goldisheavy

Yeah, you're so high GIH, you're so great!!

We are not worthy!

 

Not "we". Just you.

But, I also do think you are wrong when it comes to certain traditions. You think they are fat and I think they are meat.

 

I guess you have something specific in mind when you say that, since you use the word "certain." Do you mind telling me which specific traditions do you think I think are fat?

 

As for the rest of your reply, it looks like everything I was trying to say went right over your head.

Well, technically the term "field of meanings" has to do with our linguistic categorization or terms (according to some google searching ). But I don't think that's what you meant. When you say the Buddha is in intimate contact with the field of meanings, it probably has to do with the way we categorize experiences, as in how a person can construct his mind into a certain field.

 

A carpenter probably has a different "field of meaning" when he encounters a tree than say a environmental activist. The wise person would be familiar with various field of meanings (this goes back to "rigidity" vs. "fluidity" I guess) just as he is aware of his ability to see such a variety.

 

This is cool. Field of meanings is a way to refer to the contents of a field of awareness or just awareness. Everything is a meaning. All 5 or 6 senses are filled with meanings. The mind is filled with them as well. And I agree with you that a carpenter experiences a different field of meanings compared to an environmental activist.

 

Most people don't realize that the source of meanings is internal, at the root of their own mind. They think meanings come at them through the 5 senses from the outside, from the world which is out there. This kind of appearance is what I call "lack of intimacy."

 

Intimate contact means you don't construe the world to be "out there" and you don't construe yourself to be "in here." You don't construe meanings as traveling through the 5 gates as if they are tourists. Instead you see all meanings as spontaneous and already at their final destination as soon as they arise, with nowhere to go, no sense gate to cross.

Just this sound, this sight

Is the inseperability of appearance, luminosity, and emptiness

The nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, dharmakaya is fully manifested and spontaneously perfected

Seeing form is witnessing mind's nature, hearing sound is the path

Anything else is extra and contrived

 

Thanks, I'll take this off your hands.

A Lineage is made up of individuals and their realizations. Those who are ready to go for it with their entire being, are successful, in whatever good spiritual tradition of whatever goal. Of course this is a process, and it's so complex, to think in black and white dichotomies like you are doing will merely reveal your lack of insight. As an individual, I focus on what is successful for me and those who came to success. In Buddhism, luckily, there are endless examples, because the tradition and the teaching is pretty exhaustive already, simply due to the amount of Buddhas that have come since Gotama in order to comment and clarify.

 

For example look at Dogen's life. Where Dogen was born, in Japan, there was a living tradition. He went to a temple, which is a place of living tradition, and started asking questions. He wasn't happy with the answers. He thought to himself these people are full of shit. Then Dogen went to another temple and asked the same questions. He liked those answers better, so he stayed. Eventually he wasn't happy with the answers anymore and thought they really were lacking. So this second place of tradition has also failed him. Then Dogen left for China, and surprisingly, the abbot left with him. The two of them arrived at China where they met with a guy who was reputed to be best Zen master in all of China. At some point after arriving to China the abbot friend of Dogen died. Dogen stayed with the guy who was reputed to be the best master in China and received a transmission from him. When that was done, Dogen finally realized he heard what he wanted to hear and did what he wanted to do, and so he returned to Japan to start his own lineage there. The established Buddhist authorities in Japan didn't like that idea. So they hunted Dogen for a while and if I remember correctly Dogen had to run away at least once. So here it is again, tradition interfering with Dogen as much as if not more than it's helping.

 

So what happened? Dogen is considered one of the greatest Buddhist masters in Japan, and he is said to be the originator of the Soto lineage of Zen Buddhism. Is Dogen's success thanks to tradition, or is it thanks to Dogen? Why did Dogen kept switching traditions until he heard what he wanted to hear? Something inside Dogen told him in China, "this is it." And frankly we don't even know if the Chinese master was any good. Perhaps Dogen just got tired of running around. Perhaps in all that running Dogen realized something.

