Intuition and Logic.

[Vajrahridaya]

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!!

 

It's nice to see an interesting contribution from Tao99 after one of my posts.

 

But, I have heard of this search... yes indeed. The thing is, physics is sometimes found to be subjective because the god particle is indeed one's own consciousness, but that's just the god of our own manifesting, co-arisen in each moment inter-connected with all other individual mind streams, so not really a god substance per say, but the most malleable substance for sure.

 

An illusive beast consciousness is....

 

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..

 

Ooops.. rambling again.. humble apologies..

 

Be well..

 

No problem with the rambling as this is where it's done.

 

See, this is the crux of Buddhist departure from all other mystical traditions. Mystical in the sense of diving into the mystery to find out what it's really about, not in the sense of giving into a mystical substance. Anyway... Buddhists from the Buddha on do not consider this "I AM" as a source, it is merely a stage in meditative awareness mis-interpreted as a source because coming out of this meditation, one see's one's own light of consciousness first, then manifest reality, mis-considering what's happening, thinking the light of consciousness as the source of all being and the one behind everything.

 

So... see... this is what I'm saying, Buddhists don't agree with your and most spiritual traditions idea here. We consider this a mis-cognition or a mis-interpretation of meditative and contemplative experience.

 

Buddhist D.O./emptiness paradigm goes much subtler... according to Buddhists.

 

That's why we think that your view is a conditioned view. A view that is still craving some sort of ultimate existence. Even if it's seen as beyond concept, it's really just a one big concept that's considered infinite and shines from it's own side as the "source" of all things.

 

Buddha criticizes this very clearly in the Pali suttas, thus no Buddhist of any type agrees with this assumption of, "oneness", which is merely a meditative absorption experience, mis-understood.

 

Take care!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

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.

 

I haven't ignored them, I just find them incomplete.

 

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

 

That is merely one aspect, the core aspect that all other displays of Buddhahood manifest from. The tenets of the Pali Tradition are very simple compared to Mahayana. Of which is my tradition. So, according to well even in the Pali it say's that if you've truly attained Buddhahood, it is also coupled by x,y, and z powers of perception and conduct. Period. Read up on it... it's in there. You no longer are a normal human being because the conditions surrounding being a human being have reached cessation. The Buddha say's this almost verbatim. Are you a god? No said the Buddha, because the conditions surrounding such activity have reached cessation. Then are you a... this... or, that... on and on... including human.

 

As for the guru thing, he never denied teachers, he denied turning teachers into gurus.

 

Well... this is where I see a mistake, because he obviously doesn't understand the real Guru, disciple relationship which is deeply profound and it's really about the connection to a liberated matrix of beings. This helps far more than anything Krishnamurti or any Buddha has ever said, is the real... and tangible inner connection to the liberated lineage of endless Buddhas, which one is destined to become one of through this connection... most definitely. Because you haven't experienced this... you have no idea how profound this is. It's something worth putting your desire in... as it would be right use of ignorance.

 

As in it becomes so one cannot wipe their own ass without asking their guru if it is ok.

 

No true Guru is like this... a true Guru teaches you how to become the Guru yourself. Period, not a slave.

 

He was just saying question everything even him.

 

The Buddha said this too. Also there's a criteria for finding a Guru which is recommended a 9 year search or something. How many disciples have attained anything? Who made this Guru a Guru... thus lineage. Does this Guru's word accord with the teachings of known Guru's, scriptures, and other such enlightened beings? Can this Guru give mind to mind transmission of the actual state of Buddhahood? Basically, how well can this Guru reflect the state of wisdom and method? You can go ahead and see the negative in this... I'll see the positives and benefit.

 

One other reason for this is that nobody is perfect, nobody knows everything.

 

If you have a real karmic connection with the Guru, this Guru knows you more than you know yourself and you experience this in a very tangible, blissful and wise way. Again... something outside of your particular range of personal experience. So... not worth assuming about I would say. It's better if you stay agnostic about such things and follow your path of finding out what exactly that is.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi V.,

 

The more I talk with you it seems the dumber you get. Hehehe. I hope it's just you naturally and not something rubbing off from me.

