Concepts relative to "God" in Buddhism

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Buddhism is very specific on what it teaches and what you are saying is not what it teaches. It is still being interpreted from a eternalist framework. There is no "ever-present Emptiness," this is more misunderstanding and interpretation based on misunderstanding.

 

All of what Deshimaru is saying sounds very eternalist. I guess, this is what Namdrol was talking about when he said how some the Sino-Japanese sects interpreted things from a eternalist framework.

 

Or maybe he is adapting his lecture to a particular audience...Either way this isn't what Buddhism teaches.

 

Is everything Empty right now? yes. As long is there is form will it also be empty? yes. so that would be ever present would it not? Unless you want to be nihilistic and say nothing exists at all.

 

Again, I think the difference is that God is being interpreted differently, rather than Dharmakaya is interpreted differently.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Jetsun]

This is why it is important for most people to study the Pali cannon first, which is the "base" of the teachings of Buddhism.

 

I tried that, but the 'Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha' have to be some of the most boring repetitive scripture ever written, god knows what the Long Length Discourses are like.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[C T]

Sorry didnt mean to imply you were, SJ.

 

Would you agree using the Two Truths is an acceptable method to gain insight? If you do, then it would be clear that the means Harmonious Emptiness has opted as a convening path to reach clarity is as acceptable as any other conventional framework.

 

 

 

In the Mulamadhyamikakarika (chapter 24 verses 8 - 10) it is said:

 

 

The Buddha taught teachings relying on two truths:

mundane conventional truth and ultimate truth.

Those who do not know the difference between these

two truths do not know the profound points in the

teachings of the Buddha. The ultimate is not taught

without resorting to convention. Without understanding

the ultimate, nirvana cannot be attained.

 

 

More on Two Truths here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/

 

Look up some of Shakya Chogden's commentaries. May be helpful to gain further insight of the Middle Way.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Always a joy to get a sip of your deep convictions!

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

Lol. I know, they are definitely boring to read sometimes. Have you tried reading What the Buddha Taught by Wapola Rahula? Or The Way to Buddhahood By Ven. Yin-Shun? Though I don't own or have really read these books: My friend bought both those books recently and after reading through some pages here and there; they seem like solid material, that is easy to understand. The latter covers the whole Tripitaka.

It's kind of funny if I look back.

 

It seems, due to our different framework and understanding at different stages of the path, our interest is different.

 

If you ask the 2006 me to read the suttas, I'll read a few pages and stop. Seriously, can't read further.. haha

 

But - if you ask me to read Eckhart Tolle, wow those are pretty awesome stuff for me, I get into deep state of presence and everything he wrote seems so appealing.

 

Fast forward to 2011... if you ask me to listen to an Eckhart Tolle tape, I'll doze off or something. Can't read or watch further. (This is just true, I used to suscribe the expensive Eckhart TV and get very excited about his teachings up until the I AM phase of insight and they used to be very interesting until I got into non-dual and anatta and all the Eckhart stuff doesn't resonate or interest me that much anymore, and I just doze off when he starts talking. haha. oh of course I soon canceled the subscription, cos its paid every 6 months)

 

Now if you ask me to read the suttas, I can't stop reading. When I bought 'In the Buddha's Words' which are like 400+ pages of suttas, I can't stop reading until I finished reading them. I finished reading in a few days.

 

Can't wait to read Middle Length - almost got it several weeks ago but it was out of stock at that time. But I got other books to read first, so will get to it soon.

 

Even the suttas' repetitions are exciting because there is just this recognition and resonance with what is spoken - as Eckhart Tolle's repetitions WERE exciting to me, but now not really, and my interest now goes into the suttas and sutras and the teachings of great masters of Buddhism (Dogen just quoted above is one of them but not everyone understands him, there are some other Zen masters which are great, and also many Vajrayana masters like Dakpo Tashi Namgyal who are just great)

 

So, this is partly why I wrote:

 

"Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it.

 

"After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."

Edited December 29, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Edited December 28, 2011 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

ever-present Emptiness

 

There is no emptiness in the Present. Emptiness, which has a dependent relationship with Form, is never present. Emptiness and Form are of time-space,...there is no Present in Time-Space.

 

Simple_Jack says "There is no "ever-present Emptiness," this is more misunderstanding and interpretation based on misunderstanding." This is correct,...there is "no ever-present Emptiness"....Emptiness is always in the past, and the past doesn't exist. Of course, Simple_Jack probably has a dogmatic, Theravadan definition behind his statement, such as, nothing is ever-present. However, as all who have had a direct experience with the Present understand, that is false.

