We all have issues-

[goldisheavy]

I'm not going to follow dogma without any evidence that it's REAL!

 

Good for you! People will always try to sell you things. As a consumer, you should be careful with what you buy.

 

That's the problem, no Buddhist can prove any of this, they can only say, "well if you want to see, you'll have to practice." Yeah, I'm going to waste ten years of my life, if not more, practicing to find out that none of it's real. Keep in mind that during those ten years I'll be taught how to think and by then I may actually believe that what I'm feeling is real, when in fact it's just preprogrammed dogma.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "preprogrammed" dogma. Dogma is any belief that you're not supposed to question. To my mind, dogma is always bad. But what is "preprogrammed" dogma? What other kinds of dogma are there? That "preprogrammed" word doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

Show me the facts and the proof and I'll be a happy little whateveryouwantmetobe kind of guy.

 

Aaron

 

Now this is a foul attitude. No one owes you anything that they must show you things. It's up to you to do your own searching. If you don't want to search, if you are happy to be complacent, then it's not anyone's job to show you stuff. It's not anyone's job to try to unconvince you out of your current beliefs, or to convert you to some religion. If you cross your arms, pull your head back a little, display a smug grin on your face, and say, "Show me" then you're just a scumbag. Physicalists sometimes call these scumbags "skeptics" but they aren't skeptics. A skeptic is someone who questions everything equally and not just the things he or she disapproves of. This kind of attitude where you'll have the entire humanity working itself over to prove things to you and where your job is to either accept or reject, that's foul. It's lazy. It's arrogant. It's terrible.

 

Based on your other posts, I doubt you really mean it. So please don't think I actually believe you are a scumbag. But these words "show me" they have a place somewhere... maybe on a busy street, maybe in a pub. They don't have a place on a spiritual forum. No one has to show you anything. We can be friends. We can try to help. I help because I enjoy it. Not because it's my duty to show you stuff. Intent matters. If you intend to maintain your current beliefs, the status quo, I can be showing you stuff until I am blue in the face and it won't matter one bit. People are governed by reason and desire, both. Not just solely by reason alone, and not by desire alone. If you don't desire to change your beliefs, well, I pity anyone who will try to show you something that you don't already agree to on some level.

[tulku]

I'm glad you didn't have to prove anything, because this is the same old rhetoric I hear every time I bring up this topic. "Oh, the reason you didn't experience x y and z is because it wasn't an enlightened experience, when you have one, you'll understand then." I call BS on that. It's a cop-out a way to argue against those who don't decide to define reality according to your paradigm.

 

I'm not really dissing you Sunya, I know you're a nice person, but I hear this so much it's like a broken record. In fact it's been said twice so far in this thread alone. It's like it's ingrained in the Buddhist mind "Oh... if I don't feel this, it's because I really didn't have this, when I do, I will experience it!" It gets really annoying and to me, isn't any different than telling someone to worship God, just because there might be one, or to tell a doubter, "well maybe there isn't a heaven, but do you really want to take that chance?" YES! Absolutely yes! I'm not going to follow dogma without any evidence that it's REAL! That's the problem, no Buddhist can prove any of this, they can only say, "well if you want to see, you'll have to practice." Yeah, I'm going to waste ten years of my life, if not more, practicing to find out that none of it's real. Keep in mind that during those ten years I'll be taught how to think and by then I may actually believe that what I'm feeling is real, when in fact it's just preprogrammed dogma.

 

Show me the facts and the proof and I'll be a happy little whateveryouwantmetobe kind of guy.

 

Aaron

 

If you can't understand why this is Samsara, then you will never understand why you need to get out of Samsara

 

A 94-year-old Austrian billionaire who has been married four times has announced he is engaged again and plans to wed within days

 

Karl Wlaschek, ranked as the fifth-oldest billionaire in the world by Forbes, revealed his engagement to Ricki Schenk on Sunday, the Vienna Times reports.

 

Already a father of four, the supermarket and property tycoon joked during the announcement in the Austrian city Velden that he plans to have "another five or six children, at the very least".

 

He made the announcement at the Schlosshotel, which he owns.

 

Ms Schnek, who declined to reveal her age, confirmed the wedding "will take place within days" but said she was not so sure about the prospect of babies.

 

Mr Wlaschek's estimated net worth at $4.6 billion was built after founding European supermarket chain Billa.

 

His personal real estate holdings make him the third richest person in Austria behind slot machine king Johann Graf and Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz, Forbes reports.

 

Wlaschek and Schnek, who met at an event in Vienna, reportedly both lost previously spouses on the same day.

[goldisheavy]

If you can't understand why this is Samsara, then you will never understand why you need to get out of Samsara

 

A 94-year-old Austrian billionaire who has been married four times has announced he is engaged again and plans to wed within days

 

Karl Wlaschek, ranked as the fifth-oldest billionaire in the world by Forbes, revealed his engagement to Ricki Schenk on Sunday, the Vienna Times reports.

 

Already a father of four, the supermarket and property tycoon joked during the announcement in the Austrian city Velden that he plans to have "another five or six children, at the very least".

 

He made the announcement at the Schlosshotel, which he owns.

