Intuition and Logic.

[Seth Ananda]

Please Give me some examples of how Intuition can be conditioned...

 

I Have a belief that Intuition when you know well enough which 'voice' (please understand I don't mean 'Voice' literally) is never wrong.

It seems to me that Logic can be argued about forever and can constantly be mistaken.

The Greeks came up with Many problems Logic presents, (like the Empedicles i think) Showing the Floored Nature of Logic as a tool for understanding.

 

In my own experience I trust Intuition absolutely, and It has never let me down once...

 

Would you count actively using Intuition as a means to explore the world as merely subconscious movements?

 

-Say, Can you feel your Life? your Aliveness, Is It limited to you, what qualities does it have, can you feel it in anything else? Can you 'see' it with your Intuition? How finely tuned to these qualities can you get?

 

This is how many schools start without requiring belief in anything. One learns to Intuit directly.

 

I have helped a couple of scientific materialists, who were open enough to allow me to guide them through an inquiry process like this, have the Unitive Experience, strong feelings of Oneness with all life, experience of Energy and Light and rivers of Loving Consciousness...

[Stigweard]

Stig, the model you present assumes that subject truly is separate from the object.

Not quite.

 

The model provided is more of a "spectrum effect," or a sliding scale if you wish. Part of the self, the core self, is intrinsically linked to "Step 1. The causal phenomena in it's full spectrum totality." It is the self that is perceiving the direct flow of Universal life-stream in it's totality. The subject and object are one.

 

It is the filtering process of Steps 2 - 4 that creates the "illusion" of separation.

 

My basic point is that intuition is a process, therefore it has components. The fact that two people don't intuit the same unless they are connected in that similar fashion karmically shows that intuition is subjective. Therefore it is a conditioned phenomena. Intuition is basically just unconscious processes happening beneath the conscious mind that stirs a feeling in the conscious mind without the conscious mind being aware of what's really going on underneath it. Which is why we meditate to bring the light of awareness into the sub- and un-conscious aspects of our being to make everything fully conscious. When we become aware of the components of something, we are able to manifest a language around these components to name them.

Once again we see two views of the world in operation. Your view posits that everything, even intuition, can be logically described. Whereas, once again, I embrace a Universe that is infinitely more mysterious then we can ever imagine. Whilst I also seek full awareness it is more of an "alignment of energies" rather than logical comprehension.

[Seth Ananda]

 

Once again we see two views of the world in operation. Your view posits that everything, even intuition, can be logically described. Whereas, once again, I embrace a Universe that is infinitely more mysterious then we can ever imagine. Whilst I also seek full awareness it is more of an "alignment of energies" rather than logical comprehension.

 

Nice

[Vajrahridaya]

Please Give me some examples of how Intuition can be conditioned...

 

I Have a belief that Intuition when you know well enough which 'voice' (please understand I don't mean 'Voice' literally) is never wrong.

It seems to me that Logic can be argued about forever and can constantly be mistaken.

The Greeks came up with Many problems Logic presents, (like the Empedicles i think) Showing the Floored Nature of Logic as a tool for understanding.

 

In my own experience I trust Intuition absolutely, and It has never let me down once...

 

Would you count actively using Intuition as a means to explore the world as merely subconscious movements?

 

-Say, Can you feel your Life? your Aliveness, Is It limited to you, what qualities does it have, can you feel it in anything else? Can you 'see' it with your Intuition? How finely tuned to these qualities can you get?

 

This is how many schools start without requiring belief in anything. One learns to Intuit directly.

 

I have helped a couple of scientific materialists, who were open enough to allow me to guide them through an inquiry process like this, have the Unitive Experience, strong feelings of Oneness with all life, experience of Energy and Light and rivers of Loving Consciousness...

 

No, logic is not the end all be all, but intuition left to it's own devices will just lead to subtler and subtler identifications without the recognition of emptiness or D.O. Which should be an experiential wisdom transcendent of Self/no-self, but also not a voice in your head that say's, "I am God", the "1" in all beings. That will just reabsorb you at the end of the cosmic eon and you will re-absorb blissfully but not knowing the next place that you spit out at.