 

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".

I'm not arguing against your concept of DO. Taoism considers emptiness as well. We call it the Mystery. And I tell you again for the umpteenth time, Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing. Tao is a word to define everything and every non-thing and the energy of the universe. Tao is all inclusive but it is no specific thing. Tao is not a thing.

 

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

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

So you don't like me calling the singularity Tao? What is your freaking problem? I don't get all upset when you call cause and effect DO.

 

I will not use Buddhist terms because I am a Taoist. I have tried very hard to explain all this to you but you can't seem to understand what I am saying unless I use Buddhist terms. I can't do that V., I am not a Buddhist and I can never be a Buddhist.

 

So is it okay if I call the singularity poopidoo? What that make you feel better?

 

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.[/quote]

 

But they sure know how to display it sometimes. (Sorry, you made me say that.) So you know how everything works, do you? You gotta' be shitting me. You are not that educated, V. I'm sorry but that is just one of the realities of life.

 

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.[/quote]

 

That why most people consider Buddhists to be very delusional. Buddhists seem to think that they are omniscient with omnipotent powers that exceed any mortal being. And you are able to leap the tallest of buildings with a single bound, and you can travel faster than a speeding bullet and you can stop a passenger train with one hand.

 

And they can get drunk and imagine that they were Hitler or some other wonderful person. they can see all their past lives all the way back to before the beginning of the universe and they can see what life they will be living after the big crunch.

 

My! My! What powerful powers. They are so full of, what's the word I'm looking for, sh.., no, that's not it, so full of themselves it is truely amazing when one hears how they have eliminated ego. Truely inspiring.

 

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

 

Well, I think it is time for us to kill that MF.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The quote thingy didn't work.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

Of course, the Guru teaches, method and wisdom but it's up to you to realize it for yourself.

 

No guru or master is going to save him.

 

Not in a certain sense, but focus on an enlightened being has a tendency to make you enlightened. It's amazing how the mind becomes like that which it focuses upon. A neat trick. You think you are bowing and offering to a Guru, when it's really your own enlightened nature and when you get that, you get it big time!! Very nice.

 

He must put in the work to understand himself. He uses the teacher as a guide, a signpost, he does not worship the teacher.

 

Nothing wrong with worshiping the teaching in the right context in a non-dualistic way. I worship all beings... why not! Everyone is worthy of veneration, and it is especially beneficial if it's directed towards one who has realized the highest human potential.

 

You go ahead and see the negatives of it, I will see the positives and benefit.

 

It's better than worshiping your own limitations thinking... "ow... I'm only human... boo hoo."

 

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.

 

It's like that with a Guru too, but you get further faster because someone that knows the territory can be a better guide than one's own ignorance of the territory. A True Guru should know when you are taking this worship thing too far and getting caught up in a seeming duality and will indeed send you away for a while to contemplate self reliance. The last thing a real Guru wants is dependency.

 

And vaj, I am very sorry but nobody and I mean nobody is omniscient.

 

Like I said, omniscient about how all things work and how things flow. Coupled with the power to see spontaneously any amount of information that will benefit a being, including reading thoughts, past lives, seeing through matter, long distance viewing. The Buddha said in the Pali Suttas that omniscience in the Buddha context does not mean knowing all particular things simultaneously. Just having the power to see through everything to the heart of the matter, no matter what. A Buddha has the meditative power to go into a space of infinite knowing though and pull out from the 3 times some tid bit of information that is beneficial. But, even the Buddha said he was ambiguous about a time way far into the future from his time on Earth. He said... it's up in the air, not engraved in stone basically about the fall of Buddhism. This new age view of all paths lead to the same goal is an idea that would bring about the fall of Buddhism, because it assumes a single source of all being, which Buddhism does not. So, here I am... helping a bit to preserve. Whatever I can do without falling sway to the inner enemies.

 

 

 

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.

