Religion is the poison of Spirituality

[Birch]

Well Mr GranP, it's just one of the reasons I like TTB's. It's IMO a clearinghouse of sorts for this stuff.

[GrandmasterP]

Indeed it is .

[Vmarco]

VMarco,

 

An enlightened man has no need to justify their actions. An enlightened man is compassionate to those around them.

edited for compassion's sake

 

First,..you are not enlightened, and thus have no idea what an enlightened man does.

 

Second, as discussed before, you have no clue what compassion is,...so why do you continue to insst you do?

 

Nearly everyone appears to have a notion of what the term compassion implies from a relative view. However, for a Short Path practioner it points to something that very few different.

Kenchen Thrangu Rinpoche: said, "...everbody thinks that compassion is important, and everyone has compassion. True enough, but the Buddha gave uncommon quintessential instructions when he taught the methods for cultivating compassion, and the differences are extraordinarily important."

 

HH Dalai Lama said, "If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara"

 

 

The Bodhicharyavatara says, "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible."

 

Was the Dalai Lama really expressing such a thing,...that without the realization of emptiness, the true practice of compassion is impossible?

 

In his commentary on the Dalai Lama's The Four Noble Truth's, Robert Thurman said, "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible."

 

Well, such a definition of compassion surely does not match the Western view, nor that of the Abrahamic religions.

 

 

Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."

 

Whoa! That seems to suggest compassion can be seen as intolerant for those who cling to sentient beingness for their identity. Shouldn't compassion be a warrior for all faith-based agendas, both hesitating and inhibiting light from shining on everything?

 

The Heart Sutra implies only through the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form; can one act as a Bodhisattva. For her, compassion is a natural consequence of direct realization, not something formulated through human conditions.

 

Bodhisattva's, and those who aspire to be a Bodhisattva, take a vow to dedicate themselves to the liberation of all sentient beings. Thus, would a Bodhisattva be tolerant of what steps between sentient beings and their direct experience?

 

Sharon Salzberg said,

"Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception."

 

Sympathy arising from what? Is the Buddha's compassion desirous for sentient beings to make their suffering more palatable by not allowing light to shine upon the causes of suffering?

　

 

Sogyal Rinpoche tells us that the practice of Tonglen depends upon our ability to awaken within ourselves the reality of compassion. Just as we cannot perform the Unity Breath until we can feel Love, we cannot practice Tonglen until we truly can feel compassion. (Tonglen can be described as breathing-in someones suffering, and breathing-out a non-suffering vibration. However, only real compassion can gnow what out-breath is a non-suffering vibration).

 

Only from a relative point of view would compassion be synonymous with pity. Compassion, Sogyal Rinpoche warns, is much more difficult to achieve than we might think. However, to realize Full Spectrum Consciousness in a single lifetime, we must do all we can to uncover absolute compassion.

 

Fortunately, various instructions have been left to uncover the nature of compassion beyond the 6 senses. The Heart Sutra for example, concludes with the

unsurpassed mantra, which all Buddhas of the three times have realized:

 

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha! This definition of Tathagata is best translated as "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed"

Or as Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go."

 

A suggestion,...carefully read the 2012 commentary "the Heart Attack Sutra" by Karl Brunnholzl,....before responding to my posts again.

[GrandmasterP]

"First,..you are not enlightened, and thus have no idea what an enlightened man does.

Second, as discussed before, you have no clue what compassion is,...so why do you continue to insist you do?"

 

Don't hold back Vmarco old chum.

Get it off your chest buddy, you'll feel all the better for doing so.

Edited December 18, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Vmarco]

Hehehe. Well, you know Vmarco. Gonna' say what he needs to say without any consideration of its rudeness.

 

But I'm with you and prefer talking with "real" people rather than trying to speak with someone who is always right and unwilling to see the validity in others' thoughts.

 

I'd very much enjoy dialoguing with those who are impeccable with thier words,...that would be real to me. Those who express their personal feelings,..their 6 sense nonsense,...are not real.