 

Ms Schnek, who declined to reveal her age, confirmed the wedding "will take place within days" but said she was not so sure about the prospect of babies.

 

Mr Wlaschek's estimated net worth at $4.6 billion was built after founding European supermarket chain Billa.

 

His personal real estate holdings make him the third richest person in Austria behind slot machine king Johann Graf and Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz, Forbes reports.

 

Wlaschek and Schnek, who met at an event in Vienna, reportedly both lost previously spouses on the same day.

 

So who the guy fucks or how often is more of a problem than the insane wealth he amassed? That's a disgusting perversion of morals, tulku. Fucking people consensually hurts no one, but amassing extraordinary wealth does hurt millions of people. And yet you care about fucking, which is harmless, more than anything. That's truly pitiful, sad and pathetic.

 

So in this realm, this man's love of women, that's the absolute worst you could find. Not economic injustice. Not murder. Not dictatorships... Those are fine. But fucking too much or showing tits on TV... oh shit that's HELL!!! That's Samsara!! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting, tulku. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited April 17, 2012 by goldisheavy

[z00se]

I have a problem with many religion's notion of enlightenment, especially when they tend to believe that enlightened people transcend the natural impulses of man. I have yet to find any proof that this is so, rather I find proof that it isn't, in particular historical evidence and news articles regarding religious authorities that have purportedly achieved enlightenment that end up doing things grossly immoral and un-compassionate in any context.

 

I agree, but... When you tell a story everything seems better than it did at the actual time. If Jesus was seen as such a wonder back in the year 0 AD then nobody would have killed him. And the amount of people that actually met jesus would have been very few compaired to the people that heard about him. And so with hear say and chinese whispers things change alot and get better and better. So i don't think religions are true from the beginning. I think why spend time with scriptures when you can get direct revelation by quieting your own mind. ... And thats what we all are doing.

 

 

Okay, so I admit I'm assuming this, that there is the possibility that others can escape desires and wants, but if so, who are they and how did they prove this? My point of course is that because we are intrinsically tied to this world and body, there is no way of escaping the dual nature we live within, even if we are aware of the non-duality of existence.

 

It's probably possible. Lecter Livingstone rekons he didn't get a single feeling for a period of years and then started reading and watching the news so he could start to get feelings and thoughts again. I believe him.

 

 

So my point is that everyone has issues, regardless of their spiritual advancement and to fail to acknowledge this misleads people. The idea that we can escape all desire and suffering is not realistic, nor is there really any evidence to support that anyone has, so why do we continue to propagate it as a truth? Isn't it infinitely better to encourage people to work on their character defects, the ones that prevent them from experiencing quality in their life, without having to use misleading information to get them to do so?

 

Yes i agree, but you can choose how you want to deal with those issues. Like you say you didn't like giving people your food, but you felt yourself tense up. So if this is one of your issues you were aware of the tension before you acted then you can choose to act how you want. I feel similar things about different issues like i start tensing after coding software and when i first feel it i can choose to stop. Unfortunately i don't always and then have to deal with how i feel after. I still have the ability to choose though now that i can feel the beginings of tension like you do. I still need to choose though, it's not until i totally give up everything to god that i don't have to choose anymore. It's not me any more, i don't care what happens to my body, it just does as it will and i am with god.

 

So i think it is realistic although i can't do it all the time and i still have issues but i believe it is possible. The information is misleading but perhaps you are reading about it too much, looking for evidence for things. I do the same, but it doesn't help me any. I don't need to look, the answers to the questions are already there, i've read and experienced enough already, now it's best i just believe in what happens around me.

 

 

I should point out that 'giving up' would be a bloody relief:-)

 

And thats what i found is best. Not trying any more, not aiming for perfection or trying to be what you 'think' you want to be, just being as you are. Everything your trying to do is - not you. When i give up it is a bloody relief and whoopy doo its great Mind you i think trying is good too, but realising when you're good enough with what you've been trying to do then not trying any more and just letting it do it's self is great and i think it's the goal of cultivation.

[z00se]

It's not my problem at all. My problem is people telling others that emotions are flaws and somehow need to be removed and distanced from, as if emotions, in and of themselves are the cause of hardship. What is the perfect Buddhist world? A world where people don't think at all, where they don't feel anything but the right emotions?

 

Thoughts and feelings aren't useless, but people who follow a buddhist path usually feel overburdened by their thoughts and emotions even to the point where they feel ill so thats why they follow this kind of path. So.. emotions and thoughts can become a cause of hardship, but i don't think this is a perfect buddhist world (i would't really know i'm not buddhist), i think the world is already perfect, people are going just as they are and just as they should be.

 

I've experienced non-duality and on those occasions when I did experience it, I was struck by the lack of emotion present, how distant I felt, yet I didn't feel at peace, I felt absolutely nothing and I'm positive, for me, that it wasn't necessarily a better state of being. The non-duality that exists, the light, emptiness, whatever you want to call it, isn't intrinsically us either, because "we" do not exist there, there's nothing there at all, so in pursuing non-duality, what we give up is ourselves and for what?