 

Well, there was one good thing that came of it. Dogen received a formal document from the master of China. This document looked fancy. It had the names of lineage holders and fancy seals on it. And it authorized Dogen to teach. So it wasn't a complete waste of time. Such documents come in handy when you want to open your Zendo.

Ok, this is what's wrong with your comparison. Corporations are dealing with mundane levels of profiteering. Spiritual traditions do not, but have to succumb to the financial system of support in place either locally or globally in order to maintain the dissemination of information.

 

My comment was about attribution. How and to what do we attribute success? How and to what do we attribute failure? Is the process of attribution a logically cogent one? Is it symmetrical? If we attribute success to the living lineage, why not the failure? Why the gratuitous asymmetry?

 

GIH, you are so proud my dude. You really think you know, but you don't know what you don't know.

 

Yes I am proud and I do think I know what I am talking about. I also think that your lineage did not equip you to talk to me at my level. You're grasping at the straws, son.

Wow!!

 

More of this seems necessary...

 

 

The flaw in your logic is so clear to me, it's almost idiotic. It's also nuanced though, as you are clearly speaking from a lack of experience, and the particular level of experience I am talking about necessitates having really had living lineage, not merely an imaginary one.

 

Armchair pundits with no credentials. Or like ralis, could have had them, but threw them away due to pride and arrogance.

 

This is the kind of substantive and detailed criticism I've come to expect from you, Vaj.

I'm not so certain about what you mean by field of meanings. But the difference seems to be that the deluded mind sees meanings or perceptions that arise in his mind as rigid realities, while the wise mind simply sees it within the frame of fluidity.

 

That's a good way to put it, I think.

 

So what do you think the field of meanings is? The expression should be self-evident. If it turns out it's not a self-evident expression for someone, I'd like to know about it.

 

I'm not sure it is possible to always achieve one's aims. This idea depends heavily on how the fool and the wise see "aims." The wise can always achieve aims by not having that aim be so specific or unrealistic, but I doubt this means the wise man can dream up to become the dictator of the world and succeed. Understanding limits of one's control is another facet of wisdom.

 

To be perfectly technical I would say that people and Buddhas have influence instead of control. But the scope of influence is much more profound for a Buddha's intent than for a deluded being's intent. Of course when I say this I am just making a statement. I am not proving it to you. At least not yet.

 

I think I somehow replied to the latter section of your post while replying to Vaj's post above. A lot of reflecting lately on perception, recognition, awareness, experience...

 

That's nice to hear.

What a stupid comparison. Seriously disappointing and without insight.

 

You know in your heart it's true.

I think it has more to do with the degree of one's delusion and how much past conditioning from deluded views is still dictating the experiences of an individual. Certain legends have it that Shkyamuni was already a Buddha when he decided to be born into the human realm to teach, and he wasn't "born" enlightened. It's a similar concept with Bodhisattvas.

 

But this points to another deeper question. What is the difference between a deluded state of awareness and that of a Buddha?

 

I think ultimately the difference is whatever you decide it to be. I don't think there is one single objective difference. Generally I would say that the Buddha is wise, capable and rarely disappointed. A deluded being is foolish, clumsy and is often disappointed.

 

To be wise means to understand the interrelatedness of all things, and to have an intimate "contact" with the field of meanings. (The word "contact" shouldn't be taken literally.)

 

To be capable means to always achieve your aims.

 

And being rarely disappointed follows from the above two qualities.

 

Being foolish means being unaware of certain relations. And the contact with the field of meanings is not intimate, meaning the mind and that which the mind tries to assess appear to be separated by a huge gap, like "the mind is here, and the world is over there." This breaks the intimacy.

 

Since intent is always true, if you believe the world is one and you are another, of course intent manifests this kind of fracture faithfully. This leads to clumsiness and inability to achieve things, ordinary or magical things, because you always find yourself struggling against the world.

 

From this follows disappointment.

 

Both intimacy and estrangement are purely perceptual, even if visceral. In other words, both are like magical illusions or like dreams. Neither one is more or less true. They are just different ways to live life.

