Is there an objective world?

[Marblehead]

Is this a doughnut?

 

 

Or is this?

 

 

Or this?

 

 

If you say only the first one is a doughnut, you don't have a complete vision of what a doughnut is. The second view is a doughnut from far away. The last view is a doughnut from very far away or a doughnut from very up close (through the hole). Which view is the right view? None of them are either right or wrong and all of them are doughnut.

 

If you refuse to train your mind to see flexibly and fully like this, then you really have no business on any cultivation forum, as you're not interested in cultivating anything except your assumptions about what a doughnut is.

 

I am repeating this entire post for a reason.

 

Fact. None of what you presented is a doughnut. They are simply drawings depicting a thought. That is all.

 

Tao is not the word 'Tao'. It is only a word used to describe something, in this case, something that is indescribable.

 

I do know what a doughnut is. I have eaten a few in my life.

 

And just listen to you suggesting that I have an inflexible mind just because I do not agree with your faulty logic!

 

It is you, I think who is inflexible in that you refuse to understand that there are different ways to view things. You are fixed in the dogma that you prefess to believe in yet you constantly live outside that very dogma.

 

You talk about cultivation? What are you cultivating when you are cemented to your faulty dogma? Narrow-mindedness perhaps?

 

It is my opinion that some people who say they are cultivating are in reality cultivating nothing becuse they have applied so much manure that they have burned everything into non-existence. Too much manure is bad. It kills the process of growth, maturity and fruitfulness.

 

I am a Taoist. Why do you keep insisting that I view life from a Buddhist's perspective? I cannot do that. It simply is not logical. You see, I was not born into suffering so I have no reason to be liberated from suffering. I am not dis-satisfied with this life I have lived so I have no need to wish for re-incarnation. The main dogma of Buddhism have nothing for me.

 

I am a Taoist. I live this life of mine to the fullest that I am inspired to live it. I have free will and I do whatever I am inspired to do. I do not need anyone telling me how I should live my life.

 

And I do gain from the thoughts of many of the people on this forum. I do also hope that I present reason for thought to many of the members here. We Taoists enjoy learning from others. We accept with open arms the thoughts that are or may be useful to us. But we also discard those that are useless.

 

I have never asked anyone to view life the way I view it. I simply state how I view it and when asked I explain why I view it that way. I have never told anyone that they need to see this objective world the way I see it. But I do tell anyone who will listen that the way I believe has worked wonderfully for me. I am at peace with my Self. (I am also content with the life I have and with my ability to live happily with what I have totally without desire for more.)

 

And it is a fact that I have eaten only one doughnut during the past three years. Eating doughnuts is not one of my needs.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Marblehead

[goldisheavy]

I am repeating this entire post for a reason.

 

Fact. None of what you presented is a doughnut.

 

It's a drawing of a doughnut. But that's beside the point, isn't it?

 

They are simply drawings depicting a thought. That is all.

 

Tao is not the word 'Tao'. It is only a word used to describe something, in this case, something that is indescribable.

 

Tao is also the word Tao. It's also the word "foo". And all the other words as well. As well as the space between the words, the negative space. Also Tao is none of the above. And all of the above.

 

I do know what a doughnut is. I have eaten a few in my life.

 

You don't know the doughnut. Although you have eaten it, you've never actually questioned it.

 

It is you, I think who is inflexible in that you refuse to understand that there are different ways to view things. You are fixed in the dogma that you prefess to believe in yet you constantly live outside that very dogma.

 

This is precisely what your problem is and not mine. I accept the doughnut as it is commonly perceived. I do not reject common perceptions. However, I know and see beyond common perceptions. You do not. You get bent out of shape any time people question common perceptions. In other words, you are a fool who has no place on this forum, unless that is, you want to learn something.

 

There is no objective reality. Deal with this truth.

 

Peace & Love.

Edited December 31, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

It's a drawing of a doughnut. But that's beside the point, isn't it?

 

No. It's not beside the point. You said it was a doughnut but it was only a drawing.

 

Tao is also the word Tao. It's also the word "foo". And all the other words as well. As well as the space between the words, the negative space. Also Tao is none of the above. And all of the above.

