steve

I tend to agree with you on this. The distinction is an artificial one but useful, at times.

Awesome! Agreement! You don't say!

It's my assertion that both are pointing at reality. The moon is reality (whatever that may be or not be). I agree - how did realization come into this? My point is simply that they are all pointing at the same reality. Realization is just an attempt at or experience of conceptualizing reality. Each paradigm uses a different conceptual framework and therefore leads to different realizations. You can certainly argue that one is better or more accurate than another if you like. But the realization is not the reality - just an image created out of thought.

:angry: Just watched Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee :angry:

Actually, I liked your joke! Hmmm, I suck at explaining Buddhist concepts but here's what struck me. There is something we call reality, then there's this pesky mind that always trying to figure it out. And it seems like my mind is chasing after reality to explain it but can never quite catch it. And yet there is this thing called DO (or mutual arising in Taiji theory) which tells me that there is no mind without reality and there is no reality without mind. The two define eachother. The two give "existence" to eachother, so to speak, like light implies darkness, like every front has a back and so on. So there is no separation between mind and reality, there is no cause and effect. Or should I say, cause and effect are happening simultaneously in both directions... Mind is trying to explain reality because it is there to be explained. One is implied in the other. Reality is there to be explained because mind is here to explain it. That sort of thing. Anyway - that's what I was thinking. Edit - "By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?" And as I'm sure you can tell how I feel about this from my posts about thought and experience (that is to say, I agree completely), but at the same time I wonder how true this is. Because, after all, those very thoughts are equally a part of the reality! I was just thinking about this as a result of the recent post by goldisheavy. It's all very confusing. Otis? What do you think?

steve f , you are one cool bum. Kung Fu Hustle is the shizzle!

I think this is so true. Physical jobs are physically punishing. Intellectual jobs are psychologically punishing. And, of course, any boss can be an asshole. But there is something to be said for a hard day of physical work followed by a cold beer and a re-run of "Kung Fu Hustle"

If there is Dependent Origination, isn't it both?

Perhaps. I think one can also say that any contact with reality is contact with all of reality. Time and space are conventions of thought and measurement, they do not necessarily apply. Daoist principles of mutual arising, Buddhist principles of dependent origination - both paradigms suggest this to me. The universe implies me and I imply the universe. In terms of what it is that we experience, that is a very intersting question. I guess we would first need to agree to a definition of reality. Certainly beyond my skill set - I'm not a philosopher by a long shot, my son is though! The distinction I'm trying to make is that between direct experience - the sum total of our sensory input from all sources (experience), and the verbal and symbolic reflection and storage system (thought). I think the distinction is significant and worthy of consideration and can be very useful. And at the same time, I wonder if it is truly possible to separate these things totally - I doubt it, I think that is an artificial construct of thought like all the others...

This is Ambiguous. What does that mean? Oranges as well are not oranges, they are a collection of molecules, and we project the name orange onto it in reference to it's color in our language. Apples are not apples, they are a collection of molecules. This is how apples and oranges are alike. Can you elaborate? Sorry to intrude but I thought this was elegant, not at all ambiguous. If I'm off the mark, I hope the Forest will let us know. Reality is.... Dao is a word, Brahman is a word. Both are concepts, created of thought, to describe Reality, as is your non-dogma dogma, Vajrah. All are slightly different fingers pointing at the same moon. ... except of course, that yours is the best...

Are "you" right here? If yes, how much have you thought about what "you" is? "You" can think about what is right here and get pretty far out there if you approach it correctly. The best place to start, IMO, is with "you"

I will offer a slightly different perspective - not to argue, necessarily, but I think it's a valuable distinction. You can't understand reality. No matter how much you think or what you think about. You can only experience reality. That is meditation.

I thought you had no dogma. Come on dude, it's great that you are so passionate and knowledgable about the Dzogchen dogma. But, do you think you could let it go? Completely let it go? If not, can you learn something from that?

I can't really say much. I've never seen any sort of overview or summary of the system. My teacher is very traditional - he gives you something to work on and asks that you give him feedback periodically. When he perceives you've made adequate progress, he'll give you the next step. I've worked on five exercises, I guess one could think of them as levels, over the past six years.

No books other than my notebook, sorry. You have to learn from a teacher.

My school is called ------------ which means: ----------------------- It's a Daoist system of neigong and meditation which starts with practicing the microscosmic orbit and then moves to more complex and profound neigong exercises.

My apologies but I just peed a little.... My use of "created of mind" would be more accurately stated, "created by human thought." Having no answer was Buddha's answer. Having no answer is the nature of Interdependent Co-Arising and Emptiness. I think it's important to take care lest we corrupt it by turning it into THE answer. You and I seem to differ on this - to me you seem deeply attached to this paradigm as the answer. You seem to think that because of an insight into the true nature of Emptiness and Dependent Origination, that you cannot be attached to it. Untying the knot of ignorance involves letting go everything. Naked. I think it's something that bears careful consideration. Best wishes.

I think it tends to be people in science who are dogmatic, or create dogmatic environments. I believe that science, per se, as a method, is constructed in such a way as to eliminate, or at least minimize, dogma. It's content can be turned into dogma by people. Here's a nice editorial on science and dogma: http://gadfly.igc.org/eds/science/Science.htm

Yes, and poetry... Exactly right! Nice insight. And they tend to see through the metaphors of the other tribe, but not their own. Fascinating to observe - an example of thought not seeing itself, like the knife can't cut itself?

Naked of your dogma... "In the tendency to see the teachings of the Buddha as an explanation as how things are rather than as a support and guide to their practice, the Twelve Links have been misunderstood in many ways." Thich Nhat Hanh

Very nicely put

I changed my username a while back from xuesheng to steve f. Can I get the PPF name changed accordingly? I'm thinking of posting there again. Many thanks!

Thanks Buddy!

I hope spirituality wins, then we can return to the good ole' days, huh Immortal4Life? Your debate is not between science and spirituality, it is between science and Christian dogma - there is a difference...

I believe they call this trolling... Just sayin'