 

Buddhism covers all your experiences Seth Ananda and gives them context in the hopes that you eventually transcend even these magnificent powers.

 

I already gave examples, like riding a bike. The intuition is deeply conditioned, to just identity in subtler and subtler paradigms. It's a recycling habit pattern governed by identification with a subtler and subtler paradigm of experience.

 

p.s. It's so subtle that it doesn't even need a concept as a platform. It's so deep this clinging that it's at the core of your intuition.

 

 

 

It is the filtering process of Steps 2 - 4 that creates the "illusion" of separation.

Once again we see two views of the world in operation. Your view posits that everything, even intuition, can be logically described. Whereas, once again, I embrace a Universe that is infinitely more mysterious then we can ever imagine. Whilst I also seek full awareness it is more of an "alignment of energies" rather than logical comprehension.

 

For me, alignment of energies that transcend the habit patterns of endless recycling from universe to universe is both logical and reasonable.

 

I feel that you merely lack the right tools of study and dissection. Your path does not offer "right view".

 

In Buddhism, Buddhahood is defined as omniscience, not succumbing to mystery. There is surrender, but only to know more deeply without experiential, or intellectual excusing.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Stig, the model you present assumes that subject truly is separate from the object.

 

Actually, I enjoyed the assumption.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

1. My belief is that there is an external world, that exist regardless of mind's awareness of it.

 

Three cheers for Tao99!

 

Yea! Yea! Yea!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

a dream character is telling me that a dream tree exists, LOL... that's funny!

 

you should know from all your Nietzsche readings that our whole 'world' is just a projection, a creation, a dream.

there is no such thing as 'tree' nor does 'exist' even make sense when you take away identity from form.

 

 

'tree' exists only relatively, imagine you're asleep dreaming.. everything you perceive is seemingly real and concrete.. but if you wake up to the dream and realize that its all just your projection... do ideas such as 'tree' and 'exist' and 'you' even make sense anymore? isn't it quite silly then to say 'you exist, trust me' to a dream character?

 

Well, my dear friend, you may continue to remain delusional if you wish to be so. But I promise you this, (and I don't make promises lightly) if you go walking in a forest with your eyes closed it is very likely you will walk into a tree and then you will finally realize how real a tree is.

 

There is no escaping the physical Manifest until the day you die. After that, I promise, (note again that I do not make promises lightly) you won't care.

 

But until that time I suggest that you care because if you walk in front of that delusional bus that is travelling at fifty miles per hour you will realize the end of realizing.

 

So all you dreamers, Beware! Reality has a way of biting us in the butt when we ignore it.

 

Yes, Michael, I once dreamed I was a butterfly and I spent some time sitting on one of the leafs of a tree but then I awoke and saw the tree in all its wonderous grandness and I spoke to it saying, "Hi tree." But it did not speak back.

 

It sometimes gets confusing when people say that nothing exists because everything is a figment of their own personal imagination but if someone comes along and kills that person everything still exists. Seems strange, well, actually, it seems totally illogical, to me.

 

A personal observation, it seems very intuitive that I am since I think, and it seems very logical that I exist as "I" am now typing on this keyboead. If I happen to fall asleep here at the computer my head will rest on the computer desk. It surely exists even when I am unconscious and totally unaware of it.

 

I can assure you that Italy exists even though I cannot see it at the moment. The sun exists! All the other suns in all the other galaxies exist. I didn't make them all up just so you could have something to look at in the evening. But then, you don't exist so it doesn't matter, right?

 

And don't you be reading Nietzsche from your Buddhist perspective. That would be an insult. Hehehe. Nietzsche was a Taoist!

 

Have a great day!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Please Give me some examples of how Intuition can be conditioned...

 

 

I was going to respond to this but then I saw that V. had already presented a very subtle and incoherent response I fell I should keep my mouth shut.

 

(BTW: We (that applies to everyone regardless of our belief system) cannot condition intuition. That would be called being delusional. There is a vast difference between intuition and the art of performing an act repetitiously until it becomes mechanical.)

