fanatical Buddhists

[steve]

But I also practice many of the truths inherent in Taoism as well as Christianity and Zoroaster's realizations. It boils down to truth is truth no matter where it comes from, but illusion should drop to the wayside. Most of the teachings from China have Buddhism, Taoism and even a certain amount of Confucius's realizations intertwined.

 

 

Very nice post. I would like to propose that there is no truth in Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, or any religion.

Truth (and I am using the word to represent the nature of being or whatever you want to call it) is ineffable and inexpressible through word, idea, concept, or thought. Each of these traditions is an attempt by awakened people to express the inexpressible through their own unique social and cultural perspective. None of them are truth, they are each a skillful yet inadequate attempt to represent the truth in language and it is my feeling that at the root of each is the direct experience of truth whether in an individual or a mythical representation. I know that this is semantic and that you already understand this Michael, but I think it's an important point.

 

Just as every contemporary "spiritual leader" can be seen to have human characteristics and faults, the more remote and ancient spiritual traditions have their socio-cultural-political characteristics and faults. And undoubtedly these spring from the nature of the individuals that contributed to the development of the tradition from the beginning. Similarly, a news event is interpreted and communicated differently when seen through the eyes of the BBC, Al Jazeerah, NY Times, Tokyo Times, and the Moscow News Bureau.

 

No religion has a monopoly on truth or methods, rituals, or traditions that lead to the truth. Each frames it in its own paradigm so that the Buddhist can extol the myriad Buddhas as an example of the preeminence of Buddhist methods, while the zealous Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Daoist can speak to awakened beings in each of their traditions and make a similar claim. Each can deny the others' veracity but it is always a gratuitous claim.

 

I think that offense tends to be taken when one of us presents our views in such a way as to invalidate, trivialize, or belittle the views of others. Certainly, the reaction of the offended party is a reflection of who they are and where they are in their development. It is also true that the manner in which the opinions are presented are equally important in terms of whether offense is likely to be taken and are a reflection of the offender and his/her level of development.

 

To be blunt, of all the people who post with a regular basis on the forum, there are a handful who tend to present their ideas without much regards to the feelings or sensibilities of those who are listening. I am sure that I'm guilty at times but I do try to be mindful and considerate in this regard. These individuals are more concerned with being correct than compassionate, with winning rather than nurturing, and with proving their position rather than finding common ground for agreement and collaboration. This is a clumsy and spiritually immature approach, in my view. I won't mention names because each of us probably has a unique perspective on who the offenders may be. I would bet that if each of us submitted a list, there would be a few names at the top of most lists - maybe I'd be one of those names... hard to say!

 

So I would simply like to make a plea that each of us think about the fact that our words affect those who read them. Some of us are bound to our beliefs for reasons that may be quite personal and run very deep. It can be painful and frightening to question some of those beliefs and it is something that needs to happen slowly and gently for some. It is generally possible to present our ideas in such a way as to avoid invalidating or trivializing the ideas of others. The extent to which we choose to do this is, in my opinion, a direct reflection of a person's spiritual attainment, for lack of a better word. When we have the personal experience of the commonality of humanity, there is no longer any pleasure gained from hurting another because it is the equivalent of hurting ourselves. Their pain or humiliation is tangibly ours. Compassion is simply the experience of this fact and the consequent choices we make. This is why the Dao De Jing does not preach any moral perspective. The awakened Sage, in living in accordance with the Dao, does not need moral laws or guidelines because he/she feels them in their bones. The Buddhists have a very explicit method for teaching such behaviors recognizing that as they become habitual they may foster such insight, then the method can be dropped - it's no longer necessary to practice compassion, one knows no other way to be.

 

Sorry for the long post but that's what I had to say just now...

 

Peace and love to you all.

[Ya Mu]

Very nice post. I would like to propose that there is no truth in Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, or any religion.

Truth (and I am using the word to represent the nature of being or whatever you want to call it) is ineffable and inexpressible through word, idea, concept, or thought. Each of these traditions is an attempt by awakened people to express the inexpressible through their own unique social and cultural perspective. None of them are truth, they are each a skillful yet inadequate attempt to represent the truth in language and it is my feeling that at the root of each is the direct experience of truth whether in an individual or a mythical representation. I know that this is semantic and that you already understand this Michael, but I think it's an important point.

 

Just as every contemporary "spiritual leader" can be seen to have human characteristics and faults, the more remote and ancient spiritual traditions have their socio-cultural-political characteristics and faults. And undoubtedly these spring from the nature of the individuals that contributed to the development of the tradition from the beginning. Similarly, a news event is interpreted and communicated differently when seen through the eyes of the BBC, Al Jazeerah, NY Times, Tokyo Times, and the Moscow News Bureau.

