Aaron

Unfortunately, except for the Mountain Doctrine, most intrepret that the nonexistent nature of things as "nothing exists." Things do not exist,...music does not exist outside the nature of things. The Mountain Doctrine implies that Wu exists,...but that existence is not dependent on things, and contains no such condition.

 

The Mountain Doctrine says, "An emptiness of all ( thams cad kyi stong pa) does not occur because an emptiness of the noumenon does not occur. Empty of all and empty of all phenomena are ex-tremely different because the mode of subsistence is empty of phenomena but is not empty of the noumenon. The noumenon is emptiness in that the noumenon is other-emptiness, since it is empty of conventionalities. However, an emptiness of the noumenon does not occur because the noumenon is the final nature of all phenomena. In other words, the noumenon "the basis of emptiness, the ultimate other-emptiness"

 

Noumena is not empty as form is empty. Noumena is empty of phenomena, whereas phenomena is just empty. Noumena can be viewed as a synonym of Wu.

 

Most Buddhists make terrible mistakes in their conceptual understandings,...for example, HH Dalai Lama said, "As the continuum of the mind has no beginning, ignorance does not have one either. If it did, we would have to discover from within a state of consciousness that predates ignorance and is different from it in an enlightened mind, therefore -- a cause resulting in ignorance. This makes no sense."

 

He appears to be assuming that "mind" is solely cerebral-centric (arising from the skandhas),...that is, that there is no consciousness beyond the Five Aggregates. And yet, the Absolute Bodhicitta lojong says that one should find the consciousness of before birth,...their Unborn Awareness.

 

Obviously, HH Dalai Lama has not come upon "Unborn Awareness" in his studies, nor any direct experience with such consciousness. Is HH Dalai Lama correct? Is even the Buddha Mind ignorant? Perhaps, according his Mahayana dogma. But is that true,...is there no difference between the ignorant mind of the Six Senses, and the Heart-Mind beyond the Skandhas?

 

If a Buddha has full faculties of understanding the nature of dependent origination, why would they cease to exist in it, if there was nothing beyond it? Does a Tathagata teach Nihlism? Keep in mind that for me, these are sarcastic questions.

 

V

I have to give it to you, even I don't have the balls to question the HH Dhali Lahma's understanding of Buddhism. (I meant that as a joke, of course I do.)

As far as, "is there no difference between the ignorant mind of the Six Senses, and the Heart-Mind beyond the Skandhas?" Quick and dirty answer is, no there isn't.

Aaron

...in an intellectually hygienic manner. I'm not sure it can be done in here. In fact, I'm highly suspicious, but what the hell...

 

My personal assumptions are that American society couldn't possibly be any further from a taoist/anarchist ideal unless we scrapped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights altogether and implemented our fascist drift into a corporately controlled theocracy. I do subscribe to those post-oil social theorists who posit a quasi-Taoist/anarchist social order after the collapse of the oil-fed consumer culture and its state-supported power structures.

Enjoy. Taoist communes, unite!

 

From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism (2002), pp. 222-224

 

Tao Then, Tao Now -

"Anarchism means not the bomb-in-the-pocket stuff, which is terrorism, whatever name it tries to dignify itself with, not the social-Darwinist economic 'libertarianism' of the far right, but anarchism as prefigured in early Taoist thought … its principal moral–practical theme is cooperation (solidarity, mutual aid). It is the most idealistic, and to me the most interesting, of all political theories." -- Ursula K. Le Guin

 

WHAT IS ANARCHISM?

 

If you wanted, you could trace anarchism back to Laozi and also to people like Henry David Thoreau (who wrote "that government is best which governs not at all").

 

Anarchism is the political theory that holds that dominance, authority, and hierarchy are not necessary to a harmonious society. Anarchism advocates a cooperative approach to social organization that excludes government altogether.

 

A much maligned and deeply misunderstood system of thought, anarchism us usually considered to be a fairly recent movement, one attached mostly to Western societies. The bad taste is created by recent versions of Marxist or Maoist anarchism which glorified violence to take down society. This, of course, is far from the Taoist approach – which would be more likely to promote simple disengagement. The difference may stem from the non-individualist basis: Many Western anarchists, starting with extreme moralistic claims about individual rights, have justified taking up arms to defend those extreme rights. Taoists can justify only getting away.