 

And we should not confuse instinct with intuition either. That would be an error.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited October 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

the trolls will find other meat, or maybe they'll wise up and give up their incessant argumentative lack of contributions, but i'm doubtful.

 

I'm just detached.

[Marblehead]

For a Buddhist, this is the hallmark of bondage and delusion that defines our Western society, the idea that death is real and permanent for a mind stream. To think that physical reality is the end all be all of experience. This idea and attachment is the cause of so much ignorance.

 

And then I suggest that the above statement is a perfect example of ignorance. To think that your mind (and yes, you did say mind) will still exist after you die. Our mind is our brain and all or other senses. When the body dies the brain dies. That is a fact. (We are not speaking of the Spirit of Tao here.)

 

Ofcourse, when we die we will never any longer be aware of anything because it requires realization in order to be aware and realization is a function of the brain.

 

It is those who live a delusional and illusional life who are lost whether they live in Western societies or in Eastern societies. If one does not accept the reality of reality they are surely lost. But there is hope bacause as long as you are alive, even though you have strayed from the Tao, Tao never strays from us.

 

You may quote as many 'enlightened beings as you wist to quote but that still does not alter reality. You, nor anyone else can negate reality. All you can do is negate yourself. Now, I'm not saying that you don't have that right to choose to do so, I am just saying that it is not proper to try to convince someone else that they don't exist.

 

So, in closing I suggest that it is a perfect display of ignorance to try to convince someone that they should not enjoy this wonderful manifest existence.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

I'm just detached.

 

I realize that this was supposed to be a humorous comment but in your case I think it is a reality. You pretend to be detached from reality but yet you are so very much concerned with the reality of the words I speak.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

QUOTE(mikaelz @ Oct 28 2009, 11:01 PM)

 

the trolls will find other meat, or maybe they'll wise up and give up their incessant argumentative lack of contributions, but i'm doubtful.

 

Hehehe. Can't take your own medicine?

 

Peace & Love!

 

(Yes, my dear friends, I am doing this intentionally.)

 

C U Later!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

There is no 'Life after this one'.. this one is eternal, though it is temporarily manifested as a tangible reality.. realizing this condition, the experiencer understands how even the temporary physical reality affects the evolution of the eternal process..

 

There is a tendency among some spiritual seekers to contemplate Life as a purely random event, and i sense that perspective to be limited.. i sense a 'purpose', a reason for Life and the Cosmos.. the prime question for we/us/Life is "What AM I", and.. as 'parts of a Whole', the Whole and the parts share that prime curiosity.. Life is not 'created or manipulated', it is allowed its freedom to reveal the answer.. the Source set the Cosmos in motion (big bang, maybe), and observes itself evolving according to its 'nature'.. from this freely evolving process both the Whole and itself manifested as 'parts' experience its true nature, unrestricted and uncontrolled.. that is the ultimate 'wisdom', the sincerity to experience your 'true' nature.. so, to suspend my rambling, the 'purpose' is the experience itself.. if the 'parts' find reason to control or manipulate aspects of the experience, then it reveals aspects of the 'nature' of the parts AND the Whole.. and, that aspect is perfectly natural, considering that ALL possibilities become probabilities in the playground of infinity and eternity..

 

When i iam asked of my 'philosophy for Living', i am compelled to respond: Live with unconditional sincerity and a fierce gusto of curiosity..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

Be well..

 

Damn! You truely are Tzu-Jan Li! (If you truely believe what you just presented.)

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Damn! You truely are Tzu-Jan Li! (If you truely believe what you just presented.)

LOL.. Oh yes, i truely 'know' it.. but, the challenge is Living it.. today i might focus the cross-hairs on an extremist with a vest-bomb, tomorrow i might be wearing the vest.. Life's funny like that...

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

LOL.. Oh yes, i truely 'know' it.. but, the challenge is Living it.. today i might focus the cross-hairs on an extremist with a vest-bomb, tomorrow i might be wearing the vest.. Life's funny like that...