 

Well.. it's obvious you haven't studied much Buddhism, only bits here and there. Because the Buddha did say what it means to be omniscient, as in... know how "Everything" works in the grand scheme of things. With the power to go into a state of self transcendence and be an oracle of sorts. Believe it or not... this is indeed part of Buddhism since the very beginning. Buddhas are not bound by your thus far experienced limitations. Which I consider... quite a stupid notion to hold onto. But that's just because I've experienced some transcendence of such limitations here and there through my practice.

 

 

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." 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.

 

Eh... I don't think you have really experienced that too deeply. Otherwise you would have some experience of self limitation transcendence. You're just trying to put me in your box. I won't fit.

 

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.

 

Uh hu... you have your own path of process of progress. Take care.

[Vajrahridaya]

From MARBLEHEAD: I'm not arguing against your concept of DO. Taoism considers emptiness as well. We call it the Mystery.

 

No... that's not the same at all.

 

And I tell you again for the umpteenth time, Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing. Tao is a word to define everything and every non-thing and the energy of the universe. Tao is all inclusive but it is no specific thing. Tao is not a thing.

 

Right it is all things... same difference... we scrutinize this.

 

 

 

So you don't like me calling the singularity Tao? What is your freaking problem? I don't get all upset when you call cause and effect DO.

 

It's not D.O. Karma refers to cause and effect. D.O. is how it all works and is the perspective that reveals the quality of emptiness, as in, non-inherency of all phenomena and mind, showing no absolute existence. There is something very subtle here you are not getting on a logical level. I probably won't be the one to teach it to you. As you consider me delusional. So... I will bounce off of that filter.

 

I will not use Buddhist terms because I am a Taoist. I have tried very hard to explain all this to you but you can't seem to understand what I am saying unless I use Buddhist terms. I can't do that V., I am not a Buddhist and I can never be a Buddhist.

 

It has something more than just terminology. I'm not that stupid contrary to your belief.

 

So is it okay if I call the singularity poopidoo? What that make you feel better?

 

Whatever... we dismiss this is mis-cognition and don't consider it the Truth.

 

 

But they sure know how to display it sometimes. (Sorry, you made me say that.)

 

Don't blame me for your subjective interpretation of things.

 

So you know how everything works, do you? You gotta' be shitting me. You are not that educated, V. I'm sorry but that is just one of the realities of life.

 

It has nothing to do with formal education but contemplation, meditation, and right view. Which one generally needs an education in.

 

 

 

That why most people consider Buddhists to be very delusional. Buddhists seem to think that they are omniscient with omnipotent powers that exceed any mortal being. And you are able to leap the tallest of buildings with a single bound, and you can travel faster than a speeding bullet and you can stop a passenger train with one hand.

 

You are talking about Buddhas, which are very, very, very rare. Like I said... I am no Buddha, but you would be surprised as to what a Buddha can do transcending your projected limitations based upon the limited level of your remembered experience. Don't you see how you limit everyone and everything subjectively? Don't you see how you have this idea about what is real, and you make it concrete? Don't you see how limiting in bondage this is?

 

It's like you've lived in a cage all your life and you cannot consider anything outside of this cage because it's the limits of your thus far remembered experience.

 

 

hey can see all their past lives all the way back to before the beginning of the universe and they can see what life they will be living after the big crunch.

 

Yup, we can, not even Buddhas, but just Buddhists with some practice under their belt can do and see more than what you consider... "normal". You think you are human... scientists don't even really know what a human is yet. So... how are you so sure of your limitations? Because you've been conditioned to believe and experience a certain way does not mean it's the Truth.

 

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

Not much of that coming from you tonight.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I won't engage with you guys. It's been deemed fruitless by both my intuition and my logic/reason.

 

I wish you guys well on your journeys.

 

From the second page of this thread...hmmm...

Don't you see how you limit everyone and everything subjectively? Don't you see how you have this idea about what is real, and you make it concrete? Don't you see how limiting in bondage this is?

 

It's like you've lived in a cage all your life and you cannot consider anything outside of this cage because it's the limits of your thus far remembered experience.

 

Ah, my good sir, do you not see how the same can be said of yourself?