 

Darn! I have to agree with you. Hehehe.

 

You don't know the doughnut. Although you have eaten it, you've never actually questioned it.

 

Oh My Goodness!!! Now GiH is omniscient!! He knows what I know and what I don't know!!! But you are correct, I have never asked a doughnut a question - that just doesn't seem to be a very logical thing to do.

 

This is precisely what your problem is and not mine. I accept the doughnut as it is commonly perceived. I do not reject common perceptions. However, I know and see beyond common perceptions. You do not. You get bent out of shape any time people question common perceptions. In other words, you are a fool who has no place on this forum, unless that is, you want to learn something.

 

Now just listen to the know-it-all. Everyone is wrong if they disagree wit the Golden Omniscient One! Pesonal attacks again? What childishness!! When are you going to grow up? When are you going to accept the fact that not everyone believes as you do?

 

And BTW, this is a Taoist forum. People do not become members of this forum so they can learn about Buddhism. It is you who is misplaced, I think. You should be a member of some Buddhist forum. Or did they all ban you because of your personal attacks on other members?

 

There is no objective reality. Deal with this truth.

 

Okay. You do not exist. Are you happy now?

 

But I exist. But you don't need to deal with this truth because you don't exist.

 

Peace & Love.

 

And so. Life goes on whether GiH exists or not. He has nothing to do with the objective reality of the universe. It existed before he was born and it will exist after he has died.

 

Have yourself a very happy non-existant new year and I truely do wish you the best whether you can believe that or not. That's objective reality!

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

And so. Life goes on whether GiH exists or not. He has nothing to do with the objective reality of the universe. It existed before he was born and it will exist after he has died.

 

Life as you know it does not exist without Marblehead. That's the whole point, isn't it?

 

Have yourself a very happy non-existant new year and I truely do wish you the best whether you can believe that or not. That's objective reality!

 

Peace & Love!

 

Just because there is no single objective representation of a doughnut does not mean it doesn't exist. Even though we might all see the doughnut in different ways, some of these ways of seeing the doughnut even include not seeing the doughnut, I can still eat a doughnut. I can't prove that I've eaten the doughnut. I cannot objectively demonstrate the doughnut. Even if I wave some doughnut in front of your face, you'll not get any kind of objective essence or experience of the doughnut. Nonetheless, it does not imply the doughnut is altogether absent. The doughnut is present in some capacity. If you say that the doughnut is present objectively, you simply exaggerate and distort the capacity in which the doughnut is present.

 

At the very least, if you cannot comprehend it yourself, you should at least acknowledge that I don't present non-objective reality as nihilism or as an ultimate absence of any kind.

 

Furthermore, you should acknowledge that I agree that conventionally speaking, we can say that doughnut exists objectively. That's a convention. It's a conversational and worldly truth. It has some use. It's one of the ways to see the doughnut, but if that's the only way you can see it -- through the lens of the distortion called "objectivity" -- then that's a limitation of your mind. Normally this doesn't matter. Most people have this limitation and die with it intact. But if you are here, presumably you want to expand your mind beyond the ordinary perception. Ordinary perception is not the full spectrum of perception.

[goldisheavy]

This video is related to the topic of this thread.

 

[Marblehead]

Life as you know it does not exist without Marblehead. That's the whole point, isn't it?

 

Life, as "I" know it, will not exist after I am gone because "I" will not be here to know it. But I am sure it will still exist for everyone who is still alive after I die. Yes, the whole point is how "I" perceive reality.

 

Just because there is no single objective representation of a doughnut does not mean it doesn't exist. Even though we might all see the doughnut in different ways, some of these ways of seeing the doughnut even include not seeing the doughnut, I can still eat a doughnut. I can't prove that I've eaten the doughnut. I cannot objectively demonstrate the doughnut. Even if I wave some doughnut in front of your face, you'll not get any kind of objective essence or experience of the doughnut. Nonetheless, it does not imply the doughnut is altogether absent. The doughnut is present in some capacity. If you say that the doughnut is present objectively, you simply exaggerate and distort the capacity in which the doughnut is present.

