Ah, it's the same old...

[mYTHmAKER]

The most well known proponent of the 'who am i?' form of inquiry, Bahgavan Sri Ramana Maharshi attained the non-dual realization such that most people are unable to even begin to grasp the true meaning of what he meant within their current minds.

 

The who am i inquiry is not necessarilly spoken as words, but is rather used as an impetus to return the mind back to it's origin.

Where did this thought come from? this feeling, this sensation..........right down to the most subtle 'meditation' experience - turning the awareness back on the 'experienceer' = the subject, the 'I'.

 

Can be easy, can also be difficult due to our habits of attatchments.

 

Maybe some qoutes by Ramana maharshi might clarify?

 

"Of all the thoughts that arise in the mind, the 'I' thought is the first. It is only after the rise of this that other thoughts arise."

 

So he says that to inquire who am i will lead the mind back to it's source. Not that the inquiry is intellectual or spoken, it is a means of mind turing back upon itself.

 

"When the mind stays in the heart, the "I" which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the SELF which ever exists will shine. Whatever one does, one should do without the egoity "I". If one acts in that way, all will appear as the nature of God."

"The thought "I" is the first thought of the mind and that is egoity. This is where breath originates. Breath is the gross form of mind."

 

This refernce to breath, and tracing it's source i feel bears some resemblence to the Taoist text 'The supreme Jade Emporer's Embryo Breath Scripture' http://taoistresource.home.comcast.net/~ta...ce/toysicg.html

 

Nice post

 

 

 

 

[Andrei]

too much philosophy.... too many words.... too many meanings for each word.... I like more Puppetji

 

ydAfgSIgU_E

[Cameron]

lbxBFb3A5ak

[Starjumper]

If we understand the historical context where it was spoken, there is nothing wrong with what Daoist Heavenly Immortal Chung Liquan said. First he mentioned that:

 

"People become ghost immortals when they try to cultivate but do not understand the Tao. Wanting to make fast progress, they take shortcuts in their training. As a result, their bodies are brittle as dry wood and their minds are as dead as cold ashes. (...) "

 

Then he talked about people who claimed to be Buddhists.

 

Although these beings are classed as immortals, they are really ghosts with no substance. Practitioners who claim to be Buddhist (...)usually end up as this type of immortal."

 

 

Allan gets the reading comprehension award of the week!

[doc benway]

too much philosophy.... too many words.... too many meanings for each word.... I like more Puppetji

I LOVE Puppetji!

Thanks for turning me on to him.

I wonder if he is on the seminar circuit?

If not, I may just have to go study at his ashram!

[Adam West]

As I see it, the "who am I", the "who is it that sits in meditation" type of questions are not meant to result in any kind of linguistically based, discursive response from the mind or ego - quite the contrary. The idea is to pose the question, thus causing the attention of awareness to turn within for a moment, to be directed to the base or Tao, the logical-analytic mind comes to a rest just long enough for the intuative awareness to open up into a flash of realisation revelaing the aspirant's fundamental nature as pure awareness. So one does not answer the question per se, one sees one's true nature in the act of dropping attention from form into the formless. The question causes one to look within, that is all.

 

It is a simple method of seeing through form into the formless. As others have since postulated and realised for themselves, one can drop the question altogether and simply look into awareness, if sustained in relaxed meditation, the same result occurs - one sees directly the nature of Self and the great realisation is permanently noticed.

 

In kind regards,

 

Adam.

[Starjumper]

As I see it, the "who am I", the "who is it that sits in meditation" type of questions are not meant to result in any kind of linguistically based, discursive response from the mind or ego - quite the contrary. The idea is to pose the question, thus causing the attention of awareness to turn within for a moment, to be directed to the base or Tao, the logical-analytic mind comes to a rest just long enough for the intuative awareness to open up into a flash of realisation revelaing the aspirant's fundamental nature as pure awareness. So one does not answer the question per se, one sees one's true nature in the act of dropping attention from form into the formless. The question causes one to look within, that is all.

 

It is a simple method of seeing through form into the formless. As others have since postulated and realised for themselves, one can drop the question altogether and simply look into awareness, if sustained in relaxed meditation, the same result occurs - one sees directly the nature of Self and the great realisation is permanently noticed.

