Intuition and Logic.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, analysis of dependent origination ends up in neither existence, non existence, both or neither.

 

No, neither both, nor neither. Not both or neither. Unless that's what you meant.

 

 

What does that really mean? It means that ANY identification/conceptualization that is taken to be "what is" is an error. Identification is either of an existent, non existent, both or neither. With none of those, there is no basis for taking identification to be "what is."

 

Exactly.

 

Now, without having to look at the process of dependent origination, one can see that it is identification (taking it to be "what is") that is at the root of all suffering. It is identification which leads to hurt, fear, comparison, division, conflict, anger, hatred. For instance, why is one afraid of death? It's the word/identification "death" and all the negativity it has associated with it that causes the fear of it, not the actual fact of death. The word "death" is NOT the same as the actual fact that that word points to. And this, taking the word and the thing/the description and the described to be the same is the source of most of our problems. Not failing to see dependent origination. Dependent origination is an indirect way to come to this understanding. So saying that it is the only way is incorrect and very very limiting.

 

Actually, no. Because dependent origination is the only analysis of reality that comes to this conclusion. It's the only way to apply it consciously to the sub-conscious and un-conscious way that things work and mind works. Because you are saying that your fear arises dependent upon mis-cognition of reality. So, right there you are positing dependent origination but don't even know it. You are saying that your fear of death arises dependent upon identity and thus your lack of fear arises dependent upon a lack of identity. But the only way to truly come to the actual experience of emptiness is real analysis of the process, which itself is dependent origination.

 

Unless you think a thought is the same as a process of nature/the universe.

 

Why yes, it is.

 

The identification of that fact is just an interpretation/translation of it and not the fact itself.

 

No, it's a fact... your thoughts originate dependently as well.

 

If you see this, you wouldn't need so much emphasis on dependent origination because this is pointing to the exact same thing that one would get from a logical analysis of dependent origination. Well not quite exact, it goes a bit deeper. It is just a lot easier."

 

 

I think your not aware of how much you just posited dependent origination. While saying that it's not.

 

 

One doesn't need a master, a guru or years of rigorous study to see this.

 

To make sense of something and to directly experience this subtle truth are two different things. The signs of progress on the path are listed as the stages of jhana, stages of vipassana reflection, seeing directly your past lives. Having various types of visions... all relative post marks, but definite signs of progress. Deep devotion, tearful compassion, incredible bliss, various energy experiences, chakra recognition, etc.

 

How many of these direct experiences have you had RR?

 

 

You have made an error if you think that you're thought/identification "toothbrush" is the same as that physical thing that is there. That identification is just an interpretation/translation of the thing that is there. Not it itself. I don't see how people don't get this.

 

It's saying what it was made for. Though one can take the same thing and not know it's a tooth brush like a kid in a third world country and think of it as a rock smoother or something, LOL!

 

But, the inner experience is basically usefulness, beneficial or not beneficial.

 

Ok, it can be summed up pretty easily. First of all, nobody is denying that dependent origination is there. But dependent origination is not "dependent origination." "dependent origination" is a phrase/identification of a process that is present as a fact. It is merely a tool to point to that process. But it is NOT the process itself. Is it?

Just like physical change is not the word "change" is it? "change" is just an interpretation of a fact which is obviously present and not the fact itself.

 

Vajra thinks that one NEEDS to see the process of dependent origination in order to end suffering. So he clings to it. But if he saw what I have said above, he would realize that he is giving it too much importance. To see what I have said, to see why one suffers, you do not need to rigorously study dependent origination.

 

The term dependent origination merely denotes how things happen, both internally and externally.

 

That's why I can say... dependent-co-arising, inter-dependent-co-generation, mutual-co-origination, etc.

 

It's still all pratityasamutpada. There is also the fact of emptiness, because you see a process, doesn't mean you see emptiness directly. There are stages to recognizing emptiness as well. Intellectually, experientially as a glimpse, then as an integrated intuitive level of living conduct. Then of course liberation from any form of clinging whatsoever.

 

If you can get there without having a teacher, this generally takes much, much longer, as we are so wrapped up in our subjectivity that it's hard to see unless we get an opinion from an objective person who is free themselves from craving to point the way both from within and without. The closer you get to the Guru, the closer you get to liberation because the closer you get to the Guru you more you realize that your Guru is just that presence that is the realization of the true nature of all things, which is merely all pervasive emptiness, which again is not a thing, but merely the quality of how things process, and originate dependently.

[JustARandomPanda]

I don't doubt you inferred this.