 

No religion has a monopoly on truth or methods, rituals, or traditions that lead to the truth. Each frames it in its own paradigm so that the Buddhist can extol the myriad Buddhas as an example of the preeminence of Buddhist methods, while the zealous Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Daoist can speak to awakened beings in each of their traditions and make a similar claim. Each can deny the others' veracity but it is always a gratuitous claim.

 

I think that offense tends to be taken when one of us presents our views in such a way as to invalidate, trivialize, or belittle the views of others. Certainly, the reaction of the offended party is a reflection of who they are and where they are in their development. It is also true that the manner in which the opinions are presented are equally important in terms of whether offense is likely to be taken and are a reflection of the offender and his/her level of development.

 

To be blunt, of all the people who post with a regular basis on the forum, there are a handful who tend to present their ideas without much regards to the feelings or sensibilities of those who are listening. I am sure that I'm guilty at times but I do try to be mindful and considerate in this regard. These individuals are more concerned with being correct than compassionate, with winning rather than nurturing, and with proving their position rather than finding common ground for agreement and collaboration. This is a clumsy and spiritually immature approach, in my view. I won't mention names because each of us probably has a unique perspective on who the offenders may be. I would bet that if each of us submitted a list, there would be a few names at the top of most lists - maybe I'd be one of those names... hard to say!

 

So I would simply like to make a plea that each of us think about the fact that our words affect those who read them. Some of us are bound to our beliefs for reasons that may be quite personal and run very deep. It can be painful and frightening to question some of those beliefs and it is something that needs to happen slowly and gently for some. It is generally possible to present our ideas in such a way as to avoid invalidating or trivializing the ideas of others. The extent to which we choose to do this is, in my opinion, a direct reflection of a person's spiritual attainment, for lack of a better word. When we have the personal experience of the commonality of humanity, there is no longer any pleasure gained from hurting another because it is the equivalent of hurting ourselves. Their pain or humiliation is tangibly ours. Compassion is simply the experience of this fact and the consequent choices we make. This is why the Dao De Jing does not preach any moral perspective. The awakened Sage, in living in accordance with the Dao, does not need moral laws or guidelines because he/she feels them in their bones. The Buddhists have a very explicit method for teaching such behaviors recognizing that as they become habitual they may foster such insight, then the method can be dropped - it's no longer necessary to practice compassion, one knows no other way to be.

 

Sorry for the long post but that's what I had to say just now...

 

Peace and love to you all.

Good perspective.

 

I tend to look at it the same as you expressed at the first of your post, that the core of most all the religions are based on truth. Only humanity has, for the benefit of the few, added controls which turn out to be illusion.

[goldisheavy]

I don't believe the truth is at the core of all religions. That's being too kind and too politically correct for my taste. I think all religions are limited and dogmatic to an extent, but some are better than the others, and some religions are downright violent and oppressive in their doctrinal propositions, and only the most politically correct person will fail to see it.

[3bob]

Very nice post. I would like to propose that there is no truth in Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, or any religion.

Truth (and I am using the word to represent the nature of being or whatever you want to call it) is ineffable and inexpressible through word, idea, concept, or thought. Each of these traditions is an attempt by awakened people to express the inexpressible through their own unique social and cultural perspective. None of them are truth, they are each a skillful yet inadequate attempt to represent the truth in language and it is my feeling that at the root of each is the direct experience of truth whether in an individual or a mythical representation. I know that this is semantic and that you already understand this Michael, but I think it's an important point.

 

Just as every contemporary "spiritual leader" can be seen to have human characteristics and faults, the more remote and ancient spiritual traditions have their socio-cultural-political characteristics and faults. And undoubtedly these spring from the nature of the individuals that contributed to the development of the tradition from the beginning. Similarly, a news event is interpreted and communicated differently when seen through the eyes of the BBC, Al Jazeerah, NY Times, Tokyo Times, and the Moscow News Bureau.

 

No religion has a monopoly on truth or methods, rituals, or traditions that lead to the truth. Each frames it in its own paradigm so that the Buddhist can extol the myriad Buddhas as an example of the preeminence of Buddhist methods, while the zealous Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Daoist can speak to awakened beings in each of their traditions and make a similar claim. Each can deny the others' veracity but it is always a gratuitous claim.

 

I think that offense tends to be taken when one of us presents our views in such a way as to invalidate, trivialize, or belittle the views of others. Certainly, the reaction of the offended party is a reflection of who they are and where they are in their development. It is also true that the manner in which the opinions are presented are equally important in terms of whether offense is likely to be taken and are a reflection of the offender and his/her level of development.

