'No self' my experience so far...

[Birch]

LOL. Remember what I said in another thread?

 

First rule of Internet Posting: Anything you say can and will be used against you.

 

But just so you know...thanks for sharing your experiences even though it exposes your experiences and POV to criticism.

 

 

 

 

But Marble...what about those of us who know they don't know but also don't speak?

 

No problem with sharing:-) I was again pondering my varied experiences and wondering if i were to explain some of them, which one might get interpreted one way and which another and how screwed up that would probably be because I figure I've had experiences that could claim from several traditions:-) I figure that in itself is pretty weird but even more interesting IMO is the way I choose to describe some of them and the way they end up getting categorized and why. I mean some of them fall into the "can't explain in words" camp but I do try to explain in words, maybe this word business is where several of the issues lie?

[Lucky7Strikes]

So, if you don't mind (lol, npi..), how do the two sides differ in understanding of mind?

It's very subtle, but the consequences are deep.

 

This is Xabir's point:

 

Mind is just label on the process of causes and conditions happening that are self-aware. So when you eat, it's not you eating, its universal causes and conditions coming together of you eating. And when you decide that everything is empty and ungraspable, you experience everything as they arise spontaneously.

 

Note, the element of determinism. You don't exist. You just dependently originate according to conditions.

 

My point:

 

Causes and conditions are and always were illusions of the mind's construct. That there is no reality other than mind and its ideas and conceptions chosen to be experienced. None of its manifestations are truly real, so we agree to a degree on emptiness and dependent originating nature of mind. Where Xabir sees an impersonal process, I choose to see mind's limitless potential for manifestation.

 

This is rather free will. You exist and choose to experience certain conditions based on views, habits, beliefs, actions.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

before I try to respond

 

Xabir, this is how you differ in understanding of Mind?

[xabir2005]

The disagreement is in our understandings of mind.

 

 

The point, however, is that Xabir is not here to learn, but to preach dogma because he thinks he will get merit from it. Or some other reason. He is in his eyes here to correct people.

 

Another problem is his inquiries and realizations are often supported not by himself, but by hand picked quotes and assumptions presupposed on a teaching. They are not genuine inquiries but tailored paths.

 

The biggest problem is people who come across his posts for the first time will often miss this, especially people not familiar with Buddhism, and believe what he writes to be some sort of truths or absolute Buddhism or deep personal realizations.

accruing merits never occured to my mind, even though I know their importance by experience. For example I had a pure intention for others to know the subtle emptiness teachings of nagarjuna which I shared an article in the forum, and because of that the realization of emptiness just happened... When I was reading some articles from the same blog. There are other instances where merits and pure intention were followed by certain realizations and experiences. But when I do things, I do not do for the purpose of getting merits. I do it for the intention of helping others.

 

And I don't see why I should stop quoting. Some quotes express my personal realization well - no problems quoting them.

 

Of course they must agree with my personal realization else I wouldn't have quoted them.

 

And of course I did explain what my realization is, many times in this forum and all over my ebook.

[xabir2005]

before I try to respond

 

Xabir, this is how you differ in understanding of Mind?

 

causes and conditions are also empty and unestablished. So I do not say causes and conditions and the process have reality - they are utterly unestablished and have no reality. The difference is lucky says "there is no reality other than mind" which means mind has reality. I say, and like third karmapa said, even mind is empty without reality, but being empty its manifestations are infinite and unceasing and its essence is luminous clarity. Emptiness, luminosity and manifestation are inseperable.

 

Also, determinism and free will are extremes that depend on subject object dichotomy to which I do not admit. One is self being controlled by objects, the other is objects controlled by self.

 

But for arguments sake, even objects controlling objects do not make sense - objects merely serve as condition, and not control, arisings. There is no control, but there are influences and imprints and actions which are very important on our part - in other words we cannot leave things to fate and do nothing, and because there is no such thing as fate but only action and reaction, so conventionally we are the masters of our life through our actions, even though actions too arise not without conditions and there is no doer or controller of actions and thoughts (there are the manifestations of will and intention tho).

[Marblehead]

Hi Todd,

 

Good try.

 

Ok, please read Chapter 21 in light of Chapter 4 (read chapter 4 first). Please pay particular attention to the first line of Chapter 4, and remember that in Chinese, "The Tao as a thing" can just as easily read "The Tao as things".