 

What I'm wondering is where and how you drew the conclusion of a quality from a quantity. In other words...how is the quality derived from a quantitative analysis?

 

Expand a little bit more on what you mean,

 

 

Ok...

 

I'll try. I suck at logic analysis so I don't doubt someone who's spent years studying philosophy and math will correct me - however I'm just musing my confusion aloud.

 

Humans tend to jump to conclusions.

 

They take a quantity as a signifier of quality. Essentially anyone who points to VH going on and on and on in post after post about D.O. will likely draw the same conclusion you did. That is, that he's mistaken the map for the territory and thus it's a sign that he's clinging.

 

But notice...the foundation is a quantitative observation. Why? Because the number of posts he keeps making about it will be the evidence presented. This is THE key piece of evidence presented for without it the argument put forward collapses. Where in this quantitative observation can a qualitative conclusion be drawn? It's like they are two separate sets. If I were to draw it as a Venn diagram they would be as two separate identities or signifiers. If you say they are the same Venn set then you must show logically why people make that one set into two. Why does the human brain and language recognize the distinction of quality and quantity?

 

But where and how does the association occur?

 

Because strictly speaking - I don't see how the Set of Quantity acquires the identity or aspect of the Set of Quality. Somehow the person using this argument needs to show me where that jump was made - Logically.

 

If they can not show this then they have -weirdly enough - just used a rational process - logic - to show that there are some conclusions humans draw that can not claim logical processes as their foundation for said conclusion. And by extension the possibility exists that some Truth or Falsity claims can not be derived via logic.

 

Here's the weird thing...

 

As I said, humans actually make this seemingly irrational leap all the time. It is, in fact, the foundation of Economics 101. When something is more plentiful humans tend to value it less. If something is less so it usually (though not always) is more highly prized. This is again making the leap from quantity to quality.

 

So again...I am wondering where our brains make that leap.

 

 

Because as it now stands it has not yet been logically shown that VH is clinging to D.O. even though a huge number of people are likely convinced he is.

 

Again...I am just musing my own questions aloud.

 

 

 

Edit: If I have misunderstood the essence of what you were saying I apologize. I confess I am not always quick to catch on to what point people are trying to get across.

Edited October 31, 2009 by SereneBlue

[ralis]

A few points:

 

1. If Vajraji is not attached to dependent origination, then why does he incessantly preach it?

2. Vajraji was a Hindu in the past and rejected that path for Buddhism. Reactionary? What belief

system is next?

3. Why does Vajraji have a need (desire) to continually posit that his belief system is superior?

 

 

ralis

[rebelrebel]

To make sense of something and to directly experience this subtle truth are two different things. The signs of progress on the path are listed as the stages of jhana, stages of vipassana reflection, seeing directly your past lives. Having various types of visions... all relative post marks, but definite signs of progress. Deep devotion, tearful compassion, incredible bliss, various energy experiences, chakra recognition, etc.

 

How many of these direct experiences have you had RR?

There you go again. This is exactly what leads me to believe that you don't know the cause of suffering yet. Your forms of "progress" along the path here are all forms of comparison, measurement. I can see that you have not yet seen the dangers of these things. If you did, you would relinquish all forms of comparison right away. If you keep on this path, you'll never end craving. You always need another experience, another sign, more knowledge to be free - you'll never stop wanting to become. More more more. Your entire approach is based on "getting" something, "acquiring" something - certain experiences, recognition, validation of your experiences by your gurus. From what you write, it seems that you think it is craving that is going to liberate you from the cycle of death and rebirth. You are deluded.

 

I've seen through this game vajra. Don't try to subject me to it.

 

If you can get there without having a teacher, this generally takes much, much longer, as we are so wrapped up in our subjectivity that it's hard to see unless we get an opinion from an objective person who is free themselves from craving to point the way both from within and without. The closer you get to the Guru, the closer you get to liberation because the closer you get to the Guru you more you realize that your Guru is just that presence that is the realization of the true nature of all things, which is merely all pervasive emptiness, which again is not a thing, but merely the quality of how things process, and originate dependently.

Vajra you are making this so difficult. This is my whole point. It is so simple. Why do you do this to yourself? I'll make things very easy for you. The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering."

1.) The cause of suffering is identification and craving.

2.) Identification leads to craving.

3.) See the danger of identification and avoid it like you would avoid a deadly animal or a bottle of poison (avoid it in the sense that you only use it as a functional tool and you do not take it to be "what is")

 

See? Done. Honestly, do you need to devote yourself to a guru to see this?

