Certain instances of Buddhist harping...

[C T]

Hi CowTao,

 

I'm not exactly taking that personally... more like an observation - also as I believe you know everything that has ever passed before our eyes is recorded in the mind/akasa so I don't see much surprise per-se about things being around or revisited.

 

Anyway, imo that was not the only instance of harping. Another recent case (among others) involved a well versed Buddhist proclaiming that his path was the best of all and doing so at largely Taoist sponored site. (?) Btw, seeing that I don't know how to hunt posts down like you have, perhaps you could find that one (quoted or linked) for the rest of us? And if you don't mind I'd like to ask you for your opinion about that statement, which I think several people here took as a form of antics.

 

Regards, Bob

Hey Bob,

 

In my current experience i have found out that not everything that arises within consciousness need be recorded. Only by naming and analyzing things, events, feelings, emotions, and assigning labels, either through thoughts, or through repeated mental re-views, or through vocalization, do these then activate the 'memorise' button. That is why in all the meditative traditions, and not just the buddhist ones, there is so much emphasis on observing silence. There are good reasons for this. In some buddhist paths practitioners are taught to find the source of exactly who it is that is doing the memorising, and when that is realized, it becomes easy to liberate thoughts etc the moment these arise in the mindstream, so there is no imprint, ideally speaking, or at least the imprints become less vivid, or less forceful.

 

This process of learning to let go is a natural state - we can either learn it now, or nature will enforce it upon us when age catches up. Either way the mind is not designed for analysis - its ultimate purpose is to remain as close to emptiness as possible, the natural state some call it, yet in practice its all so hard to do. Just imagine the overload we tend to exert on the mind - thru all kinds of sources, instead of simply learning when to let go. Carrying all this load its no wonder there is such a need for spiritual practices of all kinds - if we simply allow the mind to rest naturally, without attempts at contrivance, there is no need for any spiritual path, any discussions, any discourses, any forum arguments and debates, any analysis, any beliefs, any assertive and arrogant remarks, any biases, any shaktipat, or dzogchen, or any other kinds of powerful/less esoterism.... i think you see my point here? Its because many of us tend to cling to the belief that we are somehow inadequate that 'needs' for anything else other than the natural state are created.

 

Hence the saying (Alan Watts i think, paraphrased here) - The tendency is for humans to always look for the longest way around to find the shortest way home.

 

Such is the human condition. It is a contraction. All assertions are contractions of sorts. The moment something is asserted, thats the end of wonderment.

 

I hope this answers your question, albeit in an indirect way.

 

All the best, and may you have a peaceful weekend, and you too, btw (whoever reads this...)

[ralis]

Omniscient is the Western term for a Pali term associated with the Buddhas teachings. What omniscient means for a Buddha is not the same as what it means in Western Theist understanding. What the Buddha is omniscient of is the nature of things, basically, how things work. Not that he knows every infinite particular of everything, but basically the way things manifest. In states of meditation he can get into a state of psychic ability transcending time and space and have remote visions of things that have happened and possible happenings in the future based upon seeing patterns. This type of omniscience is not the same as what you would identify the word with using Orthodox Theistic interpretations of the word, which is where the Western equivalent comes from. So, in order to speak a term of Western origin into Buddhist interpretation does take contextualization, of which you do seem to ignore and harp the same mis-understandings over and over again due to lack of insight.

 

You have many mental dogmas which limit your ability to understand what many of us are talking about here who are part of the Buddha family.

 

You keep projecting from an inability to understand outside of your own conditioning.

 

The Buddha view is viewless view... which you don't understand because you don't even intellectually understanding the Buddhas teaching of interdependent origination/emptiness, which is actually deeply organic and not mechanistic as you haven't seen into stages of samadhi, thus your understanding and interpretation reflects your level of experience.

 

 

I know perfectly well what omniscient means. However, you use this term inappropriately and out of context.

 

I don't appreciate the condescending remarks about how you view my spiritual evolution.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I know perfectly well what omniscient means. However, you use this term inappropriately and out of context.

 

I don't appreciate the condescending remarks about how you view my spiritual evolution.

 

ralis

 

You don't know what Omniscient means in the Buddhist context, as you keep associating the appearence of the word within Buddhist context from a point of view of Western association, originating from Theistic interpretation of the Cosmos.

 

So no... you don't understand.