 

To be blunt, of all the people who post with a regular basis on the forum, there are a handful who tend to present their ideas without much regards to the feelings or sensibilities of those who are listening. I am sure that I'm guilty at times but I do try to be mindful and considerate in this regard. These individuals are more concerned with being correct than compassionate, with winning rather than nurturing, and with proving their position rather than finding common ground for agreement and collaboration. This is a clumsy and spiritually immature approach, in my view. I won't mention names because each of us probably has a unique perspective on who the offenders may be. I would bet that if each of us submitted a list, there would be a few names at the top of most lists - maybe I'd be one of those names... hard to say!

 

So I would simply like to make a plea that each of us think about the fact that our words affect those who read them. Some of us are bound to our beliefs for reasons that may be quite personal and run very deep. It can be painful and frightening to question some of those beliefs and it is something that needs to happen slowly and gently for some. It is generally possible to present our ideas in such a way as to avoid invalidating or trivializing the ideas of others. The extent to which we choose to do this is, in my opinion, a direct reflection of a person's spiritual attainment, for lack of a better word. When we have the personal experience of the commonality of humanity, there is no longer any pleasure gained from hurting another because it is the equivalent of hurting ourselves. Their pain or humiliation is tangibly ours. Compassion is simply the experience of this fact and the consequent choices we make. This is why the Dao De Jing does not preach any moral perspective. The awakened Sage, in living in accordance with the Dao, does not need moral laws or guidelines because he/she feels them in their bones. The Buddhists have a very explicit method for teaching such behaviors recognizing that as they become habitual they may foster such insight, then the method can be dropped - it's no longer necessary to practice compassion, one knows no other way to be.

 

Sorry for the long post but that's what I had to say just now...

 

Peace and love to you all.

 

Steve,

A lot of very good points and reminders! I don't fully agree with your first paragraph under certain conditions, for instance that which is directly connected to the truth does not and can not speak an untruth, while that which is connected through various permutations speaks various and relative truths. Exceedingly rare is the direct, billion volt like connection without interferencs but it is not non-existant. (in fact such is the fulfillment of existance)

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

The mystics of all traditions may be very similar at their core, or at the basis, but there is something unique about Buddha lineage perspective on the core experience which leads one not to be re-absorbed at the end of a cosmic aeon. As if one translates the core experience as an ultimate self existence, and this is not merely conceptual, the awareness of unconditional love and compassion does not last past the end of this universal cycle.

 

Most people just think within the span of a single life, what makes me happy and see joy and compassion in this life? When one starts having experiences that reveal beyond this life, even into seeing many cycles of personalized existence, you want a realization that will allow you to stay conscious even after the cycles go through the process of dissolving into the singularity at the end of a cosmic aeon. You will not want to merge with the Lord of all that births and devours everything. Because just as you are here now, that time will come as well, as clearly and as visceral as now appears to be.

 

On Earth, Buddhist cosmology explains this phenomena and sets up contemplations that work towards this realization and no other tradition does, so it seems. Other than possibly Taoism? This probably won't make any sense to many people here. I'll just get roasted again, but for those that it does? Or for those that this plants a seed of contemplation in? Good. Because Buddhism is not just about merging with emptiness/fullness and the light, that's just the start of the path of the Bodhisattva, which many traditions lead to. It's not just about the heart mind experience either. But Buddhas explain that there are still subtle obscurations, even if conflicting emotions and concepts have been eradicated.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Exceedingly rare is the direct, billion volt like connection without interferencs but it is not non-existant. (in fact such is the fulfillment of existance)

 

Om

 

It's not that rare for yogi's who have given themselves over to the practice with total focus. I know plenty who experience this, including myself.

 

But, I would only call it the fulfillment of existence if I were setting up the experience as an alpha and omega, as I used to do. But, I have found through deep churning in the unconscious, making it conscious, and through influence of Buddha lineage leanings from lifetimes, I have found that there is a deeper insight into the nature of this experience that trumps the subjective, monist idealization of this experience.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't believe the truth is at the core of all religions. That's being too kind and too politically correct for my taste. I think all religions are limited and dogmatic to an extent, but some are better than the others, and some religions are downright violent and oppressive in their doctrinal propositions, and only the most politically correct person will fail to see it.

 

I agree, even though the mystics who seem to be more influenced by meditative tradition, seem to just ignore the dogma or reframe it in a way that internalizes the violence. Like the concept of Jihad in Islam for mystics is turned into a war on ones inner demons. Many Sufi traditions are Buddhist/Hindu influenced as well, to a degree that they are almost unrecognizable other than in language from the ideas one finds in mystic Hinduism, including kundalini and chakras. It's the same with the mystic Christian paths. But, I think one can just almost equate this with mysticism period. It's just that certain religious traditions follow more closely the realization of the mystic from the outset, like some Shamanistic traditions, as well as Buddhism and Taoism and some forms of Hinduism. Other religions like the Abrahamic religions, the concepts have to be reframed, or really turned on their back and re-wired into metaphorical allegories and not be taken literally at all in order for one to see them in the light of mystical realization.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Ya Mu]

Steve,

A lot of very good points and reminders! I don't fully agree with your first paragraph under certain conditions, for instance that which is directly connected to the truth does not and can not speak an untruth, while that which is connected through various permutations speaks various and relative truths. Exceedingly rare is the direct, billion volt like connection without interferencs but it is not non-existant. (in fact such is the fulfillment of existance)

 

Om

I like this realization.