 

As for truth. Truth is just what is present at this moment. What is actually happening. Not your interpretation/identification of what is happening but what is actually present as a fact. What else could truth be? Anything away from what is actually happening right now is illusion - untruth.

 

Again, do you need a guru for this?

 

Why yes, it is.

No actually, it is not. You are not getting what I am telling you. You are taking the word to be the thing. A thought is dependently originated but a thought is NOT the same as the all encompassing process of dependent origination which is present as a fact at all times. And what you are doing is taking the process and the thought to be the same. The identification of that obviously present process as "dependent origination" is just an interpretation/translation of that process and NOT the all encompassing process itself. Is this not obvious? As I said before, if you saw this, you could stop clinging to your precious dependent origination.

 

No, neither both, nor neither. Not both or neither. Unless that's what you meant.

Not existent, not non existent, not both existent and non existent, not neither existent or non existent. That is what I meant.

 

Actually, no. Because dependent origination is the only analysis of reality that comes to this conclusion. It's the only way to apply it consciously to the sub-conscious and un-conscious way that things work and mind works. Because you are saying that your fear arises dependent upon mis-cognition of reality. So, right there you are positing dependent origination but don't even know it. You are saying that your fear of death arises dependent upon identity and thus your lack of fear arises dependent upon a lack of identity. But the only way to truly come to the actual experience of emptiness is real analysis of the process, which itself is dependent origination.

We both acknowledge dependent origination as being the way things are. On that point, we do not differ. I have said over and over that I do not deny dependent origination. Where we differ is that you are zoning in on it specifically and putting it as a special feature of reality which leads to liberation when understood in and of itself in it's structure and all it's implications. I am saying that yes, it is present, and yes it is the way things work...but it does not need to be specifically focused on, zoned in on as means to liberation any more than gravity does. It is just one feature of reality. Just like change, gravity, air and space are features of reality. One's liberation depends on certain factors and one's bondage depends on certain factors. Ok...so what? One just needs to focus on what causes suffering and cut that out. That ending of suffering is dependently originated. Alright, we accept that. But one does not need to pick out dependent origination and then zone in and become fixated on it like you do.

[JustARandomPanda]

A few points:

 

1. If Vajraji is not attached to dependent origination, then why does he incessantly preach it?

2. Vajraji was a Hindu in the past and rejected that path for Buddhism. Reactionary? What belief

system is next?

3. Why does Vajraji have a need (desire) to continually posit that his belief system is superior?

 

 

ralis

 

Those are very good points I'll grant. I would - like most - conclude it is a sign of clinging. But if I examine HOW or WHY I arrived at that conclusion I end up with the conundrum I talked about in my prior post.

 

It doesn't mean I'm right (or anyone else is for that matter either - yet). It just means I'm confused and am hoping someone can clarify.

[Vajrahridaya]

There you go again. This is exactly what leads me to believe that you don't know the cause of suffering yet. Your forms of "progress" along the path here are all forms of comparison, measurement. I can see that you have not yet seen the dangers of these things. If you did, you would relinquish all forms of comparison right away. If you keep on this path, you'll never end craving. You always need another experience, another sign, more knowledge to be free - you'll never stop wanting to become. More more more. Your entire approach is based on "getting" something, "acquiring" something - certain experiences, recognition, validation of your experiences by your gurus. From what you write, it seems that you think it is craving that is going to liberate you from the cycle of death and rebirth. You are deluded.

 

 

It's very simple... I don't crave these experiences, they just happen naturally during the process of progress. Not that one doesn't always hold the view that transcends both process and progress, that is emptiness.

 

I care not for your projections. Sorry... I don't have much to say here because you are not really talking to me. You have merely set up a projection of a false me which you deem a reality and throw darts at it.

 

I've seen through this game vajra. Don't try to subject me to it.

Vajra you are making this so difficult. This is my whole point. It is so simple. Why do you do this to yourself? I'll make things very easy for you. The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering."

 

Yes, but that means forever! So, that means that one is not ignorant of what it personally means to be forever on an experiential level. That means, omniscience, which includes many various powers of perception. Naturally.

 

See? Done. Honestly, do you need to devote yourself to a guru to see this?

 

Not have to, but it's a faster path. As in eon's faster. The Buddha had Guru's, both in his life as Gotama and lives previous.

 

As for truth. Truth is just what is present at this moment. What is actually happening. Not your interpretation/identification of what is happening but what is actually present as a fact. What else could truth be? Anything away from what is actually happening right now is illusion - untruth.

 

Yes, and how does it happen?

