The Question, The Purpose, The Way

[Stosh]

Thanks ,

 

I see,

 

Care to accuse anyone?

 

have a nice evening , time to feed the cat.

[Marblehead]

Care to accuse anyone?

Hehehe. No, I won't be going there.

 

You have a nice evening as well.

[Vmarco]

Lao Tzu never said to let the senses go. That quote above is from a translation that has proven itself invalid.

 

And Descartes died still questioning instead of living and enjoying what the senses brought to his life.

 

Sad, I think, that so many of us feel the need to ask so many questions, most of which have no single answer, instead of enjoying the life we are afforded.

 

Attempting to discredit authorship is folly. Living a sentient life is delusion,...which is of course, fine for the deluded, who have no desire to realize the way things are.

 

"As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated." Avalokitesvara (Shurangama Sutra)

 

It is impossible to understand the Tao through the senses,...just as it is impossible to realize bodhi through the 6 senses.

 

Terms like deluded, ignorant, etc., are not meant as negatives or being derogatory,...obviously, not everyone,...in fact,...only very few, have a thirst for truth. As Johann Goethe, exclaimed, "Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it."

 

Most just want to have sentient fun,...ignorance can often be bliss.

 

All knowledge arises from the senses,...through the senses sentient beings think they're conscious. Sentient beings are ever so certain of their senses. They believe their senses is what makes consciousness,...but gnowledge understands that the body cannot be conscious.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Intellectual knowledge exists in and of the brain. Because the brain is part of the body, which must one day expire..[as thus] however large and impressive, [your knowledge] will expire as well"

[Marblehead]

Lao Tzu said, "Intellectual knowledge exists in and of the brain. Because the brain is part of the body, which must one day expire..[as thus] however large and impressive, [your knowledge] will expire as well"

Well, even though I doubt Lao Tzu said that I do agree with the statement.

 

As to experiencing Tao, we have talked about that before. We differ slightly but have no serious disagreement.

[hydrogen]

I hope I can explain properly. If I miss something please question me as this is a fairly important subject to me as well.

 

IMO,

 

Meditation is for the purpose of clearing our mind; to remove the stress that builds up in our mind resulting from just living in the material world. If we stay stressed we will cause ourself ill health. Most heart attacks are a result of stress. Therefore meditation is for forgetting what has caused us stress or at least reduce the stress to a point where we can deal with it.

 

Self hypnosis is mostly for the purpose of learning something. We concentrate on something until it becomes embedded in our unconscious mind to the point that it become instinctual. Whatever it is, we can cause ourself to believe it is an absolute truth. We can hypnotize ourself so that we will truely believe whatever it is we are wanting to be true. A lot of people do this unconsciously and arrive at all types of absolute truths regardless of the fact that there is no proof to support the absolute truth they have created in their own mind.

 

Truth is self-evident.

 

The self is the person who practices meditiation.

 

Self hypnosis is a tool in the bag of meditation tool kits. Meditation is more than self-hypnosis.

 

Two years ago, I started meditation because I wanted to enhance my sexual pleasure. I was very "dedicated". I actively seeked sexual pleasure outside my daily meditation as well. The meditation worked better beyond my wildest imagination. In two month I had sexual pleasure that I had never experienced before during meditation. The effectiveness of meditation was evident to me.

 

The "side effect" of my meditation was I also experience the pain and suffering first hand that I caused others during my sexual pleasure quest. I was so ashamed of myself. I totally changed the goal of my meditation.

 

To make a long story short. Now I meditate to have a better life for me and people/things I love. My old meditation technique doesn't work anymore. I stopped mediation. My life got worse.

 

So I picked up meditation again. I was on a wild goose chase. Now I believe I'm on the right path for me. Because my life is getting better. Again, it's self evident to myself.

 

Self hypnosis is useful because to convince others (and your body) you have to convince yourself first. It's huma natrual to have doubts. Sefl hypnosis can help convince yourself of something. Then you have to figure out how to turn the conviction into "reality". If you don't take the next step. Self hypnosis beccome self deceiving.