Perhaps a better way of saying about the religions instead of saying truth was at the core is that most (not ALL) were inspired by truth. I believe this to be so. There are too many similar concepts and sayings in most of the religions for this to not be so. And even in techniques. I have often been amazed, for instance, by the almost exact same techniques utilized by Native Shamans and the Chinese Taoist Masters. Both accessed the core "truth" as this was the common denominator.

 

Here is what I deleted from my last post as I didn't have the time to respond.

In my experience, there is a truth that underlies all things. To use the word "truth" implies that such exists, and I personally believe there is an underlying truth to be found when all illusions are dumped to the wayside. One could say everything is chaos, due to the nature of constant flux, and that no such thing as truth exists. However, my experiences lead me to understand that there are natural laws of creation. Else how is it possible that we created all that is? It is easy to say ALL is illusion, but that is just a perspective as it is obvious that for there to be anything at all that something must be real even IF everything observed is an illusion. That something has to be a core, a truth, or set of creation laws that explain the nature of creation - otherwise there would be no creation, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[lifeforce]

20+ pages

 

Another couple of days and it will be.

[steve]

Steve,

A lot of very good points and reminders! I don't fully agree with your first paragraph under certain conditions, for instance that which is directly connected to the truth does not and can not speak an untruth, while that which is connected through various permutations speaks various and relative truths. Exceedingly rare is the direct, billion volt like connection without interferencs but it is not non-existant. (in fact such is the fulfillment of existance)

 

Om

 

Thanks for your insightful comments.

 

I like this realization.

Perhaps a better way of saying about the religions instead of saying truth was at the core is that most (not ALL) were inspired by truth. I believe this to be so.

 

Yes, this is basically what I was trying to communicate. I do think that there is a fundamental direct experience of [inset preferred word] that is the spiritual core of all religion. How it is interpreted and communicated is variable.

[Jetsun]

Of course this (Bodhicitta) is realized in degrees, even with teachers, so some of them can maybe influence a small group of people, because their Bodhicitta is not in full bloom yet, and then there are great masters with full-blown Bodhicitta who can influence masses of people, and continue to do so even after they have died. This explains why some masters possess immense presence, and just being with them can be so awe-inspiring, while others seem to struggle just to keep an interested audience.

 

Younglings like us only get glimpses of this Bodhicitta occasionally, hence we are not yet able to transfer the kind of blessings on a large scale, so we start with ourselves first of all, we practice to connect with this latent potential to spark it to life, so to speak.

 

This is something I experienced when I met the Dalai Lama, the power of Bodhicitta to palpably affect a room of people. I saw it's influence even on my father who is a scientist in the mould of Richard Dawkins who doesn't put any stock in Buddhism or any religion but I could see he was touched. I think even the most hard headed sleeping person will be affected on some level even if they are not aware of it by such a blessing as being touched by a genuine masters Bodhicitta, which can plant seeds of questioning in the mind of a persons ego centred consciousness which have the potential to shake things up a bit at some point down the line. For me it was like the ego witnessing a power far greater than anything it has ever produced but it's very nature is in complete opposition to how the ego goes about it's business, so it creates a sort of confusion to the ego which is hard to ignore or dismiss.

[Vajrahridaya]

This is something I experienced when I met the Dalai Lama, the power of Bodhicitta to palpably affect a room of people. I saw it's influence even on my father who is a scientist in the mould of Richard Dawkins who doesn't put any stock in Buddhism or any religion but I could see he was touched. I think even the most hard headed sleeping person will be affected on some level even if they are not aware of it by such a blessing as being touched by a genuine masters Bodhicitta, which can plant seeds of questioning in the mind of a persons ego centred consciousness which have the potential to shake things up a bit at some point down the line. For me it was like the ego witnessing a power far greater than anything it has ever produced but it's very nature is in complete opposition to how the ego goes about it's business, so it creates a sort of confusion to the ego which is hard to ignore or dismiss.

 

Yup! I've experienced the same with the Dalai Lama, but I expected to anyway... no surprise.

