"you only know the words and not the meaning!"

[Marblehead]

Yes, I am a KISS kind of person:  Keep It Simple Sweetie

[ChiForce]

I don't see purity as innate. You have the choice. Existence is. Man is the only creature that IS capable of choosing and who must choose. In effect, man is the only animal capable of creating his own suffering. Man is impermanent, his conscious identity is impermanent, but existence is beyond man and is permanent.

 

I'm not saying that this is what Buddah meant by the words, but It's interesting that I find a certain similarity in my understanding of what is being said. Buddah pronounces a dichotomy and then he said that it is the dichotomy which is the medicine. Man is the ONLY being capable of living in the cracks. He can and must choose what he will conceptualise despite reality. He can live entirely contra-reality; and here we see the analogy to a drunk who sees that the room spins, but here lies the dichotomy that, though the drunk sees the room spinning he is not forced to accept that this is reality and you see the opposite is true, a sober man might conceptualise a spinning room despite his senses telling him the room is not spinning.

 

You can live a life predicated on no-self, but you must first be self-this is what I have been saying all along during many months on this forum. You may act as the drunk does, or the sober man who conceptualises what is not reality. You may seek permanence where there is impermanence, no-self where self must be, purity must be continually practised, suffering for those who will not abide by reality.

 

The world is the world, it is permanent as a whole, but changing in parts. Man is impermanent. There is the false self that evades and practices ignorance, then there is the pure self that seeks itself through realities doorway.

 

Is that what Buddah means ? I don't know, each person has to interpret the words in line with his current philosophy and store of knowledge. Did Buddah lay out such a philosophy ? No, he didn't, he created puzzles and left it to each person to figure out the answer. By creating the dichotomy he suggests that something is and something isn't. It's like "when is a door, not a door?" It leads to figuring out the logic of a statement which seems to suggest A is not A, but it's word play, you cannot take the words as solid objects: the answer "when it's a jar" does not suggest the door is both solidly a door and a jar. A jar is the condition of the door in 'relation' to the frame. If you go back and look at the thread on 'the definition of space' you can see that 'space' is that same relationship as defined by man, there is no 'space' as such, just as there is no 'jar' as such in a partially opened door.

 

The problem is that starting a philosophy by picking out dichotomous arguments isn't very helpful. It asks the listener to solve an equation for which he does not know the 'meaning' of the symbols, yet must somehow perform a high level calculus in order to define them.

Yawn.....the great Buddha wants you to realize your own enlightenment and liberation without depending on him or without your mind what you perceived as external means to enlightenment.  He didn't create puzzles.......LOL LOL  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

The Heart Sutra sums it up the essence of the Dharma.  Is and is not at the same time because duality arises from non-duality.  Sigh....great, you are trying to explain the teaching of Dharma....hehehehe....oh dear.   

[ChiForce]

Or learning how to articulate the argument in a clearer, simpler way. :-)

We aren't talking about an argument.  We are talking about the teaching of Dharma....  The teaching of the dharma is designed to tackle the prejudice of the mind such as yours.  

[ChiForce]

It is not required to be matter. You are aware of electricity and heat. These are energies. The engine behind these energies isn't fully understood, but that makes no difference to the existent identity of those energies. They are something. Your consciousness gives them the identity 'energy', but your consciousness does not create them.

 

Existence is not EQUAL to identity. Existence IS identity, as consciousness IS identification.

 

If there were no conscious beings then Existence would exist, but there would be no awareness of existence. If you are unconscious, or dead then existence is something that you no longer are. Existence and the consciousness of existence arise together. Consciousness must be conscious of something. Existence is only valid to those who are conscious of it. That existence has primacy does not in any sense devalue the experience of the conscious being that identifies itself and its place in the universe.

 

That is why there is no duality. Rand magnificently ended the feud. She simplified it. It's so fundamental that it makes me laugh that I couldn't see what was so obvious.

 

You are seeing duality because you do not see that both existence and consciousness arise together, but that consciousness does not create existence. However they are not seperate things, they are corollaries of each other; axiomatic twins. It is true that existence can exist without anything being conscious of it, but that's a hypothetical condition, because we ARE conscious of it. Existence is what conscious human beings call it. An existence without consciousness would not be unaware, just like a rock is not aware of itself or anything else. It is us that define the rock as being seperate-as having a unique identification. The rock does not know it is a rock, or care that it's a rock, or feel any kind of seperation from its surroundings, or any awareness of itself in any way.

