Buddhism transcends the Tao

[Unconditioned]

It's just prideful to say... "I don't need a teacher, I can do this on my own, humph". That generally doesn't show much ability to really transform on a deep level.

 

I would agree that if someone had that attitude they're reinforcing their ego. However, to judge everyone that doesn't follow the path of having a teacher from someone that advocates a teacher, that may be a little biased.

 

To assume that those who decide to go it alone are somehow 'less' or have a bad attitude is ignorant. Just as it is ignorant in the opposite respect (i.e., if someone finds it weak of a person to seek help).

 

I'm not sure what a prideful attitude has to do with ability, we're all able we just have a few things in the way.

[magus]

.....

Edited July 8, 2010 by magus

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Why, why, why is so much importance placed upon a single guru? It shouldn't be so.

 

 

 

In Vajrayana we have many guru's. Those guru's who we experience the nature of reality through are called root guru's and are considered more important, because we have lots of good karma through past lives with these teachers. Which is why even just by seeing that teacher our eyes well up with tears of joy and we experience great longing for the truth of things around that teacher, we feel naturally pulled to discipline and we easily experience the different states of realization around such a teacher. That is a root guru, and one does not necessarily have only one root guru. But only one is needed according to Vajrayana.

[Unconditioned]

Be honest with yourself, do you have this kind of merit? Even one with that level of merit went to find Masters of meditation.

 

I don't believe in merit or labeling experiences, these are all too easily used competitively. We all have awareness, life, within us. From that perspective one form is not better than the other no matter what states it has achieved. Even the Buddha himself lived a human life and had the same life within us albeit he was much more sensitive to life and saw it for what it is.

[Vajrahridaya]

And then we could be conditioned by the teacher's outlook.

 

This is true, which is why one should be clear about who the teacher is, and who was the teachers teacher. Etc. I find that one can have objective thoughts if one is freed from thoughts and can cognize non-conceptually. Which takes deep realization.

 

Of course all that you say after this can be true from a certain perspective. But generally speaking, we fool ourselves. It's good to have a really wise and deeply objective teacher. Even if that teacher is not fully a Buddha, at least we can learn something from him or her while being objective. Things become clear on a very deep and subtle level how far that teacher can help us as we progress internally even as we learn externally. One has experiences that are uncanny and far from pedantic.

 

I don't believe in merit or labeling experiences, these are all too easily used competitively. We all have awareness, life, within us. From that perspective one form is not better than the other no matter what states it has achieved. Even the Buddha himself lived a human life and had the same life within us albeit he was much more sensitive to life and saw it for what it is.

 

Merit is relative, as is experience. To completely deny their reality is foolish though. We must only measure within ourself, but we can learn and be humbled by what others have learned and who has walked before us. Otherwise we are fooling ourselves again pridefully.

 

If you don't believe in merit, how come people are wiser than others, some are faster runners, there are some that are born retarded without access to certain aspects of human potential. Some retarded people may seem happier, but it's still conditional and not the type of bliss of a Buddha. These judgments are relative and more like discernment's. This also can be part of wisdom. We should learn from a great teacher, not just an ok teacher. We should learn from a great teacher who his or herself had great teachers. The Buddha had really great teachers himself before he realized Buddhahood.

 

Having a great teacher helps one to get over himself. You can use logic and reason to beat yourself into whatever corner you want. You can use it to see the merit of having a teacher or to deny it's merit. It's still just you conditioning yourself based upon the limits of one's experience. There is merit to learning from someone who has de-conditioned himself to a subtler degree. I do feel that enlightened lineage is very important in ways that most cannot see.

 

I would agree that if someone had that attitude they're reinforcing their ego. However, to judge everyone that doesn't follow the path of having a teacher from someone that advocates a teacher, that may be a little biased.

 

To assume that those who decide to go it alone are somehow 'less' or have a bad attitude is ignorant. Just as it is ignorant in the opposite respect (i.e., if someone finds it weak of a person to seek help).

 

I'm not sure what a prideful attitude has to do with ability, we're all able we just have a few things in the way.