 

Sorry, I think your taking up the idea of Truth as some essence, some ideal, that you deem definitely is. Sounds like a subtle form of clinging and not seeing emptiness directly.

 

Again, do you need a guru for this?

 

99.9% do. Why be proud? It's just a faster path to real humility and surrender, not to some separate person, as you very clearly think a Guru is. But to one's own potential manifest both internally through the transmission and externally through the clear mirror that is the enlightened lineage.

 

I don't expect you to understand, but it's clear that you have not yet experienced how exceedingly wonderful it is to have a precious teacher.

 

No actually, it is not. You are not getting what I am telling you. You are taking the word to be the thing. A thought is dependently originated but a thought is NOT the same as the all encompassing process of dependent origination which is present as a fact at all times.

 

Uh oh... I detect clinging to an essence.

 

And what you are doing is taking the process and the thought to be the same. The identification of that obviously present process as "dependent origination" is just an interpretation/translation of that process and NOT the all encompassing process itself. Is this not obvious?

 

Due to my many glimpses of dharmakaya, I see that you are off the mark.

 

As I said before, if you saw this, you could stop clinging to your precious dependent origination.

Not existent, not non existent, not both existent and non existent, not neither existent or non existent. That is what I meant.

 

You project clinging, where I see none.

 

We both acknowledge dependent origination as being the way things are. On that point, we do not differ. I have said over and over that I do not deny dependent origination. Where we differ is that you are zoning in on it specifically and putting it as a special feature of reality which leads to liberation when understood in and of itself in it's structure and all it's implications. I am saying that yes, it is present, and yes it is the way things work...but it does not need to be specifically focused on, zoned in on as means to liberation any more than gravity does. It is just one feature of reality.

 

There are two features, dependent origination and emptiness.

 

That's it, all other features are delusions attached to, that arise due to this fact. Dependent origination/emptiness is actually explaining the relative truth of delusion.

 

Just like change, gravity, air and space are features of reality. One's liberation depends on certain factors and one's bondage depends on certain factors. Ok...so what? One just needs to focus on what causes suffering and cut that out. That ending of suffering is dependently originated. Alright, we accept that. But one does not need to pick out dependent origination and then zone in and become fixated on it like you do.

 

I'm not... you guys are. I'm just repeating what the Buddha said, not as a parrot, but as an experiencer. No, I'm not a Buddha. So, I haven 't eradicated suffering completely and I don't have full and total presence and omniscience.

 

But, you guys all preach leaving the path before you've even really started on it.

 

I don't buy the fools gold that's heavy.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Creation]

Just thought I'd pop a note here that Jamie Andreas has actually turned practice time on the guitar (or presumably any other instrument) into a focused concentration exercise while playing short sections of whatever you are working on - although I'm not sure if she (she was a he back then) realizes the parallels to formal shamatha meditation.

 

I have her original edition and it's VERY good. It wasn't until I started meditation these past 6-8 months however that - when I went back to read it over again - I suddenly realized why her kind of guitar practice worked so well although I've been very lazy about applying it for the past few years.

 

Looks like she's got a lot more stuff now compared to when I bought the first edition many years ago.

 

Check it out if you play an instrument.

 

GuitarPrinciples.com

Hi S.

 

Thanks for the info. Which product in particular are you referring to? That sounds really cool, but I don't see anything with that description in her store.

 

 

Everyone else in this thread,

 

ECRASEZ L'INFAME!

Edited October 31, 2009 by Creation

[JustARandomPanda]

Hi S.

 

Thanks for the info. Which product in particular are you referring to? That sounds really cool, but I don't see anything with that description in her store.

 

 

Everyone else in this thread,

 

ECRASEZ L'INFAME!

 

Well...I think maybe it is this one. However...it's been so many years I have no idea if the current edition is like mine. I think mine is approximately 10 years old. Something like that.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

QUOTE(ralis @ Oct 30 2009, 10:28 PM)

A few points:

 

1. If Vajraji is not attached to dependent origination, then why does he incessantly preach it?

2. Vajraji was a Hindu in the past and rejected that path for Buddhism. Reactionary? What belief

system is next?

3. Why does Vajraji have a need (desire) to continually posit that his belief system is superior?

 

 

ralis

Those are very good points I'll grant. I would - like most - conclude it is a sign of clinging. But if I examine HOW or WHY I arrived at that conclusion I end up with the conundrum I talked about in my prior post.

 

It doesn't mean I'm right (or anyone else is for that matter either - yet). It just means I'm confused and am hoping someone can clarify.