 

#687 summerizes my view on consideration quite well,....but for you, it may require a little more specificity.

 

Gurdjieff said, "...consider externally always, internally never." This is obviously concerning Relative Considering; although when fully understood, is likely to uncover Absolute Considering. “Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” Goethe

 

To consider externally means to consider from the point of view of that which is perceived to be external. Whereas internal considering is mostly about ego. Gurdjieff had a term he called the Chief Feature; a persons largest barrier obscuring their spiritualized/actualized self. He said the Chief Feature is usually what one likes best about oneself. He also purportedly said that the Chief Feature for most people is Internal Considering.

 

External Considering would seek to understand things before judging it. Gurdjieff said, "External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of their tastes, habits, and prejudices. At the same time external considering requires a great power over oneself, a great control over oneself. "

 

Few people fully Consider Externally or empathize with others in a unconditional, non-humanist way,...that is, not filtered through the 6 senses. Absolute Considering necessitates an understanding of what Buddhism calls Dependent Origination,...that everything is dependent on everything else.

 

Consider what Peace on Earth would look like. Would it be a society of bearing, believing, hoping and enduring,...as in the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7? Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is quite acceptable to the faith-based groupthink, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

Would a World at Peace have signs that read "Beware of Dogs," the ownership of vicious breeds for protection, or people obsessed with assault guns? In the US alone, nearly 5 million people report being attacked by dogs every year, and 1,000 people go to emergency rooms every day as a result of a dog attack. In North America, thousands are shot every year with assault weapons, precipitaing more police, fear, subconscious aggression towards others, and a non-peaceful culture.

 

Would an Externally Considerate person own a vicious breed? The State of Maryland recently declared pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds as "inherently dangerous." Interestingly, some data suggests that the State of Hawaii has the largest pit bull and vicious breed population per capita. Paradise takes "Kill Haole Day" quite seriously, as those familiar with Hawaiian News know that there is actually very little true aloha in the islands.

 

In the 8th Century, Shantideva said, "All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."

 

Obviously, Shantideva was aware of External Considering. What would Lao-tzu say about "External Considering always, Internal Considering never?"

 

Lao-tzu said, "A superior person cares for the well-being of all things...looking at herself or another, she sees the samething....Caring for them, she knows that she cares for herself. Giving to them, she knows she gives to herself. At peace with them, she is always at peace with herself."

 

Did Lao-tzu teach external Considering?

 

Lao-tzu purportedly said, "To embrace all things means also to that one rids oneself of any concept of separation....division is contrary to the nature of the Tao....keep your mind free of divisions and distinctions."

 

Is that the same as "rid oneself of Internal Considering"?

 

Lao-tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

Would an authentic Taoist own a vicious breed canine,...a room of assault weapons,...adding to the suffering, fear, aggression, terrorism in the World?

[Vmarco]

 

 

Don't hold back Vmarco old chum.

Get it off your chest buddy, you'll feel all the better for doing so.

 

As mentioned above,....Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."

[Marblehead]

I reckon ...

So many questions -K-. Hehehe.

 

I am very selective when it comes to judging myself based on the reactions of others.

 

However, how "I" feel about myself is of great importance. My guiding question is, "Am I being true to myself?"

[Marblehead]

I'd very much enjoy dialoguing with those who are impeccable with thier words,...that would be real to me. Those who express their personal feelings,..their 6 sense nonsense,...are not real.

 

... but for you, it may require a little more specificity.

Hehehe.

Thanks for your consideration of my lack of understanding the way you want me to understand.

 

Internal - external? I live both places. And I can tell you this, my ego is stroked by external elements quite well, thank you. I need none of the internal stroking.

 

Man!, am I good or what?!?!?

 

And, of course, I don't always agree with the translation of the TTC that you use for reference. Yours just feels too Buddhist for me. I feel the same way about the ones that feel too Christian as well.

