There is no self

[ralis]

There are valid points made here. However, a number of scholars have researched the ancient practices that are anterior to what is being discussed here. What we see are most likely fragments of spiritual systems that are possibly lost in time. Most likely Vedanta, Buddhism etc. are only fragments of a greater spiritual system that is lost.

 

A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world.

 

The priesthood and cultist fervor are obstacles that prevent one from seeing what the universe is really about.

 

Both of the following books are excellent resources.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Archaic-Techniques-Ecstasy-Bollingen/dp/0691119422/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271092568&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.com/Masks-God-Occidental-Mythology-v/dp/0285636073/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271094269&sr=8-7

 

 

ralis

Edited April 12, 2010 by ralis

[Sunya]

There are valid points made here. However, a number of scholars have researched the ancient practices that are anterior to what is being discussed here. What we see are most likely fragments of spiritual systems that are possibly lost in time. Most likely Vedanta, Buddhism etc. are only fragments of a greater spiritual system that is lost.

 

A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world.

 

"Root of all spirituality" in what sense? That's a very bold and assumptive statement to make. Vedanta and Buddhism as fragments of a greater spiritual system? This reminds me of people who think there used to be a golden age like Atlantis that was perfect and now we are living in a fragmentary age. It's similar to the garden of eden myth and is embedded in people psychologically through conditioning to always look backwards instead of forwards. As if the past was so superior contrary to all historical and sociological evidence. There's no evidence that there was a "greater spiritual system". Shamanism is polytheistic and is concerned with the subtle realms. Religions arose from shamanistic roots but this arising can be viewed as evolution, not de-evolution, because the changes are more refined and less fantastical. For example both Buddhism and Vedanta are nondual traditions and don't view any beings as inherently existing. Shamanism on the other hand viewed spirits as inherently existing and controlling the weather and other natural forces. Furthermore, there was usually some grand Creator belief though different from monotheism because spirits were distinct from each other. Spirits were reified archetypes that represent natural forces. Is that what the universe is really about? I don't see Shamanism as the root of all spirituality in the world, at all. The nondual traditions are much more refined and have much deeper realization; I could hardly even connect Shamanism to Buddhism or Vedanta. That's like saying medieval science is the root of quantum physics; well um, yea the former preceded the latter but can it be called the root? Hardly.

[ralis]

"Root of all spirituality" in what sense? That's a very bold and assumptive statement to make. Vedanta and Buddhism as fragments of a greater spiritual system? This reminds me of people who think there used to be a golden age like Atlantis that was perfect and now we are living in a fragmentary age. It's similar to the garden of eden myth and is embedded in people psychologically through conditioning to always look backwards instead of forwards. As if the past was so superior contrary to all historical and sociological evidence. There's no evidence that there was a "greater spiritual system". Shamanism is polytheistic and is concerned with the subtle realms. Religions arose from shamanistic roots but this arising can be viewed as evolution, not de-evolution, because the changes are more refined and less fantastical. For example both Buddhism and Vedanta are nondual traditions and don't view any beings as inherently existing. Shamanism on the other hand viewed spirits as inherently existing and controlling the weather and other natural forces. Furthermore, there was usually some grand Creator belief though different from monotheism because spirits were distinct from each other. Spirits were reified archetypes that represent natural forces. Is that what the universe is really about? I don't see Shamanism as the root of all spirituality in the world, at all. The nondual traditions are much more refined and have much deeper realization; I could hardly even connect Shamanism to Buddhism or Vedanta. That's like saying medieval science is the root of quantum physics; well um, yea the former preceded the latter but can it be called the root? Hardly.

 

 

You always talk about deeper realizations as if there is a continuum of realization. It seems to me that one is either realized non dually or not. There can be no partial realization if one were using your worldview. Partial realizations are when there is still identity i.e, separateness.

 

In terms of what you stated about science, I beg to differ. The natural sciences were developed by the Greeks through observation, math and logic. That root has been built upon by centuries of empirical observation. Without that foundation, quantum mechanics would not have been discovered.

 

Actually shamanism is deeply integrated in Tibetan Buddhism. I know from direct experience and 20 yrs. of study. Ngak-pa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche as well as Namhkai Norbu have repeatedly discussed the problems and use of spirits for their work. Both teachers emphasized the primordial awareness (non duality) in their work. They apparently have no problem with this view.