 

I hope I make myself clear.

[Marblehead]

I hope I make myself clear.

You did pretty good. Neither one of us could write a book about it though. Hehehe.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Lao Tzu said, "Intellectual knowledge exists in and of the brain. Because the brain is part of the body, which must one day expire..[as thus] however large and impressive, [your knowledge] will expire as well"

 

Vmarco,

Perhaps that is why there is so much confusion.

 

This quote does not make sense.

 

It appears that Lao Tzu did say it too..

 

http://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/lao-tzu-intellectual-knowledge-exists-in-and-of-the/

 

If it were true that knowledge expires with the death of the brain, then how do you explain the numerous stories about Buddhists who reincarnate and retain their memories/knowledge?

 

It is a well known fact that Buddhist meditations, like the anapanasati and venturing into the jhanas empowers the mind to be able to remember what one ate for breakfast 30 years ago, and recall past lives right down to personal names, addresses etc.

This is mentioned by Buddhist meditation teachers such as Alan Wallace, Ajahn Brahm, Shaila Catherine, and on and on...

 

There are many many stories in Buddhism about the indestructible drop in the heart which goes on from one life to another.

 

Karma also is the case where past impressions carry over from one life to another. Lessons learned in one lifetime manifest in more recent lives.

 

Although, normally, one does not remember knowledge, intellectual or otherwise from previous lives, there are cases of child prodigy-ism, where a three-year-old can play concertos, or do complex mathematical equations with little or no formal education. These are some of the talents and knowledge that carry over from one life time to another.

 

The idea that mind is in the brain is a misnomer. It is false. The idea that knowledge does not carry forward from one lifetime to another is also false.

 

TI

[Stosh]

All we do crumbles to the ground , though we refuse to see

The desire for immortality is as great as the fear of death itself

Ill agree with Vmarco's quote ascribed to Lao tzu , though

I cant say what happens after death from personal experience

( I cant credit anyone else with that knowlege either)

Child prodigy isnt enough of a proof.

 

Its just my opinion though , and if you feel differently , I hope it serves you well.

 

I like the idea of a fresh start , free of earlier mistakes and tendencies

So one might not repeat for many lifetimes the same wrong turns.

And so that one may see in another reflections of himself ( which is not

defied by lack of ready similarity)

There is no proof either that the guy or gal next to me

is not an incarnation of me, so in that case, compassion makes easy sense.

And it would mean that possibly the buddha in each of us is literally the same buddha

reputed to escape samsara ,, ( truly the escape for us all)

But though thats just speculative,, it has a propensity to point us in hamonious directions.

[Marblehead]

http://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/lao-tzu-intellectual-knowledge-exists-in-and-of-the/

I would challenge anyone to site the Chapter and Verses (Lines) from any reputable translation of the TTC where this is stated. And yes, I mean "translation", not "interpretation".

[Vmarco]

Vmarco,

Perhaps that is why there is so much confusion.

 

Prajnaparamita suggests that, from a relative point of view, there are two minds,...the cerebral mind, where knowledge is born, and which perishes at death,...and the heart mind, which although associated with the thymus gland, is not physical, and from which, gnowledge is uncovered. For gnowledge, there is no confusion.

[Vmarco]

Imagine....a world without religion,...where no beliefs step between anyone and their direct experience with heart consciousness,...a world where there is nothing real about the confusion of theists and atheists.

 

Imagine a world without indoctrinations. Where as a Buddhist said, “We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…A child is born in a society, and a society is already there with its fixed rules, regulations, behaviors and moralities which the child has to learn.

 

When he will grow he will become false. Then children will be born to him, and he will help make them false, and this goes on and on."

 

Imagine a world where honesty is treasured,...and everyone desire to be impeccable with their words.

