C T

It was not a complaint. Just an observation, or more accurately, an opinion.

Just being a kid V...just being a kid, waiting for Santa's Clause!

...the reality of fullness which is full of emptiness!

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

...only to get bitten in the backside!

...or grasping at rainbows!

There is no highest goal in the practice of Dzogchen, just like there is no ceiling to realization. The deeper practices of Mahamudra, Madhyamika and Dzogchen denounces "grasping" at any concepts and *signs*. If there were anything to be held on to, no matter how subtle, that is still 'form'. Hence there is no 'highest' attainment. This is mind-play. That is why the Buddha is called One Who Is Neither Coming nor Going, and the reason He is thus known is because He has shown the way to transcendent insight, the clear seeing of the illusion of opposing realities. It is not helpful to think there is any ultimate realization. This would be like one who is unwilling to dislodge the raft from one's back after crossing the river, always on the lookout for the next bigger river where the raft could come in useful again. The practice of these paths negates such a mentality. In the words of one writer, "Illumination is the discovery of the reality existing beneath appearances, and s/he who is enlightened will be aware of the place which s/he, in fact, occupies in this reality. That suffices; s/he will cease to be the dupe of a mirage - ceasing to create it, the chains will have been broken, and there is liberation".

Man you are some word player you know that? *I agree with your comment here, but i cannot totally agree - you know why? Because there is no totality in what you are pointing out. Neither this or that, neither here or there. Hence your assertions(?) are meaningless. The last paragraph, for example - it appears like a *total* statement of fact, yet the earlier paras you reject totality. Hello??

Hey RR thank you for highlighting the comment i made regarding Buddhism being MORE than a path that emphasizes ONLY suffering. My comment was pretty clear btw, and so was yours. You said the Buddha said that He taught only one thing - The way OUT OF SUFFERING. He did not say that He taught a way INTO UNDERSTANDING SUFFERING. Hence i said the emphasis ought to be on the way out of suffering thru the cultivation of loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, and then you asked me 'What the hell kind of Buddhism have you been studying?' I dont know, RR - you tell me. Anyway, you are partly right. In some ways I never studied Buddhism... sometimes it feels like Buddhism is studying who *me* is. Bee good.

Greetings everyone! Much have been learnt here, so thank you all for the questions and thoughts. Just want to include here an excerpt from *Rainbow Painting* (Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche) which i believe will further the understanding of liberation and mind essence to a small degree: "Finally, the third analogy of the liberation of thoughts is described as being like a thief entering an empty house. This is called stability or perfection in training. A thief entering an empty house does not gain anything, and the house does not lose anything. All thought activity is naturally liberated without any harm or benefit whatsoever. That is the meaning of gaining confidence in liberation. There is also what is called the four modes of liberation: self-liberated, liberated upon arising, directly liberated and primordially liberated. These are not exactly a direct sequence, but are more like different aspects or modes of how liberation is. For example, the fourth one, primordially free, refers to the awakened state of rigpa, that which is already free, it does not need (effort) to be liberated. Thats the idea. One of the lines in the 'Three Words to Strike the Vital Point' says: By recognizing dharmakaya in what is liberated, as in the analogy of drawing on water, there is unceasing self-occurring self-liberation. 'Primordially freed' means a state that does not have to be re-freed, because it is already free. With 'directly freed', 'directly' has the connotation of immediacy, meaning instantaneously. 'Naturally freed' means without an entity that needs freeing; there is no thing or essence or identity that needs to be liberated. Seeing this, it is naturally freed. 'Self-freed' means without even the need for a remedy. 'Freed upon arising' refers to thoughts that dissolve the moment you recognize the awakened state. We could view these different types of liberation as a sequence of increasing subtlety. From another point of view, these are merely different modes, different expressions of the same face. Primordial liberation refers to the awakened state, but if you are talking about the dualistic mind, it is not primordially freed. It needs to be liberated. The moment of dualistic (arising) mind needs to be dissolved, purified. (I think he means purifying the clinging to, and aversion of - the illusion of separateness). The fully awakened state is not like this; it is already purified and fully perfected, so it does not need further perfection. When a reflection appears in a mirror, you do not have to imagine it is there; it is vividly perceived. In the same way, you do not have to imagine basic wakefulness - it is naturally present. When a master perform the empowerment of enlightened mind, conferring the empowerment of non-dual wakefulness to your dualistic mind, your thought activity (at that moment) is seen as 'self-arising self-liberation'. All thought activity occurs as the expression of of awareness. By recognizing its source, it dissolves back into the state of awareness itself. Thoughts occur as an expression of your essence, and not from anywhere else. They do not arise from the 5 elements, the 5 sense organs, from flesh, blood, temperature, the heat or breath of your body - not at all. Once you recognize your essence to be primordially pure, the thoughts that arise from yourself dissolve back into yourself, within the expanse of your own nature. They do not go anywhere else. This is what is meant by self-arising self-liberation. If you do not recognize your own essence, then what arises from yourself does not dissolve back within yourself. Rather than being liberated (instantaneously), it goes astray into the six realms of samsara. This is really the key point here. The thinking of dualistic mind arises or takes place as the expression of [unrecognized] awareness. Once you recognize this basic awareness, the display of thoughts loses all power and simply dissolves into the expanse of buddha-nature. This is the reason to recognize mind essence. (So what is mind essence?) Where does a thought come from? It occurs only as the display of your nature; it does not come from any other source. Look into this matter for a billion years, and you will never see a thought arise out of earth, water, fire or wind. Or out of a body - after all, even a corpse has flesh. There are cavities in the body, blood, heat and so forth, but these components do not give rise to thoughts. Neither do thoughts arise from the objects perceived, whether they be visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes or textures. We have the 5 sense objects, and our body's 5 senses acting as go-betweens. A corpse has sense organs - it has eyes, but it does not see, has ears, but does not hear, has tongue, but does not taste, has nose, but does not smell. It has a body, but it does not feel. A corpse notices nothing. So, can't we conclude that the basis for every experience is our own minds? Isnt it only mind which knows? That which knows, is in essence, empty. It is cognizant by nature, and its capacity is unconfined. Try to see this for yourself and understand that this is how your mind essence is. Thoughts arise from yourself and dissolve into yourself; they do not arise from yourself and dissolve somewhere else. (Unless the mind functions dualistically). So, what is recognized, when we say 'recognize'? It means seeing that the nature of mind is unconfined(infinite) empty cognizance. This is the real condition, the natural state of the three 'kayas'. Realize this to be the real condition of things as they actually are, not just how they seem. The seeming way is created by our normal, rigid and fixating thoughts. Recognize the real state, and this seeming way vanishes. These are the two aspects: the real and the seeming, the ultimate and the relative. The real is your essence; the seeming is your thoughts. Once you stabilize recognition of the real state, the seeming way vanishes without a trace. It collapses, dissolves, completely vanishes. This is what training the mind is all about". Hope this can be helpful in some way. Regards.