 

Still just the spaces between things?

 

 

The expression of empty virtue comes from the Tao alone the Tao as a thing waxes and wanes it waxes and wanes but inside is an image it waxes and wanes but inside is a creature it's distant and dark but inside is an essence an essence fundamentally real and inside is a heart throughout the ages its name has never changed so we might follow our fathers how do we know what our fathers were like through this

 

I suggest that this translation of Chapter 21 is not valid.

 

Compare to Henricks' translation:

 

1. The character of great virtue follows alone from the Way.

2. As for the nature of the Way—it's shapeless and formless.

3. Formless! Shapeless! Inside there are images.

4. Shapeless! Formless! Inside there are things.

5. Hidden! Obscure! Inside there are essences.

6. These essences are very real;

7. Inside them is the proof.

8. From the present back to the past,

9. Its name has never gone away.

10. It is by this that we comply with the father of the multitude [of things].

11. How do I know that the father of the multitude is so?

12. By this.

 

We are speaking of fullness here, not emptiness. Remember, the Chapters you are presenting is an interpretation, not a translation. Possibly intrepretated by someone who already had a bit of knowledge of Buddhism and got the concepts confused.

 

 

A similar arguement can be made to Chapter 4.

 

The Tao is so empty those who use it never become full again and so deep as if it were the ancestor of us all dulling our edges untying our tangles softening our light merging our dust and so clear as if it were present I wonder whose child it is it seems it was here before the Ti

 

Henricks' translation:

 

1. The Way is empty;

2. Yet when you use it, you never need fill it again.

3. Like an abyss! It seems to be the ancestor of the ten thousand things.

4. If files down sharp edges;

5. Unties the tangles;

6. Softens the glare;

7. And settles the dust.

8. Submerged! It seems perhaps to exist.

9. We don't know whose child it is;

10. It seems to have [even] preceded the Lord.

 

It is true, the Way of Tao is empty of essence. The Way of Tao is simply how the universe works, TzuJan, if you will. It is the path to peace and contentment. These too are empty of physical essence as well but if you ever find them you will swear they are the most valuable things you have ever experienced.

 

Now, it is true that mental concepts and thoughts are empty of physical essence. I do not argue this point at all. And no, I cannot show you a "mind". But I can show you a brain. I think "mind" is just a word trying to explain how the brain and nervous system works.

 

So emptiness vs. fullness. I have a coffee cup. The cup is fullness. The space inside the coffee cup was emptiness. I got up, walked to the coffee pot and filled the cup with coffee. Now that emptiness has been occupied with coffee. The emptiness is now fullness.

 

We should not confuse physical reality with mental masturbation. I can sit here and imagine my favorite animal, the pegacorn. But to the best of my knowledge it exists only in my mind (brain). I am currently having a smoke. I cannot take the lighted end and apply it to my wrist and pretend that it doesn't burn. Physical reality makes it burn and if I leave it there long enough it will destroy part of my wrist. Too much mental masturbation will cause one to go blind.

[Lucky7Strikes]

accruing merits never occured to my mind, even though I know their importance by experience. For example I had a pure intention for others to know the subtle emptiness teachings of nagarjuna which I shared an article in the forum, and because of that the realization of emptiness just happened... When I was reading some articles from the same blog. There are other instances where merits and pure intention were followed by certain realizations and experiences. But when I do things, I do not do for the purpose of getting merits. I do it for the intention of helping others.

 

And I don't see why I should stop quoting. Some quotes express my personal realization well - no problems quoting them.

 

Of course they must agree with my personal realization else I wouldn't have quoted them.

 

And of course I did explain what my realization is, many times in this forum and all over my ebook.

You want others to know, because you want to help them, about things you do not even have direct realizations of? Why, because it is Buddhist? IMO, that's a very condescending manner and has an underlying dogmatic tendency to it. You may not notice it yourself. I for one, do not understand why from years ago you would defend Thusness's teachings when you yourself did not have sufficient realizations yourself. That's just pure faith clothed in wisdom.

 

You should stop quoting because you have a tendency to excessively rely on them to help your points. Often times your posts lack any personal reasoning or explanations but is just a cut and paste splatter. This not only gives off a false sense of knowledge, but of authority.

