Aaron

This reminds me of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which essentially aimed to do the same thing, allow government to control what people could post or access. That law was struck down and I think this one will be too. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney General or some other federal department is the first to respond to it. It's just so unconstitutional and broad, that it just doesn't seem like it could possibly hold up in court. Plus when people start feeling the crunch you got to expect a backlash that will lead them to either revise it or get rid of it completely. It is, sadly, a sign of the times.

Aaron

When i was around 10 years i decided to abandon all that i have. (Buda self abandon)

 

God descend upon me and said: "how our you"? (Christianity God)

 

i replay: "i prefer the place i come from".

 

He then show me the other plane:

 

We have all possible things in one state, no movement, no food, no sleep, only love, only happiness all in one state. We already have all things.

 

God asked : "is this you want?"

 

I replay: "I'm to young i want to see what life is".

 

(he went away...)

 

You need to be very well prepared in order to accept that.

 

If you not know what love is or not abandon all that you have, how are you going to accept such thing?

 

To receive all for nothing you will surely think its madness.

 

Now for what i have understand we reincarnate from a plane of fullness in to a plane of emptiness. Having all to having nothing in order to give value to the fullness state. In the bible God say this in symbol form: "Angels can not evolve there for can not learn". Irony also? We are the angels.

 

Do not ask me where Jesus is because i do not know, nor ask me about Buda enlightenment i also do not know. As i stated before, it is a mix of Jesus love with Buda abandon off all things. Only by abandon all you have can you receive all back. Its not at a material level but at an emotional one which can be the same. First you let go in the mind and then in the physical world.

 

"Jesus to Peter: there will be a time when you will be prevented to use your own will". Jesus consider this as spiritual practice, allow your self, by your free will to be chained in prison.

 

If you want experience the indescribable fullness, love your self up to a point to abandon all that you have so you can enlighten your self, but it will be by God hand.

Great story. Thanks for sharing it.

Aaron

Some more quotes from St John of the Cross-

"The very pure spirit does not bother about the regard of others or human respect, but communes inwardly with God, alone and in solitude as to all forms, and with delightful tranquility, for the knowledge of God is received in divine silence."

"Love consists not in feeling great things but in having great detachment and in suffering for the Beloved."

"Souls will be unable to reach perfection who do not strive to be content with having nothing, in such fashion that their natural and spiritual desire is satisfied with emptiness; for this is necessary in order to reach the highest tranquility and peace of spirit. Hence the love of God in the pure and simple soul is almost continually in act."

"If you desire to discover peace and consolation for your soul and to serve God truly, do not find your satisfaction in what you have left behind, because in that which now concerns you you may be as impeded as you were before, or even more. But leave as well all these other things and attend to one thing alone that brings all these with it (namely, holy solitude, together with prayer and spiritual and divine reading), and persevere there in forgetfulness of all things."

"Strive to preserve your heart in peace; let no event of this world disturb it; reflect that all must come to an end."

-----

It seems to me, that if you were to ask a Buddhist Monk whether or not the man who said these things was enlightened, most would agree that he was. Now, saying that, I will also admit that I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in God (or Gods) for that matter, but I can easily change God here for the concept of universal consciousness and say that he was onto something.

My reason for quoting these texts was simply to add some comments that reflect exactly what you've been saying in most of your threads. I would've thought you could've used this as a way to prove your argument that all religions hold truths, and that clinging to any one would be a detriment to understanding the truth.

Also I firmly believe that St John of Cross was enlightened, and that many people from religions other than Buddhism have achieved enlightenment. If anything I think this confirms my belief that enlightenment and understanding of non-duality is inherently influenced by one's practice. If you are a practicing Buddhist, then when you achieve enlightenment, your experience will be influenced by your experiences as a buddhist and color that experience. So perhaps, rather than urge people to give up their old beliefs in regards to achieving an awareness, it is better to urge them to attain a communion with the source of their spirituality?

My final point is that when I hear St John talk about light, it reminds me a great deal of you talking about light.

Just some thoughts.

Aaron

"stop seeking truth, but seek and find all the barriers you have built against it"

 

Or, as a Tantric Buddhist said, "The real seeker of truth never seeks truth. On the contrary, he tries to clean himself of all that is untrue, inauthentic, insincere - and when his heart is ready, purified, the guest comes. You cannot find the guest, you cannot go after him. He comes to you; you just have to be prepared."

 

Love is proof that no god exists.

