Bodhisattva

[Birch]

Interesting post on stoicism Serene Blue. What I'm looking at at the moment is what is the other person communicating to me? What do I think/feel they are saying? Clarification of intent (instead of assumption of intent) is worth IMO/IME working with as a way of honing awareness. It also tells me how my gut sense is aligned or not with reality. Sometimes it's not.

 

Following that, comes the reaction. Getting annoyed might signify that I've bought into whatever the other person is communicating (in the above case, I've agreed that I ought to be talked down to) and so I would react to it as if it were true, maybe getting annoyed. Another option is just silence, no response. Which is fine, but then VMarco will be unclear on what I am communicating. Silence might also seem as if I agree that I ought to be talked down to. 'Who says nothing, consents'.

[GrandmasterP]

Super point.

Intuition simply doesn't communicate person-to-person all that well if at all.

We have to use words or if we are actually with the person , looks and maybe gestures.

Satsang type transmission, when that works; can do the trick but there's never any guarantees.

 

Serious offer Vmarco, PM me and , if you can get to us; I'll book you for a gig at our centre.

Centre details via my profile.

Edited December 28, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[JustARandomPanda]

Interesting post on stoicism Serene Blue. What I'm looking at at the moment is what is the other person communicating to me? What do I think/feel they are saying? Clarification of intent (instead of assumption of intent) is worth IMO/IME working with as a way of honing awareness. It also tells me how my gut sense is aligned or not with reality. Sometimes it's not.

 

Would agree with this. I think you are much further along the path than I am. Honestly I've got the hunch that the vast majority of TTBums are much further along than me. I do not trust my gut nearly as much as some simply because I've seen many times how I got it wrong when I did. And yup...I've met people who found that trait in me maddening and swiftly communicated their disrespect about it (to my face in once instance in an electronics store no less...ugh).

 

Following that, comes the reaction. Getting annoyed might signify that I've bought into whatever the other person is communicating (in the above case, I've agreed that I ought to be talked down to) and so I would react to it as if it were true, maybe getting annoyed. Another option is just silence, no response. Which is fine, but then VMarco will be unclear on what I am communicating. Silence might also seem as if I agree that I ought to be talked down to. 'Who says nothing, consents'.

 

Some general musings...this is not directed specifically at you -K-. It just got me pondering (a most un-pyrrho-like thing to do I might add and alas is doing precisely what the Buddha said doesn't lead to enlightenment)...

 

1. In the first case Epictetus would say 'getting annoyed' is something within your control. This is therefore a legitimate and worthy pursuit of daily practice because doing so would serve to make your subsequent days better. You actually do a pretty darn good job imo of not getting annoyed compared to many people on this board (including me I might add!).

 

2. The second - whether or not VMarco is unclear about what you are communicating is not something directly within your control. You can influence it but you can't control it. Epictetus would therefore advise to not spend time worrying about it. If VMarco 'gets it' - great, if he doesn't so be it. It is what it is. Even if he totally takes what you're telling him completely wrong what good does it do to waste even one second of your own time getting frustrated about it? What good has it done ANYONE in this thread to get upset with VMarco's tone in his posts in either this or any other thread? Has it actually changed him? No. So why are people wasting their time (and more importantly their mental health) complaining about it? He keeps frustrating people yet they keep staying riled - poking at the situation like a sore tooth they can't leave alone instead of realizing there are other things they could more profitably spend their time on. I've often wondered why people don't use the 'ignore' function more often. There are people on this forum I don't like, and they likewise feel exactly the same about me. I make it a point to not engage in their threads or have discussions with them. Works out better for both me, them and even other forum participants because you don't see squabbles breaking out and people demanding mods to step it (would always prefer that be a last resort imo if possible).

 

3. Third - "who says nothing, consents" is an example of exactly the kind of overreaching conclusion most human minds do that can (but not always) lead to so much trouble. Buddhism speaks to this, Stoicism speaks to this, hell...Pyrrhonism speaks to this also.

 

The third is precisely one of the things I'm actively trying to break in my own daily habits.