Complete Buddhahood is considered irreversible, because once one has burnt the individual seeds of Samsaric activity, they cannot sprout again. This is why Buddhahood is very rare, while many on this Earth may have one level of the Bumi's or another... Buddhahood is different.

 

So, I disagree with you here.

 

That's just the Buddhist dogma and it's wrong. Every state of mind is logically connected with every other state. A Buddha might not want to become ignorant again, or at least, not any time soon. That doesn't mean Buddha is stuck being a Buddha anymore than a deluded being is stuck being deluded. The potentials don't ever get extinguished because they've never been created by anything in the first place. They just exist primordially. Buddha potential and delusion potential are there at all times in all situations.

You guys are talking about individuals who call themselves Buddhist who have done bad things. This has nothing to do with the Buddhas teachings and tradition, but having to do with those individuals.

 

OK, so when individuals succeed, it's all thanks to the liberating traditions. When they fail, it's all because they are bad or incompetent individuals and the fault lies with the individual. Got it.

 

Here's something similar: when the corporation does well, the credit goes to the CEO. When it does poorly, the workers are blamed and fired. Sound familiar?

I of course disagree. I think your argument is one sided, based upon never having the pleasure of experiencing a living tradition and it's incredible benefits. Of course, individuals do experience what you have just stated, and in many instances, you are right. But, it's not the traditions fault, if it's guided by liberated beings, it's the people who follow them who just don't have the strong intention for self questioning. Most traditions are ruined by those with power who are not in it for the essence of the tradition and are in it for the money, fame and power, either that or familial allegiance.

 

People do this all the time and it bothers me. People do this with tradition and with God.

 

When something positive is happening, credit is given to God or tradition. When something negative happens, no fault is assigned to God or tradition. This is very one sided and unequal. If traditions get credits for good things, they necessarily must get faulted for all the bad things as well. That's the true nature of responsibility. If traditions are not responsible for bad things occurring, there is no way they can be responsible for good things either.

 

Tradition is a mixed bad. It has good elements and bad. When you look around and see ignorant people, who do you thank? I thank tradition for that. It's our tradition to be ignorant as much as it is our tradition to be liberated.

 

Many of these liberating traditions you so esteem started as one person breaking away from tradition. The significance of that is not lost on those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear. It's not a coincidence that it is like that.

Am I clinging to freedom from clinging? That's the million dollar question. Let's find out.

 

First, it's important to define suffering. Are loss, physical pain, ignorance, failure, death, fear, and old age suffering? Or is our reaction to them suffering? I would say that it is the reaction. All those things are facts of life. No matter how much we want to avoid them, we can't. But what we can change is our mental reaction to them. We can accept that these things are inevitable in our lives when they do come at some point and yet still work to reduce them as much as we can; or we can be averse to them ever entering our lives. The latter is what I believe causes suffering. I'm not saying that people who don't even have clean water to drink or a place to go to the bathroom should just suck it up and accept their lot. It's ok to have preferences and to try to get what we want, but we can't always get what we want. That is suffering and clinging.

 

The thing is that it seems that whatever way the mind moves, it clings. It can cling to truth, or it can turn around and cling to not clinging to truth. This is why the problem of suffering is so difficult. Any effort by the mind to reduce suffering whether by a method/practice or by taking up a certain position only increases suffering. It drives the mind into another comfort zone. The effort is the mind's attempt to find security and a permanent pattern to live in. Then impermanent reality inevitably comes and upsets the pattern. So what is the way out?

 

Suffering has never been a huge deal for me and ending suffering is very low on my list of priorities. Number one for me is wisdom. I love understanding things. Understanding is pleasurable and empowering. I also love to play.

 

The only kind of suffering I reject is needless suffering or meaningless suffering. At the same time I view certain kinds of suffering as meaningful and worthwhile and I don't seek to eliminate those kinds.

 

If you look at things from this point of view that I am describing, things look very different compared to making elimination of suffering a number one goal. For one thing, I feel like I am a lot less cornered than what you describe. I don't feel like I am boxed in by suffering on all sides. I feel in control and powerful. I feel influential. I don't feel as if I am fighting a losing battle against suffering and I am down to my last and most clever trick, and it's either all or nothing now, and this trick better work.

