The Enlightened Sage

[3bob]

From Taoism:

 

"Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth."

 

Thus not bound and or under the forces of time and space in which evolution takes place. (regardless of the scales of, or variances in times and spaces)

 

Om

Edited December 29, 2010 by 3bob

[Z3N]

Enlightenment is just enlightenment.

 

There is no half, full or quarter. The human potential lies in the experience of all that there is. No religion or conceptual idea can take hold of it.

 

Living and dying arrive form the same source and end in the same source. The manifestation of this experience is the Tao.

 

No need to waste brain matter on what is right and wrong this is the function of the guest.

 

Enlightenment is none of this.

 

Enlightenment........... there is no such thing.

[Sunya]

Enlightenment is just enlightenment.

 

There is no half, full or quarter. The human potential lies in the experience of all that there is. No religion or conceptual idea can take hold of it.

 

Living and dying arrive form the same source and end in the same source. The manifestation of this experience is the Tao.

 

No need to waste brain matter on what is right and wrong this is the function of the guest.

 

Enlightenment is none of this.

 

Enlightenment........... there is no such thing.

 

Try to not get so caught up in being non-conceptual. Of course there is enlightenment, and the experience of the millions who have gone before us is that enlightenment happens progressively in stages with different insights.

 

You are into Zen I presume from your nick? Well, you might be interested to know that koans have a purpose to take one to a specific level of insight, for instance 'who were you before you were born' is meant to bring about an experience of presence while 'what is the sound of one hand clapping' is meant to bring about nondual experience, which is a deeper more profound experience. Xabir can further elucidate on this, but yes even Zen which is all about sudden enlightenment has methods that acknowledge the various stages.

[manitou]

Ken Wilber does say some really interesting things about where psychology and spirituality fit in but when you examine his spiritual philosophy closely he believes in some form of evolution in enlightenment, but the only other people who seem to go along with this view is Andrew Cohen and a guru they initially endorsed as evidence of this Ali Da (or Da Free John or whatever he named himself). Ali Da was known to say that he had reached a higher level than Jesus Christ and other masters like the Buddha while Ken and Andrew seemed to go along with it and agree with him for a while in a nice circle jerk, until a lot of abuse by Ali Da came out in the press as he set himself up as a self proclaimed god in a paranoid isolated ashram, so they tried to distance themselves from him a bit, but they seem to have kept this belief that the masters in the future will be more enlightened than the ones in the past despite the Guru they endorsed turning out to be a "fuck up" (Wilbers words)

 

 

There are very nuanced issues we're talking about here..evolution in enlightenment. Maybe Ken Wilber is off base here, maybe he's not. But I really like those people (and the magazine) because their main focus is is on how to get great minds together and try and figure out where mankind is going from here...and with an enlightened twist. They are a real Green force; they are trying to take on the big questions. Seems like a healthy focus to me. They are brilliant people in action.

[Jetsun]

There are very nuanced issues we're talking about here..evolution in enlightenment. Maybe Ken Wilber is off base here, maybe he's not. But I really like those people (and the magazine) because their main focus is is on how to get great minds together and try and figure out where mankind is going from here...and with an enlightened twist. They are a real Green force; they are trying to take on the big questions. Seems like a healthy focus to me. They are brilliant people in action.

 

Yeah I own some of Wilber's books which helped me a lot at one point and have read his magazine a few times, he talks about some interesting very important things especially around the issue of meditation not dealing with psychological shadow issues, but in the end I just got sick of his ego getting in the way of all the good stuff. If you dig around a bit you will find Wilber talks about his own greatness and the importance of his work far louder than anyone else does, but why the need for self inflation? he even released some pictures of himself with his top off it is good to have high self esteem and all that but id just be concerned that an over inflated ego can blind you in many ways and personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jetsun

[theRet]

dissolution of the karmic footprint the unenlightened body/mind placed in its journey up to this point (in samsara)

 

AND

 

the cessation of dependent arising (nirvana)

 

 

 

"why (samsara) me (nirvana)?," the sage asked when brought to question himself if he should teach the discipline to the ill world.

[3bob]

Bound by the powers of the wheel relative evolutions take place... for such are from a change-able state and pov.

 

"Buddha nature" is unchanging, thus not bound by the powers of the wheel nor a something or a non-something idea or being/nonbeing that relatively evolves.

 

Btw 1. Imo this is alluded to in Udana 8.3:

 

"There is, monks an Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded (ajatam abhutam akatam asankhatam). . If there were not this Unborn. . . , then there would be no deliverance here visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded. But since this is this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded, therefore deliverance is visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded"

 

Btw 2, below is part of a commentary that some may find useful and others may not.