 

I remember I took an old friend to see a popular Hindu Master, he had never anything to do with spirituality. He was into smoking pot, writing graffiti, listening to rap music, drinking and having sex. That was it. But, after I had broken away from him and my group of old friends for some time to pursue more meaningful activities, I decided to try and talk him into coming with me to a public talk. It was a huge auditorium with a few thousand people in it, we were in the nose bleeds. But, as soon as this Hindu Guru walked through the door, my friend starting tearing up out of love and a deep sense of compassion. He later said that he'd never felt that before. After that his life slowly started to transform from a life of "thugin'" it, to a life more in line with a higher sense of purpose. That one experience catalyzed his potential for higher self evaluation and transformation like no drug induced experience, or amount of logic and reason had ever done.

 

I've witnessed a number of friends have this happen to them when I've brought them to meet this or that highly qualified Master of either Buddhist or Hindu lineage.

 

It's quite inspiring to watch, not only in oneself, but in other people that you know and have cared about go through total self transformation just through one single meeting with a great being such as you mentioned above.

[Jetsun]

Yup! I've experienced the same with the Dalai Lama, but I expected to anyway... no surprise.

 

I remember I took an old friend to see a popular Hindu Master, he had never anything to do with spirituality. He was into smoking pot, writing graffiti, listening to rap music, drinking and having sex. That was it. But, after I had broken away from him and my group of old friends for some time to pursue more meaningful activities, I decided to try and talk him into coming with me to a public talk. It was a huge auditorium with a few thousand people in it, we were in the nose bleeds. But, as soon as this Hindu Guru walked through the door, my friend starting tearing up out of love and a deep sense of compassion. He later said that he'd never felt that before. After that his life slowly started to transform from a life of "thugin'" it, to a life more in line with a higher sense of purpose. That one experience catalyzed his potential for higher self evaluation and transformation like no drug induced experience, or amount of logic and reason had ever done.

 

I've witnessed a number of friends have this happen to them when I've brought them to meet this or that highly qualified Master of either Buddhist or Hindu lineage.

 

It's quite inspiring to watch, not only in oneself, but in other people that you know and have cared about go through total self transformation just through one single meeting with a great being such as you mentioned above.

 

I can believe it, the thing which impacted me deeply wasn't some sort of mind blowing out of world experience rather it was the grounded humanity of immediately feeling the sort of trust and relaxation with him which I only have with maybe a couple of close friends which I grew up with, it was incredible how I could feel that with a stranger. Afterwards I looked into other peoples accounts of meeting the Dalai Lama and so many say the same thing, that they feel like he is a dear close friend even though they met him for only a brief time of maybe a few minutes, it's quite remarkable.

[Vajrahridaya]

I can believe it, the thing which impacted me deeply wasn't some sort of mind blowing out of world experience rather it was the grounded humanity of immediately feeling the sort of trust and relaxation with him which I only have with maybe a couple of close friends which I grew up with, it was incredible how I could feel that with a stranger. Afterwards I looked into other peoples accounts of meeting the Dalai Lama and so many say the same thing, that they feel like he is a dear close friend even though they met him for only a brief time of maybe a few minutes, it's quite remarkable.

 

I certainly do agree with that experience wholeheartedly.

[3bob]

It's not that rare for yogi's who have given themselves over to the practice with total focus. I know plenty who experience this, including myself.

 

But, I would only call it the fulfillment of existence if I were setting up the experience as an alpha and omega, as I used to do. But, I have found through deep churning in the unconscious, making it conscious, and through influence of Buddha lineage leanings from lifetimes, I have found that there is a deeper insight into the nature of this experience that trumps the subjective, monist idealization of this experience.

 

The word "yogi" can be used by a great number of people of various attainments or unattainments. Also the word "swami" is sometimes used by those that are not living the life of a swami and sometimes there are similar troubles with the meaning and use of the word "guru". Anyway going through the wheel is going through the wheel and not around and around the wheel as you imply, regardless of whatever

tradition(s) seem lacking to you or your trumped-up ideation and projections upon same may be.

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

The word "yogi" can be used by a great number of people of various attainments or unattainments. Also the word "swami" is sometimes used by those that are not living the life of a swami and sometimes there are similar troubles with the meaning and use of the word "guru".

 

I've never denied that.

 

Anyway going through the wheel is going through the wheel and not around and around the wheel as you imply, regardless of whatever

tradition(s) seem lacking to you or your trumped-up ideation and projections upon same may be.

 

Om

 

Yes, but reifying the core principle of the wheel as a self existent will of all, or Self of all is not cutting through the "I" maker of the wheel.

 

This is not trumped up by me, this is what the Buddha argued, especially with other Shramanic traditions like the Jains. He also in no uncertain terms rejected the core conclusions apparent in the Vedas.