 

If other people think that my silence = consent that's their concern. It's not mine because it can't do anything to actively contribute to my own evolution upward spiritually. If I can not profit from their conclusion that I've 'consented' by my silence why waste my time on their opinions? At the end of the day whether they concluded correctly or incorrectly about me - alas - I'm still stuck only at the level I'm currently at.

 

 

This is why I think there is profit in studying the Stoics right alongside Taoists, Confucians and Buddhists.

[konchog uma]

i don't know about you not being so far along serene, i think your example and the advice you give on all this is really right on. Maybe i have achieved this meditational milestone or that energetic awakening or such and such realization, but i still have to haul off and tell vmarco what i think of him lol in spite of the fact that of course he doesn't listen or change his nasty ways. Its childish, and it crept into my meditation this morning like an itch i couldn't scratch. You're completely right, its just worthless, the manifestation of my own egotism, my own dark reflection of the very obscurations i point out in his behavior. I have resolved to use ignore as much as i feel compelled to instead of engaging incendiary people in conversation, and in the spirit of the 27th practice of bodhisattvas i am working to develop patience devoid of hostility.

 

Stubborn ignorant holier-than-thou people have caused me a lot of pain in life, and i need to let it go instead of feeding the fire of those people's egos by even responding to them in the first place. Thank you for your reminder and your example serene

Edited December 28, 2012 by anamatva

[JustARandomPanda]

Also...as I mentioned earlier people can still post about the subject of being a Bodhisattva and simply ignore Vmarco posts (or start a new thread) if they choose and just discuss the topic with each other.

[Birch]

That was a great post Serene Blue. Thank you for it!

Here's where I'll say I reckon I'm at.

I'll say that the 'getting annoyed' thing most often happens when I buy whatever the other person is saying, so where the 'choice' gets placed in the process becomes of some importance. So far I've gotten to points at which I still get annoyed (I still bought it) but then I 'choose' my subsequent reaction. It's not ideal because the emotion of 'annoyed' is already 'there' and so it has to be dealt with in some way. I reckon people can injure themselves with that. I do think it's pointless to pretend not to be annoyed if I am (although I will do so on purpose on occasion for '3rd chakra reasons':-))

 

However, if I can stop 'buying' (I suppose those Bhuddists would call it 'attachment'?) whatever is being communicated then no reaction.

 

There was a lot of other interesting stuff in your post that I'm going to have to think about:-)

[Creation]

Interesting she translates sunyata as 'openess' rather than the more usual 'emptiness'.

The Third Turning explanation of emptiness emphasizes the relative nature of emptiness: that something is empty of something else. This is intuitive, no? The cup is empty of water, etc. This also makes short work of nihilistic interpretations of emptiness. Though many a Madhyamakin held that the Third Turning fell into the opposite extreme of eternalism.

[GrandmasterP]

A 'filled' cup is contextual.

Submerged in the sea the cup is empty of water.

[Apech]

A 'filled' cup is contextual.

Submerged in the sea the cup is empty of water.

 

The sea is empty also aha!

[GrandmasterP]

Fish get out to poo?

[Vmarco]

The Third Turning explanation of emptiness emphasizes the relative nature of emptiness: that something is empty of something else. This is intuitive, no? The cup is empty of water, etc. This also makes short work of nihilistic interpretations of emptiness. Though many a Madhyamakin held that the Third Turning fell into the opposite extreme of eternalism.

 

Thus there is a huge rift in the discussion. Relatively speaking, a cup can be empty of water, that is, empty of something, but absolutely the cup is also empty of being a cup. If we look at the cup and water, as yang and that which is moving toward yin, this can lead us to the integration or sum of those perceived opposites.

 

Lao-zu said, "Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal." If one believes that empty means empty of something else,...yes, perhaps it is intuitive from a dualistic or relative perspective.

 

Lao-zu said, "If you wish to unite with the heart and mind of the Mysterious Mother, you must integrate yin and yang within and refine their fire upward." Integration of yin/yang brings their dissolution, just as the Mysterious Mother is beyond the sum of opposites.

 

The Tao is not Yin or Yang, nor Yin/Yang,...Yin and Yang simply effect their motion from the Tao. Lao-zu said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things....The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own."

 

As Form is Empty and Empty is Form, The Tao also has no Emptiness. Emptiness is not something apart from phenomena,...it's the samething.