 

"...Very oddly, in the Pali-English Dictionary, it is said that Nibbana is 'purely and simply an ethical state. . . It is therefore not transcendental'. In fact it is precisely the one and only transcendental element in Buddhism, for which this very reason no attempt is made to define it in terms of a personal god, a higher self, or the like. It is ineffable. It can, however, be realised, and its realisation is the aim of the Buddhist practice. While no description is possible, positive references to Nibbana are not lacking: thus at dhammapada 204 and elsewhere it is called 'the highest bliss' (paramam sukham)..."

 

Btw 3, make of this information what you will. no one else really can for you, that's the catch. (although there are reams of arguments from people or schools that will make it their mission to try to do so for you)

 

I do not represent any particular school or religion of any form, but I can relate to much of what they say.

 

Om

Edited December 30, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Bound by the powers of the wheel relative evolutions take place... for such are from a change-able state and pov.

 

"Buddha nature" is unchanging, thus not bound by the powers of the wheel nor a something or a non-something idea or being/nonbeing that relatively evolves.

 

Btw 1. Imo this is alluded to in Udana 8.3:

 

"There is, monks an Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded (ajatam abhutam akatam asankhatam). . If there were not this Unborn. . . , then there would be no deliverance here visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded. But since this is this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded, therefore deliverance is visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded"

 

Again, you are stuck on a misinterpretation of Buddhanature. Buddhanature does not inherently exist. The Buddha uses the words unborn, unbecome... etc. Because he is referencing the fact that you were born and become and through insight, you untie that knot. It's not in reference to a truly existing self shining absolute, but rather the insight that leads to the state of Nirvana. Because all things are always empty, awakening can take place at any time, spontaneously and to full effect, but at the same time, this has to do with primary and secondary conditions, because not even enlightenment inherently exists. So the viewless view of Buddhadharma concerning enlightenment is going to be different from those paths that think there is inherent existence, and view everything from that.

 

There really is a subtle difference, and when it hits you, you get it.

 

The Buddha said in the Pali Cannon what the all is, and the all is just causes and conditions, the elements, but he did not say that there existed a self shining absolute. You keep referencing the Udana 8.3 without proper context and understanding.

 

 

I do not represent any particular school or religion of any form, but I can relate to much of what they say.

 

Om

 

I know, you take refuge in your own interpretations without direct guidance from those that understand better. You should get a guru.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

From Taoism:

 

"Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth."

 

Thus not bound and or under the forces of time and space in which evolution takes place. (regardless of the scales of, or variances in times and spaces)

 

Om

 

Not a view that is compatible with Udana 8.3

 

The above is a definite and concrete view, a static view. The Buddhas is viewless.

 

The above view is referencing an inherent being that is the causeless cause of the all, who is one with the all but also stands beyond it. So basically we are all expressions of this one, transcendent will of all? This is not a form of Taoism that I would be able to say is in line with the dharma and the Buddha view of liberation.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

"...then I got humble..." VJ

 

People could bet money on the predictability of your fixated responses based on your interpretation of Buddhism. Are you speaking for some particular Lama or authority that has directly empowered and given you permission to do so? (here or anywhere else?) I highly doubt it and if so you are amiss in not preferencing your posts with that particular name... thus get a Lama and empowerment along with your own website - don't waste your time making presumptions (as you so very often do) about various guru's or someone else's guru. Also I suggest that you try quitting being such a know it all... You are just another guy here - like it or not (except of course for our dear female members) that is going overboard with proclamations as if they were of such an such authority, at least I try not to act as if I'm speaking for a particular master as you pretend to be (in your mind) with the historic Buddha. Further, this is not a VJ's version of Buddhism website that is empowered by and under such an such a Lama or school, this is not 3Bob's cross-correlation attempts forum, this is a Taoist website; thus consider giving up your often heavy-handed, beating to death Buddhism related posts. Btw, and obviously Buddism (both today and throughout parts of history) is not one, totally united school thus other Buddhists may use doctrine and experience to refute your interpretations just as you may try to refute them with yours. Let people make of Buddism what they will and how they will starting with basics via a school or way of their choice; (which any Buddhist is welcome to point towards) if you want to start your own school go for it, but don't try to set it up here.

 

Om

Edited December 31, 2010 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

Bound by the powers of the wheel relative evolutions take place... for such are from a change-able state and pov.

 

"Buddha nature" is unchanging, thus not bound by the powers of the wheel nor a something or a non-something idea or being/nonbeing that relatively evolves.

 

Btw 1. Imo this is alluded to in Udana 8.3:

 

"There is, monks an Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded (ajatam abhutam akatam asankhatam). . If there were not this Unborn. . . , then there would be no deliverance here visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded. But since this is this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Uncompounded, therefore deliverance is visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded"

 

Btw 2, below is part of a commentary that some may find useful and others may not.

