential to live life beyond grief, to be able to face any circumstance with a peaceful mind, to cure the incurable diseases and to reverse the irreversible processes at least for a time, to allow people to die happy, with dignity and with full awareness.

 

The rest of your display...? I won't even talk about.

 

Fine by me. I respect your freedom of speech as long as you respect mine.

 

Everything we do is sheer egomania. Every thought is egomania. Every absence of thought is equally egomania. Why? Because there is no basis to think anything. There is no basis for avoiding thinking. That's the meaning of emptiness fool. Nothing to do. Nothing to avoid doing. Given that, I think my current choices are pretty kind and compassionate.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

its too cryptic for me, i like the concreteness of Buddhist philosophy so I stick with that. but in terms of comparison its just impossible IMO

 

I do agree. The ambiguity is unappealing and I find that those that enjoy it are also not clear about what the path is and what liberation actually is. It's like hiding behind a mystery due to fear of clarity, because it takes open honesty to work through to utter clarity.

[Marblehead]

lol yeah well the way some characters around these woods put it, might as well be chopping water. I swear they are holding their breath!

 

uh-oh, I've done it now...

 

 

Hehehe. Friendly and humorous criticism is allowed, I think.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

there's no proof Laozi ever existed. the issue was always with the philosophy and methodology of Taoism. 'attaining the Tao' is a vague concept at best.

 

Well, it is obvious that you are not a Taoist because it seems you do not understand Taoist realization. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

The Buddha saw past what Lau Tzu say's is a source of all things, a single, self existence that is the supreme cause of all the 10,000 things.

 

And that is where he lost it and got so many people pissed off at him that they killed him.

 

Jesus did the same, you know.

 

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu died natural deaths.

 

I think that speaks for itself.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

who knows what Laozi realized, the Dao De Jing is just a collection of poems and metaphors with no real methodology.

 

I must disagree with this. I understand why you have said this and from you perspective it is a truth but it is only a truth because you do not fully understand the true significance of the Tao Te Ching.

 

Yes, it is a work that is pieced together from many sources. True, we don't even know absolute that Loa tzu ever existed but there is enough support to safely assume that he did.

 

And there is a method but one must first realize that method and this is where most people get lost; they never realize the method.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

And that is where he lost it and got so many people pissed off at him that they killed him.

Jesus did what?

 

 

Buddha died at 80 years old, wasn't killed. I don't know where you had that strange idea that Buddha was killed.