 

V

"When a soul has advanced so far on the spiritual road as to be lost to all the natural methods of communing with God; when it seeks Him no longer by meditation, images, impressions, nor by any other created ways, or representations of sense, but only by rising above them all, in the joyful communion with Him by faith and love, then it may be said to have found God of a truth, because it has truly lost itself as to all that is not God, and also as to its own self."

-St. John of the Cross

Non-dualism is a word that can have vast number of meanings. It seems I don't follow the understanding advanced by most people here.

 

To me, non-duality have two valid meanings: no subject-object duality, and no 'existence' or 'non-existence' (being or non-being).

 

Non-dual of 'right and wrong, light and dark' etc presumably talking about state unaffected by judgemental concepts is not what I understand (or experience) as enlightenment.

I can agree with your description of non-duality that you gave above, I just believe that non-dualism is reliant upon dualism to exist. There's no need for anyone to agree with me, because it really changes nothing.

Aaron

I'm not sure if this is the advice you're looking for, since it's not chi-gung (qigong). but I've used this practice for a long, long time (over 15 years), and it's worked to help me manage pain and remove negative energy. It's basically a visualization exercise to get the energy moving. I sit in a cross legged position (you don't have to sit in a cross legged if you can't, just sit in a chair with your feet flat on the ground and try to maintain good posture), and clear my mind of distracting thoughts, once I've reached a state of decent clear mind,I focus on the pain and breathe in deeply, visualizing and feeling energy entering my body and moving to the point that's causing me to suffer. I then breathe out visualizing whatever's ailing me, leaving my body through my breath. It's good to have a focus point to look at, so that you can direct the bad energy out and into it. I will oftentimes visualize a ball of energy in front of me.

I know it's not complex, nor ancient, but I can swear by it and tell you that it's worked for me and many others who've practiced it. It can take awhile for it too work, but I've heard many people come back to me and say it's worked almost immediately. If you feel up to it, I'd recommend trying it a few times. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't, but if it does, then all the better.

Anyways, good luck with your issue. If you continue to have problems, I'd recommend seeing a medical doctor to get an opinion and perhaps some form of treatment.

Aaron

It really is not as easy as that. If it were, we'd all be enlightened with no need for teachings of any kind.

 

 

 

No, conundrum. The teachings are a relative tool. Buddha taught that there wasn't really any Dharma to teach. When No-Mind, No-Buddha, is experientially understood there is no contradiction anywhere.

Actually a great many people have achieved enlightenment without formal training. Also, I'm not saying it's wrong to have teachers, just that they aren't necessary. As far as the conundrum, perhaps it's not for you, but can you say that for everyone? Remember the experience that one has is dependent on their own experiences. The experience of no-mind, heart-mind, or anything else you want to call it, is highly debated even throughout Buddhism, which tells me that it's not a universally accepted experience, but one heavily reliant on one's dualistic experience (or life experience). The fact of the matter is that we cannot reside in no-mind and still reside within this dualistic existence without being the very thing we've chosen to see as transient and non-existent (which I don't agree with by the way.) I think the inherent problem that arises from assuming that non-dualism precludes the existence of dualism is that we cannot even fathom non-dualism without a dualistic existence, hence if there's nothing to observe non-dualism, then how can it exist? Non-dualism itself is dependent on dualism to exist, hence when all things return to it, then what you have will be the rebirth of another non-dualistic existence. So nirvana, if there is one, will probably be very short lived.

Aaron

As a response to my post, your post is understandable,...however, more than once, Simple-Jack has implied:

 

Thus, in my opinion, he appears more like the Self-appointed guardians of the status-quo, mentioned in the Zeitgeist link above, than someone interested getting out of the box that infests humanity.

 

That's still an assumption and I have read the ongoing criticisms and arguments you have both been having. I've known Jack for over a year and at times he can be overbearing (no offense Jack), but I'm sure he could say the same about me. My point is that the status-quo is often a label we use to discount what others say, without any real basis on fact. In most cases it's used when someone doesn't agree with our own arguments. I think it is infinitely more beneficial for any dialogue, if both sides allow each other to speak without attacking the others character, and instead address the others points with an objective state of mind.

I also disagree that I exhibit the same characteristics,...and make use of Buddhism because people here are more familiar with Buddhism.

I thought you would and perhaps from your way of thinking you do, but I think I'm not the only one here that sees that many of your beliefs and ideas are founded on certain ingrained principles that you've been taught. This, in my opinion, is contradictory to what you are telling people. You say give up your beliefs and what you have been taught, but for what? To take on your beliefs because they're the right ones? How can you be so certain, or anyone for that matter, that your beliefs are correct? In the end I think what one should do, is not abandon their beliefs, but examine the root of the message that stems from that belief.