 

I've put a great deal of thought into this and I've mentioned it several times with the same answers, "you don't understand the truth" or "you are too attached to the illusion that is you" or even better yet "you are a critical-thinking person who fails to grasp the reality of absolute light." It's all bullshit though, because what I am beginning to realize is that regardless of what I do, I always come back to the dual existence, in fact, non-duality is transient for "ME", not the other way around.

 

Haha i have to say i can't stay in the light but i have definitely seen it and agree with what the others tell you. I had the same experiences as you for a long time after intense practice and had lots of questions the same as yours but then finally i understood. You are super close to seeing the light, infact the light is all around you but you are trying so hard to see it you can't, just stand back. You are starting to get frustrated because you're trying so hard to be enlightened and the more you try the further away you're getting until you finally just give up trying and then it will be there.

 

in fact, non-duality is transient for "ME", not the other way around.

 

...requote - because it's good you know the fact. haha So why keep trying to match the understanding of your direct experiences with what you've read you think it's supposed to be like? You know you are right!

 

Yes I may die some day, but while I am alive I can not be in a non-dual state persistently and still be within the dual world that I exist in as "me".

 

You could be be, if you chose to.

 

This is the reason monks suffer from the same issues everyone else does. Monks will march off to war, they'll support atrocities, commit atrocious acts on others, and rationalize it in the name of compassion. We cannot escape the duality of our existence, even if we can minimize the attachments we have to the world. We will always be attached to this world, the only way not to be is to cease existing as who we are, and that can only be done by dissolving the essence of us, which to the best of my knowledge and experience can only be done by dying.

 

I can have no attachments and still be alive. Lots of monks are not enlightened they still follow their guru or teacher. Only when they wake up to their own light can they make their own decision. Apart from that even after they are elightened they can still commit atrocious acts on others, it's their own choice. Read a good parable on here one time about a samurai who didn't kill someone because it was his own thoughts and desires that wanted the death. He couldn't do it even though he wanted to because he said he was not a murderer. Even though he killed piles of people in his englightened state, that was gods doing.

 

So if we're trying to transcend this reality, then the only way any of us can achieve it is through killing ourselves, yet no one ever mentions this, because it's not really the answer everyone wants, rather they want to believe that the world can be a better place and they can end all the misery they feel and have happy thoughts or peaceful serene experiences, but none of that is real, because you can't have peace without chaos and you can't have happiness without sorrow. If you tell someone this, that they will have to give up happiness to escape misery, the only people that usually buy into this frame of thinking are the people suffering greatly, this is one of the reasons the poor tend to be the most religious.

 

I agree with half of it, i just think the 'you' you are referring to is the dualistic you, not the god you. You can have happiness without sorrow. Happiness is not excitedness, it is just happiness yet it can still thrill you to the bone.

 

I'm sure many people are going to say this is B.S. but I ask you this, PROVE to me that it isn't, without the age old line, "well you'll never know if you don't try it", because I've tried it and it doesn't work. Maybe I wasn't indoctrinated well enough, but I went to the other side and I came back realizing it's not the entire answer, there's something more and no one wants to accept that maybe that something more has to do with learning who we are in relation to our dual existence, understanding the connection we have to all things and respecting those things in turn. It's not as easy, because it means giving up the notion of self, not in the sense of erasing who we are, or escaping our responsibility to each other through detaching, but accepting our own responsibility for the way others are as well.

 

Aaron

 

 

YEP! Don't try to indoctrinate yourself more or seek agreeance from others, just know what you've said is right!

[三江源]

There is something like this, but I think you exaggerate this effect. Enlightened people still eat if they have a chance. They don't decline food because starving is perfectly identical to eating. And if the woman is pretty and intelligent, her company is enjoyable to most men, even to enlightened ones. If the woman is dumb, then an enlightened person is more likely to avoid her even if she's pretty. Basically enlightened people are relatively less superficial, but not necessarily infinitely so.

 

What if she is not pretty, but intelligent. Let's cover all the permutations. What with enlightened people being

"relatively less superficial" and all.

 

[z00se]

 

Show me the facts and the proof and I'll be a happy little whateveryouwantmetobe kind of guy.

 

Aaron

 

I've read lots of your posts on here and you have excellent ideas. I have learnt many things from what you've said and regard what you say quiet highly as with gold is heavy (many others too). But when you say things like this it shows clearly you are not in an enlightened state... when you wrote this anyhow. Why do you need anyone to show you any facts or proof, you have your own brain think for yourself. When you can do that...only then will you see the light.

 

As to what goldisheavy said with different types of monks... what type of monk i would be eg traveller, teacher, healer, etc... i would be a partyer. I would be the monk brewing the mead! =]

[Jetsun]

Perhaps we have to realise that there is no way out of our issues to finally let go and be open to help from the outside, then maybe something else can happen.

 

On the other hand in meditation I can sometimes view my issues and in that state because I am aware they are not who I am and they are impermanent and if they are impermanent they are no longer "problems" because by nature they will pass if I stop interfering with them, so really there are no problems and there is nothing to worry about. I haven't been able to keep this awareness in my daily life though.

 

But when it comes to dealing with your most entrenched issues and grooves which are usually formed during the first few years of your life I have found through my own experience that very very few people really know what they are talking about. Every year "spiritual" people get outed for the neurotic behaviour ranging from womanising to peodophila so I wouldn't assume people who can master spiritually advanced states know how to deal with this stuff.