 

It's like a equation in which every part balances:

 

'Existence exists' is an axiomatic statement made by a conscious being. It can only be made by a conscious being because they are conscious of existing and existence.

 

I think the light bulb moment will occur at some point and it will be a real 'kapow'. I hadn't realised that it took Leonard Peikoff almost ten years to understand what Rand was saying. It's like we have these blinders on our eyes and can't see what should be obvious.

Yawn...nothing new.  Buddha said so long ago that everything is Mind.  Every phenomena is produced by the Mind alone.  Therefore, nothing is real except what is not real is the reality.  The reality is that nothing is real and permanent.  There, see how simple this is to explain without writing in huge paragraphs without pseudo psychobabble.    

[C T]

Hi Chi Force, 

 

Im not sure why, but whenever i happen to read any of your posts, most times it involves ridiculing others and their apparent lack of Dharmic understanding, to the extent that it evokes the image of someone poking fun at another person's physical disability. 

 

Whats more, you actually claim to be enlightened, but as a result of this and similar expressions, it brings your claim into question somehow. 

 

I was reluctant until now to bring this up but some of your words actually reflect negatively on the spirit of Buddhist teachings, which is why i felt it necessary to ask if you will consider checking your writing style a bit.

 

thanks!  

 

 

An example of your 'enlightened' speech below

 

Yawn.....the great Buddha wants you to realize your own enlightenment and liberation without depending on him or without your mind what you perceived as external means to enlightenment.  He didn't create puzzles.......LOL LOL  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

The Heart Sutra sums it up the essence of the Dharma.  Is and is not at the same time because duality arises from non-duality.  Sigh....great, you are trying to explain the teaching of Dharma....hehehehe....oh dear.   

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by C T

[ChiForce]

 

Hi Chi Force, 

 

Im not sure why, but whenever i happen to read any of your posts, most times it involves ridiculing others and their apparent lack of Dharmic understanding, to the extent that it evokes the image of someone poking fun at another person's physical disability. 

 

Whats more, you actually claim to be enlightened, but as a result of this and similar expressions, it brings your claim into question somehow. 

 

I was reluctant until now to bring this up but some of your words actually reflect negatively on the spirit of Buddhist teachings, which is why i felt it necessary to ask if you will consider checking your writing style a bit.

 

thanks!  

 

 

An example of your 'enlightened' speech below

 

 

Because some egos needed to be destroyed....   You can ask Kali if you may.  I heard that Zen masters are even worst....   Someone like Karl...well...he thinks he could reason his way to enlightenment.  We are talking about the spiritual understanding of the cultivation process itself.  Yet, he went on arguing about logic this and logic that...  That's precisely what the OP original post is stating the opposite.  You can't argue with words.  You must understand the meaning of its words...through reflective thinking of your life!!!!!!! In a typical karl fashion, he would use a handful of logic jargons in order to write paragraphs after paragraphs about this and that...pretty much repetitive.  

 

Sorry I don't fit your description of what a Dharma warrior should be!!!!    How Dharma...  A Dharma can be named is not Dharma...  A Tao can be described is not Tao.... 

Edited June 7, 2016 by ChiForce

[ChiForce]

Oh another thing, Karl loves to reduce many of the spiritual and cultivation discussions into about simple, mandate subjects... like rocks and chairs.  Are we to become enlightened because we know what a chair is?    Can you trigger a kundalini energy rising experience by knowing what a chair is?  Absurd!!!!!!!  He could start by understanding the 5 human aggregates that are responsible for experiencing SUFFERING and to generate false views in our lives. 

 

I am surprised many of you would be willing to entertain him though....

[ChiForce]

Oh, another thing, he went out insulting the Dharma teaching and yet he has just repeated what the Dharma teaching stated thousands of years ago.  And he thought he has discovered something new and enlightening.  Absurd!!!!!  His ego is filled with so much ignorance that I am afraid this message board and my insults won't do much good for him......  

[ChiForce]

Oh, CT, you are talking about the spirit of the Buddhist teaching???  What have you accomplished so far relating to this spirit??  I can tell you what I have experienced.  It was a dream.  I dream of Mexican families being displaced by the Trump presidency.  Homes destroyed and emptied out, abandoned.  They were all forced to live in shadows and in the underground.  As I was told in my dream, all of the families are connected to this underground place.  I saw and heard women and infants crying.  This place was packed and crowded.  I sensed suffering and distress.  On the wall, I saw pictures of crying African American children.  

