nac

I don't like it. TBH I think Tibetan Buddhism takes up strange, lopsided positions because it draws from such widely divergent sources.

I meant there's little chance of Tibetan Buddhists having missed the sutra extracts you quoted. Every word in every Buddhist sutra has been thoroughly studied and taken into account in their analysis. Bah. Nice koan. Who's asking the question? Let me restate my position using Hindu terminology: Of course God exists. I mean, whose head have I been sharpening my katana for all this time? It's just that the moment I see him doing anything other than helping all sentient beings, *slash* he'll find his divine head rolling down into the fiery pits of hell. Me and an uncaring God: There isn't enough room in the universe for the both of us. And the God of nature is incredibly lazy, otherwise why for instance, do laissez-faire economies result in such horrible, unjust societies like Chile, Hong Kong and pre-depression US? Nope, God can go on "existing" all he likes, as long as he's prepared to meet sudden death as soon as I set my eyes on him. There's a long line of morons waiting to be God. The position comes with no privileges. I'm serious. Doesn't matter if it's God, Brahma, Jesus, Buddha, Zen patriarchs, Adi Shankar, Dawkins or the Dalai Lama, or any other ideal, it comes down to the same thing. Sure, all of these "exist" in different ways, but none of them are God God. In fact, there is no single coherent dharma, real or imaginary, in heaven or earth, natural or artificial, that meets the exalted moral and other criteria required in order to sit on God's throne without being an impostor to some extent. We must always make do with whatever ideal minimizes the suffering of sentient beings the most at the moment. Just as the "perfect" human being (platonic ideal) is only an abstraction, the common, perfect meme... I mean, divinity doesn't really "exist" either. (And I'll be damned before I let someone dictate how to be a perfect human being!) No divine retribution, visions or warnings, or anything of the sort, see? Presence in the mind... that's how shaky God's so-called Self is. Even our puny mortal selves appear stronger by contrast, though you'll find we're just as ephemeral upon closer observation. But you'll never discover God's true nature by philosophising, meditating or talking about it, only by scientific experimentation and accumulating evidence. Hence, this discussion is basically a waste of time. Metaphysics has been destroyed several times by Lin Chi, Kant, and many, many others. You know, I used to think Buddhism is an idealist school of philosophy and Hindus are realists. In this discussion, it seems the other way around. Hindus seem to think their idealistic "God"/"gods" are "real", while Buddhists consider them to be mental constructions/projections with no sharply definable, unconditional "real" or "unreal" existence. Guess which one western schools of realism are more likely to ally themselves with? PS. I think you should give up, Vajrahridaya. Madhyamaka-nature of reality is an ideal which cannot be logically justified within the context of Indo-Tibetan mythology and cosmology as far as I can see.

1) If the Adi Buddha/Dharmakaya had Self, he/she/it would be some kind of God. 2) Fuck God!!!1 Fuck Buddhas too, those bastards! If I found any of those losers I wouldn't waste a second chopping them into the tiniest bits possible... ==> Adi Buddha is a strong concept/abstraction/archetype present in my mind (and everyone else's) without inherent reality. (except the reality which is contributed by it's presence in our minds, of course) Q.E.D. Let's see you get around that one.

The Buddhas are perfectly empty. They do not join up to form a single cosmic being, but they're not entirely separate from each other either. They're not different, but distinct. Sorry if I haven't managed to express it properly. Believe me, Tibetan scholars have studied each line of every sutra and tantra in intricate detail, cross-referenced them and debated over them for centuries like in Nalanda. (Read The Sound of Two Hands Clapping if you don't believe me) They've still gotten things wrong many times, but nothing so fundamental such as this. PS. See Yogachara and Huayan for more info. I'm afraid Buddhism doesn't appeal to the common sense or claim to be simple and easy to understand. When studying Buddhism, be prepared for subtle complexity and apparent paradoxes around every bend.

Er... Apart from other issues, didn't I just say Thusness doesn't seek to explain anything? Such is such whether Brahman exists or not. Surely even Advaita has this level of objectiveness. Otherwise it's yet another school of solipsism. No one can disprove solipsism. At least I can't, not without a fire hose. On the other hand, if you mean that your great, transcendental One encapsulates both one-ness and many-ness, then our main difference lies in words. What you call One, I call Thus. Call it Tao if you like. Different words, different emphasis, more or less similar meaning. Delusion IMO. Sorry, but we're straying into shamanism here. OK maybe I won't be converting to Hinduism (or Tibetan Buddhism) anytime soon, for reasons other than just cosmology. PS. Guys, panpsychism please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism Could you please clarify where you stand in regard to this topic? PPS. Hey dwai, imagine for one second it was proved that past life memories arise because of randomized RNA molecules in the brain. That after death, your consciousness simply ceases to function like an organic quantum computer. In this purely hypothetical situation, would there still be a conscious underlying Brahman observing all phenomena? Or is such a model too fundamentally alien compared to yours?