What I dialogue on could be reflected off of many philosophies. Ultimately, all truth supports all other truths, as my post above to Xabir mentioned.

I agree with you completely on this point and I've actually said this before, so no arguments here.

Your post does expose a most obscurative flaw for anyone practice,...that of predisposition. You post was not founded upon an understanding of the dialogue between Simple_Jack and I,...but a one-side judgment. In fact, your jumping in to defend others without understanding the circumstances is not new,...and is most likely a Cheif-Feature of your since youth.

See this is another assumption you've made. I've almost always understood the circumstances, I just choose not to react as others might have me react, but rather in the way I feel is correct. I am not Buddhist, Taoist, or any other -ism these days. Choosing notto follow any specific belief allows me to embrace those ideas that I feel are beneficial, but in saying this I also recognize the right others have to follow those beliefs they hold dear to them. I think ideally we should focus on ourselves first and then others. I understand that you feel that you have attained enough insight that it's your duty to teach others what you believe is right, but in my opinion no one has ever achieved enough insight into spiritual matters to say that they are right and others are wrong. I don't think Buddha ever directly attacked anyone's beliefs, from what I've read, but rather urged others to imitate those they believe are doing right and ignore those they believe aren't. If one can do this, then they can practice any belief without forcing those beliefs on others.

Do you see what I meant that the youtube link I left above is applicable to all the posts at TTB?

If you believe what he says, sure, but I don't. I think that his ideas are ultimately idealistic and a bit scary. Who wants to rebuild a thousand new cities that all look alike? What he's done is rewrite communism in a more palatable way, but it's not a system that will work, nor one that will ever succeed.

In regards to academia, religiosity, and socioeconomics, well perhaps you are right, because the basis for everything you've said, Jack's said, and everyone else on this board has said, is founded on what we've been taught and experienced, much of that through our education and spiritual upbringing. I'd think you could very well say that everything that's ever been written falls into this criteria as well.

Anyways, you're free to believe what you want to and overall I don't see the Zeitgeist Movement as evil, but it's definitely, in my opinion, not the answer for me. I appreciate their advocacy in regards to making people aware of what they've been taught and their urging people to understand the boxes they've created and getting out of those boxes, but perhaps that's where they should've stopped, because when they tell people they're wrong, and that in order to be right they have to believe what the Zeitgeists believe, then that's not different than any number of religions I've heard of.

Aaron

Once someone progresses to the substantial non-dualism of Advaita: Then they can use Buddhism to get rid of any remaining inherent view's; in order to come to an experiential understanding of the spontaneous nature of experience, through the teachings of anatta and dependent origination.

You don't need Adviata, Buddhism or the teachings of annata and dependent origination to come to an experiental understanding of the spontaneous nature of experience, you just need to be able to see that, just as your physical self is transient, so are your thoughts.

The problem many people have is that they choose to view their thoughts as being separate from themselves, when in fact your thoughts are every bit as real as you are. So long as you continue to view thoughts in an abstract way and not recognize that they are not an extension of you, but actually you, then you will continue to be unable to understand the spontaneous nature of existence.

In other words no one path has the ultimate truth, you can come to this realization by many different paths, and in fact I think Buddhism when its practiced at its most advanced levels can leave the practitioner with a conundrum, do we give up Buddhism because it is transient and if we do so, do we somehow lose the validity of our experience so far? I think the answers are yes and no. Buddhism is the tool that we use to shave away the block to nothingness, once it is no longer there, then we must give up the tool, or we will rebuild the block in its original form.

Aaron

Lag again... caused a double post.

I found Simple_Jack referred to throughout Minute 11:00 - 17:43,...one of the Self-appointed guardians of the status quo, who clings to his fundamentalist scriptural knowledge for his identity,..."so locked into their box that they find it infuriating to think that what they're living is actually wrong."

 

V

Me and Jack bump heads more often than not, but I think it's unfair to characterize him in this manner, especially since you have absolutely no way of knowing the motivations behind his actions. In fact I think I could say that you are exhibiting these exact same characteristics. You quote the same texts over and over like doctrines from a religion. I mean, if you're truly trying to think outside the box, to even get outside the box, then why are you clinging to Buddhism, Zeitgeistism, or any other -ism, just stop allowing others to tell you what the truth is. (And I'm sure you'll deny this and that's fine.) Peter Joseph is extremely intelligent, but he is also locked inside his own box, in fact what he says is so contradictory and hypocritical, it astounds me that people can listen to the whole film and not call bullshit.