My humor is usually kept in check, in that if i read something funny, i would have a private laugh and that would be it, but i'm sorry to say this last paragraph about the DL and Buddhism/physics and Buddha's motive really amused me and deserved a mention here! Some sense of humor this guy has!!

Hello TJL, When the river looks up at all the bridges while flowing gently downstream, the river sees the moving bridges. When the bridges look down at the same gentle, flowing river, its the river that's moving. When you say Non-Duality does not *work*, it brings up the question whether you are viewing Non-Duality from the perspective of a *bridge* or a *river*? I suggest here that ND is not some super-mystical state of realization, or a secret formula adepts use to reach some state, or attain some union with the Nondescript (or the Nameless, or whatever one wants to un-call IT). One of the ways ND is used in Buddhism is to describe a state of awareness where one no longer struggle with the view of separateness, of extreme individuality, and a false sense of what is * I * (and all that resides in this * I *) and the the world outside, which is not * I *. It is a practical description i think, and nothing more. So it can work in the way its meant to work, which is as mentioned above. It will, however, cease to work if one misappropriate its significance, or insignificance, depending on whether one is the bridge or the river. Happy weekend TJL, and thanks for all the sparkling comments. Most interesting perspectives you have. 5* wisdom! Regards.

I hear you loud and clear M! This is how i see it: A toothbrush can only be called a toothbrush because it is made up of different non-toothbrush components. These components individually, before coming together, cannot be called a toothbrush, YET. Nonetheless, they already have the necessary potential to be a toothbrush. So one can substitute the label *toothbrush* with any other label, and the same principle can be applied. Seeing how all things are connected in a similar fashion can intuitively heighten awareness, which can lead to very logical outcomes. (I had to include this line, just to remain on topic hehehe). Take firing a gun for example. In America, there are alot of folks who can fire guns yes? But not all these same folks have a responsible insight into the proper workings of a gun, hence, out of ignorance and disrespect, create alot of unnecessary suffering, for themselves and others. You know much about guns, more so than many of these folks, so your awareness expands not only around the mechanics of the gun, but outwards, as far as seeing how lethal it can be, its potential to kill or save etc. Hence you have an intuitive respect built around this awareness, and will never take a gun for granted, no matter what. This is the logic behind the intuition. Someone mentions the word 'Gun' to you, and whatever awareness you have with this association immediately comes to the fore. No thoughts involved. Only awareness, borne out of logical understanding. I think this is a very simple inference on the principle of Emptiness/DO in Buddhism and its effectiveness as a tool to further one's responsibility and accountability to oneself, firstly, and then to the world. I wish to go deeper, but my mind wont let me I am shallow indeed I hope this made some sense. If it did not, no matter, they are still reflections nonetheless. Bee good M! Happy weekend