 

Wisdom is a thing of utmost beauty. I am positively motivated to find wisdom. I don't go to it out of fear or because I am running away from suffering. I go to it because it's wonderful and because wisdom has seduced me with it's power, elegance and beauty.

 

For me having an insight is in and of itself pleasurable and wonderful. I don't necessarily need insights for something else. It's just a good and lucky thing that often insights end up being pragmatically useful.

 

It seems to me that the way out is to simply be aware of undesirable emotions as they arise, not to try to force them out. Simply to see their cause (seeking permanence) as they manifest. And in that seeing, these undesirables fade on their own. Does this mean that they will never return? No. This seeing is impermanent and so there are going to be moments when we are unaware. In these moments, fear will arise again but when we turn our mind to it and see its cause, it will fade. And then it will return, fade again, and so on. So the surface emotion will never be gotten rid of altogether. But the negative reaction to it can be.

 

Herein lies the difference between me and Xabir and Vajra. We both start from the position of wanting to end suffering. We both believe that realizing some truth is going to end our suffering. They think that realizing truths about what we are, what reality really is, consciousness, what the universe is, etc. is going to end their suffering. I think that all that is unneccessary and all we need to know the end our suffering is some psychology coupled with a few simple ontological facts.

 

They have to be aware of emptiness to be liberated. They believe that it is vidya (or the knowledge of emptiness) that liberates. So they seek and search for that state of vidya itself. I see that one can be completely ignorant of emptiness and still be liberated, because it is not the state of one's mind that matters, but the reaction to that state.

 

This is all very wonderfully written out. What you say is very clear to me and I enjoyed reading all this. As is normal, I will now disagree.

 

You speak of reaction as if reaction is somehow separate from the mind. And I tell you that reaction is conditioned by the mind. In other words, how you react to your state of mind depends on the state of mind. This sounds confusing at first because it lacks details. Let's add some details. The state of mind you are reacting to is more superficial. It is what is readily apparent. For example, you are reacting to a flesh wound, or you are reacting to the obvious physiological appearance of fear. All this is what I call "superficial." How you react to these things will be governed by the meaning you assign to what's happening.

 

And how you assign the meaning depends on a deeper layer of the mind. So what does it mean to have a flesh wound? Well, it's a threat to our personal integrity. Why is it a threat? Well, wounds can become infected and so on. Why is that bad? Well, infections can lead to suffering and death. Why is that bad? I don't know if there is life after death and I worry this one life is all I have. I don't want to die too early. I want to enjoy life to the maximum extent possible and life as a human being is the only life I believe in. Woa! That's a lot! All this stuff is hanging out deep in your mind, far below the superficial level.

 

If something tickles you, why isn't that suffering? It isn't because the meaning of tickling is different.

 

So how you react to events depends on the meaning you believe these events have. And these meanings are a reflection of your core beliefs about reality, and that in turn is a deep structure in the mind.

 

If you think you can retain all the same meanings of events and yet react differently to events from how you normally do, then you're strongly deluded. Meaning is the actual truth. If you think something is truly apocalyptic, you will panic every single time no matter what. Training will not help. The only way to reduce panic is to change what things mean. Something that used to mean apocalypse no longer means that. Then and only then you react differently.

 

So reactions cannot be altered in a purely mechanical way. You must realize that events have meanings and your reaction reflects that meaning faithfully every time. If you want different reactions you need to assign different meanings. Reactions do not exist in vacuum. Reactions are not attached to events as if from outside. Reactions are enmeshed together with events and together with the state of your mind.

 

In fact you cannot even observe the state of your own mind completely. Why not? Because to do so would imply to take a position outside of your own mind, as if external to it. We can't do that. So all our knowledge of our own mind is necessarily twisted and there is no way to untwist it, ever, because you can't get to outside of yourself. Some of us learn to like this state of affairs and we don't feel trapped in this at all. We dance in illusion. We learn to twist things with grace and skill because we know everything is twisted; we enjoy twisting instead of trying to vainly straighten things out.