 

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi Ralis: A good read for an introduction to Tibetan Mysticism is Alexandra David-Neel's 'Magic and Mystery in Tibet'.. otherwise, this thread contradicts its own title.. the intellectual one-ups-manship vividly demonstrates the hyprocicy of 'selfs' proclaiming 'there is no self'..

 

Be well..

[Sunya]

You always talk about deeper realizations as if there is a continuum of realization. It seems to me that one is either realized non dually or not. There can be no partial realization if one were using your worldview. Partial realizations are when there is still identity i.e, separateness.

 

There is refinement of realization, sure. It's not a one shot deal. But I'm not even talking about refinement of non-dual realization, i'm talking about the refinement of spiritual traditions in understanding reality. Shamans didn't get to nondual because their world-view is extremely dualistic so I don't see how their tradition can be the "great spiritual tradition that Buddhism and Vedanta are fragments of" when all evidence is to the contrary.

 

In terms of what you stated about science, I beg to differ. The natural sciences were developed by the Greeks through observation, math and logic. That root has been built upon by centuries of empirical observation. Without that foundation, quantum mechanics would not have been discovered.

 

As a foundation, yes I agree with you. The Greeks built a foundation by employing many methods of analysis that we still use today... but if someone were to say that modern science is only a fragmentary version of the greater scientific tradition of the Greeks, we cannot agree to this.

 

Actually shamanism is deeply integrated in Tibetan Buddhism. I know from direct experience and 20 yrs. of study. Ngak-pa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche as well as Namhkai Norbu have repeatedly discussed the problems and use of spirits for their work. Both teachers emphasized the primordial awareness (non duality) in their work. They apparently have no problem with this view.

 

Indeed but the view of nonduality is deeply imbedded into Vajrayana, which has clear understanding of the empty non-dual nature of the physical, subtle energetic, as well as formless realms. I think it makes sense that early explorers only had experience of the subtle realms hence their concern with out of body phenomena, taking plant aids, and healing others. The goal of Tibetan Buddhists is not just to commune with spirits and have subtle energetic journeys, I'm sure you already know this.

[lino]

 

Just because I said Buddhism "ripped" off Vedanta

 

 

It didn't rip it off. It built on it and gave it a structure.

[dwai]

It didn't rip it off. It built on it and gave it a structure.

 

Ignore that remark of mine..I was only "fighting fire with fire" with that remark of mine (directed to Alwayson).The Buddha added his own insights to Vedantic knowledge, making it richer in the process.

Edited April 13, 2010 by dwai

[dwai]

There are valid points made here. However, a number of scholars have researched the ancient practices that are anterior to what is being discussed here. What we see are most likely fragments of spiritual systems that are possibly lost in time. Most likely Vedanta, Buddhism etc. are only fragments of a greater spiritual system that is lost.

 

A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world.

 

The priesthood and cultist fervor are obstacles that prevent one from seeing what the universe is really about.

 

Both of the following books are excellent resources.

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...71092568&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.co...71094269&sr=8-7

 

 

ralis

 

Undoubtedly the roots of all religion and philosophy is in Shamanism. And you are very right that Proto-Vedic religion was definitely shamanistic. Even the Vedic texts have references to both the Non-Dualistic elements as well as Shamanic elements in them. As do the Greeks and almost all of the Ancient Civilizations.

 

Tibetan Buddhism has elements of Bonn fused in it, and Bonn is a Shamanic tradition.

 

But that doesn't mean that the refinements and adjustments that happened since have been detrimental to Spiritual pursuit. Instead of suggesting that each tradition/system indeed has a fragment of the puzzle, I would rather say that they have a path or two to the summit of the mountain (of Spiritual realization) and there are many such paths, each different in approach but towards the same goal.

Edited April 13, 2010 by dwai

[3bob]

[ralis]

 

 

 

As a foundation, yes I agree with you. The Greeks built a foundation by employing many methods of analysis that we still use today... but if someone were to say that modern science is only a fragmentary version of the greater scientific tradition of the Greeks, we cannot agree to this.

 

 

 

 

I never implied that modern science was a fragment of a more ancient tradition. The ancients founded the root of science and it has evolved to present day methodology.

