How Attached to Your Ideas Are You?

[Marblehead]

"True reality lies beyond immediate sensation and the objects we see every day." Georg Hegel

 

 

Nice quotes, all of them. Too bad they mean nothing to me.

[Marblehead]

... there is no Present in time.

 

This is not true, of course.

 

Just because you and I are not capable of intellectualizing it does not mean that it does not exist. This is just one of the limitations of the human animal.

[Vmarco]

This is not true, of course.

 

Just because you and I are not capable of intellectualizing it does not mean that it does not exist. This is just one of the limitations of the human animal.

 

 

There is no truer statement you will hear/read in your lifetime than that "there is no Present in time"

Sure, you be fortunate enough to come across another absolute truth, but it will not be truer. It is irrefutable,...by any serious refute.

 

Why a Taoist can not see that, is a testament unto itself.

 

V

Edited February 10, 2012 by Vmarco

[Marblehead]

 

Why a Taoist can not see that, is a testament unto itself.

 

V

 

That is because we are unwilling to believe BS and accept something as truth just because someone said it. We are a bit more descriminating than that.

 

And this says a lot about we Taoists.

[Vmarco]

That is because we are unwilling to believe BS and accept something as truth just because someone said it. We are a bit more descriminating than that.

 

And this says a lot about we Taoists.

 

Yes, I suppose Taoism is like Gurdjieff's Man #2,...they desire to be at harmony with the prison of life. They say man should be satisfied with the idea that he is separate from Source, but not separate from the universe, and thus the universe should be his source. Although Yang and Yin arise from the stillness of Wu, Man's place is in the illusion of Yang/Yin, not Wu.

 

Gurdjieff's Fouth Way, Vajrayana'a Fourth Stream, or Buddhism's Fourth Turning are more about developing Man #3 for their escape so-to-say, of the cycle of perceived life, and thus end suffering, and uncover liberation. A tathagata would be Man #7 on the Gurdjieff scale,...whereas Jesus and his friend Thich Nhat Hanh are surely Man #2's.

 

V

[Informer]

Marble, I value your insight, but "we Taoist" is an oxymoron. (imo)

[Vmarco]

Marble, I value your insight, but "we Taoist" is an oxymoron. (imo)

 

No,...I think that's what is called a redundancy,...like ATM machine or pizza pie.

[Apech]

Yes, I suppose Taoism is like Gurdjieff's Man #2,...they desire to be at harmony with the prison of life. They say man should be satisfied with the idea that he is separate from Source, but not separate from the universe, and thus the universe should be his source. Although Yang and Yin arise from the stillness of Wu, Man's place is in the illusion of Yang/Yin, not Wu.

 

.....

 

V

 

V,

 

Have you made a serious study of Taoism? From what you have written above it seems to me you have imputed all sorts of things onto Taoism which I don't recognise ... like 'desiring to be in harmony with the prison of life'. Where does Taoism say life is a prison and that one should want to be at harmony with it?

 

Maybe you have been reading Shakespeare and have confused life with Denmark ... but even then "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" ... if life is for you a prison ... then maybe thinking makes it so???

 

A.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I suppose Taoism is like Gurdjieff's Man #2,...they desire to be at harmony with the prison of life. They say man should be satisfied with the idea that he is separate from Source, but not separate from the universe, and thus the universe should be his source. Although Yang and Yin arise from the stillness of Wu, Man's place is in the illusion of Yang/Yin, not Wu.

 

Gurdjieff's Fouth Way, Vajrayana'a Fourth Stream, or Buddhism's Fourth Turning are more about developing Man #3 for their escape so-to-say, of the cycle of perceived life, and thus end suffering, and uncover liberation. A tathagata would be Man #7 on the Gurdjieff scale,...whereas Jesus and his friend Thich Nhat Hanh are surely Man #2's.

 

V

 

Vmarco, you are trying to feed the members here bullshit and I will not tolerate it. I will not allow you to talk negatively against about Taoism!

 

You are not a Taoist so you know absolutely nothing about being a Taoist and your recent post have shown this to be very true.

 

You can talk your shit about Buddhism and maybe some will listen and believe what you have to say. But if you talk negatively about Taoism I will jump in your shit every time.

 

You do realize that we Taoists could give a shit less about what Gurdjieff said, don't you? For a Taoist he would be considered a lost soul. From what you have presented, he (or she, whatever) has separated man from his true nature more than any Taoist has ever done.