 

In truth, it has a pedigree that extends back thousands of years to the Taoists of ancient China. Many modern anarchist organizations appeal proudly to their Taoist heritage.

 

The English word anarchy derives from a Greek expression meaning "without a ruler" or "without authority." Anarchy can be understood to reflect a desire for all social groupings to proceed along a cooperative, yin-based, receptive model, rather than along an authoritarian, yang-based, hierarchical model.

 

Taoists were anarchists in the Chinese context because they denied the necessity of a "final authority" on matters of the way of life. The absence of such an authority is the best recipe for progress in ways of life. Historically, however, Western anarchists have focused most of their energies on the task of convincing people that government, organization, or the rule of law violates people's natural individual rights to absolute liberty.Although the ancient Taoists did not have a clear theory of rule of law, Taoism's effect of reducing punishment and giving people clear guidelines within which to pursue their own conceptions of the good life is one that would probably make constitutional democracy appealing. This approach is quite consistent with "moral authority anarchism" of the Taoist type.

 

Beyond the Stereotypes

 

People tend to react emotionally, and negatively, to the word anarchy because it has become strongly attached, for whatever reasons, to the notions of chaos and violence. The stereotype of the scheming, black-suited, bomb-throwing anarchist goes back to the silent film era – but anarchy's lineage as a subtle, intellectually rigorous political theory deeply distrustful of government goes back to ancient China.

 

Anarchism is a fascinating intellectual tradition worth considering on its own merits, rather than on the basis of the stereotypes that have been linked to it. Specifically, the stereotypes miss the fundamentally egalitarian, spontaneous, and mutually supportive impulses of anarchism.

 

The Most Misrepresented Ideas in Political Theory

"Anarchism and anarchy are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean 'chaos' or 'without order,' and so, by implication, anarchists [are seen as desiring] chaos and a return to the 'laws of the jungle.' This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person [monarchy] necessary, the worlds 'republic' or 'democracy' have been used precisely like 'anarchy' to imply disorder and confusion."

 

 What is Anarchism?" (www.anarchyfaq.org)

Anarchy, as we have said, was a politically powerful and deeply influential tradition in ancient China. Modern anarchist movements take many forms and include both nuanced intellectual arguments and hormone-driven exchanges that flirt unconvincingly with both reason and insanity.

 

When viewed in the proper historical context, with Taoism as its founding philosophy, the idealistic, mutually supportive approach of anarchism become both clear and intriguing.

Very nice. I enjoyed this immensely.

Aaron

edit- I should also add that I was unaware at the time I became an anarchist, that it had it's roots in Taoism and ancient China, even though I was reading the Tao Teh Ching at the time. The philosophy, as it was taught to me by my professor at the time, was one I could not only embrace, but ultimately convinced me of the errors of socialism and democracies.

The quantum realization that there is no time, upsets peoples cerebro-centric logic. Light is only a mystery to ordinary people.

 

Historically, change is a slow, unwelcomed, and ridiculed process. Albert Einstein's revolutionary year of 1905, from which arose the equation E=mc², was not immediately accepted; and what that equation also implies, that mc² < c, continues to be nonsensical to nearly everyone. In other words, after some kicking and screaming, it was agreed that, from our relative point of view, light travels 186k mps; yet light's point

of view continues to be incomprehensible, which is that it travels no distance, in no time, and thus has no need for speed.

 

"all matter is frozen or slowed down light" David Bohm. He is speaking of the electrodynamic spectrum. What happens to mass if it reached the so-called speed of light? Einstein showed that not only do space and time change as speed increases, so does mass. In the case of mass, however, the change is an increase rather than a decrease; the faster something moves, the greater its mass becomes. The cerebro-centric say if an object were ever to reach the so=called speed of light, its mass would become infinite. However, to move an infinite mass would take an infinite amount of energy–more energy than there is in the entire universe. Thus, how does any phenomena ever attain the speed of light. It doesn't!

