ralis Posted October 30, 2009 Yes, I did, because I was heavily conditioned, first by society, then by incredibly powerful deity worship and seeing a "one" in everything. Now you are into incredibly powerful Buddha worship. ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 30, 2009 Now you got me started. Hehehe. The greater the fulfillment the less free will (choices) need be applied. (Are we nearing free-flow yet?) Peace & Love! Almost there M! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted October 30, 2009 If one uses logic and intuition, then emotion should never be included in any argument. To be logical is to not allow emotion to cloud one's judgment. Therefor, anyone using propaganda such as "my belief system is higher, more subtle, more profound etc. is making an irrational, untenable argument." Especially, when the belief system is extended into the entire cosmos without limit. Yesterday, I learned that a Buddha knows everything without limit! How can anyone comprehend infinity? ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 30, 2009 If one uses logic and intuition, then emotion should never be included in any argument. To be logical is to not allow emotion to cloud one's judgment. Therefor, anyone using propaganda such as "my belief system is higher, more subtle, more profound etc. is making an irrational, untenable argument." Especially, when the belief system is extended into the entire cosmos without limit. Yesterday, I learned that a Buddha knows everything without limit! How can anyone comprehend infinity? ralis Hey Ralis, You love playing the guitar right? It must be be easy for you, assuming you are a skillful guitarist. I have not a clue about guitar-playing. So would you say there is a limit to how good a guitarist can get in terms of skill? I would assume there is no end to this mastery, would you agree? In principle then, your potential as a guitarist is infinite. If this is taken to deeper levels, comprehending infinity and honing your limitless potential as a skilled guitar-player, is exactly the same. With contemplation, and time, you will understand the co-relation. I suppose William Blake understood, when he wrote the Auguries of Innocence: "To see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity, in an hour". Regards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustARandomPanda Posted October 30, 2009 Just thought I'd pop a note here that Jamie Andreas has actually turned practice time on the guitar (or presumably any other instrument) into a focused concentration exercise while playing short sections of whatever you are working on - although I'm not sure if she (she was a he back then) realizes the parallels to formal shamatha meditation. I have her original edition and it's VERY good. It wasn't until I started meditation these past 6-8 months however that - when I went back to read it over again - I suddenly realized why her kind of guitar practice worked so well although I've been very lazy about applying it for the past few years. Looks like she's got a lot more stuff now compared to when I bought the first edition many years ago. Check it out if you play an instrument. GuitarPrinciples.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted October 30, 2009 Greetings.. One of my favorite breath QiGongs is playing the Shakuhachi (low D, 2.4 ft.).. i get to play with some amazing vibrational frequencies, exercise and regulate the DanTien, and bring pure 'mindlessness' into the practice.. i usually play for 15 - 30 minutes per evening.. the flute is a great whole body breath practice.. Be well.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted October 30, 2009 Hey Ralis, You love playing the guitar right? It must be be easy for you, assuming you are a skillful guitarist. I have not a clue about guitar-playing. So would you say there is a limit to how good a guitarist can get in terms of skill? I would assume there is no end to this mastery, would you agree? In principle then, your potential as a guitarist is infinite. If this is taken to deeper levels, comprehending infinity and honing your limitless potential as a skilled guitar-player, is exactly the same. With contemplation, and time, you will understand the co-relation. I suppose William Blake understood, when he wrote the Auguries of Innocence: "To see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity, in an hour". Regards. Good point! I was referring to mikaelz comment that a Buddha knows all. I have difficulty with that one. ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted October 30, 2009 I changed from acoustic to electric about 3 months ago. The difference is profound! The electric is easier to play, has wonderful effects like distortion and is just fun!! ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebelrebel Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Well vajra it's clear to me you don't understand the main cause of suffering yet and you haven't quite grasped what the true result of logical analysis of dependent origination is. Or just what it is intended to remedy in the end. Edited October 30, 2009 by rebelrebel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 30, 2009 Well vajra it's clear to me you don't understand the main cause of suffering yet and you haven't quite grasped what the true result of logical analysis of dependent origination is. Or just what it is intended to remedy in the end. Well cant speak for V, but i have a personal curiosity to hear what your take is regarding the main cause of suffering and the true result of logical analysis of DO. Please enlighten me sir, for i have much to learn. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Well vajra it's clear to me you don't understand the main cause of suffering yet and you haven't quite grasped what the true result of logical analysis of dependent origination is. Or just what it is intended to remedy in the end. The main cause is ignorance of the true dependently originated and thus empty nature of every experience, thought, action, and choice. The experience of rigpa is beyond thinking about any of this stuff, as the realization is intuitive, but uncompounded. You can feel the Buddha presence in every particle, not because the Buddha is everything, but rather all the Buddhas have attained complete and total presence and have omnipresence as their awareness permeates every aspect of everything during all the 3 times as they have firmly realized emptiness. The result of dependent origination is the realization of emptiness. The realization of emptiness means the intuitive realization of dependent origination beyond formulaic thinking. But, one should still express the formula as expression is the formula in action anyway. My poems come across very differently from my scholarly blurps. But, you are welcome to your opinion. Take care. Edited October 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted October 30, 2009 QUOTE(ralis @ Oct 30 2009, 04:42 PM) If one uses logic and intuition, then emotion should never be included in any argument. To be logical is to not allow emotion to cloud one's judgment. Therefor, anyone using propaganda such as "my belief system is higher, more subtle, more profound etc. is making an irrational, untenable argument." Especially, when the belief system is extended into the entire cosmos without limit. Yesterday, I learned that a Buddha knows everything without limit! How can anyone comprehend infinity? ralis For the sake of readers, I'll answer this. The profound truth of the Buddhas statement, that dependent origination/emptiness is the only path to complete liberation, no matter what the religion might be called, is a logical inference, and not an emotional one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 30, 2009 The main cause is ignorance of the true dependently originated and thus empty nature of every experience, thought, action, and choice. The experience of rigpa is beyond thinking about any of this stuff, as the realization is intuitive, but uncompounded. You can feel the Buddha presence in every particle, not because the Buddha is everything, but rather all the Buddhas have attained complete and total presence and have omnipresence as their awareness permeates every aspect of everything during all the 3 times as they have firmly realized emptiness. The result of dependent origination is the realization of emptiness. The realization of emptiness means the intuitive realization of dependent origination beyond formulaic thinking. But, one should still express the formula as expression is the formula in action anyway. My poems come across very differently from my scholarly blurps. But, you are welcome to your opinion. Take care. Hey V - This does sound a bit blurpy alright Not sure if it will be misinterpreted (again?). Thought i'd let you know!! How about a simpler edit? Ta. Peace.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted October 30, 2009 What it seems that most people aren't getting here is that, all paths that I know of, posit a true existence, that everything is because of the existence of one, mysterious agent behind everything, a beyond concept, true source of all existence. That all things are because of... "God", "Tao", "Light of consciousness", "The great spirit", "The one", "Brahman", "True Being", "I", "I AM", "That", "whatever"... Dependent origination is the only formula even merely on a logical level that transcends the duality of existence and non-existence, not merely as concepts as when you stop thinking for instance in a deep formless samadhi, but come out and say, "That's God"... or, "That's Tao"... Dependent Origination is the only way to look at things if one want's to transcend the duality of "I exist" as one with "That" or, "I do not exist" because only, "That" exists. Buddhism is the on only path that logically posits, neither existence, nor non-existence, neither both, nor neither. Buddhahood never makes experiential, intellectual, or emotional excuses for ignorance. Agree with it or not, think that this is... totally impossible or not. Think it utterly delusional even. Buddhism makes this grandiose statement and stands by it thick and thin, through philosophy and method, it has people that realize this "omniscient omnipresence" of the truth of dependent origination and emptiness. Take it or leave it, but that's Buddhism which means "awake-ism" and I'm a Buddhist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 30, 2009 What it seems that most people aren't getting here is that, all paths that I know of, posit a true existence, that everything is because of the existence of one, mysterious agent behind everything, a beyond concept, true source of all existence. That all things are because of... "God", "Tao", "Light of consciousness", "The great spirit", "The one", "Brahman", "True Being", "I", "I AM", "That", "whatever"... Dependent origination is the only formula even merely on a logical level that transcends the duality of existence and non-existence, not merely as concepts as when you stop thinking for instance in a deep formless samadhi, but come out and say, "That's God"... or, "That's Tao"... Dependent Origination is the only way to look at things if one want's to transcend the duality of "I exist" as one with "That" or, "I do not exist" because only, "That" exists. Buddhism is the on only path that logically posits, neither existence, nor non-existence, neither both, nor neither. Buddhahood never makes experiential, intellectual, or emotional excuses for ignorance. Agree with it or not, think that this is... totally impossible or not. Think it utterly delusional even. Buddhism makes this grandiose statement and stands by it thick and thin, through philosophy and method, it has people that realize this "omniscient omnipresence" of the truth of dependent origination and emptiness. Take it or leave it, but that's Buddhism which means "awake-ism" and I'm a Buddhist. Hmm... Now it would be good to hear RR's follow-up to his comment. He must have some heavy stuff to share, otherwise he would not have made that observation above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted October 30, 2009 Hey V - This does sound a bit blurpy alright Not sure if it will be misinterpreted (again?). Thought i'd let you know!! How about a simpler edit? Ta. Peace.. Thanks CowTao, but I have thousands of posts here, and most all of them get mis-represented, because frankly, I'm not in a Buddhist room where people even really study Buddhism to begin with. The only people that seem to understand my posts are Buddhist already, or really open minded people who are just starting to wake up to something deeper and are really open about where to place their feet as a path. Of