Edited November 1, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[rebelrebel]

I haven't ignored them, I just find them incomplete.

That is merely one aspect, the core aspect that all other displays of Buddhahood manifest from. The tenets of the Pali Tradition are very simple compared to Mahayana. Of which is my tradition. So, according to well even in the Pali it say's that if you've truly attained Buddhahood, it is also coupled by x,y, and z powers of perception and conduct. Period. Read up on it... it's in there. You no longer are a normal human being because the conditions surrounding being a human being have reached cessation. The Buddha say's this almost verbatim. Are you a god? No said the Buddha, because the conditions surrounding such activity have reached cessation. Then are you a... this... or, that... on and on... including human.

Well... this is where I see a mistake, because he obviously doesn't understand the real Guru, disciple relationship which is deeply profound and it's really about the connection to a liberated matrix of beings. This helps far more than anything Krishnamurti or any Buddha has ever said, is the real... and tangible inner connection to the liberated lineage of endless Buddhas, which one is destined to become one of through this connection... most definitely. Because you haven't experienced this... you have no idea how profound this is. It's something worth putting your desire in... as it would be right use of ignorance.

 

 

 

No true Guru is like this... a true Guru teaches you how to become the Guru yourself. Period, not a slave.

The Buddha said this too. Also there's a criteria for finding a Guru which is recommended a 9 year search or something. How many disciples have attained anything? Who made this Guru a Guru... thus lineage. Does this Guru's word accord with the teachings of known Guru's, scriptures, and other such enlightened beings? Can this Guru give mind to mind transmission of the actual state of Buddhahood? Basically, how well can this Guru reflect the state of wisdom and method? You can go ahead and see the negative in this... I'll see the positives and benefit.

If you have a real karmic connection with the Guru, this Guru knows you more than you know yourself and you experience this in a very tangible, blissful and wise way. Again... something outside of your particular range of personal experience. So... not worth assuming about I would say. It's better if you stay agnostic about such things and follow your path of finding out what exactly that is.

Incomplete how? He tells one why one suffers and how to end it. What is incomplete about that?

 

Ok so it is the core aspect that all other displays of buddhahood emanate from. Then it is not the only aspect sure but it is surely the most important. And i mean really, if you can do that, what else really matters?

 

What I find funny here Vajra is that now you seem to be trying to convince me that the main and utmost goal of buddhism is NOT to overcome suffering. It seems that you have resorted to arguing against your own religion/belief system just to try and make me feel wrong or to somehow "win" this argument

[Marblehead]

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..

 

Okay, the first thing I need do is kick that word "emotion" in the butt and get it out of this discussion of logic and intuition. Hehehe. (Emotions are funky things that will screw you up in a heartbeat.)

 

Thinking about it, perhaps logic is more related to our external and intuition is related to our inner essence. Insight is perhaps this 'awareness' thing that we have been speaking of.

 

But you are right, all these inputs require the recognition of the conscious mind. And it is how our mind deals with them that is the bottom line important aspect of it all. So perhaps the clearer we can maintain our mind the better we will be able to recognize the fullest significance of what transpired.

 

Yeah, Buddhists do have this thing about suffering, don't they? Oh well.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

What I find funny here Vajra is that now you seem to be trying to convince me that the main and utmost goal of buddhism is NOT to overcome suffering.

 

You certainly have misunderstood me here. But yes... in a way, it's true. It is the first step, to realize Nirvana, and that's only the beginning. Mahayana goes further than the first turning of the wheel and talks about how to realize the full display of Buddhahood in order to help endless beings, endlessly. As... now... you have endless time out of suffering to manifest through... so... now... it's like... how do I manifest most beneficially even while others are projecting their very powerful limitations? So now... Samsara is experienced as Nirvana, but there are still those that experience it as Samsara... so it get's quite subtle here. How to really manifest Buddhahood and transcend merely being an Arahant.

 

That's why Krishnamurti's teachings are incomplete.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Everyone!!! Look!!! Look!!!! Look at what Vajrahridaya just said! Three cheers for our Buddhist friend!!!!!