 

All Form is perceived within time. All Form is Empty,...thus, all Emptiness is within time. There is neither Form nor Emptiness beyond time. There is no Present, Instant, or Now in time. All Form and Emptiness is in the past. The past does not exist.

 

All Coming and Going is connected with time. The Tao neither Comes or Goes. A Tathagata neither Comes or Goes. By understanding the yin or emptiness of yang or form, one can stand as it were, upon the still fulcrum of the Tao, and cease Coming and Going,....the realization of the reverse flow of forward moving things. This cannot be realized through the 6 senses,...the 6 senses can only perceive motion,...that is, the past. Sentience is ALWAYS in the past. It is impossible to see, hear, touch, taste, smell or think in the present.

 

The realization of Emptiness uncovers the Present.

[GrandmasterP]

No dinner for you then lad!

[Vmarco]

 

All Form is perceived within time. All Form is Empty,...thus, all Emptiness is within time. There is neither Form nor Emptiness beyond time. There is no Present, Instant, or Now in time. All Form and Emptiness is in the past. The past does not exist.

 

 

 

There is neither form nor emptiness beyond time, just as there is neither Mass or Time beyond the so-called speed of light.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19803-what-is-light/

 

From Light's point of view, it moves no distance, in no time, and thus has no need of speed.

[GrandmasterP]

That point of view light has mate.

Would that be relative to itself?

[Vmarco]

That point of view light has mate.

Would that be relative to itself?

 

Both relative,...and absolute. Just as the Buddha or Lao-zu, could interact with the relative and be absolute. It is said to be wise to view things from the point of view of what is being observe. Such a process encourages honesty.

[GrandmasterP]

Oh that some power the gift would gie us

Tae see oorselves as others see us

(Robbie Burns).

[deci belle]

Because mr V only knows how to quote~ and quote very well, thank you. He just wants to be free to spray canvases of others' truths with splotches of his own fanciful flurries ala Jackson Pollock.

 

 

Mr V sez:

We can define a Bodhisattva as a being who, upon realizing Dependent Origination…

 

You can evidently, but someone who has seen their nature can't. Dependent origination is self evident …don't they call that evolution? You don't need to see your nature to realize dependent origination, you need to see your nature to be able to assess what selfless adaption to dependent origination is.

 

Also, your emptiness isn't empty, unless of course, you haven't seen your nature. Furthermore, anyone operating at the velocity of your terminal neurosis would conclude that energy does not exist in the present. Naturally if you could come from a point of presence and stay there in perpetuity, it would be obvious there has never been any other place or time. The present moment is the most ancient/fresh moment and the most erotic too. Do you make love in the future or the past, mr V? Too bad no one loves you in the present…❤ You'd have to slow down to find out, hmmmmmm?

 

What is realized is nonorigination, dear mr V. The uncreated is what one suddenly realizes is their nature. Uncreated, aware, perpetually ready at the brink of action~ yet never having moved. The void is empty of emptiness as well. This is what is termed "beginningless", because it has never fallen into the created. This is not a definition, it is a description. You can quote me.

 

Dependent origination is the working definition of karmic evolution. Since enlightening beings operate within the matrix of dependency and adapt to conditions on creation's terms, meeting creation with one's own inherent spontaneous nature; enlightening activity is matching one's potential inherent in the conditioned situation itself; (bodhissatva is just a working term to denote one's function in terms of the relative realm— that's inconceivable Reality on the temporal plane) therefore buddhas demonstrate that separate identity is nonexistent— that's how we use the energy potential comprising the situation itself to resolve the temporal within the absolute. It is also how we prove that there is nothing to be free of. Buddhas don't have to be free of anything because nothing is not themselves.

 

Dependent origination has no reality outside delusion because reality itself is causeless, ie, no beginning, reason or being. Selflessness is just the natural state. For you to state otherwise is indicative of a bit of philosophical confusion on your part— not to mention the fact that you have not seen your nature. Therefore those who have seen their nature know they have no intrinsic identity in terms of self and other, nor is there such a thing as absolute dependent origination outside of deluded human mentalities habituated to the illusion of separate identity. It may very well be another one of your pet theories based on your intellectually neurotic understanding, perhaps?

