Intuition and Logic.

[Marblehead]

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?

 

Yes, Serene, a toothbrush is still a toothbrush no matter what you call it. If you call it a rose it is still a toothbrush.

 

Your BF could go into the bathroom and look at the toothbrush and pick it up and brush his teeth with it. It is still a toothbrush whether or not you are in the bathroom with him.

 

(Don't make life more difficult than it already is.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Does anyone else see the irony in this post?

 

I couldn't finish reeading it - I kept falling asleep.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

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.

 

I just wanted to thank you for speaking to the topic subject.

 

Oh, yeah, I can pretty much agree with you. Well, almost. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

I hear you loud and clear M!

 

This is how i see it:

 

A toothbrush can only be called a toothbrush because it is made up of different non-toothbrush components. These components individually, before coming together, cannot be called a toothbrush, YET. Nonetheless, they already have the necessary potential to be a toothbrush. So one can substitute the label *toothbrush* with any other label, and the same principle can be applied.

 

Seeing how all things are connected in a similar fashion can intuitively heighten awareness, which can lead to very logical outcomes. (I had to include this line, just to remain on topic hehehe). Take firing a gun for example. In America, there are alot of folks who can fire guns yes? But not all these same folks have a responsible insight into the proper workings of a gun, hence, out of ignorance and disrespect, create alot of unnecessary suffering, for themselves and others.

 

You know much about guns, more so than many of these folks, so your awareness expands not only around the mechanics of the gun, but outwards, as far as seeing how lethal it can be, its potential to kill or save etc. Hence you have an intuitive respect built around this awareness, and will never take a gun for granted, no matter what. This is the logic behind the intuition. Someone mentions the word 'Gun' to you, and whatever awareness you have with this association immediately comes to the fore. No thoughts involved. Only awareness, borne out of logical understanding.

 

I think this is a very simple inference on the principle of Emptiness/DO in Buddhism and its effectiveness as a tool to further one's responsibility and accountability to oneself, firstly, and then to the world. I wish to go deeper, but my mind wont let me I am shallow indeed

 

I hope this made some sense. If it did not, no matter, they are still reflections nonetheless.

 

Bee good M! Happy weekend

Edited October 31, 2009 by CowTao

[Marblehead]

You did well, CowTao.

 

I don't have a real problem with the DO term because once I understood it from a Buddhist perspective I realized that it is what I refer to as cause and effect.

 

In the Army we never called them guns. We called them weapons - weapons for killing (mostly people). That is their usage. Whether in offense or defense.

 

When the weapon is disassembled into its many parts then it is no longer a weapon but it still has the potential to be a weapon.

 

Same with the toothbrush. Disassembled it cannot be used as a toothbrush but if it were possible to reassemble the toothbrush then it would once again be a toothbrush - no matter who looked at it.

 

When we speak as if the manifest does not exist we are leaving out some parts of the "All" and therefore we are incorrect in our view if we think we see the truth of reality. When we look at only the spiritual aspect of life we are missing all of the manifest - when we look at only the manifest we are missing the spiritual.

 

It is my opinion that one cannot speak of only one aspect of reality because if they do they are missing all the other aspects of reality. To speak truthfully about reality one must include all aspects.

 

So I think it is both logical and intuitive that we look at the fullness of what is as opposed to looking for something that is not. (Hey! You cannot look for what is not. We cannot define Tao.)

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Taoists understand existence without duality. That was the time of singularity - the time after the end of the previous universe and the time of the big bang. It was during the time of singularity, the time when there was no time, that 'no-thing' existed. No, not even V. or the Buddha existed during the time of singularity.

Hi Marblehead: Your Clarity shines crystal clear.. concise and consistent with the 'way' things are.. if i could make a humble suggestion, that the 'singularity' is only identifiable or referencable against a background of what is 'not' the singularity.. it has been my experience that this is the Original state of ..... well, i don't what to call it, i just don't know.. no word or phrase seems adequate.. but, the ground state of 'it', is the condition of ISness (singularity) and IS NOTness (Void).. the Prime Duality. I know this flies in the face of many people's preference for 'non-duality', but.. 'it works'. non-duality doesn't 'work'. I generally believe that people use 'non-duality' where 'Undifferentiated Whole' seems more appropriate.. Undifferentiated Whole represents the fully integrated Unity of all manifestations.. The Hindus understood this condition as the 'Prime Vibration' of Energy, Om or Aum.. a single direct experience of Om or Aum, is a thousand times more appropriate that every word spoken thereafter trying to describe it.. or, a practical analogy is how music is only 'music' as a relationship between sound and silence.. we/us/life are the music, the relationship between 'sound and silence', ISness and IS NOTness...

 

Be well..