 

thanks Adam, I see how this question is used now, my student, when he came up with it, was actually serious about the question itself. I'm sure that people who use it for meditation also ponder it as an actual question too, at least while they aren't meditating.

 

In any case, the Taoist way to keep the mind occupied, to arrive at the formless, uses techniques like 'listening to the force', or listening to the (subtle) breath.

 

In any case, all of these types of tasks create a slight mental tension which prevents on from reaching full stillness and being totally blank.

[doc benway]

In any case, all of these types of tasks create a slight mental tension which prevents on from reaching full stillness and being totally blank.

Is it possible for the mind to become fully still? totally blank?

For how long? If so, what is there to remain aware of this stillness?

If there is something aware of total stillness, is that total stillness?

 

 

Like Who Am I?, these are more or less rhetorical questions intended to stimulate introspection and, perhaps, some discussion. Definitive answers to such questions are rarely meaningful...

Edited February 21, 2008 by xuesheng

[mYTHmAKER]

thanks Adam, I see how this question is used now, my student, when he came up with it, was actually serious about the question itself. I'm sure that people who use it for meditation also ponder it as an actual question too, at least while they aren't meditating.

 

In any case, the Taoist way to keep the mind occupied, to arrive at the formless, uses techniques like 'listening to the force', or listening to the (subtle) breath.

 

In any case, all of these types of tasks create a slight mental tension which prevents on from reaching full stillness and being totally blank.

 

Starjumper glad you got it. Again thanks to Adam - no thanks to me

Just different approaches of getting to the same place - nowhere -

[林愛偉]

Actually I think there are some beautiful things about Buddhism, I just can't recall what they are at the moment - kidding - I think some of the Tibetan practices are beautiful - but they aren't really Buddhist per se, they're the indigenous practices of the land that were absorbed by Buddhism.

 

What Chung and Lu said about Buddhism was exactly right, and it's the religious aspect they were talking about. The same applies to ALL religions as far as their dogma is concerned. It applies to all the Western religions and also to the fundamentalist aspects of the Eastern ones, including Taoism. The fundamentalist aspect of Taoism is Confucianism. People wanted to think I was attacking Buddhism itself, but I wasn't. I hold many of the Buddhist practices in high regard, it's the dogma aspect wherein lies the danger. The problem with Buddhism is the huge volume of words attributed to Buddha and his psychoanalytical approach, because, as I said before, it attracts the emotionally handicapped of the West in droves. They think the words are important and focus so much on them that their 'practice is little more than words and ideas. They become lost in the words, and I've seen people say the most idiotic things while trying to explain some Buddhist concept. They say things that are so blatantly wrong that even a child with some common sense will see right through them. Western fundamentalists do exactly the same thing.

 

--------------

 

Something to add to the who am I debate is the words of the master, Jesus, who said to only look ahead at the furrow the plow is about to make instead of looking back at the furrow the plow already made, he was speaking of reincarnation when he said this. If people remembered their past lives as a continuum they would have a much harder time making progress so there is a very good reason at the mystical/spiritual level for people to NOT know about their past lives.

 

 

Very correct, the Tibetan Buddhist methods are an absorption of Shamnistic practices, Spirit and Demon practices, as well as cultural assimilations of Tibetan life. This is why there is a need for wisdom in cultivation, so one can wisely distinguish proper Dharma and the Dharma of Confusion.

 

The "religious" , dogmatic, expedient of Buddhism was created about 200yrs ago. Before that, it was all educational, nothing superstitious. Now we have 4 types of Buddhism in the world, unfortunately.

The first type is The Education, which was how Shakyamuni Buddha taught, and how it was maintained after he left the world. Unfortunately it is rare these days and not many understand it.

Second is the religious expedient; as an example - where people bow is prayer asking for things as though the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are Gods, giving 1 dollar while praying for a million. They reason with them, and make them out to be needy for attention and worship, which they are not.

The third is that Buddhism is only a philosophy, and that aspect is taught in universities. It takes out a great deal of the function of the Buddha's teachings and leaves only an immoral tool which results in people picking and choosing without responsibility, what they like and dislike. This is not done with the wisdom mind, and leads to misrepresentations of Buddhism which empower one's ego and arrogance.