 

Why do you need to revert to a quote to express your own realizations? Are you incapable to expressing them yourself? We are not discussing sutras or teachings of Padmasambhava or the Karmapa. We are discussing your methods and realizations.

 

Most people are busy, lazy or do not have the mindset to go read Buddhist texts in depth to check if indeed your interpretation is correct. Buddhism heavily relies on context and needs to be digested widely. Hand picking quotes is not only misguiding but is really taking advantage of other people's lack of knowledge in Buddhist texts, especially in a forum where a range of spirituality is respected.

[Lucky7Strikes]

causes and conditions are also empty and unestablished. So I do not say causes and conditions and the process have reality - they are utterly unestablished and have no reality. The difference is lucky says "there is no reality other than mind" which means mind has reality. I say, and like third karmapa said, even mind is empty without reality, but being empty its manifestations are infinite and unceasing and its essence is luminous clarity. Emptiness, luminosity and manifestation are inseperable.

The use of the word reality did not mean that. The usage is to contrast the the illusory nature of the idea of solidity of form to mind. Mind does have reality in the sense that we are experiencing being alive right now. That's the most basic realness you get otherwise that word doesn't have function. For instance, if you say everything is illusion, then everything is also real.

 

We both agree that mind's manifestations are empty. Why haven't you understood this similarity yet? It's probably because you also have this tendency to pigeonhole everyones views into the 7 stages of Thusness. You see hindu Mind every time such a notion is raised. Also why is the third Karmapa dragged into this? Do you need him to stand behind you for you to feel safer about your realizations? These are seemingly trivial but very significant indications of how narrowly you understand others. Why don't you approach individual spiritual understandings on their own basis without carrying a measuring stick into discussions to see how he/she measures up to your stages? This is more alarming that you began doing this without even experiencing them yourself for years.

 

Also, determinism and free will are extremes that depend on subject object dichotomy to which I do not admit. One is self being controlled by objects, the other is objects controlled by self.

 

But for arguments sake, even objects controlling objects do not make sense - objects merely serve as condition, and not control, arisings. There is no control, but there are influences and imprints and actions which are very important on our part - in other words we cannot leave things to fate and do nothing, and because there is no such thing as fate but only action and reaction, so conventionally we are the masters of our life through our actions, even though actions too arise not without conditions and there is no doer or controller of actions and thoughts (there are the manifestations of will and intention tho).

Not really. You deny you. Anatta: just seen, heard, tasted. Maha: You feel universe. Universe eats. Determinism is not necessarily leaving things to fate. It can be leaving things to conditions, or dependent origination. Empty out everything from source to dependent origination is your view.

 

in other words we cannot leave things to fate and do nothing, and because there is no such thing as fate but only action and reaction, so conventionally we are the masters of our life through our actions,

 

That contradicts:

 

there is no doer or controller of actions and thoughts (there are the manifestations of will and intention tho).

 

There is no doer, no controller. No one but just manifestation, d.o. and conditions rolling along (why don't you quote the part from the Visuddhimagga that says that). That is your view. We went over this a long time ago and this was the conclusion we reached.

[xabir2005]

You want others to know, because you want to help them, about things you do not even have direct realizations of? Why, because it is Buddhist? IMO, that's a very condescending manner and has an underlying dogmatic tendency to it. You may not notice it yourself. I for one, do not understand why from years ago you would defend Thusness's teachings when you yourself did not have sufficient realizations yourself. That's just pure faith clothed in wisdom.

 

You should stop quoting because you have a tendency to excessively rely on them to help your points. Often times your posts lack any personal reasoning or explanations but is just a cut and paste splatter. This not only gives off a false sense of knowledge, but of authority.

 

Why do you need to revert to a quote to express your own realizations? Are you incapable to expressing them yourself? We are not discussing sutras or teachings of Padmasambhava or the Karmapa. We are discussing your methods and realizations.

 

Most people are busy, lazy or do not have the mindset to go read Buddhist texts in depth to check if indeed your interpretation is correct. Buddhism heavily relies on context and needs to be digested widely. Hand picking quotes is not only misguiding but is really taking advantage of other people's lack of knowledge in Buddhist texts, especially in a forum where a range of spirituality is respected.