 

If #1 is low and #7 is high I would suggest that you are still at man #1 because you keep pretending you know something but I have seen no 'real' wisdom contained in your posts. Lots of knowledge, sure. How brightly you shine! A good target for the sharpshooter.

 

When you do learn a little about Taoism I will be very happy to discuss it with you.

 

And at this point I will restate what I have stated many times before: Manifest reality is just as real as any other aspect of Tao, the totality of all that is. It doesn't matter how much one breaks things down into their components, the components too are real.

 

It is you who is constantly trying to divide things into separate parts with your BS about the seven levels of man. There is only one level and that one level includes all humans who exist now, who have ever existed in the past, and who will ever exist in the future. But each has had, has, or will have their own set of capabilities and capacities. Seems to me you are unable to see beyond the blinders you have place upon your senses and your mind.

 

Take the blinders off! Realize that everything is of the same source and that all things hold equal importance to the totality. The Manifest is just as important as is the Mystery, as is Tao itself.

 

You seem to suffer so much trying to force your beliefs on others. You should liberate yourself before you try liberating others. If you bring others into the state of suffering you are currently experiencing you will be doing them a very grave disservice.

 

You should learn to relax; to learn that nothing really matters even while everything matters.

 

And BTW, Chi (yin and yang) arose simultaneously with Mystery (wu). (One gave birth to two.) Manifest (yo) arose from the interaction of Chi and Wu.

 

So while Buddhism continues to try to separate the Manifest (the physical universe and all 'things' within) we Taoist realize that we are a physical representation of the One and can never be separated from our source. And we do not bother ourselves with worring about who is on top and who is on bottom because all positions are of equal importance.

 

So you go ahead and continue your suffering if that is what you really want to do, inside that prison that you have created for yourself with your illusions and delusions but please do not pass your ignorance on we Taoists because we do not desire to suffer.

[Marblehead]

... if life is for you a prison ... then maybe thinking makes it so???

 

A.

 

I couldn't have said that better myself. (But I did try in the above post. Hehehe.)

[Jolo]

Vmarco, you are trying to feed the members here bullshit and I will not tolerate it. I will not allow you to talk negatively against about Taoism!

 

You are not a Taoist so you know absolutely nothing about being a Taoist and your recent post have shown this to be very true.

 

You can talk your shit about Buddhism and maybe some will listen and believe what you have to say. But if you talk negatively about Taoism I will jump in your shit every time.

 

You do realize that we Taoists could give a shit less about what Gurdjieff said, don't you? For a Taoist he would be considered a lost soul. From what you have presented, he (or she, whatever) has separated man from his true nature more than any Taoist has ever done.

 

If #1 is low and #7 is high I would suggest that you are still at man #1 because you keep pretending you know something but I have seen no 'real' wisdom contained in your posts. Lots of knowledge, sure. How brightly you shine! A good target for the sharpshooter.

 

When you do learn a little about Taoism I will be very happy to discuss it with you.

 

And at this point I will restate what I have stated many times before: Manifest reality is just as real as any other aspect of Tao, the totality of all that is. It doesn't matter how much one breaks things down into their components, the components too are real.

 

It is you who is constantly trying to divide things into separate parts with your BS about the seven levels of man. There is only one level and that one level includes all humans who exist now, who have ever existed in the past, and who will ever exist in the future. But each has had, has, or will have their own set of capabilities and capacities. Seems to me you are unable to see beyond the blinders you have place upon your senses and your mind.

 

Take the blinders off! Realize that everything is of the same source and that all things hold equal importance to the totality. The Manifest is just as important as is the Mystery, as is Tao itself.

 

You seem to suffer so much trying to force your beliefs on others. You should liberate yourself before you try liberating others. If you bring others into the state of suffering you are currently experiencing you will be doing them a very grave disservice.

 

You should learn to relax; to learn that nothing really matters even while everything matters.

 

And BTW, Chi (yin and yang) arose simultaneously with Mystery (wu). (One gave birth to two.) Manifest (yo) arose from the interaction of Chi and Wu.

 

So while Buddhism continues to try to separate the Manifest (the physical universe and all 'things' within) we Taoist realize that we are a physical representation of the One and can never be separated from our source. And we do not bother ourselves with worring about who is on top and who is on bottom because all positions are of equal importance.

 

So you go ahead and continue your suffering if that is what you really want to do, inside that prison that you have created for yourself with your illusions and delusions but please do not pass your ignorance on we Taoists because we do not desire to suffer.