 

If you can't be free being ignorant of emptiness, you'll never be free knowing it.

 

This says you don't think knowledge affects your state of being. You don't really understand the true nature of knowledge then. You underestimate how absurdly powerful knowledge is. Context, knowledge, beliefs, psychic structure -- all these name the same thing.

 

There is no way for me to prove any of this because it's a matter of recognition. It's like if you look in the mirror and don't recognize what you see there as yourself, there is nothing I can do to prove to you it is you. Recognition requires willingness. It is intentional and not mechanical. When you mean to recognize something, that's when you do and not at any other time. If you are set to be a certain way, you will be. This is the source of stability. Our stability is not perfect, but it's not something to sneeze at either. The fact that many people die believing largely the same things they were born believing shows how stable the mind can be.

 

Take Bob for example. Bob is a disgruntled factory worker who has been dealt a bad hand by life. One day, Bob decides to quit his job and go on a spiritual quest to find the truth of the universe and peace through it. Only when he can find that truth will he be happy. Bob goes to all the spiritual teachers and gurus. And they all tell him what they believe to be true. And he investigates and searches his mind and inquires. And he travels everywhere. And he dies, still unsatisfied with life because he hadn't found the answers he was looking for. But if Bob had just woken up and smelt the roses and seen that wanting and obsessing over some special state to the exclusion of all other states in order to be happy was the cause of his unhappiness, he wouldn't have needed all those teachers and gurus and he could have lived a long life in peace.

 

I agree, but the problem here is you refer to this as "just", as in "just woken up", like it's trivial and inconsequential. The reason Bob does not "just wake up" is because Bob is wired deep down to see life in a certain way, to experience the field of meanings called life in a certain way, with certain meanings given to him by his deep mind. Until that changes, he's going to go on being the Bob he's always been. And no one can change it for Bob. If and when Bob changes his deep beliefs, it will be Bob's doing and not the Gurus or running around the globe.

 

So am I clinging? No. Because I'm not depending on any one state to rest in to the exclusion of all others in order to be free. I know that no one state by itself liberates. The awareness that no one state by itself liberates is what truly liberates.

 

That's a liberating insight, I agree.

 

My intention when negative states arise is not to eliminate them, but to simply be aware of their cause (wanting some other state to be permanent) in the moment. And then, with that intelligence, those negative states fade on their own.

 

Well, first you say "with that intelligence" and then you say "on their own." You are lying to yourself. Plain and simple. But don't worry, it happens to the best of us. Look at the last sentence above.

 

I don't think Xabir is exactly like me. Xabir has his own experiences, his own life, his own way of interpreting things, his own culture. But at the heart of it all, he's still human like me and he is capable of the same suffering for the same reasons that I am.

 

Sure, that's good to know.

The removal of ten fetters are irreversible. You cannot become a sentient being again if you are arhat. You cannot get lost again if you are buddha.

 

There is nothing that is irreversible.

Yes, if your type of new age mix and match wins, we'll loose traditions that actually bring people to liberation, instead of just making them feel good in a politically correct back patting party.

 

I disagree. It's not the tradition that brings the person to liberation but a thorough examination of one's most fundamental beliefs. If anything, traditions promote a good deal of secrecy, anti-intellectualism and dogma, all things that inhibit an honest examination.

It depends who you ask, I guess. I've read explanations of "no-mind" as "seeing through thought as it occurs," or seeing through the midst of discrimination of subject and object, even while making discriminations.

 

Historically there were Zen masters who spoke out against "Dead Tree Zen" or the mistaken application of "silent illumination." In other words trying to exclusively hold onto immediate awareness.

 

As for modern day practitioners and this thing on "no-mind," most of the time they're just misinterpreting what this means in Zen.

 

Well said. Zen people are astonished almost universally when I show them some Zen text like Dogen's Zanmai-o-Zanmai where Dogen urges the meditator to actively think about the meaning of meditation instead of just being like a "dead tree" idiot.