Edited October 31, 2009 by TzuJanLi

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

Hi Marblehead: Your Clarity shines crystal clear.. concise and consistent with the 'way' things are.. if i could make a humble suggestion, that the 'singularity' is only identifiable or referencable against a background of what is 'not' the singularity.. it has been my experience that this is the Original state of ..... well, i don't what to call it, i just don't know.. no word or phrase seems adequate.. but, the ground state of 'it', is the condition of ISness (singularity) and IS NOTness (Void).. the Prime Duality. I know this flies in the face of many people's preference for 'non-duality', but.. 'it works'. non-duality doesn't 'work'. I generally believe that people use 'non-duality' where 'Undifferentiated Whole' seems more appropriate.. Undifferentiated Whole represents the fully integrated Unity of all manifestations.. The Hindus understood this condition as the 'Prime Vibration' of Energy, Om or Aum.. a single direct experience of Om or Aum, is a thousand times more appropriate that every word spoken thereafter trying to describe it.. or, a practical analogy is how music is only 'music' as a relationship between sound and silence.. we/us/life are the music, the relationship between 'sound and silence', ISness and IS NOTness...

 

Be well..

 

Hi TzuJanLi, Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I am still trying to find words in order to explain the unexplainable.

 

I use the word 'singularity' because a lot of people have enountered the word. Yes, I would love to say 'undifferentiated Tao'. Who would understand that? Of course, we cannot define 'undifferentiated Tao' because, after all, it is undifferentiated. Duh. We cannot even compare it against absolute nothingness. Where is absolute nothingness so that we can point to it? Yes, undifferentiated Tao "is" and it "is not". But I don't consider this to be a duality.

 

In my life (these later years) I have come to realize that I do not need to define something as ugly in order to define something as beautiful. Yes, I still realize the difference between pleasure and pain. They are opposites. But they are singular concepts. We don't need to have lived in total pleasure before we can know pain and vice versa. Even the rose thorn is beautiful as long as I don't touch it.

 

Yes, 'sound or silence' would be a duality. ISness or IS NOTness is a little more difficult for me though because how do we define IS NOTness? Even in IS NOTness there is potential ISness so aren't we just talking about different cycles of ISness and IS NOTness?

 

On the lighter side though, I can define the difference between noise and silence - detectable vibrations and non-detectable vibrations. Science can even measure that stuff.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 31, 2009 by Marblehead

[C T]

Greetings..

Hi Marblehead: Your Clarity shines crystal clear.. concise and consistent with the 'way' things are.. if i could make a humble suggestion, that the 'singularity' is only identifiable or referencable against a background of what is 'not' the singularity.. it has been my experience that this is the Original state of ..... well, i don't what to call it, i just don't know.. no word or phrase seems adequate.. but, the ground state of 'it', is the condition of ISness (singularity) and IS NOTness (Void).. the Prime Duality. I know this flies in the face of many people's preference for 'non-duality', but.. 'it works'. non-duality doesn't 'work'. I generally believe that people use 'non-duality' where 'Undifferentiated Whole' seems more appropriate.. Undifferentiated Whole represents the fully integrated Unity of all manifestations.. The Hindus understood this condition as the 'Prime Vibration' of Energy, Om or Aum.. a single direct experience of Om or Aum, is a thousand times more appropriate that every word spoken thereafter trying to describe it.. or, a practical analogy is how music is only 'music' as a relationship between sound and silence.. we/us/life are the music, the relationship between 'sound and silence', ISness and IS NOTness...

 

Be well..

Hello TJL,

 

When the river looks up at all the bridges while flowing gently downstream, the river sees the moving bridges.

When the bridges look down at the same gentle, flowing river, its the river that's moving.

 

When you say Non-Duality does not *work*, it brings up the question whether you are viewing Non-Duality from the perspective of a *bridge* or a *river*?

 

I suggest here that ND is not some super-mystical state of realization, or a secret formula adepts use to reach some state, or attain some union with the Nondescript (or the Nameless, or whatever one wants to un-call IT).

 

One of the ways ND is used in Buddhism is to describe a state of awareness where one no longer struggle with the view of separateness, of extreme individuality, and a false sense of what is * I * (and all that resides in this * I *) and the the world outside, which is not * I *. It is a practical description i think, and nothing more.

 

So it can work in the way its meant to work, which is as mentioned above. It will, however, cease to work if one misappropriate its significance, or insignificance, depending on whether one is the bridge or the river.

 

Happy weekend TJL, and thanks for all the sparkling comments. Most interesting perspectives you have. 5* wisdom!

 

Regards.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi V.,

 

We discussed this before. Everything that exists is not because of Tao. Tao is everything but it is not the cause. Tzu-Jan is the cause - that is, the spontaneous processes of nature is the cause. Note that the word processes is a verb, not a noun. Spontaneous meaning just doing what it needs to do - similar to wu wei.

 

Tao takes different forms over time - this is the process of change resulting from Tzu-Jan.