 

What's prideful is to think that we are an island and that we learn anything from ourself anyway. If you understand dependent origination, you will see that your individuality does not inherently exist on any level, gross or subtle. Even your mind stream is just a collection of endless taking in of information and weighing it on so many levels based upon previous experience, which is conditioned by previous experience and interpretation based upon previous interpretation, add infinitum.

 

It's good they say at first to at least "teacher hop". Be open intuitively to whatever degree one is able to be and just learn. We all really learn from ourself anyway, as we are our greatest ability to interpret anyway. But, as I said above......... add infinitum. Who are you to think that you can learn about yourself from yourself when yourself is merely a collection of what you have received from endless selves?

[Unconditioned]

This is true, which is why one should be clear about who the teacher is, and who was the teachers teacher. Etc. I find that one can have objective thoughts if one is freed from thoughts and can cognize non-conceptually. Which takes deep realization.

 

Completely agree here, and that helps to understand the importance of lineage.

 

Merit is relative, as is experience. To completely deny their reality is foolish though.

 

I agree, both are there, they can't be excluded but they have to be seen for what they are. The basis of Merit feels more divisive. It's a metric to see what good vs. bad we've accumulated (very much over simplifying). It's a scale to measure ourselves but how do we define that scale? And when we measure ourselves it's very difficult to not have that build up our sense of self (at least for me).

 

If you don't believe in merit, how come people are wiser than others, some are faster runners, there are some that are born retarded without access to certain aspects of human potential. Some retarded people may seem happier, but it's still conditional and not the type of bliss of a Buddha.

 

Those are simply genetic conditions. We all emerge as a function of the past both psychologically and physically. But we all share the ability to be conscious. So in the world of forms, merit and experience can provide guide posts but ultimately those too are limited, and that's ok, it's just what it is. The difference is being able to see that vs. putting complete trust/faith into both.

 

There is merit to learning from someone who has de-conditioned himself to a subtler degree. I do feel that enlightened lineage is very important in ways that most cannot see.

 

Agreed here as well but again we need to be careful not to become parrots. There's a subtle difference in having a teacher so that you can go off and do the work on your own and having a teacher with hopes of them showing you the answers.

 

For me, I've found that I start by not understanding intellectually, then understanding intellectually / logically, then understanding beyond thoughts/intellect (i.e. deep understanding vs. knowledge). However, some of my best teachers have been life, not necessarily another person. And to the contrary, I've learned a lot from concepts of others.

 

Good discussion, I like when there can be a conversation that may have differing points but without the extra bs

[Lucky7Strikes]

For me, I've found that I start by not understanding intellectually, then understanding intellectually / logically, then understanding beyond thoughts/intellect (i.e. deep understanding vs. knowledge). However, some of my best teachers have been life, not necessarily another person. And to the contrary, I've learned a lot from concepts of others.

 

Same here.

 

And,

 

Samsara is my guru.

 

And I plan to destroy it. .

 

Having a great teacher helps one to get over himself. You can use logic and reason to beat yourself into whatever corner you want. You can use it to see the merit of having a teacher or to deny it's merit. It's still just you conditioning yourself based upon the limits of one's experience. There is merit to learning from someone who has de-conditioned himself to a subtler degree. I do feel that enlightened lineage is very important in ways that most cannot see.

What's prideful is to think that we are an island and that we learn anything from ourself anyway. If you understand dependent origination, you will see that your individuality does not inherently exist on any level, gross or subtle. Even your mind stream is just a collection of endless taking in of information and weighing it on so many levels based upon previous experience, which is conditioned by previous experience and interpretation based upon previous interpretation, add infinitum.

 

It's good they say at first to at least "teacher hop". Be open intuitively to whatever degree one is able to be and just learn. We all really learn from ourself anyway, as we are our greatest ability to interpret anyway. But, as I said above......... add infinitum. Who are you to think that you can learn about yourself from yourself when yourself is merely a collection of what you have received from endless selves?

 

No one's saying there is no merit to learning from teachers.

 

That conditioning itself is empty, so you can't really say you are a collection of what you have received from endless selves. So it's not a question of whether your individuality exists or not. To deny or affirm it, I believe, is to miss the point.