 

Ralis doesn't understand that the Buddha said the same thing. Read the Pali suttas and he talks about how superior this teaching is, left and right. The Buddha also preached dependent origination in many ways for 40 years.

 

It's actually quite interesting that I go from Hinduism to Buddhism. Because the Buddha did the same thing. Went from Hinduism to Buddhism. He also found there was no further to go.

 

It's very clear.

 

Because a rooftop is never posited in Buddhism, unlike Hinduism, God is the rooftop, not the concept, but the essence merged with.

 

It's not the same realization. That's all I'm saying.

 

Take it or leave it... if you don't like what I say... don't engage.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I'd also like to say that understanding that the universe is much like a hologram and experiencing it is very different. The first doesn't grant true and total peace, the second does, as well as secret mystical powers, which arise naturally, like seeing through walls and such.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[rebelrebel]

It's very simple... I don't crave these experiences, they just happen naturally during the process of progress. Not that one doesn't always hold the view that transcends both process and progress, that is emptiness.

 

Um well seeing as how you are using these experiences to validate progress on the path...and the path, I assume, is the path to end suffering. So how far along one is on the path, how close you are to ending suffering, is determined by how many experiences you have gotten - bliss, chakra, visions. Therefore it is determined by how much you have acquired. Therefore it is based on becoming, getting more and more.

 

"How many of these direct experiences have you had RR?"

 

This quote is a perfect example. It is intended to invalidate my feeling liberated through making me question whether I have acquired enough experiences yet. I'm not good enough yet because I don't have enough "stuff."

I care not for your projections. Sorry... I don't have much to say here because you are not really talking to me. You have merely set up a projection of a false me which you deem a reality and throw darts at it.

No, I've followed you very clearly from your posts. If I insult you, I'm sorry. I get ahead of myself

 

Yes, and how does it happen?

 

Sorry, I think your taking up the idea of Truth as some essence, some ideal, that you deem definitely is. Sounds like a subtle form of clinging and not seeing emptiness directly.

 

Jesus dude. How am I clinging by saying that what is present in front of me right now is actual, is the only truth? I'm not saying anything else about it other than that it is present. That's all. Typing on this keyboard - that's truth. Drinking a cup of tea - that's truth. The wind blowing on my neck - truth. Have you ever heard of emptiness is form? I'm just saying that in a different way. A much easier way, if I might add.

 

How does it happen? How it happens. According to the basic laws of nature and reality. Do you want something more?

Edited October 31, 2009 by rebelrebel

[ralis]

 

Ralis doesn't understand that the Buddha said the same thing. Read the Pali suttas and he talks about how superior this teaching is, left and right. The Buddha also preached dependent origination in many ways for 40 years.

 

 

 

Are you psychic? You have no clue as to what I know or even what experiences I have had. You are really excellent at beating your own drum and bragging about all your transcendent experiences.

 

 

ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Yes, this is my thinking recently exactly. I'm going to spend less time here, more quality time with the women I live with and more time outside because it's getting cooler. I'm going to start working out again too!! Plus do my regular Dzogchen practice and Hatha Yoga as well. YAY!!

 

Love ya Serene!!

[ralis]

 

Vajraji is way too much fun! I will miss his divine radiant presence!

 

Vajraji, you used the plural women. How many?

 

ralis

[rebelrebel]

....

You have not gotten what I am trying to say. Neither has Vajra. It is easy to miss, don't feel bad.

[Vajrahridaya]

Um well seeing as how you are using these experiences to validate progress on the path...and the path, I assume, is the path to end suffering. So how far along one is on the path, how close you are to ending suffering, is determined by how many experiences you have gotten - bliss, chakra, visions. Therefore it is determined by how much you have acquired. Therefore it is based on becoming, getting more and more.

 

You don't see how conditioned your interpretation is. These experiences happen through unbecoming. Through the way that your experience of samsara is compounded is the way in which it is uncompounded.

 

Dependent origination is the reason you suffer, it's emptiness is the way to unsuffer.

 

"How many of these direct experiences have you had RR?"

 

This quote is a perfect example. It is intended to invalidate my feeling liberated through making me question whether I have acquired enough experiences yet. I'm not good enough yet because I don't have enough "stuff."

Instead of answering you just judge me, very clever. But... alas.

 

 

No, I've followed you very clearly from your posts. If I insult you, I'm sorry. I get ahead of myself

Jesus dude. How am I clinging by saying that what is present in front of me right now is actual, is the only truth? I'm not saying anything else about it other than that it is present. That's all. Typing on this keyboard - that's truth. Drinking a cup of tea - that's truth. The wind blowing on my neck - truth. Have you ever heard of emptiness is form? I'm just saying that in a different way. A much easier way, if I might add.