Hello Serene, Why would you want to do this? Why worry about what others think about your reflections on any matter? After all, they are YOUR reflections, as valid as anyone else's. Do not concern yourself too much with truth. People are too hung up on this. There are no truths - only reflections. Truth implies something that can be known. Whatever that can be known is already past, like a stale pint. Someone comes up to you and say, "I know the truth, follow me..." - avoid such a person at all costs. He/she can only give you, at best, memories of experiences gift-wrapped as truths. They are valid for him/her alone. Where is the truth? Who is the real teacher? Walking barefoot along the beach, admiring the clear blue sky, with a light breeze against my face, aah, supreme peace...and then i step on a piece of broken glass!! Awakened immediately. Thats my truth, my guru, my teacher. So gurus can be helpful in many ways. It is sheer folly to downplay their significance. IMO, DO has very positive uses other than what has been ascribed to here. I think focussing on it as a path that leads one out of suffering is only a small aspect of it. It goes much further, in that it allows the contemplative to understand the essence of Buddhism, which is compassion. Not once was this mentioned in this thread. The emphasis has always been DO/suffering. So it creates problems. All kinds of differing arguments which some readers find mockingly humorous. This is very sad. Buddhism is NOT about suffering. The objective of practice (of Buddhism) is not only to lead one out of ignorance and confusion, but to show the path to loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, very often thru having the right view of DO. It is much easier for others who want to learn about Buddhism to relate on this level, do you agree? Even the Taoists. Thank you for reading. Hope you will stay on and continue with your contributions. I for one have enjoyed your questions, even though i could not offer any answers !! Bee good SB.

Hmm... Now it would be good to hear RR's follow-up to his comment. He must have some heavy stuff to share, otherwise he would not have made that observation above.

Hey V - This does sound a bit blurpy alright Not sure if it will be misinterpreted (again?). Thought i'd let you know!! How about a simpler edit? Ta. Peace..

Be well Stig... What an auspicious trip you will have! Have a good one! In the words of M - Happy trails!

five gallons of milk from droplets of rain it came the rainbow too is smiling..

such a sweet pastime watching the butterfly dance on tiptoes, i gazed.. (NULL AND VOID ) Guess you made it there before me TM! hehehe

Well cant speak for V, but i have a personal curiosity to hear what your take is regarding the main cause of suffering and the true result of logical analysis of DO. Please enlighten me sir, for i have much to learn. Thank you.

In my humble opinion, fowl would taste a little nicer than foul...hehehe! Just kidding brother - its all in good fun! TzuJanLi told of an interesting story earlier. Towards the end of it, there was a line that said, "when you're hungry, eat". Thats very Zen i think, and very practical too. People tend to struggle with a lot of unnecessary baggage at times. If one wants to get around lugging all this on the back, i have no issues with that. Its a personal choice. When it comes to meat-eating, like anything else, wouldn't it be wise to listen intuitively to what our bodies need, instead of trying to impose our will regardless? Some people eat meat all their lives, and go on to live to a ripe old age. Others do all kinds of healthy alternatives, and dont live past 40. Life is funny like that. When we neglect what our inner wisdom tells us, in some ways, thats called irresponsible indulgence. And this aint good in all aspects of life, not only in relation to whether meat-eating is right or wrong. There are more important issues at hand to consider. Of course, holistically and humanely speaking, eating meat can be a negative, and many Buddhist teachers and lamas (contrary to what some posters here think) do in fact speak in favor of a vegetarian diet. In addition, i believe representatives of other traditions and faiths do encourage this as well. Ultimately, it is up to the individual and his/her priorities and health/spiritual considerations. I know that those doing higher tantric practices do abstain from meat-eating, but may return to it after they have completed the practice. Its up to them. On a personal level, i used to be an active meat-eater, and being a Chef, thats quite natural to me. But in the last two years, there has been a gradual reduction in this, not because of my spiritual pursuits, but my body tells me to ease off, so i listen, and its okay. There is harmony. Nowadays i might eat meat once a week, whereas it used to be meat in every meal. Do i feel any healthier now? Maybe. The important thing is there was no struggle to try to impose anything - it was a natural transformation, a Tao *moment* perhaps. Forgive me for rambling. Got carried away, but there it is. Thank you for reading y'all. Bee good!

Hey Ralis, You love playing the guitar right? It must be be easy for you, assuming you are a skillful guitarist. I have not a clue about guitar-playing. So would you say there is a limit to how good a guitarist can get in terms of skill? I would assume there is no end to this mastery, would you agree? In principle then, your potential as a guitarist is infinite. If this is taken to deeper levels, comprehending infinity and honing your limitless potential as a skilled guitar-player, is exactly the same. With contemplation, and time, you will understand the co-relation. I suppose William Blake understood, when he wrote the Auguries of Innocence: "To see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity, in an hour". Regards.

Almost there M!

M: "To empty the emptiness of emptiness is the same as fulfillment". The greater the fulfillment, the freer the will! Wonderful! Sadu! Sadu!