 

What??? Thinking??? What about "just sitting"?

I think everyone should be free to be whatever they want to be.

 

I agree for the most part. But when someone decides to promulgate a doctrine that contains passages that call for death to unbelievers, that's when I get off the "all religions should be respected" bus. I'm sorry, but if someone's doctrine is basically saying that I need to be killed, people can't seriously expect me to support such a doctrine. And we all know what I am talking about here, and this is a rather extreme example to make the point obvious.

 

There are many things I disagree with contained in many religious doctrines, and I find many of them ugly and many of them are hard to tolerate, but somewhere the line must be drawn and inciting murder of anyone who disagrees is as good a place as any to draw such line.

 

I would also include things like the caste system, demonizing of sex, viewing women as lesser beings -- all these are good examples of some other things I don't want to tolerate or respect.

 

If we can agree on these bare bone basics, then yes, I agree to let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to metaphysics, God, the meaning of life, how many times one should fast, etc.

 

They shouldn't have to worry about labels. I respect people based on their behavior, not their religious or spiritual background. I'm not fond of traditional Mahayana or Therevada Buddhism, but I am fond of Zen. The reason I have issues with Mahayana and Therevada is their emphasis on right and wrong and subsequently the use of guilt to keep people in line. I really believe that guilt in this sense is the product of superstition, rather than a healthy impulse.

 

Aynways, thanks for your replies Gold.

 

Aaron

 

I've noticed deeply authoritarian streaks on many Buddhist forums, and it is ugly. I've also seen a good deal of fear mongering on some of the Buddhist forums, for example, telling people they are going to hell or saying they'll be reborn as animals if they don't hop on some doctrinal bandwagon, etc. I hate such things.

 

This is one of the reasons why I can never be a Buddhist myself.

 

I really dislike religion and I choose to respect people in a manner very similar to what you describe. I respect people based on the quality of the highest aspirations people hold and based on the personal integrity with which people pursue those aspirations in life. I reject all dogmas. Dogmatic knowledge is defined as knowledge that should be accepted purely on its say-so. I don't think we should accept anything on anyone's say-so, even if it was God or an angel. Even if God could speak, we should challenge everything and make sure it stands up to reason and experience. Dogmatic attitudes are a plague on mankind.

 

More than anything I want freedom of conscience and freedom of thought instead of freedom of religion. I think religion often directly opposes freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. That's why I am very mixed on the whole "freedom of religion" idea. I think freedom from religion is really more to my liking. How many times have I seen reasonable questions get dismissed by the religious authorities. It happens a lot. If you ask uncomfortable questions, you are told to forget your question and have faith instead. I don't accept this kind of intellectual bullying at all.

 

So all the talk about every prophet being Buddha is not really to my liking.

 

I will agree that some of the people outside Buddhism have been very wise, perhaps enlightened, and should be considered for inspiration on par with the Buddha. That I can agree with. Like I said, Buddhism does not have a monopoly on wisdom and enlightenment is basically a perfection of wisdom. So I have a lot of respect for people like Socrates, Zhuangzi, and even "just" writers like Richard Bach, and many many others.

 

I also like to read the findings of modern science, even though modern science is not a person. And because modern science is not based on personality worship there is not necessarily some specific scientist to pay homage to, rather, I pay homage to the process of science and to the ideals of science.

 

So for an obvious example, open exchange of information is one of the scientific ideals and I support it wholeheartedly. This is one of the reasons I get upset about all the secret clubs readily observable in the spiritual space.

I understand what you mean. However, I really enjoy writing that is clear and as precise as possible. I dislike reading poorly written posts that are confusing and need interpretation. I was just trying to give Vajraji a little encouragement, which is probably to no avail.

 

I hear you. I enjoy ice cream. But if you give me a box of ice cream I am not going to respect you more. Is respect really that cheap? Perhaps it is. Yes, I guess that's one of the main reasons why I don't care about respect to begin with.

 

If I respect someone, it's more likely because I respect what that person stands for, I respect that person's highest aspirations and the personal integrity with which one pursues one's dreams.