 

Yes, we Taoists could say that everything is dependently originated. But we don't. We went deeper than the Buddha did and stated that there is a reason why dependent origination is valid because of the cause and effect of the processes of Tzu-Jan. And, as Tzu-Jan is a verb and not a noun there is 'no thing' that is the source of 'any thing' because all 'things' and all 'non things' are Tao. But Tao follows the processes of Tzu-Jan. It cannot be otherwise. (That is, everything that is at this very moment in time is exactly the way it is supposed to be - it cannot be anything other.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

That's still monism and not dependent origination according to Buddhism. So, it's not the same realization and does not lead to Buddhahood. In Buddhism, everything is not one thing. That's considered a mistaken cognition, or mistaken interpretation of intuitive experience, which again is a conditioned phenomena. So, we of course are not in agreement that the Taoists went any deeper. In fact, we consider Taoism for the most part as being stuck at the formless level realization. Until proven otherwise. It most likely depends on the individual person. But as a whole, the teaching you and Stig and other Taoists tend to be elaborating upon is still scrutinized by the Buddha as still a Samsaric view, though a high level one.

 

Buddhism is not so idealistic as everything is how it's supposed to be. Everything is thus, but malleable through recognition of emptiness.

 

How is the view not the experience? Isn't experience predicated on view? I mean, the other 7 steps of the eightfold path which all involve experiencing the world all come after right view. So I assume the experience and view are pretty tightly linked.

 

Interesting how I can tell a Krishnamurti follower. A guy that say's, don't have teachers, but was a teacher. All his students say, "Don't have Guru's"... but cling to Krishnamurti more than students of genuine lineage masters do.

 

The view is not necessarily the experience if it's merely conceptual.

 

Also... since Krishnamurti denied the relative and process of progress. His view was only half right.

 

 

The main cause of suffering is discontentment. (Thinking you deserve better.)

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

Swami Muktananda said once that, "Contentment is the destroyer of ego."

 

So gurus can be helpful in many ways. It is sheer folly to downplay their significance.

 

IMO, DO has very positive uses other than what has been ascribed to here. I think focussing on it as a path that leads one out of suffering is only a small aspect of it. It goes much further, in that it allows the contemplative to understand the essence of Buddhism, which is compassion. Not once was this mentioned in this thread. The emphasis has always been DO/suffering. So it creates problems. All kinds of differing arguments which some readers find mockingly humorous. This is very sad. Buddhism is NOT about suffering.

 

The objective of practice (of Buddhism) is not only to lead one out of ignorance and confusion, but to show the path to loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, very often thru having the right view of DO. It is much easier for others who want to learn about Buddhism to relate on this level, do you agree? Even the Taoists.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

Very true. I did mention it though... I mentioned tears of compassion.

 

Anyway... I agree with you here. People take the 1st noble truth way to absolutely. It's relative.

[Vajrahridaya]

These statements are not true. Taoists understand existence without duality. That was the time of singularity - the time after the end of the previous universe and the time of the big bang. It was during the time of singularity, the time when there was no time, that 'no-thing' existed. No, not even V. or the Buddha existed during the time of singularity.

 

Buddhists don't believe this. That's just this physical universe first of all, of which both in the Vedas and in Buddhism name all different levels of big bangs in different realms of longer and longer lasting universes of more or less refinement in energy forms. Also... beings who were to be manifest from the potential of the last physical universe into this physical universe actually existed in a formless potential as this so called, "singularity"... called the "pralaya" in Sanskrit. But, to think that it's all one thing in an unmanifest formlessness is what Buddhists consider the crux of ignorance, thinking everything is one grand non-thing is considered a mis-interpretation of information.

 

All the beings existing as an unmanifest formless but merely in a repressed state still do exist in potential in an unconscious form, due to their clinging left over from the last universe. It's quite complicated. But basically think of your deep dreamless sleep... that's basically the state of being all these beings are in, unconscious. When the conditions ripen, the potential to remanifest the physicality arises, so do the elements start to evolve propelled by the latent karmas of the beings from the last physical universe also incorporated with beings of higher realms offering conscious and unconscious thoughts into the equation. Then the unconscious consciousness' of so many beings start to manifest through bodies of elements that can hold consciousness in very simple forms. Many, many beings are already awake in higher realms, there are so many realms, and in refined form realms and only drop down into this realm when there are evolved forms of elements that can hold consciousness, like Mammals. Some drop down to this realm consciously out of compassion for us, others unconsciously due to karmic necessity. Some beings can mind project into a defined physical element form such as ours and still be conscious in the higher refined not so densely defined form realm.

 

Buddhist cosmology is all very, very complicated.

 

We normally consider the 'now'.

 

For us the now is all 3 times, past present and future and all is ungraspable, like a hologram.

 

 

This manifest truely "is", and it is to be enjoyed, not escaped from!

 

There are different ways to liberation, some through renunciation which is considered a slower path than the Tantric path of transformation, which is slower than the Dzogchen path of instantaneous recognition of the natural liberation of all phenomena and consciousness where one neither rejects nor grasps at the manifest and is... wu wei as you like to say. But, to be a Dzogchen practitioner, it's generally considered that one go through all the different stages of practice, renunciation to re-evaluate one's role and experience of reality, then engaging transformation of Tantra when one has accumulated one's energies and understanding through renunciation, then to spontaneous liberation of the Dzogchen path.