 

Anyhow, I realize that you will continue being yourself. Just be careful as I really want you to hang around here so I can disagree with you now and again. (Yeah, we do sometimes agree. Hehehe.)

 

When are you going to start reading some Nietzsche? Fred did speak pretty kindly of Buddha and Buddhism.

[Marblehead]

" ... As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."

Okay, credit where credit is due. That is a good quote.

[Vmarco]

So many questions -K-. Hehehe.

 

I am very selective when it comes to judging myself based on the reactions of others.

 

However, how "I" feel about myself is of great importance. My guiding question is, "Am I being true to myself?"

 

Interesting question if you reduce it. Who is this "I'....that wants to "be true" to the I that you think you are? Is that a way to uncover the Tao?

 

Did not Lao-zu say, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

Lao-zu said, "to eliminate the vexation of the mind, it doesn't help to do something; this only reinforces the minds mechanics (monkey mind). Dissolving the mind is instead a matter of not-doing: simply avoid becoming attached to what you see and think (the 6 senses). Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything."

[Vmarco]

 

 

When are you going to start reading some Nietzsche? Fred did speak pretty kindly of Buddha and Buddhism.

 

The Bible says that about six thousand years ago, the Hebrew Elohim destroyed the Middle East (Joshua 24:2–3) by way of a great flood because that area of creation "repented" them. After this onslaught of destruction, the gods said to Noah, "We have set our rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between us and every living creature with you on earth. When we bring a cloud over the earth, a rainbow shall appear" (Genesis 9:13–14). Everyone reading this must have seen a rainbow at least once. For a moment, visualize that rainbow from Genesis, as it was seen then. Can you imagine the colors as Noah saw them? Frankly, what I ask is quite improbable, but history does leave us some hints of the characteristics of the rainbows in those days.

 

 

 

In Daybreak, Friedrich Nietzsche comments, "How different nature must have appeared to the Greeks if, as we have to admit, their eyes were blind to blue and green." Yes, quite different indeed, or were you thinking that the rainbow of Genesis and others mentioned during the Abrahamic Times had seven colors? You should not assume things or believe what you think. Assumptions and beliefs are the delusions of the sciential mind.

 

Homer, in the Iliad, describes the rainbow as having just one color. However, Xenophanes, the teacher of Parmenides, saw three colors in the phenomenon of a rainbow: purple, red, and a yellow-green. Later, in the meteorological treatise Meteorologica, written circa 340 BCE, Aristotle concurred that "the rainbow has three colors." Thus, through that seemingly bichromatic vision, this was how the rainbow and narrow visible spectrum of our ancestors was represented in science, literature, and art until the Renaissance.

 

Isaac Newton and Johann Goethe both developed color theories that included the seven prismatic hues that most of us currently see. Towards a Theory of Colour (Farbenlehre) was, according to Goethe, his most important work in which he sought to understand the many physiological aspects of color in visible light.

 

Visible light, that which is visible to the naked human eye, is a narrow band within the electrodynamic spectrum. The electrodynamic spectrum includes all known waves, from high-frequency gamma rays to low-frequency radio waves. Somewhat with Goethe, what if we could raise our cognizance of the seamless mosaic that is full-spectrum consciousness. Such would lead us not to a seven-color optical spectrum, but nine distinct wavelengths or hues of a rainbow. These nine colors, when we are awake to our perception, bring a fuller awareness of our authentic selves and a more integral meaning of life from the point of view of undivided light. Yes, object-ivists will sneer at such an idea, just as pre-renaissance object-ivists would have mocked any discussion of seven colors.

 

I suggest that the ability to view the nine rays of the visible spectrum isn’t a matter of evolving into a tetrachromatic vision, which many mammals, birds, and fish have, but a simple shift in our trichromatic vision, in which red, green, and violet are the primary colors of light, instead of the red, green, and blue with which we are familiar. (Note, that we are discussing light, not pigment.) In other words, this shift in primary colors, the detecting of a different quality and quantity in the quanta of divided light, will not arise through transmutation, but through transcendence. The physiology is already there.