which there have been quite a few... well a handful, but that's enough! My words have effected people to look more deeply into Buddhism. Not these guys who argue with me incessantly and refuse to make space for understanding a word I say directly. See, people who have already decided what their path is and have traveled it for quite some time, will find it hard to understand Buddhist logic, or expression in any sense. Especially anti-religious types. They measure everything under the stick of "anti-my-birth or home" religion. I myself was on an Advaitin Shaivite path my entire life, with many years of practice and experience all aimed at reifying the subtle "I" behind everything, the 1 true existence of Shiva, the source of all beings! It was extremely painful to start realizing directly the truths of Buddhism through 3 years of arguing with Lappon Namdrol. We argued and argued and argued, my realist Shaivite logic verses his neither real nor unreal logic of Buddhism. I decided after some time, that he was actually starting to make some sense, even though every time I meditated, I would get visited by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva on an energetic level and I would also experience all sorts of wonders and go to the different realms spoken about in the scriptures, experience immense bliss, joy, wisdom, a wonderful sense of freedom! But, I didn't realize that it was a freedom that would only last to the end of the cosmic eon, where it say's in the scriptures Shiva re-absorbs everything back into the primal balance during pralaya, into a non-manifest state of formless bliss. I realized that this was not liberation from Samsara after all. Through Buddhist reasoning and contemplation, I started having memories of even prier to this universe, I started remembering all sorts of things. Though even as a devote Hindu I remembered past lives, but not nearly as many coming in rapid succession and not nearly as far back as the concept of dependent origination takes one's mind much further in contemplation as it never posits a supreme source a beginner that never began itself. It see's the big bang as a result of the end of the last universe, not as a primal uncaused causer of everything. Dependent origination see's through everything, and de-mystifies everything. No more excuses for ignorance. Anyway... people might understand this and people might not. I express... that's it... the crumbs land where they may. Xabir's posts are quite clear, yet people don't seem to understand him either. I think Mikael is very clear, but people don't understand what he's getting at as well. So... I try... but... ultimately, I am quite detached, though relatively of course attached to absolutely everything and everyone. Anyway... Que sera, sera! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebelrebel Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Ok, analysis of dependent origination ends up in neither existence, non existence, both or neither. What does that really mean? It means that ANY identification/conceptualization that is taken to be "what is" is an error. Identification is either of an existent, non existent, both or neither. With none of those, there is no basis for taking identification to be "what is." Now, without having to look at the process of dependent origination, one can see that it is identification (taking it to be "what is") that is at the root of all suffering. It is identification which leads to hurt, fear, comparison, division, conflict, anger, hatred. For instance, why is one afraid of death? It's the word/identification "death" and all the negativity it has associated with it that causes the fear of it, not the actual fact of death. The word "death" is NOT the same as the actual fact that that word points to. And this, taking the word and the thing/the description and the described to be the same is the source of most of our problems. Not failing to see dependent origination. Dependent origination is an indirect way to come to this understanding. So saying that it is the only way is incorrect and very very limiting. But as I said back in my other post "Look, I'm not denying dependent origination. "Dependent origination" is pointing to an obviously present process. But, let me ask you this, is a tooth brush a "tooth brush?" or is it just what it is? In the same way, the words/identification of dependent origination are obviously NOT the process which is present as an undeniable fact. Unless you think a thought is the same as a process of nature/the universe. The identification of that fact is just an interpretation/translation of it and not the fact itself. If you see this, you wouldn't need so much emphasis on dependent origination because this is pointing to the exact same thing that one would get from a logical analysis of dependent origination. Well not quite exact, it goes a bit deeper. It is just a lot easier." And it is identification that causes craving. Without attachment to identification of something, craving has very little meaning. One doesn't need a master, a guru or years of rigorous study to see this. Edited October 30, 2009 by rebelrebel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustARandomPanda Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) If I call a toothbrush a "toothbrush" it does not follow logically automatically I've mistaken the map for the territory no matter how many decades I may call it that. Or do logicians say that I have? Edited October 31, 2009 by SereneBlue Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebelrebel Posted October 31, 2009 If I call a toothbrush a "toothbrush" it does not follow logically automatically I've mistaken the map for the territory no matter how many decades I may call it that. Or do logicians say that I have? You have made an error if you think that you're thought/identification "toothbrush" is the same as that physical thing that is there. That identification is just an interpretation/translation of the thing that is there. Not it itself. I don't see how people don't get this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustARandomPanda Posted October 31, 2009 You have made an error if you think that you're thought/identification "toothbrush" is the same as that physical thing that is there. I don't see how people don't get this. But I take it this is the crux of your argument