 

So, he's either wrong or right when it comes to these points. Many traditions are very much the same up to a certain point, but there is a place where Buddha lineage (as a tradition) jumps off that oneness wheel and is the odd one out.

 

I'm not saying that Buddhahood is owned by the so called Buddhist tradition, but just as far as the way it's manifested through the expression we know of as the Buddhist tradition is most reflective of this most subtle, and highest realization of the nature of phenomena, transcending the monistic idealism of most all mystical traditions. It really is saying something different, it's not just conceptual either.

 

I don't know why you have to react negatively to this, saying I'm such a fanatic or whatever, these are just facts based upon what the tradition of Buddhism teaches. It's end game is not the same as that proposed by monistic idealists. It's not merely a conceptual difference, as elucidated by the Buddhas explanation of the formless, non-conceptual jhana states. The truth is in the details.

[3bob]

I've never denied that.

 

Yes, but reifying the core principle of the wheel as a self existent will of all, or Self of all is not cutting through the "I" maker of the wheel.

 

This is not trumped up by me, this is what the Buddha argued, especially with other Shramanic traditions like the Jains. He also in no uncertain terms rejected the core conclusions apparent in the Vedas.

 

So, he's either wrong or right when it comes to these points. Many traditions are very much the same up to a certain point, but there is a place where Buddha lineage (as a tradition) jumps off that oneness wheel and is the odd one out.

 

I'm not saying that Buddhahood is owned by the so called Buddhist tradition, but just as far as the way it's manifested through the expression we know of as the Buddhist tradition is most reflective of this most subtle, and highest realization of the nature of phenomena, transcending the monistic idealism of most all mystical traditions. It really is saying something different, it's not just conceptual either.

 

I don't know why you have to react negatively to this, saying I'm such a fanatic or whatever, these are just facts based upon what the tradition of Buddhism teaches. It's end game is not the same as that proposed by monistic idealists. It's not merely a conceptual difference, as elucidated by the Buddhas explanation of the formless, non-conceptual jhana states. The truth is in the details.

 

Hello VJ,

 

I'd say and or guess that its ok to many people that you refer to and or quote Buddhist materials (like some have said)... then again I feel troubles begin when you repeatedly infer at a tolerant Taoist web-site that Buddhism "trumps" other traditions because they are stuck or lacking in the ways you've mentioned. If we were a group of Buddhists under a school and vows and you were the guru then we might have to buy into your pov. or leave, but we are not nor can we forced to leave here, yet it seems you gotta keep hammering away (at those of the "brick wall") until we have finally taken your hook, line and sinker? I suggest you ponder awhile on the "Four-Fold Negation" and give many of these speculations, assertions, one-up-manships, irrefutable absolutes, etc. some space that is not in our face. Such would be closer to hitting the mark imo.

 

Om

Edited July 13, 2011 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

You've just trumped and one up'd me.

 

Of course you suggest that what I say is mere speculation...

 

But yes, I understand that for the most part, I might try to rework the way I present my insights as to appeal to a larger audience and make my approach much subtler.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

Well CowTao that was an interesting post. Something to think about.

 

The thing it didn't address was how to tell when heartmind is manifesting in myself.

 

I'm talking about practical matters now. I take it most cultivators think they are manifesting Compassion when they are only really manifesting compassion. (if you get my drift). And thus mistaking one for the other.

 

If so, how in practical terms can someone like me tell if I'm manifesting Compassion as opposed to compassion?

Hi SereneBlue,

 

The heartmind (or Heart Essence of Enlightened Mind) is in fact Bodhicitta itself. Bodhicitta has two aspects: Relative and absolute/ultimate.

 

In the relative sense, its like a set of practice or code of conduct for aspiring Bodhisattvas, like your good self, for example. _/\_

 

By familiarizing with this code, one plays out the role of a bodhisattva - this includes actively integrating one's current life with awareness, mindfully looking for opportune moments to deepen the familiarization more and more, thru practice of contemplation, reflection, meditation, visualizations, etc etc... with the aim of carrying the idea of bodhisattvaship beyond the level of mere conceptualization, so to speak.

 

Once the process of familiarization becomes less and less dependent on its conceptual platform, glimpses of spontaneous arising of Enlightened Mind (where all reference points dissolves) gradually becomes clearer and more blissful - as this letting-go gets more natural and genuine faith develop, old habitual reactionary impulses and afflictive tendencies falls away bit by bit, and in their place a new set of transformed virtues takes over. Then the relative map or code can be put aside as simply a reference guide. This is the onset of Absolute Bodhicitta, and as mentioned in the other post, this occurs by degrees. As clarity sharpens, you will begin to experience the fruits of the Bodhisattva way.