 

 

Of course you are attached, V., I will suggest that we all are in one way or another.

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

I meant attached as in we are all connected, not psychologically.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

When the river looks up at all the bridges while flowing gently downstream, the river sees the moving bridges.

When the bridges look down at the same gentle, flowing river, its the river that's moving.

 

When you say Non-Duality does not *work*, it brings up the question whether you are viewing Non-Duality from the perspective of a *bridge* or a *river*?

Hi CowTao: When 'the river and the bridge' stop focusing on each other, they notice the grander movements of nature, the rhythms and cycles that make-up their environment.. it is in this context that experiences have revealed, to me, that fixing a definition, even as subtle as non-duality, sets up an exclusion to other possibilities..

One of the ways ND is used in Buddhism is to describe a state of awareness where one no longer struggle with the view of separateness, of extreme individuality, and a false sense of what is * I * (and all that resides in this * I *) and the the world outside, which is not * I *. It is a practical description i think, and nothing more.

It is very practical as you describe it.. but, suppose there is no 'struggle with the view of separateness'? Here, is where most spiritual types thrash me for being any one of their favored 'ignorant' labels.. i have no issue with the notion of separateness, no struggle.. a recent discussion went something like: 'we are like waves on the Ocean, unique expressions of the same thing'.. i replied: Let go of your attachment to the Ocean.. be the 'snowflake', it's unique pattern is no less 'water' than the ocean is itself water'.. too often people are 'bound' to conceptual descriptions,.. the reply to my 'reply' was: 'No, no.. you're missing the point'.. when, actually, the point was their attachment to their 'description' of a perfectly valid experience.. they understood the cancept, but couldn't accept the Divine Dichotomy where Wholeness and Separateness exist simultaneously.. is the snowflake or raindrop any less 'water' than the ocean itself?.. i sense that your meaning of non-duality would be consistent with the 'water' aspect of my discussion..

We cannot even compare it against absolute nothingness. Where is absolute nothingness so that we can point to it?

Hi Marblehead: Excellent point! i struggled with this notion for a time, but.. if you can indulge a little bit of 'me' projecting my understandings onto the 'singularity, i will explain my understanding.. Suppose you are the 'singularity', you radiate your awareness out into the void, but.. awareness never returns, there's no feedback, no information, just 'nothingness'.. so, you conclude that 'You' are ALL there is.. from one perspective 'you' fill the void, there's nothing but 'You'.. Then, from the void's perspective (Infinity and Eternity), "you' (the singularity) are so insignificant as to be non-existent.. but, in both cases there is the Singularity, and there is that which is not the Singularity.. there's only one way for awareness to return information and feedback, there must be something else 'out there', but.. there isn't, you are ALL of it.. then, in a process like the big-bang of something more subtle, like mitosis.. the Singularity becomes multiplicity and awareness abounds, information is everywhere.. the next Cosmos emerges..

 

Remember, i'm a simple kinda guy.. things need to 'work' for me to understand them.. considering that the Singularity radiates its awareness into 'absolute nothingness' and no information is returned.. i conclude it is aware that there is ''absolute nothingness' surrounding it.. i hope i'm making some sort of sense, here.. i respectfully await differing perspectives..

 

Be well..

 

Existence is defined by 'contrasting principles', like Yin and Yang, on/off, ISness/IS NOTness.. Now,

[Marblehead]

That's still monism and not dependent origination according to Buddhism. So, it's not the same realization and does not lead to Buddhahood.

 

I guess it is good that we Taoists are not seeking Buddhahood. And don't be playing with you monism so much - you'll go blind. Didn't your mom tell you that.

 

In Buddhism, everything is not one thing. That's considered a mistaken cognition, or mistaken interpretation of intuitive experience, which again is a conditioned phenomena. So, we of course are not in agreement that the Taoists went any deeper. In fact, we consider Taoism for the most part as being stuck at the formless level realization. Until proven otherwise.

 

Everything is not one thing in Taoism either. And I sure am glad. I am especially glad that Buddha and Lao Tzu were not the same because I wouldn't be a Taoist either if it were true. Well, of course you wouldn't agree that a Taoist has a more refined understanding of the universe than does a Buddhist. But that doesn't change reality. And we consider that Buddhists have been eating too many mushrooms and have become lost in space.

 

It most likely depends on the individual person.

 

If you have ever made an understatement this is it!

 

But as a whole, the teaching you and Stig and other Taoists tend to be elaborating upon is still scrutinized by the Buddha as still a Samsaric view, though a high level one.

 

And, of course, you do truely understand that your judgement of me, Stig, and others has nothing to do with the reality that I believe that it is you who are delusional, though at a higher level.