 

 

ralis

[contrivedname!]

"Root of all spirituality" in what sense? That's a very bold and assumptive statement to make. Vedanta and Buddhism as fragments of a greater spiritual system? This reminds me of people who think there used to be a golden age like Atlantis that was perfect and now we are living in a fragmentary age. It's similar to the garden of eden myth and is embedded in people psychologically through conditioning to always look backwards instead of forwards. As if the past was so superior contrary to all historical and sociological evidence. There's no evidence that there was a "greater spiritual system". Shamanism is polytheistic and is concerned with the subtle realms. Religions arose from shamanistic roots but this arising can be viewed as evolution, not de-evolution, because the changes are more refined and less fantastical. For example both Buddhism and Vedanta are nondual traditions and don't view any beings as inherently existing. Shamanism on the other hand viewed spirits as inherently existing and controlling the weather and other natural forces. Furthermore, there was usually some grand Creator belief though different from monotheism because spirits were distinct from each other. Spirits were reified archetypes that represent natural forces. Is that what the universe is really about? I don't see Shamanism as the root of all spirituality in the world, at all. The nondual traditions are much more refined and have much deeper realization; I could hardly even connect Shamanism to Buddhism or Vedanta. That's like saying medieval science is the root of quantum physics; well um, yea the former preceded the latter but can it be called the root? Hardly.

 

it is interesting that a shamanic concoction in the amazon, with the partial purpose of "expelling" evil spirits, has been found by modern western science to "expel" many forms of waterborne parasites (read evil spirits?).

[Marblehead]

... I would rather say that they have a path or two to the summit of the mountain (of Spiritual realization) and there are many such paths, each different in approach but towards the same goal.

 

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to mention that I think this is a very valid statement.

 

There are many 'right' paths.

 

I was going to say "... and many 'wrong' paths." but I don't know if that would be a true statement.

 

Does dualistic thinking even apply here?

 

Just wondering to myself.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Was reading thru Thich Nhat Hanh's "Cultivating The Mind Of Love" when i came across these words - relevant to this thread somewhat...

 

"According to the Lord Buddha, there are four notions we need to examine carefully: self, person, living being, and life span. 'When this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated. Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva'. The bodhisattva is one who is liberated from the notions of self, person, living being, and life span.

 

We know that a flower is made only of non-flower elements, like sunshine, earth, water, time, and space. Everything in the cosmos come together to bring about the presence of one flower, and these boundless conditions are what we call 'Non-flower elements.' Compost helps make the flower, and the flower creates more compost. If we meditate, we can see the compost right here and now in the flower. If you are an organic gardener, you know that already.

 

These are not just words. It is our experience, the fruit of our practice of looking deeply. Looking at anything, we can see the nature of interbeing. A self is not possible without non-self elements. Looking deeply at any one thing, we see the whole cosmos. The one is made of the many. To take care of ourselves, we take care of those around us. Their happiness and stability is our happiness and stability. If we are free of the notions of self and non-self, we will not be afraid of the words 'self' and 'non-self'. But if we see the 'self' as our enemy and think that 'non-self' is our savior, we are caught. We are trying to push away one thing and embrace another. When we realize that to take care of the self is to take care of the non-self, we are free, and we dont have to push away either.

 

The Buddha said, "Take refuge in the island of self." He was not afraid to use the word 'self' because He was free of notions. But we students of the Buddha do not dare use the word. Several years ago, when I proposed a gatha for listening to the bell, "Listen, listen...this wonderful sound brings me back to my true self", a number of Buddhists refused to recite it because it included the word 'self'. So they changed it to, "Listen, listen...this wonderful sound brings me back to my true nature." They tried to escape 'self' in order to be serious students of the Buddha, but instead they just became prisoners of their notions.

 

If a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva. If we are aware that the self is always made of non-self elements, we will never be enslaved by or afraid of the notions of self and non-self. If we say the notion of self is harmful or dangerous, the notion of non-self may be even more harmful and dangerous. Clinging to the notion of self is not good, but clinging to the notion of non-self is worse.

 

Understanding that self is made of only of non-self elements is safe. The Buddha did not say, "You dont exist." He only said, "You are without self". Your nature is non-self. We suffer because we think He said we dont exist. From one extreme we fall into another extreme, but both extremes are just our notions. We never experience reality. We only have these notions, and we suffer because of them." -- Thich Nhat Hanh

[Marblehead]

Excellent post CowTao!