[Marblehead]

I suggest that the ability to view the nine rays of the visible spectrum isn’t a matter of evolving into a tetrachromatic vision, which many mammals, birds, and fish have, but a simple shift in our trichromatic vision, in which red, green, and violet are the primary colors of light, instead of the red, green, and blue with which we are familiar. (Note, that we are discussing light, not pigment.) In other words, this shift in primary colors, the detecting of a different quality and quantity in the quanta of divided light, will not arise through transmutation, but through transcendence. The physiology is already there.

I would suggest to you that the primary colors are Red, Green & Blue. That is where the first color monitors got their nickname (RGB monitors).

 

My computer, monitor & a couple graphics programs are capable of detecting millions of colors. Of ccourse, my eyes cannot discriminate between that many.

 

Hehehe. I like the way you used "electrodynamic" instead of "electromagnetic". Good try but you didn't get that one past me.

 

I can understand why you use "light" instead of "energy" but I will still stick with energy.

 

Nietzsche said:

 

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Edited December 18, 2012 by Marblehead

[Vmarco]

[/size]

 

 

Hehehe. I like the way you used "electrodynamic" instead of "electromagnetic". Good try but you didn't get that one past me.

 

I can understand why you use "light" instead of "energy" but I will still stick with energy.

 

Nietzsche said:

 

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

 

First,...Electromagnetic is a Seventeenth century term that is both obsolete, and implies a distorted view of the two-way electric fields in nature. People who use the word electromagnetic remind me of my mother who calls a refrigerator an icebox.

 

Second,...Undivided Light contains no energy (realize what occurs at the so-called speed of light, the conditions of time, mass, energy, etc cease to exist. The impermanent nature of divided light, the electrodynamic spectrum, is all about energy, and the motion to return to the Stillness of Source, the Tao.

[Aaron]

First,..you are not enlightened, and thus have no idea what an enlightened man does.

 

Second, as discussed before, you have no clue what compassion is,...so why do you continue to insst you do?

 

Nearly everyone appears to have a notion of what the term compassion implies from a relative view. However, for a Short Path practioner it points to something that very few different.

Kenchen Thrangu Rinpoche: said, "...everbody thinks that compassion is important, and everyone has compassion. True enough, but the Buddha gave uncommon quintessential instructions when he taught the methods for cultivating compassion, and the differences are extraordinarily important."

 

HH Dalai Lama said, "If I have any understanding of compassion..., it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara"

 

 

The Bodhicharyavatara says, "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible."

 

Was the Dalai Lama really expressing such a thing,...that without the realization of emptiness, the true practice of compassion is impossible?

 

In his commentary on the Dalai Lama's The Four Noble Truth's, Robert Thurman said, "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible."

 

Well, such a definition of compassion surely does not match the Western view, nor that of the Abrahamic religions.

 

 

Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."

 

Whoa! That seems to suggest compassion can be seen as intolerant for those who cling to sentient beingness for their identity. Shouldn't compassion be a warrior for all faith-based agendas, both hesitating and inhibiting light from shining on everything?

 

The Heart Sutra implies only through the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form; can one act as a Bodhisattva. For her, compassion is a natural consequence of direct realization, not something formulated through human conditions.

 

Bodhisattva's, and those who aspire to be a Bodhisattva, take a vow to dedicate themselves to the liberation of all sentient beings. Thus, would a Bodhisattva be tolerant of what steps between sentient beings and their direct experience?

 

Sharon Salzberg said,

"Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception."

 

Sympathy arising from what? Is the Buddha's compassion desirous for sentient beings to make their suffering more palatable by not allowing light to shine upon the causes of suffering?

　

 

Sogyal Rinpoche tells us that the practice of Tonglen depends upon our ability to awaken within ourselves the reality of compassion. Just as we cannot perform the Unity Breath until we can feel Love, we cannot practice Tonglen until we truly can feel compassion. (Tonglen can be described as breathing-in someones suffering, and breathing-out a non-suffering vibration. However, only real compassion can gnow what out-breath is a non-suffering vibration).