[三江源]

 

 

Every year "spiritual" people get outed for the neurotic behaviour ranging from womanising to peodophila so I wouldn't assume people who can master spiritually advanced states know how to deal with this stuff.

 

I am not sure if all that kind of behaviour is primary 'neurotic' acting out or if it is no longer caring, losing touch with caring, about what 'most people' think is ok. Or deciding to confound such beliefs. Or huge inflation issues that make conforming to norms seem unnecessary, or huge sense of reality that makes conforming to norms unnecessary, or a break down of the usual human configuration of feeling.

[C T]

Perhaps we have to realise that there is no way out of our issues to finally let go and be open to help from the outside, then maybe something else can happen.

 

On the other hand in meditation I can sometimes view my issues and in that state because I am aware they are not who I am and they are impermanent and if they are impermanent they are no longer "problems" because by nature they will pass if I stop interfering with them, so really there are no problems and there is nothing to worry about. I haven't been able to keep this awareness in my daily life though.

 

But when it comes to dealing with your most entrenched issues and grooves which are usually formed during the first few years of your life I have found through my own experience that very very few people really know what they are talking about. Every year "spiritual" people get outed for the neurotic behaviour ranging from womanising to peodophila so I wouldn't assume people who can master spiritually advanced states know how to deal with this stuff.

Maybe thats because mastering spiritually advanced states is subtly different from being actually spiritual?

 

Where i come from there are plenty of folks who claim mastership over all kinds of psychic and clairvoyant abilities, have hoards of people seeking their services to get in touch with dead relatives, get lottery numbers, love charms, amulets, ward off 'evil influences', etc, yet they are no more spiritual than their customers. To them, its a business, just not as tied to the physical world, thats all.

 

There are plenty of folks who became gifted as a result of their neurotic tendencies. Great poets, composers and scores of famous writers in history all have their own demons. Maybe instead of grappling and analyzing their shit, they simply learnt to befriend their dark side? Once befriended, it aint so dark anymore... then they can channel that energy and make some use of it, to write haunting poems, literature, sonatas, plays and what not. Just because they have a dark side, does that diminish our enjoyment of their works?? But when it comes to spiritual matters, somehow, a different set of values apply? I think its good to appraise fairly if one feels so inclined.

 

 

 

Twinner,

Buddhism does not teach one to numb one's emotions. Nothing wrong with emotions... if one becomes a victim of the same habits generating the same negative emotions, then there are ways with which one can use to investigate why these patterns are recurring, and whether one wants them transformed. It does not say that if they are not worked upon that one is condemned to a life of misery. It says if they are not addressed then they will fester and lead to more unwholesome states... Unwholesome states in themselves are not issues, they only become issues when they are rejected or allowed to torment a person. Most of those who can accept fully their unwholesomeness actually enjoy very sane mental health, and thru this complete acceptance transformation can be effected gracefully, without force.

Edited April 17, 2012 by C T

[Jetsun]

There are plenty of folks who became gifted as a result of their neurotic tendencies. Great poets, composers and scores of famous writers in history all have their own demons. Maybe instead of grappling and analyzing their shit, they simply learnt to befriend their dark side? Once befriended, it aint so dark anymore... then they can channel that energy and make some use of it, to write haunting poems, literature, sonatas, plays and what not. Just because they have a dark side, does that diminish our enjoyment of their works?? But when it comes to spiritual matters, somehow, a different set of values apply? I think its good to appraise fairly if one feels so inclined.

 

That may be what is required, Ghandi for example harnessed all his anger and rage and channelled it into his political activities. Yet I would have thought the more Buddhist approach would be to sit and root out these issues, because by expressing them and channelling their energy you give them life and existence and you make them real, thus continuing the samsaric cycle; but by observing them and withdrawing your identity from them you take out their source of energy and lifeforce, so they lose power. It seems like there is a contradiction between the two approaches.

[Aaron]

I've read lots of your posts on here and you have excellent ideas. I have learnt many things from what you've said and regard what you say quiet highly as with gold is heavy (many others too). But when you say things like this it shows clearly you are not in an enlightened state... when you wrote this anyhow. Why do you need anyone to show you any facts or proof, you have your own brain think for yourself. When you can do that...only then will you see the light.

 

As to what goldisheavy said with different types of monks... what type of monk i would be eg traveller, teacher, healer, etc... i would be a partyer. I would be the monk brewing the mead! =]

 

Hello Zoose,

 

Thanks for your comments. I see you're playing devil's advocate to a certain degree, that's good. I'm not trying to upset or diminish anyone in this thread, rather I am pointing out what I see as fallacies.

 

I honestly don't expect to be showed anything, so it's really sarcasm, but also I am open to new ideas. If I use the "show me" line, it's because people keep saying they can show me, and never actually do. I'm not so close minded that if I am shown something to be true, that I wont accept it as a truth. That's really my point. Sarcasm doesn't seem to do well over the internet.