 

No, that's just conditioned.. apprehended as truth because it's the limit of your experience. I'm sorry, you just come across as a normal mortal trying to make excuses for his/her limitations.

 

How does it happen? How it happens. According to the basic laws of nature and reality. Do you want something more?

 

How does that nature work?

 

 

You have not gotten what I am trying to say. Neither has Vajra. It is easy to miss, don't feel bad.

 

Keep trying... subverting the path before entering it shows a lack of exploration.

 

You sound like a Krishnamurti follower. Sadly.

[rebelrebel]

You don't see how conditioned your interpretation is. These experiences happen through unbecoming. Through the way that your experience of samsara is compounded is the way in which it is uncompounded.

 

Dependent origination is the reason you suffer, it's emptiness is the way to unsuffer.

Instead of answering you just judge me, very clever. But... alas.

No, that's just conditioned.. apprehended as truth because it's the limit of your experience. I'm sorry, you just come across as a normal mortal trying to make excuses for his/her limitations.

How does that nature work?

 

Keep trying... subverting the path before entering it shows a lack of exploration.

 

You sound like a Krishnamurti follower. Sadly.

I gave you a perfectly good answer. You just didn't like it

 

What is wrong with krishnamurti? The man saw suffering, it's causes and how to end it clearer than you ever will. A normal mortal? What is wrong with being mortal? What of emptiness is form? if truth is the way things are, then what is truth for you vajra? Or do you not believe in truth? What of nirvana is samsara? Look, if emptiness is form and emptiness is truth then everything is truth because everything is emptiness. There is no thing that is not dependently originated. But of course emptiness is just a quality and not a thing. So, what is present right now is truth because it is empty, dependently originated.

 

For the last time, I am not denying the buddhist realization. I am talking about the same thing in a different, much easier way. I am not disagreeing with the buddhist understanding. You cannot see that it can be talked about in any different way because you cannot see past you're own buddhist conditioning.

 

God damnit, I am talking about experiencing openly and unreservedly whatever arises at any moment without taking the identification of it to be "what is" - it itself. This is the same result as the buddhist realization that emptiness is form.

 

You still subvert my pointing out the real causes of our sufferings. You still pay no attention to that which is most important.

 

You sound like an arrogant buddhist and somebody I would never want to meet personally. Now I can see ralis' pov.

[Vajrahridaya]

RR,

 

This is a board of words. If you wish me to speak in non-words... Come to Florida... lets have some tea!

 

Take care.

 

P.s. Krishnamurti didn't understand process or progress, he came from the ultimate perspective all the time when talking like a giddy teenager, completely misunderstanding the relative. Thus, he suffered... I don't apologize for seeing right through him.

 

I had to write this quote... "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood carry water." Zen proverb.

 

That should not be an excuse for limited perception.

 

You go ahead and speak on Buddhism in your way... I'll do it my way and because it's not your way, doesn't make the realization of Buddhahood any less rare. Show me a Buddha, and you've shown me a very rare being on planet Earth. Not your typical grocery chopper.

 

.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[rebelrebel]

RR,

 

This is a board of words. If you wish me to speak in non-words... Come to Florida... lets have some tea!

 

Take care.

 

P.s. Krishnamurti didn't understand process or progress, he came from the ultimate perspective all the time when talking like a giddy teenager, completely misunderstanding the relative. Thus, he suffered... I don't apologize for seeing right through him.

 

I had to write this quote... "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood carry water." Zen proverb.

 

That should not be an excuse for limited perception.

 

You go ahead and speak on Buddhism in your way... I'll do it my way and because it's not your way, doesn't make the realization of Buddhahood any less rare. Show me a Buddha, and you've shown me a very rare being on planet Earth. Not your typical grocery chopper.

 

He focused on the most important aspect of things in all of his talks. He cut right through the bullshit and that's why I love him. He focused on suffering itself, it's cause and how to end it. According to him, you see why you suffer and you stop those behaviors. Crazy huh? But that is pretty much a summary of his teachings. What

more do you want than that ?

 

Oh wait...omniscience...

 

As a side note...

 

K was also reported to have powers of healing, clairvoyance and thought transference. I once heard him say that when one's energy is not being dissipated through constant struggle (suffering) in daily life, it is then gathered and all these powers can come.

 

Something to think about. Makes complete sense to me. This was one of the clearest explanations of how these powers come that I have ever heard.