 

Only from a relative point of view would compassion be synonymous with pity. Compassion, Sogyal Rinpoche warns, is much more difficult to achieve than we might think. However, to realize Full Spectrum Consciousness in a single lifetime, we must do all we can to uncover absolute compassion.

 

Fortunately, various instructions have been left to uncover the nature of compassion beyond the 6 senses. The Heart Sutra for example, concludes with the

unsurpassed mantra, which all Buddhas of the three times have realized:

 

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha! This definition of Tathagata is best translated as "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed"

Or as Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go."

 

A suggestion,...carefully read the 2012 commentary "the Heart Attack Sutra" by Karl Brunnholzl,....before responding to my posts again.

 

 

Jeesh... how much free time do you have? It took you that long to respond to me? You might want to think about finding a hobby or something else to do in your spare time. Umm... if we're comparing degrees of enlightenment, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you haven't even gotten past the first degree. You are so ego driven it's maddening at times. You are full of yourself to the point you block out whatever anyone else wants to say and exclusively obsess about what you want to talk about.

 

In the end the difference between you and me is that I never claimed enlightenment, you have. I also never claimed to know anything you do. What I can tell you without question is that you know very little about Taoism, and what you think you know isn't really Taoism. Ironic that you would come to a Taoist website to spout your propaganda yet you don't even know what the Taoists actually believe.

 

I'm not going to discuss anything with you further, because your attitude is selfish and you have no idea how to have a polite conversation. When you stop being so self obsessed maybe I'll start paying attention again, but til then, I think it's just doing you more harm feeding your ego.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, if you stopped relying on quotes so much and started to talk about your own ideas (or developed some ideas of your own) I think your books would be much more successful.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Aaron

[Marblehead]

First,...Electromagnetic is a Seventeenth century term that is both obsolete, and implies a distorted view of the two-way electric fields in nature. People who use the word electromagnetic remind me of my mother who calls a refrigerator an icebox.

 

Second,...Undivided Light contains no energy (realize what occurs at the so-called speed of light, the conditions of time, mass, energy, etc cease to exist. The impermanent nature of divided light, the electrodynamic spectrum, is all about energy, and the motion to return to the Stillness of Source, the Tao.

Thanks for trying to convince me in a civil manner. It didn't work thaough. Hehehe.

 

I won't say anything about me reminding you of your mother.

 

I try to stay within the speed limits.

[Vmarco]

"... but at the end of the day you're either a caterpillar or a butterfly, and the only way anyone will ever have even the slightest sense of what it means to be a butterfly is to become one. There are no butterfly experts among the caterpillars, despite innumerable claims to the contrary,....You will find though that if you meet a butterfly, they will not fit any of the preconceptions that many people have about them." Jed McKenna

 

Caterpillars fear truth.

 

The most important symptom of ascension is a noticeable change in one's attachment to the descension. That is to say,...there is an awareness that what one thought was meaningful is actually meaningless. It is a preparation to transcend the delusion of caterpillarness, and be a butterfly.

[Vmarco]

 

In the end the difference between you and me is that I never claimed enlightenment, you have. I also never claimed to know anything you do.

 

Far too many dishonesties to respond to,...however, you did imply you are enlightened by describing some New Age ideas about what an enlightened person needs and does. My response to your ignorance was quite justified.

 

"Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace." Dalai Lama

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 21, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[Aaron]

Far too many dishonesties to respond to,...however, you did imply you are enlightened by describing some New Age ideas about what an enlightened person needs and does. My response to your ignorance was quite justified.

