Asking who I am is a bullshit

[exorcist_1699]

Asking," who am I ?" is a Zen Buddhist way towards Enlightenment ,suitable for real genius or talents , not for ordinary earthly ,married guys .Seldom can you nourish the vigorous dragon from that pool of static water by following this path.

Edited March 16, 2008 by exorcist_1699

[i_am_sam]

i am sam

 

 

peace

[exorcist_1699]

Only can genius get rid of those trivial,layers and troubles, and, reach the core of Enlightenment in one stroke; others , by following the same path , unfortunately are likely led to some kind of philosophical reasoning bullshit.

Edited March 16, 2008 by exorcist_1699

[松永道]

From what I've learned from the Chan (Zen) monasteries I visited in Hong Kong, the questions like this are topics for pretty serious meditation. Like any other type of monastic meditation practice, it's every day and for hours. Not just a question you ask yourself occasionally.

 

It's true though, I don't think there is any one path and suits everyone at all. It's like trying to get from your home to the town center. The route and form of transportation is different for everyone depending on where you're coming from. As you get closer routes tend to converge but there's only one place they all meet: in the town center.

 

From what I can tell every route to enlightenment involves harnessing creative/sexual energy somehow and this is a very broad category. In Tang Dynasty China both Buddhism and Taoism flourished. China was a major exporter of culture and many people (including early Christians and many Muslims) all gravitated to the capital Chang'an (Japanese architecture is essentially Tang Dynasty architecture). In this time period enlightenment and qigong were the topics of the day. And every creative pursuit was used to cultivate. Meditation, qigong, martial arts, medicine, music, calligraphy, painting, sculpting, the list goes on. Most people pursued many ways but also emphasized one or two. We can all do it all but each of us have our character strengths. Perhaps you'r e right, asking "who am I" is a better way for a genius than stillness meditation.

 

Different strokes for different folks. I pretty glad we're not all the same, what a boring place that would be.

[Marky777]

"Who am I ?"

 

was popularised by Ramana Maharishi.

So it must be borne in mind that the agenda here, is that there is no personal I. The exercise is a trick to cause that realisation to emerge.

[Yoda]

I agree... it's a great path for the extremely evolved set, but not worth the time for the average practitioner.

[Procurator]

Only can genius get rid of those trivial,layers and troubles, and, reach the core of Enlightenment in one stroke; others , by following the same path , unfortunately are likely led to some kind of philosophical reasoning bullshit.

Very correct. This technique is a good example of ppl not belonging to any true tradition to make up little exercises for themselves.

 

The do it by a simple trick of equaiting the little shreds of true tradition that they see from outside to what they know from ordinary life.

 

Like , oh this people meditate? So they must be thinking. Thinking about what? Must be about a question. What question? Must be "who am i".

 

Ridiculous of course, but....

 

Other example of equaiting traditional with trivial proferred on this board:

 

bagua = high-school wrestling

 

alchemy = turning yourself into a good person

 

external alchemy=western medicine

 

eating a lemon= immortal foetus

 

 

and so forth and so on

Edited March 16, 2008 by Procurator

[doc benway]

Asking," who am I ?" is a Zen Buddhist way towards Enlightenment ,suitable for real genius or talents , not for ordinary earthly ,married guys .Seldom can you nourish the vigorous dragon from that pool of static water by following this path.

It actually began long before Zen or Buddhism existed. It has nothing to do with marriage, intelligence, or talent, just a bit of discipline and commitment.

How long have you practiced this method for you to reach such a conclusion?

Why do you feel a need to discourage others from experimenting with it?

 

Only can genius get rid of those trivial,layers and troubles, and, reach the core of Enlightenment in one stroke; others , by following the same path , unfortunately are likely led to some kind of philosophical reasoning bullshit.

Actually, it has nothing to do with philosophy or reasoning. It can take you beyond both quite readily in a very short time. On the other hand, if it hasn't worked well for you, there are many other options.

 

I agree... it's a great path for the extremely evolved set, but not worth the time for the average practitioner.

How long did you practice it to reach such a conclusion?

What is a better use of time for the average practitioner wishing to understand the nature of thought and self?

 

Ramana and Nisargadatta had absolutely no training prior to begin the practice.

Neither would be considered a genius. They were very average and Nisargadatta, I believe, had a wife and kids. He was a simple shop owner with no spiritual background.

Ramana was nearly a child who reportedly had no formal instruction at all.

 

It's ridiculously simple but not easy.