 

In Vajrayana we have many guru's. Those guru's who we experience the nature of reality through are called root guru's and are considered more important, because we have lots of good karma through past lives with these teachers. Which is why even just by seeing that teacher our eyes well up with tears of joy and we experience great longing for the truth of things around that teacher, we feel naturally pulled to discipline and we easily experience the different states of realization around such a teacher. That is a root guru, and one does not necessarily have only one root guru. But only one is needed according to Vajrayana.

 

Why should I cry for the Shepard who has merely done his duty?.

 

If I were Him, I'd think it odd too. .

 

This is what I see with you Vajrayana,

 

Attachments...value...

 

Which leads to

 

suffering...frustration...anger...(you know what comes next!)

 

 

Where the Yoda at?

Edited July 15, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I agree, both are there, they can't be excluded but they have to be seen for what they are. The basis of Merit feels more divisive. It's a metric to see what good vs. bad we've accumulated (very much over simplifying). It's a scale to measure ourselves but how do we define that scale? And when we measure ourselves it's very difficult to not have that build up our sense of self (at least for me).

 

 

Yes, it's complex and quite gray as people are so individual. One can see and feel what is beneficial for oneself though to a certain degree depending upon depth of awareness, which is generally dependent upon how much one longs to even be aware of oneself. Ah the complexities and how much it takes to describe a single atom of it all.

 

Those are simply genetic conditions. We all emerge as a function of the past both psychologically and physically.

 

Yes, but what we were born into is dependent upon how we've been in our past lives. There are no accidents. As chaotic as all this seems, there is a deeply complex order to it all, though quite a chaotic order.

 

But we all share the ability to be conscious. So in the world of forms, merit and experience can provide guide posts but ultimately those too are limited, and that's ok, it's just what it is. The difference is being able to see that vs. putting complete trust/faith into both.

 

I do agree.

 

Agreed here as well but again we need to be careful not to become parrots. There's a subtle difference in having a teacher so that you can go off and do the work on your own and having a teacher with hopes of them showing you the answers.

 

Indeed. Even the Buddha said to not take what He said because it was said by him... or something to that effect. He said about all sorts of habit patterns within belief systems and rumors to look deeply at their value within oneself before accepting anything as true or worth practicing.

 

For me, I've found that I start by not understanding intellectually, then understanding intellectually / logically, then understanding beyond thoughts/intellect (i.e. deep understanding vs. knowledge). However, some of my best teachers have been life, not necessarily another person. And to the contrary, I've learned a lot from concepts of others.

 

The best students of any teacher are ones that are already learning from everything and take up life itself as a grand teacher. A really good teacher just grants one some of the tools so that they can really open up to what lessons life itself has to offer one. The best teacher is just that inner proverbial mirror manifest in a physical form so that our seemingly dualistic vision can look more deeply upon itself. It's really just the complexities of personal karmas manifesting it's outer sign post for it's inner way out.

Good discussion, I like when there can be a conversation that may have differing points but without the extra bs

 

Oh good.

 

 

 

That conditioning itself is empty, so you can't really say you are a collection of what you have received from endless selves. So it's not a question of whether your individuality exists or not. To deny or affirm it, I believe, is to miss the point.

 

 

Neither accept nor reject, just see openly.

Why should I cry for the Shepard who has merely done his duty?.

 

If I were Him, I'd think it odd too. .

 

If you have not yet experienced that depth of love, then you would not know what I mean. If you read the autobiographies of great beings, they talk about this type of love, of course this too is transcended. It is merely a gleeful and deep recognition that is much deeper than our normal every day mundane type of love.

 

This is what I see with you Vajrayana,

 

Attachments...value...

 

No, you don't see me. To have attachment to the many things will just bewilder one into more samsaric cycling. But to have attachment to a great and liberated master leads to the end of attachment. As that teacher lets you know when your being too silly about your attachment to him or her. There is process and progress. A teacher is very flexible and knows what the individual needs generally way more than the individual his or herself, if the teacher is a very highly realized teacher that is.