 

Be well..

 

 

Hehehe. Yeah, talking the talk is pretty easy - walking the walk is a bit more trying.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Greetings..

 

There is no 'Life after this one'.. this one is eternal, though it is temporarily manifested as a tangible reality.. realizing this condition, the experiencer understands how even the temporary physical reality affects the evolution of the eternal process..

 

There is a tendency among some spiritual seekers to contemplate Life as a purely random event, and i sense that perspective to be limited.. i sense a 'purpose', a reason for Life and the Cosmos.. the prime question for we/us/Life is "What AM I", and.. as 'parts of a Whole', the Whole and the parts share that prime curiosity.. Life is not 'created or manipulated', it is allowed its freedom to reveal the answer.. the Source set the Cosmos in motion (big bang, maybe), and observes itself evolving according to its 'nature'.. from this freely evolving process both the Whole and itself manifested as 'parts' experience its true nature, unrestricted and uncontrolled.. that is the ultimate 'wisdom', the sincerity to experience your 'true' nature.. so, to suspend my rambling, the 'purpose' is the experience itself.. if the 'parts' find reason to control or manipulate aspects of the experience, then it reveals aspects of the 'nature' of the parts AND the Whole.. and, that aspect is perfectly natural, considering that ALL possibilities become probabilities in the playground of infinity and eternity..

 

When i iam asked of my 'philosophy for Living', i am compelled to respond: Live with unconditional sincerity and a fierce gusto of curiosity..

 

Be well..

The Whole of Life has to be allowed. One has to give absolute permission for this. Otherwise life becomes a series of up-stream manoeuvres, or stagnating moments, or both. This tendency to impose one's insignificant will on Life often leads to all kinds of conflict and neurotic outcomes, and is the root cause of discontentment. (The Chinese have a saying that if Man can ever learn to be content, then even the snake can swallow an elephant.)

 

This is humanity's folly - a lack of understanding of the humane aspects of freewill. It is, as you say, TJL, without sincerity, and to it could be added 'without obligatory moral responsibilities and integrity'.

 

But ultimately Life lives itself. It cannot be dammed. It always seeks its own expression, and regardless of all our puny self-serving pursuits, and all the exploitations we impose on life, i guess Life gets the last laugh. It is fruitless to attempt spitting up at the heavens, as the saying goes.

 

Only when there is total acceptance of this great movement of Life can we truly proclaim, "I belong here, therefore I am".

 

Regards, my friend.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: It is as you say.. i was speaking with a Buddhist friend who was trying to explain how "Life is suffering".. i said: if you can convince me that Life is suffering, you will have also convinced me of the great beauty of suffering.. naturally, she was quite annoyed with my perspective, so.. i asked: do you prefer the annoyance over the suffering? .. she became almost furious, so.. i said: pure joy is only a choice away, and it has nothing to do with 'my' perspective.. we didn't speak for a while, we stopped a nice pub and grill, ordered a couple of Sam Adams, and.. she smacked the crap out of me, saying: "Never call yourself a Buddhist, but.. yeah, this is a good beer".. that exchange resonated well with me..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

 

 

 

 

"I have to go with current scientific research on this one and say the solidity or concreteness of things is very real and is observed and described as a Wave-Particle Duality. "

 

of course it's observed, everything is observed wave-particle duality is just another representational idea.

there is a middleground between reductionist view and a pluralist post-modern view that everyone is right.

all views are valid but there has to be one view that is all-encompassing and this view can be termed wisdom.

you were bragging earlier how intelligent you are.. go use a dictionary.

"we have to discern 'intuition' from 'delusion'"

 

we, as in... the people participating in the discussion, but seriously now.. you knew that. just picking a fight like usual with that negative instigating tone. I guess it's difficult to participate in a conversation without jabbing an eye or two when you're so intelligent.

the trolls will find other meat, or maybe they'll wise up and give up their incessant argumentative lack of contributions, but i'm doubtful.

 

 

You and Vajraji generally use terms differently. Mind could be brain, cognitive processes, collective consciousness or any number of things.