 

Surely, the idea of being impeccable with our word is one of the principles of the Mexican nagual (similar in ways to the pre-Buddhist naga). This quite misunderstood principle of power and creativity has not only been embraced in many new age marketing seminars, but also among religions selling their particular brand of faith. However, that is not impeccableness. In fact, if one would step aside of their ego for a moment, they’d clearly recognize that it is impossible for a religious or belief-centered person to be impeccable with their word, because religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs.

 

Impeccable suggests being faultless, flawless, and irreproachable with one’s word. This impeccability is not only being careful in speech while communicating to the outside world, but while dialoguing with the inside as well.

 

If someone tells you, "Be impeccable with your word, for it is a gift from god", is not that being dishonest, being not impeccable? Impeccable means being fully honest and truthful. They are using the idea of impeccability to mislead and deceive. All faith-based words mislead and deceive.

 

Imagine a world where you can have this conversation with anyone.

[Vmarco]

I cant say what happens after death from personal experience

My body died in 1974, and recall it being a beautiful experience,...although not in the sense of sensory experience. I was somewhat torn on coming back,...on one hand, there was a tranquility, as if being naked and fully unashamed,...while on the other hand, I closed my eyes, wanting to return to the non-dual Light.

 

A few years later, I laughed when I read:

 

"The ego [sciential consciousness of the 6th sense of thought] uses the body to conspire against your mind [sapiential conscious beyond the 6 senses], and because the ego realizes that its “enemy” [the sapiential mind] can end them both [ego and body] merely by recognizing that they are not part of you [the sapiential mind, your Unborn Awareness]; they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves. The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the mind, which is real, that the mind is ego’s learning device, and further, that the body is more real than the mind is. No one in [his or her] right mind could possibly believe this, and no one in [his or her] right mind does believe it." A Course In Miracles 6 IV 5.

[hydrogen]

Imagine....a world without religion,...

 

Imagine a world where you can have this conversation with anyone.

 

It'll be a very very very very boring world. Because your ideal world is where everyone belives your "religion".

[Birch]

There's a bit of a 'technological' impulse at the moment with a goal (or so it seems to me) of enabling everyone to see things the same way (I had a link for an article on it which I will post if I find it again). IMO religion does the same/similar thing.

 

I've seen some 'religion is technology/ technology is religion' arguments here and there (and not least on here thanks to our friend Fullpyth.)

 

I'd argue, in many cases, I don't need to see things the same way as anyone, I just need to know how to deal with that fact.

 

--opinion etc--

[Vmarco]

 

It'll be a very very very very boring world. Because your ideal world is where everyone belives your "religion".

I certainly agree that most want everyone to believe in their religion (or set of beliefs). As I advocate no religion, nor any beliefs that step between people and their direct experience, I see a world without religion (that is, sets of belief) to be the most non-boring world ever.

[Vmarco]

Could you speak more to the last part of your last sentence (quoted above)?

Like what for example? To me impeccable is impeccable. No member of Christianity, Islam, or Judeaism is impeccable with their words,...not a single one. In America,...not a single member of Congress puts their oath to the Constitution before their faith-based agenda,...that is not being impeccable.

"Impeccable suggests being faultless, flawless, and irreproachable with one’s word. This impeccability is not only being careful in speech while communicating to the outside world, but while dialoguing with the inside as well."

Have you ever observed an atheist witness a calamity, or have an orgasm...and under their breath say, "oh my god!"

[Marblehead]

Have you ever observed an atheist witness a calamity, or have an orgasm...and under their breath say, "oh my god!"

Hehehe. Mine is, "Oh Shit!"

[hydrogen]

 

Like what for example? To me impeccable is impeccable.

Quote

"Impeccable suggests being faultless, flawless, and irreproachable with one’s word. This impeccability is not only being careful in speech while communicating to the outside world, but while dialoguing with the inside as well."

 

 

If I define 60% match is passing grade, 80% is good enough and i apply this rule to me and everyone. Since I'm my own judge, the 60% and 80% rule apply there. I'm sure I can pass myself in honesty.

 

Can I say I'm impeccable?