 

He has realized a truth!!!!

 

Three cheers!!! Yea!!! Yea!!! Yea!!!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

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.

 

 

Translation to English please?

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

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.

 

I agree except I would be very cautious with the words "... things left over from the previous universe" because once they become a part of the singularity they are no longer identifiable things.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Everyone!!! Look!!! Look!!!! Look at what Vajrahridaya just said! Three cheers for our Buddhist friend!!!!!

 

He has realized a truth!!!!

 

Three cheers!!! Yea!!! Yea!!! Yea!!!

 

Peace & Love!

 

I've said this so many times marble. Here... I'll quote another piece in this thread where I said this with more clarity...

Post 42 if you would.

[Marblehead]

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..

 

I liked that post very much. Thanks for rambling.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

I agree except I would be very cautious with the words "... things left over from the previous universe" because once they become a part of the singularity they are no longer identifiable things.

 

Peace & Love!

 

They are if you can see into the formless realm, which is basically your own unconscious mind and the interconnection with other unconscious minds.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Well. Another post I rather like. Y'all keep on keepin' on.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

No... that's not the same at all.

 

Not much of that coming from you tonight.

 

Well V., you already knew what happens when someone comes into one of the discussions and suggests that one belief system is better than another. Nothing but senseless arguing. And the arguing get no one no where.

 

We are talking about logic in this thread and you and I have gotten into a totally illogical arguement again.

 

No. Even though I my still wish you peace & love, it does not mean that I will not respond in like terms and language.

 

If we can just keep the bickering about the values of one belief system comparedd to another we can have many much more fulfilling and valuable discussions.

 

Like I have said before. I will never allow you to suggest on this board, as long as I am a member, that Buddhism is superior to Taoism because in my mind it is not.

 

So I openly welcome you to join the discussion TzuJanLi and I and others are having concerning logic and intuition but if you are going to continue masturbating your ego with your words of your supposed superior belief system don't expect me to be a really nice guy.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

They are if you can see into the formless realm, which is basically your own unconscious mind and the interconnection with other unconscious minds.

 

I will just say that I disagree with this thought without going any further with it.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

I and others are having concerning logic and intuition but if you are going to continue masturbating your ego with your words of your supposed superior belief system don't expect me to be a really nice guy.

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

Wishing others liberation from erroneous views has nothing to do with ego, unless it does. In my case... hey... I don't know yet... I'm not yet a Buddha. So maybe a little bit underneath the lack of egoic feeling there is a secret ego in there... which I don't doubt. But... I'm still on the path and haven't graduated to full blown Buddhahood as of yet. So, forgive me.

 

Anyway... this argument occurred naturally through a progression of me saying... "according to Buddhism... blah, blah, blah"... then... uh oh!! Backlash!! ARRRRRRGGH!!!

 

Hahahah!!

 

People projecting ego should be more aware of their own ego. If no engagement happens, there are no arguments as it takes two to tangle. Yeah?

 

I will just say that I disagree with this thought without going any further with it.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yes, it would take going into the formless Jhanas/Samadhis directly. Which is why a Buddha can see someone else's past lives before they have acquired the awareness to themselves.

 

Something you don't believe in due to a projection of delusion based upon... I just won't go into it.

[rebelrebel]

And how does one really manifest buddhahood vajra?

 

One more question, it is said that Milarepa attained buddhahood in one lifetime. What exactly is the status of a human being who has done such a thing while still alive? What would Mila have had to have done to achieve buddhahood or as you say, "manifest" it?

Edited November 1, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Marblehead]

Wishing others liberation from erroneous views has nothing to do with ego, unless it does. In my case... hey... I don't know yet... I'm not yet a Buddha. So maybe a little bit underneath the lack of egoic feeling there is a secret ego in there... which I don't doubt. But... I'm still on the path and haven't graduated to full blown Buddhahood as of yet. So, forgive me.

 

Anyway... this argument occurred naturally through a progression of me saying... "according to Buddhism... blah, blah, blah"... then... uh oh!! Backlash!! ARRRRRRGGH!!!

 

Hahahah!!

