Why I don't discuss religion

[deci belle]

My response to a PM concerning what someone attributed to a religious affiliation.

 

 

I don't discuss self-refinement in terms of any one tradition. Reality has no name including Quanzhen. If you are an acolyte of such an organization or study a particular course-work, that's your issue, not mine.

 

I speak in terms of secret impersonal adaption in ordinary situations by virtue of anything you need to call it.

 

I don't do organized anything (religious organizations, formal meditation practice, etc)… so since I already saw my unattributable nature over twenty years ago while studying the Complete Reality tradition of the Southern and Northern schools of Complete Reality (particularly the Clear Serene Branch), and have a pretty effective vocabulary and practical basis of experience in terms of the application of subtle operation in the aftermath of the sudden— and have broadened that to include Chan and Soto, as well as studies of Padmasambhava's teaching, even though i don't talk like a quanzhen-ist~ I have so been there and been doing that which applies to having already shattered space and entered the tao in reality.

 

Its application in the midst of ordinary affairs is where selflessness constituting reality resides for me.

 

That's all I've been talking about since the school of Nina (I've known this bum since before TTB). I was previously silent for over fifteen years.

 

Experiencing nonorigination wasn't my selflessness, since I'd ceased to exist— and (thank god), I eventually realized this is the absolute— yet I do not cling to one or the other— to do so is the working definition of delusion, whether it be the absolute or the conditional. Selflessness is the order of aware nature, from its perspective. No one knows this, so naturally I had to be no one to see it.

 

Selflessness needs no cultivation as there is nothing else other than its impersonal immaterial aware nonbeingness already. Real knowledge is being, yet unborn, unknowing and selfless. Just this is your mind right now. This is selfless, and this is utterly open. The heart of nonorigination is a sincerity of intent. This intent is the impulse of life. It has no location. It is the Center, without inside or outside. Perhaps it is love.

 

Tao is the incipience of knowledge that doesn't know, so I can not-know too. This not-knowing is purity. One uses purity to ride the energy of potential. The fuel is karma itself. This is the Great Vehicle of Suchness. It is the Virtue of the Receptive.

 

What I've always been talking about in terms of the source of any authentic teaching on this planet is not in cultivation for the purpose of getting to see it, but for the application of integrating the light which is neither ordinary or holy already. Therefore sudden realization is not prerequisite to its application in ordinary situations by anyone. Having seen this, just this is the norm at the check-out at the food-store. It doesn't look any different for you because there is only one mind. Seeing is not the sense-organ.

 

The bottom line is that it is not taoism, buddhism, Padmasambhava-ism or anything-ism for me anymore. It's Complete Reality, the science of RIGHT NOW, because that is precisely where it resides. It has never left the cusp of immediate presence. It might as well be sex. Presence is its point of incipience regardless of one's perspective or practical emphasis in terms of teaching discipline. Either one sees this or not in the midst of ordinary affairs. One's clarity is the deciding factor in terms of selfless vulnerability beyond any tradition. Knowledge derives from this.

 

Though we can all contribute to keeping the knowledge alive, the mystery is too huge for a hundred-thousand realized enlightened lifetimes. A tradition can help, but not necessarily. Your own approach to meet the challenges of self-refinement is what is the critical factor in your journey. If your practice is effective, you may very well arrive at a beginning, after all.

 

Ultimately, the end is is in endlessness, therefore you also arrive at begininglessness as well.

 

All that matters is that you see your nature, essence, original face, totality of your self, or whatever any of the many authentic traditions have come to call it. Having transcended myself and subsequently learned subtle spiritual application of the light, I endeavor to describe its enlightening operation in everyday ordinary situations because doing so is the way I arrived at its realization in the first place.

 

The aftermath of realization and gradual practice before experiencing the sudden was the same for me and continues to be so. Therefore my teaching is just turning the light around to shine it back on its source in the only way I know— which is by impersonal adaption. It is neither inner or outer because I see.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you might very well be making someone a fine disciple.

 

And as far as you are concerned, I might make a fine guide for someone, if ever.

 

But don't ask me. I don't know.❤

[3bob]

I've always had trouble with the word impersonal but not impartial, since as long as there is still soul there is still being at some level.

 

As for details I'll borrow your saying, "But don't ask me. I don't know".

Edited December 7, 2013 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[Everything]

Since you mention it.. What makes you think your vocabulary is "pretty effective"?

In eternal hell they give you time outs to write about your experience... NOT

[chegg]

My response to a PM concerning what someone attributed to a religious affiliation.