 

I speak what I realized... Well it was not always the case, of course I used to speak by knowledge years back. Actually this is a good practice because in buddhism, establishing right view is actually helpful and important for realization. That is why in those days years back, thusness often tell me to write summaries of what I learnt - I think it is helpful as I was able to sort through what I know, and increase my clarity about them.

 

That is why learning and explaining is important and meritorious as I quoted earlier.

 

I don't think it is wrong to quote and why does quoting mean resorting to authority? It could simply be that it was well put, and secondly it will be good for those who do not know buddhist texts to get some knowledge about them. If you notice I also quote the urls of the quotes usually so they can read indepth if they are interested.

 

Anyway i did explain in my own words, sometimes, sometimes not, most ofte I did offer some explanation as well as some quotes from others.

[goldisheavy]

I myself would be happy to share what little I now know of the Dharma here at Taobums except I fear I would be shouted down about how spiritually unrealized I am and thus don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Are you afraid of criticism? You shouldn't be. I suggest that you welcome criticism. The quality of criticism is impossible to control and some of it will be closer to mindless shouting while some of it will be cogently presented in a way that may prompt further healthy contemplation on your part.

 

Why not share whatever you think is worth sharing, and then let the world do its best toward you, whatever that is? I think you may find it's actually not as bad as you imagine.

[Todd]

Hi Marblehead,

 

The translation is by Red Pine. It is a translation and not just an interpretation. He compared several different Chinese texts, including two earlier versions (older versions) that were recently discovered in the Mawangdui tombs. Some of the departures from your chosen translation are due to variations that he included from those earlier texts. Some of the departures are due to your chosen text's tendency to insert meaning that does not belong in the first place. Some of the departures, I will admit, are due to Red Pine's interpretation. But in my experience Red Pine's translation is as faithful to the Chinese as any that I have encountered.

 

I won't get into all of the variations, but mostly those that are vital for what I was trying to show.

 

The first point is not vital, but I will address it. Most translations are like your translation "great virtue", instead of Red Pine's "empty virtue". The Chinese is 孔德 kong de. De is virtue. Kong is a hole, or very. Perhaps in the Chinese of Laozi's time this was used to mean great. One might wonder why "hole" means "great". Of course there are a lot of good reasons for this, especially to us guys, but that doesn't change the "hole" nature of kong.

 

The second point is vital. Red Pine's translation is "Tao as a thing", which can also be read as "Tao as things". Henrick's translation is "As for the nature of the Way". The Chinese is 道之为物 dao zhi wei wu. Dao zhi wei, is translated as "Tao as", wu is translated as "a thing". It can also mean substance or creature. Nature, in the sense of one's character, is a completely different character: 性 xing, which also means sex. Later on, Henrick translates 物 wu as "things" where Red Pine translates it as "a creature". Either way, we've got an aspect of Tao that is a thing or things.

 

As to "waxes and wanes" vs "Formless! Shapeless!", I don't need to tell you that there are no exclamation marks in classical Chinese. Red Pine follows Mawangdui texts here, reading the usual 恍huang as 朢wang. Wang means the 15th day of the Lunar month, which is the day of the full moon. 沕wu means something like can't be seen, or formless. Taken together the give an image of a full moon, and a new moon (can't be seen), and thus "waxes and wanes". Not super important, but instructive of the way that Red Pine has really done his homework in making these translations.

 

In Chapter 4, both translations agree that the Way/Tao is empty.

 

Henrick's translation of the second line is "Yet when you use it, you never need fill it again." Red Pine's is "Those who use it/ Never become full again." The Chinese is 而用之 。又不盈 er yong zhi, you bu ying. "Er" is a conjunction, which can mean "and" or "but", or a particle indicating causality. "Yong" is "to use". "Zhi" is a particle. I don't see much difference in meaning in the first part, though Red Pine interprets it as indicating causality, and so he says "The Tao is so empty / Those who use it"-- the "so" indicates causality. Both translators add a subject. For Red Pine "those", for Henrick "you". The second part is rather different, "Never become full again" vs "you never need fill it again". The Chinese: you=again, bu=no, ying=full or filled. The simplest translation is "Never again full". This doesn't make sense in English without a verb: Red Pine chooses "become", though "are" might be less interpretive, though neither changes the meaning much. Henrick adds a subject again "you", and he adds "need", while changing the adjective "full" to the verb "fill", then for good measure he adds an "it". I'm sure he has his reasons, but on the surface it sure seems like more interpretation to me. Not only is it more interpretive, but it doesn't make any sense. If the Way is empty, then how is that after one has used it, one does not need to fill it again? When was it filled in the first place, such that it would need to be filled again? I'm not understanding that, but maybe you can do better.