The last is the Cultic-like followings of Buddhism. Most of these schools create people to follow instead of investigate and attain enlightenment. This path is very dangerous, and causes problems with the law, disrupts society and family and ultimately becomes life-threatening.

 

The second aspect of Buddhism today doesn't harm the people actually, just keeps them in a mind of devotion, yet many end up misunderstanding, they still work to do good things, which is all right in getting good deeds in return.

But the last 2 are the most dangerous simply because it is like an unbridled horse running all over the world causing societies and governments to destroy an educational system that was the most perfectly established Teacher-Student method since the Buddha came in the world and set forth the Proper Dharma.

 

So really, the last 3 aspects were created within the last 200 yrs, religious expedient the first of the 3 and the last 2 a result of the last 50yrs of Buddhism in the west. The educational aspect was the foundation and the all encompassing manner of Buddhist cultivation. Just like everything else, people manipulated things to an extent, and now we cannot deny the religious expedient, philosophical and cultic-like mannerisms of what people have created.

 

This is why I say one doesn't "know" Buddhism cultivation unless they actually set aside their ego, and investigated their mind diligently, honestly, and patiently...in the guidance of the Proper Dharma.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Edited February 22, 2008 by 林愛偉

[mYTHmAKER]

oops

Edited February 22, 2008 by mYTHmAKER

[Starjumper]

Is it possible for the mind to become fully still? totally blank?

For how long? If so, what is there to remain aware of this stillness?

If there is something aware of total stillness, is that total stillness?

 

Yes the mind can become fully still and totally blank. The masters say that if you can sit for two hours with no body tension and no thoughts or focus (totally blank) then that is a good start. The act of focusing on anything causes some body and mental tension.

 

This is not a trance like state, it is a state of hyper awareness, so the person is well aware of sounds in their surroundings and of their own stillness, they just do not direct their focus anywhere in particular, just let it float. If there is some commotion that causes one to focus on it momentarily and draws one out of full stillness then the timer starts over again, so it is good to be in a quiet place.

 

Since thinking and awareness are mutually exclusive then awareness increases when thoughts (and focus) subside.

 

My wife and I just rented a new Jackie Chan movie (her idea) and in the previews there was one movie titled "Who Am I?" More synchronicity for me around this 'who am I' BS. Also I had seen and posted a Jackie chan combat video clip the night before and wanted to know what movie it was from and I ended up renting it without knowing it was the one. Cool! I love it when this sh*t happens.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Starjumper7

[WhiteTiger]

Yes the mind can become fully still and totally blank. The masters say that if you can sit for two hours with no body tension and no thoughts or focus (totally blank) then that is a good start. The act of focusing on anything causes some body and mental tension.

 

This is not a trance like state, it is a state of hyper awareness, so the person is well aware of sounds in their surroundings and of their own stillness, they just do not direct their focus anywhere in particular, just let it float. If there is some commotion that causes one to focus on it momentarily and draws one out of full stillness then the timer starts over again, so it is good to be in a quiet place.

 

Since thinking and awareness are mutually exclusive then awareness increases when thoughts (and focus) subside.

 

My wife and I just rented a new Jackie Chan movie (her idea) and in the previews there was one movie titled "Who Am I?" More synchronicity for me around this 'who am I' BS. Also I had seen and posted a Jackie chan combat video clip the night before and wanted to know what movie it was from and I ended up renting it without knowing it was the one. Cool! I love it when this sh*t happens.

 

Have you actually mastered the mind being fully still and totally blank.

If so maybe you could share a little about it?

 

From my understanding Breath regulation is one of the most important parts of meditation. So i understand from experience how important it is. At the same time I learned to become in the "be the the presences" and also starting absorbing into the Tao without any awareness of breath regulation. (of course i was still breathing just not any taoist breathing method... well any ones that use the proper circulation of chi)

 

edit: When i said From my understanding breath regulation is one of the most important parts of meditation (is dependant on what meditation your doing... i'm pretty sure lots of taoist meditation require the breath regulation is what i meant) When i said that it has nothing to do with So i understand from experience how important it is... i was talking personally about the breath regulation... i have experience in that. (so in other words because i have experience in breath regulation i understand how important it is... not saying the onion is fully peeled (knowing all of it, but yeah i've peeled a few layers deep )

Edited February 23, 2008 by WhiteTiger

[Starjumper]

Waving when asked "Who am I?"... you call it mental jerking off.. but holding onto views of a self is just that.