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well. The issue with many people is that this is very much an ethnocentric approach that seems to place Buddhism as the ultimate truth and any other religion as a watered down version at best. Perhaps this view is true, but I think that it is still worth examining the idea that all enlightened people have had the same core experiences and that's what I wanted to really discuss in this thread.

 

I wouldn't call such approach ethnocentric. I would call it doctrine-centric. Buddhist doctrine is what is esteemed here and not the ethnicity of the view holders.

 

As a personal example, if we go by my ethnicity I should be Eastern Orthodox Christian right now. I am not. I am not ethnically Buddhist. I respect Buddhism because of the meaning of the words in the Buddhist doctrine and because of Buddha's life example.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that Jesus was enlightened except for the sake of hollow and somewhat insincere politically correct attempt at peace. But at least I am relatively OK with Jesus. I positively hate Mohammed for many reasons, mainly his personal warlordism and the unkind and brutal doctrine he spawned in his wake.

 

So we have started many threads on the idea of what enlightenment really is and what I've come to understand is that the definition of enlightenment is relative, in other words the definition varies depending on who you ask. What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience.

 

I don't agree with this. I think enlightenment refers to someone who has wisdom and who is not deceived by common day to day appearances. It is someone who leads an examined life, like Socrates. Such a person may have transcendent experiences or may not. What matters more than anything is wisdom and not experience. Recognition of the true nature of phenomena is what matters.

 

My question is this, if all prophets are Buddha, then how can they come to their conclusions by following paths that radically differ from Buddha's?

 

They are not all Buddhas. Some of them are ignorant psychopaths.

 

It seems to me that if the statement, "all prophets are Buddhas" is true, then Buddhism alone isn't the sole answer to easing suffering or understanding the nature of the universe, but rather the elements that allow one to become enlightened really rely less on ideology and more on personal experience. If this is true, then the phrase "Hold nothing holy" takes on an entirely different meaning. In essence it is not the thought and ideas that transform someone, but rather the actual experience.

 

I could go on about this, but I think I've said my peace and what I'd like to hear now is what other people feel about this. I look forward to your opinions. Behave as you wish, compassion is not required nor am I going to advocate it. You are who you are, so be who you are.

 

Aaron

 

I think becoming a Buddhist groupie is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Buddhists more than any other people have relied on reason and that's why they get respect. They don't just bullshit your head off because some schizophrenic angel vision told them to. Buddhists do not have a monopoly on truth, but there is a damn good reason why Buddhists get more respect than Muslims or Christians. I don't agree with Buddha or Buddhism on everything, but I certainly respect Buddhist doctrine much more than any other doctrine save the Daoist perhaps, and even then, only when it is high level stuff like Daodejing and Zhuangzi and not the stuff about energy manipulation and bodily immortality.

Andre the Giant was a great man, with a lot of personality and charisma. No he didn't live long, but is that the ultimate test of a person's life? How long they live?

 

Keep in mind that the title of your submission is "What are the limits of the physical body?" I am assuming that the idea is for all us to wonder if we can become giants without the negative health implications associated with gigantism. If the answer is "yes we can all become huge but we're going to pay for it" then why do we want it? Also, why would we want to be huge anyway? What is the benefit? I don't see the benefit. I'd rather be small like a chimp and strong like a chimp, and smart like 10 smartest humans put together, but that's just me.

 

Go to images.google.com and try "chimpanzee hairless" for a search. Chimps are stupid strong and they look it too, once you get the fur off. This to me is a better evidence of the body abilities than size alone.

 

Even then, a much better post would be about strongmen or other people who are just like us but who exceed body limitations through training. Can you become a giant through training? No, right? Then why post about it? There are many reasons not to post about giants (or midgets or any other thing like that).

 

If the only mention of evidence of Giant beings was from the Bible I would not think it was that interesting of a subject, however, it is not the only source.