The problem with the world has nothing to do with socioeconomic structures, it has to do with the fact that humans are assholes. We want more than we need, consume more than we need, and take what we don't need. The only thing this has to do with socioeconomics is that every economy we've chosen to work within has proven incapable of doing away with this basic characteristic. So doing away with religion, academia, and any other facet of society will not solve this problem, the only thing that could change this is if we changed the way we feel towards each other, if we ceased using social crutches and religious ideals as a means to enforce our own twisted ideals on others. It would take a complete revision of the way humanity thought, acted, and believed, in order to sustain a society that didn't feel the need to take advantage of others for their own benefit. It's for this reason that there can never be an ideal society, because this very basic nature within man can not be resolved using any modern philosophical or religious model, the only way an ideal society can be sustained is if we begin to live for others and not just ourselves.

That's the simple answer... everything else is just pompous, arrogant, introspective, conceited bullshit, nothing more and nothing less.

Also, if you think non-duality is going to save duality, well you've got something coming towards you. non-duality can't exist without duality, or visa versa.

Aaron

Because I see them both as true.

Sorry, I happen to like lots of different things.

I don't see why you can't see both as true. I think the problem that arises with non-duality is when people believe they can define it for others, when in fact it's only something someone can experience. Again, it's like describing the color red to a blind person. Yes you can say it's not blue, yellow, or green, but you can't really explain what it looks like, only allude to what it isn't.

Aaron

Well I was being kind of flippant about the subject matter on that post and was going to delete but you gave me a light hearted chuckle so I'll hold off on deletion. (Btw hopefully Katee Sackhoff and Amanda Tapping would also show up for a coffee and chat with the crowd)

 

Om

You know I never cared for Sackhoff's Star Buck, but other people seem to really love it, so I don't criticize too much. I really liked Tapping in Stargate, she seemed to bring a down to earth feel to the show, that girl next door meets alien invaders kind of feel. But yeah they could have coffee outside. I wouldn't turn down the opportunity to meet them.

Aaron

Hello K,

I stayed out of this thread for quite some time, because I didn't know what it was about. I like the topic! As an English Literature/Creative Writing grad, I really appreciate the sentiment behind this, simply because most people don't seem to take the time to understand the deeper meaning in what they're reading.

I think understanding what's behind the words requires a bit of thought and insight, but also a good deal of intuition. Many times when I read a story, I could figure out there was something going on, without actually knowing. For instance, the first time this happened was while I was reading "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" by Marquez, I realized their was an allusion to Stephen, the man stoned in Acts, without really knowing it. I think now it was a subtle awareness of the attention paid to that specific scene, somehow I could feel that there was something going on there and started to research it to make sure, and sure enough the description used to describe the drowned man, was the same used to describe Stephen at the time he was stoned.

I think being able to see behind the words requires one to also give up some of the pleasurable aspects of reading, because it requires you to pay attention to the subtleties of the text in a way that prevent you from allowing yourself to get immersed in the text itself. At least from a scholarly perspective. I have to turn it off these days, or I become the critic and can't really enjoy what I'm watching or reading.

That's what this is about in the end, criticism. Criticism, which shouldn't be characterized as bad, but rather criticism in the sense that it allows us to piece together the truth behind what we're reading, the hidden truth. We do this all the time, in order to deduce the hidden meaning in everything that happens around us. Sometimes it's done through logical deduction, but more often than not the hidden message seems to arise from an intuitive understanding of what's going on.

Anyways, I'm not sure if that makes sense, but thanks for the topic. It seems to have gone this way and that, but it's definitely worth the time to discuss.

Aaron

 

besides I'd to see "Star Gate", "Star Wars", "Star Trek" and "Star Buck" all tied together co-herently. (along with Clint Eastwood put in there somewhere)

Would it suffice to have Clint Eastwood and Dirk Benedict watch Stargate, Star Wars, and Star Trek in a movie theater? Perhaps while they drink a cup of Starbucks, while snacking on sno caps?

Aaron

edit- Had to capitalize the t in "Trek" before a rabid Treckie hunted me down and cut out my heart. Also am I the only one that feels there should be c in trek? As in treck.... oh well... huked on fonix werked fore me.

What is Loving Kindness? Does it arise from relative, new age, egoic self-esteem? When America wanted to get to the Moon before Russia, what did they do? They did it.

 

Why are people pussy-footing around with relative concepts of compassion? Just do it! It is simple. Compassion arises from the understanding that Form is Empty, and Empty is Form.

 

The Way of the Bodhisattva (Shantideva): "The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is deared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible."

 

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

 

So,...when are we goin to cease with this BS, egoic self-esteem Compassion?...Compassion is impossible without the direct realization of Emptiness. That should be the attention and intention. Not the continual embracing, consoling, coddling, and celebration of a personal self,...that doesn't even exist.