[Jolo]

This thread is entitled, How Attached to your ideas are you? Well, if we are calling ourselves Taoists and Buddhists isn't it obvious that the answer is "very much"? Beliefs are merely pointers, and if we cling to our beliefs to the point that we identify with them, then we remain trapped in the realm of thought. Isn't the anger here in defense of beliefs? And isn't defense of belief the source of nearly all the violence in the world. Beliefs must be shed like rocket boosters in order to travel beyond the realm of thought. Ists and isms are monuments to thought.

[Marblehead]

This thread is entitled, How Attached to your ideas are you? Well, if we are calling ourselves Taoists and Buddhists isn't it obvious that the answer is "very much"? Beliefs are merely pointers, and if we cling to our beliefs to the point that we identify with them, then we remain trapped in the realm of thought. Isn't the anger here in defense of beliefs? And isn't defense of belief the source of nearly all the violence in the world. Beliefs must be shed like rocket boosters in order to travel beyond the realm of thought. Ists and isms are monuments to thought.

 

Of course you are right Jolo.

 

BTW, Welcome to the Bums!

 

Nice to see you jumping right in the discussions.

 

I am here attempting to break the chains of Dogma. At present I am conversing with a hard-headed Buddhist who believes he has no beliefs.

 

I actually agree with most of what Buddhists say here on this board when they take the time to actually talk "WITH" me instead of talking "AT" me.

 

I do not defend myself. There is no need. I am an Atheist. I am a Materialist. I am a Neitzschian. I am a Taoist. And anyone is welcome to put any label on me in addition to those I have placed upon myself.

 

However, I will defend the Taoist belief system. It is a beautiful belief system. There is no dogma, only what is. (And it doesn't matter if one is aware of it or not.)

 

(Hehehe. You haven't seen any anger. That is merely a part I play here and I have my justifications for doing so.)

 

But then, thought is the only tool I can use to live my life in the 'real world' when I am not in the condition of 'wu wei'. I really don't want to be a zombie walking around total ignorant of what I am doing.

 

And let's face it, even Mother Teresa held to a belief (system). Even stating that we do not have a belief is in itself a belief.

 

So while what you say is true, in 'real life' we walk the path we choose to walk. Some of us need the crutch of a belief system and some don't. But that doesn't mean that we need constantly keep yelling out "My path is better than your path!" or "Your path is not the true path!"

 

No one is wrong. We just are.

[Vmarco]

Vmarco, you are trying to feed the members here bullshit and I will not tolerate it. I will not allow you to talk negatively against about Taoism!

 

You are not a Taoist so you know absolutely nothing about being a Taoist and your recent post have shown this to be very true.

 

....anyone is welcome to put any label on me in addition to those I have placed upon myself.

 

 

No,...VMarco is not speaking negatively about Taoism. Nor could it be said that VMarco knows nothing of Taoism. On the otherhand, it could be said that VMarco knows more about Taoism than Marblehead's westernized interpretation of Taoism, filtered through his mediocity. P.S....thanks for the permission to label you.

 

You are obviously very upset (not very good Tao) regarding Gurdjieff's levels of man. It is unfortunate that people like yourself cling to an ego based view spirituality. Ken Wilber called it the Conspiracy of mediocity. He explained it like this:

 

"To dare to even speak about radical transformation, let alone call other people to a higher level, is against the unstated rules. And of course, one's definitely going to be put in one's place for doing something like that. But unless the possibility of genuine transformation is actually declared, unless one is willing to demonstrate it publically and to call other people to the same, no one is even going to know that it's possible. And than unknowingly, everybody's going to be participating in the conspiracy of mediocrity.

 

The conspiracy of mediocrity is basically the conspiracy to express your own ego instead of transcending it or letting go of it. The idea has become "if I can really emote and express my self-contriction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual". Actually, people who are involved in this boomeritis even deny the importance of Enlightenment or Awakening, because that's saying some states are higher than others - and we shouldn't be so judgmental. But guess what? Some states are higher. And so the entire raison d'etre gets tossed out because it offends the pluralistist ego.

 

The spiritual experience, which ideally should be a stepping stone to less ego and greater transparency, has become a victim of our therapeutic culture, where we don't make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and so all we do is embrace, console, and celebrate the personal self. Spiritual practice has become nothing more than a form of therapy where self-acceptance rather than ego-transcendence is the goal. And the problem is that therapists are basically pimps for samsara. They want to hold onto the egoic self-contraction and make it feel good about itself.