 

BTW Buddha has never been given the right to judge Taoism. Neither have you been given that right. That is because your and Buddha's judgements are flawed by your delusion of knowing what is unknowable. And please don't come back to me and say that you know the unknowable. You have done that once and it really sounded sick.

 

So the subject of this thread is "Intuition and Logic" and you are trying to turn it into another Buddhism vs Taoism thread. There already are about fifteen of those threads. None of us in the recent post said anything about Buddhism. We were expressing ourself and our understanding of the role logic and intuition play in our belief.

 

It just seems illogical for someone to want to start another belief fight in still another thread.

 

It would be really nice if you could just stay with the topic subject and speak to it instead of forcing your little Buddha figures in our faces.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

You did well, CowTao.

 

I don't have a real problem with the DO term because once I understood it from a Buddhist perspective I realized that it is what I refer to as cause and effect.

 

 

 

Actually, like I said before. D.O. also refers to emptiness, so it's subtler than merely cause and effect. As it refers to emptiness it is revealing that there is no single substance that all things are, such as everything is "The Tao".

 

So, D.O. of Buddhism is pointing to an understanding quite subtler than merely cause and effect.

 

 

Everything is not one thing in Taoism either.

 

Everything is Tao, no? The singularity before the big bang?

 

And please don't come back to me and say that you know the unknowable.

 

It's true that Buddhism doesn't make any excuses for ignorance. We do indeed feel that we can know how everything works. Not know every particular thing of the countless manifestations, but how it all works we can know exactly.

 

That's why a Buddha is considered omniscient with powers of perception to see remotely, see through physical objects... go into meditation and see things in the distant past or future, into other dimensions of reality... etc.

 

As far as how this subject happened? It happened through a natural progression originating dependently.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi Marblehead: I will try to make sense.. i sense that intuition, along with insight and emotion is how the 'mind' receives input from its non-local aspect.. i sense that logic is the 'mind's' application of its best understanding of that 'input' in the local environment..

 

A good friend, and former Buddhist, once remarked: It seems like we Buddhists simply can't tolerate those that won't share in our [buddhists] suffering.. i laughed and said: Everyone does share in it, some just don't hang on to it..

 

Be well..

Edited October 31, 2009 by TzuJanLi

[Vajrahridaya]

 

A good friend, and former Buddhist, once remarked: It seems like we Buddhists simply can't tolerate those that won't share in our [buddhists] suffering.. i laughed and said: Everyone does share in it, some just don't hang on to it..

 

Be well..

 

I don't understand these kinds of Buddhists. The 1st noble truth is relative, not absolute. Life is only suffering if ones consciousness is afflicted. A non-afflicted consciousness does not experience suffering, ever.

[Sunya]

Look, if emptiness is form and emptiness is truth then everything is truth because everything is emptiness. There is no thing that is not dependently originated. But of course emptiness is just a quality and not a thing. So, what is present right now is truth because it is empty, dependently originated.

 

I am talking about experiencing openly and unreservedly whatever arises at any moment without taking the identification of it to be "what is" - it itself. This is the same result as the buddhist realization that emptiness is form.

 

 

 

very wonderful post rebel, I edited out the unnecessaries..and now it truly shines

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Remember, i'm a simple kinda guy.. things need to 'work' for me to understand them.. considering that the Singularity radiates its awareness into 'absolute nothingness' and no information is returned.. i conclude it is aware that there is ''absolute nothingness' surrounding it.. i hope i'm making some sort of sense, here.. i respectfully await differing perspectives..

 

 

One can experience this in a state of meditative absorption. The experience is not considered a revelation of an absolute truth though, only a relative one and a mistaken cognition if one considers it a revelation of a single all pervasive being beyond concept that all things are.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

He was merely an intellectual, and was enthusiastic about his power of intellect. That's about it.

 

far from it. Krishnamurti had a very high realization of anatta and his teachings were absolutely necessary for the many spiritually materialistic shoppers present at his time, and now as well.

 

he also had memories of being a disciple of Buddha in past life, and would always praise the Buddha. he was an unBuddhist Buddhist, since labels themselves are contrary to the Dharmic understanding.

 

I think he has a lot to offer for the modern seeker.

 

also, he doesn't deny the relative... lol. if he did then why did he teach?

his view of sudden awakening was very similar to zen view, and it's more about emphasis. when you are constantly emphasizing the now, and not the past or future, then everything happens only now so an awakening can only be sudden. of course when you step back and see things more broadly, then awakening is dependently originated; gradual.. but not emphasizing that does no harm, and the two views do not contradict each other.