 

 

I don't discuss self-refinement in terms of any one tradition. Reality has no name including Quanzhen. If you are an acolyte of such an organization or study a particular course-work, that's your issue, not mine.

 

I speak in terms of secret impersonal adaption in ordinary situations by virtue of anything you need to call it.

 

I don't do organized anything (religious organizations, formal meditation practice, etc)… so since I already saw my unattributable nature over twenty years ago while studying the Complete Reality tradition of the Southern and Northern schools of Complete Reality (particularly the Clear Serene Branch), and have a pretty effective vocabulary and practical basis of experience in terms of the application of subtle operation in the aftermath of the sudden— and have broadened that to include Chan and Soto, as well as studies of Padmasambhava's teaching, even though i don't talk like a quanzhen-ist~ I have so been there and been doing that which applies to having already shattered space and entered the tao in reality.

 

Its application in the midst of ordinary affairs is where selflessness constituting reality resides for me.

 

That's all I've been talking about since the school of Nina (I've known this bum since before TTB). I was previously silent for over fifteen years.

 

Experiencing nonorigination wasn't my selflessness, since I'd ceased to exist— and (thank god), I eventually realized this is the absolute— yet I do not cling to one or the other— to do so is the working definition of delusion, whether it be the absolute or the conditional. Selflessness is the order of aware nature, from its perspective. No one knows this, so naturally I had to be no one to see it.

 

Selflessness needs no cultivation as there is nothing else other than its impersonal immaterial aware nonbeingness already. Real knowledge is being, yet unborn, unknowing and selfless. Just this is your mind right now. This is selfless, and this is utterly open. The heart of nonorigination is a sincerity of intent. This intent is the impulse of life. It has no location. It is the Center, without inside or outside. Perhaps it is love.

 

Tao is the incipience of knowledge that doesn't know, so I can not-know too. This not-knowing is purity. One uses purity to ride the energy of potential. The fuel is karma itself. This is the Great Vehicle of Suchness. It is the Virtue of the Receptive.

 

What I've always been talking about in terms of the source of any authentic teaching on this planet is not in cultivation for the purpose of getting to see it, but for the application of integrating the light which is neither ordinary or holy already. Therefore sudden realization is not prerequisite to its application in ordinary situations by anyone. Having seen this, just this is the norm at the check-out at the food-store. It doesn't look any different for you because there is only one mind. Seeing is not the sense-organ.

 

The bottom line is that it is not taoism, buddhism, Padmasambhava-ism or anything-ism for me anymore. It's Complete Reality, the science of RIGHT NOW, because that is precisely where it resides. It has never left the cusp of immediate presence. It might as well be sex. Presence is its point of incipience regardless of one's perspective or practical emphasis in terms of teaching discipline. Either one sees this or not in the midst of ordinary affairs. One's clarity is the deciding factor in terms of selfless vulnerability beyond any tradition. Knowledge derives from this.

 

Though we can all contribute to keeping the knowledge alive, the mystery is too huge for a hundred-thousand realized enlightened lifetimes. A tradition can help, but not necessarily. Your own approach to meet the challenges of self-refinement is what is the critical factor in your journey. If your practice is effective, you may very well arrive at a beginning, after all.

 

Ultimately, the end is is in endlessness, therefore you also arrive at begininglessness as well.

 

All that matters is that you see your nature, essence, original face, totality of your self, or whatever any of the many authentic traditions have come to call it. Having transcended myself and subsequently learned subtle spiritual application of the light, I endeavor to describe its enlightening operation in everyday ordinary situations because doing so is the way I arrived at its realization in the first place.

 

The aftermath of realization and gradual practice before experiencing the sudden was the same for me and continues to be so. Therefore my teaching is just turning the light around to shine it back on its source in the only way I know— which is by impersonal adaption. It is neither inner or outer because I see.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you might very well be making someone a fine disciple.

 

And as far as you are concerned, I might make a fine guide for someone, if ever.

 

But don't ask me. I don't know.❤

 

 

Obligatory Krishnamurti Quote.......

 

 

"You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' 'He picked up a piece of the truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to help him organize it.'

 

I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path."

 

"All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."

 

This includes inward authority:

"Having realized that we can depend on no outside authority...there is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals."

 

Jiddu Krishnamurti [1]

 

 

 

Blessings of finding the 'truth' to you ! :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

[deci belle]

Who was it who said, "Refer everything to the self."?