 

People projecting ego should be more aware of their own ego. If no engagement happens, there are no arguments as it takes two to tangle. Yeah?

 

I have never denied that I have an ego. And although it is fairly well-trained I never try to place excessive control on it.

 

I agree, wishing others peace & contentment is an admirable effort. I am not knocking anything you do in order to assist someone in understanding a concept that they are having problems with. I even commend you for taking the time to do so.

 

I just think it is counter-productive to, in any way, degrade another's belief system in the process.

 

You know, instead of saying something like: The Buddha said the only way you can do this ... it would be more helpful if something like: I think if you consider doing such and such you might be able to get around your blockage. And then if they asked why you feel this way you could say because of your Buddhist beliefs. You would still have plenty of opportunities to express your belief in Buddhism and you wouldn't be offending the belief system of the other members.

 

I am sure that the Christian members of this board have very little interest in your Buddhist beliefs and when you say Buddhist are the only ones who understand the true path I am sure they think pretty negative things about your thoughts.

 

Yes, it would take going into the formless Jhanas/Samadhis directly. Which is why a Buddha can see someone else's past lives before they have acquired the awareness to themselves.

 

Something you don't believe in due to a projection of delusion based upon... I just won't go into it.

 

That's why we are not going to discuss this subject.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

And how does one really manifest buddhahood vajra?

 

One more question, it is said that Milarepa attained buddhahood in one lifetime. What exactly is the status of a human being who has done such a thing while still alive? What would Mila have had to have done to achieve buddhahood or as you say, "manifest" it?

 

You should read his biography. I did. It's a good read.

 

Each Buddha manifests it differently, but it is most definitely always in line with the Buddha lineage, which is diverse in expression though one has most definitely taken refuge in the Buddha lineage, dharma and sangha. They understand the immense role the Buddha played as a "wheel turning Buddha" and the first turner in our age and doesn't just make up his own teachings. This doesn't have to be a physical thing, but an internal thing. This does not dismiss individual creativity either...

 

You should get more familiar with the Buddhist teachings through Buddhist realizers.

 

I'm not into these anti-traditionalists like Krishnamurti who think they know better than a million Buddhas.

 

When people read their teachings first before reading the teachings of Buddhas, they get confused easily.

 

I am into traditions that work. Not self made teachings of... "Oh... I know better"...

 

That's just me though.

 

I have never denied that I have an ego. And although it is fairly well-trained I never try to place excessive control on it.

 

I agree, wishing others peace & contentment is an admirable effort. I am not knocking anything you do in order to assist someone in understanding a concept that they are having problems with. I even commend you for taking the time to do so.

 

I just think it is counter-productive to, in any way, degrade another's belief system in the process.

 

You know, instead of saying something like: The Buddha said the only way you can do this ... it would be more helpful if something like: I think if you consider doing such and such you might be able to get around your blockage. And then if they asked why you feel this way you could say because of your Buddhist beliefs. You would still have plenty of opportunities to express your belief in Buddhism and you wouldn't be offending the belief system of the other members.

 

I am sure that the Christian members of this board have very little interest in your Buddhist beliefs and when you say Buddhist are the only ones who understand the true path I am sure they think pretty negative things about your thoughts.

That's why we are not going to discuss this subject.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Fair enough, but I'm not here to succumb to projections of negativity. I can only reach a few out of endless beings at this particular time. So be it.

 

Of course I'll continue to refine my expression and evolve. Of course I'll wish to activate in a way that's more and more inline with the Bodhisattva ideal as I progress... of course.

 

Forgive me for my trespasses as I forgive those that trespass against me.

[Marblehead]

I've said this so many times marble. Here... I'll quote another piece in this thread where I said this with more clarity...

Post 42 if you would.

 

That was post #52. Your perfection is now blemished.

 

Yes. I will admit that that pronouncement was pretty good.

 

But let me see if you can admit to this: It is not absolutely necessary for a person to be a Buddhist before they can be liberated from suffering.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Forgive me for my trespasses as I forgive those that trespass against me.

 

There is nothing for me to forgive.