 

Without the stillness of Undivided Light, E=mc² could not be. mc² < c. This is so simple! It should be kindergarten stuff. However, we live in a very ignorant world, where the great majority continue to believe in stuff like god, faith, and conditional love.

 

Unfortunately, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" Planck

 

The fact that humanity, and everything in the phenomenal universe, is relatively 186K mps slower than the Stillness of Undivided Light, may take a little longer.

 

V

The proof of undivided lights existence (if it exists and I think probably does) will not change the human race that significantly, although the scientific applications may be astounding. Spiritually, emotionally, I don't think the impact will be there. If nothing else it may have the exact opposite effect that you think it might have. I'm still not sure how this applies to Wu Wei and yes I've read your explanations. I certainly don't think this was what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were talking about.

Aaron

The best response I've heard regarding this question was from EJ Gold, who said:

 

"Real emotions are communicated by outward radiation of the mood, and originate through an awakened emotional center, which has no reverberational effects in other parts of the body, and is not necessary to verbally communicate the emotion.

 

Positive and negative emotion are subjective mental states occuring in reflex, and must be verbalized and elaborately described, explained, rationalized and mentally communicated and understood.

 

Those who can produce real emotions in themselves never communicate about emotional states in mental language; they just radiate the emotions, allowing the emotion to speak for itself.

 

In the presence of someone who is able to produce real emotion, we experience feelings - perhaps for the first time. Very often, someone who has awakened the higher Emotional Body and who has learned to radiate emotions becomes a celebrity-guru, and people gather like cattle to bathe in the higher emotions. These higher emotions are often mistaken for some mysterious cosmic force or interpreted in some pseudo-religious way, but really they are just emotions.

 

What a pity that human beings are so unaccustomed to emotion that they feel compelled to submissively huddle together in the warmth of the emotional radiation of someone just as mechanical as they are, but who happened to have activated, by accident, the higher Emotional Body."

I think you missed the rhetorical aspect of this thread... but that's okay, I would like to know if you can provide any examples of people who are alive who are capable of performing this emotion radiance, it would be interesting to learn more about it.

Aaron

I like the pic, but man you have way too much time on your hands.

Aaron

I understand that people are misunderstanding exactly what I mean by becoming like a child, or returning to innocence, so I wanted to clarify, because I honestly believe this is one of most important things we as human beings should learn. First, returning to innocence is not about becoming naive or completely trusting people, or not being aware that things happen in the world that could harm you, it's about returning to a state where your actions are not dictated by philosophies, ideologies, or social mores, and instead by an innate understanding of how the world works.

We all have this ability, it's not something only the rare few can manage to recapture, and I say recapture, because this state of being existed within us at one time, but was slowly diminished by social indoctrination. What returning to innocence is, at it's most basic level, is learning to judge actions and thoughts, not by placing a moral value judgement on these things, but by the actual consequences of that action.

So if someone comes up to you and asks your for your car, no you don't give him your car, because being innocent doesn't mean that you don't understand the need of having a car, nor does it mean that you are supposed to give up things you need to those who want them, it means that you are aware of what's happening in the world and not making subjective decisions based on moral propaganda, but rather making reacting to what's happening based on your understanding of the actual situation.

If anyone needs examples, I'd be happy to provide them, but I really just wanted to clarify what I'm talking about here. In essence, you can still return to innocence if you agree with a religion or philosophy, so long as the religion or philosophy doesn't influence your decisions, but rather an understanding of the innate nature of what's occurring, without moral bias.

Aaron

"In fact your definition doesn't even make sense to me". That is ok.

 

no boxes doesn't always mean another box of no boxes...

Unless you're using no boxes to box those boxes.

Aaron

Nope, "Innocent" in the deepest meaning is not a state of mind, or related to subjective perspectives and such. Thus what such purity of truth is absolutely can not be delinated by mind. (as this or that or as nothing)

But you seem to be doing just that by saying that it can't be. That subjective, whether you realize it or not. In fact your definition doesn't even make sense to me. It seems like you're trying to say it has something to do with enlightenment and higher awareness, when it doesn't, in fact it's one of the key requirements to achieving those states, but it isn't enlightenment at all. At least that's what many spiritual paths seem to teach.