with VH. That he has mistaken the map for the territory. Can you show logically step-by-step how and where he did so that I may see this error too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted October 31, 2009 Thanks CowTao, but I have thousands of posts here, and most all of them get mis-represented, because frankly, I'm not in a Buddhist room where people even really study Buddhism to begin with. The only people that seem to understand my posts are Buddhist already, or really open minded people who are just starting to wake up to something deeper and are really open about where to place their feet as a path. Of which there have been quite a few... well a handful, but that's enough! My words have effected people to look more deeply into Buddhism. Not these guys who argue with me incessantly and refuse to make space for understanding a word I say directly. See, people who have already decided what their path is and have traveled it for quite some time, will find it hard to understand Buddhist logic, or expression in any sense. Especially anti-religious types. They measure everything under the stick of "anti-my-birth or home" religion. I myself was on an Advaitin Shaivite path my entire life, with many years of practice and experience all aimed at reifying the subtle "I" behind everything, the 1 true existence of Shiva, the source of all beings! It was extremely painful to start realizing directly the truths of Buddhism through 3 years of arguing with Lappon Namdrol. We argued and argued and argued, my realist Shaivite logic verses his neither real nor unreal logic of Buddhism. I decided after some time, that he was actually starting to make some sense, even though every time I meditated, I would get visited by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva on an energetic level and I would also experience all sorts of wonders and go to the different realms spoken about in the scriptures, experience immense bliss, joy, wisdom, a wonderful sense of freedom! But, I didn't realize that it was a freedom that would only last to the end of the cosmic eon, where it say's in the scriptures Shiva re-absorbs everything back into the primal balance during pralaya, into a non-manifest state of formless bliss. I realized that this was not liberation from Samsara after all. Through Buddhist reasoning and contemplation, I started having memories of even prier to this universe, I started remembering all sorts of things. Though even as a devote Hindu I remembered past lives, but not nearly as many coming in rapid succession and not nearly as far back as the concept of dependent origination takes one's mind much further in contemplation as it never posits a supreme source a beginner that never began itself. It see's the big bang as a result of the end of the last universe, not as a primal uncaused causer of everything. Dependent origination see's through everything, and de-mystifies everything. No more excuses for ignorance. Anyway... people might understand this and people might not. I express... that's it... the crumbs land where they may. Xabir's posts are quite clear, yet people don't seem to understand him either. I think Mikael is very clear, but people don't understand what he's getting at as well. So... I try... but... ultimately, I am quite detached, though relatively of course attached to absolutely everything and everyone. Anyway... Que sera, sera! Does anyone else see the irony in this post? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebelrebel Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) But I take it this is the crux of your argument with VH. That he has mistaken the map for the territory. Can you show logically step-by-step how and where he did so that I may see this error too? Ok, it can be summed up pretty easily. First of all, nobody is denying that dependent origination is there. But dependent origination is not "dependent origination." "dependent origination" is a phrase/identification of a process that is present as a fact. It is merely a tool to point to that process. But it is NOT the process itself. Is it? Just like physical change is not the word "change" is it? "change" is just an interpretation of a fact which is obviously present and not the fact itself. Vajra thinks that one NEEDS to see the process of dependent origination in order to end suffering. So he clings to it. But if he saw what I have said above, he would realize that he is giving it too much importance. To see what I have said, to see why one suffers, you do not need to rigorously study dependent origination. Edited October 31, 2009 by rebelrebel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaoChild Posted October 31, 2009 Intuition IS Logic -- it's just much, much faster. Gut feelings = you can react before thinking, which may equal life vs. death. Trying to think when something pounces at you is sure to get you killed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustARandomPanda Posted October 31, 2009 Ok, it can be summed up pretty easily. First of all, nobody is denying that dependent origination is there. But dependent origination is not "dependent origination." "dependent origination" is a phrase/identification of a process that is present as a fact. It is merely a tool to point to that process. But it is NOT the process itself. Is it? Just like physical change is not the word "change" is it? "change" is just an interpretation of a fact which is obviously present and not the fact itself. Vajra thinks that one NEEDS to see the process of dependent origination in order to end suffering. So he clings to it. But if he saw what I have said above, he would realize that he is giving it too much importance. To see what I have said, to see why one suffers, you do not need to rigorously study dependent origination. I don't doubt you inferred this. What I'm wondering is where and how you drew the conclusion of a quality from a quantity. In other words...how is the quality derived from a quantitative analysis? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebelrebel Posted October 31, 2009 I don't doubt you inferred this. What I'm wondering is where and how you drew the conclusion of a quality from a quantity. In other words...how is the quality derived from a quantitative analysis? Expand a little bit more on what you mean, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