 

The best teachers do not say a thing, ultimately. But one still must step over eternity for them, for they reside in oneself alone.❤

 

Bob said:

 

as long as there is still soul

There is no soul. Reality is unborn. There is no self. The unattributable is your identity even now.

 

 

Boy said:

 

Since you mention it.. What makes you think your vocabulary is "pretty effective"?

 

"Effective" is in terms of using words to recognize a readiness in others. Someday, perhaps, you will be ready.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add Boy's quote and fix typo in last line

Edited December 11, 2013 by deci belle

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[deci belle]

Everything…

 

In eternal hell

Eternity is under the rubric of the created and not above it in terms of the absolute, so yeah… no time outs~ haha!!

 

Let's return to the topic, shall we?

 

Unless people have the natural affinity and very light karmic burdens, or have studied seriously for many years or are born knowing the subtle operation of selfless adaption whether before or in the aftermath of the sudden, and have the wherewithal to clearly absorb the knowledge of the ancients or these instructions and are therefore ready to practice the Science of Life of Complete Reality, or the Great Vehicle of the Buddha, there is little point in pursuing a dialogue on my threads or otherwise obstructing the tenor of my content.

 

It is enough to observe without comment, or provide insightful queries via PM rather than automatically assuming that one's approbative, pointed, or even casually off-topic intellectualism should be tolerated as on most other threads on this forum.

 

Believing that my content is derivative or simply an over-complicated treatment of the concepts re-hashed on the many other never-ending (not all, mind you) threads on this forum, is proof one does not yet have the wherewithal to contribute on my threads. If one does not yet have the faith that enlightened mind is the only mind one has to begin with, and one does not yet know that one is ignorant of this mind in spite of there being only one mind, unborn, selfless and miraculously aware, endeavor to observe it yourself. It is all anyone can ever do. It is all anyone has ever done.

 

On the other hand, if one is aware of one's ignorance of the mind of buddhas, then one should see its aware selfless nature.

 

Paul Bowles once said that it is very difficult to invest one's life with meaning. This has nothing to do with compulsions or entitlement issues justifying one's rationale for cheap talk. Everyone has this enlightened mind; yet its description is a rare opportunity.

 

Understandably, those who have no faith in the miraculous quality of one's nonoriginated essential nature and do not see reality cannot believe that anyone else does so, or has done so. Yet these same people may very well extoll the virtues of the ancient classics, as if they were not written by people who themselves knew the source directly beyond words— and therefore insist that the classics can somehow be understood intellectually, or that they can understand the inconceivable by clinging to the teachings, teachers and traditions of the various schools when it is the clinging mind itself which is itself the obstacle to passing through the gateless gate.

 

This is why I do not discuss religion. Your own inner teacher awaits you on a gradual and subtle rise.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: typo in 3rd paragraph

Edited December 12, 2013 by deci belle

[3bob]

Deci said, "there is no soul" if so then there is also no earth, no sun, multiverse, karma, dharma, mind, love, or true desire, etc. (all of which ime the eternal self is aware of and can act through)

[deci belle]

Soul is a concept attributable to eternalism; something surviving throughout endless time.

 

There's no soul for those who function in terms of enlightening being right now, is what I meant in the context of my statement— not in terms of the absolute. Even so, no~ you ain't got no soul!! haha!!❤

 

There is no intermediary. Nothing to cling to. There is nothing that is not oneself right now in terms of selfless adaption to ordinary circumstances.

 

So enlightening beings have no soul nor is the concept of one necessary. This is because sameness' lack of distinctions in terms of the function of Suchness, is inconceivability. And I wish I could make that sound less spiritual, bob— so I'll try.

 

It is simply a fact that one has no intrinsic identity outside of appearances and the ego complex serves this well. That most people and the totality of sentient being has been going around and around like this for ever is proof of this. But there is a secret that has been left behind for those with the predilection and the will to see it and enter into its mystery.

 

Those who enter do so by seeing their true selfless aware nature, not that the learning of subtle adaption depends on the sudden. Gradual and sudden are one. Nonbeing essential nature is nonoriginated. This is what constitutes reality. Creation looks separate, but this is an illusion. It's not good or bad, just an illusion. Since reality is unified and sameness is nonoriginated in spite of the mystery of creation's ephemeral quality, where is this soul?