Aaron

There is no return (per-se) to "innocence" as in the unexperienced, child like state - although through the hard fought attainment of wisdom along with grace that makes such possible, karma eventually drops and then one stands innocent before a samsara which can no longer reach them.

Hello 3bob,

Ask yourself, what is innocence? Not what is the definition, but what is innocence? It's a subjective description of a perceived state of being. It only exists within the mind, it's not real. Think of it like this, we cannot really hold evil, we can hold something we identify as evil, but not evil, because evil isn't a physical thing. We say you're evil, that's evil, but it's always an adjective, never a noun. In that sense, no we cannot return to innocence, because it really doesn't exist in a way that we can return to it, but we can escape the subjective mind set that causes us to believe in it in the first place. We can escape sin when we no longer believe in right or wrong, or good or bad, but identify those concepts also as social constructs with no real basis in physical reality.

So in reality we can only reach a state of innocence when we no longer acknowledge the concept of sin. When we give up right and wrong and analyze what happens within the world from a perspective based on our experience, rather than intellect, then we can begin to behave as we were intended and as a side effect, return to a state of innocence, although in this state innocence means absolutely nothing.

Aaron

General discussion is apparently where you go to start inane posts in order to try and assert your authority and dominance in a communal setting, because you feel slighted that your other posts were moved. Is that a moral value judgment? I sure hope not.

Aaron

Informer I think you should ask yourself the real reason why you're doing this? I think you are also putting yourself in a do or die position, which may not be what you want. The only thing I see happening here is that your thread gets moved again, but this time you also get banned for doing something to provoke the mods. Also as a matter of course, I will not participate in a thread that's purpose is to cause discord and animosity for others. That's all I will say about this.

Aaron

If you're interested in trying this, I challenge you to go one day (on the forum to make it easier) without referring to something as right or wrong, good or bad, or labeling anything with a (moralistic) value judgement. I think it might be interesting to see just how often we do this and fall back on this as a way to defend our positions.

Aaron

edit- I'm actually going to try and see how long I can go without making a value judgement based on my own ideology or social mores.

Hmm... if you ask me from my own personal experience, then yes it is possible to right a wrong, but in doing so, ask yourself why you wish to right that wrong? In most cases you do so out of guilt or because you fear the long term consequences of that action. Either of these is a fine reason to right a wrong. Now my own personal belief is that I need to make amends when I harm someone, intentionally or unintentionally. I seek out that person and do what I can to right it. I may go to them and tell them that I am sorry, but when I do, I don't ask for forgiveness, but rather leave it to the person I've wronged to forgive me. Also sometimes the best thing you can do when you've wronged someone is to let it go, because doing something may only make it worse. Also be sure that you've done something wrong, before you actually try to make amends for it.

An example, your friend tells you that he cheated on his wife five years ago? His wife doesn't know this, nor has he any intention of telling her. The two of them have three children together, but have recently began having marriage troubles, which are mostly due to fact that the man's a general ass. You know if you tell her that this happened, that it will be the end of the marriage. Do you tell the woman and give her a reason to leave the marriage, or do you stay out of it and let the relationship play out on its own? If you do tell her, what are your true motivations for doing so? Is really completely altruistic or could you be doing so because you dislike your friend's actions?

That's the problem with amends, is that they aren't always black and white and if you fail to look at the consequences of making the amends, you could be making amends that actually cause more harm to the people involved. And of course sometimes it's not your place to make amends, especially if you've done something by omission.

The most important thing about making an amends is to not do the same thing again, or that amends is really meaningless. Also sometimes the best amends you can make is simply changing your behavior towards a person, making sure they know you aren't the same person that did those things years ago. This is often called a living amends and in my opinion is the best type of amends.

Aaron

Innocence rules, it is most comfortable way of being.

But being like a child ,I dont know, I quite like to be able to take care of myself and enoy being an adult. That feels so good not to have the need for protection.