 

Also I am not enlightened... I really don't care for that word, nor do I exist in an enlightened state, rather I am aware, perhaps to a greater degree than some people, but nothing more than that.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

That may be what is required, Ghandi for example harnessed all his anger and rage and channelled it into his political activities. Yet I would have thought the more Buddhist approach would be to sit and root out these issues, because by expressing them and channelling their energy you give them life and existence and you make them real, thus continuing the samsaric cycle; but by observing them and withdrawing your identity from them you take out their source of energy and lifeforce, so they lose power. It seems like there is a contradiction between the two approaches.

 

Thats because Gandhi wasn't a buddhist. He was a Hindu and he was a karma yogin. So he channeled his energies into doing something (albeit a lot of his doing was actually not doing)...

Hindu dharma requires for individuals to do what is his/her dharma (or duty). See the word dharma itself is an untranslatable...it isn't religion. Everything has its own dharma. A tree's dharma is to convert CO2 to O2. it is to provide fruits and shade to other creatures...home for other creatures and so on.

 

Similarly a human being's dharma is to do the right thing while he/she is in the dualistic world. So, by opposing the British rule, Gandhi was merely doing his dharma. He used to say "it is a great sin to commit crime, but a bigger sin to silently stand by while crime is being committed". Since the British colonial rule was a crime against humanity, Gandhi did what he could to live by his yamas and niyamas while at the same time doing by not doing (and encouraging millions to do the same) and broke the back of the British empire.

[三江源]

I like this definition of enlightenment. and how it differs from Nirvana.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JXtoyW-_Ud4

 

It is relevant to this discussion and very very succinct.

[Owledge]

If Jesus was seen as such a wonder back in the year 0 AD then nobody would have killed him.

This is a common fallacy originating from a lack of understanding of society and people. If someone can perform miracles, then that is seen as great power, and those who fear to lose theirs will perceive that person as a threat.

Or more generalized: Darkness doesn't welcome the light; It is afraid of it.

 

Apart from that even after they are elightened they can still commit atrocious acts on others, it's their own choice. Read a good parable on here one time about a samurai who didn't kill someone because it was his own thoughts and desires that wanted the death. He couldn't do it even though he wanted to because he said he was not a murderer. Even though he killed piles of people in his englightened state, that was gods doing.

This at least smells fishy to me. There could be a lot of delusion involved in that. Could in fact be a good example of someone who thinks he is fully enlightened and is not. And not to overlook the fact that this is a widely used justification for cruelties performed by religious people: It was God's will.

If that story is authentic, then maybe that Samurai simply chose a documentable moment for showing off his supposed spiritual superiority.

How about telling them: If you think your actions are no longer influenced by worldly impulses, then why don't you get out of this world? What are you still doing here? Don't want to follow the rules, but still drawn to this place?

[Aaron]

Good for you! People will always try to sell you things. As a consumer, you should be careful with what you buy.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "preprogrammed" dogma. Dogma is any belief that you're not supposed to question. To my mind, dogma is always bad. But what is "preprogrammed" dogma? What other kinds of dogma are there? That "preprogrammed" word doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

 

 

Now this is a foul attitude. No one owes you anything that they must show you things. It's up to you to do your own searching. If you don't want to search, if you are happy to be complacent, then it's not anyone's job to show you stuff. It's not anyone's job to try to unconvince you out of your current beliefs, or to convert you to some religion. If you cross your arms, pull your head back a little, display a smug grin on your face, and say, "Show me" then you're just a scumbag. Physicalists sometimes call these scumbags "skeptics" but they aren't skeptics. A skeptic is someone who questions everything equally and not just the things he or she disapproves of. This kind of attitude where you'll have the entire humanity working itself over to prove things to you and where your job is to either accept or reject, that's foul. It's lazy. It's arrogant. It's terrible.

 

Based on your other posts, I doubt you really mean it. So please don't think I actually believe you are a scumbag. But these words "show me" they have a place somewhere... maybe on a busy street, maybe in a pub. They don't have a place on a spiritual forum. No one has to show you anything. We can be friends. We can try to help. I help because I enjoy it. Not because it's my duty to show you stuff. Intent matters. If you intend to maintain your current beliefs, the status quo, I can be showing you stuff until I am blue in the face and it won't matter one bit. People are governed by reason and desire, both. Not just solely by reason alone, and not by desire alone. If you don't desire to change your beliefs, well, I pity anyone who will try to show you something that you don't already agree to on some level.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere it's supposed to be sarcasm. I don't expect people to prove anything, I'm just saying if they expect me to believe something is true, then they need to provide me with evidence that it is, rather than expect me to accept it on faith alone.

 

Good insights by the way, thanks for your responses.

 

Aaron

[C T]

One school I belong to claims (in my own words and understanding) that by attempting to stop cultivating bad things, and trying to cultivate good things only, the dual being eventually becomes dominated by the good...so instead of the animal instincts and drives sometimes controlling the person, the soul and its intuition and intelligence lead the way. These tame "the beast" naturally. Without effort, once you reach that stage of cultivation. Then you have a spiritual human being, no longer conflicted internally...no longer of a dual nature.