 

There is however, an ever-present Present,...and unless you have directly experienced the Present, which cannot be experienced through the 6 Senses, nor in Time, to say otherwise is dishonest.

 

V

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Either way: The way you are describing the "dharmakaya" as some sort of "transcendental ground" of experience or as some sort of "source" is not how the dharmakaya is described in the suttas/sutras.

 

Dudjom Rinpoche explains it very simply: That the "dharmakaya" can be "seen" when there isn't any referential co-ordinates whatsoever.

 

The problem I'm seeing, is that you still identify the "dharmakaya" as somehow "beyond" or maybe seperate or somehow "transcending" from our sensate experience. As of yet, you don't understand the ordinariness of "seeing dharmakaya" when engaged in daily activities.

 

Well, I still think their talking about the same thing.

 

As to the last paragraph there, I'm not sure how you got that impression. Another good quote in relation to this was posted in another thread "The Wisdom of Black Elk"

 

"The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us." - Black Elk - Oglala Sioux

 

That sums it up nicely for me, without getting to every specific.

 

 

Sort of like CT said about the "two truths," semantically and logically and philosphically, I can see how there is an apparent difference, but the ultimate experience of these things, for Black Elk, a Sufi mystic, and a Buddhist in Satori, I think is all the same. As has been said, once you get there, the experience is only known through prajna wisdom, not the senses and intellect, so a few semantic differences in them all I think are not really here nor there...

 

(edited to add "a")

Edited December 28, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Harmonious Emptiness]

there is "no ever-present Emptiness"

 

Sorry, I don't really see the point of arguing over such a minor semantic liberty as to say ever-present vs. always true, always the ultimate truth...

Edited December 28, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Vmarco]

Sorry, I don't really see the point of arguing over such a minor semantic liberty as to say ever-present vs. always true, always the ultimate truth...

 

The absolute truth that there is no emptiness in the Present, nor a Present in Emptiness,...and neither is a "minor semantic", but a Dharma Gate to bodhicitta.

 

"As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated...The entire illusion was never really there. The six sense-organs are also thus. At first there was one essential brightness. Which split into a six-fold combination. If but one part ceases and returns, All six functions will stop as well." Avalokitesvara

 

There is no "always true emptiness." Impermanence is never absolutely true. Emptiness, like Form, is a mirage. That mirage has a dependent origination. Buddha attempted to explain that in relative terms to scores of interested people. For very few it was easy, and they understood on an absolute level. For the mediocre, blinded by their humanism through the 6 senses, Buddha said "doctrine of dependent origination is so profound that sentient beings are unable to comprehend it."

What is a "sentient being?" Who are bodhisattvas striving to liberate? Why is sentience unable to penetrate or uncover an understanding about dependent origination?

 

This is not a "minor semantic"...nearly every post since coming here has embodied this single dialogue.

 

Buddha said that there is a "True Bodhi Path."

 

"The single mind of True Suchness is called the Ground of Immovability" Buddha

 

Form and the Emptiness of Form are always in motion,...it is not the "ground" of True Suchness. True Suchness is only realized in the Present,...however, there is no Present in Time.

 

The dissolution of all questions is all around you,...the problem is, you do not see the world that surrounds you, but only the world that surrounded you. As the Ven. Ananda once told the Buddha, it's easy to comprehend.

 

It's so easy,...there is no Present in time.

 

V

Edited December 28, 2011 by Vmarco

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

It's so easy,...there is no Present in time.

 

 

Well, sure, there is no absolute present, present is just the accumulation of the past, and the future is no more independent. I was never much for games. I prefer creative harmony. Does it not seem sort of zombie-like to have to say everything exactly the same way so that people cannot miss the point? Seems a bit Orwellian new-speak, rather than intelligent dialogue to me.

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

So, this is partly why I wrote:

 

"Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it.

 

"After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."

Forgot to add the last paragraph, which is more important

[xabir2005]

Appreciate the comments,...

 

[/b][/i]V

Originally it was not my intention to reply something Simple Jack should be replying, nonetheless I'll add in a few quotes, and add that Simple Jack of course is one with deep *non-conceptual* meditation realizations, he is not speaking from concepts but his own direct insight and experience. Frankly whatever you realized is just the I AM, and there is no need for a long sutra like Shurangama to explain dependent origination, emptiness, and so on if it is just about I AM. Whatever it wrote must be understood in context.

 

Since very early times, commentators described texts as being "nitartha" or "neyartha".

The former are "fully drawn out", and require no further exegesis.