 

Soul is a concept that works to a certain degree no different than ego is a concept that works to a certain degree. It works. But to activate enlightening function, one does not employ the perspective of ego because ego's realm is part and parcel with the created. Whereas enlightening being is the nature of reality which is not created (there is no separate reality). In the same way, soul serves no purpose for those who function in terms of essence itself. Where instead of following the light of the created, the same unified light is operated in reverse to attain the functional basis of the unattributable within the realm of the created. This is Suchness. This is the teaching of Complete Reality. Thusness being the realm of tathagatas.

 

The Middle Way, the Great Vehicle of enlightening beings is miraculous. It is just this Suchness in terms of transcendence not entertaining separate identites which operates within the particulars of ordinary affairs without attachment to outcomes— only adapting to the time. The Middle Way is neither ordinary or holy, so it certainly is not a concept bound by morality— much less convention. One simply does not stick around for anything. Why? Because there is no thing. Not even soul.

 

Soul is attributable to eternity. Eternity is attributable to creation. Earth, sun, multiverse, karma, dharma, mind, love and true desire are all created. If you will function in terms of enlightening being, these are all illusion, temporary, unreal, circumstantial elemental things which Unity pervades. This is essence. When you see essence, the homeland of nothing-whatsoever, this is the nature of awareness. This has no identity. The source is you, you are not it. Soul is superfluous, of no account.

 

All I can say is either you are losing your inate reality in fascinations with the flow of created eternity or you have the audacity to step right over its entirety and assume the unity of essence in the ultimate and operative sense. In the temporal you adapt impersonally and let creation go by while operating subtle awareness in endless transformations outside the matrix of karmic evolution.

 

I tried, bob!❤

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add 1st line, a "that" in the 4th paragraph; a "whereas" and "there is no separate reality" in 7th paragraph

Edited December 12, 2013 by deci belle

[3bob]

Deci,

 

Thanks for the feedback and your detailed explanation (or try) which I'll have to reflect on for awhile. The term "Soul of the soul" might come into play as an explanation that I might try in this process. I hear the shadings of Buddhist like meanings or terms in your text which I don't use very much, I use terms and meanings more from the Upanishads and Taoism. Thus we may not come to seeing certain topics or subjects eye to eye via said mediums- which is ok to me.

 

"The One" can be named while what the "Tao" or "Mystery" alludes can not, the "no-thing" mentioned is another alluding to which I like.

 

Is there any need for projecting out or being a "shrink" of 3bob in the first sentence of your last the paragraph, no not really, either in this or most any other format. (do you agree with what to me

is my lesser form of shrinking?)

 

Later, I gotta run now, Bob

Edited December 12, 2013 by 3bob

[deci belle]

Oh~ haha! Non, that was the impersonal you, monsieur bob.❤ I get tired of using "one". In fact, I went back and forth a few times on that one line on account of that pesky "you", as it felt a bit more contemporary to include it. "One" seems so ancient in the classical sense~ not that I don't go there enough in my tonal usage… it's a good word too.

 

In the absolute sense, "one" is interchangeable with any of the references naming the source of religion: i.e., spiritual traditions' naming. One refers to transcendental unity pervading the totality of nonorigination including creation, then again, it just means you too, and that in both senses of temporal and transcendent depending on the context.

 

Actually, the multifarious contexts of the terminological pallet of the alchemical device is to thoroughly require the practitioner to juggle all the various meanings of countless such technical terms clearly and decisively all at once without letting even one stop or drop from the suspension of concentration. This device develops the capacity of one's empty vessel of nonpsychological capacity for the purpose of subtle operation in the midst of ordinary affairs.

 

Mystery is our own participation in terms of Unity. There is no end to mysteries. This is another reason I don't discuss religion. All the authentic teachings are geared to keeping the knowledge of the recondite capacity of our aware nature alive, but none are equipped to teach the profundities outside of the "formative moralities" concerning subtle operation of enlightening being's inconceivable activity within karmic evolution.

 

Reality is unfathomable. Reality, Mind, enlightening being, Tao, whatever~ none of this has one iota to do with any spiritual tradition. These are just traditions to keep the knowledge alive. The point is, when you can see, you are free.

 

This is the import of the Chuangtzu's "On Freedom"

 

We are free. We have no identity. We are awake. We have heaven. Look around in wonder as there is nothing to know. We all die too soon to witness all its wondrous and terrifying mysteries. If one has the means to meet its boundlessness, yet refuses to go beyond the culturally bound observation platform of teaching tradition into the vast wonder of it all due to a misconception of, reliance on and dependency for teachers, teachings and traditions, this is just trading the delusion of not knowing of one's ignorance for the sickness of clinging to the absolute in terms of the teaching device. Ultimately, none of it is reality. Once you know reality yourself, you can keep the knowledge alive yourself. The whole point of transcendental knowledge is to be free to be naturally whole, then one can be free while tied to a stake. It's true. This is Mind alone.