 

"Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace." Dalai Lama

 

Alright, since you really don't wish to stop yourself, perhaps it's time I address your statements. First you say we should be done with beliefs, but what you are really saying is that no one should think any other way than what you want them to. You behave like a spiritual fascist and you use the same tactics. You repeat the same things over and over like a mantra in the hopes you might draw someone into your inexplicable web of despair. I call it despair because you do not seem like a happy person, but rather a very angry and bitter person. I think that's the vibe most of us pick up on and what this tells me is that you are holding on to far too many attachments.

 

Now here's the crux, you're emotionally attached to this conversation. Hint, it's because you have yet to win an argument with me, the reason is simply because what you have to share is complete and utter bullshit, with no verifiable proof in the real world. What I have to share is something I can prove.

 

The only things anyone needs to reach enlightenment in this world are three, compassion to others, self-control and restraint, and not competing with others. This means a person who practices these three simple principles will see the world as it is, without the need for mind games or nihilistic ego-destruction. I've experienced far more than you have, I can tell because you never describe these experiences using your own words, but rather quote one source or another over and over. You see yourself as a messiah, which makes you no better than any of the other millions of people spouting religions. You have your own short path religion, even if you refuse to admit it. We are not blind, by we I mean everyone who reads your posts. We see your hypocrisy and your inability to express even the smallest bit of civility. Your constant justifications for your anti-social behavior in the name of compassion is perhaps your worst offense to virtue.

 

If anyone bothers to argue with you, it's because they want to compete with you, but I've never seen our interactions as competition, if only because you have nothing to compete with. What you offer people is a void, what I offer them is a deeper insight into reality. I hope that clarifies things. Now feel free to quote the same old sources you've been quoting for over a year now and people will continue to ignore your posts. After all the only people that seem to be drawn into your dialogues are those who seem to think they can win this argument, but I see that as being moot. Sadly, you believe what you spout, but even more so, you believe you are the one that will bring your "enlightened" truth to the world.

 

I don't want to save anyone, if only because they don't need saving. You can't see this, because your past holds you prisoner. I'm sure your problems with Christianity and most other religions stems from your life choices not coinciding with theirs, it's usually the only reason one has such intense animosity. My advice, don't worry so much what other people think about you, but what you think about yourself. After all, it's your own image of yourself that creates the reality that you see, change that and you can change your reality.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Did you notice I didn't quote a single source in my dialogue with you? Well I don't need others to tell me how the world really is, I can see it clearly through my own experiences.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Aaron

[Vmarco]

Vmarco, just curious. I'm relatively new here. You cite many sources like the Dalai Lama, Lao Tzu, the Bible, Gurdjieff... How do you know they are enlightened sources?

 

Edit, because I should spell their names right

 

I can assure you, there is no enlightenment to found in the Bible,...in the 80's I was considered one of the top 20 experts on Early Christianity by the Westar institute. I'm quite certain, because he says so, that the Dalai Lama is not enlightened, nor has any real understanding of compassion.. The Hua Hu Ching, by Lao-zu is an excellent example of an enlightened work. My favorite however is the Heart Sutra, which is a dharma gate for anyone desireous to wake up.

 

I use quote for several reasons,...none of which is to promote the quotes source. The foremost two reasons is that irritates arrogant Sheeple, and it lends an impersonsalness to my posts.

[Vmarco]

 

 

edit- Did you notice I didn't quote a single source in my dialogue with you? Well I don't need others to tell me how the world really is, I can see it clearly through my own experiences.

 

Not once have I ever used a quote to tell me how the world is,...I use quotes to show you how muddy your experience is.

 

Of your posts, more than a hundred in over a year, you have not once indicated anything even close to clarity. I suggest let's have a meaningful dialogue,...start a serious thread on the Heart Attack Sutra,...use it as what you're against, instead of other posters. Let's see how clear you really are. Let's use a guide to enlightenment, through which enlightenment can actually be uncovered.

 

I agree, that your responses to my post are prompted by your fear and competitiveness. I loathe competitiveness.

