the quickest and easyest way to godhead or tao or nirvana or enlightenment.

[suninmyeyes]

There's one habit, in particular, that I think needs to be faced directly, and practiced with thoroughly. And that's the habit of avoiding pain. As long as I tune out from my pain, then I am controlled by it. As long as I am controlled by pain,then I have to cling to habits of pleasure, because they are what allow me to cover up suffering.

 

If I recognize pain, not as a harmful invader, but as a necessary sense, then I can embrace it, and follow its message, which is "pay attention here!" Pain is the body's way of begging the awareness for attention. And attention hugely speeds up healing in the body, whereas "tuning out" just puts it off, makes it chronic. Pain is the road map to self-healing.

 

The same, IME, is true with emotional pain. If, while contemplating a physical or emotion sensation, I find myself wanting to dissociate, to distract myself, then that is a habit that will postpone healing, indefinitely. Dissociation may be a useful short-term remedy, when things are overwhelming, but the compulsion to do it, is a signal that I need to pay more attention, not less. The more reactive I am, about my internal responses to things, the more necessary it is, that I practice loving the experience of pain, as being just one of my necessary and glorious senses.

Nice post Otis ,

 

One of the biggest shifts that took place for me was when it finally downed that pain is not MINE.

It may sound like a hair splitting ,but it is a subtle point with massive effect .

Also pain is not suffering.Suffering is identifying with the pain.Pain is what you very nicley said(and described): 'bodys begging the awarness for attention'.

Just letting it wash through without need to identify with it and making it into practise not to act from the place of my wounds activly.Which is my main practise made up and tailored by me for me.

[suninmyeyes]

Nicely put, sun.

 

Thanks Ms(Mrs?)Rainbow

Edited July 8, 2011 by suninmyeyes

[Bluefront]

We have to understand that everybody has a thousand different ideas of what enlightenment is and isn't, and most of it just empty assumptions. Like discussing a color one has never even seen, or a smell that one hasn't smelled, although it's always present and available.

 

The biggest misconception seems to be that enlightenment is a state that one can reach somewhere distant in the future. Enlightenment is always here.

The buddha guy said something like "Everything already has buddha nature"

 

I see "enlightenment" as seeing what is true. The truth of existence. Seeing what is real and what is false, and being able to act from that point of view.

 

And if one drills it down to the core, the ultimate lie of the human experience is the belief of a entity called "Me" that exists separately from the universe. The buddha talked about anatta (no-self), taoists call this non-duality and so on. One without a second. It's all the same thing.

 

This belief in a separate "me" is the root cause of human suffering. It's what creates the sense of separation from the universe. And this sense of separation is what fuels the human to seek and find an end to it. Enlightenment is the end of seeking. Everything else is bonus.

 

The only thing standing between someone and enlightenment is fear. It's the fear of no-self. What would be left if I don't exist?

 

The irony is that, if there was a self in the past, it will exist now and in the future too. So nothing changes.

If there is no self, it has never existed and never will. So again, basically nothing changes.

 

The fear is from the belief that one will go from a state of SELF to NO-SELF. This is wrong. No-self has always been here. Nothing is removed, nothing is added.

 

You just have to see which of these two is true. It can take just a few seconds of honest looking. If you carry alot of bullshit it might take longer. But you don't have to meditate for 25 years or do yoga or tai chi for eternity.

 

Ask yourself, does this experience have a separate experiencer, or is there just the experience?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Bluefront

[Vajrahridaya]

The only thing standing between someone and enlightenment is fear. It's the fear of no-self. What would be left if I don't exist?

....

 

The fear is from the belief that one will go from a state of SELF to NO-SELF. This is wrong. No-self has always been here. Nothing is removed, nothing is added.

 

....

Ask yourself, does this experience have a separate experiencer, or is there just the experience?

 

Good post!