 

I was somewhat shocked and horrified of what I saw in this vision.  For every single US presidency since Bush and his Iraq war, I had visions of their legacies.  I hope I am wrong.  Otherwise, millions of Mexican families in America will be displaced by the Trump presidency.  

 

That's the Buddhist spirit and to have affinity to human suffering...not an affinity to a fool like Karl....    His ego would have to learn its place in this world and is not my job to save his ass...Let Kali deals with him.

 

Buddhist spirit????   Hehehehe.....  Oh dear......    

[Bindi]

Copied from the "Pocket Buddha Reader", edited by Anne Bancroft

 

When the Buddha was dying, he said to his followers: Just as the earth has hills and grass, healing herbs and nourishing grains for all beings to use, the truth that I have taught is also so. It produces the flavor of wonder and is the healing medicine for the ailments of humankind. I have brought you to abide peacefully in this great treasure. But if you have any doubts, you must ask about them now. Whatever your doubts are, I will try to answer them.

 

Honored One, we understand the ideas of no self, of no permanent state, and of the suffering caused to the person by the belief that he has a self and is permanent. He is like one who is drunk and sees the hills and rivers, moon and stars wheeling dizzily about him. Such a one will never understand selflessness and will wander on endlessly in a miserable state. It is because of such an undesirable state that we cultivate the idea of no self.

 

Then the Buddha was roused from the calm of coming death and said, Listen closely! You have used the metaphor of a drunken person but you know only the words and not the meaning! The drunk believes the world is spinning when it is not. You still think the self is a something if you believe you should be selfless in order to save yourselves. You believe you should see the eternal as impermanent, the pure as impure, happiness as suffering. But these are concepts and you have not penetrated the meaning. The meaning is that the real self is truth. The eternal is existence. Happiness is nirvana, and the pure is things as they are.

You should not practice ideas of impermanence, suffering, impurity, and selflessness as though they are real objects like stones or rocks but look instead for the meaning. You should use expedient means in every place and cultivate the ideas of permanence, happiness, and purity for the sake of all beings. If you do this, you will be like one who sees a gem in the muddied water among stones and rocks and waits for the water to settle before he skillfully plucks it out. It is the same with cultivating the idea of the self as with permanence, happiness, and purity.

The monks were taken aback. They said, Honored One, according to all you have taught and spoken, we have been asked to cultivate selflessness, leading to the dropping of the idea of a self. But now you tell us we should cultivate the idea of a self what is the meaning of this? 

Good, replied the Buddha. You are now asking about meaning. You should know that, like a doctor, you should find the right medicine for an illness. It is as a doctor that I observed the aliments of the world. I saw that ordinary people believe they have a self and that whoever they meet has a self. They think of the self as within the body. But it is not like that. Because it is not like that, I have shown the fallacy of all ideas of self and shown that the self is not there in the way it is thought to be. In everything I have said I have shown that the self is not as people think of it, for this is expedient means, the right medicine.

But that does mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

 

(submitted as another interpretation to consider about Buddhism, which I consider is hitting the mark and others obviously will not...)

 

It would be very interesting if an actual Buddhist practitioner gave their opinion of this Sutra as I also think it hits the mark, thanks for posting it 3bob. 

[Bearded Dragon]

Are we to become enlightened because we know what a chair is?    Can you trigger a kundalini energy rising experience by knowing what a chair is?  

 

I would probably be just as enlightened if I had a chair rising experience.

[C T]

It would be very interesting if an actual Buddhist practitioner gave their opinion of this Sutra as I also think it hits the mark, thanks for posting it 3bob. 

Its Ms Bancroft's interpretation which probably helped her to either deepen some understanding or clear some doubts, or both. If that is regarded as hitting the mark for some, well and good. We can only assimilate what makes sense after all. And the tendency to try to make things fit into a mould is a perennial habit. 

[C T]

Oh, CT, you are talking about the spirit of the Buddhist teaching???  What have you accomplished so far relating to this spirit??  I can tell you what I have experienced.  It was a dream.  I dream of Mexican families being displaced by the Trump presidency.  Homes destroyed and emptied out, abandoned.  They were all forced to live in shadows and in the underground.  As I was told in my dream, all of the families are connected to this underground place.  I saw and heard women and infants crying.  This place was packed and crowded.  I sensed suffering and distress.  On the wall, I saw pictures of crying African American children.  

 

I was somewhat shocked and horrified of what I saw in this vision.  For every single US presidency since Bush and his Iraq war, I had visions of their legacies.  I hope I am wrong.  Otherwise, millions of Mexican families in America will be displaced by the Trump presidency.  