 

"...Very oddly, in the Pali-English Dictionary, it is said that Nibbana is 'purely and simply an ethical state. . . It is therefore not transcendental'. In fact it is precisely the one and only transcendental element in Buddhism, for which this very reason no attempt is made to define it in terms of a personal god, a higher self, or the like. It is ineffable. It can, however, be realised, and its realisation is the aim of the Buddhist practice. While no description is possible, positive references to Nibbana are not lacking: thus at dhammapada 204 and elsewhere it is called 'the highest bliss' (paramam sukham)..."

 

Btw 3, make of this information what you will. no one else really can for you, that's the catch. (although there are reams of arguments from people or schools that will make it their mission to try to do so for you)

 

I do not represent any particular school or religion of any form, but I can relate to much of what they say.

 

Om

Buddha was talking about the state of cessation (nirvana). He is not eluding an absolute ground of being (which in fact he has rejected explicitly in other suttas).

[TheJourney]

EVERYTHING is the ultimate. buddha nature, if you want to call it that. But yet none of it is, because there is no one set "ultimate" and therefore all just different impermanent expressions.

[3bob]

Buddha was talking about the state of cessation (nirvana). He is not eluding an absolute ground of being (which in fact he has rejected explicitly in other suttas).

 

For me what the Buddha is pointing towards is that which can not be caught by mental means, (even the purest of mental means or powers) which so many try to circumscribe with interpretations derived via mental means.

 

As for cessation (of suffering), well doctrine also alludes to the "highest bliss" in other suttas. (and not as a construct or aggregate)

[xabir2005]

For me what the Buddha is pointing towards is that which can not be caught by mental means, (even the purest of mental means or powers) which so many try to circumscribe with interpretations derived via mental means.

 

As for cessation (of suffering), well doctrine also alludes to the "highest bliss" in other suttas. (and not as a construct or aggregate)

There is no higher bliss than the complete end of suffering.

[xabir2005]

EVERYTHING is the ultimate. buddha nature, if you want to call it that. But yet none of it is, because there is no one set "ultimate" and therefore all just different impermanent expressions.

There is no ultimate... there is only luminous, vivid, but empty expressions.

[3bob]

There is no higher bliss than the complete end of suffering.

 

and to me even the word "higher" with some of its various connotations is not really as helpful as the word "ineffable" as along the lines of indescribable!

[3bob]

"Again, you are stuck on a misinterpretation of Buddhanature. Buddhanature does not inherently exist" By VJ

 

By the historic Buddha:

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying."

 

Again, VJ you misinterpret the four-fold negation and its import as pointing towards Buddhanature.

 

Om

Edited December 31, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

"Again, you are stuck on a misinterpretation of Buddhanature. Buddhanature does not inherently exist" By VJ

 

By the historic Buddha:

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying."

 

Again, VJ you misinterpret the four-fold negation and its import as pointing towards Buddhanature.

 

Om

 

The 4 negations within the context of Buddhas teachings do not reify Buddhanature as a non-conceptual transcendent, either as a Universal Self or a singular and supreme source of all beings.

 

You take out little bits here and there that conform to your projected ideas. But, my view of Buddhism is actually indeed supported by all major Buddhist sects. So, I don't have to start a new Buddhist school as I say nothing different from Buddha, to Nagarjuna to MIlarepa, Tilopa... etc.

 

Your view on the other hand is your own concoction. Which is fine, but I will continually correct your misunderstandings for the sake of other people who are reading this and who knows, maybe someday you'll get it!? .

 

You consider a truly existing non-conceptual, formless and transcendent as an ultimate ground of being, this is not at all supported by any of the major Buddhist sects, from Theravada to Dzogchen. You are taking up a formless and non-conceptual samadhi as proof of inherent existence and transcendent being. The Buddha warns against this in the Pali Suttas, but you ignore this warning for the sake of your own interpretation of the Suttas, not supported by any of the Buddhist traditions. Why is your view not supported by any of the Buddhist traditions? Because your view is not Buddhist.

 

You can take out endless quotes from different places in any text and use them out of context and re-interpret them to support your view, but if you have not directly experienced the meaning of dependent origination, you will have the tendency to subscribe to the subtle obscuration of independent origination and you will interpret everything through this lens.

 

It's been explained in countless texts how a Buddha is after dying but still without inherent existence the stream of dependent origination of the mind continues after the falling away of the body through different dimensions of experience. This does not at all indicate that there is a self sustaining atman. It's almost dumbfounding to me how anyone can even think this after reading the Buddhas teachings? But, clinging to an absolute being or self, no matter how transcendent, is such a very deep tendency.