 

In terms of wave particle duality, the debate is ongoing. To generalize and use all phenomena as an argument to prove your point makes for a disjointed argument. Massive bodies in space do not fit in the wave particle duality hypothesis because of the fact, the waves emitted are so small as to be insignificant. For small objects such as photons, the wave particle duality can be observed and quantified (probability equations) under the appropriate conditions. I refer to the de Broglie hypothesis (1929 Nobel Prize). Also the double slit experiment and the photoelectric effect. de Broglie's work extended Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. To argue this point you are going to have to use probability equations.

 

 

ralis

[C T]

It's a mostly Buddhist thing apparently. Almost every Buddhist book uses the "we" formulation: "When we meditate on the emptiness in our mind, we realize the true nature of our Medulla Oblogata and we must show it the compassion and lovingkindness it deserves from us, etc.,". I sometimes find it maddening, but pick up any Buddhist book and there 'we' are. Drives me kinda nurtz.

Perhaps its not that *WE* drive you nutz, rather you have allowed yourself to be agitated in a nutty way! Sounds a bit like nit-picking to me, in a relative sense. From a different perspective, one from a Buddhist world-view so to speak, your agitation does present opportunities for furthering the practice of compassion. So its all good i guess...

 

If i would be crass, i'd say you are merely attempting to pick up brownie points. But i am not, so i wont say this.

[Marblehead]

Yep. No matter where we go, there we is.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: It is as you say.. i was speaking with a Buddhist friend who was trying to explain how "Life is suffering".. i said: if you can convince me that Life is suffering, you will have also convinced me of the great beauty of suffering.. naturally, she was quite annoyed with my perspective, so.. i asked: do you prefer the annoyance over the suffering? .. she became almost furious, so.. i said: pure joy is only a choice away, and it has nothing to do with 'my' perspective.. we didn't speak for a while, we stopped a nice pub and grill, ordered a couple of Sam Adams, and.. she smacked the crap out of me, saying: "Never call yourself a Buddhist, but.. yeah, this is a good beer".. that exchange resonated well with me..

 

Be well..

Yes TJL...a pint or two of beer first - suffering can wait!

 

Wonderful!

[Sunya]

Well, my dear friend, you may continue to remain delusional if you wish to be so. But I promise you this, (and I don't make promises lightly) if you go walking in a forest with your eyes closed it is very likely you will walk into a tree and then you will finally realize how real a tree is.

 

I will realize a tree is real because I'll walk into it? because there will be a sensory response to it? do you think the physical body is real too? because you "feel" it?

 

i'm not saying that the 'world' is an illusion, well I am.. except i'm saying that the illusion is dependent on mind. i'm saying that it doesn't exist as you think it does, in fact mind creates the world entirely because everything you experience is dependent on mind. it is conditioned, your whole reality is conditioned. everything is dependent on mind as a necessary condition, without that condition its just potentiality.

 

It sometimes gets confusing when people say that nothing exists because everything is a figment of their own personal imagination but if someone comes along and kills that person everything still exists. Seems strange, well, actually, it seems totally illogical, to me.

 

that's because you don't understand phenomenology, it's only illogical because you hold onto assumptions as axioms. the assumption that 'objects as representations' exist independent of your perception.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

 

 

A personal observation, it seems very intuitive that I am since I think, and it seems very logical that I exist as "I" am now typing on this keyboead. If I happen to fall asleep here at the computer my head will rest on the computer desk. It surely exists even when I am unconscious and totally unaware of it.

 

wow, I thought you studied Nietzsche? you're going to hold a Descartian view of cogito ergo sum ???

Fred totally rips apart that fallacy since the 'I' is inferred, there are just thoughts... where's the I? if it is 'you' that thinks. then.. stop your thoughts, right now. stop them.. and see what happens when you try. the 'I' is just another thought, yet more subtle than conscious thoughts. the 'I' is just a conditioned thought just like every other thought and action. that's why there is no such thing as free will because every thought is conditioned and there is no "I' separate from those conditioned thoughts that is doing anything.