 

Well, you have trouble coming up with an impartial source for one, and two, you kind of have a posting history that leans toward supporting intelligent design and creationism. I mean, if this was a one-off kind of thing, it would be different. But you're pretty consistent. It's as if you work in some creationist/id think tank marketing department.

I'm very focused on aversion. Aversion is contained within clinging, it's the natural implication of it. You cling to happiness; therefore you are averse to pain.

 

OK, so can we say you cling to freedom from clinging then? Why aren't you happy to let people cling? I'm not being completely serious here, but I hope you see my point.

 

I do believe that it is possible to be free from clinging. You just can't do it by seeking a permanent state free from clinging.

 

That seems like a good entrance into wisdom though. Even if you can't go on with such a simple mindset all the way to the "end", it's still a useful desire in many circumstances.

 

What I am saying here is that some kinds of clinging are at least provisionally good. So for example, you can cling to wisdom, but is that a problem? Well, maybe once you reach the apex of sagacity it starts being a problem, but it's probably not a problem for a very long time.

 

I wouldn't say that I go that far in my belief. I'm not some paranoid person thinking everyone is clinging and is in some conspiracy together to lie to me about it. But I know it when I see it. And when someone goes on and on about wanting this or that, some realization of the truth to be permanent, or wanting to eliminate one half of reality in favor of another, that is a definite red flag.

 

Well, you've probably seen this sort of thing in yourself and that's why (and how) you know it. I think what you're talking about is a fair warning. At the same time, why do you think Xabir is exactly like you? Do you interact with Xabir personally once a week for 3 years straight? The same words that are evidence of a flaw in you can be evidence of right thinking in someone else. Or do you believe that words have inherent meaning and that if they mean something for you they mean the same thing for everyone and in every circumstance?

You have realization. What is your experience? Are you in a perpetual, unchanging state of wisdom one-hundred-percent of the time? Or do you make errors some times?

 

I am trying to show that the state of insight cannot possibly be anything other than wavering where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next. Otherwise you are claiming that this state of insight is permanent and independent whereas actually it is completely dependent on ignorance. Just like night depends on day, comfort depends on pain, confidence depends on shame.

 

I agree with this. I think what happens is that as we become more insightful the chance to make an error is reduced. Probably the errors that get eliminated by wisdom the most are the gross errors, the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. That gets picked up first. There are subtler errors that are harder to pick up. And generally I agree that wisdom as something we describe and strive toward is not something flat, it is dependent and it fluctuates.

 

At the same time wisdom as something beyond striving is not dependent on anything. From this point of view, mistakes are meaningful and useful. Mistakes have a function.

 

Think of it this way too. If wisdom was completely perishable, then there would be no transformation of ignorance into wisdom. It's just like even in the blackest darkness there is some tiny degree of light. We call this "potential", but if you understand the principle of uncertainty, you can take it literally, which is to say, due to uncertainty of perception there is no such thing as "perfect" darkness. All perceptions are uncertain to an extent. Thus even the darkest darkness has some measure of light in it, and vice versa.

 

So in this sense, there is a measure of wisdom in ignorance. You can think of it as potential, or you can think of it as a literally true statement if you understand the implication of the principle of uncertainty.

The only way to see emptiness in one's experience is through the relative mind. Which means that the mind is required to experience it. Correct? As you say, emptiness is a perception of the world in the way that your quote states. It is a perception of truth.

 

I would say that emptiness is not an object of perception, to be perfectly technical. It's not something you see. It's a recognition. It's like a person looking in the mirror and recognizing the face in the mirror as oneself. Or it's like a person looking at one's uncle and recognizing the uncle (vs not recognizing the uncle). What you see is the same, either your own face in the first example, or the uncle's face in the second example, but you either recognize it or fail to recognize it.

 

You can argue that recognition is also a kind of seeing, but it would be better for the sake of ease of discussion to differentiate between seeing and recognition. For example, you may see a strange bug crawling on the ground, and due to your lack of knowledge fail to recognize what kind of bug it is (and thus you fail to know how it lives its life). You can still see the bug even if you don't recognize it. That's why it's useful to distinguish seeing from recognition.