A timely reminder for the taobums

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

Shall we consider the first question?

 

Primarily because a moth spends most of its active life in darkness whereas the butterfly spends most of its active life in the light.

 

A butterfly can become enlightened whereas a moth never will until it first becomes a butterfly and sees the light.

There are crepuscular and diurnal moths as well though.

Moths can't become butterflies as such, this time around; anymore than we could become a sloth.

Maybe in the next incarnation.

I'd quite fancy 'sloth' as a reincarnation option; those lads seem to have the right idea.

Edited August 17, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[deci belle]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/3fb4eb51fdbe80b1c5eff80585be3e83/tumblr_n7e8b9UfJ81qedb29o1_500.gif

 

heeheehee!!❤︎❤︎

[C T]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/3fb4eb51fdbe80b1c5eff80585be3e83/tumblr_n7e8b9UfJ81qedb29o1_500.gif

 

heeheehee!!❤︎❤︎

lol

[zanshin]

Shall we consider the first question?

 

Primarily because a moth spends most of its active life in darkness whereas the butterfly spends most of its active life in the light.

 

A butterfly can become enlightened whereas a moth never will until it first becomes a butterfly and sees the light.

I've seen moths drawn to the flame. The resultant enlightenment is brief and brilliant.

[Marblehead]

I've seen moths drawn to the flame. The resultant enlightenment is brief and brilliant.

Hehehe. Yeah, but it burns like hell!

[Nungali]

Hopefully one day we will arrive at the opposite side of this circle and instead of seeing a 'Buddha' in lingerie we will see lingerie with Buddhist prints on it .

[deci belle]

When studying worldy things, one relies totally on verbal meanings and mental thoughts. But if you use verbal meanings and thoughts to study the world-transcending Dharma, you are way off. Didn't Buddha say so? —"This Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can understand."

 

In order to mitigate the repercussions of necessary admonishment, recreational philosophers should consider this when venturing out of their element…❤︎

 

Since discrimination cannot understand it, it is not a matter of employing words (intellectual consciousness, thoughts, feelings, unconscious value-judgements), nor is it a matter of employing anything else, i.e.: anything pertaining to meaning, self, others, situations… anything attributable.

 

Nothing is used by the human psychological apparatus, nor is it relative to the individual. The non-usage of thoughts down to the most subtle movement of the mind-ground is harmonizing with the nature of reality.

 

This is the realm of nonbeing, the nature of one's essential nature. This is immediate knowledge that does not involve sense-gates nor anything relative to the personality. This, of course is unacceptable to the free-associating thinkers who cannot arrive at anything without involving the self-reflective human mentality.

 

If I mention anything tantamount to emptiness, the hoi-polloi reverberates fashionably with the dualistic mantra of nihilism. Why? Evidently because it's hip these days… other than the fact that not one of these people can come up with the siamese partner of nihilism in the same sentence, only the most astute of the professional entertainers here can conjure the speculative interpretation of entry into inconceivability as this wonderful word nihilism (with the half-life of a NYC bagel), just to kick the can a little farther down the easiest route to oblivion. That, and nihilism has just the right negative allure. It's sso baaad~ one just aught not flirt with it… hahahhahaaa!!

 

Emptiness has always stumped the gentlemen of affairs. The only reason I know how to talk about it is because it is the nature of awareness. The way for those with no way through this ineffability (because they cannot talk about it to save themselves) is to dispense with conceptual usage of the mind long enough to instill a wonder to match the void that looms before their incredulity.

 

Since awareness is itself not only one's selfless identity and its emptiness the living potential of creation itself, entry into inconceivability is simply arriving at a singular wonder of sincere open intent. The heart of the heaven and earth of the body of immaterial aware potential is one's own mind.

 

Ta Hui said, "If for a single instant you can be unborn amidst causal origination, then without leaving desire, hatred and delusion, you use the seal of demon kings to drive out all demons." Don't think, "Is that how she does it?"

 

Of course you still don't accept it. Why? Because y'all still think you're here!! Hahhahahhaahhahahahaaa!!!

[deci belle]

Only those acting from the singularity of nonbeing don't still think they're here. Why? Because "here" is created. "There" is the other side for those who do not know their nature. Neither here nor there is people awakened to empty presence.

 

I wonder why it is that the free-thinkers never dare discuss this? It is because they do not have the perspective of the uncreated.

 

It's not that there is no "here" to speak of, it is that everyday ordinary complete reality isn't knowledge relative to ideas. So at the thought of emptiness, clever minds don't randomly speculate that there is another kind of emptiness that is better or worse relative to something that has no such relativity. And instead of jumping at the opportunity to jaw-jack endless relativities to pass the time, if people didn't think here or there in terms of ordinary situations, and were oblivious of habitually opportunistic intellectualism, theirs would be the Unborn, which is the perspective of reality, knowing causeless unattributability as the basis of situations themselves without speculative differentiation being activated by the personality and its psychological apparatus unawares.

 

Only those with affinity resting in the Virtue of the Receptive of potential as is could be oblivious of notions relative to nililism and its partner in extremity in describing reality at such times.

 

Who else could nod in appreciation at the mention of the basis of complete reality as is without engendering speech relative to dualistic expression. There is absolutely nothing to miss out on… but BOING!!! Pop goes the weasel. Know what I'm talking about, mr P? Yer a teacher are ya? Mmmm-hmmmm.

 

As if it were easier to distinguish one or the other of the two extremes than immediate knowledge expounded by the enlightening beings who wrote the classics. Evidently it is easier to spray about the relative when the basis of the real is brought up for some Grandmasters… what a hack.

 

Confucius said, "If I give someone one corner and he can't come up with the other three, I don't talk to him any more".

 

Been nice talkin' to ya, mr.

 

Other than me, having caught this fish, who can cook it?

 

I would wash out the pot.

[GrandmasterP]

Right again Deci.

How do you do it and whence such hostility?

 

Edited August 18, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[4bsolute]

When studying worldy things, one relies totally on verbal meanings and mental thoughts. But if you use verbal meanings and thoughts to study the world-transcending Dharma, you are way off. Didn't Buddha say so? —"This Dharma is not something that thought and discrimination can understand."

 

In order to mitigate the repercussions of necessary admonishment, recreational philosophers should consider this when venturing out of their element…❤︎

 

As I have said it before, close all forums with one topic alive: Go inside, all answers there. R.I.P internet.

[Marblehead]

As I have said it before, close all forums with one topic alive: Go inside, all answers there. R.I.P internet.

Yes, all the answers already exist. We just haven't been asking the right questions.

[Nungali]

Edited August 18, 2014 by Nungali

[deci belle]

It's not asking or not. Leave that fcuking mind out of it, people! It's already itself your own face growing its own pointed nose.

 

"If you always forget concerns and keep the mind still without smashing the mind of birth and death, then the delusive influences of form, sensation, perception, (questions), volition and consciousness will get their way, and you'll inevitably be dividing emptiness in two."

 

Dividing emptiness in two… sound familiar?

 

Emptiness is not remotely nihilism even if you leave it's dualistic partner eternalism out of the script to be literally fashionable.