 

I think I didn't explain myself well enough, I see my response as being the opposite of mental jerking off. I don't have anything against mental jerking off either, mind you, I do it all the time. Thinking can be fun and can even result in mental bliss, adding to possible physical bliss and emotional bliss. Which one to you, Lin, is enlightenment?

Edited February 23, 2008 by Starjumper7

[林愛偉]

I think I didn't explain myself well enough, I see my response as being the opposite of mental jerking off. I don't have anything against mental jerking off either, mind you, I do it all the time. Thinking can be fun and can even result in mental bliss, adding to possible physical bliss and emotional bliss. Which one to you, Lin, is enlightenment?

 

 

Brother,

 

Physical and emotional bliss, both defile the mind. Neither of the two is the enlightened mind.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[Starjumper]

Physical and emotional bliss, both defile the mind. Neither of the two is the enlightened mind.

 

I see, well it's not that way in Taoism. Enlightenment is emotional bliss (greater emotional bliss) and physical bliss is a natural reward for having lot's of nice chi energy, and mental bliss isn't possible until a few years after enlightenment when non thinking ability is established.

 

Physical bliss, that's the reason that Lao Tzu is the only one smiling at the vinager pot, the other guys don't have enough to smile about.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Starjumper7

[林愛偉]

I see, well it's not that way in Taoism. Enlightenment is emotional bliss (greater emotional bliss) and physical bliss is a natural reward for having lot's of nice chi energy, and mental bliss isn't possible until a few years after enlightenment when non thinking ability is established.

 

Physical bliss, that's the reason that Lao Tzu is the only one smiling at the vinager pot, the other guys don't have enough to smile about.

 

Any manner of bliss is just a state which passes. Whoever painted that picture, Daoist or Buddhist,was still attached to views.

 

If Daoism holds to emotional bliss, any form of it, as enlightenment, it isn't complete enlightenment. A natural reward is nothing but an outcome of a cause. It is still an outflow, that which goes from the mind which in return results in states, any manner of states.

 

One cannot believe everything in a picture, image, etc. This is why Shakyamuni Buddha didn't approve of putting one's faith in images; statues, paintings, etc.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[voidisyinyang]

Neither passing nor staying such is that beyond time and space. Time is breath.

[林愛偉]

Neither passing nor staying such is that beyond time and space. Time is breath.

 

 

Thus...

[Starjumper]

I think this is a thread that can go over 500 pages, the thread that lasts forever. Long after we're gone the "Ah, it's the same old..." will still be going strong, with it's perfect name and having been started by the poster with the friendly sounding name of Buddy; keeping friendly Buddy's name fresh in the minds of generations of posters.

[voidisyinyang]

Just as thoughts are waking dreams so thoughtless bliss is a sleeping dream.

[WhiteTiger]

For the sake of this agruement StarJumper and Lin

 

Can you please define your meaning of enlightenment and bliss... i'm pretty damn sure Lin's definition is much different then StarJumper's.

 

Neither passing nor staying such is that beyond time and space. Time is breath.

 

Taoist practitioner speaking (and many Buddhist practices I'm sure...) According to your understanding definition this might be correct... but you might have missing pieces.

 

Then again you might not, just didn't define exactly your understanding of it is

 

Just as thoughts are waking dreams so thoughtless bliss is a sleeping dream.

 

Yes once again please define what a thought is, what is waking dreams. what thoughtless bliss is, and finally what sleeping dream.

 

Although i get what a thought is (most likely just as your about to define it) but definately not a waking dream. I know what thoughtless is, but thoughtless bliss... i got not idea... and sleeping dream i most likely understand through experience but i like to have my bases covered if you care to explain... actually might be teaching me.

[林愛偉]

For the sake of this agruement StarJumper and Lin

 

Can you please define your meaning of enlightenment and bliss...

 

 

 

There really is no need to define it. You can't find it anywhere. All there is the need for, is to cultivate. There is no certifying, because there is nothing to certify to.