The latter are "to be drawn out", and require further exegesis or explanation.

This shows that they realized that some teachings are pretty much literal, and others are not.

The only question then, is which sutras are which - and that's where most disagree.

 

~~ Venerable Huifeng

 

"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral characteristics, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. They are what is called ‘illusory falseness.’ But their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. 3:1

 

”Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. 3:2

 

”Who would have thought that production, extinction, coming, and going are fundamentally the everlasting, wonderful light of the Treasury of the Thus Come One, the unmoving, all pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of true suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, there is nothing that can be obtained. 3:3 ~ Shurangama Sutra

 

Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;

Refrain from both positive and negative projection -

leave appearances alone:

The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra. ~ Tilopa

 

The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask:

 

"Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?"

 

If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days.

 

On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction:

 

"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.

 

"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.

 

...

 

 

Let the meditator look. He may say, "There is no difference. It is an intangible, aware emptiness." If so, then ask:

 

"Is it an aware emptiness after the perceived image has disappeared? Or, is the image an aware emptiness by means of cultivating the aware emptiness? Or, is the perceived image itself an aware emptiness?"

 

If the answer comes that it is one of the first two cases, the meditator has not thoroughly investigated the above and should therefore once more be sent to meditate and resolve this.

 

If he does experience that the vividly perceived visual image itself -- unidentifiable in any way other than as a mere presence of unconfined perception -- is an aware emptiness, the master should then give this pointing-out instruction:

 

"When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception."

 

"Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind.

 

"From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya. ~ Dakpo Tashi Namgyal Rinpoche

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever. ~ Third Karmapa

 

....Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish.

 

The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts.

 

Whereas normally we have the attitude that thought is something we must get rid of, in this case it is made clear that it is important not to get rid of thought, but to recognize its nature, and indeed, not only the nature of thought but the nature of stillness must be recognized. In particular, with regard to thought, as long as we do not recognize its nature, of course thought poses a threat to meditation and becomes an impediment. But once the nature of thought has been correctly recognized, thought itself becomes the meditative state and therefore it is often said that "the root of meditation is recognizing the nature of thought."

 

There lived in the eighteenth century a great Gelugpa teacher named Changkya Rolpe Dorje, who from his early youth displayed the signs of being an extraordinary person. He became particularly learned and also very realized, and at one point he composed a song called 'Recognizing Mother.' 'Mother' in his song is the word he uses to refer to dharmata or the nature of one's mind. This song was so extraordinary that a commentary was written about it by Khenchen Mipam Rinpoche. In this song, Changkya Rolpe Dorje makes a very clear distinction between recognizing and not recognizing the nature of one's mind. In one part of the song he says, "Nowadays we scholars of the Gelugpa tradition, in discarding these appearances of the mind as the basis for the realization of emptiness and of the basis for the negation of true existence, and in searching for something beyond this to refute, something beyond this to negate in order to realize emptiness, have left our old mother behind; in other words, we have missed the point of emptiness."

 

Changkya Rolpe Dorje gives another image for this mistake that we tend to make. he says that we are like a small child who is sitting in his mother's lap but forgetting where he is, looks for his mother everywhere; looks above, below, left and right and is unable to see his mother and becomes quite agitated. Along comes the child's older brother, and the image the older brother represents is both the understanding of interdependence and the recognition of the nature of thought. The older brother reminds the child by saying, "Your mother is right here, you are in her lap." In the same way, the nature of our mind or emptiness is with us all the time, we tend to look for it indirectly; we look for it somewhere outside ourselves, somewhere far away. And yet we do not need to look far away if we simply view the nature of thought as it is."... ~ Mahamudra teacher Thrangu Rinpoche

Edited December 29, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Vmarco]

Originally it was not my intention to reply something Simple Jack should be replying, nonetheless I'll add in a few quotes, and add that Simple Jack of course is one with deep *non-conceptual* meditation realizations, he is not speaking from concepts but his own direct insight and experience. Frankly whatever you realized is just the I AM, and there is no need for a long sutra like Shurangama to explain dependent origination, emptiness, and so on if it is just about I AM. Whatever it wrote must be understood in context.

 

 

I appreciate your post. The Shurangama is one of my favorite sutras because it discusses a specific Dharma Gate that uncovers absolute Bodhicitta.

 

It's awesome that you believe and resonate with Simple_Jacks long regurgitations. The problem most have with "I Am" is they believe "I think, therefore I Am",...as if the "i think", the little i, the ego, arises before the I Am.