 

Also... it's ok for you to constantly berate me post after post, but I cannot point out your flaws? Please appreciate it, and take it in, or ignore it. But, don't react. It's your karma to hear such things as you deserve some criticism, just as I do. But, I use it as fuel for the virtue or condition of patience.

[ralis]

You don't know what Omniscient means in the Buddhist context, as you keep associating the appearence of the word within Buddhist context from a point of view of Western association, originating from Theistic interpretation of the Cosmos.

 

So no... you don't understand.

 

Also... it's ok for you to constantly berate me post after post, but I cannot point out your flaws? Please appreciate it, and take it in, or ignore it. But, don't react. It's your karma to hear such things as you deserve some criticism, just as I do. But, I use it as fuel for the virtue or condition of patience.

 

Maybe I am a fully enlightened realized Buddha and am here to teach you.

 

I am listening to led Zeppelin now. Amazing music.

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

Honestly, I find it difficult to put labels on myself. Labels limit one to a specific belief system and group ideology. Maybe best described as a strange loop that one never really escapes from.

 

I studied Buddhism for many years and found it to be dogmatic, authoritarian, and hierarchical. The Lama hierarchy rigidly limits the so called higher teachings to one's who have completed 3 year retreats. Even then, the very secret teachings are not usually revealed. I know of one Lama who is trying to reveal more. However, he assigns a number of prerequisites to be completed before further teachings are revealed. Years ago, I have received a few from this teacher and found them to be fragments of a larger system. Definitely a rip off!

In general, these teachings were borrowed from other cultures (India, Mongolia and China)and integrated within the Lama system (Lamaism) of so called Buddhism. The claim is made that these teachings are the highest (whatever that means) teachings for this lower realm (whatever that means).

 

I agree with this appraisal, pretty much top to bottom.

 

In general, because of religious doctrine and superstition, humans generally are anthropocentric in their point of view.

 

I notice this too. Aren't we the bestest? This is one of the qualities I like in Taoism better than Buddhism -- Taoism is not so anthropocentric. I don't have to go to the extreme of worshiping dogs, cats and the crows to admit to myself that they are not inferior to me, just different. On the other hand, in Buddhist writings, I read time and again, animals used as examples of lower sentience. Hell, some writings even codify all of them into an animal realm, separate from the human realm. That's a rather ugly anthropocentrism right there. Taoists do not view animals as inherently lower than humans, and thus, human Taoists are capable of learning from animals without demeaning themselves. That's a good quality.

 

Therefor, all appeals for some fundamental absolute truth are based on this narrow point of view. Consequently many belief systems are founded on this error. Is it possible for one to apprehend the totally of all phenomena?

 

Let's put this question on its head. Is it possible to apprehend one individual phenomenon in the absence of the totality of the context? As I think you are well aware, the context is infinite and indeed embraces the possible totality of phenomena -- this is a much bigger space than mere totality of phenomena.

 

I don't see how that would be possible. Recently Vajraji claimed the Buddha was omniscient. There is no proof of that.

 

 

ralis

 

This depends on the kind of demands you place on omniscience. What if I say you are omniscient right now, and have always been?

[goldisheavy]

Maybe I am a fully enlightened realized Buddha and am here to teach you.

 

I am listening to led Zeppelin now. Amazing music.

 

ralis

 

That's something to consider. Definitely.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I am listening to led Zeppelin now. Amazing music.

 

ralis

 

I'm a huge fan!

[goldisheavy]

Either way the mind is not designed for analysis - its ultimate purpose is to remain as close to emptiness as possible

 

The mind is not really designed. The mind can design things, but the mind itself is not designed. The mind is perfectly adaptable. It is adaptable to analysis. It is adaptable to dwelling in emptiness. Dwelling in emptiness doesn't improve the mind. Analysis doesn't harm it.

 

Let's quickly jump to my movie screen metaphor. The movie screen doesn't get dirty when a movie of dirt is played on it. The movie screen doesn't get any cleaner when a movie of a sparkly and shiny kitchen sink is being played on it. The mind is just like that movie screen with the distinction that we conceive the movie screen to be made of substance, but the mind is not made of substance.

Edited July 3, 2010 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

I agree with this appraisal, pretty much top to bottom.