 

But I don't need the doughnut to be present in any form except in the manifest so that I can eat it. Where is any value in a doughnut except in the eating?

 

At the very least, if you cannot comprehend it yourself, you should at least acknowledge that I don't present non-objective reality as nihilism or as an ultimate absence of any kind.

 

Indeed. I believe that I have already, on a couple occasions, given you acknowledgement for your sound reasoning and logic. I am not trying to present you as being illogical. All I am suggesting is that there are other ways to view the Manifest than the Buddhist view.

 

Furthermore, you should acknowledge that I agree that conventionally speaking, we can say that doughnut exists objectively. That's a convention. It's a conversational and worldly truth. It has some use. It's one of the ways to see the doughnut, but if that's the only way you can see it -- through the lens of the distortion called "objectivity" -- then that's a limitation of your mind. Normally this doesn't matter. Most people have this limitation and die with it intact. But if you are here, presumably you want to expand your mind beyond the ordinary perception. Ordinary perception is not the full spectrum of perception.

 

This is great GiH! Yes, I acknowledge the value in what you have presented here. I understand that you, and others, might feel that I am arguing against your understanding. This is not what I wish to do. I am arguing my understanding. That we disagee at times is understandable because we hold to different philosophies.

 

Now, Taoist philosophy teaches that we can know the Mystery through the Manifest. I believe this to be true. And no, I am not stuck in the Manifest. I understand the Mystery (a little) because of what I understand of the Manifest. Someone just recently stated "as below, as above", or something like that. And I accept that. We learn of the knowable so that we can be aware of the unknowable.

 

But I must hold to what I can know of the Manifest because it is in the Manifest where I current live. I have no idea if there is awareness after death. I tend to think not. But that is only my understanding and I really have no idea if is correct or not.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

MH,

 

As a Taoist, you should know that spending so much time on the division side (i.e., the manifest, the splintered, the different) of the equation is not so Taoist. The other side is the unity side, the unnamed, etc. I would invite you to investigate the Taoist-Buddhist links before making such odd statements. Many Taoist and Buddhist sages do not make these disctinctions. Read the Secret of the Golden Flower or Opening the Dragon's Gate. Read actual conversations with Chinese Taoists, as contained in the Road to Heaven or John Blofeld's travelogues.

 

When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet!

 

It sounds to me that what you call "Taoism" is simply a narrowly interpreted view in accordance with Western academic culture. It seems to me that the true spirit of Taoism is open, flexible, and inclusive--- recognizing the relative nature of things. I would think a true Taoist or a "Real Man (or Woman)" would be able to sit with the Taoist magician, the Buddhist monk, the prostitue, the Christian, the sage, sick and the damned.

 

 

I am a Taoist. Why do you keep insisting that I view life from a Buddhist's perspective? I cannot do that. It simply is not logical. You see, I was not born into suffering so I have no reason to be liberated from suffering. I am not dis-satisfied with this life I have lived so I have no need to wish for re-incarnation. The main dogma of Buddhism have nothing for me.

 

I am a Taoist. I live this life of mine to the fullest that I am inspired to live it. I have free will and I do whatever I am inspired to do. I do not need anyone telling me how I should live my life.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet!

Yes, but.. The Buddhist says it's an 'illusion', the Taoist opens their umbrella..

Many Taoist and Buddhist sages do not make these disctinctions. Read the Secret of the Golden Flower or Opening the Dragon's Gate.

I prefer to observe their actions/deeds.. the actuallity of the beliefs 'talked', is revealed in the walk walked.. I can tangibly demonstrate aspects of the physical.. most 'spiritual' talk is based on subjective interpretation of 'mind-play', or ancient teachings of peoples trying to describe what they didn't understand.. much of what wasn't understood by the ancients is now known by scientific observation.. it seems that most things not understood are eventually revealed through genuine curiosity and careful observation, and.. that process precludes abdicating one's direct experience in favor of a 'master' or guru's proclamation.. The master or guru's teachings shouldn't be discarded or worshiped, only seen as bill-boards/advertisements along the journey.. let your own direct experiences be your counsel..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

MH,

 

As a Taoist, you should know that spending so much time on the division side (i.e., the manifest, the splintered, the different) of the equation is not so Taoist. The other side is the unity side, the unnamed, etc. I would invite you to investigate the Taoist-Buddhist links before making such odd statements. Many Taoist and Buddhist sages do not make these disctinctions. Read the Secret of the Golden Flower or Opening the Dragon's Gate. Read actual conversations with Chinese Taoists, as contained in the Road to Heaven or John Blofeld's travelogues.