 

This is good news!

 

We are free. There are no end to the mysteries. The Way is not taoist, or buddhist, or derivative of any culture. The Way is endless. However wide our horizons of conscious awarenss, a 360˚ circle of vastness and unfathomability surrounds us. Enlightenment is entry-level.

 

This is why I don't discuss religion.

 

The selfless self has no shred of "supersoul" as the overarching basis is in terms of nonorigination. The uncreate cannot have anything, but in terms of potential— and this it IS.

 

Our essence is awareness itself. There is no being, becoming, knower, known. Our own mind is the knowledge of aware nature right now. When you hear a donkey, that knowledge is immediate without deliberation. When you just know and no rational discrimination is employed, only the sense-object, knowing is just this mind.

 

It is possible to not change this mind into illusory states. This is the work of self-refinement, where the deliberations of habitual discriminatory consciousnesses no longer dominate the organism.

 

Tao is unknowable, this is inconceivability, yet its virtue is the power enabling enlightening beings to transcend the times of the critical junctures within each yin-yang cycle we are destined to undergo karmically. The taoist science of essence is the way of clarifying the mind to see its essence while its science of life is the teaching of endless transformations of yin and yang enabling you to live outside of creation. The classic buddhist imagery is the lotus growing out of a bog. To do so is immortalism. Mastering the sciences of essence and life is the consummation of the teaching of the southern and northern schools of Complete Reality of Chang Po-tuan and Wang Che from Ancestor Lü's lineage. Laotzu was only a thousand years prior. That's a wink of an eye.

 

What the ancients taught was to see reality as is. As such, reality as is, is not derivative. It is causeless.

 

This is why I don't discuss religion.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "naming" in 2nd paragraph

Edited December 13, 2013 by deci belle

[3bob]

Washing dirty dishes is also "religion" but it doesn't need to be picked to death. (neither is the picking to death or denial of various religions productive. (something we may have or share common ground about?) Anyway I sometimes get the picking to death feeling from some forms of Buddhism and its related doctrines, although not with Zen sayings.

 

When "one" is in the trenches it is difficult to see the mountain top (or freedom) but when one is on the mountaintop the trenches are often forgotten or even denied as existing yet such was a needed crucible and or forge to make ready the "vessel" for an instant enlightenment that was, is and always will be now. (something we may also have or share common ground about?)

 

To me the term "causeless" has a sort of vague yet still round about polar connotation, instead I'd go with a di-polar type of term or the word di-polar itself. Some of your sentences or expressions are not easy for me to follow being that my formal education never was that great although I've made various studies on my own. (and there is always "the school of hard knocks" to learn from)

 

Do you have some background in studies of the Upanishads? To me they directly allude to (about as well as possible) the True, the aware and the free Self. (that is also a quintessentially simple and pure Self that is not caught in any form of "mind" to any degree) Of course some will argue about such descriptions for eternity which is why I try to be careful about talking about religion yet I see the need for some verbalizing to keep an opening to knowledge alive. (so to speak, and long the lines it sounds like you are saying)

 

Om forever flows in stillness,

Om good night

Edited December 13, 2013 by 3bob

[deci belle]

I have already seen my nature, bob. I only use the vocabulary of the ancients to aid in describing advanced practice of subtle operation to those who are ready.

 

The only reason I apply the teaching traditionally saved for the aftermath of the sudden illumination is because I experienced the sudden myself as the result of the turning around of the light of selfless adaption to temporal evolution.

 

This is another reason why I don't discuss religion, nor do I have any particular interest in studying yours anymore than I have already (for now).

 

Remember, this is my thread. If you'd like to discuss your religion on someone's thread about why she doesn't discuss religion, please start your own thread and then PM me to invite me over to hang out there.

 

I hope that sounds reasonable, because it is.❤

Edited December 13, 2013 by deci belle

[3bob]

Right this is your thread; btw to me you have referred to a form of (which is apparently yours) "religion", aka a form of study and practice if you will, namely: "Mastering the sciences of essence and life is the consummation of the teaching of the southern and northern schools of Complete Reality of Chang Po-tuan and Wang Che from Ancestor Lü's lineage".