The bare bones of my point, however, is that in Laotzu's Taoteching, there is a level of Tao that is equated with things, and Tao is also stated to be empty, hence things are empty.

It might be worth reconsidering your understanding of the Taoteching, though I think that you would rather abandon it than change your views.

The emptiness of things does not change their very real appearances, it just opens a world of possibilities.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I speak what I realized... Well it was not always the case, of course I used to speak by knowledge years back. Actually this is a good practice because in buddhism, establishing right view is actually helpful and important for realization. That is why in those days years back, thusness often tell me to write summaries of what I learnt - I think it is helpful as I was able to sort through what I know, and increase my clarity about them.

You already knew what you were supposed to know. That's not really inquiry or establishing any sort of view. That's why you have a hard time actually debating points with your own words and anecdotes without quoting or through Thusness's words.

 

That is why learning and explaining is important and meritorious as I quoted earlier.

 

I don't think it is wrong to quote and why does quoting mean resorting to authority? It could simply be that it was well put, and secondly it will be good for those who do not know buddhist texts to get some knowledge about them. If you notice I also quote the urls of the quotes usually so they can read indepth if they are interested.

 

Anyway i did explain in my own words, sometimes, sometimes not, most ofte I did offer some explanation as well as some quotes from others.

It is a resort to an authority when we are debating using reason, unless that discussion centers around a certain quote or a passage. It's basically, "it's true because x said so." It shows that you are incapable of using your own understanding to coherently relay a point and somehow your personal experience is better understood in another person's linguistic framework. This also partially reveals that you have conditioned yourself according to that framework in the first place.

 

p.s. Buddhist texts that you've picked out. Articles you've selected.

[goldisheavy]

Hi Marblehead,

 

The translation is by Red Pine. It is a translation and not just an interpretation.

 

Interesting. I wish people like Red Pine would translate more obscure works and not just the famous ones. Daoist cannon, from what I've read about it, is huge. Why do people only translate Daodejing? Why not translate say 50-100 different works? Currently I think we have something like ten-ish works translated.

 

I mean, just look at the bottom of this page, what do we have translated from it? Something like 4 books or so?

 

It seems like the only way to read it all is to learn Chinese.

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead,

 

The translation is by Red Pine.

 

I don't have his translation and I don't remember ever reading it. Perhaps one day.

 

The bare bones of my point, however, is that in Laotzu's Taoteching, there is a level of Tao that is equated with things, and Tao is also stated to be empty, hence things are empty.

 

Yes, the Mystery is oftentime regarded as empty but as it is potential, in my mind, it is not empty.

 

It might be worth reconsidering your understanding of the Taoteching, though I think that you would rather abandon it than change your views.

 

I think that might be an absolute. Hehehe.

 

The emptiness of things does not change their very real appearances, it just opens a world of possibilities.

 

I will remain to be anti-emptiness as it is too negative a concept for my life. Potential is so much more powerful.

 

As to this:

 

"If the Way is empty, then how is that after one has used it, one does not need to fill it again? When was it filled in the first place, such that it would need to be filled again? I'm not understanding that, but maybe you can do better."

 

Here is the translation of Line 1, Chapter 4 by Sanderson Beck:

 

The Way is infinite; its use is never exhausted.

 

This is much closer to my understanding than any other translation I can think of right now. (Note that there is no use of the word "empty", only unlimited potential.

[goldisheavy]

I will remain to be anti-emptiness as it is too negative a concept for my life. Potential is so much more powerful.

 

Negative and positive, yin and yang, empty and full, it all has value.

[Marblehead]

Negative and positive, yin and yang, empty and full, it all has value.

 

You are so very right, IMO.

 

My coffe cup is presently empty. It has unlimited potential. However, I wish it had some coffee in it so that I could drink some coffee. I think I will remedy that condition.

[Marblehead]

I think I will remedy that condition.