 

And yes, I am (almost) in complete agreement with what was said.

 

Very Taoist. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Understanding that self is made of only of non-self elements is safe. The Buddha did not say, "You dont exist." He only said, "You are without self". Your nature is non-self. We suffer because we think He said we dont exist. From one extreme we fall into another extreme, but both extremes are just our notions. We never experience reality. We only have these notions, and we suffer because of them." -- Thich Nhat Hanh

I have highlighted the phrase that describes the misunderstanding that is the cause of suffering.. Not only do we experience 'reality', we ARE reality.. suffering is the conflict of trying to resolve what we ARE, with the 'belief' that we are not.. everyone knows they experience reality, it's just that simple.. it's the 'conceptual gurus' using clever word-games and creating separation between what we 'know' and what we are 'programmed to believe' that causes 'suffering'...

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Yes Tzujanli.

 

We are the experience. We do exist. But not permanently. We all will die and be recycled.

 

And I would agree that when we try to hold to a belief system that is unnatural we are going to suffer. There will be internal conflicts.

 

All we need do is look to Nature. That is where reality exists in its purest form.

 

Peace & Love!

[lifeforce]

There are valid points made here. However, a number of scholars have researched the ancient practices that are anterior to what is being discussed here. What we see are most likely fragments of spiritual systems that are possibly lost in time. Most likely Vedanta, Buddhism etc. are only fragments of a greater spiritual system that is lost.

 

A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world.

 

The priesthood and cultist fervor are obstacles that prevent one from seeing what the universe is really about.

 

Both of the following books are excellent resources.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Archaic-Techniques-Ecstasy-Bollingen/dp/0691119422/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271092568&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.com/Masks-God-Occidental-Mythology-v/dp/0285636073/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271094269&sr=8-7

 

 

ralis

 

Hi ralis.

 

The reviews of these look good. Have you read them ? If so, what do you think.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi Marblehead: 'Nature', by which i mean wilderness or systems less impacted by human intervention, has counseled me well and consistently for as long as i can recall.. I acknowledge that nothing is 'un-natural', but.. there are changes brought about by the influence of humanity, that increase the difficulty of discerning the appropriate counsel of 'nature'..

A number of researchers would argue that primitive shamanism (Asian) is the root of all spiritually in this world.

I was talking with some friends about this topic a while back, and the 'quiet one' listened for while, then said: "Nah, people are the source".. at first we made fun of him, but.. he was spot-on..

 

Be well..

[RongzomFan]

Ignore that remark of mine..I was only "fighting fire with fire" with that remark of mine (directed to Alwayson).The Buddha added his own insights to Vedantic knowledge, making it richer in the process.

 

 

OH COME ON NOW

 

If nothing else, we have demonstrated that buddhism predated vedanta by millenia!

 

Vedism does not equal vedanta at all!! There are some brahmins that have never adopted the vedanta!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambudiri

 

For some reason, I was shown a documentary of these very same brahmins in high school. This is mainstream academia!!!

 

Also wikipedia mentions tribals being buddhist in multiple places.....Hopefully you will read some of the references on wikipedia, an actual book or two, and realize the true faith of your ancestors. Your ancestors were buddhist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India#Survival_of_Buddhism_in_India

 

 

I read in one book that first came buddhism, then came female deity worship, and then finally modern male deity worship.

Edited April 13, 2010 by alwayson

[contrivedname!]

Greetings..

 

Understanding that self is made of only of non-self elements is safe. The Buddha did not say, "You dont exist." He only said, "You are without self". Your nature is non-self. We suffer because we think He said we dont exist. From one extreme we fall into another extreme, but both extremes are just our notions. We never experience reality. We only have these notions, and we suffer because of them." -- Thich Nhat Hanh

 

 

I have highlighted the phrase that describes the misunderstanding that is the cause of suffering.. Not only do we experience 'reality', we ARE reality.. suffering is the conflict of trying to resolve what we ARE, with the 'belief' that we are not.. everyone knows they experience reality, it's just that simple.. it's the 'conceptual gurus' using clever word-games and creating separation between what we 'know' and what we are 'programmed to believe' that causes 'suffering'...