 

Thinking about what you said, Scotty, i recall a commentary of the Satipatthana Sutta which dealt with the subject of anger (and the rest of the defilements in a like manner). It says:

 

"Indeed, wrong reflection on an object of resentment produces anger. In this connection, anger itself, as well as the object which causes anger is called the resentment-object, or the sign of resentment. Wrong reflection has just the same character everywhere, and when it occurs much in the resentment-object or the resentment-sign, anger arises. Therefore, the Blessed One said that intense wrong reflection on an object of resentment is the cause of fresh anger and of the increase and expansion of anger already existing.

 

By right reflection of the liberating thought of love, the thought of love that frees the heart indeed, anger gets cast out. Right reflection has the same character throughout. When it occurs strong in the thought on love, anger is removed from the heart.

 

Towards the end, the commentator quotes the Blessed One as saying, "There is, o bhikkhus, the liberation of the mind through love. Intense right reflection on love is the condition for keeping out new anger and for throwing out anger that is already in the heart."

 

 

ps - i know this is thread is not about Buddhism - no offense intended.

Edited April 17, 2012 by C T

[Aaron]

Twinner, that was so much what I think, too.

 

While reading it, I thought about what is described in the book "Opening the Dragon Gate", about the experience of being detached from the world and seeing everything as pointless and then learning to 'return' to a meaningful life. The latter process is an interesting aspect of the whole spiritual journey. First you are shown the whole truth so to speak, and then you have to acknowledge that the illusion is part of that truth.

Maybe people who consider themselves fully enlightened and 'sit around all day smiling', to use a clichée, are actually stuck at a point, or chose to remain there, while others can have the same understanding/realization of the whole truth, but choose to be very active in their life - to be skillful in the application of their insights. Those accepted the illusion as meaningful, and by doing that, acknowledge the laws of the universe and use them to be a more effective teacher than a guru who gives totally cryptic and abstract answers to questions.

 

I guess there is a good but risky way to test any guru who claims to have abandoned all desires and attachments to the 'illusion': Run towards them screaming, with a knife in your raised hand, and see whether they react. If they do, they project meaning into their physical existence and thus have a desire to survive.

Hell, even the fact that they answer questions reveals a desire to share their insights. And they still claim that has no karmic effects? Well, I guess if you don't see karma as the law of cause and effect, then maybe.

 

 

I wouldn't suggest running at anyone with a knife... that's considered a felony in most countries. Anyways, I think that the idea of enlightenment has greater appeal to most people than the actuality. If people actually understood the exact nature of non-duality, I don't think they'd aspire to it, especially not while they are still enjoying their normal lives. Non-duality does change you, in that you are very much an observer after that, even though you are still you. It's sometimes like you're watching a movie and deciding how things go. I deal with people all the time that claim to be enlightened, but no one seems to be able to live up to those claims. I refuse to accept answers that require faith in order to believe them. Show me and I'll believe.

 

The most important thing we can do as individuals is not reach a state of awareness of non-duality, but rather understand the state of duality, how each of us interacts and effects the lives of each other, how we are, at the most basic level simply one thing, the universe. That's really the non-dual state of duality, the non-duality of duality, that is attainable without ever experiencing emptiness, the void, or the light. When one experiences this it's hard not to cultivate compassion and sympathy for others. It may not be high compassion, but it is certainly compassion of a more developed nature than mere virtuous compassion. This is the compassion that the Sage develops in my opinion.

 

Anyways, thanks for your input.

 

Aaron

Edited April 18, 2012 by Twinner

[Owledge]

Also I am not enlightened... I really don't care for that word, nor do I exist in an enlightened state, rather I am aware, perhaps to a greater degree than some people, but nothing more than that.

There's this interesting language difference between German and English. "The Age of Enlightenment", in German, is more like "The Age of Intelligence/Education/Elucidation". Maybe they should be equalled. The enlightenment in that title is that which leads to or helps to achieve that kind of enlightenment that spiritual people talk about.

 

Hindu dharma requires for individuals to do what is his/her dharma (or duty). See the word dharma itself is an untranslatable...it isn't religion. Everything has its own dharma. A tree's dharma is to convert CO2 to O2. it is to provide fruits and shade to other creatures...home for other creatures and so on.

Is it like the "De" in "Dao De Jing"?

 

The most important thing we can do as individuals is not reach a state of awareness of non-duality, but rather understand the state of duality, how each of interacts and effects the lives of each other, how we are, at the most basic level simply one thing, the universe. That's really the non-dual state of duality, the non-duality of duality, that is attainable without ever experiencing emptiness, the void, or the light. When one experiences this it's hard not to cultivate compassion and sympathy for others. It may not be high compassion, but it is certainly compassion of a more developed nature than mere virtuous compassion. This is the compassion that the Sage develops in my opinion.

That's the kind of compassion I developed from intellectual research about world affairs and many other areas. Just by being naturally curious, you'll figure out a lot of stuff.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Owledge

[dwai]

There's this interesting language difference between German and English. "The Age of Enlightenment", in German, is more like "The Age of Intelligence/Education/Elucidation". Maybe they should be equalled. The enlightenment in that title is that which leads to or helps to achieve that kind of enlightenment that spiritual people talk about.

 

 

Is it like the "De" in "Dao De Jing"?