Nothing worthwhile is easy.

 

That said, if you don't like it, don't do it.

Why do you feel a need to try and discourage others?

 

Very correct. This technique is a good example of ppl not belonging to any true tradition to make up little exercises for themselves.

Why is tradition better than a simple exercise that can be used by anyone?

How long did you practice the method for before reaching your conclusions?

 

 

 

Other example of equaiting traditional with trivial proferred on this board:

 

bagua = high-school wrestling

 

alchemy = turning yourself into a good person

 

external alchemy=western medicine

 

eating a lemon= immortal foetus

and so forth and so on

You're quite adept at taking things out of context and misquoting people in an effort to belittle their points.

Bravo!

[Procurator]

 

Why is tradition better than a simple exercise that can be used by anyone?

tradition brings positive results, a simple exercise brings negative results.

 

positive - GOOD, negative-BAD.

[mYTHmAKER]

First of all I wish to thank the panel of experts who haven't tried the method they are putting down.

The panel excells at speculation and intelluctual mind games.

The method question "Who am I" is presently used by Gangaji.

It seems to be used by ordinary people easily and successfully.

[doc benway]

tradition brings positive results, a simple exercise brings negative results.

 

positive - GOOD, negative-BAD.

So I guess that you would advocate attending Catholic mass over practicing qigong?

[Procurator]

First of all I wish to thank the panel of experts who haven't tried the method they are putting down.

... and successfully.

the panels of xperts have not tried most of other exercises in futility either. come on, lets not be negative.

 

could you please define the success of this method?

 

 

So I guess that you would advocate attending Catholic mass over practicing qigong?

Steve you accused me of misqouting. please kindly notice the word TRUE in my post above. Thank you.

 

and yes. If this is "quigong" learned from some one whose last name is Cohen, the Mass is much better, the singing is quite beautiful, no?

[mYTHmAKER]

the panels of xperts have not tried most of other exercises in futility either. come on, lets not be negative.

 

could you please define the success of this method?

 

 

 

I wasn't being negative. The panel of experts was definately negative. Calling something bullshit that

you haven't tried or have no knowledge of IMHO is being negative and not worth a response.

I only responded because there are some people here who are open minded and should not be

influenced by narrow vision.

 

I define the success of this method as people being worried and unhappy

immediately smiling or laughing and no longer worried or unhappy after using this method.

 

I have watched Gangaji videos on public access tv and the results seem to be consistant.

 

Check it out for yourself.

 

We call the method Zen because we read about it in Zen books.

Maybe Ramana Marhashi read zen books as a child

Edited March 16, 2008 by mYTHmAKER

[doc benway]

Steve you accused me of misqouting. please kindly notice the word TRUE in my post above.

Your use of the word true has nothing to do with your misrepresentation of others' opinions by reducing them to simplistic equalities in what appears to be an attempt to make others look foolish or stupid. For example, I never said that external alchemy was equivalent to western medicine - I said that they had interesing parallels in terms of human motivation. Taking external agents into the body to change it in some way in an attempt to improve it, whether that be to transcend illness or transcend mortality, as if what we are isn't good enough and isn't all there will ever be.

 

I find it telling that you consider wrestling, western medicine, and turning yourself into a good person to be trivial. Tell that to your surgeon should you ever need one after being beaten up by a wrestler.

My son used to wrestle - the investment of time, spirit, and energy was astounding! I'm a surgeon and I can assure you that what I do and what my patients experience is not trivial to them.

 

 

PS In case you didn't realize it, the "Who Am I" question is as traditional as any method in existence and is probably older than most known traditions. Just because it is simple and free of ritual, pomp, and circumstance, doesn't mean that it's not traditional or effective. In fact, what is more Daoist than simplicity? Zhuangzi would certainly have approved! It can be seen in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali as well as in some of the earliest writings of Hindu and Tantric traditions. It is the foundation of Advaita Vedanta, and is at the core of Buddhism and, in fact, Daoism. After all what is Dao? Who am I? Are they not the same question?

 

I usually don't get personal on the web but sometimes I'm driven to try an intervention -

Have you ever asked yourself why you are always so negative and hurtful? Your voice on the forum is always angry and disdainful. It sounds like the voice of one who is in a lot of pain. it's quite sad, particularly since you seem to have some degree of knowledge you could share. On the other hand, it's obvious that your own cup is full to the point of overflowing. It might change your outlook if you could empty it, just a bit... and perhaps try a kind word, even once.