 

Cat said:

'You may also assume that anything divine cannot have a shadow aspect, but that's not realistic. '

This is a very important point IMO as this is where a lot of seekers get so lost and disorinteated.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant. For me being like a child doesn't mean that we actually become children again, but return to the state of a child, a state where we cease to allow social constructs to define who we are and instead rely on our innate feelings about situations. We don't look at things as right and wrong, but rather as an action with consequences and make our decision about that action based on those consequences. I also believe this kind of perception releases us from much of the guilt and self-loathing that we accumulate in life, because it allows me to view myself, not as good Aaron or bad Aaron, but simply Aaron. If I can do that, then I can truly begin to live my life without the chains of academia, religion, or philosophy subjectively analyzing what has and will happen, but rather live in the moment (which is something children excel at doing.)

Also, in becoming like a child, we do not forsake our responsibilities as adults (since we are not actually children), but rather allow ourselves to live free, curious, and compassionate lives where our attachment to others does not derive from what we've been taught about others, but rather our experience with others. In other words we remember our original state and return to it. At first this takes work, but over time it can become quite natural, and this natural state will allow us to reach heights of spirituality that we could never experience without it.

To paraphrase, "am I the man who dreams he is a boy, or the boy who dreams he is a man?"

Aaron

This is a tangent from my "Return to Innocence" thread. The key to understanding one's self is to look at who we are without labels or preconceived notions about who we are. We need to give up this idea that we are good or bad, or that parts of us are good or bad, and instead look at who we are from a completely unbiased perspective. When we can do that, then we have the potential for true awareness of our nature and the foundation of that nature.

Aaron

Thanks for all the comments, some really interesting stuff there to think about. Something else that came to mind was the idea of innocence and what that means and how it relates to becoming like a child and what I was thinking about was the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and all those other subjective beliefs we learn as we grow older. For a young child, good and evil, right and wrong, and moral relativism don't exist. Instead they tend to think along the lines of consequences and benefits. This is one of the reasons we punish children when they do something wrong, because they lack the ability to understand on intrinsic level that something is wrong. For instance stealing a cookie isn't bad because it's wrong, but because you get a spanking, put in the corner, or Jesus (or Buddha) doesn't love you anymore if you steal it. We use manipulation to teach children how to behave, so in essence what we should aspire to, is get rid of all the BS and begin to see the world as we did when we were children. Stop allowing people to define things as right and wrong and instead look at the action and judge it by your heart's compass or conscience, whichever idea makes you feel better. For myself, I tend to view the consequences of an action in regards to whether or not I will do it. Now the hard part comes from looking at the consequences and omitting all the academic and sociological programming that's associated with it.

If we can reach this state though, a state where we no longer allow good and evil or the notion of right and wrong to influence our decisions, then we have also reached a state of innocence, because we are no longer bound by the abstract notion of sin.

Just a thought. I'd love to hear other peoples opinions regarding it.

Aaron

Hello TC,

John Denver is one of my favorite singers, period. I had a hard time listening to his music after he died. He really was a great songwriter and singer. Thanks for sharing.

Aaron

Happy New Year Tao Bums!!!

1. Actually,...the less beliefs one has, the more productive, engaging, and real their day is. As in the quote above,...you tethered yourself to ego and 6 sense reasoning, and yet there is no rope.

 

2. You have shown in your posts to have no understanding of compassion,...so way do you use the word as if you did?

"Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Robert Thurman

 

3. Are you suggesting that some outside force determines who can awaken, and who can not? Kind of like American politics,...the one elected is chosen by outside media-tion. Or, perhaps one needs to be born under a Pisces Moon?

 

4. Please don't strive to be a child. That's a practice of belief. Simply let go of beliefs. As a 1st Century Gnostic text said,..."when you can disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments (beliefs) and place them under your feet like little child and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid".

 

Be naked, Buddhism suggests,...uncover your Unborn Awareness,...the awareness you had before being indoctrinated with beliefs. Such a child knows no god.

 

V

Ahh... V, that's why I like you, even in the face of adversity you still stick by your guns. (That's a joke by the way). Anyways I think we both know that we'll never convince the other of what we believe or don't believe... well you know what I mean. I'm too ingrained in dualism for that, so lets end this conversation with a handshake and a Happy New Years.