 

That's the Buddhist spirit and to have affinity to human suffering...not an affinity to a fool like Karl....    His ego would have to learn its place in this world and is not my job to save his ass...Let Kali deals with him.

 

Buddhist spirit????   Hehehehe.....  Oh dear......    

Huh?

[Marblehead]

Yawn...nothing new.  Buddha said so long ago that everything is Mind.  Every phenomena is produced by the Mind alone.  Therefore, nothing is real except what is not real is the reality.  The reality is that nothing is real and permanent.  There, see how simple this is to explain without writing in huge paragraphs without pseudo psychobabble.    

I still have argument with this understanding.  I find it impossible to believe that the Buddha actually said that nothing is real.  That nothing is permanent, yes, absolutely.  But not real?  No.  I can't buy that.  Why would he have spent so much time teaching other how to become liberated from suffering if their suffering wasn't real?

 

So perhaps you could shorten yours even further by simply stating:  Nothing is permanent.

[Marblehead]

Hi Chi Force, 

 

Im not sure why, but whenever i happen to read any of your posts, most times it involves ridiculing others and their apparent lack of Dharmic understanding, to the extent that it evokes the image of someone poking fun at another person's physical disability. 

 

Whats more, you actually claim to be enlightened, but as a result of this and similar expressions, it brings your claim into question somehow. 

 

I was reluctant until now to bring this up but some of your words actually reflect negatively on the spirit of Buddhist teachings, which is why i felt it necessary to ask if you will consider checking your writing style a bit.

 

thanks!  

 

An example of your 'enlightened' speech below

To me it always seems a contradiction when two Buddhists get into a disagreement.

 

You both are right.

[Karl]

I still have argument with this understanding.  I find it impossible to believe that the Buddha actually said that nothing is real.  That nothing is permanent, yes, absolutely.  But not real?  No.  I can't buy that.  Why would he have spent so much time teaching other how to become liberated from suffering if their suffering wasn't real?

 

So perhaps you could shorten yours even further by simply stating:  Nothing is permanent.

 

Except the universe.

[Marblehead]

Except the universe.

Yeah, this will remain until we find a definition of the universe that is acceptable to the both of us.

[Marblehead]

Sorry I don't fit your description of what a Dharma warrior should be!!!!    How Dharma...  A Dharma can be named is not Dharma...  A Tao can be described is not Tao.... 

Yeah, some of us can't even attain to the expectations we have placed upon our self. 

 

(of course, what we should have become was already present when we started thinking.  That was our first mistake.)

[Marblehead]

He could start by understanding the 5 human aggregates that are responsible for experiencing SUFFERING and to generate false views in our lives. 

Maybe he isn't suffering and therefore needs not consider such things?

[Marblehead]

His ego is filled with so much ignorance that I am afraid this message board and my insults won't do much good for him......

 

Good Buddhists aren't supposed to be insulting others.  Good Buddhists realize that nothing is permanent.  Even Karl will change.

[Marblehead]

I would probably be just as enlightened if I had a chair rising experience.

 

Yeah, levitating is a really neat experience.  (I imagined it one.)

[Marblehead]

Huh?

 

Well, you picked on him; he had to return the favor.

[Karl]

Yeah, this will remain until we find a definition of the universe that is acceptable to the both of us.

 

Then you must find a definition for the universe which isn't the universe. It's a chunked up conceptual idea. Like large, larger and largest. We cannot see the edges or every bit of the content, we can only conceptualise it.

 

You would have to explain why the universe cannot be the way that you conceptualise it. :-) it cannot be logically different based on our cognition of it. I don't think you have a very different conception of animals, or furniture-we might argue the classifications of course-but when we come to the totality of all classifications then there can be no room for differences except experientially. A child might perceive the universe as much smaller than we do, but it will still subsume everything it knows at that point. We might class the universe as bigger or smaller depending on our experience, but we cannot avoid it's definition as the widest of all categories.

[Karl]

Good Buddhists aren't supposed to be insulting others.  Good Buddhists realize that nothing is permanent.  Even Karl will change.

 

Changing as we speak :-)

[Marblehead]

Then you must find a definition for the universe which isn't the universe.

Yes, that is the problem.  I hold to the Big Bang theory.  I am also a Materialist.

 

Therefore, in my mind, this universe did not exist until Singularity banged.

 

If my understanding of the concepts of reversion and cycles are valid then there were previous universes and there will be future universes.

 

But, we can talk only of this one.