 

 

V

Compassion is an inherent capacity that exists within all things, regardless of their levels of awareness or understanding. Children exhibit the truest forms of compassion when they are still very young, compassion, not derived from morality or cultural norms, but rather the experience of emotion one has for another. Compassion is not emotionless, nor is it detached, rather true compassion is a deeper attachment to the dual existence that we experience in our day to day lives. Compassion that springs from emptiness... that's a misnomer, for there is no compassion within emptiness or non-duality, it is only realized within duality. To say that we should stop pussyfooting around regarding the egocentric-self-esteem view of compassion is true, in that compassion should not derive from the ego, or one's feelings about another, but rather it should derive from the heart-mind, or one's feelings for another.

People misunderstand detachment to mean that one has no emotions towards others, but that's not what it is, it is an understanding on an innate level of the transient state of all things, that one can never achieve true happiness within the state of duality, because of this transient nature.

Anyways, most people skip my posts anyways, so I doubt many will read this, but the notion of duality and non-duality most other people speak of is one that's been biased by Buddhist thought. The fact that the experience is so similar for most people that describe it in Buddhism tells me that many most likely have not experienced it, but rather just speak from what they've heard spoken, or create a dissociative experience that is born from their preconceptions.

I remember that someone talked about the monk who, when asked what Bodhidharma was, dropped the bag he was carrying to the ground. When he saw that someone realized what he meant, he jumped for joy (an emotion by the way), but when they didn't he simply picked the bag up and kept walking. So do you know why dropping the bag to the ground is Bodhidharma? If you do, I'll be the first to jump for joy.

Aaron

edit- The third click did this.

edit- You click and nothing happens... so you click again and this happens.

Does Right Speech deny, appease, moderate? Well, perhaps on a relative level, among those desireous to not "make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and [undermine the embracing, consoling, and celebration of a personal self."

 

I am not suited to polite society To social striving, upward mobility, and making good impressions I am radically honest, sensitive, brilliant, and blunt I hold up a mirror to the best and worst facets of human life. ~Vajrayogini

Well that's easy for Vajrayogini to say, she's a meditation diety and buddha. For us little people, we need right speech to keep us in check, because we lack the compassion and understanding she has.

Too many people on this forum like to point fingers and say "right speech! right speech!" when really what they're saying is, "don't saying anything that offends my delicate sensibilities." Sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with, the measure of a man is whether they can accept that with compassion and tolerance. Remember it works both ways. Others don't just have to use right speech, you have to use right thought and right action in response to that right speech.

Of course if someone says something that pisses you off or seems rude, it's always a good thing to ask why. In the end you may learn more from their rudeness, then you ever could their kindness.

Aaron

I was going to tell you the joke about the man who fell in the mud, but you said no dirty jokes.

Aaron

Hello Steve,

From your explanation in the Zazen thread, it seems like you have an extensive understanding of different forms of Taoist meditation and I would very much like to learn more about them. I was wondering, if you had the time, if you could describe a bit more about the different techniques and what they are intended to be used for. My only experience has been with the empty mind type of meditation, but I would certainly like to learn a bit more about the other types of Taoist meditation.

Thanks in advance,

Aaron

Note- The title is a play on the old Seth thread that was started awhile ago and wasn't meant to be offensive. I actually respect Steve a great deal and would like to learn a bit more from him. Also if anyone else has some insight, please feel free to add your comments as well.

It's alright Lao Tzu, you can believe anything you want to. I don't care if you want to meditate, or believe it's not a good way to practice.

Also, seeing how hard it is to learn English as a native Chinese speaker, I think you're doing a very good job communicating with us. So those people making fun of your grammar, just think of them as the jerks who like to make fun of people that are smaller than them. They deserve about as much respect.

Aaron

Sorry maybe I am just desensitized, exploding heads is pretty standard stuff for me. It was from the movie scanners, it wasn't an actual head exploding.

No worries... it was pretty graphic for my tastes. I don't watch horror movies anymore, so seeing something like that made be a bit sick to my stomach. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it. Sorry for the irate post.

Aaron

I thought a bit more about this and I was going to recommend that you meditate somewhere besides your home, perhaps at the park or a quiet place in the woods. Out of sight out of mind, so to speak.

Aaron

WTF is wrong with you? Why would you post something like this, regardless of the topic? I could accept the first one, but did you ever think some kids might be on this forum. I don't want to see this shit, so I'm certain a parent wouldn't want their kids too either. Did you even think before you put this image up?

Aaron