It's not so much about avoiding than transcendence in my opinion. If you pay attention your own mind will often falsify unskillful ideas like solipsism of it's own accord when necessary. Keep paying attention. The trick is never to get stuck in dogmatic "final views". And please look for find your own answer to dualities and paradoxes. <...etc etc insert more spiritual-sounding psychobabble here, they seem to like it> BTW I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with oneness or plurality as long as one doesn't become attached to such ideas. Here's a hint from exploratory online spirituality: http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/mykwid.html Bonus cat picture:

If Advaita was Neoplatonism, Buddhism would be Mathematical Formalism. In Taoist terms: Doesn't asserting a oneness view presuppose an opposed "many-ness" view? Interconnected thusness elegantly transcends this false duality in my humble opinion. This is more of an aesthetic judgment than an alternate metaphysical model of how-things-really-are. Eg. consider a sine wave extending infinitely in either direction. Is it one single wave (holistic view) or infinite sine oscillations connected to form a stringed-together wave? (analytical view) Both views are obviously correct in their own way, but either can become lopsided and incomplete if it's proponents get dogmatic. In that case, just observe the phenomenon with minimal judgment: What you see is what you get, although any non-dogmatic elaboration could be helpful within it's own framework. This is close to my view of emptiness. Is it Buddhist or Advaita? I'm not so sure it matters...

Ow my head! This is what happens when you put two supersessionist doctrines together. 2 yangs = total chaos. Oneupmanship taken to a whole new level with every post! So far it seems to come down to whether you're already a believer in monism or not... (come to think of it, that's precisely what the Buddhists are saying ) Seriously though, trying to piece these arguments together in terms of modern western philosophy (with my limited understanding) is giving me a headache. Where do you all stand with respect to Panpsychism? I'm sure you've seen it before: "To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever." - Dogen (Soto Zen founder) Oh my God! Is that existentialism now?? PS. When did I get stuck with you spiritual types anyway? I used to like Zen because it's about as "spiritual" as I am.

Yes, mikaelz. I myself do not have a goal though. (PS. Except maybe to help everything in existence realize it's own Buddha-nature ) Although it's true that even if a non-phenomenon type consciousness does objectively exist as Advaitins appear to assert, that would still beg the questions: Should we care? And if so, what exactly should we do about it? I'd rather not engage in this sort of second-degree speculation yet.

I guess my bottom line is: If this autophenomenological level of consciousness defined by Advaita really exists, (ie. I find it) I'll become an Advaitin. The whole oneness argument seems to rest on the existence of a transcendental soul common to all sentient beings. Whether this concept is based on fact or self-delusion remains to be seen as far as this one is concerned. Don't get me wrong. Either way, I'm grateful for helping me overcome my certainty and clinging to fixed views by a great extent. You know what the Zennists say, don't-know mind is the greatest expedient towards enlightenment. PS. I'm having trouble shaking the idea that the main difference between these religions is they have set different mental states as the "ultimate" goal. As for me, I don't have such a goal.

Doesn't making consciousness the main focus of inquiry (as in Tibetan Buddhism) and making it immortal (permanent as in Advaita) both stray into psychologism? This thread might as well be titled Samsara.

I never said that. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm a big fan. Although this is all I've been able to find of his works so far, online and off: http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/luxun.pdf

(A Fox Chicago newscast about a karate instructor who knocks people out without even touching them. Notice that Stephan Bonnar is one of the Carlson Gracie jiu-jitsu students who is apparently immune to the deadly technique.) (a Kiai Master offers a 5000 dollar challenge that he can beat any MMA fighter. Too bad for him because his techniques doesn't affect the MMA fighter) I dunno, maybe these guys just happened to be deluded frauds. Fun fact: Did you know that entire dental surgeries can be performed under hypnosis without anesthetic? PS. Watch this if you feel like a laugh: >But THIS guy, he might be for real! PPS. Sorry for the raw skepticism. Could you please report back if that bleeding thing ever happens to you? I'm really interested. Thanks. _/\_

Just curious. Thanks. _/\_

May I ask where this view comes from? Is this your personal philosophy or did you get it from somewhere else?

All: Thanks for indulging my curiosity. The last two options are there for the sake of completeness. I'm mostly interested in a poll of those members who characterize themselves, or whom others would probably describe as Taoist. Teddy: "Yes."

Sorry, I don't understand. All this and more can be observed in the behavior of the brain.

Well, western science can plainly see the imaginative centers of the brain lighting up in qigong practitioners...

I don't know. I heard TCM experts in mainland China only use it on medically hopeless cases, since most people there believe in it so wholeheartedly. Somewhat like this, actually: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr95/aloysius.htm (unrelated)

Terrible martial arts, but lovely movie. Anyone seen it? PS. This is a joke BTW. It's actually kinda lame and cliched, but interesting to watch if you're into zen or offbeat stuff in general.

Why is every translation so different? Do a lot of translators take liberties when rendering it in English? For instance, what do you think of this one: http://www.zenguide.com/zenmedia/books/cha...?t=tao_te_ching

I don't think so. How can "science" think anything? Anyway, I'm not seeking to objectify anything. I'm just suggesting that we examine every side of the issue for ourselves before reaching definite conclusions. Eg. I'm not going to try and stop you from thinking in terms of orgone energy as long as you bear in mind that all it's observed effects (spinning motor, etc) can be predicted by basic electromagnetism. Maybe there's only a difference in semantics?

Do you know why mainstream science was unimpressed with this theory? http://members.dslextreme.com/users/rogerm...ield_meter.html

What is the place of broken symmetry in Taoism? PS. I had one more question: What are your thoughts on the practice of animal sacrifice in popular Taoism? Namely the traditional offering of pork, chicken and fish every new year?