 

Analogy: Relative bodhicitta is like getting all excited by the mere thought of travelling to one's favored holiday destination, and absolute bodhicitta is the act of travelling itself. Upon arrival, you will know you have arrived - similarly, you will know without doubt, as the generation stages of practice becomes stable, when the heartmind is manifesting.

 

So its like at the beginning stages, we try to become more aware and find opportunities to practice relative levels of compassion, and then, in the latter stages one begins to drop the awareness and the conscious looking, whereby Compassion becomes spontaneously manifested and by that time all the old awkwardness of role-playing to become a bodhisattva stops.

 

 

Two links here for further reference and clarity:

http://www.shantideva.net/guide_ch1.htm

 

A fairly in-depth commentary by HHDL on the various aspects of cultivating Bodhicitta - http://www.bodhicitta.net/HHDL%20Bodicaryavatara%20Teachings.htm

 

Lovely chant to coincide with this commentary:

 

 

Best wishes to all who aspires to Equanimous Compassion. May all beings enjoy the bliss of liberation.

 

 

 

 

(apologies for veering away from topic. Especially to 3Bob. I try not to make fanatical assertions here, but sometimes i am not strong enough, so please be patient... i am learning yet.)

Edited July 13, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Good post CT!

[JustARandomPanda]

OK. This is getting interesting.

 

I have another question for you CowTao and Ralis. Actually the same question.

 

I am a beginning meditator. I am still at the very beginning stage of simply practicing of staying aware of my breath. I do Anapana.

 

Now Master Nan has stated in Working Toward Enlightment that until one reaches the stage of thoughts settling down (no more monkey mind) talking about any other sort of attainments and levels is a moot point. Practing being kind to other people is a good starting point also but that's manifesting compassion as opposed to Compassion (Bodhicitta?).

 

Has either one of you achieved this stage of thoughts settling down?

[3bob]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

The heartmind (or Heart Essence of Enlightened Mind) is in fact Bodhicitta itself. Bodhicitta has two aspects: Relative and absolute/ultimate.

 

In the relative sense, its like a set of practice or code of conduct for aspiring Bodhisattvas, like your good self, for example. _/\_

 

By familiarizing with this code, one plays out the role of a bodhisattva - this includes actively integrating one's current life with awareness, mindfully looking for opportune moments to deepen the familiarization more and more, thru practice of contemplation, reflection, meditation, visualizations, etc etc... with the aim of carrying the idea of bodhisattvaship beyond the level of mere conceptualization, so to speak.

 

Once the process of familiarization becomes less and less dependent on its conceptual platform, glimpses of spontaneous arising of Enlightened Mind (where all reference points dissolves) gradually becomes clearer and more blissful - as this letting-go gets more natural and genuine faith develop, old habitual reactionary impulses and afflictive tendencies falls away bit by bit, and in their place a new set of transformed virtues takes over. Then the relative map or code can be put aside as simply a reference guide. This is the onset of Absolute Bodhicitta, and as mentioned in the other post, this occurs by degrees. As clarity sharpens, you will begin to experience the fruits of the Bodhisattva way.

 

Analogy: Relative bodhicitta is like getting all excited by the mere thought of travelling to one's favored holiday destination, and absolute bodhicitta is the act of travelling itself. Upon arrival, you will know you have arrived - similarly, you will know without doubt, as the generation stages of practice becomes stable, when the heartmind is manifesting.

 

So its like at the beginning stages, we try to become more aware and find opportunities to practice relative levels of compassion, and then, in the latter stages one begins to drop the awareness and the conscious looking, whereby Compassion becomes spontaneously manifested and by that time all the old awkwardness of role-playing to become a bodhisattva stops.

 

Two links here for further reference and clarity:

http://www.shantideva.net/guide_ch1.htm

 

A fairly in-depth commentary by HHDL on the various aspects of cultivating Bodhicitta - http://www.bodhicitta.net/HHDL%20Bodicaryavatara%20Teachings.htm

 

Lovely chant to coincide with this commentary:

 

Best wishes to all who aspires to Equanimous Compassion. May all beings enjoy the bliss of liberation.

 

(apologies for veering away from topic. Especially to 3Bob. I try not to make fanatical assertions here, but sometimes i am not strong enough, so please be patient... i am learning yet.)

 

No apologies needed CT, btw that was not fanatical to me, more like redemptive.

[ralis]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

The heartmind (or Heart Essence of Enlightened Mind) is in fact Bodhicitta itself. Bodhicitta has two aspects: Relative and absolute/ultimate.

 

In the relative sense, its like a set of practice or code of conduct for aspiring Bodhisattvas, like your good self, for example. _/\_

 

By familiarizing with this code, one plays out the role of a bodhisattva - this includes actively integrating one's current life with awareness, mindfully looking for opportune moments to deepen the familiarization more and more, thru practice of contemplation, reflection, meditation, visualizations, etc etc... with the aim of carrying the idea of bodhisattvaship beyond the level of mere conceptualization, so to speak.