 

This conspiracy of mediocrity is very unfortunate. The great promise of the human potential movement was very straightforward - there are higher human potentials. Now, from the therapeutic culture, people say, "wait a minute. you're saying there are higher potentials, so does that mean I'm lower? because that can't be right". All of a sudden it implied a judgement, and nobody's allowed to be higher because that means someone else is going to be lower. And you're not allowed to call anybody lower; therefore nobody's allowed to be higher.

 

So the Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement, which catastrophically prevents higher transformation and mystical breakthroughs. What is missing in the New Age Community is real intellectual vigor. Under the therapeutic culture, if you feel good, you're enlightened. That is mediocrity, and a conspiracy toward mediocrity."

 

Thus, in our current therapeutic society people don't want to see that what they thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

[Vmarco]

V,

 

Have you made a serious study of Taoism? From what you have written above it seems to me you have imputed all sorts of things onto Taoism which I don't recognise ... like 'desiring to be in harmony with the prison of life'. Where does Taoism say life is a prison and that one should want to be at harmony with it?

... if life is for you a prison ... then maybe thinking makes it so???

 

A.

 

Taoism has as its goal, helping people realize their oneness with the Universe,...that man is not separate from the Universe or from Nature but is a part of it. Many see the universe to be a prison of sorts, including the Gurdjieff philosophy, Buddhism, Bon, Tantra, and others.

 

The topic of Gurdjieff's Man levels was an ongoing conversation between Marblehead and myself,....however, it looks as if I errored by referencing it within this thread, when the ongoing conversation regarding Gurdjieff was in the http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22548-exploring-the-now/page__st__96__p__322324__hl__gurdjieff__fromsearch__1entry322324 thread

 

In Buddhism, any identification, even identification with the oneness of universe is considered an ego delusion.

 

I am not suggesting that one is wrong and the other correct,...just drawing a contrast. Is the universe "real?" Or is it a prison of the mind? To me, Wu is real,...while Yang/Yin (the universe) is an illusion. For Marblehead, the universe is not an illusion. It is merely a contrast of observation. Many see the world as flat, other see it as a sphere,..who is really correct,...it's simply a matter of viewpoint.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Vmarco

[thelerner]

Many see the world as flat, other see it as a sphere,..who is really correct,...it's simply a matter of viewpoint.

The latter is correct, literally, factually totally correct. Its not a matter of viewpoint. Its a sphere, it bulges a bit in the middle.

 

While its good to keep a quiet empty mind thats open to all things, its bad to have a mind so open, so empty it doesn't know basic facts. Cause there's dangerous things in the world, we need to get out of there way and not debate syllogistically if the car coming at us really exists.

 

Get the facts wrong and you're afraid to explore the world cause you're afraid you'll fall off. Learn, test, explore, grow.

[Apech]

Thanks for replying ...

 

Taoism has as its goal, helping people realize their oneness with the Universe,...that man is not separate from the Universe or from Nature but is a part of it. Many see the universe to be a prison of sorts, including the Gurdjieff philosophy, Buddhism, Bon, Tantra, and others.

 

I'm not sure that describes the 'goal of Taoism' ... although there may be some who would agree. It depends on what school of Taoism you are addressing I suppose. Mostly they talk about Immortality as the goal ... although you debate what that means exactly (i.e. physical or spiritual). What I suppose separates Taoism and Buddhism is to do with what is considered to be 'real'. To a Taoist the Tao is real, all else ....Heaven, Earth, Man follow from this. The nature of the Tao is seen in nature, so you can look to natural ways of water for instance to see how the Tao behaves. To become one with the Tao (not the universe) is then for a person to become as natural as water, or air or earth and so on.

 

A prison to me means a rational limitation on freedom. This can be physical ... like a jail or emotional (like some forms of conditioning) or mental like making people think that they are lesser somehow ... If the life is a prison then it would be a force which limited our freedom to act, feel, think and so on. While I see life as an organising and energising force not a prison.

 

The topic of Gurdjieff's Man levels was an ongoing conversation between Marblehead and myself,....however, it looks as if I errored by referencing it within this thread, when the ongoing conversation regarding Gurdjieff was in the http://www.thetaobum..._1entry322324 thread

 

yes lets leave that elsewhere.

 

In Buddhism, any identification, even identification with the oneness of universe is considered an ego delusion.