 

Don't worry. Be Happy!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

[Vajrahridaya]

That was post #52. Your perfection is now blemished.

 

Oh thanks... I just got this new 23 inch Samsung LED Monitor... and everything shrunk and my eye sight is horrrrrible. I broke my last pair of glasses... probably shoulda spent the money on glasses... AH!!

 

Yes. I will admit that that pronouncement was pretty good.

 

Thank you...

 

But let me see if you can admit to this: It is not absolutely necessary for a person to be a Buddhist before they can be liberated from suffering.

 

Not by name... but by virtue of seeing directly the entire realization that is dependent origination and emptiness, thereby seeing... what is recorded in the Pali Suttas... so many past lives... seeing through things... various aspects of perception which go along with actually... I mean really seeing the holographic universe as holographic.

 

Also going into the Mahayana which talks about activating infinite compassion for infinite beings and realizing how to project infinite incarnations into infinite universes throughout infinite time...

 

Things you might consider an acid trip... but I've taken acid many times... I'm talking about the best stuff... as I used to deal on Haight st. Rainbow Family stuff. An acid trip is noooooothing compared to a genuine Buddharific realization of direct experiencing and seeing... a quantum leap from a minuscule acid trip. Which I can eat like candy at this point and just see right through without a flinch or a wink as it's merely effecting body chemicals and mind realization is much, much subtler than brain chemical activity. Contrary to your belief system.

 

Peace & Love!

There is nothing for me to forgive.

 

Don't worry. Be Happy!

 

Peace & Love!

Thanks dude... I feel it from you... really... I do. Thanks... watery eyed I am right now.

[rebelrebel]

[~jK~]

Well V., you already knew what happens when someone comes into one of the discussions and suggests that one belief system is better than another. Nothing but senseless arguing. And the arguing get no one no where.

 

I will just say that I disagree with this thought without going any further with it.

 

Peace & Love!

Once I read in a very old dictionary: "Religion: A 'beleif' in a supernatural, mythical existance "

Once I got out of the Appalachian culture, I escaped the Belief systems of Christianity.

Once I began meditating, I began to understand where my mind had been.

Belief systems are based on a child searching for father principle.

Buddhism, based on philosophy, & meditation works for me.

Take a look to see the difference between them:

http://www.amtbweb.org/tchquote.php

Christianity is a 'WAR' religion.

 

WAR: Rich man's Gain, Poor man's Pain.

Pray to that Cross- I'll show you who's got da Boss .l.

~~~~~~~~~~

 

From a different angle - here is the break between religions that allowed science to begin developing in the west.

 

From the History of the Royal Society.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=2176

An excerpt from the above webpage: "Bacon's works include his Essays, as well as the Colours of Good and Evil and the Meditationes Sacrae, all published in 1597. His famous aphorism, "knowledge is power", is found in the Meditations. He published The Proficience and Advancement of Learning in 1605. Bacon also wrote In felicem memoriam Elizabethae, a eulogy for the queen written in 1609; and various philosophical works which constitute the fragmentary and incomplete Instauratio magna (Great Renewal), the most important part of which is the Novum Organum (New Instrument, published 1620); in this work he cites three world-changing inventions:

 

"Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries."[21]"

 

The development of Science -free from religion- in the west began here.

"The origins of the Royal Society lie in an "invisible college" of natural philosophers who began meeting in the mid-1640s to discuss the ideas of Francis Bacon. Its official foundation date is 28 November 1660, when 12 of them met at Gresham College after a lecture by Christopher Wren, the Gresham Professor of Astronomy, and decided to found 'a Colledge for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematicall Experimentall Learning'. This group included Wren himself, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, Sir Robert Moray, and William, Viscount Brouncker."

 

Current Fellows include

Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Harry Kroto, Tim Berners Lee, Paul Nurse and John Sulston. There are currently 22 Nobel prize winners among the Fellows and many other holders of other equally prestigious awards. Previous Fellows include Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford and Dorothy Hodgkin.

Edited November 1, 2009 by ~jK~

[Vajrahridaya]