 

Competition is not only a distraction to spirituality, but has an inherently hostile, us verses them mentality that is contrary to the true nature of basic human beingness. Competition is about as natural and needed as the Abrahamic religions. Just as there is no such thing as healthy delusion or a healthy religion, there is no healthy competition. Competition does not build character, it reinforces low self-esteem.

 

Competiion encourages animosity, envy, hostility, hate, war, and illiberalism. The synonyms of competition include contention, rivalry, conflict, strife, struggle and combativeness. For competition, there is only a winner if their is a loser When viewed integrally, competition undermines all healthy human enterprises. Competition reinforces a psychological dependence on external, object-ive activities. In a competitive society only the winner is good enough. Success is seen through defeating others, not cooperation.

 

Harvard Business School professor Dr. Teresa Amabile, author of Creativity in Context and Growing Up Creative, has given much attention to team creativity, organizational innovation, assessing creativity and motivation.. In one experiment she had two groups make artistic collages. One group competed for prizes through a contest, while the other was unaware of any competition. The art was then independently judged by seven professionals. Those competing for prizes were considered much less creative and complex than the non-competitive crafted collages.

 

Social psychologist Alfie Kohn pointed out in his impressive 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' a multitude of negative effects of competition, many of them subtle. Kohn articulates that competition arises from four myths. First, the "survival of the fittest", which really manifests a purpetual struggle in society. Second, that competition builds character. Yet it has been shown that only those with low self-esttem require competitive activities. People with high self-esteem has no need to externally prove anything or beat others. Thirdly, that competition is fun. Competition reduces spontaneous play to superiority/humiliation dynamic. Fourthly is the fallacy that competition increases productivity. However, study after study shows that cooperation, not competition, leads to higher levels of achievement. "That most of us consistently fail to consider the alternatives to competition is a testament to the effectiveness of our socialization." Alfie Kohn

 

How could a truely loving parent put their children in competitive surroundings? For me, I never hesitated to play games with my kids. For example, we'd occasionally play the word game known as Scrabble. It wasn't played competitively, but cooperatively. We didn't take part to beat each other, but to continually see how many overall maximum points could be extracted from our play. We would help and encourage each other to find fantastic words. We would use a dictionary to learn new words and their suggested meanings.

 

 

Competitive contests encourage division, thus reinforcing the illusion of separation. As long as the belief that we are separate is clung to, we keep our sapiential mind obscured, and our thymus glands atrophied. Competition stimulates physical aging. Cooperation on the other hand, not only perpetuates an enhancing of human potential, but promotes a healthy relationship with humanity and our environment.

[C T]

Alas! Another lesson in impermanence. The forum was rather peaceful during the few weeks that Marco took a leave of absence.

 

Let the mayhem dance again!!! How long can this last? After a while, it will subside, or change course. No need to actually do anything in particular, except to wait. Wu Wei.

[Vmarco]

Alas! Another lesson in impermanence. The forum was rather peaceful during the few weeks that Marco took a leave of absence.

 

Let the mayhem dance again!!! How long can this last? After a while, it will subside, or change course. No need to actually do anything in particular, except to wait. Wu Wei.

 

This post says volumns about you CT,...interesting how easily your particular acquired serenity gets upset. But, real compassion, like authentic bodhisattvas, is an assassin of the illusion of acquired serenity and change.

 

As Buddha told Ananda, "You still listen to the Dharma with the conditioned mind, and so the Dharma becomes conditioned as well, and you do not obtain the Dharma-nature."

 

Most submit to the conditions of perceived life, and attach themselves to subsiding and change for their identity,..subsiding and change is comforting. In contrast, Buddha was intolerant of subsiding and change,...no one can realize liberation through subsiding and change. It is impossible to be simultaneously engage in subsiding and change, and Present. Buddha was present,....he neither came or gone. He stood as if it were, upon the Tao,....as Lao-zu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go."

 

As long as CT comes and goes,...he shall remain a caterpillar,...believing he understands what it like to be a butterfly.

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by thetaoiseasy

[DiamonD]

Compassion = come pass on