 

The "de" as I understand it is the "Dao" within us. It is not "virtue" as it is generally translated to be. Dharma is the natural course of things...it was called "Rta or Rita" (the natural order). Etymology of the word is "Dhr" and "ma" (Dhr -- to Uphold, Ma -- Mother or source). So if Dao is the Mother, Dharma is to act in accordance with that which harmonizes with the Mother (Dao).

 

Just as the infinite things in this universe have different properties, they also have different Dharma (Based on their context and properties)...I'm making it more complex than it actually is...

[Owledge]

I like this definition of enlightenment. and how it differs from Nirvana.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JXtoyW-_Ud4

 

It is relevant to this discussion and very very succinct.

First: His definition of nirvana is an absolute state. So if there is anything ever that brings you out of that state (like getting upset during very difficult times), then you have never reached nirvana in the first place, but were delusional.

Then he says that once your reach the state of enlightenment, you see everything that ever happened and will happen on all worlds in the universe, on all planets. But if he cannot take any knowledge away from that, how can he be sure that he wasn't fooling himself? That he merely thought he saw everything, but because nothing was specific, it was merely the experience of a belief, without the reality behind it. Also, wouldn't that mean that that state of enlightenment is limited to the state where you perceive everything?

 

Maybe there are rare cases where people brought back knowledge from 'up there', but I don't know of a case that has been verified by investigating the claim. It's all very strange. You literally have access to everything in existence, and the only thing with any effect on the physical realm you bring back from that state is emotional change and changed views on things.

[Birch]

I agree. It's not the distance that people talk about when they say this. It's that usually experiences are suggestive. If we then follow these suggestions and take them at face value, we tend to lock ourselves in and limit our horizons. So for example, if I am a man, a human, goldisheavy, a specific individual, if I have a body, and if bodies have physical properties, and if my intent expresses through the agency of the body, then what is it I am capable of? By having all these beliefs I just limited myself. So how can we go beyond the limitations? One technique is to suggest that you are not anything you experience. This isn't to put a distance between you and your experience. It's to break the suggestive power of appearances over your mind. Your body suggests itself as something small and physical, but if you aren't it, then you are neither small nor physical. This can broaden your horizons. But all experiences are intimate. There is no distance.

 

 

Hi Goldie! Nice to read you again:-)

 

Yes, techniques, many of them. Lending attention to things, differently.

No distance, you are correct:-) But I'm a 'training wheels' kind of animal (a hobby horse:-)) and I suppose it's unlikely I'd come up with the idea of bringing more consciousness to myself all by myself unless I either need to, or just because it's pretty much inevitable as part of life. (that's why it's IMO both helpful and unhelpful to leave maps around once you've done it and you're dead:-))

 

II guess it takes a few ingredients for that to occur just like that - so one could have 'spontaneous alchemy' I suppose. I read a nice article about meditation making people more 'accident-prone' in terms of "awakening". I'm sure other things can do it too.

[Simple_Jack]

It's not my problem at all. My problem is people telling others that emotions are flaws and somehow need to be removed and distanced from, as if emotions, in and of themselves are the cause of hardship. What is the perfect Buddhist world? A world where people don't think at all, where they don't feel anything but the right emotions?

 

I've experienced non-duality and on those occasions when I did experience it, I was struck by the lack of emotion present, how distant I felt, yet I didn't feel at peace, I felt absolutely nothing and I'm positive, for me, that it wasn't necessarily a better state of being. The non-duality that exists, the light, emptiness, whatever you want to call it, isn't intrinsically us either, because "we" do not exist there, there's nothing there at all, so in pursuing non-duality, what we give up is ourselves and for what?

 

I've put a great deal of thought into this and I've mentioned it several times with the same answers, "you don't understand the truth" or "you are too attached to the illusion that is you" or even better yet "you are a critical-thinking person who fails to grasp the reality of absolute light." It's all bullshit though, because what I am beginning to realize is that regardless of what I do, I always come back to the dual existence, in fact, non-duality is transient for "ME", not the other way around.

 

Yes I may die some day, but while I am alive I can not be in a non-dual state persistently and still be within the dual world that I exist in as "me". Even more so, we fail to realize that even within the greatness of the universe I am not really "me", but the totality of dual existence, but people gloss over that, when in fact it's probably the most important realization, because without it, I don't think you can ever experience the non-duality that exists underneath, unseen, or within everything, whichever way you want to think of it.

 

This is the reason monks suffer from the same issues everyone else does. Monks will march off to war, they'll support atrocities, commit atrocious acts on others, and rationalize it in the name of compassion. We cannot escape the duality of our existence, even if we can minimize the attachments we have to the world. We will always be attached to this world, the only way not to be is to cease existing as who we are, and that can only be done by dissolving the essence of us, which to the best of my knowledge and experience can only be done by dying.

 

So if we're trying to transcend this reality, then the only way any of us can achieve it is through killing ourselves, yet no one ever mentions this, because it's not really the answer everyone wants, rather they want to believe that the world can be a better place and they can end all the misery they feel and have happy thoughts or peaceful serene experiences, but none of that is real, because you can't have peace without chaos and you can't have happiness without sorrow. If you tell someone this, that they will have to give up happiness to escape misery, the only people that usually buy into this frame of thinking are the people suffering greatly, this is one of the reasons the poor tend to be the most religious.