 

what is 'head' and 'computer desk' ? they exist only as ideas dependent on mind. there's truly no such thing as 'head' or 'computer desk'

 

And don't you be reading Nietzsche from your Buddhist perspective. That would be an insult. Hehehe. Nietzsche was a Taoist!

 

I'm learning Nietzsche from a Logician/Metaphysician who himself wrote a book on Fred. My professor is a smart dude, http://www.ericsteinhart.com/ and he teaches the subject very practically. there's no room for interpretation in our class.

 

If you don't see the similarities between Nietzsche, Buddhism, and Taoism in terms of the dream-like reality of this mind-created world, then you don't understand any of the 3 philosophies.

 

Nietzsche went to great lengths to show that our whole reality is a delusion, the brain has evolved for the role of survival.. not truth, we are programmed for error.. this was his "theory of errors". The belief that things exist as you perceive them is as false as a belief in a God living up in the clouds judging everyone. Nietzsche wrote so much about this topic, how all the 'sciences' only provide theories not actual explanations because they rely on the senses. to see truth is to face the abyss, which is the absurd, the illogical. you have to go against intuition and what 'seems right'.

 

for Taoism its the same thing, take Zhuangzi and his metaphor of the butterfly. or other Mystics from every tradition. they all refer to this reality as a dream that must be woken up to. in essence that means that everything you perceive to be true is false. all beliefs and intuitions are false. the only way to awaken from the dream is to let go of perceived notions of 'what is real' and embrace the absurdity that everything you hold to be true is actually false including the belief in an 'I'

Edited October 29, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

*****************

 

i'm trying to remain on topic here and the segue is: intuition is conditioned since it cannot be separated from belief.

 

I will have to redefine terms: delusion/conditioning is concluding truths based on assumptions and ignorance. intuition is following your heart, belief is a psychological yes response to a proposition, wisdom is the inherent quality of Mind to know. by 'mind' (lowercase) I refer to 'mindstream' or 'subjective perspective' 'or' 'Sem' irrespective of brain. 'Mind' uppercase is non-localized awareness. or 'Rigpa'

 

so, if you say intuition is conditioned since it is based on belief, which I argue to be true, then there can arise a propensity to go to the extreme of denying all intuition as conditioned. is there such thing as non-conditioned intuition? this is what I would call wisdom. before I defined wisdom as all-encompassing view but I will change that. the all-encompassing view (emptiness) is the necessary method to accessing wisdom. why? because the method of the view is what stops conditioning. intuition is no longer conditioned because beliefs are let go of, conceptual barriers are dissolved, and wisdom is no longer filtered through as 'intuition' where it can now be rightly called 'Wisdom'. the all encompassing view of Emptiness has logic as a necessity.

 

so about Intuition and Logic, which is the topic: Logic is necessary to decondition intuition as Wisdom.

Edited October 29, 2009 by mikaelz

[Seth Ananda]

No, logic is not the end all be all, but intuition left to it's own devices will just lead to subtler and subtler identifications without the recognition of emptiness or D.O.

 

but also not a voice in your head that say's, "I am God", the "1" in all beings. That will just reabsorb you at the end of the cosmic eon and you will re-absorb blissfully but not knowing the next place that you spit out at.

 

Buddhism covers all your experiences Seth Ananda and gives them context in the hopes that you eventually transcend even these magnificent powers.

 

p.s. It's so subtle that it doesn't even need a concept as a platform. It's so deep this clinging that it's at the core of your intuition.

 

I feel that you merely lack the right tools of study and dissection. Your path does not offer "right view".

 

In Buddhism, Buddhahood is defined as omniscience, not succumbing to mystery. There is surrender, but only to know more deeply without experiential, or intellectual excusing.

well a Buddhist would say these things because this is your Dogma. You Keep accusing anyone not Buddhist of clinging to subtle Attachments.

 

I would Offer a reverse saying it is you who is clinging to Emptiness and Dependent Origination as a perspective, for you are afraid to really surrender to a universe that might want something from you... Does the concept of Divine Will Scare you, or of a Way that leads, that you flow with, or even a Purpose at the core of your being?