 

Once the process of familiarization becomes less and less dependent on its conceptual platform, glimpses of spontaneous arising of Enlightened Mind (where all reference points dissolves) gradually becomes clearer and more blissful - as this letting-go gets more natural and genuine faith develop, old habitual reactionary impulses and afflictive tendencies falls away bit by bit, and in their place a new set of transformed virtues takes over. Then the relative map or code can be put aside as simply a reference guide. This is the onset of Absolute Bodhicitta, and as mentioned in the other post, this occurs by degrees. As clarity sharpens, you will begin to experience the fruits of the Bodhisattva way.

 

Analogy: Relative bodhicitta is like getting all excited by the mere thought of travelling to one's favored holiday destination, and absolute bodhicitta is the act of travelling itself. Upon arrival, you will know you have arrived - similarly, you will know without doubt, as the generation stages of practice becomes stable, when the heartmind is manifesting.

 

So its like at the beginning stages, we try to become more aware and find opportunities to practice relative levels of compassion, and then, in the latter stages one begins to drop the awareness and the conscious looking, whereby Compassion becomes spontaneously manifested and by that time all the old awkwardness of role-playing to become a bodhisattva stops.

 

 

Two links here for further reference and clarity:

http://www.shantideva.net/guide_ch1.htm

 

A fairly in-depth commentary by HHDL on the various aspects of cultivating Bodhicitta - http://www.bodhicitta.net/HHDL%20Bodicaryavatara%20Teachings.htm

 

Lovely chant to coincide with this commentary:

 

 

Best wishes to all who aspires to Equanimous Compassion. May all beings enjoy the bliss of liberation.

 

 

 

 

(apologies for veering away from topic. Especially to 3Bob. I try not to make fanatical assertions here, but sometimes i am not strong enough, so please be patient... i am learning yet.)

 

The problem I had with all this 23 yrs. ago is that these teachings are very mental, not unlike the rest of the Tibetan trip. When I read and was taught about Bodhicitta I put it all aside and looked for the real experience and knowledge of what is being talked about and taught. I am not interested in extensive commentary describing in precise detail about what the heart mind is. The heart mind can't be described or verbalized. It is non verbal. The direct experience is what matters and where to focus.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ralis

[3bob]

You've just trumped and one up'd me.

 

Of course you suggest that what I say is mere speculation...

 

But yes, I understand that for the most part, I might try to rework the way I present my insights as to appeal to a larger audience and make my approach much subtler.

 

"You've just trumped and one up'd me"

 

I did not make that suggestion concerning your personal experiences although it might have sounded so. (sorry) Then again and as you well know you have submitted speculations related to Taoism and wide ranging generalizations to say the least about other ways that sound like or could be specualtion on your part?

 

Anyhow I think the Buddha did some trumping a long time ago along some of these lines:

 

"In the "Discourse to Vacchagotta on Fire" the wandering monk Vacchagotta asks the Buddha about the status of the Tathagata. The Buddha responds with the familiar four-fold negation:

 

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying."(16)

 

When Vacchagotta then asks, "What is the peril the revered Gotama beholds that he thus does not approach any of these (speculative) views?" we are told, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, superknowledge, awakening, nor to nibbana (nirvana). I, Vaccha, beholding that this is a peril, thus do not approach any of these (speculative) views"...

 

I thought that quote was pretty straight forward but there might be some debate about it also. (but not much from me at this time)

 

Om

Edited July 14, 2011 by 3bob

[C T]

The problem I had with all this 23 yrs. ago is that these teachings are very mental, not unlike the rest of the Tibetan trip. When I read and was taught about Bodhicitta I put it all aside and looked for the real experience and knowledge of what is being talked about and taught. I am not interested in extensive commentary describing in precise detail about what the heart mind is. The heart mind can't be described or verbalized. It is non verbal. The direct experience is what matters and where to focus.

Its not that the teachings are very mental, Ralis. Its because you have an aversion to certain deep-held ideas which happens to clash with your present reality.

 

One who has attained will help others to attain at their own level, not at, say, your own high realizational level. This is why the emphasis is on the unity of wisdom and method, View and practice, Path and Fruit, absolute and relative, Wisdom and Compassion - timing is key. One who keeps the View but discards method will tend to be spacey and floaty, attached to bliss-states and become arrogant, while one who emphasize Path/Methods/Teachings without recognizing View has diminished motivation, tend to be envious of those who enjoy blissful trips, and could lose zeal, zest and eventually lose heart as well. Best is to find a balanced, well-defined combination of both.

 

Before direct experience, work needs doing. After direct experience, Work does itself. Its still work(practice).