[xabir2005]

We have to understand that everybody has a thousand different ideas of what enlightenment is and isn't, and most of it just empty assumptions. Like discussing a color one has never even seen, or a smell that one hasn't smelled, although it's always present and available.

 

The biggest misconception seems to be that enlightenment is a state that one can reach somewhere distant in the future. Enlightenment is always here.

The buddha guy said something like "Everything already has buddha nature"

 

I see "enlightenment" as seeing what is true. The truth of existence. Seeing what is real and what is false, and being able to act from that point of view.

 

And if one drills it down to the core, the ultimate lie of the human experience is the belief of a entity called "Me" that exists separately from the universe. The buddha talked about anatta (no-self), taoists call this non-duality and so on. One without a second. It's all the same thing.

 

This belief in a separate "me" is the root cause of human suffering. It's what creates the sense of separation from the universe. And this sense of separation is what fuels the human to seek and find an end to it. Enlightenment is the end of seeking. Everything else is bonus.

 

The only thing standing between someone and enlightenment is fear. It's the fear of no-self. What would be left if I don't exist?

 

The irony is that, if there was a self in the past, it will exist now and in the future too. So nothing changes.

If there is no self, it has never existed and never will. So again, basically nothing changes.

 

The fear is from the belief that one will go from a state of SELF to NO-SELF. This is wrong. No-self has always been here. Nothing is removed, nothing is added.

 

You just have to see which of these two is true. It can take just a few seconds of honest looking. If you carry alot of bullshit it might take longer. But you don't have to meditate for 25 years or do yoga or tai chi for eternity.

 

Ask yourself, does this experience have a separate experiencer, or is there just the experience?

Good stuff. Have you realized this yourself?

[Otis]

This belief in a separate "me" is the root cause of human suffering.

It's not that I disagree, but I would like to hear your reasoning on this.

 

Why do you say that this belief is the root cause of suffering?

[C T]

 

This belief in a separate "me" is the root cause of human suffering. It's what creates the sense of separation from the universe. And this sense of separation is what fuels the human to seek and find an end to it. Enlightenment is the end of seeking. Everything else is bonus.

Reassuring to see such understanding. Appreciate this, Bluefront.

 

Reminds me of what Patanjali advised: Ignorance is the identification of the Seer with the instruments of the senses...

 

 

[exorcist_1699]

"I walk every day, but never touch the ground; I eat every day, but chew no rice"

 

What does this mean?

 

I picture a guy walking in the air and taking in food intravenously.

 

A mind can't be free if it is split and absorbed into those senses; Detached from our senses is the first step of making us free.

[lifeforce]

Detached from our senses is the first step of making us free.

 

Who would want to be detached from their senses ?

I certainly wouldn't.

We are human beings, not emotionally devoid robots.

This is what bugs me about Buddhism or the enlightenment issue in general.

My freedom comes from accepting what is, and not some notion of what might be.

 

The beauty of a flower

The sound of birdsong

The smell of pine trees

The taste of tea

The touch of a loved one

 

All 5 senses fully engaged. How wonderful life is. Simple, natural and spontaneous.

[Vajrahridaya]

Who would want to be detached from their senses ?

I certainly wouldn't.

We are human beings, not emotionally devoid robots.

This is what bugs me about Buddhism or the enlightenment issue in general.

My freedom comes from accepting what is, and not some notion of what might be.

 

The beauty of a flower

The sound of birdsong

The smell of pine trees

The taste of tea

The touch of a loved one

 

All 5 senses fully engaged. How wonderful life is. Simple, natural and spontaneous.

 

Practicing detachment, just means not creating a solidified identity around your sense perceptions that's static and unyielding. The teachings talk about raising awareness of the root of ones experience of joy and identity with the passing and unsteady nature of the senses and it's objects of perception. This solidified identity is what causes friction and the inability to yield to new situations that arise outside of ones comfort zone, regardless if the comfort zone is pleasurable or filled with suffering.

 

It's really just about going deeper into the nature of the senses outside of their appearance. An enlightened being actually enjoys the senses without getting lost in them. There is a whole lot more joy in their experience because they cease to be clouded by so many rigid ideas about attachment and aversion as one has found the root of joy to be beyond appearances but still housed by all appearances.

 

All your examples above are great, yes. But, what about when your loved one dies, or your forest burns down, or all the flowers wither away and don't come back? Where will be your joy then? What about when your body grows old and dull? Or what if you become crippled? If you are not detached from the experience of your senses, having found a subtler foundation for joy within, you will be lost, like a painter without arms. Sure, you can learn to paint with your toes, but it won't be the same, one will have to adjust ones perception of happiness, or inner causes for joy unless one just decides to succumb to bitterness because ones pleasurable comfort zone has been taken away.

 

These are extreme examples, sure. But, think about how in everyday life these changes happen. Your driving and someone cuts you off. Your going shopping for your favorite ice cream and someone reaches into the freezer right before you and takes the last bucket of Ben & Jerry's Wavy Gravy and the next closest store is either closed or miles away and you don't have time. Will you suffer or adjust and go with the flow? Get fruit popsicles instead without an iota of psychological suffering?

 

Anyway, just watch your day and see how many things challenge your attachment to identity intwined with sense perceivable pleasure and comfort zones, and see how you inwardly respond to impermanence.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

A mind can't be free if it is split and absorbed into those senses; Detached from our senses is the first step of making us free.

A mind is neither free nor bound.

[Otis]

A mind can't be free if it is split and absorbed into those senses; Detached from our senses is the first step of making us free.

Can you explain this further? What does it mean to be "detached from our senses?" And why does that bring freedom?

[Otis]

All your examples above are great, yes. But, what about when your loved one dies, or your forest burns down, or all the flowers wither away and don't come back? Where will be your joy then? What about when your body grows old and dull? Or what if you become crippled? If you are not detached from the experience of your senses, having found a subtler foundation for joy within, you will be lost, like a painter without arms. Sure, you can learn to paint with your toes, but it won't be the same, one will have to adjust ones perception of happiness, or inner causes for joy unless one just decides to succumb to bitterness because ones pleasurable comfort zone has been taken away.

 

These are extreme examples, sure. But, think about how in everyday life these changes happen. Your driving and someone cuts you off. Your going shopping for your favorite ice cream and someone reaches into the freezer right before you and takes the last bucket of Ben & Jerry's Wavy Gravy and the next closest store is either closed or miles away and you don't have time. Will you suffer or adjust and go with the flow? Get fruit popsicles instead without an iota of psychological suffering?

Do you think it's important not to have "an iota of psychological suffering?" It seems to me, that suffering is a useful part of life. If I'm ruled by suffering, that's a different matter. If I lash out, or suffer over meaningless things, sure. But when a loved one dies, I won't enjoy the experience, but I'm not sure I want to be detached from that suffering, either.

 

In a less extreme example, a dear friend and I had a fight recently. For a few days, she was mad at me, and yes, I suffered some, because of it. But that suffering led me to go beyond my previously entrenched position, and apologize to her. I stepped up, precisely because the suffering revealed what was important to me: not "winning the fight", but being at peace with her.

[Vajrahridaya]

Do you think it's important not to have "an iota of psychological suffering?" It seems to me, that suffering is a useful part of life. If I'm ruled by suffering, that's a different matter. If I lash out, or suffer over meaningless things, sure. But when a loved one dies, I won't enjoy the experience, but I'm not sure I want to be detached from that suffering, either.

 

Yes of course. What I mean is not having an iota of suffering over something as silly as not being able to get your favorite ice cream today.

 

But, at the same time, there is a state one can access where this type of mourning you are talking about is laced with a bliss, a deep compassion, a transcendent element sort of speak. When the Buddha talks about freedom from psychological suffering, he's talking about being detached from the concept of detachment, rather being free from feeling while feeling, where neuroses don't build up, as well as rigid identities. Like a baby sort of speak, how they feel something fully, but it's gone the next moment, without a trace. As neither does suppressing emotions out of some sort of ideal of perfection lead to true freedom from proliferation.

 

In a less extreme example, a dear friend and I had a fight recently. For a few days, she was mad at me, and yes, I suffered some, because of it. But that suffering led me to go beyond my previously entrenched position, and apologize to her. I stepped up, precisely because the suffering revealed what was important to me: not "winning the fight", but being at peace with her.

 

Sure, but you can learn from it in order to just step up and do what's right from the very beginning and avoid the suffering next time.

 

Suffering isn't evil, it's a teaching tool. At the same time, physiological suffering can be unavoidable as we go on in life. At the same time, psychological attachment to passing states creates needless tension and more unhealthy suffering. Like for instance, if I were to identify with the surroundings I grew up in, I would be a gangster. But, detachment from my surroundings allowed my mind to drift into other paradigms of thinking outside of my environmental conditioning. 16 years ago I took the money I made dealing pot on the streets and moved into an Ashram in upstate NY. I haven't been the same ever since. Through detachment, I changed my environment. If I was attached to my senses, I would have kept on with the hot girls that were all over me at the time and the fast money, it was fun, definitely. But, through insight I saw the ephemeral nature of such activities and followed a deeper yearning for spiritual sustenance instead, this took detachment.

[Otis]

Yes of course. What I mean is not having an iota of suffering over something as silly as not being able to get your favorite ice cream today.

 

But, at the same time, there is a state one can access where this type of mourning you are talking about is laced with a bliss, a deep compassion, a transcendent element sort of speak. When the Buddha talks about freedom from psychological suffering, he's talking about being detached from the concept of detachment, rather being free from feeling while feeling, where neuroses don't build up, as well as rigid identities. Like a baby sort of speak, how they feel something fully, but it's gone the next moment, without a trace. As neither does suppressing emotions out of some sort of ideal of perfection lead to true freedom from proliferation.

I agree that suffering can also have joy in it, no doubt. That's a very important realization; not to be afraid of suffering, because it is only one flavor of life, and life can be inherently joyful. As I wrote above, I think that the tendency to avoid or tune out from pain is a huge trap.

 

But I'm not sure what that has to do with "detachment from senses". Is a baby detached from senses? Or is it just detached from story and permanence?

 

Sure, but you can learn from it in order to just step up and do what's right from the very beginning and avoid the suffering next time.

I don't agree with this. I don't think that apologizing was the "right" thing to do. Nor do I think I should necessarily "avoid suffering". To come to that conclusion would be creating an inaccurate story about the meaning of the events, and I think, if anything detachment should be from stories, not from feelings.

 

In the case of me and my friend, if I look at story, I still think she over-reacted. But if I just experience feelings, then I realize that the story of who was right and who was wrong, is entirely irrelevant. My friend is usually very warm and receptive to me, and doesn't hold grudges. This time, she did hold the grudge, and the suffering that came from it, helped me realize that the gulf between us, was mine to bridge, or ignore. So I built a bridge. It wasn't the "right" thing to do, but merely the recognition that my senses, including my suffering, were more important, than being "right". Suffering was my beacon, leading me towards peace with my friend.

 

Of course, it would have been a mistake to resent my friend, for the suffering I was feeling. That resentment would have arisen from a story of what caused what (e.g. "you made me feel this way"). I think it is detachment from the story that is important, but it was full involvement with my senses, that led me toward making peace.

 

Suffering isn't evil, it's a teaching tool. At the same time, physiological suffering can be unavoidable as we go on in life. At the same time, psychological attachment to passing states creates needless tension and more unhealthy suffering. Like for instance, if I were to identify with the surroundings I grew up in, I would be a gangster. But, detachment from my surroundings allowed my mind to drift into other paradigms of thinking outside of my environmental conditioning. 16 years ago I took the money I made dealing pot on the streets and moved into an Ashram in upstate NY. I haven't been the same ever since. Through detachment, I changed my environment. If I was attached to my senses, I would have kept on with the hot girls that were all over me at the time and the fast money, it was fun, definitely. But, through insight I saw the ephemeral nature of such activities and followed a deeper yearning for spiritual sustenance instead, this took detachment.

I appreciate you sharing your personal story. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, however, because I'm not quite sure I follow your conclusions.

 

As you say, you had a deeper yearning. It was your connection to your feeling of that lack, which led you to rise above the situation you lived in.

 

Had you been "detached from your senses", it seems likely that you would have just stuck with what was known and exciting, and ignored the emptiness inside you, that was calling you towards something more subtle. It seems that it was precisely suffering which helped shake you out of the stupor of over-indulgence. IME, over-indulgence actually comes from being "detached from senses", because simple sense input is no longer enough. In general, I think the world suffers a great deal of "detachment from senses" and over-reliance on meaning.

 

I don't want to project any more onto you or you story. But I don't yet hear from what you say why "detachment from senses" is an ally, rather than just numbness. To me, emptiness is surrender of story, of belief in "truth", of trying to derive meaning. Full involvement in my senses (i.e. allowing "me" to become nothing more than a conduit for awareness), IME, is precisely the path to letting go of those attachments.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Otis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

But I'm not sure what that has to do with "detachment from senses". Is a baby detached from senses? Or is it just detached from story and permanence?

 

This is just an initial practice for a person who is deeply attached to the story and idea of permanence. The goal is not actual detachment from the senses, just a reorientation with the mental habits concerning them, how we grasp at permanence and sustainable happiness through them. Which is why there are monk precepts, which allows a mind to change it's concepts about the senses by detaching from various unnecessary pleasures and finding a deeper source of joy within. Monkhood is not necessary for enlightenment, but I do recommend it as a step. As in, to step back from being immersed in the feeling that sensual desire is ultimately satisfying. A monk has to transcend being a monk eventually though, even if they don't do it externally, they do so have to do it internally.

 

I don't agree with this. I don't think that apologizing was the "right" thing to do. Nor do I think I should necessarily "avoid suffering". To come to that conclusion would be creating an inaccurate story about the meaning of the events, and I think, if anything detachment should be from stories, not from feelings.

 

I don't know the nuances of your story. But, I do think detachment from the story about the senses takes time, and when one doesn't give into various sensual desires for a while, you will understand your personal story concerning them a whole lot better. By constantly indulging in every little sensual craving, one is merely distracting oneself from a deeper, more hidden craving inside. The craving for deep wholeness and satisfaction, which cannot happen strictly through the senses. I'm also not talking about avoiding suffering, I'm saying understand yourself more deeply so that you don't react out of attachment to your story which causes the suffering, and suffering can lead to selfish actions out of this sense of suffering. The sense of psychological suffering is reflected in a sense of lack, that you are not complete without the situation happening according to your pre-conceptions about the causes of joy having to do with a particular structure. A structure that is external to you, which you cannot control. As when this pre-conception is not fulfilled, the sense of panic arises and it can be very subtle, but none the less, it does not reflect insight into the nature of things, but rather attachment to stories, mental dogmas, figments of historical conditioning.

 

In the case of me and my friend, if I look at story, I still think she over-reacted. But if I just experience feelings, then I realize that the story of who was right and who was wrong, is entirely irrelevant. My friend is usually very warm and receptive to me, and doesn't hold grudges. This time, she did hold the grudge, and the suffering that came from it, helped me realize that the gulf between us, was mine to bridge, or ignore. So I built a bridge. It wasn't the "right" thing to do, but merely the recognition that my senses, including my suffering, were more important, than being "right". Suffering was my beacon, leading me towards peace with my friend.

 

Why do you need your friend to be your friend? What need does that fulfill?

 

Of course, it would have been a mistake to resent my friend, for the suffering I was feeling. That resentment would have arisen from a story of what caused what (e.g. "you made me feel this way"). I think it is detachment from the story that is important, but it was full involvement with my senses, that led me toward making peace.

 

But that peace arose based upon the satisfaction of a particular structure of an external situation. So, it's a conditional peace, not the ultimate satisfaction of the spiritual path. Instead, you found peace in manipulating a situation to satisfy your conception of happiness, due to the sense of lack you experienced in your friends absence. This is the kind of attachment one is to become free from when pursuing the Buddhist goal. Which is why there is emphasis on detachment. It must be a deep inner realization and not an externally forced upon dogma though.

 

I appreciate you sharing your personal story. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, however, because I'm not quite sure I follow your conclusions.

 

As you say, you had a deeper yearning. It was your connection to your feeling of that lack, which led you to rise above the situation you lived in.

 

Yes, detachment from the senses is not the goal of Buddhism. The goal is not some formless state of bliss beyond the senses, it's really just about seeing through them, through the stories one tells oneself about the senses, in order that one may function more freely through the senses. The stories run very deep though.

 

Had you been "detached from your senses", it seems likely that you would have just stuck with what was known and exciting, and ignored the emptiness inside you, that was calling you towards something more subtle. It seems that it was precisely suffering which helped shake you out of the stupor of over-indulgence. IME, over-indulgence actually comes from being "detached from senses", because simple sense input is no longer enough. In general, I think the world suffers a great deal of "detachment from senses" and over-reliance on meaning.

 

Yes, the term detachment must be contextualized, absolutely correct in all your statements above.

 

I don't want to project any more onto you or you story. But I don't yet hear from what you say why "detachment from senses" is an ally, rather than just numbness. To me, emptiness is surrender of story, of belief in "truth", of trying to derive meaning. Full involvement in my senses (i.e. allowing "me" to become nothing more than a conduit for awareness), IME, is precisely the path to letting go of those attachments.

 

Yes, indeed, monkhood is not everyones path to liberation. It's not mine, but it was a good place to start for a while there at the age of 20 until about 24 or so. It's not so much detachment from the senses, but rather detachment from various cravings which my mind occupied it's time fulfilling instead of doing inner practice and work. It was really a process of attention redirection over "detachment from the senses."

 

By the way you contextualize the statement, I can understand what you mean. What I'm saying is that you won't have your physical senses for that long. Life is short, so when they start fading before physical death, one better have a deeper comprehension of ones nature than what the physical senses can determine. This is why meditation is recommended, as there are deeper senses than the physical senses one can awaken to that carry one on after the falling away of the body.

 

Otis,

I appreciate your intelligence and openness and have ever since you got here.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Otis]

Otis,

I appreciate your intelligence and openness and have ever since you got here.

Thank you Vajrahridaya; I appreciate that.

 

I hear from your response that we are not saying such very different things after all; I was just not understanding your context. Thank you for explaining further.

[atxryan]

 

But, at the same time, there is a state one can access where this type of mourning you are talking about is laced with a bliss, a deep compassion, a transcendent element sort of speak.

 

I think that quote really clarified your points. Part of my practice is in the Plum Village tradition, and it seems that we allow ourselves to be fully present with the "painful" things and not attached, letting them flow through, with awareness and compassion. Also due to the emphasis on Sangha, we help each other through it, it takes a lot of honesty, and is like group therapy.

 

The language used on this forum is very specific, so I hope my word choice was subtle enough to portray what I was trying to.

 

 

 

Nice post Otis ,

 

One of the biggest shifts that took place for me was when it finally downed that pain is not MINE.

It may sound like a hair splitting ,but it is a subtle point with massive effect .

Also pain is not suffering.Suffering is identifying with the pain.Pain is what you very nicley said(and described): 'bodys begging the awarness for attention'.

Just letting it wash through without need to identify with it and making it into practise not to act from the place of my wounds activly.Which is my main practise made up and tailored by me for me.

 

I liked your post, sun in your eyes. Do you find emptiness this way? or Is your focus not on emptiness?

[Vajrahridaya]

I think that quote really clarified your points. Part of my practice is in the Plum Village tradition, and it seems that we allow ourselves to be fully present with the "painful" things and not attached, letting them flow through, with awareness and compassion. Also due to the emphasis on Sangha, we help each other through it, it takes a lot of honesty, and is like group therapy.

 

The language used on this forum is very specific, so I hope my word choice was subtle enough to portray what I was trying to.

 

Yes. Ah, one of my favorite people, Thichy.

 

Compassion does start with ourself. So, if we can lace our own reaction to situations of change with love, bliss and the recognition of emptiness in motion, from this center it expands outward.

 

Nice to meet you. I have such fond memories of reading Thich Nhat Hanhs works.

[Informer]

"Ignorance is the identification of the Seer with the instruments of the senses..."

 

This is saying that you won't find the seer as being the senses, or with the senses.

 

Right?

 

What are the senses then . . . As were accepted then/now?

 

Touch, hear, see, smell and taste?

 

Seems like feeling as emotions wasn't and isn't considered a sense in the traditional sense.

 

Genuinely seeking perspective here . . .

[Vajrahridaya]

"Ignorance is the identification of the Seer with the instruments of the senses..."

 

This is saying that you won't find the seer as being the senses, or with the senses.

 

Right?

 

What are the senses then . . . As were accepted then/now?

 

Touch, hear, see, smell and taste?

 

Seems like feeling as emotions wasn't and isn't considered a sense in the traditional sense.

 

Genuinely seeking perspective here . . .

 

I think it's something from the ancient Indian philosophy of Samkhya, which see's prakriti (matter) and Parusha (spirit) as separate entities, just for the sake of contemplation. In the end description of course, they are non-dual. But, it helps to separate Parusha or spirit from matter, consciousness from the senses, awareness from the brain in order to focus on something higher than one's conditioned physically locked concept of self.

 

It's just a description of a process that should ripen to a more adequate metaphor, maybe. But what is adequate is what evolves a person in the moment anyway.

[Informer]

That's kinda what I was thinking, like science trying to explain metaphysics is ignorant.

 

Like using objective tools to determine something that is beyond what is considered objectivity.

 

hehe.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Informer

[Vajrahridaya]

That's kinda what I was thinking, like science trying to explain metaphysics is ignorant.

 

hehe.

 

I find it more helpful to do it the other way around, until science catches up at least.

[Aaron]

didnt laotzu say something like the snow goose need not bath to make itself white. So you need not do anything but be yourself?

 

 

Hello Mewtwo,

 

I've never heard this said in this way before, but it is absolutely true. What you'll hear from many "enlightened" souls who are more than happy to espouse their own brand of enlightenment on blogs and websites and cult like forums, is that you are not right, that you need to change something to become right. It's all bullshit. You are absolutely, undoubtedly, unquestioningly perfect as you are. You are enlightened, only most people are not aware of it, they haven't realized it. When Lao Tzu says "you don't need to be anything but yourself" he's absolutely right, because you can't become enlightened by being anything but yourself. Enlightenment isn't transcendence or becoming something different, but rather realizing exactly what you actually are. If that requires being something you aren't then how can it be achieved?

 

I remember this life and this life alone, but in this life I have learned that there is no truth, that truth is relative and that every truth is also a lie, so just because something sounds good, don't accept it as being good or evil.

 

Be wary of those who claim the truth, because those who know the truth will not tell you the truth, and those that do, do not know it. So listen to others, then listen to your heart, if your heart says no, then most likely the answer is no.

 

Aaron

Edited July 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

because those who know the truth will not tell you the truth, and those that do, do not know it.

 

Really? Those that know the truth will just lie then. Those that don't know the truth will tell you about the truth without knowing it. HAHAH!! Oh wow.