 

I'm not talking about any teacher here.

Which leads to

 

suffering...frustration...anger...(you know what comes next!)

 

 

Where the Yoda at?

 

Attachment to a highly realized master leads to recognizing what are the inner causes of suffering and frustration.

 

Of course attachment to oneself and one's interpretations leads to more pushing around of checkers.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Indeed. Even the Buddha said to not take what He said because it was said by him... or something to that effect. He said about all sorts of habit patterns within belief systems and rumors to look deeply at their value within oneself before accepting anything as true or worth practicing.

 

The best students of any teacher are ones that are already learning from everything and take up life itself as a grand teacher. A really good teacher just grants one some of the tools so that they can really open up to what lessons life itself has to offer one. The best teacher is just that inner proverbial mirror manifest in a physical form so that our seemingly dualistic vision can look more deeply upon itself. It's really just the complexities of personal karmas manifesting it's outer sign post for it's inner way out.

 

Neither accept nor reject, just see openly.

If you have not yet experienced that depth of love, then you would not know what I mean. If you read the autobiographies of great beings, they talk about this type of love, of course this too is transcended.

 

No, you don't see me. To have attachment to the many things will just bewilder one into more samsaric cycling. But to have attachment to a great and liberated master leads to the end of attachment. As that teacher lets you know when your being too silly about your attachment to him or her. There is process and progress. A teacher is very flexible and knows what the individual needs generally way more than the individual his or herself, if the teacher is a very highly realized teacher that is.

 

I'm not talking about any teacher here.

 

Of course attachment to oneself and one's interpretations leads to more pushing around of checkers.

 

Ah, so you know the love has to be transcended! And that a true "teacher" is like an assistant who let's you learn from the "grand teacher" called life! And how the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta how one must even doubt the teachings of the Buddha if it lacks virtue!

 

Oh ok I see you now!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Samsara from Samsaric view point without correction from a master teacher leads merely to more samsaric outlook in all it's subtle ways through the 31 planes of existence from formless bliss states to high god states to whatever... on and on. There are rare beings who having been taught dependent origination in past lives and having reached high states of awareness can have some spontaneous revelations at early ages on their own. But, even these beings are humble enough to look for a teacher.

 

It's just prideful to say... "I don't need a teacher, I can do this on my own, humph". That generally doesn't show much ability to really transform on a deep level.

 

Just as a relevant post to the thread...

 

One of those rare beings must've included Master Chuang:

 

"Everything is "that" in relation to other things and "this" in relation to itself...Therefore, it may be said that "that" derives from the standpoint of "this" and that "this" is dependent upon "that"...Every affirmation is a denial of something else, and every denial is an affirmation of something else. "This" and "that" are mutually dependent...For this reason, the sage does not subscribe to, but sees things in the light of nature, accepting "this" for what it is.

 

It is all a result of their understanding the mutual dependence of "this" and "that." To have achieved this understanding but not be conscious of why it is so is called "The Way.""

Edited July 15, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Just as a relevant post to the thread...

 

One of those rare beings must've included Master Chuang:

 

"Everything is "that" in relation to other things and "this" in relation to itself...Therefore, it may be said that "that" derives from the standpoint of "this" and that "this" is dependent upon "that"...Every affirmation is a denial of something else, and every denial is an affirmation of something else. "This" and "that" are mutually dependent...For this reason, the sage does not subscribe to, but sees things in the light of nature, accepting "this" for what it is.

 

It is all a result of their understanding the mutual dependence of "this" and "that." To have achieved this understanding but not be conscious of why it is so is called "The Way.""

 

I don't understand the part about not being conscious about why it is so. Does that mean to just let it be without question? The Buddha says it's just a beginning-less cyclical flow without a primal cause. Maybe that's saying the same thing?

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't understand the part about not being conscious about why it is so. Does that mean to just let it be without question? The Buddha says it's just a beginning-less cyclical flow without a primal cause. Maybe that's saying the same thing?

 

I think that it means that to affirm it in any way is to lose its essence. Right understanding is therefore no understanding. Right, so to try to define a cause over and over again is not the Way.