 

When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet!

 

It sounds to me that what you call "Taoism" is simply a narrowly interpreted view in accordance with Western academic culture. It seems to me that the true spirit of Taoism is open, flexible, and inclusive--- recognizing the relative nature of things. I would think a true Taoist or a "Real Man (or Woman)" would be able to sit with the Taoist magician, the Buddhist monk, the prostitue, the Christian, the sage, sick and the damned.

 

Dear Forest,

 

Please do not judge me based only on what discussions I get involved in on this forum. There is so much more to what is me than will ever be presented on this forum.

 

My purpose here is to speak to the subject of Philosophical Taoism and in particular the Manifest. There are many threads here that I do not get involved in although I have a fair knowledge of the subjects.

 

I do not have as limited a life as some members here suggest that I have simply because I do not speak about those other aspects of my life. I have no interest in sharing those other aspects of my life with others here.

 

I can, and have had discussions with many here on this forum. I don't agree with some now and then. Does that make me wrong? If I said here on this forum that I believe in reincarnation I would be lying and I will not lie. If it is appropriate that I enter a discussion on such a topic I will state my understanding. That I disagree with someone should not be an indicator that I am narrow-minded - it should be an indicator that I do not agree with their understanding.

 

There are a lot of things I don't even talk about with anyone because I do not hold a firm belief about the subject. And more often than not, if I am drawn into the discussion I will openly pronounce that I do not know an answer.

 

So if I and a Christian or a Muslem or a Buddhist were to sit down and speak about morals I am sure that I would find agreement with almost everything that was presented. But when a discussion involves basic Taoist Philosophy and especially conversations concerning the Manifest I am sure there will be disagreements.

 

So just because I disagree with a couple basic Buddhist tenets should not be considered an indicator that I am inflexible in my thoughts. It should indicate, and be understood, that whatever is being discussed is not consistent with Taoist Philosophy as I understand it.

 

So feel sure that whenever a discussion takes place here on this forum that concerns Taoist Philosophy I will be making comment. And I will do my very best at presenting my thoughts so that they are true and pure representations of Taoist Philosophy as presented by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

 

And I will add this. I can have a very constructive conversation with nearly anyone as long as they do not insist that I beleive exactly as they do. We each have our own beliefs and therefore we each are correct in our beliefs. You have yours and I have mine. We differ on a couple different concepts. I differ on a few concepts with my best friend in real life because he is a Christian. But we don't sit around calling each other names just because we have different beliefs and we don't even tell each other that the other is wrong. We accept each other for what we are and accept the fact that we have different belief systems.

 

So once again I ask, please do not judge me (or anyone else) simply by what is said on this forum. We all have the right to voice our opinions and understandings. We even have the right to ask for the opinions of others and accepting only those that fit our life and our understanding. We do not have to accept as the Absolute Truth anything anyone here says.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

Greetings..

Yes, but.. The Buddhist says it's an 'illusion', the Taoist opens their umbrella..

 

 

 

seems like there's a real lack of understanding of Buddhism around here.

[Sunya]

So just because I disagree with a couple basic Buddhist tenets should not be considered an indicator that I am inflexible in my thoughts. It should indicate, and be understood, that whatever is being discussed is not consistent with Taoist Philosophy as I understand it.

 

Naw man, you disagree with Buddhism by and large but what you disagree with isn't Buddhism, its a caricature of Buddhism. This is the 'Buddhism' that Nietzsche disagreed with, and the many academics who wrote many wrong things during the early 20th century, all of whom [including Nietzsche] had no understanding of Buddhism. You're still holding onto false views when time and time again people with some real understanding have tried to explain to you that Buddhism has nothing to do with 'nothingess' or annihilation or escaping from the world or 'not opening the umbrella when it rains' or trying to walk through a tree by saying it doesn't exist 'sigh', lol.