 

 

 

I notice this too. Aren't we the bestest? This is one of the qualities I like in Taoism better than Buddhism -- Taoism is not so anthropocentric. I don't have to go to the extreme of worshiping dogs, cats and the crows to admit to myself that they are not inferior to me, just different. On the other hand, in Buddhist writings, I read time and again, animals used as examples of lower sentience. Hell, some writings even codify all of them into an animal realm, separate from the human realm. That's a rather ugly anthropocentrism right there. Taoists do not view animals as inherently lower than humans, and thus, human Taoists are capable of learning from animals without demeaning themselves. That's a good quality.

 

 

 

Let's put this question on its head. Is it possible to apprehend one individual phenomenon in the absence of the totality of the context? As I think you are well aware, the context is infinite and indeed embraces the possible totality of phenomena -- this is a much bigger space than mere totality of phenomena.

 

 

 

This depends on the kind of demands you place on omniscience. What if I say you are omniscient right now, and have always been?

 

 

I never agreed with the idea of hell and animal realms. More superstition.

 

I agree that all perception and phenomena are only experienced in context with other phenomena. I made a statement (there is no separation) a while back and of course I was slammed by Vajraji.

 

ralis

[ralis]

I'm a huge fan!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEiyGgWt6no

Edited July 3, 2010 by ralis

[ralis]

The Led Zeppelin I just posted is awesome guitar work. Page is playing a Gibson Les Paul which is my dream guitar. Min. of 3500.00

Edited July 3, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

The mind is not really designed. The mind can design things, but the mind itself is not designed. The mind is perfectly adaptable. It is adaptable to analysis. It is adaptable to dwelling in emptiness. Dwelling in emptiness doesn't improve the mind. Analysis doesn't harm it.

 

The mind is in fact dependently originated and is not ultimate nature. To consider mind, even in the most subtlest experience of beyond perception and non-perception as ultimate and real in and of itself, is to have a subtle obscuration of pride. The pride of clinging to an ultimate existence of some sort.

 

Let's quickly jump to my movie screen metaphor. The movie screen doesn't get dirty when a movie of dirt is played on it. The movie screen doesn't get any cleaner when a movie of a sparkly and shiny kitchen sink is being played on it. The mind is just like that movie screen with the distinction that we conceive the movie screen to be made of substance, but the mind is not made of substance.

 

The mind does not inherently exist, just like dirt. It is not any deeper than dirt. It's just that through your mind you can realize this. This is what it means by inherent purity in Dzogchen. Not that things are inherently pure due to existence, but merely due to the fact that there is not one thing that has ultimate existence, including mind.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

more endless mental masturbation...life is passing y'all by...why don't you go play in the sun or help somebody?

[Vajrahridaya]

I never agreed with the idea of hell and animal realms. More superstition.

 

You don't have insight into Rigpa then. The insight of Rigpa does include clarity about the 31 planes and 6 realms. You don't truly follow the teachings of ChNNR.

 

There are hell realms, and you don't need blind faith to understand this. You merely need meditative insight. There are lower dimensions of experience than the 5 senses. There are also higher though as well.

 

You can experience this directly, without being conditioned by Buddhist texts. Buddhist texts will just give you insight into the nature of these realms and experiences of them.

 

I agree that all perception and phenomena are only experienced in context with other phenomena. I made a statement (there is no separation) a while back and of course I was slammed by Vajraji.

 

ralis

 

Only slammed in the sense of trying to find clarity in your thinking that they are one. There is not one thing separate from another, but they are not completely alike either. There is both difference and non-difference.

 

 

All phenomena is connected, but not one.

[ralis]

You don't have insight into Rigpa then. The insight of Rigpa does include clarity about the 31 planes and 6 realms. You don't truly follow the teachings of ChNNR.

 

There are hell realms, and you don't need blind faith to understand this. You merely need meditative insight. There are lower dimensions of experience than the 5 senses. There are also higher though as well.

 

You can experience this directly, without being conditioned by Buddhist texts. Buddhist texts will just give you insight into the nature of these realms and experiences of them.

 

 

 

Only slammed in the sense of trying to find clarity in your thinking that they are one. There is not one thing separate from another, but they are not completely alike either. There is both difference and non-difference.

 

 

All phenomena is connected, but not one.

 

Never implied that phenomena are all alike. Infinite possibilities.