 

Be well..

 

Excellent quote and i liked your expansion on it...

 

The quote above is a good differentiation between no self and non-self. non-self negates the conception of self and no self. these ideas are mutually dependent and require the conception of one to form the other; while in this instance non-self is used to equate the point of non-conception of either self or no self. its the middle ground, why posit for self or no self?

 

 

one guy said: beauty creates ugly

 

another guy said: no, ugly creates beauty

 

chuang tzu said:

A man who kept monkeys said to them, "you get three acorns in the morning and four in the evening." This made them all furious. So he said, "how about four in the morning and three in the evening." and they were happy. The number of acorns was the same, but the different arrangement resulted in anger or pleasure.

 

We're all monkies.

 

In response to SF Jane's earlier taoist/buddhist interaction here is a somewhat similar situation described in a Zen Sutra:

 

There was a youth named Shen-hui from the Kao clan of Hsiang-yang; thirteen years old, he came from Jade Spring to call on the master.

 

The Master said, "Friend, you've come a long way, a hard journey; have you brought the basis along? If you have the basis you should know the host. Try to express it."

 

Shen-hui said, "Non-dwelling is the basis, seeing is the host."

 

The master said, "how is it appropriate for you, a novice, to speak glibly?"

 

Shen-hui then asked, "when you sit meditating do you see or do you not see?"

The master then hit him three times with his staff and asked, "when i hit you are you pained or not?"

He replied "both pained and not pained"

the master said "and i both see and do not see."

Shen-hui asked "What is it to both see and not see?"

 

the master said "My vision is such that i always see the excess and errors of my own mind, while i do not see the good and bad, right and wrong of other people. Thus i both see and do not see."

"You say you are both pained and not pained what about that? If you are not pained you are the same as wood or stone; if you are pained you are the same as an ordinary man so you get angry and resentful"

"The seeing or not seeing you spoke of are two extremes; being pained or not pained are birth and death. You dont even see your own essential nature and yet you dare to play with people." -Thomas Cleary translation

 

 

 

to me it seems part of the self/no-self teachings is to cut through egomania. i am thinking of egomania here as something of a continuum; there are different expressions. for a person with an inflated ego image, someone who always thinks they're right or are overly full of themself and thereby create suffering in this manner (rarely do we meet up to the standards of our illusions), no-self may be a good way to break up this "affirming" fixation.

 

can you imagine the potential suffering that could be caused to a person via no-self, if they are highly depressed and have feelings like: its all pointless, i dont exist, i wish i was dead, my life sucks, etc.? this is another expression of egomania.

 

to address ralis' mention to inflicted suffering, this is a differing situation. that is, there is a difference between self-inflicted suffering and externally inflicted suffering. thank you for pointing this out ralis. call me a weirdo, but i dont really buy into the idea that everyone who suffers is reaping their 'karma'.

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

I have highlighted the phrase that describes the misunderstanding that is the cause of suffering.. Not only do we experience 'reality', we ARE reality.. suffering is the conflict of trying to resolve what we ARE, with the 'belief' that we are not.. everyone knows they experience reality, it's just that simple.. it's the 'conceptual gurus' using clever word-games and creating separation between what we 'know' and what we are 'programmed to believe' that causes 'suffering'...

 

Be well..

 

Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the greatest contemporary Zen masters, is misunderstanding completely! Thanks for clearing that up Tzujanli. You should get in contact with him and tell him how wrong he is. I'm sure he'll thank you for clearing up the cause of suffering since that is, for Buddhists, an extremely difficult notion to comprehend. We are all very lucky that you're able to understand Buddhism so well to point out how wrong it is.

 

On a serious note, I'm amazed that after all this time in multiple persons trying to explain to you the Buddhist notion of suffering, you're still painting a completely ignorant picture of it. Buddhists view reality as nondual, so of course we ARE reality, but then they get rid of the 'we' because identity implies separation, or union, but since there was never a separation there is no union but only reality. Only this.

 

And of course we all experience reality, but Buddhists point out that we experience reality through a filter. If you are afraid of water, petrified, and someone throws you into the ocean. Will you be truly experiencing reality without concepts? Or will your fear be totally masking things as they are? Mind creates reality. This is the point that Thich Nhat Hanh is making. The self is an idea, a lens, from which we view reality. It is a concept and our experience is conceptual, thus it is tainted because such a lens is foggy/dirty. True reality is completely beyond concepts so yes, we are not experiencing reality as it is but rather are stuck in concepts.