 

And if that is all you really want to or mainly refer to in relation to or about "the beyond" that is here now then fine. (and I will look into same as a means for communication)

 

Yes, the light goes far and also returns, and where it returns to can not really be said.

Edited December 13, 2013 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[3bob]

Hello Deci,

 

I've read your posts a couple of times and appreciate the inspiration expressed along the lines of Mystery and or "selfless self" (which translates to me as egoless self, or the Self that is neither born nor dying, yet 100% alive now)

 

In regards to the word "illusion": To me illusion is a term that bandied about a great deal and often in a dismissive manner. The problem I see with such usage (if you hear my meaning?) is that "Mystery" is connected (as stated or alluded to in Chapter 42 of the Tao Teh Ching) to what some of us often down grade as illusion, namely The One, The Two, The Three and the Ten Thousand, etc... I have seen the reality (although in flux) of these connections all the way to Mystery thus to me illusion is only in the eye of the beholder. Here is one place where I may agree with the Buddhist saying that is along the lines of "samsara seen correctly is Nirvana" and perhaps as you may have intended with your words of "there is no separate reality"? Further, the "transcendent" is free of being bound or limited by such connections yet at the same moment it is forever present in such connections. Is that along the lines of what you meant by working in the temporal?

 

(or something like, "the ducks never flew away" in a related Zen saying, and neither has the Tao ever flown away from its children)

Edited December 14, 2013 by 3bob

[deci belle]

deci said:

When you see god and its you and you don't exist either…

This is why I don't discuss religion.

[3bob]

there is a cave where one finds all that exists and is happy and true. Discussion is only alluding to but the power in the well is more than just alluding to...

[deci belle]

Happy and true is not a cave; it is a happy and true illusion. So stop borrowing words of a western philosopher.

 

The reason you cannot see eye to eye with me is because you do not have the eye.

 

Right now is all there is.

 

I do not discuss allusions— you do.

 

I only describe reality. That you discuss allusions is due to the fact that you do not see reality, bob.

 

If you did, you would not bother with the allusion of happy and true because your sinking sucking energy is anything but.

 

This is why I do not discuss religion.

[3bob]

Sounds like testy, judgmental, and off the wall presumptuous projections are a big part of your reality, so yes we won't see eye to eye along such lines.

 

Btw, there is a reason or reality for why Buddhas of any stripe smile and are happy. (But apparently other matters and assorted put downs are often your chosen cup tea, why - don't ask me I don't know...)

Edited December 17, 2013 by 3bob

[Clarity]

The only thing I saw in the cave was light without form.

 

I asked, "What are you?"

 

It said, "I am you. I can do anything, be anything, and go anywhere."

 

Seeing that it was me but I am not it.

[deci belle]

oh dear… sumbody's on a roll!!❤❤❤❤

 

 

in other news…

bob said:

"Sounds like testy, judgmental… etc"

 

Sounds like I nailed your ass again, bob. I don't say it for your benefit though, only because you can't benefit by my clear description of reality. I'm using you for others' sake …so don't mind me.❤

 

Ignorance is delusion when you don't know it's you. When you know it's you, you also know you are not it. This is because when you know you are not it while its selflessness is the totality of your self, there is no you— and that's enlightenment, mon ami.

 

When you know not-knowing it's the same selflessness. There are no two minds, bob.

 

In other words, when you know ignorance for what it really is, it is the same as enlightenment. There are no two minds. The light is the same. There are no two minds. Your mind is Buddha. So what's with that kooky soul thing, huh? It simply never was— just like that idea that you exist, it just ain't so.

 

Testy is what teachers do, bob— to people like you who wanna camp out on my thread. This is where you come to get this. Nobody asked you to post on deci's thread, right? So do drop your stupid mechanical allusions, realize your ignorance, really admit it (to yourself), and endeavor to see your nature. Because until you do, you will never have the eye to see mine.

 

Now stay (here) after school, if you like~ because my sassy corset is verrry tight.❤❤ haha!!

 

 

 

 

ed note: add ode to bob

Edited December 18, 2013 by deci belle

[3bob]

I don't really mind your trip, (among the mind of countless trips) it's just an example for the sake of others of how people can go nuts.

 

... projecting or naming yourself as a teacher, that's creepy - please get the hell off it deci. Most people here are not looking for "teachers" especially me. Most just want to share some experiences, ask a few questions and maybe come across a tip or two without things devolving as various threads here sometimes do.

 

Later, btw its ok to be a happy camper

Edited December 18, 2013 by 3bob

[chegg]

.

Edited March 28, 2015 by chegg