Aaron

edit- Also, I've tried the naked thing when I take a shower and it doesn't seem to help. Am I doing something wrong?

 

 

 

What makes sense is that I'm listening, but you're not hearing. I am not advocating beliefs. I must have said a hundred times, I'm bringing attention to that which steps between sentient beings and their direct experience.

 

Meditation should not be practice to bring about a belief in stillness, and especially should have nothing to do with emptiness. The realization of emptiness is simply a consequence of understanding Who's Who in Duality (something that Taoists have unfortunately humanized). Meditation, for those who are so ignorant that it necessatates meditation, should be about non-judgment and surrender. If you observe a thought, you "tag it",...oh, there's a thought, and go back to your focal point (breath, an object, etc).

 

According to Mahamudra, only ignorant people meditate. The goal is non-meditation. To grasp that, consider this non-Buddhist quote:

"We teach meditation, or quieting the mind, because it is really easier to teach you to have no thoughts, than to teach you to have pure, positive thought. We would rather you be in a state of appreciation, than in a state of meditation, because in appreciation you are a vibrational match to your Source" Esther Hicks.

 

No one can be a vibrational match to Source through belief. Thus, no Christian can ever be a vibrational match to Source. It is simplier than health lungs taking a breath. Why you (and others) have such a negative response about it what's really telling.

 

Try to grasp this relative truth,...Experience born through belief, can ONLY be experienced through the condition of that belief. How many people do you know, who have had a direct, unconditional experience? Do you really believe Settler or Simple_Jack have? What could you possibly be reading to suggest that?

 

Your thoughts and thinking are ignorant,...that's the nature of thoughts and thinking. To suggest that "the chances one can live their life devoid of beliefs is impractical" could only arise from a neurotic, cerebral-centric mind,...and eliminates you as a genuine Buddhist.

 

Nothing is more practical,...than being devoid of beliefs. Of course, that would be most upsetting for ego,...but who wants to cling to the unreal when they've realized the real?

 

"If truth was understood, ego would no longer be "needed" in the capacity it now enjoys." Sri Ram Kaa

 

You (Aaron) however, are tethered to ego.

 

Ma Amritananda said, "There was a cowherd boy who took his cows to the meadows every morning and brought them back to the cowshed at the end of the day. One evening, as he was tying the cows up for the night, the boy found that one of them was missing her rope. He feared that she might run away, but it was too late to go and buy a new rope. The boy didn't know what to do, so he went to a wise man who lived nearby and sought his advice. The wise man told the boy to pretend to tie the cow, and make sure that the cow saw him doing it. The boy did as the wise man suggested and pretended to tie the cow. The next morning, the boy discovered that the cow had remained still throughout the night. He untied all the cows as usual, and they all went outside. He was about to go to the meadows, when he noticed that the cow with the missing rope was still in the cowshed. She was standing on the same spot where she had been all night. He tried to coax her to join the herd, but she wouldn't budge. The boy was perplexed. He went back to the wise man, who said, "The cow still thinks that she is tied up. Go back and pretend to untie her." The boy did as he was told, and the cow happily left the cowshed. [Wisdom] helps untie that which was never bound. Like the cow, due to our ignorance, we believe that we are bound by the ego, when, in fact, we are completely free. We need to be convinced of this, however."

I'm not an advocate of Ma Amritananda,...I could care less who she is supposed to be,...or what she has supposedly done. The above quote has nothing to do with Ma Amritananda or her beliefs,...the quote is merely for the context of this post.

 

V

Hello V Marco,

You are an amazing man. You have no beliefs, yet you are able to get up every morning and do things, when obviously there should be no reason to do them, because there is no belief to initiate their need. That was sarcasm to illustrate a point. You claim to have no beliefs, but the fact is believing that one should not have beliefs is a belief. As a result I grasp your relative truth and see it as not being such.