 

Just like the viewless view of Buddhism, the Tao that can be grasped is therefore not the Tao. .

 

Just as a coincidence, I'm reading this passage from Zen master Soho on being a Samurai...and fighting ten enemies at once...

 

"The effort not to stop the mind in just one place, this is discipline. Not stopping the mind is object and essence. Put nowhere, it will be everywhere. Even in moving the mind outside the body, if it is sent in one direction, it will be lacking in nine others. If the mind is not restricted to just one direction, it will be in all ten...the Right Mind is the mind that does not remain in one place."

[Li TaoRen]

Tao Te Ching is very mistranslated and as well simplified. I found this out when a knowledgable Chinese man sat down with me and translated. But these books are just metaphoric guidelines anyway

 

We started a discussion to discuss the differences and similarities between Advaita and Buddhism and the discussion also paved way for differences between Taoism and Buddhism. Some of the claims made by our Buddhist brothers are these:

 

- Tao Te Ching is the most mis-translated work ever. I asked Thusness once to look through about 100 Tao Te Ching sample English translations of Chapter 1, and he said only 1 or 2 can make it, most just seem silly and off the mark.

 

- According to Lao Tzu, the greatest calamity is in having a body, thus he teaches the way of extinguishing the body to attain the realm of wu or non-being. Moreover, the greatest cause that burdens the body is in having knowledge, thus he teaches the way of abandoning knowledge to enter the realm of hsu[v] or emptiness. These teachings are similar to those of the vehicles of `Sraavakas and Pratyekabuddhas. He is like a Pratyekabuddha because he having lived in the time before Buddhism came to China, realized the truth of non-being by contemplating the changing nature of the world. Judging from the fact that he regards emptiness, non-being, and tzu-jan[w] or spontaneity as the final principles, his teachings are heterodox. But judging from the facts that his heart was full of compassion for the salvation of the world and that he attained the realm in which man and heaven mutually penetrate each other and in which being and non-being mutually reflect each other, he is also like a Bodhisattva. From the viewpoint of experience or skillful means, he was really (a Bodhisattva) appearing in the form of Brahmaa in order to teach the world. From the viewpoint of reality, he was the one who had attained the samaadhi of emptiness through pure living according to the vehicles of men and heaven.

 

- Also, this idea that Hinduism and Buddhism is included in the Tao is something akin to a view that everything is one. No everything is connected. Buddhism is a path out of Samsara, out of the Tao. Hinduism is a path within Samsara, so one with the Tao.

 

- Brahman, Tao, God, these are all samsaric concepts. We have very intensely deep attachment to these concepts that exist since beginningless time. Freedom from Samsara is much harder than most paths make it out to be. Though the Buddha said his Dharma is so simple a kid could understand it, but he said, "Could" understand it, not "would" understand it.

 

- I have seen the Tao directly, and then I transcended it. Not permanently, but I have that direct experiencing.

The Tao is a cosmic essence, sorry this also is dependently originated and without inherent existence. I realized it was a mistaken interpretation of mystic experience and moved on.

 

. So what really is the use of Taosim?

. A stop gap to get to the Buddhist teachings? Does it help on the way?

. Or are we good directly jumping to the "correct" teaching?

. Is there is a separate audience for these teachings - like a more qualified one for Buddhism?

. Is Tao a concept that is unneeded and the cause of not reaching a state of ultimate non-duality?

. Or, are we really misinterpreting the Tao and Taosim?

 

These can be discussed in the Advaita thread but makes more sense to have a separate one with focus on the Tao.

[Siliconvalley1]

Just to clarify, the above are NOT my views. I only summarized what I read on three other threads and I did that because I didn't agree with a lot of that. There were some PMs that expressed surprise as to why I would say such a thing... Naaw...I didn't I only collated what was stated elsewhere..

Edited July 15, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[forestofemptiness]

I always like to hear from those who pin their lives on the teaching. Not many do.

 

"The effort not to stop the mind in just one place, this is discipline. Not stopping the mind is object and essence. Put nowhere, it will be everywhere. Even in moving the mind outside the body, if it is sent in one direction, it will be lacking in nine others. If the mind is not restricted to just one direction, it will be in all ten...the Right Mind is the mind that does not remain in one place."