I am not really offering this as an argument, More as a Demonstration of what you do. Every reply you give demands that I accept the Buddhist dogma as the total truth, rather than Meeting me (or anyone) in open honest dialogue. Stop being a Buddhist Bible Basher and get off your pedestal and maybe these conversations can get a bit more constructive.

 

The practices I know involve the deepest Surrendering I can conceive off. Feel free to question in any way you like without just demanding I 'Wake up' and be a Buddhist.

[Sunya]

well a Buddhist would say these things because this is your Dogma. You Keep accusing anyone not Buddhist of clinging to subtle Attachments.

 

yes...go on...

 

I would Offer a reverse saying it is you who is clinging to Emptiness and Dependent Origination as a perspective, for you are afraid to really surrender to a universe that might want something from you... Does the concept of Divine Will Scare you, or of a Way that leads, that you flow with, or even a Purpose at the core of your being?

 

so you're arguing that Buddhists are dogmatic by saying the view of no-view is all encompassing and say "stop accusing me of clinging to subtle attachments!"..Then you go off saying you surrender to a universe as if the universe is a conscious singular being? do you not see the subtle attachment to that dogmatic concept? who is truly dogmatic here Seth?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I realize that this was supposed to be a humorous comment but in your case I think it is a reality. You pretend to be detached from reality but yet you are so very much concerned with the reality of the words I speak.

 

 

 

One can't help a mind already made up. What you consider real is merely through the limits of your thus far remembered experience and this is all.

 

You are so sure about what you do not know. Being more agnostic would suit intelligence a whole lot more. When even scientists with PHD's on the subject cannot yet determine if the mind is merely brain made or something subtler. You in all your glory have determined the reality.

 

Wonderful!

 

well a Buddhist would say these things because this is your Dogma. You Keep accusing anyone not Buddhist of clinging to subtle Attachments.

 

I would Offer a reverse saying it is you who is clinging to Emptiness and Dependent Origination as a perspective, for you are afraid to really surrender to a universe that might want something from you... Does the concept of Divine Will Scare you, or of a Way that leads, that you flow with, or even a Purpose at the core of your being?

I am not really offering this as an argument, More as a Demonstration of what you do. Every reply you give demands that I accept the Buddhist dogma as the total truth, rather than Meeting me (or anyone) in open honest dialogue. Stop being a Buddhist Bible Basher and get off your pedestal and maybe these conversations can get a bit more constructive.

 

The practices I know involve the deepest Surrendering I can conceive off. Feel free to question in any way you like without just demanding I 'Wake up' and be a Buddhist.

 

 

It's fine Seth. We are just having a conversation here. Don't take it too seriously. I'm speaking as I know as you are, no problem. Relax.

 

I've had all these experiences which reify a source and a supreme deity to all. I later realized after transmission from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche that it was all merely my karma talking to me, kind of a cosmic schizophrenia, which I would merge with at will, then separate from to feel the bliss and longing of separation, those drowning tears of incredible longing, then the utter relaxed calm of merging, separating, merging, just for the play of it. I realized this was the subtlest delusion by picking up the Buddhadharma, understanding it, then truly experiencing how truly transcendent/eminent it's wisdom is.

 

But, you do have your choice Seth. I'm just offering another perspective. It's fine... do as you will. I just offer this advice, that you look more deeply into what, "will" really is. What is movement? Of all sorts, what's the propelling agent?

 

The Buddha found that it's just dependent origination without primal cause since beginningless time. Even the big bang is an effect of a cause and is not the primal cause, and the cause of that is caused, so on and so forth add infinitum.

 

The idea of a divine will does not scare me. In fact the opposite which I found to be true scared me way more than another could ever scare me, due to the depth of my personal experience of a "divine will" to all.

 

Coming to Buddhism from the depth of my Advaita Vedanta practice and experience was the hardest thing and bravest thing I've ever done.

 

That's just me though. You have your own trip. I'll follow the trip of the Buddhas.

 

Take care.