 

There. Now my coffee cup has limited potential as it is filled with coffee.

[xabir2005]

You already knew what you were supposed to know. That's not really inquiry or establishing any sort of view. That's why you have a hard time actually debating points with your own words and anecdotes without quoting or through Thusness's words.

 

 

It is a resort to an authority when we are debating using reason, unless that discussion centers around a certain quote or a passage. It's basically, "it's true because x said so." It shows that you are incapable of using your own understanding to coherently relay a point and somehow your personal experience is better understood in another person's linguistic framework. This also partially reveals that you have conditioned yourself according to that framework in the first place.

 

p.s. Buddhist texts that you've picked out. Articles you've selected.

 

sometimes texts provide reasoning too and sometimes they support my reasoning. If a discussion calls for reasoning I will try to explain in my own words too but sometimes what is necessary is simply relentless inquiry into emptiness or anatta - just as rt always ignore the nonsense people spout and ruthlessly ask them to investigate no self. You can't reason yourself into truth... But of course when possible I will try to explain what this is about, and then it is up to the person to investigate it for themselves and truth will reveal on its own accord.

 

The Buddha didn't give a lot of reasonings or he did but are limited cos truth can't be approached intellectually. I can give a simple analysis like chandrakirti sevenfold reasonings but it is limited how logic can comprehend something that is direct and upfront so to speak, just as I don't think it makes sense to write a logical thesis on "the logic/philosophy of luminosity" or "the logic of impermanence" from an insight perspective, since these are simply truths to be discovered through non conceptual insight instead of logical reasoning. When you realize I AM, this isn't a realization derived from the use of logic - it is not an inferred truth, but a basic fact being realized to be so. Same for non dual, anatta, etc. So someone uneducated and intellectually dull may very well realize emptiness without reading the philosophy of nagarjuna (and I must admit I never read much of those) by following the pithy pointers of mahamudra or dzogchen teachers.

 

So the Buddha instead asked people to contemplate and observe anatta in meditation such as vipassana. Also in bahiya sutta, he simply gave a short teaching on anatta after which bahiya immediately got liberated, and he was praised, "Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

 

The variety of Buddhist texts point to twofold emptiness so what I picked and the countless other scriptural texts, most I have never read before, wouldn't disagree. I just don't have time to read the long sutras... Yet. I only read short texts and excerpts from others.

 

Also, having a framework is fine - there will be times where your understanding disagrees with a framework as your framework of duality and inherency is still intact (regardless if you knew about anatta, d.o. Etc intellectually) - even though I had a general understanding of anatta I still held on to an unchanging awareness for eight months from the point of realizing I AM, before I realized Anatta, after which the insights deepened and d.o. And emptiness became experientially clear. All these insights came rather quickly because I had been trained in the view of the twofold emptiness and d.o since years ago (without which I would probably still be stuck at I AM level of understanding right now)... So I kept investigating accordingly (such as bahiya sutta, mahamudra pointing outs etc) along with the right view.

 

Then at some point, when there is true realization and experience the framework may have served its purpose and like a raft is cast aside at the other shore - but also not to leave the raft too early in favour of "non conceptual experiences", otherwise you will not see the subtler truths about emptiness. First have right view, then experience and investigate and see for yourself... Imo this is best

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The difference is lucky says "there is no reality other than mind" which means mind has reality. I say, and like third karmapa said, even mind is empty without reality, but being empty its manifestations are infinite and unceasing and its essence is luminous clarity. Emptiness, luminosity and manifestation are inseperable.

 

Also, determinism and free will are extremes that depend on subject object dichotomy to which I do not admit. One is self being controlled by objects, the other is objects controlled by self.

 

 

From what I can tell here, you are not saying that mind does not exist at all. You do admit that it has a reality in its manifestations.

 

It's just the way that you're choosing to make your points end with the sort of disclaimer that all is empty.

 

From my perspective, Lucky would have immense difficulty accepting that you have realized Annata for yourself, no matter what. Ending your points with these type of disclaimers allows Lucky to grab on to them and throw them back at you, and I'm getting the sense that maybe want him to, since the way you add this "disclaimer" sort of hides your thoughts that agree with the "emptiness is form" side of the middle path doctrine.