 

 

ralis

[Mark Foote]

 

 

 

The mind is in fact dependently originated and is not ultimate nature. To consider mind, even in the most subtlest experience of beyond perception and non-perception as ultimate and real in and of itself, is to have a subtle obscuration of pride. The pride of clinging to an ultimate existence of some sort.

 

In "Buddhist India" Ward tells of the final conference after the death of the Gautamid before the order split. There were five main differences between what became Therevadin and what became Mahayana. One of them was the omniscience of the Buddha. The differences were reconciled around the notion that a Buddha was only omniscient with regard to the dharma, not with regard to worldly phenomena.

 

As I've said on Tao Bums before, the point that could not be agreed was whether or not an arahant could have a wet dream, be seduced by a succubus. Something like that. Doesn't exactly sound like the Mahayana that we know, the compassion for all beings that holds off personal enlightenment for the sake of others? Yet I think it rings true, because it means that the mahayanist enters into the suffering occasioned by delusion for the sake of other beings, and that means acts are committed that an arahant (supposedly) could not commit.

 

I'm thinking everybody is right tonight, God help me.

 

the cessation of perception and sensation, which is beyond neither perception and sensation nor not perception and sensation. Marked by a happiness. The pride of clinging to existence, the craving to be reborn, giving rise to the asavas, which cease with the cessation of volition in perception and sensation. Attending on sense object, sense organ, consciousness arising from the contact of sense object and sense organ, impact out of the occurrence of consciousness, and feeling associated with impact, fevers of mind and body decrease, and happiness of mind and body is experienced. Right view, right intent, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration develop and go to fruition, right speech, right action, and right livelihood are already well-attended- so in one observing thus, abiding thus (something like that) with regard to the six sense-fields.

 

does anybody think that the reason we have this much brains is directly related to our lack of a tail? Why do I exert so much energy to wag the tail that I don't have? How come all I have is consciousness, impact, and feeling that breaths and wags? Woof?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

does anybody think that the reason we have this much brains is directly related to our lack of a tail? Why do I exert so much energy to wag the tail that I don't have? How come all I have is consciousness, impact, and feeling that breaths and wags? Woof?

 

Cool...

[Vajrahridaya]

Never implied that phenomena are all alike. Infinite possibilities.

 

 

ralis

 

Oh ok... I was just reading into what you had said before. For that I apologize.

[forestofclarity]

I see some dzogchen teachings out there that are available and seem to be fairly ultimate:

 

Awareness in Dzogchen

 

It seems to me that the truth is simple and so is the practice. All the other, more complicated teachings seem to simply keep us going until we realize the very simple truths.

 

Also, I heard a Bob Thurman podcast some time ago, and he said the Tibetans will do something like this:

 

First, do 100,000 prostrations and recitations of Om Mani Padme Hum

 

Now, I will provide you with the highest truth, the greatest truth, the ULTIMATE truth:

 

All things are impermanent.

 

 

 

I studied Buddhism for many years and found it to be dogmatic, authoritarian, and hierarchical. The Lama hierarchy rigidly limits the so called higher teachings to one's who have completed 3 year retreats. Even then, the very secret teachings are not usually revealed. I know of one Lama who is trying to reveal more. However, he assigns a number of prerequisites to be completed before further teachings are revealed. Years ago, I have received a few from this teacher and found them to be fragments of a larger system. Definitely a rip off!

[3bob]

I see some dzogchen teachings out there that are available and seem to be fairly ultimate:

 

Awareness in Dzogchen

 

It seems to me that the truth is simple and so is the practice. All the other, more complicated teachings seem to simply keep us going until we realize the very simple truths.

 

Also, I heard a Bob Thurman podcast some time ago, and he said the Tibetans will do something like this:

 

First, do 100,000 prostrations and recitations of Om Mani Padme Hum

 

Now, I will provide you with the highest truth, the greatest truth, the ULTIMATE truth:

 

All things are impermanent.

 

My interpretation is that change is only the "ultimate" truth for "things"; while the Udana sutra (among others) points to an ultimate (so to speak) which is an end to the sorrow that is bound to things...

 

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned". (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro

1994)

 

And it seems to me sometimes that this teaching is not of much importantance to some Buddhists (?) when they (sorry for the "they" people) go around and around talking about things and change, yet without the truth that the above sutra points to - all knowledge and facts of things, change, realms, meditations, etc., would not lead to emancipation as described.