 

I am not suggesting that one is wrong and the other correct,...just drawing a contrast. Is the universe "real?" Or is it a prison of the mind? To me, Wu is real,...while Yang/Yin (the universe) is an illusion. For Marblehead, the universe is not an illusion. It is merely a contrast of observation. Many see the world as flat, other see it as a sphere,..who is really correct,...it's simply a matter of viewpoint.

 

Following on from what I said above I would see the yin/yang as not being an illusion (which I find quite an unhelpful word) but as a two-not-two ... a way of seeing life as a duality of forces which are fundamentally not two. Life as interfunction which is a kind of outpouring of the Wu ... it is not necessary to say one is real and one is not unless you are striving for a kind of mono ... what real means anyway is an interesting debate in itself.

 

A.

[Vmarco]

The latter is correct, literally, factually totally correct. Its not a matter of viewpoint. Its a sphere, it bulges a bit in the middle.

 

While its good to keep a quiet empty mind thats open to all things, its bad to have a mind so open, so empty it doesn't know basic facts. Cause there's dangerous things in the world, we need to get out of there way and not debate syllogistically if the car coming at us really exists.

 

Get the facts wrong and you're afraid to explore the world cause you're afraid you'll fall off. Learn, test, explore, grow.

 

Thanks for rescuing me on that.

 

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real"...Buddha

[Marblehead]

On the otherhand, it could be said that VMarco knows more about Taoism than Marblehead's westernized interpretation of Taoism, filtered through his mediocity.

 

Only by a fool.

[Marblehead]

 

I am not suggesting that one is wrong and the other correct,...just drawing a contrast. Is the universe "real?" Or is it a prison of the mind? To me, Wu is real,...while Yang/Yin (the universe) is an illusion. For Marblehead, the universe is not an illusion. It is merely a contrast of observation. Many see the world as flat, other see it as a sphere,..who is really correct,...it's simply a matter of viewpoint.

 

But how can you see if you do not exist in 'yo'? Wu is potential - undefined. You call yourself Vmarco but if you were truely Wu you could not yet exist or you may have existed but no longer exist. Vmarco could only be an illusion of someone in 'yo', in the physical universe.

 

Vmarco, I do understand what you are trying to present in this thread. I totally disagree with the way you are attempting to do it. If this thread was in the "Buddhist Discussions" forum I likely would never have posted to it. You are trying to push your Buddhist ideals on the general membership in the "General Discussions" forum. Therefore I must involve myself in the discussion because we really don't want this board looking like it is a Buddhist board.

 

Yes, I have a very different view of reality than you do. You think you don't exist. Sometimes I wish you didn't. (Sorry, the Devil made me say that - it is not really true.) It is my honest belief that you do exist, just as much as I and all else in the physical universe exist. That's just the way we materialists think.

 

I really have no interest in the words of all the people you continuously quote. I am in this thread to talk with Vmarco. What John Smith said about Paul Reed is totally irrelevant.

 

So to answer the question of this thread's title I think it would be fair to say that you and I are so attached to our beliefs to the point where if someone argued against them we would think that someone had just amputated our right leg. And no, don't you try to squirm out of this accusation because your behavior in this and other threads will support my accusation.

 

Vmarco, a question for you. How attached are you to your fingers? If you we really "wu" there would be no fingers, no toes, no head, no Vmarco. There wouldn't even be any words for you to speak. How sad would that be?

[Marblehead]

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real"...Buddha

 

"A man who pretends that the world does not exist should not be believed." - Marblehead

[Marblehead]

"Never buy a used car from a Buddhist. The engine doesn't exist." - Marblehead

[Vmarco]

"A man who pretends that the world does not exist should not be believed." - Marblehead

 

So,...you're saying that you, and those you imagined, existed in your dream last night?

 

No,...he who pretends the world exists (vi. to stand alone; have actual being)is ignorant, according to Buddha. In today's broadening quantum culture, only the uneducated would dare argue that the world exists.

 

However, regardless of quantum cosmology and irrefutuable proof that, as Max Planck said a hundred years ago, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such." ,...through my own direct experience, there is no world in the Present,...it (the world) is only a perception of the past,...and the past, to me, does not exist.

 

"Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present." Friedrich Nietzsche

 

 

 

As for post #44 the full quote was:

On the otherhand, it could be said that VMarco knows more about Taoism than Marblehead's westernized interpretation of Taoism, filtered through his mediocity. P.S....thanks for the permission to label you.

[Marblehead]

"Don't be sad, my dear child, about my eating your ice cream cone. It never really existed. It was only an illusion." - Marblehead

[Nanashi]