 

If there was to be something to "define" it, its simply the Non-Dual, non-defiled, non-confused Mind. It is simply the wise, the compassionate, the patient Mind. Ever pervasive, and non-residing.

 

Be careful for the flowery, pop-Daoist/Buddhist vocabulary when investigating the mind. Its not complicated at all. But its non-complicatedness is can simply be one's confusion. One's confusion is simply because they rely too much on worldly knowledge than the wisdom mind.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Edited February 24, 2008 by 林愛偉

[Starjumper]

Any manner of bliss is just a state which passes. Whoever painted that picture, Daoist or Buddhist,was still attached to views.

 

One cannot believe everything in a picture, image, etc. This is why Shakyamuni Buddha didn't approve of putting one's faith in images; statues, paintings, etc.

 

OK, I'm sorry I mentioned the vinager tasters, it was a joke and due to my tendancy to do a knock down after the uppercut. Just forget the picture.

 

If Daoism holds to emotional bliss, any form of it, as enlightenment, it isn't complete enlightenment. A natural reward is nothing but an outcome of a cause. It is still an outflow, that which goes from the mind which in return results in states, any manner of states.

 

I didn't say bliss states are permanent, did I? Also, enlightenment and the different blisses are definitely states that we can experience so your comments about mind and outflow do not apply.

 

 

For the sake of this agruement StarJumper and Lin

 

Can you please define your meaning of enlightenment and bliss...

 

There really is no need to define it. You can't find it anywhere. All there is the need for, is to cultivate. There is no certifying, because there is nothing to certify to.

 

If there was to be something to "define" it, its simply the Non-Dual, non-defiled, non-confused Mind. It is simply the wise, the compassionate, the patient Mind. Ever pervasive, and non-residing.

 

Be careful for the flowery, pop-Daoist/Buddhist vocabulary when investigating the mind. Its not complicated at all. But its non-complicatedness is can simply be one's confusion. One's confusion is simply because they rely too much on worldly knowledge than the wisdom mind.

 

Yes there is a need to define it, because I am referring to the enlightenment experience, which is real enlightenment, while Lin is referring to a type of vague and difficult to describe type of mental condition which one can develope some years after the enlightenment experience and which has many of the same characteristics as the experience itself except it's missing the intense emotional bliss experience that goes along with it.

 

Beware of people who discredit experiences and who instead point back to the mind, they are the ones that are having trouble with the concepts while the shaman simply basks in the beingness of it.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Starjumper7

[林愛偉]

OK, I'm sorry I mentioned the vinager tasters, it was a joke and due to my tendancy to do a knock down after the uppercut. Just forget the picture.

I didn't say bliss states are permanent, did I? Also, enlightenment and the different blisses are definitely states that we can experience so your comments about mind and outflow do not apply.

There really is no need to define it. You can't find it anywhere. All there is the need for, is to cultivate. There is no certifying, because there is nothing to certify to.

 

If there was to be something to "define" it, its simply the Non-Dual, non-defiled, non-confused Mind. It is simply the wise, the compassionate, the patient Mind. Ever pervasive, and non-residing.

 

 

Yes there is a need to define it, because I am referring to the enlightenment experience, which is real enlightenment, while Lin is referring to a type of vague and difficult to describe type of mental condition which one can develope some years after the enlightenment experience and which has many of the same characteristics as the experience itself except it's missing the intense emotional bliss experience that goes along with it.

 

Not difficult to explain at all. It may seem vague, and difficult to understand. THat is fine because that is only as much as the capacity of the perceiver's mind can conceive.

 

Stop putting a head ontop of a head here. "My version of enlightenment is better than yours" talk only confuses people, and steers them further down the defiled path. Enlightenment is enlightenment regardless of what it is labeled. It is much better to cultivate and attain, than talk about it, not cultivate it, and never attain it. This is why there is no need to stick to a definition of something that gets covered with more intellectualism.

If enlightenment is a state, then it is only passing, and not complete proper enlightenment; Anuttura Samyak Sambodhi.

 

Simply said:

 

Talking about enlightenment is the same as talking about eating. You don't get full from talking about food.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Edited February 24, 2008 by 林愛偉