I guess that's all I have to say. Now if you ever exhibit a degree of detachment and compassion, that illustrates to me that you've achieved enlightenment, then I will have to change my mind regarding this, but right now all I see is absolutism being presented as detached observation. There are no absolutes, you should know that. The fact that it is incapable for one to exist within duality without beliefs is a realization that seems quite simple to understand. The fact that you miss my point tells me we're at an impasse.

As for everyone else, go on believing whatever you want to, it really doesn't matter. If you are meant to become enlightened, you will, and if you aren't, then you wont. If you decide to be anything, strive to be like a child, then you'll see how pointless this all is anyways.

Aaron

I haven't started a topic like this in awhile, so I thought it might be nice, seeing as how the new year is about to begin, to talk about a topic that's dear to me (yes I am attached to this topic.) That topic, if you missed the heading, is returning to innocence and what it means. This is perhaps the most universal of concepts, in fact every religion and philosophy that I know of speaks about it, yet it seems to be overlooked so often. With that said, I'd like to post some quotes from different religions that have to do with this topic, so that as a community we can discuss what this means to each of us.

---------

"You should study not only that you become a mother when your child is born, but also that you become a child." -Dogen

"People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle." -Thich Nhat Hanh

"The paramahamsa is like a five year old child. He sees everything filled with Consciousness.. The paramahamsa is like a child. He cannot distinguish between a stranger and a relative... the paramahamsa is like a child. He doesn't keep any track of his whereabouts. He sees everything as Brahman." - Sri Ramakrishna

Jesus saw some little ones nursing. He said to his disciples, "These little ones who are nursing resemble those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "So shall we enter the kingdom by being little ones?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one and make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above like the below, and that you might make the male and the female be one and the same, so that the male might not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye and a hand in place of a hand and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image - then you will enter.- Saying 22 from the Gospel of Thomas

"'Did you have a happy childhood?' is a false question. As a child I did not know what happiness was, and whether I was happy or not. I was too busy being." -Alistair Reed

"The Sage has no interests of his own,

But takes the interests of the people as his own.

He is kind to the kind;

He is also kind to the unkind:

For Virtue is kind.

He is faithful to the faithful;

He is also faithful to the unfaithful:

For Virtue is faithful.

In the midst of the world, the Sage is shy and

self-effacing.

For the sake of the world he keeps his heart in its

nebulous state.

All the people strain their ears and eyes:

The Sage only smiles like an amused infant." - Tao Teh Ching tr. John C. H. Wu

-----

That's just a few of the quotes I came across, but I'm sure there are more. Actually, to be honest, I'm not as interested in the quotes, so much as how people view this universal principle and how they try to practice it in their own lives. I look forward to hearing what others think.

Aaron

I'm not discussing "my beliefs" or "my truth",...a belief is a condition,...and if you try to bring those conditions into the Unconditional (the Heart-Mind), you will NEVER access Heart-Mind. That's Buddhism is a nutshell. Not the belief of Buddhism,...but the instruction of Buddhism that points to Heart-Mind.

 

Some Buddhists say,...if you see Buddha in your meditations, kill him. Buddha does not belong in your meditations. If you have any beliefs during your meditations, then your meditations are inadequate.

 

Experience born through belief, can ONLY be experienced through the condition of that belief.

 

You (Aaron) are assuming that because you have beliefs, that everyone must be speaking through their beliefs. With such a belief, you WILL NEVER experience the essence of Undivided Light. One must fully surrender,...surrender ALL their beliefs, before entering Heart-Mind.

 

The 6 senses cannot enter Heart-Mind. There are no beliefs beyond the 6 senses.

 

V

Hello V Marco,

I don't think you're listening to what I am saying, because I am saying the same thing you are saying, only I'm pointing out something that I see in you, that others probably do as well, that you are advocating your own beliefs, but then denying that you are doing that very thing. So my question is, do you believe that a person should give up all their beliefs? Do you believe that a person that believes in God is not an honest person? Do you believe that an honest person can not achieve the experience of undivided light?