 

You believe in a transcendent spirit, beyond concepts, yet endowed with will and the power of creation?

 

This is an intellectual, emotional and experiential cop-out. Go deeper! Investigate your belief with open honesty.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

edit: You are not a Lama or a shrink

(and I'm not looking for such either )

Edited January 2, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

VJ,

"who knows, maybe someday you'll get it!?"

 

"Monks, do not wage wordy warfare, saying: 'You don't understand this Dhamma and discipline, I understand this Dhamma and discipline'; 'How could you understand it? You have fallen into wrong practices: I have the right practice'; 'You have said afterwards what you should have said first, and you have said first what you should have said afterwards'; 'What I say is consistent, what you say isn't'; 'What you have thought out for so long is entirely reversed'; 'Your statement is refuted'; 'You are talking rubbish!'; 'You are in the wrong'; 'Get out of that if you can!..."

 

from the Buddha

Edited January 2, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ,

"who knows, maybe someday you'll get it!?"

 

"Monks, do not wage wordy warfare, saying: 'You don't understand this Dhamma and discipline, I understand this Dhamma and discipline'; 'How could you understand it? You have fallen into wrong practices: I have the right practice'; 'You have said afterwards what you should have said first, and you have said first what you should have said afterwards'; 'What I say is consistent, what you say isn't'; 'What you have thought out for so long is entirely reversed'; 'Your statement is refuted'; 'You are talking rubbish!'; 'You are in the wrong'; 'Get out of that if you can!..."

 

from the Buddha

 

Also, taking the Buddhas teachings out of context and placing your own understanding on them that are misleading to wrong views should also not go uncorrected.

 

I'm not trying to be your therapist, but I will correct your misinterpretations of the teaching anywhere I see fit, because I can and this is good.

 

All the Buddhists here do this. If my view was merely my view, then why do all the Buddhists on this board say the same thing?

 

Including Koolaid, Xabir, Joeblast, and a number of others.

 

The Buddhas view is quite unique and is not compatible with Vedanta, or any Theism for that matter as they grasp at a positive and Eternalistic essence. Falling into an extreme view that does not fully liberate in the end.

[TheJourney]

Just get all you can out of this moment.

[3bob]

VJ, I'm not interested in squabbles regarding all of your dubious labelings, judgings, and sometimes fantastic presumptions about various stuff. (more so considering things you haven't yet learned about same regardless of all your bragged up exposure to such)

 

Btw, imo you are not - protecting - Buddhism that much, it's more like you often give it a black eye.

 

But don't take my word for it... (which I know you won't)

 

Later

[goonis38]

Buddhism offers the most comprehensive and systematic path that leads to freedom from torment, guilt and angst. Freedom from such states instigates a return to affliction-free sanity. Being free from afflictive emotions and thoughts, there is no longer any relevance to question whether this man, The Buddha, was fully or only half-enlightened (half?). What matters is its a workable, sustainable, peaceful, non-harming, ecological philosophy, on so many levels.

 

Its a daring statement, but i would say that anyone who believes in philia, and who strives for peace and harmony, is, in my mind, a Buddhist. For me, 'Buddhist' is a way of being... not merely a label that lends a certain image to people. There are non-Buddhists who behaves in very buddhistic ways, and also, there are Buddhists who behaves otherwise. Its all about realizations, and how we treat and respect ourselves and others, and also, what our motives are. The Dalai Lama once met a Christian mystic (it was in France, i think... not sure, as i heard this a long time ago) - he gazed into this man's eyes, and immediately recognized that this man was truly an enlightened individual.

 

 

Hi there,

I agree with what you are saying here so much, and can relate to the truth of it. I really don't label myself to much. I find that not for me. And do not judge those that find labeling good for them.

I have found in my area of where I live, this is not the way people want you to live your life. And they seem to resent a person for not slapping a label on him or her self. I don't know why it bothers people so.

Why can't a person just be...

Melanie

 

 

[ralis]

VJ, I'm not interested in squabbles regarding all of your dubious labelings, judgings, and sometimes fantastic presumptions about various stuff. (more so considering things you haven't yet learned about same regardless of all your bragged up exposure to such)

 

Btw, imo you are not - protecting - Buddhism that much, it's more like you often give it a black eye.

 

But don't take my word for it... (which I know you won't)

 

Later

 

Vajraji always wants the last word to make himself right and others wrong. He even accused Wilbur of being New Age. Obviously, he has never read any of Wilbur's earlier writings. In particular, his comments to New Agers and the guilt trips they were dumping on his wife when she was dying. He wrote several articles in East West Journal debunking New Age beliefs.

 

Vajraji comes off like a New Ager in believing he creates his own reality.