Edited October 31, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead: Excellent point! i struggled with this notion for a time, but.. if you can indulge a little bit of 'me' projecting my understandings onto the 'singularity, i will explain my understanding.. Suppose you are the 'singularity', you radiate your awareness out into the void, but.. awareness never returns, there's no feedback, no information, just 'nothingness'.. so, you conclude that 'You' are ALL there is.. from one perspective 'you' fill the void, there's nothing but 'You'.. Then, from the void's perspective (Infinity and Eternity), "you' (the singularity) are so insignificant as to be non-existent.. but, in both cases there is the Singularity, and there is that which is not the Singularity.. there's only one way for awareness to return information and feedback, there must be something else 'out there', but.. there isn't, you are ALL of it.. then, in a process like the big-bang of something more subtle, like mitosis.. the Singularity becomes multiplicity and awareness abounds, information is everywhere.. the next Cosmos emerges..

 

I am with you but am having a time of getting words in their proper place and respond. Hehehe. "Wu wei."

 

Yes, when we speak and expect a response but yet get none we would logically think that either there is no one there or we are being ignored. The concept of wu wei suggests that it doesn't matter. We spoke; we should have no expectations.

 

I like the big bang theory. (Actually, I am comfortable enough with it to accept it as a fact.) Singularity, Tzu-Jan, the big bang, the Manifest. A very sipmle process.

 

Actually, I don't believe it is possible to be aware of absolute nothingness, nothingness, however, yes. This is because I associate nothingness with the Mystery but absolute nothingness is beyond the limits of Mystery.

 

Remember, i'm a simple kinda guy.. things need to 'work' for me to understand them.. considering that the Singularity radiates its awareness into 'absolute nothingness' and no information is returned.. i conclude it is aware that there is ''absolute nothingness' surrounding it.. i hope i'm making some sort of sense, here.. i respectfully await differing perspectives..

 

Yeah, I try to keep life as simple as possible. Yes, I suggest that there are limits of the Manifest universe. But those limits are within the bounds of Mystery and Mystery is within the bounds of Tao so I really have no idea where the limits are, if there actually are any but my intuition suggests that there are limits because I see limits in every aspect of the Manifest.

 

I did like your snowflake vs the ocean metaphor. That was expanding the limits.

 

Sometimes when trying to say something logic and intuition don't even help. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Be well.. Existence is defined by 'contrasting principles', like Yin and Yang, on/off, ISness/IS NOTness.. Now,

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I don't understand these kinds of Buddhists. The 1st noble truth is relative, not absolute. Life is only suffering if ones consciousness is afflicted. A non-afflicted consciousness does not experience suffering, ever.

Agreed! but, so many of my 'Buddhist' friends keep telling me i'm suffering but don't realize it.. somehow, it just doesn't 'feel' like suffering, you know what i mean?

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

 

Everything is Tao, no? The singularity before the big bang?

 

The singularity is only a (non)point in time at the end of the previous universe and the beginning of this one. The concept of cycles. Birth - death - rebirth. Big bang - big crunch - big bang. Eternally continuous.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I have to get ready to give out candy to the trick or treaters. I'll be back around 9 pm.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

far from it. Krishnamurti had a very high realization of anatta and his teachings were absolutely necessary for the many spiritually materialistic shoppers present at his time, and now as well.

 

he also had memories of being a disciple of Buddha in past life, and would always praise the Buddha. he was an unBuddhist Buddhist, since labels themselves are contrary to the Dharmic understanding.

 

I think he has a lot to offer for the modern seeker.

 

also, he doesn't deny the relative... lol. if he did then why did he teach?

his view of sudden awakening was very similar to zen view, and it's more about emphasis. when you are constantly emphasizing the now, and not the past or future, then everything happens only now so an awakening can only be sudden. of course when you step back and see things more broadly, then awakening is dependently originated; gradual.. but not emphasizing that does no harm, and the two views do not contradict each other.

 

I only know him through people that have studied his teachings. I have never done so.

 

Everyone that is influenced by him seem to not have this understanding and go... "No Guru", "No Path" as some absolute savior concepts.

 

Also I was unimpressed with him when he spoke to Trungpa Rinpoche. He talked over him all the time, seemed impatient and bouncy like an adolescent. Seemed more enframed by his keen intellect and clever retorts than anything else.

 

Greetings..

Agreed! but, so many of my 'Buddhist' friends keep telling me i'm suffering but don't realize it.. somehow, it just doesn't 'feel' like suffering, you know what i mean?

 

Be well..

 

Well, they may be saying that one has not eradicated the cause of suffering completely even when one is enjoying life and not experiencing conscious suffering, there is still the potential to suffer if one is not omniscient completely about one's own condition on all levels.

 

Basically, until one is a Buddha, one still has some shedding to do, that's all.

 

But... it sounds like your friends hold it up as a holy grail.

 

It's a view, but it shouldn't hamper enjoyment and natural acceptance of the constant current of now...

 

It's really meant as a way to not get complacent when things appear comfortable because the law of impermanence is still at hand. Because comfort zones are just conditioned joys, not the truly uncompounded bliss of liberation, or the one taste of true clarity while in motion.

 

The singularity is only a (non)point in time at the end of the previous universe and the beginning of this one. The concept of cycles. Birth - death - rebirth. Big bang - big crunch - big bang. Eternally continuous.