 

and being a Philosophical Taoist is kind of like being a Corporate Hippie isn't it?

[Marblehead]

seems like there's a real lack of understanding of Buddhism around here.

 

I apologize but I just had to laugh.

 

Yes, there is a misunderstanding because all too often we Taoists are taking one extreme that just happens to be an opposite extreme in Buddhist thought.

 

I am sure that you remember the discussion that you, I and V. had when I first joined this forum. The same misunderstanding recurs because both sides are unable to express our understandings so that the other group understands what we are saying.

 

I really don't know if there is a way to clear the misunderstandings.

 

And I really do appreciate the Buddhist input because there is much Buddhist thought incorporated in Taoist Religion.

 

What might help is if a couple Religious Taoists would enter the discussion that involve basic tenets so that they could actually mediate the discussions because they would be able to view more clearly the commonality between the two philosophies.

 

Maybe one day ...

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Marblehead

[Sunya]

You are so right in that nothingness leads to an apathetic state of being. That kind of apathy is what I experienced while studying Buddhism. Apathy leads to depression. Depression leads to.....

 

Depression leads to awakening, what you experienced might've been the first touch of the Great Doubt spoken of in Zen. Anyway, Buddhism is not about nothingness. In your zeal for relying only on yourself you've lead yourself to a completely wrong interpretation. Apathy is a lack of compassion, and continual clinging to an old way of thinking. Depression is good though but without devotion it won't lead anywhere. All must pass through the dark night.

 

http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/1523597.htm

 

 

What might help is if a couple Religious Taoists would enter the discussion that involve basic tenets so that they could actually mediate the discussions because they would be able to view more clearly the commonality between the two philosophies.

 

 

 

I can safely recommend the book Nonduality by David Loy as an incredible foray into comparison between the traditions of Buddhism, Vedanta, and Taoism.

Edited December 31, 2009 by mikaelz

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Buddhism has nothing to do with 'nothingess' or annihilation or escaping from the world or 'not opening the umbrella when it rains' or trying to walk through a tree by saying it doesn't exist 'sigh', lol.

Ahh, it took a while, but as perennial as the seasons.. please find where, in my statement, i said the Buddhist didn't open an umbrella.. Buddhists use the words and phrases that, to the common observer, indicate 'nothingness', then.. Buddhists take you on an elaborate explanation of how 'nothingness' doesn't mean nothingness, LOL... the implication of the misquoted quote, is that the Taoist sees what IS and acts appropriately.. the Buddhist may act appropriately and open an umbrella, but.. they 'talk' a different game.. No, it's not a misunderstanding of Buddhism, it is a common person's understanding of the evidence presented..

 

Be well..

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

Ahh, it took a while, but as perennial as the seasons.. please find where, in my statement, i said the Buddhist didn't open an umbrella..

 

Ok..

 

"When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet!

Yes, but.. The Buddhist says it's an 'illusion', the Taoist opens their umbrella.. "

 

your statement does indeed point to Buddhism as idealism and Taoism as pragmatism, when that isn't the case at all. The Buddhist does open the umbrella, he just has no fantasies about it [not saying that the Taoist does]

 

Buddhists use the words and phrases that, to the common observer, indicate 'nothingness', then.. Buddhists take you on an elaborate explanation of how 'nothingness' doesn't mean nothingness, LOL... the implication of the misquoted quote, is that the Taoist sees what IS and acts appropriately.. the Buddhist may act appropriately and open an umbrella, but.. they 'talk' a different game.. No, it's not a misunderstanding of Buddhism, it is a common person's understanding of the evidence presented..

 

Be well..

 

what evidence? like I said this is your misinterpretation.. nothingness is not even a Buddhist word, it's never used by any Buddhist teacher and no Buddhist teachings point to 'nothingness'. infact nihilism is seen as an extreme to be avoided.