[xenolith]

The nexus of compulsion to inform and to culture humility is herein expressed...in this matter the importance of the former warrants the risk of compromising the latter...that's how much I Love you Bums: based on my experience a teacher is not required to achieve the epitome of spiritual advancement...however, an inquisitive mind is. On that basis I say: inform yourself by the means, whatever they may be, that your self informs you...and if that be a teacher, so be it...but understand that ultimately, in order to achieve advancement of your spirit, you must do so alone...necessarily this connotes the jettisoning of teacher(s) that you've incorporated into your journey. This extrication of teacher(s) will almost certainly be a hitch in the giddy-up in your journey. Whether the association with the teacher(s) is a net gain for your advancement goals or not is the question...

 

My experience informs me that teachers aren't only not necessary, they're a hindrance. They substitute for inquisitiveness...be sufficiently inquisitive and you'll not be in need of a teacher. Simply stated, if one is sufficiently inquisitive about one's self then no teacher will be required, if one is not, then any hope of spiritual advancement will rest upon association with a teacher...and no teacher can teach you about your self better than your self can. I don't claim that my experience is applicable to all...indeed evidence suggests that the contrary is the case. But I want my fellow Bums to be informed of what's possible lest they be ignorant of it.

 

Love charges your dynamo freinds.

 

Later.

 

xeno

Edited July 16, 2009 by xenolith

[Josh Young]

Thanks for that Xenolith.

 

I too feel that there is no one size fits all approach, and for some people at least teachers are yet another obstacle to overcome.

 

After all,

teachers are only students themselves .

[Vajrahridaya]

 

My experience informs me that teachers aren't only not necessary, they're a hindrance. They substitute for inquisitiveness...be sufficiently inquisitive and you'll not be in need of a teacher. Simply stated, if one is sufficiently inquisitive about one's self then no teacher will be required, if one is not, then any hope of spiritual advancement will rest upon association with a teacher...and no teacher can teach you about your self better than your self can.

Later.

 

xeno

 

You need a really great, high up teacher to get past what you think you know.

 

 

 

After all,

teachers are only students themselves .

 

Not if they have reached the stage of no more knowing. That doesn't mean they don't evolve their state of no more knowing with the constantly moving relative. But, they are beyond having to know anymore of how the cosmos works and they are liberated as they stand and breath, move and be.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

based on my experience a teacher is not required to achieve the epitome of spiritual advancement...

 

My experience informs me that teachers aren't only not necessary, they're a hindrance.

 

xeno

 

oh so you're enlightened?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simply stated, if one is sufficiently inquisitive about one's self then no teacher will be required, if one is not, then any hope of spiritual advancement will rest upon association with a teacher...and no teacher can teach you about your self better than your self can.

 

what is this "self" that you speak of?

 

you say that "your" self can teach you about the "self" ??

first of all, where is this self? does it really exist?

 

secondly, if it does exist (which it doesn't) how can the self teach the self about itself? lol, how can illusion teach illusion about illusion?

 

a real master, though lacking in self, has complete realization that goes beyond illusion. we lack a self, but your true nature of mind has qualities of wisdom. accessing this wisdom is a problem because of countless past lives of obscurations. like.. REALLY thick dark clouds blocking the sun. this is why being your own Guru is very difficult. you may think you are accessing the Sun, but in reality its just a really pretty cloud. a true master has access to the Sun 24/7 and points you in that direction. through transmission he helps break up the clouds, and through guidance he shows you how to do it yourself. ULTIMATELY you have to do everything yourself as a teacher can never enlighten you and do all the work for you. the very fact that you are here and are able to receive teachings and find connections to teachers is because of your actions in past lives. you have to create the conditions through which you become enlightened.

Edited July 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[xenolith]

The time for me to leave has come.

 

Some day I may return to provide semen kung details. Maybe not.

 

 

 

Be well upon your path my friends.

 

And Love.

 

xeno

[tumoessence]

oh so you're enlightened?