 

Peace & Love!

I have to get ready to give out candy to the trick or treaters. I'll be back around 9 pm.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Cool... have a good one!

 

Yes, ok... the non-point of time is looked into and seen transparently by Buddhist clarity, that's all I'm saying. It's not considered a period of one, just a period of suppressed potential of endless beings and things left over from the previous universe.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

D.O. also refers to emptiness, so it's subtler than merely cause and effect. As it refers to emptiness it is revealing that there is no single substance that all things are, such as everything is "The Tao".

Searching for this Single Underlying Substance is now one of the biggest scientific endeavors happening in the 21st century, at the Large Hadron Collider (CERN). It is called the "God Particle" and it's a predicted part of the physics Theory of Everything. The God Particle is a particle that decays very quickly and in the process transmutes into the other sub atomic particles that give rise to the universe as we know it.

 

Experiments are underway at the CERN particle accelerator to finally detect this God Particle (Higgs boson particle).

 

SEE At the Heart of All Matter -- The Hunt for the God Particle

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/...chenbach-text/1

 

The Dalai Lama once said that if scientific findings contradict Buddhist findings then Buddhist fingdings should be abandoned for the scientific findings. I think its time for Buddhism to get out of the physics business. The Buddha (hopefully) had something other in mind when he saw human suffering then a simple physics lesson.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Tao99

[C T]

Searching for this Single Underlying Substance is now one of the biggest scientific endeavors happening in the 21st century, at the Large Hadron Collider (CERN). It is called the "God Particle" and it's a predicted part of the physics Theory of Everything. The God Particle is a particle that decays very quickly and in the process transmutes into the other sub atomic particles that give rise to the universe as we know it.

 

Experiments are underway at the CERN particle accelerator to finally detect this God Particle (Higgs boson particle).

 

SEE At the Heart of All Matter -- The Hunt for the God Particle

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/...chenbach-text/1

 

The Dalai Lama once said that if scientific findings contradict Buddhist findings then Buddhist fingdings should be abandoned for the scientific findings. I think its time for Buddhism to get out of the physics business. The Buddha (hopefully) had something other in mind when he saw human suffering then a simple physics lesson.

My humor is usually kept in check, in that if i read something funny, i would have a private laugh and that would be it, but i'm sorry to say this last paragraph about the DL and Buddhism/physics and Buddha's motive really amused me and deserved a mention here!

 

Some sense of humor this guy has!!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

From Wuji came Taiji (Yin/Yang).. Between Wuji, and Taiji was Tzu-Jan, spontaneity.. Wuji, as i understand it, is the interval of Singularity, where all that is perceivable, is nothing.. absolute nothing.. the Tzu-Jan, spontaneity, is recognized as the 'big-bang' or mitosis..resulting in the manifest Cosmos.. Wuji, is considered as 'nothingness' only because ALL that is is a perfectly entrained Single energetic vibration.. it is not an entity, it is not a 'being', it is Consciousness reduced to its lowest common denominator, the "I AM" (Om/Aum).. it is, for lack of a more appropriate description, the Source.. it is the common thread that transcends the cyclical manifestations of Cosmos after Cosmos.. it is guided by a single principle, self-organization.. as in the Taiji Symbol, as Chaos reaches totality it begins to exhibit 'Li', random order, which.. begins organizing itself according to its 'nature'.. Just as Chaos at its expreme begins to exhibit random order, 'Li'.. as order approaches a perfect static balance, it begins to fall-apart.. either condition, complete and total Chaos, or perfect static balance, cannot occur without negating existence altogether.. i sense that Taoists are interested in this relationship..

 

Ooops.. rambling again.. humble apologies..

 

Be well..

[Tao99]

I'm just saying I think it's in human psychology that Buddhism seems to best belong and not physics. That's why you see a lot of psychologists and therapists using Buddhist ideas. The intrinsic nature of reality and the universe is the domain of the science of physics in the modern era. Knowledge here worth believing strongly will come from their observations and experiments.

 

If Buddhists need to use physics theories to explain their psychological theories, then - as the DL said - they need to stick close to science. Just my 2c.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Tao99

[rebelrebel]

Hello Serene,

 

Why would you want to do this? Why worry about what others think about your reflections on any matter? After all, they are YOUR reflections, as valid as anyone else's.

 

Do not concern yourself too much with truth. People are too hung up on this. There are no truths - only reflections. Truth implies something that can be known. Whatever that can be known is already past, like a stale pint.

 

Someone comes up to you and say, "I know the truth, follow me..." - avoid such a person at all costs. He/she can only give you, at best, memories of experiences gift-wrapped as truths. They are valid for him/her alone.

 

Where is the truth? Who is the real teacher? Walking barefoot along the beach, admiring the clear blue sky, with a light breeze against my face, aah, supreme peace...and then i step on a piece of broken glass!! Awakened immediately. Thats my truth, my guru, my teacher. So gurus can be helpful in many ways. It is sheer folly to downplay their significance.