 

Mr V has made a career of hosing his contributions with suuuucha breadth of quotes and sources, that there is no way to respond sincerely without getting bogged down in his subterfuges of trivial data.

 

Dear bums, any attempt to meet mr V's intellectual neurosis on its terms is to fall prey to its sickness of understanding. In terms of the real, understanding is the realm of delusion itself. The reason Bodhidharma said "don't know", is because that is the only way to step over eternity and transcend deluded notions of emptiness. I recommend not-knowing highly.

 

If only it was possible to assess inconceivability other than to experience your nature. It's not. Even seeing your nature has its considerations in the aftermath of realization. I wonder why mr V has never mentioned that? Mainly it is working through developing attachment to the overwhelming experience of the absolute which is no different than one's prior attachment to conditioning. Both are delusion. That's why the middle way is neither absolute nor conditional. True emptiness is not empty. The living void is the realm of potential in terms of absolute and temporal in the presence of ordinary everyday existence. This is the realm of people becoming buddhas and buddhas becoming people.

 

I would say a bodhissatva is one who may be just learning the ropes of the living void— but realization is one, and it only happens once. Buddhas have no choice~ I assure you, bodhissatvas have no such discrimination to choose whether or not to do anything in terms of coming or going. As embodiments of enlightening activity, the absolute has never decided anything. The freedom of enlightened being is the freedom from deciding. There is simply no need. One just knows the time and acts according to it. Furthermore, the movement and stillness of enlightening being is one. Again, deciding is something irrelevant to enlightened activity.

 

You can just bury this short post with quotes, mr V~ if it is worth it to you, but even if you can recite the taoist, buddhist, and confucian canons… yours is the teaching of a mortal, not a buddha.

 

Piling intellectual extremism on top of the neurosis of conventional self-reflective understanding has no basis in applications of enlightening activity, because reality has no such understanding, nor is it attributable to the world honored teaching traditions. The Way itself has no such culture of wisdom or understanding or adaption. It is inconceivable and utterly unattributable. Reality as such, has no basis in words, understanding, wisdom or relative conditions or self-identity.

 

If any of you knew your nature, you could not possibly desire to go along with this endless neurotic flow. Perhaps you all cannot get enough of it on your own. Carry on mr V!!❤

[GrandmasterP]

'Pollock' is close enough.

Nothing more uneasy on the eye than a gallery full of Pollocks.

[Apech]

'Pollock' is close enough.

Nothing more uneasy on the eye than a gallery full of Pollocks.

 

I love Jackson Pollack ... I now feel I am in a community of philistines

[GrandmasterP]

I've some here if you're interested mate.

Special price for expats.

Just need to dig out a coupla buckets and some half tins of emulsion left over in the shed and I'll have them ready for you in a jiffy.

Any particular size, would sir prefer?

 

[Apech]

I've some here if you're interested mate.

Special price for expats.

Just need to dig out a coupla buckets and some half tins of emulsion left over in the shed and I'll have them ready for you in a jiffy.

Any particular size, would sir prefer?

 

no comment ... do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

[GrandmasterP]

I might not know about art but I know what I likes.

Have a choc-ice.

;-)

 

[Vmarco]

Because mr V only knows how to quote~ and quote very well, thank you. He just wants to be free to spray canvases of others' truths with splotches of his own fanciful flurries ala Jackson Pollock.

 

 

 

Truth, like art, is only appreciated with the keen awareness of the beholder,...sheeple generally abhore a good collage.

 

"If I have seen further... it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.. Isaac Newton

 

Sheeple been indoctrinated to reinvent the wheel everyday,...it keeps them from going beyond their belief patterns.

 

Sheeple, like "Human kind cannot bear very much reality" T. S. Eliot

Edited January 3, 2013 by Vmarco

[三江源]

I've some here if you're interested mate.

Special price for expats.

Just need to dig out a coupla buckets and some half tins of emulsion left over in the shed and I'll have them ready for you in a jiffy.

Any particular size, would sir prefer?

 

goodness me.. if I were not free from attachment to Pollock right now, Mr Gmp, I'd, why, I'd be really disgruntled!! Like all "grrrrr"...

[GrandmasterP]

You can have one too Cat.

Mainly green I'm seeing .

:-)