Edited April 14, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

to me it seems part of the self/no-self teachings is to cut through egomania. i am thinking of egomania here as something of a continuum; there are different expressions. for a person with an inflated ego image, someone who always thinks they're right or are overly full of themself and thereby create suffering in this manner (rarely do we meet up to the standards of our illusions), no-self may be a good way to break up this "affirming" fixation.

 

Probably this is true, I agree with you that both true self and no self teachings are methods to cut through selfishness, but the former (true self) seems to have better success at affirming fixation [insert example of a crazy Hindu Guru scandal here]. Even if balanced, true self teachings still affirm fixation in some way. Instead of a small 'i' its a Grand 'I'. The little ego surrenders to the big ego and affirms its own existence through the ultimation of the Ultimate Subject. There is a subtle clinging/grasping happening there. It's hard to see, but its clearly evident to me. True self posits a ground into which you can surrender but still be safe. No self takes that ground away and thus is harder to comprehend since its so counter-intuitive. The mind wants a ground, but this ground is still a subtle concept and isn't real.

 

can you imagine the potential suffering that could be caused to a person via no-self, if they are highly depressed and have feelings like: its all pointless, i dont exist, i wish i was dead, my life sucks, etc.? this is another expression of egomania.

 

This person doesn't get no self. If they did, there would no longer be suffering because such a realization offers complete freedom, spaciousness, and peace. 'I don't exist' are just thoughts. Depressed feelings are just feelings. The arhat who realized no self sees such thoughts and feelings as arbitrary clouds floating in the spaciousness of the sky and no longer attaches to them, seeing their true nature as empty.

Edited April 14, 2010 by mikaelz

[C T]

Hey Mikael great thoughts as usual! Kudos!

 

Just a note with reference to Contrivedname's allusion to (highlight) the subtle difference between the views of Non Self and No Self. I can totally see his point - i believe what he said was that suffering would be greatly enhanced when there is either extreme negation or affirmation of self, whereas maintaining the view of Non Self brings one back into focus, hence diminishing the potential for causing self-harm and harm to others. Not wanting to speak for him, but his take that No Self is a destructive view is fairly accurate, imho.

 

As for Grandmaster Tzu... well, i have learnt to appreciate how his posts had always rubbed me in unpleasant ways too, and am thankful for they have shown i have much to learn in terms of letting go and losing the self centre, that part within me that is often quick to react blindly and/or to defend mindlessly. With this new wisdom, i no longer feel the need to entertain his musings. So thank you, Grandmaster... _/\_

[forestofclarity]

The disagreement arises simply because of the different levels of truth.

 

TNH is speaking from the level of relative truth. Tzu is speaking from the level of ultimate truth. No contradiction, no wrong, no problem.

 

 

Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the greatest contemporary Zen masters, is misunderstanding completely! Thanks for clearing that up Tzujanli. You should get in contact with him and tell him how wrong he is. I'm sure he'll thank you for clearing up the cause of suffering since that is, for Buddhists, an extremely difficult notion to comprehend. We are all very lucky that you're able to understand Buddhism so well to point out how wrong it is.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

We are all very lucky that you're able to understand Buddhism so well to point out how wrong it is.

Hi mikaelz: Thank you for noticing.. you know, if i wasn't aware of your affinity for Buddhism, and therefore your reluctance to be anything other than sincere, i might mistake that quote for petty juvenile sarcasm..

 

If you yank your head out of Buddha's butt for a moment and simply observe Life with genuine curiosity, you might see some merit to the observations i posted, and.. that's all i ask, honest evaluation from the perspective of a 'stilled-mind, Clarity.. but, that's unlikely, like most followers of belief systems, whatever they are, the system over-rides Clarity, Authenticity, and common-sense.. the developers of systems are no greater nor lesser than 'you'.. except that you choose to abandon your own authenticity.. while i ask that you simply evaluate information with Clarity, you expect that i accept someone else's interpretations as more accurate than my own.. that i abandon Clarity in favor of dogma? That just doesn't feel consistent with what 'is'..

 

Be well..