 

nothingness is not any good Buddhist's vocabulary.. it seems to only be used by people who lack understanding of what emptiness means, i'm guessing from studying books written in the 1930s

Edited December 31, 2009 by mikaelz

[ralis]

Depression leads to awakening, what you experienced might've been the first touch of the Great Doubt spoken of in Zen. Anyway, Buddhism is not about nothingness. In your zeal for relying only on yourself you've lead yourself to a completely wrong interpretation. Apathy is a lack of compassion, and continual clinging to an old way of thinking. Depression is good though but without devotion it won't lead anywhere. All must pass through the dark night.

 

http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/1523597.htm

I can safely recommend the book Nonduality by David Loy as an incredible foray into comparison between the traditions of Buddhism, Vedanta, and Taoism.

 

Your conclusions about me are erroneous. In fact, I never discuss my experiences. Exactly where did I say I was depressed? Quote it! Quote where I said I was relying completely on myself! Your arguments are fallacious and redundant (argumentum ad nauseam).

 

If depression leads to awakening, then why are there not millions of awakened people in the U.S.? After all, depression is a very serious problem that affects millions in the U.S. alone. Again, you proceed from an incorrect conclusion in trying to establish an absolute tenet, where none exist. A non sequitur at best.

 

Does your philosophy professor allow you to argue in such a manner?

 

 

ralis

Edited December 31, 2009 by ralis

[ralis]

Ok..

 

"When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet!

Yes, but.. The Buddhist says it's an 'illusion', the Taoist opens their umbrella.. "

 

your statement does indeed point to Buddhism as idealism and Taoism as pragmatism, when that isn't the case at all. The Buddhist does open the umbrella, he just has no fantasies about it [not saying that the Taoist does]

what evidence? like I said this is your misinterpretation.. nothingness is not even a Buddhist word, it's never used by any Buddhist teacher and no Buddhist teachings point to 'nothingness'. infact nihilism is seen as an extreme to be avoided.

 

nothingness is not any good Buddhist's vocabulary.. it seems to only be used by people who lack understanding of what emptiness means, i'm guessing from studying books written in the 1930s

 

If you want to be an apologist for Buddhism, why not change your rhetoric? If you use 1st. person examples from your own experience, then you may not come across as being so preachy! In general, most are not interested in preachy, redundant discourse. Obviously, you have failed to define exactly what the experience of Buddhism really means to you.

 

 

ralis

[thuscomeone]

I've thought it over and...there is no objective world. All there is is mind - seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc. These (mind) make up the totality of our "reality" as sentient beings. Just try and find anything outside of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking in your own experience. Good luck. And it is useless to talk about anything outside of our own experience isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see this before. It is so simple. Conditioning runs very deep I guess. Anyway...all is mind.

[Sunya]

I've thought it over and...there is no objective world. All there is is mind - seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc. These (mind) make up the totality of our "reality" as sentient beings. Just try and find anything outside of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking in your own experience. Good luck. And it is useless to talk about anything outside of our own experience isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see this before. It is so simple. Conditioning runs very deep I guess. Anyway...all is mind.

 

yes

 

but such an intellectual understanding is only the beginning, I struggle daily with constantly reminding myself, the habitual patterns run so deep. do you practice?

 

Your conclusions about me are erroneous. In fact, I never discuss my experiences. Exactly where did I say I was depressed? Quote it! Quote where I said I was relying completely on myself! Your arguments are fallacious and redundant (argumentum ad nauseam).

 

If depression leads to awakening, then why are there not millions of awakened people in the U.S.? After all, depression is a very serious problem that affects millions in the U.S. alone. Again, you proceed from an incorrect conclusion in trying to establish an absolute tenet, where none exist. A non sequitur at best.

 

Does your philosophy professor allow you to argue in such a manner?

ralis

 

*sigh* it's truly impossible to talk to you ralis.. pointless argumentation. you did it with VH and you are doing it with me, but i'm not VH. I don't enjoy the passion and anger of argument that you seem to thrive on, so please don't feel offended that I stop responding to your posts, it's nothing personal. I just find your karmic patterns extremely annoying and I don't want to help you perpetuate them.