 

Om

[3bob]

Hey Bob,

 

In my current experience i have found out that not everything that arises within consciousness need be recorded. Only by naming and analyzing things, events, feelings, emotions, and assigning labels, either through thoughts, or through repeated mental re-views, or through vocalization, do these then activate the 'memorise' button. That is why in all the meditative traditions, and not just the buddhist ones, there is so much emphasis on observing silence. There are good reasons for this. In some buddhist paths practitioners are taught to find the source of exactly who it is that is doing the memorising, and when that is realized, it becomes easy to liberate thoughts etc the moment these arise in the mindstream, so there is no imprint, ideally speaking, or at least the imprints become less vivid, or less forceful.

 

This process of learning to let go is a natural state - we can either learn it now, or nature will enforce it upon us when age catches up. Either way the mind is not designed for analysis - its ultimate purpose is to remain as close to emptiness as possible, the natural state some call it, yet in practice its all so hard to do. Just imagine the overload we tend to exert on the mind - thru all kinds of sources, instead of simply learning when to let go. Carrying all this load its no wonder there is such a need for spiritual practices of all kinds - if we simply allow the mind to rest naturally, without attempts at contrivance, there is no need for any spiritual path, any discussions, any discourses, any forum arguments and debates, any analysis, any beliefs, any assertive and arrogant remarks, any biases, any shaktipat, or dzogchen, or any other kinds of powerful/less esoterism.... i think you see my point here? Its because many of us tend to cling to the belief that we are somehow inadequate that 'needs' for anything else other than the natural state are created.

 

Hence the saying (Alan Watts i think, paraphrased here) - The tendency is for humans to always look for the longest way around to find the shortest way home.

 

Such is the human condition. It is a contraction. All assertions are contractions of sorts. The moment something is asserted, thats the end of wonderment.

 

I hope this answers your question, albeit in an indirect way.

 

All the best, and may you have a peaceful weekend, and you too, btw (whoever reads this...)

 

Hi CowTao,

I didn't exactly mean all of those mental/emotional/memory processes in my last quote, I meant the "akasa" which records whether we do all of those things you've described or not.

 

A monk or a nun in a protected compound may not have get involved in the world very much but even there a time may come when they do, like war, natural diasters, sickness, etc., and thus have to use other aspects of the mind to protect their human lives.

 

I'm going out of town and rushed right now, sorry for the short reply.

 

Om

[goldisheavy]

The mind is in fact dependently originated and is not ultimate nature.

 

That's only true of the mindset, but not mind. The mind is not dependently originated. But mindset is.

 

To consider mind, even in the most subtlest experience of beyond perception and non-perception as ultimate and real in and of itself, is to have a subtle obscuration of pride. The pride of clinging to an ultimate existence of some sort.

 

It's obvious you haven't been paying attention to anything I've written. The screen is not the movie that runs on it. The mirror is not the reflections that appear in it. When you talk about various experiences such as one of neither perception nor non-perception, that's a certain kind of an image that arises in the mind. It's not itself mind.

[goldisheavy]

more endless mental masturbation...life is passing y'all by...why don't you go play in the sun or help somebody?

 

Playing in the sun and helping people is mental masturbation.

[dwai]

My interpretation is that change is only the "ultimate" truth for "things"; while the Udana sutra (among others) points to an ultimate (so to speak) which is an end to the sorrow that is bound to things...

 

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned". (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro

1994)

 

And it seems to me sometimes that this teaching is not of much importantance to some Buddhists (?) when they (sorry for the "they" people) go around and around talking about things and change, yet without the truth that the above sutra points to - all knowledge and facts of things, change, realms, meditations, etc., would not lead to emancipation as described.

 

Om

 

Namaskar 3Bob,

 

I realized it's pointless trying to make the ostrich pull it's head out of sand. It is Karma that is making those who deny the True Self be that way. If they think that it is the way out of samsara, they are gravely mistaken and will come back to learn one day. The only reason I bother responding to these jaundiced-view Buddhists is so that some hapless individual who comes across this site doesn't mistake the rambling of egotistical fools for real wisdom. What you and I (and some others on this board) see, is an infinite mind-twist for those who you claim are "harping". And the incredible, colossal folly that they consider "Truth" is nothing but mindless mind-fuck!

 

Be Well...Happy Practice and Good Chi!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Playing in the sun and helping people is mental masturbation.

 

Masturbating in the sun is helping people play mentally.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth