What Is Non-Duality ?

[Vmarco]

The Buddha applied fourfold negation to the view of existent self.

 

That is why I said Nirvana is spoken conventionally, it is not an ultimate reality. The truth of emptiness is linked with dependent origination - it is due to dependent origination that things are said to be empty.

 

 

Those concepts will precipitate great errors in your practice. I'd suggest:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness

 

Yes,...all things are empty,...and all empty things have a relationship with Form. However, that Dependent Origination only applies to Duality,...Divided Light. Non-duality, or Undivided Light, is beyond Dependent Origination.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Mahaparinibbana Sutta "63. Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: "So, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness. The time of the Tathagata's (insert: If one does not really know the meaning of the Tathagata then adding a few more letters to this word as in 'garbha' really makes no difference in knowledge or meaning as I see it) Parinibbana is near. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."

 

These translations are so ignorant and misleading. For example, appamada translated to "strive with earnestness" does not point to appamada, but an ego concept. Appamada is the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn or unindoctrinated Awareness,..not the sense organ of thinking. Appamada is primally feminine in nature, and can only be recognized through Heart-Mind. Pamada is masculine, or form (skandha) based. Appamada simply means: not pamada,...to not perceive by way of the 6 senses.

 

The definition of Tathagata is quite important,...however, can only be directly realized when one recognizes that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form. Buddha nature is not empty,...nor is Buddha nature form.

 

In the simpliest of terms, a Tathagata is one who goes and comes, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming. One who sees the reverse flow of forward moving things. A Tathagata comes back into themselve simultaneous with the going out, so that subject and object are transcended.

 

V

[3bob]

Greetings..

 

Hi 3bob: TTC 43, line 3.. "That which has no form can enter where there is no space" (literally, 'not have enter not space')..

 

TTC is arranged in Chapters to communicate messages.. surely, we could take anything out of context and speculate as to its meaning.. how would you interpret Chapter 43 in its entirety?

 

 

Would you consider replacing "contains/containing" with 'is'? It seem to make more sense, to me..

 

Be well..

 

Well in the 1st chapter there is, "Names can be named, but not the eternal name".

(which is often brought up at this site) Anyway, I don't have a problem with tracing things out as far as traces go...(The One, The Two, The Three, The ten Thousand) but traces will never be enough if that is what you are getting at? Btw, and then again how many really want to make the full sacrifice and penetrate beyond an impentrable One where no traces remain? Not many of us me thinks although there is lots of talk...

 

Om

[3bob]

These translations are so ignorant and misleading. For example, appamada translated to "strive with earnestness" does not point to appamada, but an ego concept. Appamada is the Mind at the threshold of the gates of the Six Senses,...that is, our Unborn or unindoctrinated Awareness,..not the sense organ of thinking. Appamada is primally feminine in nature, and can only be recognized through Heart-Mind. Pamada is masculine, or form (skandha) based. Appamada simply means: not pamada,...to not perceive by way of the 6 senses.

 

The definition of Tathagata is quite important,...however, can only be directly realized when one recognizes that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form. Buddha nature is not empty,...nor is Buddha nature form.

 

In the simpliest of terms, a Tathagata is one who goes and comes, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming. One who sees the reverse flow of forward moving things. A Tathagata comes back into themselve simultaneous with the going out, so that subject and object are transcended.

 

V

 

Vmarco,

 

I think Xabir is basically a gentleman who follows "Right Speech" as best he can, which is something he has demonstrated many times. You on the other hand don't have the foggiest idea of "Right Speech" (edit but never mind)

Edited December 28, 2011 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

Those concepts will precipitate great errors in your practice. I'd suggest:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness

 

Yes,...all things are empty,...and all empty things have a relationship with Form. However, that Dependent Origination only applies to Duality,...Divided Light. Non-duality, or Undivided Light, is beyond Dependent Origination.

 

V

No, my understanding of Dependent Origination is not the same as yours, do take some time to read Thusness's article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/emptiness-as-viewless-view.html

 

Actually whatever I said is based on what Buddha and Nagarjuna said* so I did not make anything up.

 

I do not follow Jonang and Shentong - those are no different from Advaita style eternalism and do not express true Madhyamaka. As Loppon Namdrol once debated with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche on this issue, Tsultrim Rinpoche admitted in the end that Advaita is no different from Shentong except for the emphasis in Buddhahood (lacking in Advaita).

 

With your current experience, understanding and framework, you will not be able to understand what I mean, but when you go through the further stages of the Thusness seven stages of enlightenment you will be able to understand - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

Because I went through the phases of I AM and substantialist non-dual, those Jonang/Shentong stuff (I was especially interested in Advaita and neo-Advaita then - I'm sure with your current understanding you'll love Ramana Maharshi) would have resonated with me earlier last year, but since my Anatta insight in Oct '10, that is no longer the case.

 

With your current experience, I would advise on paying particular attention to the four aspects of I AM (impersonality, degree of luminosity, seeing through the need to abide and dropping it, and effortlessness) and then investigating on non-dual (investigating and challenging all views of inside and outside, boundaries, subject and object... plus with the practice of intensity of luminosity must shift from focusing on the background space into the foreground sensations, in other words the sights and sounds and everything until you realise the one taste of luminosity in everything - until eventually you will come to the realization Shurangama Sutra said).

 

 

* Nagarjuna: Becoming and Nirvana -- neither of these is existent. The complete understanding of becoming may be called Nirvana.

 

As cessation is imputed in the extinction of originated entities, the Holy Ones consider cessation to be like a magical creation.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

 

http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html

 

Buddha:

 

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."...

 

And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:

 

As Chandrakirti states:

 

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,

Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.

It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.

It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.

[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

 

And Padmasambhava states:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

And Nagarjuna states:

 

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other

than the aggregates.

The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.

The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.

What Tathagata is there?”

 

 

As Loppon Namdrol explains, there is no such thing as Rangtong or Shentong in true Madhyamaka:

 

(Loppon Namdrol)

 

Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:

 

If there something subtle not empty,

there would be something subtle to be empty;

as there is nothing not empty,

where is there something to be empty?

 

And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:

 

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,

the conditioned is not established;

since the conditioned is never established,

how can the unconditioned be established?

Edited December 28, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Mh, Is such not possible for the Tao (TTC 43, 3rd line ?) and it's not exactly a differentiation/separation since there is an unbreakable connection/transformation.

 

Om

 

Ah!, another trick question. Hehehe.

 

Nothing is impossible for the Tao because within lies full potential.

 

I think that when we start talking about the connectedness of the ten thousand things we have reached the point of total subjectivity. How deep this connectedness goes I think is a matter of individual understanding.

 

I do know that when this Marblehead dies he will return to the source to be reused or become potential for new processes. That is my understanding. I can go no further than that.

[Marblehead]

 

No aspect of Duality is existent,...such a belief is the barrier built by ego (which itself does not exist) to obscure the reality of Non-duality. Duality is a synonym for dream.

 

V

 

I would, of course, disagree with this. True, no aspect of duality is eternal, but that is vastly different from saying it does not exist. Please remember that we Taoists believe that duality (the Manifest) is just as real as is non-duality (the Mystery).

 

But then I would agree with you if you suggested that non-duality is the only eternal aspect of Tao.

[xabir2005]

Mahaparinibbana Sutta "63. Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: "So, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness. The time of the Tathagata's (insert: If one does not really know the meaning of the Tathagata then adding a few more letters to this word as in 'garbha' really makes no difference in knowledge or meaning as I see it) Parinibbana is near. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."

Tathagata is just a convention, not something inherently existing, as I told vmarco in the quote by Buddha.

[Vmarco]

Vmarco,

 

I think Xabir is basically a gentleman who follows "Right Speech" as best he can, which is something he has demonstrated many times. You on the other hand don't have the foggiest idea of "Right Speech" (edit but never mind)

 

Does Right Speech deny, appease, moderate? Well, perhaps on a relative level, among those desireous to not "make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and [undermine the embracing, consoling, and celebration of a personal self."

 

I am not suited to polite society To social striving, upward mobility, and making good impressions I am radically honest, sensitive, brilliant, and blunt I hold up a mirror to the best and worst facets of human life. ~Vajrayogini

[Aaron]

Does Right Speech deny, appease, moderate? Well, perhaps on a relative level, among those desireous to not "make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and [undermine the embracing, consoling, and celebration of a personal self."

 

I am not suited to polite society To social striving, upward mobility, and making good impressions I am radically honest, sensitive, brilliant, and blunt I hold up a mirror to the best and worst facets of human life. ~Vajrayogini

 

 

Well that's easy for Vajrayogini to say, she's a meditation diety and buddha. For us little people, we need right speech to keep us in check, because we lack the compassion and understanding she has.

 

Too many people on this forum like to point fingers and say "right speech! right speech!" when really what they're saying is, "don't saying anything that offends my delicate sensibilities." Sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with, the measure of a man is whether they can accept that with compassion and tolerance. Remember it works both ways. Others don't just have to use right speech, you have to use right thought and right action in response to that right speech.

 

Of course if someone says something that pisses you off or seems rude, it's always a good thing to ask why. In the end you may learn more from their rudeness, then you ever could their kindness.

 

Aaron

Edited December 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

edit- You click and nothing happens... so you click again and this happens.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

edit- The third click did this.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

No, my understanding of Dependent Origination is not the same as yours, do take some time to read Thusness's article.

 

Actually whatever I said is based on what Buddha and Nagarjuna said* so I did not make anything up.

 

 

And what I've mentioned is also based on what Buddha said. So, why the confusion?

 

In my opinion, you should review http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness and let go your intellectual understandings about Dependent Origination. The only way to understand Dependent Origination is directly,...the "ground" you're using, which is the same "ground" that hundreds of millions of unenlightened people use, is a barrier that obscures the essence of Dependent Origination.

 

In other words, to be blunt, what millions perceive as meaningful, is meaningless,...and thus we live in a world with few truly awakened beings.

 

Without understanding Dependent Origination, the Four Noble Truths will never be realized. Without understanding the Four Noble Truths, your waking up is impossible. Those who understand Dependent Origination are aware of Who's Who in Duality,...what is actually Yang, what is actually Yin, and their relationship.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Well that's easy for Vajrayogini to say, she's a meditation diety and buddha. For us little people, we need right speech to keep us in check, because we lack the compassion and understanding she has.

 

Aaron

 

What is Loving Kindness? Does it arise from relative, new age, egoic self-esteem? When America wanted to get to the Moon before Russia, what did they do? They did it.

 

Why are people pussy-footing around with relative concepts of compassion? Just do it! It is simple. Compassion arises from the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form.

 

The Way of the Bodhisattva (Shantideva): "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is deared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible."

 

"Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Robert Thurman

 

So,...when are we goin to cease with this BS, egoic self-esteem Compassion?...Compassion is impossible without the direct realization of Emptiness. That should be the attention and intention. Not the continual embracing, consoling, coddling, and celebration of a personal self,...that doesn't even exist.

 

 

V

[Vmarco]

Tathagata is just a convention, not something inherently existing, as I told vmarco in the quote by Buddha.

 

The word Tathagata points to an awareness of Dependent Origination,...and is as inherently existing as Undivided Light. Tathagata is Unborn Awareness,...the Nirmanakaya that stands on the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion. A Tathagata is that which the realization of Form is Empty, and Empty is Form is filtered through.

 

V

[Vmarco]

I would, of course, disagree with this. True, no aspect of duality is eternal, but that is vastly different from saying it does not exist. Please remember that we Taoists believe that duality (the Manifest) is just as real as is non-duality (the Mystery).

 

But then I would agree with you if you suggested that non-duality is the only eternal aspect of Tao.

 

I do agree that the Non-duality of Undivided Light is the Wu Chi aspect of the Tao. I disagree that the mirage of the manifest is real,...in any absolute way. Certainly, one could argue the realness of their dream llast night,...and to them, perhaps it was real. To me, truth or realness is that which never changes.

 

As for the word "exist"...it implies to stand alone. Nothing stands alone,...everything manifest has a Dependent Origination, that is, is dependent on something else. If you uncover something that actually exists,...by all means, embrace it.

 

But keep in mind,...."we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself" Eckhart Tolle

 

[xabir2005]

And what I've mentioned is also based on what Buddha said. So, why the confusion?

 

In my opinion, you should review http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703474/Essence-of-Other-Emptiness and let go your intellectual understandings about Dependent Origination. The only way to understand Dependent Origination is directly,...the "ground" you're using, which is the same "ground" that hundreds of millions of unenlightened people use, is a barrier that obscures the essence of Dependent Origination.

 

In other words, to be blunt, what millions perceive as meaningful, is meaningless,...and thus we live in a world with few truly awakened beings.

 

Without understanding Dependent Origination, the Four Noble Truths will never be realized. Without understanding the Four Noble Truths, your waking up is impossible. Those who understand Dependent Origination are aware of Who's Who in Duality,...what is actually Yang, what is actually Yin, and their relationship.

 

V

You don't have to tell me what Dependent Origination is. I speak from direct knowledge and experience, not from concepts, but I have read many sutras about it. I am also quite familiar with the tenets of Shentong/other-emptiness (and do not agree with it, see this article: http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx ). Dependent Origination is not the same as the dissociation that you are thinking of.

 

If you think that the Absolute is something apart from dependent origination and phenomena, you have treated D.O. as a form of dissociation. This is not the Buddha's intention.

 

Frankly, there is no need at all for Buddha's teachings and for dependent origination, if you treat D.O. as dissociation. Just Advaita stuff, Ramana Maharshi stuff suffices. Why bother talking about D.O.? Just talk about I AM is enough.

Edited December 28, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

The word Tathagata points to an awareness of Dependent Origination,...and is as inherently existing as Undivided Light. Tathagata is Unborn Awareness,...the Nirmanakaya that stands on the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion. A Tathagata is that which the realization of Form is Empty, and Empty is Form is filtered through.

 

V

No, tathagata does not point to anything inherent. It is just an empty label. Like the word 'weather' does not point to something you can pin down, just a conventional label for the clouds, the rain, the wind, etc... but there is no real 'the weather'.

 

Buddha:

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."...

 

Nagarjuna:

 

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other

than the aggregates.

The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.

The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.

What Tathagata is there?”

Edited December 28, 2011 by xabir2005

[Aaron]

What is Loving Kindness? Does it arise from relative, new age, egoic self-esteem? When America wanted to get to the Moon before Russia, what did they do? They did it.

 

Why are people pussy-footing around with relative concepts of compassion? Just do it! It is simple. Compassion arises from the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form.

 

The Way of the Bodhisattva (Shantideva): "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is deared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible."

 

"Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Robert Thurman

 

So,...when are we goin to cease with this BS, egoic self-esteem Compassion?...Compassion is impossible without the direct realization of Emptiness. That should be the attention and intention. Not the continual embracing, consoling, coddling, and celebration of a personal self,...that doesn't even exist.

 

 

V

 

Compassion is an inherent capacity that exists within all things, regardless of their levels of awareness or understanding. Children exhibit the truest forms of compassion when they are still very young, compassion, not derived from morality or cultural norms, but rather the experience of emotion one has for another. Compassion is not emotionless, nor is it detached, rather true compassion is a deeper attachment to the dual existence that we experience in our day to day lives. Compassion that springs from emptiness... that's a misnomer, for there is no compassion within emptiness or non-duality, it is only realized within duality. To say that we should stop pussyfooting around regarding the egocentric-self-esteem view of compassion is true, in that compassion should not derive from the ego, or one's feelings about another, but rather it should derive from the heart-mind, or one's feelings for another.

 

People misunderstand detachment to mean that one has no emotions towards others, but that's not what it is, it is an understanding on an innate level of the transient state of all things, that one can never achieve true happiness within the state of duality, because of this transient nature.

 

Anyways, most people skip my posts anyways, so I doubt many will read this, but the notion of duality and non-duality most other people speak of is one that's been biased by Buddhist thought. The fact that the experience is so similar for most people that describe it in Buddhism tells me that many most likely have not experienced it, but rather just speak from what they've heard spoken, or create a dissociative experience that is born from their preconceptions.

 

I remember that someone talked about the monk who, when asked what Bodhidharma was, dropped the bag he was carrying to the ground. When he saw that someone realized what he meant, he jumped for joy (an emotion by the way), but when they didn't he simply picked the bag up and kept walking. So do you know why dropping the bag to the ground is Bodhidharma? If you do, I'll be the first to jump for joy.

 

Aaron

Edited December 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

As for the word "exist"...it implies to stand alone. Nothing stands alone,...everything manifest has a Dependent Origination, that is, is dependent on something else. If you uncover something that actually exists,...by all means, embrace it.

 

Hehehe. You do realize that you just contradicted yourself here, don't you?

 

First you suggest that the Manifest does not exist then you say that everything manifest has a DO.

 

I have never suggested that any thing within the realm of the Manifest is self created or self sustaining.

 

Hehehe. That Buddhist DO trick won't work on me - been through it all before.

[3bob]

Does Right Speech deny, appease, moderate? Well, perhaps on a relative level, among those desireous to not "make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and [undermine the embracing, consoling, and celebration of a personal self."

 

I am not suited to polite society To social striving, upward mobility, and making good impressions I am radically honest, sensitive, brilliant, and blunt I hold up a mirror to the best and worst facets of human life. ~Vajrayogini

 

"Right speech" is based on what the Buddha said, thus one can not keep quoting the Buddha or Buddhist sources yet forget or deny that part of the Noble Eight Fold path with something off the wall.

[3bob]

No, tathagata does not point to anything inherent. It is just an empty label. Like the word 'weather' does not point to something you can pin down, just a conventional label for the clouds, the rain, the wind, etc... but there is no real 'the weather'.

 

Buddha:

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."...

 

Nagarjuna:

 

The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other

than the aggregates.

The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.

The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.

What Tathagata is there?

 

"What Tathagata is there?" The Tathagata that is non-attached wisdom which is free and happy in the deepest and unbreakable meaning of such words... "The idea that nirvana is samsara, correctly understood, comes through Nagarjuna"

Edited December 28, 2011 by 3bob

[Birch]

Compassion is an inherent capacity that exists within all things, regardless of their levels of awareness or understanding. Children exhibit the truest forms of compassion when they are still very young, compassion, not derived from morality or cultural norms, but rather the experience of emotion one has for another. Compassion is not emotionless, nor is it detached, rather true compassion is a deeper attachment to the dual existence that we experience in our day to day lives. Compassion that springs from emptiness... that's a misnomer, for there is no compassion within emptiness or non-duality, it is only realized within duality. To say that we should stop pussyfooting around regarding the egocentric-self-esteem view of compassion is true, in that compassion should not derive from the ego, or one's feelings about another, but rather it should derive from the heart-mind, or one's feelings for another.

 

People misunderstand detachment to mean that one has no emotions towards others, but that's not what it is, it is an understanding on an innate level of the transient state of all things, that one can never achieve true happiness within the state of duality, because of this transient nature.

 

Anyways, most people skip my posts anyways, so I doubt many will read this, but the notion of duality and non-duality most other people speak of is one that's been biased by Buddhist thought. The fact that the experience is so similar for most people that describe it in Buddhism tells me that many most likely have not experienced it, but rather just speak from what they've heard spoken, or create a dissociative experience that is born from their preconceptions.

 

I remember that someone talked about the monk who, when asked what Bodhidharma was, dropped the bag he was carrying to the ground. When he saw that someone realized what he meant, he jumped for joy (an emotion by the way), but when they didn't he simply picked the bag up and kept walking. So do you know why dropping the bag to the ground is Bodhidharma? If you do, I'll be the first to jump for joy.

 

Aaron

 

Heh, not true. I often read your posts.

 

Anyway. I'd like to say that Buddhism is still not the truth. It's a vehicle, another one. And I think a very good one, except for a few stances that I disagree with (no need to get into which ones as I'm not looking to justify myself) It's the rules that are required until one has realised that you can be all of these good things all by yourself without relying on methods.

 

But like TTC suggests, when Tao is lost, we require rules. And I suggest, conversely, when all we have are rules, Tao is lost. It's no use arguing with someone living by rules that their rules are intended to synthetically recreate the senses of mutual respect, compassion and empathy that are attainable just like that. I personally think it's the 'big lie' of society. But we're still buying it for the moment.

[3bob]

Hehehe. You do realize that you just contradicted yourself here, don't you?

 

First you suggest that the Manifest does not exist then you say that everything manifest has a DO.

 

I have never suggested that any thing within the realm of the Manifest is self created or self sustaining.

 

Hehehe. That Buddhist DO trick won't work on me - been through it all before.

 

A suggestion for Taoists: Everytime D.O. automatically pops-up counter with an automatic quote of TTC 25.

Edited December 28, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

Heh, not true. I often read your posts.

 

Anyway. I'd like to say that Buddhism is still not the truth. It's a vehicle, another one. And I think a very good one, except for a few stances that I disagree with (no need to get into which ones as I'm not looking to justify myself) It's the rules that are required until one has realised that you can be all of these good things all by yourself without relying on methods.

 

But like TTC suggests, when Tao is lost, we require rules. And I suggest, conversely, when all we have are rules, Tao is lost. It's no use arguing with someone living by rules that their rules are intended to synthetically recreate the senses of mutual respect, compassion and empathy that are attainable just like that. I personally think it's the 'big lie' of society. But we're still buying it for the moment.

 

taking the first paragraph to be true why stir in the second with it?