 

 

 

what is this "self" that you speak of?

 

you say that "your" self can teach you about the "self" ??

first of all, where is this self? does it really exist?

 

secondly, if it does exist (which it doesn't) how can the self teach the self about itself? lol, how can illusion teach illusion about illusion?

 

a real master, though lacking in self, has complete realization that goes beyond illusion. we lack a self, but your true nature of mind has qualities of wisdom. accessing this wisdom is a problem because of countless past lives of obscurations. like.. REALLY thick dark clouds blocking the sun. this is why being your own Guru is very difficult. you may think you are accessing the Sun, but in reality its just a really pretty cloud. a true master has access to the Sun 24/7 and points you in that direction. through transmission he helps break up the clouds, and through guidance he shows you how to do it yourself. ULTIMATELY you have to do everything yourself as a teacher can never enlighten you and do all the work for you. the very fact that you are here and are able to receive teachings and find connections to teachers is because of your actions in past lives. you have to create the conditions through which you become enlightened.

Is this from personal experience? Or are you passing on what you have read and heard? I think the idea of no self is just another dogma. Sounds like more fundamentalist non dualism.

Bill

[Vajrahridaya]

Is this from personal experience? Or are you passing on what you have read and heard? I think the idea of no self is just another dogma. Sounds like more fundamentalist non dualism.

Bill

 

LOL! That's funny...

 

We'll it's my experience. Call me a non-dual fundamentalist.

[Josh Young]

what is this "self" that you speak of?

There are two types of self, one is when it is, but is not when it is not. The other is not when it is, and is when it is not. The latter is self evident, the former prevents the self evident from being evident to self. The former is a burden, the latter cannot be burdened.

 

you say that "your" self can teach you about the "self" ??

first of all, where is this self? does it really exist?

Of the first self, it cannot teach itself, but tries to endlessly. Of the latter self, what can it learn that is not self evident? Where is the line between self and other? Find the line and you have your answer. There is no greater hiding place than the obvious. There is nothing more hidden from the former self than the latter self is.

 

secondly, if it does exist (which it doesn't) how can the self teach the self about itself? lol, how can illusion teach illusion about illusion?

Wonderful question.

 

Is that not what every person here has been trying to do?

 

This is why there is no way, because if there were a way it would not be the way. But words cannot explain, they can only hint at best.

 

 

This is why nobody obtains enlightenment, just as Buddha said.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Josh Young

[Marblehead]

You guys are far too heavy for my little pea brain. I think I will just stick with Taoist philosophy.

 

Be well!

[Lucky7Strikes]

what is this "self" that you speak of?

There are two types of self, one is when it is, but is not when it is not. The other is not when it is, and is when it is not. The latter is self evident, the former prevents the self evident from being evident to self. The former is a burden, the latter cannot be burdened.

 

you say that "your" self can teach you about the "self" ??

first of all, where is this self? does it really exist?

Of the first self, it cannot teach itself, but tries to endlessly. Of the latter self, what can it learn that is not self evident? Where is the line between self and other? Find the line and you have your answer. There is no greater hiding place than the obvious. There is nothing more hidden from the former self than the latter self is.

 

secondly, if it does exist (which it doesn't) how can the self teach the self about itself? lol, how can illusion teach illusion about illusion?

Wonderful question.

 

Is that not what every person here has been trying to do?

 

This is why there is no way, because if there were a way it would not be the way. But words cannot explain, they can only hint at best.

This is why nobody obtains enlightenment, just as Buddha said.

 

There are no two "types" of selves. It is just the subjective experience you call the "self."

 

The "first" self you speak of can teach itself, because it is part of the experience of a latter self as well.

 

An illusion can teach illusion about illusion, because all there is is illusion. That is why people call it "self-awareness."

 

Yes people attain enlightenment. This "no one attains enlightenment" is only from the perspective of seeing that there is no longer a sense of individual within that person. This is only logically judged from the popularly conceived notion of an individual, and NOT the correct notion of attaining enlightenment. So to take this statement and say "oh there is no way for a person to become enlightened" is to be misinterpreting the notion of anatta.