[thuscomeone]

yes

 

but such an intellectual understanding is only the beginning, I struggle daily with constantly reminding myself, the habitual patterns run so deep. do you practice?

Dude, pretty much all I have been doing for the past 10 months now (besides school) is vipassana, analytical meditation on emptiness, dependent arising, awareness - the characteristics of reality. I study these things and then observe reality to see if they are really the way things are. If they are, I accept them. If they don't, I reject them. I have never been so involved in anything as I am currently in Buddhism. I'm pretty much obsessed. I have yet to do any sitting meditation at all though. I don't have any teacher and I don't go to any dharma center or anything like that. All I've had so far is the internet - forums, articles, pdf files. I just piece together whatever I can find. I have this notebook with about a thousand loose pieces of paper crammed into it which are completely covered with writing, my chicken scratch - back to front

Edited January 1, 2010 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Greetings..

Yes, but.. The Buddhist says it's an 'illusion', the Taoist opens their umbrella..

 

Except this isn't exactly true. At least not according to the folk lore. Taoist immortals are often wacky, fascinating, magical and non-conforming characters. In the "Tales of Taoist Immortals" (transl. by Eva Wong) there was one in particular that would stuff wool in his clothing in the summer and ice or something else cold in the winter, etc. This is precisely "it's all an illusion type of behavior".

Edited January 1, 2010 by goldisheavy

[3bob]

"I've thought it over and...there is no objective world. All there is is mind - seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc. These (mind) make up the totality of our "reality" as sentient beings. Just try and find anything outside of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking in your own experience. Good luck. And it is useless to talk about anything outside of our own experience isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see this before. It is so simple. Conditioning runs very deep I guess. Anyway...all is mind". thuscomeone

 

Hello, may I ask what you mean by, "all is mind"?

 

"Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena*. Doctrinally Nibbāna is said of the mind which "no longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a status in perpetuity, whereby "liberation (vimutta) can be said". (I borrowed this quote which is similar to my thinking on the matter)

 

*or in idenity with and or in bondage to the related changes of ones (so-called) own experience of, "seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc"; which come and go and pass away.

 

I like the saying, "All is Spirit"; anyway I'm not a Buddhist so I'll leave off here for now... good luck Dude.

[xabir2005]

[thuscomeone]

"I've thought it over and...there is no objective world. All there is is mind - seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc. These (mind) make up the totality of our "reality" as sentient beings. Just try and find anything outside of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking in your own experience. Good luck. And it is useless to talk about anything outside of our own experience isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see this before. It is so simple. Conditioning runs very deep I guess. Anyway...all is mind". thuscomeone

 

Hello, may I ask what you mean by, "all is mind"?

 

"Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena*. Doctrinally Nibbāna is said of the mind which "no longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a status in perpetuity, whereby "liberation (vimutta) can be said". (I borrowed this quote which is similar to my thinking on the matter)

 

*or in idenity with and or in bondage to the related changes of ones (so-called) own experience of, "seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc"; which come and go and pass away.

 

I like the saying, "All is Spirit"; anyway I'm not a Buddhist so I'll leave off here for now... good luck Dude.

I mean...all is mind. Can you find anything but mind in your experience? Try it. Yet this mind is not self existent. It is dependently arisen.

[xabir2005]

Dude, pretty much all I have been doing for the past 10 months now (besides school) is vipassana, analytical meditation on emptiness, dependent arising, awareness - the characteristics of reality. I study these things and then observe reality to see if they are really the way things are. If they are, I accept them. If they don't, I reject them. I have never been so involved in anything as I am currently in Buddhism. I'm pretty much obsessed. I have yet to do any sitting meditation at all though. I don't have any teacher and I don't go to any dharma center or anything like that. All I've had so far is the internet - forums, articles, pdf files. I just piece together whatever I can find. I have this notebook with about a thousand loose pieces of paper crammed into it which are completely covered with writing, my chicken scratch - back to front

Dharma Dan's forum (Dharma Overground) is a good place if you are going to start on practice and have any practice questions on Vipassana

 

p.s., I see you're still schooling, just curious how old are you?