Wishing you the best...

[Stigweard]

LOL I thought it was being a little too quiet around here.

 

All good ... have at it boys, play fair, no punching below the belt.

 

[mYTHmAKER]

LOL I thought it was being a little too quiet around here.

 

All good ... have at it boys, play fair, no punching below the belt.

 

 

Is this necessary.

What are you cultivating

[Stigweard]

Is this necessary.

What are you cultivating

 

Humour

[mYTHmAKER]

Humour

Oh

[Buddy]

Who are you?

[Procurator]

as if what we are isn't good enough and isn't all there will ever be.

no Sir, it is not for me.

 

 

 

PS In case you didn't realize it, the "Who Am I" question is as traditional as any method in existence and is probably older than most known traditions. Just because it is simple and free of ritual, pomp, and circumstance, doesn't mean that it's not traditional or effective. In fact, what is more Daoist than simplicity? Zhuangzi would certainly have approved! It can be seen in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali as well as in some of the earliest writings of Hindu and Tantric traditions. It is the foundation of Advaita Vedanta, and is at the core of Buddhism and, in fact, Daoism. After all what is Dao? Who am I? Are they not the same question?

 

No. You smply dont know what are you talking about.

[Procurator]

Have you ever asked yourself why you are always so negative and hurtful? Your voice on the forum is always angry and disdainful. It sounds like the voice of one who is in a lot of pain. it's quite sad, particularly since you seem to have some degree of knowledge you could share. On the other hand, it's obvious that your own cup is full to the point of overflowing. It might change your outlook if you could empty it, just a bit... and perhaps try a kind word, even once.

Thanks man, will try my damnedest, but here is the deal...

 

You belong to this world.

I belong to the other world.

 

What is good and benign in your world is bad in mine. Whole grain bread and water that quenches the thirst are poisons to me, career and wealth is just dust under my feet.

 

Similarly what in my world is a constructive criticizm, good natured fun, friendly advice etc. comes across in your world as negativity, wet blanket, discouragment and such like.

 

Nothing personal we are just from different worlds ok?

 

Dont be sad, and I promise to cheer up too. I will even stop by the book club and leave a comment or two. Lets us all just get along, shall we.

[Buddy]

Edited March 17, 2008 by Buddy

[Yoda]

If the self inquiry path works for you then do it. It's the quickest way. It took Ramana less than a day start to finish... gotta love that.

[Procurator]

 

 

Actually I was thinking jejune banality.

whatever buddy, jejune banality works for me too.

[松永道]

...here is the deal...

 

You belong to this world.

I belong to the other world.

 

What is good and benign in your world is bad in mine. Whole grain bread and water that quenches the thirst are poisons to me, career and wealth is just dust under my feet.

 

If I may add some constructive criticism, this line of thinking won't get you very far. We are all in both worlds, if you own a computer and can connect to the internet you most certainly have a foot in this one. I recall a college conversation with friends. We were having a lively conversation about how we didn't need all this stuff. We didn't need money, career was for suckers, on and on. And I still we were right. People don't need all this. However, when we entered what seemed like the worst job market since the great depression, in a new city without family where we really didn't have ANYTHING, my friend reflected on our high-minded holier than thou ideals. "It was pretty easy to say I didn't need anything when I had my ass planted on a comfortable couch and food in my belly." What a world of difference is was to say than do.

 

It took me a while to figure out there are three levels of knowing. That which we hear, learn, or read second hand. That which we then have thought about and incorporated into our logical framework. And that which we can do and have direct experience of. Your words are obviously from that second category. And that's a good thing; you've thought about it. That's a hell of a lot better than getting spoon fed something in school or church and then regurgitating it without thought. But just because you've thought about it and it makes sense, that doesn't make it real. You need experience to fill in the framework.

 

Experience is the proof. And people without it will always have this underlying insecurity. They need to prove it. Be it through logic, belittling language, whatever. You look outward to prove, to convince others, of that which is inwardly unproven. If you have your proof, it doesn't matter what someone else thinks. You're not going to convince me snow isn't real just because you haven't seen it. I already know! I've seen, touched and tasted it. When you have proof, there's no contest. Then it's just about sharing if the person has the ears to hear it. Real masters are very simple, they have the proof, they don't need to demonstrate it to every jackass who says, "then prove it!"

 

Water is poison to you? Money means nothing? My friend, my friend, you don't have to prove it to me, but is this something you think or something you really experience?

Edited March 17, 2008 by 松永道