Edited October 31, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

He focused on the most important aspect of things in all of his talks. He cut right through the bullshit and that's why I love him. He focused on suffering itself, it's cause and how to end it. According to him, you see why you suffer and you stop those behaviors. Crazy huh? But that is pretty much a summary of his teachings. What

more do you want than that ?

 

Oh wait...omniscience...

 

The actual experience of Buddhahood, which he did not have. He was merely an intellectual, and was enthusiastic about his power of intellect. That's about it.

 

Another thing...

 

Those that don't understand that the craving for Buddhahood for a Samsarin is the best use of that energy don't understand tantra. Because it means developing the virtues, the jhanas, the understanding, then intuitive insight of D.O/Emptiness. It means putting forth the effort to study and find out exactly what Buddhahood is really about, not found in Krishnamurti talks... seek out beings who have actually realized something beyond intellectual meanderings. Like a bee that only goes after the flowers that have their roots enmeshed in the matrix of endless realization.

 

Yet, still keep the view that transcends all this, but the view is not necessarily the experience. Where Krishnamurti went horribly wrong.

 

I'll put it to you bluntly. You and so many here who argue for no apparent reason except to satisfy their egos need some of that golden B.S. Because the path is not made of intellectual excuses, uh hrm... Krishnamurti... and is made for those that actually put forth the trouble to walk it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

K was also reported to have powers of healing, clairvoyance and thought transference. I once heard him say that when one's energy is not being dissipated through constant struggle (suffering) in daily life, it is then gathered and all these powers can come.

 

Makes complete sense to me. This was one of the clearest explanations of how these powers come that I have ever heard.

 

That is true...

 

That does not excuse him for all his mistakes though... both philosophical, and actual.

 

Not that I overly judge the guy, I'm just discerning about him. But, I have these powers and I'm far from Buddhahood... well... that's relative... what's far, right? But really...

[rebelrebel]

The actual experience of Buddhahood, which he did not have. He was merely an intellectual, and was enthusiastic about his power of intellect. That's about it.

 

Another thing...

 

Those that don't understand that the craving for Buddhahood for a Samsarin is the best use of that energy don't understand tantra. Because it means developing the virtues, the jhanas, the understanding, then intuitive insight of D.O/Emptiness. It means putting forth the effort to study and find out exactly what Buddhahood is really about, not found in Krishnamurti talks... seek out beings who have actually realized something beyond intellectual meanderings. Like a bee that only goes after the flowers that have their roots enmeshed in the matrix of endless realization.

 

Yet, still keep the view that transcends all this, but the view is not necessarily the experience. Where Krishnamurti went horribly wrong.

 

I'll put it to you bluntly. You and so many here who argue for no apparent reason except to satisfy their egos need some of that golden B.S. Because the path is not made of intellectual excuses, uh hrm... Krishnamurti... and is made for those that actually put forth the trouble to walk it.

That is true...

 

That does not excuse him for all his mistakes though... both philosophical, and actual.

What is the actual experience of buddhahood if not overcoming suffering? If not ending the craving to become? I mean, dude, come on...

 

You can heal people? levitate?

 

And you still have not explained how what I said before is different from the buddhist realization "emptiness is form" which brings liberation...

 

"I am talking about experiencing openly and unreservedly whatever arises at any moment without taking the identification of it to be "what is" - it itself. This is the same result as the buddhist realization that emptiness is form"

 

Yet, still keep the view that transcends all this, but the view is not necessarily the experience. Where Krishnamurti went horribly wrong.

How is the view not the experience? Isn't experience predicated on view? I mean, the other 7 steps of the eightfold path which all involve experiencing the world all come after right view. So I assume the experience and view are pretty tightly linked.

Edited October 31, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Marblehead]

Well cant speak for V, but i have a personal curiosity to hear what your take is regarding the main cause of suffering and the true result of logical analysis of DO.

 

Please enlighten me sir, for i have much to learn.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Me! Me! I have an answer! (It might be wrong from anothers point of view but that doesn't matter.)

 

The main cause of suffering is discontentment. (Thinking you deserve better.)

 

If one is able to accept the NOW as it is, even though they may be in the process of trying to cause change, then one will have no reason to suffer.

 

It is only when we feel sorry for ourself, pity ourself, that we suffer. Remember, suffering is psychological.

 

Regarding DO: I think it is logical if one cannot find a satisfactory explanation of a 'source' of the universe. Easy way out: It always existed. And everything that exists is a result of some previous event back into infinity.