 

I recently posted in the Zeitgeist thread within the General Discussions:

 

The slogan of all the Zeitgeist films is this:

 

"The biggest crux to the evolution of humanity is breaking through your own indoctrination. It is very, very difficult to overcome emotional elements that have become so engrained in you, that you have an immediate reaction, an immediate suffering and pain, if something interfers with [your idea of the status quo]. It's a very, very complex problem. We have to learn how to identify and break our own indoctrination if we expect to move forward at all as a civilization" PJ Merola

 

Minute 11:00 - 17:43 which includes the above quote, expresses the problem of humanity,...which as I mentioned,...is applicable to every post on TTB.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNgSa7GvA

 

OR...as Eckhart Tolle said, "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"

 

I found Simple_Jack referred to throughout Minute 11:00 - 17:43,...one of the Self-appointed guardians of the status quo, who clings to his fundamentalist scriptural knowledge for his identity,..."so locked into their box that they find it infuriating to think that what they're living is actually wrong."

 

None of that is meant to be an attack, or reciprocate the attacks he posted to me. I'm merely using a video to express a relative reality that is rampant on thos planet.

 

V

Edited December 29, 2011 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

 

"From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya.[/i] ~ Dakpo Tashi Namgyal Rinpoche

 

The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts.

 

 

Very few recognize the need for nakedness.

 

A 1st Century Gnostic text says,..."when you can disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments (beliefs) and place them under your feet like little child and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid".

 

I've observed very little nakedness on TTB. Most cling to particular indoctrinations. As for you, I feel you'll appreciate the link in the above post.

 

People have become so thoroughly convinced that Form is Form, and Formlessness (the necessary balanced harmonic interchange)is not part of its cycle, to keep any naked, unstructured, unborn awareness from rising in the Collective Consciouness.

 

 

V

Edited December 29, 2011 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

It's awesome that you believe and resonate with Simple_Jacks long regurgitations. The problem most have with "I Am" is they believe "I think, therefore I Am",...as if the "i think", the little i, the ego, arises before the I Am.

The problem isn't just with conceptual ego. Letting go of the conceptual self is just the first step.

 

When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless (or rather, non-conceptual) moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

 

In other words: Very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness. But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested.

 

The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening.

 

And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold.

 

With this in mind, Mahamudra, Shurangama Sutra, and basically all the sutras can be understood.

Edited December 29, 2011 by xabir2005

[Aaron]

I found Simple_Jack referred to throughout Minute 11:00 - 17:43,...one of the Self-appointed guardians of the status quo, who clings to his fundamentalist scriptural knowledge for his identity,..."so locked into their box that they find it infuriating to think that what they're living is actually wrong."

 

V

 

 

Me and Jack bump heads more often than not, but I think it's unfair to characterize him in this manner, especially since you have absolutely no way of knowing the motivations behind his actions. In fact I think I could say that you are exhibiting these exact same characteristics. You quote the same texts over and over like doctrines from a religion. I mean, if you're truly trying to think outside the box, to even get outside the box, then why are you clinging to Buddhism, Zeitgeistism, or any other -ism, just stop allowing others to tell you what the truth is. (And I'm sure you'll deny this and that's fine.) Peter Joseph is extremely intelligent, but he is also locked inside his own box, in fact what he says is so contradictory and hypocritical, it astounds me that people can listen to the whole film and not call bullshit.

 

The problem with the world has nothing to do with socioeconomic structures, it has to do with the fact that humans are assholes. We want more than we need, consume more than we need, and take what we don't need. The only thing this has to do with socioeconomics is that every economy we've chosen to work within has proven incapable of doing away with this basic characteristic. So doing away with religion, academia, and any other facet of society will not solve this problem, the only thing that could change this is if we changed the way we feel towards each other, if we ceased using social crutches and religious ideals as a means to enforce our own twisted ideals on others. It would take a complete revision of the way humanity thought, acted, and believed, in order to sustain a society that didn't feel the need to take advantage of others for their own benefit. It's for this reason that there can never be an ideal society, because this very basic nature within man can not be resolved using any modern philosophical or religious model, the only way an ideal society can be sustained is if we begin to live for others and not just ourselves.

 

That's the simple answer... everything else is just pompous, arrogant, introspective, conceited bullshit, nothing more and nothing less.

 

Also, if you think non-duality is going to save duality, well you've got something coming towards you. non-duality can't exist without duality, or visa versa.

 

Aaron

Edited December 29, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vmarco]

[Aaron]

Lag again... caused a double post.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Twinner