 

IMO, DO has very positive uses other than what has been ascribed to here. I think focussing on it as a path that leads one out of suffering is only a small aspect of it. It goes much further, in that it allows the contemplative to understand the essence of Buddhism, which is compassion. Not once was this mentioned in this thread. The emphasis has always been DO/suffering. So it creates problems. All kinds of differing arguments which some readers find mockingly humorous. This is very sad. Buddhism is NOT about suffering.

 

The objective of practice (of Buddhism) is not only to lead one out of ignorance and confusion, but to show the path to loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, very often thru having the right view of DO. It is much easier for others who want to learn about Buddhism to relate on this level, do you agree? Even the Taoists.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Hope you will stay on and continue with your contributions. I for one have enjoyed your questions, even though i could not offer any answers !!

 

Bee good SB.

Buddhism is not about suffering? What the hell kind of buddhism have you been studying? I don't know about you but I've been studying the buddhism whose founder said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering." Yes ok not every aspect of it is about suffering but it is pretty damn important and overcoming it is in fact the goal of the entire practice. Well omniscience too I guess. Compassion comes when one has abandoned the causes of suffering.

 

I only know him through people that have studied his teachings. I have never done so.

 

Everyone that is influenced by him seem to not have this understanding and go... "No Guru", "No Path" as some absolute savior concepts.

 

Also I was unimpressed with him when he spoke to Trungpa Rinpoche. He talked over him all the time, seemed impatient and bouncy like an adolescent. Seemed more enframed by his keen intellect and clever retorts than anything else.

Well if you have never studied his teachings yourself, your criticisms are meaningless. period. You are operating completely on hearsay. You consistently ignore the understandings of his that I have laid out in this thread and the fact that they directly coincide with buddhist understandings but are just phrased in different ways.

 

And again I ask you, as you have still not answered this, what is buddhahood if not ending suffering?

 

As for the guru thing, he never denied teachers, he denied turning teachers into gurus. See these are two different things to him. Of course K would accept teachers? Who wouldn't? If you don't know something, you go to someone who does and they teach you what they know. Any moron knows this. But what he was against is this concept of gurus as sort of...saviors. As in it becomes so one cannot wipe their own ass without asking their guru if it is ok. He was just saying question everything even him. I'll put it like this...people often think that other people are correct solely because they come from a position of authority or because they have some sort of title such as "lama", "rinpoche" "zen master" etc. People are easily convinced by titles. So they go to these people and expect them to automatically know everything about everything. In short, he was not against teachers just worship of teachers. One other reason for this is that nobody is perfect, nobody knows everything.

 

The teacher student relationship should be one in which the student knows that he and only he is the one who is going to come to realization so he can only depend on himself in the end. No guru or master is going to save him. He must put in the work to understand himself. He uses the teacher as a guide, a signpost, he does not worship the teacher. He rows the boat himself. Thuscomeone, a poster on this forum, is a perfect example of this. The dude has no master, lama or guru. He has very high realization in 8 months simply by learning from the internet. Now he had teachers (not formal teachers), everybody does. But, in the end, his understanding came from his own self reliant hard work.

 

And vaj, I am very sorry but nobody and I mean nobody is omniscient. That in my mind is an absurd and stupid goal. Don't try to tell me that omniscience is different in the buddhist understanding either. Omniscience means knowing EVERYTHING that it is possible to know. If it something different to buddhists, it is not omniscience. Do you know how crazy that is? If things/the universe/reality are really infinite, you would have to know an infinite number of things. Therefore you would never be able to know everything. There would never be a point where it would end and you could actually say "I am now omniscient, I know everything."

Here is one thing that I have always found strange as well with Buddhism. It is said that Buddha recalled all of his past lives during his enlightenment. If there is no beginning to anything and there is only infinity, how could he have known all of his lives? He would have had an infinite number of lives to remember. Anyways dude if you end suffering, who gives a shit about omniscience? Live right in this life, avoid the causes of suffering, don't harm people and then what do you have to worry about in the future? Live right here and the door is open.

 

See, this omniscience stuff is actually why I prefer K over most buddhists. He is just so simple. Find out what causes suffering and avoid those behaviors. Through this, you end suffering. Now that is of course, easier said than done. But still, does it need to be any harder than this? Yeah you can learn all the specifics of dependent origination and impermanence and emptiness, there is nothing wrong with knowing these things. But if you know the cause of suffering and you cut it out thereby ending your suffering in your life, who really cares if you learn them or not or if you get this or that piece of knowledge? Learn them, don't learn them, whatever. But for godsakes first find out what causes suffering and avoid these things like you would a deadly animal - first rid yourself of fear, conflict, struggle, comparison, craving, feeling incomplete, division, inward battle, hurt etc.

Edited November 1, 2009 by rebelrebel