 

Christians and most other religions got off easy too by creating a God that created everything, and, of course, God always existed back into infinity.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

What it seems that most people aren't getting here is that, all paths that I know of, posit a true existence, that everything is because of the existence of one, mysterious agent behind everything, a beyond concept, true source of all existence. That all things are because of... "God", "Tao", "Light of consciousness", "The great spirit", "The one", "Brahman", "True Being", "I", "I AM", "That", "whatever"...

 

 

Hi V.,

 

We discussed this before. Everything that exists is not because of Tao. Tao is everything but it is not the cause. Tzu-Jan is the cause - that is, the spontaneous processes of nature is the cause. Note that the word processes is a verb, not a noun. Spontaneous meaning just doing what it needs to do - similar to wu wei.

 

Tao takes different forms over time - this is the process of change resulting from Tzu-Jan.

 

Yes, we Taoists could say that everything is dependently originated. But we don't. We went deeper than the Buddha did and stated that there is a reason why dependent origination is valid because of the cause and effect of the processes of Tzu-Jan. And, as Tzu-Jan is a verb and not a noun there is 'no thing' that is the source of 'any thing' because all 'things' and all 'non things' are Tao. But Tao follows the processes of Tzu-Jan. It cannot be otherwise. (That is, everything that is at this very moment in time is exactly the way it is supposed to be - it cannot be anything other.)

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Best wishes to everyone in the thread. I'm hanging up my TB posting hat for a good, long while.

Hello Serene,

 

Why would you want to do this? Why worry about what others think about your reflections on any matter? After all, they are YOUR reflections, as valid as anyone else's.

 

Do not concern yourself too much with truth. People are too hung up on this. There are no truths - only reflections. Truth implies something that can be known. Whatever that can be known is already past, like a stale pint.

 

Someone comes up to you and say, "I know the truth, follow me..." - avoid such a person at all costs. He/she can only give you, at best, memories of experiences gift-wrapped as truths. They are valid for him/her alone.

 

Where is the truth? Who is the real teacher? Walking barefoot along the beach, admiring the clear blue sky, with a light breeze against my face, aah, supreme peace...and then i step on a piece of broken glass!! Awakened immediately. Thats my truth, my guru, my teacher. So gurus can be helpful in many ways. It is sheer folly to downplay their significance.

 

IMO, DO has very positive uses other than what has been ascribed to here. I think focussing on it as a path that leads one out of suffering is only a small aspect of it. It goes much further, in that it allows the contemplative to understand the essence of Buddhism, which is compassion. Not once was this mentioned in this thread. The emphasis has always been DO/suffering. So it creates problems. All kinds of differing arguments which some readers find mockingly humorous. This is very sad. Buddhism is NOT about suffering.

 

The objective of practice (of Buddhism) is not only to lead one out of ignorance and confusion, but to show the path to loving kindness, compassion and equanimity, very often thru having the right view of DO. It is much easier for others who want to learn about Buddhism to relate on this level, do you agree? Even the Taoists.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Hope you will stay on and continue with your contributions. I for one have enjoyed your questions, even though i could not offer any answers !!

 

Bee good SB.

[Marblehead]

 

Dependent Origination is the only way to look at things if one want's to transcend the duality of "I exist" as one with "That" or, "I do not exist" because only, "That" exists.

 

Buddhism is the on only path that logically posits, neither existence, nor non-existence, neither both, nor neither.

 

 

These statements are not true. Taoists understand existence without duality. That was the time of singularity - the time after the end of the previous universe and the time of the big bang. It was during the time of singularity, the time when there was no time, that 'no-thing' existed. No, not even V. or the Buddha existed during the time of singularity.

 

Your last sentence is full of negation (neither). Yes, we Taoist can think that way too of we consider the eternality of eternity. But we don't normally. We normally consider the 'now'. Afterall, this is where we are living this physical life. We concentrate on the fullness of Tao in its manifest. Oh! What beauty!!! This manifest truely "is", and it is to be enjoyed, not escaped from!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Hmm...

 

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

 

 

I presented "my" follow-up. Look at mine! Look at mine!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Xabir's posts are quite clear, yet people don't seem to understand him either. I think Mikael is very clear, but people don't understand what he's getting at as well.

 

So... I try... but... ultimately, I am quite detached, though relatively of course attached to absolutely everything and everyone.

 

 

Hey V.,

 

I understand you most of the time. It's just that I oftentimes disagree with you. Those two concepts are different.

 

Of course you are attached, V., I will suggest that we all are in one way or another.

 

And we all might be right too. Wouldn't that be horrible?

 

Peace & Love!