I am agreeing with you, and apparently you missed it, except I say that the point is not to give up your beliefs, since you will always have beliefs, but rather that you must not, as you've pointed out, bring those beliefs into meditation. In meditation you must clear your mind of all beliefs in order to experience emptiness, undivided light, etc., because, if you don't do this, than as I've pointed out more times than I can count now, you're experiences during meditation will be colored by those experiences. If you go into meditation believing that you must follow certain practices in order to achieve a state of awareness of heart-mind, then by practicing those things, you are already predetermining what your experience will be.

So to recap, yes, one must give up all beliefs when one is seeking a awareness, even the belief that one must give up beliefs. During meditation one should practice to attain stillness and emptiness, free from all preconceptions. Without this freedom, inevitably your experience will be predetermined for you by your belief system.

I also think, that one should be aware that the chances one can live their life (outside of meditation) devoid of beliefs is impractical. So it's fine to be a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or whatever else one should aspire to be and I have no right to say otherwise, nor would I. When I talk about these things, I do so as suggestions and also make reference to my own experience regarding these things. There will be some that understand and accept it, others that understand and do not accept it, and others still who do not understand and don't accept it, that's fine, I'm not competing, so I don't have to argue with them. The only reason I pursue this topic with you is because I think we're on the same page in regards to many of your ideas, but we've come to our understanding through different means.

Also I rarely quote texts, simply because I haven't read that many, nor do I try to memorize them, rather I try to rely on my own experiences and understanding of the phenomena of duality, non-duality, and emptiness. I can also pick out, relatively quickly, those people who've come to their understanding intellectually and those who've come to it experientially.

I hope that makes sense.

Aaron

Because Dao is so complicated, only the immortals(sages) know exactly how to acheive it through active meditation.

Yay! This must mean I'm an immortal! Where do I go to pick up my membership card?

Aaron

Not any authentic Buddhist,...and certainly no Bodhisattva.

 

Any notion of god steps between a sentient being and their direct experience. Not sure what your problem is,...a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. It is absolutely impossible for a Christian to realize enlightenment,...except if he dissolved such a belief just prior to awakening. One cannot, under any reason, enter the Heart with beliefs.

 

All beliefs are part of the Skandhas,...god is a belief. Their is no god beyond delusional thinking,...every authentic Buddhist would agree. Those who would disagree, like Thich Nhat Hanh, are not true Buddhists, but have some sort of deluded theist agenda.

 

The ONLY way to uncover enlightenment is through honesty. No honest person believes in a god.

 

"If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation." David Hume

But don't you see that these are your own beliefs, which you also could be said to avidly cling too. So here's my question to you, how is your own self defined short path Buddhism, based on your own intellectual diaspora of Western and Eastern philosophers any different than someone who just follows Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion? While we're on the topic, how about the Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists that believe in Gods, where do they rank here? Do they receive as much disdain as the Christians, or are the Christians especially vile because of who they are?

I wonder sometimes if you have somehow tricked yourself into believing you're objective, when in fact your ideas have simply replaced God in your mind? I think that until you get rid of this entire notion of short path, long path, Buddhism, Christianity, and all the other philosophical messages you've picked up in your lifetime and completely stilled your mind, that you'll never be able to see through the message you've learned from others.

That's the other thing that amazes me, that so many people on here who have supposedly reached enlightenment, don't understand that the idea of getting rid of these philosophies, has nothing to do with not believing them anymore or abandoning these institutions, but rather entering a state within meditation where you have given them up by reaching a place of complete silence, with no distraction or thought, it is then, when you are free from these beliefs, that you can achieve an awareness of emptiness, the infinite source, and all of the other things everyone seems to know so much about, but can't seem to explain without quoting someone else.

Also the word authentic is tricky and subjective, and somewhat puritanical, which is one reason I never use it.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or a personal attack. I think of many of the people on this board, you're one of the closest to realization, but in the same way, I think you have some inherent ideas and beliefs that are holding you back as well. Of all the people I've talked to, other than Matt Black, Xabir is the only one I've met who's been able to put their experience into their own words without resorting to quotes. That's a clear sign of someone who has had an authentic experience.

Anyways, happy new years! I hope this doesn't put a kabash on our dialogue, because I do enjoy discussing these things, my own little attachment.

Aaron