 

I'm sure many people are going to say this is B.S. but I ask you this, PROVE to me that it isn't, without the age old line, "well you'll never know if you don't try it", because I've tried it and it doesn't work. Maybe I wasn't indoctrinated well enough, but I went to the other side and I came back realizing it's not the entire answer, there's something more and no one wants to accept that maybe that something more has to do with learning who we are in relation to our dual existence, understanding the connection we have to all things and respecting those things in turn. It's not as easy, because it means giving up the notion of self, not in the sense of erasing who we are, or escaping our responsibility to each other through detaching, but accepting our own responsibility for the way others are as well.

 

Aaron

 

It's not my problem at all. My problem is people telling others that emotions are flaws and somehow need to be removed and distanced from, as if emotions, in and of themselves are the cause of hardship. What is the perfect Buddhist world? A world where people don't think at all, where they don't feel anything but the right emotions?

 

This is just your assumption. From knowing a bit about what Buddhism teaches: Buddhism does not teach that emotions are flawed and need to be suppressed. From my own experience: Emotions (and thoughts) aren't the root problem. From what Buddhism teaches: Ignorance is the root problem which starts at the top of the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination.

 

I've experienced non-duality and on those occasions when I did experience it,

 

I'm going to give you my honest opinion based off of my own experience: You did not have insight into the experience of Brahman/One-Mind. From reading your posts describing your experiences: My conclusion is that you have experienced the "I AM" stage. This is a very common experience in the spiritual community; IMO it is by far the easiest phase of insight to experience.

 

I was struck by the lack of emotion present, how distant I felt, yet I didn't feel at peace, I felt absolutely nothing and I'm positive, for me, that it wasn't necessarily a better state of being.

 

This sounds like you went through an experience of the so-called "Dark Night of the Soul." Most people go through this at some point or another (An article describing this experience My link.)

 

In any case since you brought up Buddhism, this is what I read recently from a thread on Dharmawheel My link:

 

Namdrol: Non-duality does not end suffering. People suffer in the state of non-duality.

 

What is the state of non-duality [from the Buddhist and Dzogchen POV]? Just the fact that all things arise in dependence and are therefore empty, free from all extremes. There is no non-duality apart from that.

 

However, by recognizing that we are suffering because we do not perceive the non-dual nature of things, we can reverse that suffering.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

From my past experiences (before I delved into Buddhism) and my current experiences: He is right. Even when I was at the phase of the One-Mind/Brahman, there were still lingering habits, tendencies, afflictive states of mind/disturbing emotions. Still now there are lingering [karmic] habit-energies that pop up from time to time (Of course how effortlessly they are able to come and go depends on how far our insight into the "View of D.O" has penetrated into the conscious/subconscious levels of Mind. I'm not going to get into this here though.)

 

This is why the gradual and instantaneous paths are not separated in Buddhism. That is why there are differentiating levels of advancement on the path in Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. Developing and mastering each of the jhanas is the crux of Buddhism. I'm taking this from Xabir's blog titled Tranquil Calm:

 

The Buddha teaches:

 

These four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four?

 

There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. There is... the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquility of awareness. There is... the individual who has attained neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. And there is... the individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

The individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him: 'How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'Fabrications should be regarded in this way... investigated in this way... seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquility of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way... made to settle down in this way... unified in this way... concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way... made to settle down in this way... unified in this way... concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way... investigated in this way... seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the effluents*.

 

 

— AN 4.94

 

 

*Effluents: Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality (sensual attachments/cravings and aversion), views (false views pertaining to self and other related extreme views), craving for becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

I'm sure many people are going to say this is B.S. but I ask you this, PROVE to me that it isn't, without the age old line, "well you'll never know if you don't try it", because I've tried it and it doesn't work.

 

I don't have to prove anything to you. That's your job to do that for yourself.

 

P.S. I just want to let you know that it was not my intention of being a dick in this post or the previous post.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[Owledge]

The Buddha teaches:

 

These four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four?

There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. There is... the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquility of awareness. There is... the individual who has attained neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. And there is... the individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

The individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him: 'How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'Fabrications should be regarded in this way... investigated in this way... seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquility of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquility of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way... made to settle down in this way... unified in this way... concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way... made to settle down in this way... unified in this way... concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way... investigated in this way... seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

 

As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquility of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the effluents*.

A true master of inflating a message into a huge mass of words. And still not including any "why" or detail. This is pure doctrine, and strikingly trivial thinking.

[tulku]

So who the guy fucks or how often is more of a problem than the insane wealth he amassed? That's a disgusting perversion of morals, tulku. Fucking people consensually hurts no one, but amassing extraordinary wealth does hurt millions of people. And yet you care about fucking, which is harmless, more than anything. That's truly pitiful, sad and pathetic.

 

So in this realm, this man's love of women, that's the absolute worst you could find. Not economic injustice. Not murder. Not dictatorships... Those are fine. But fucking too much or showing tits on TV... oh shit that's HELL!!! That's Samsara!! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting, tulku. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

both the attachments to wealth and sex are the problem..

 

why else would Man strive for wealth if not to get more sex?..

 

Both are aspects of Hell but the fundamental cause is always Lust..