 

I think you are recognizing existence, but there's sort of like a taboo that you have to add the "non-existence disclaimer" at the end, just for thoroughness sake and not to get pinned down on the other side, outside of the middle path. Because of this tendency, Lucky decides that you are just parroting, not seeing through the disclaimer that seems to paint over the previous statements which did acknowledge the "Existence is of Form" side.

 

So, since Lucky is very concerned that mis-statements are not posted here, he argues against this disclaimer since it seems to read as the concluding point rather than just added for good measure. The other issue being that Lucky has some instinct, possibly because of the disclaimer tendency, that you are just parroting your statements, and so he will continue to argue against anything you back up with sources, but you want other people to be able to investigate the statements from these writings, so Lucky's instincts are alerted.

 

 

The other issue that perpetuates the misunderstandings is that:

 

Maybe you are, in a way, hiding behind the sources "argue with them (good luck) not me" rather than taking the chance of summoning your own literary genius only to share it with people who don't even want to take it seriously. That would suggest that you are human and not "perfect," but does not on it's own prove that you haven't experienced what those writings talk about, even if you haven't experienced every last level and detail described in them.

 

 

Anyone else see it this way?

[Informer]

http://oaks.nvg.org/padmasambhava.html

 

First Charge

E-ma-ho!

 

Or emaho: Interjection expressive of compassion for all living creatures - cf. W. Y. E.-W. [203n].

One mind embraces the whole Sangsara and Nirvana eternally, ever clear, radiant and not visible [cf. 203].

Sangsara: the manifested Universe, Nirvana, the state beyond. - TK]

Sacred Scriptures [otherwise] contain but few words relating to knowledge of the mind and the fit way of applying it practically [cf. 204].

Second Charge

Kye! Blessed ones, listen well.

 

Kye is use as an invocation; here as a charge, and may be translated as 'O!' - See W. Y. E.-W. [204n].

Mind is widespread.*

Individuals who do not know the mind, do not know themselves [205].

 

Those fettered by desires, lack self-control [cf. 205].

 

Unsound beliefs and practices result in increased bondage - W. Y. E.-W. [205-6n]

 

There is really no duality, so pluralism is untrue [206].

 

By attaining at-one-ment, duality is is transcended [206].

 

The perception of the whole Sangsara and Nirvana, as an inseparable unity, are in one's mind [cf. 207].

 

This aphorism [The whole Sangsara and Nirvana, as an inseparable unity, are one's mind] expounds most succinctly the ultimate teaching - W. Y. W.-E. [207n]

Practicing Dharma, free from attachment, grasp the essence of the teachings by knowing Reality [cf. 207].

Third Charge

Mind is intuitive "quick-knowing" [cf. 208].

 

The deep mind is also termed prajna, wisdom-awakening beyond reasoning [208, 208n].

The One Mind is the source of all Sangsara and bliss beyond [cf. 208].

One's mind-self is different from one's soul (atman) [cf. 208].

 

Mind-self: sems-nyid (pronounced sem-nyi). Atman (from Sanskrit) is soul; cp. Tibetan bdag (pronounced dag), self or ego [208, 208n-209n].

"The Great Symbol" (Mahamudra), is of the highest (or subtlest) at-one-ment and (Inner) Essence.

Sanskrit Maha-Mudra, Great Symbol, etc., is Anuttara, the highest and final doctrine, also known as Dharma Karma, of practically applied doings - [cf. 209, 209n].

Subtle Essence is an All-foundation [cf. 209, 209n].

[JustARandomPanda]

The quality of criticism is impossible to control and some of it will be closer to mindless shouting while some of it will be cogently presented in a way that may prompt further healthy contemplation on your part.

 

I am already engaging in Anapana. I haven't reached the stage of Contemplation yet unlike you or others on this site. Until I reach the stage of cessation of thought "Healthy Contemplation" isn't even an option.

 

Why not share whatever you think is worth sharing, and then let the world do its best toward you, whatever that is? I think you may find it's actually not as bad as you imagine.

 

It has to do with the fact that I am not capable of 'debate' or 'discussing' my views with any sort of standard of intelligence and logic which I feel this site has aquired over time.

 

The moment I post my views or understanding of Buddhist sutra somebody somewhere is going to A ) come in and tell me how I'm either interpreting wrong due to experiential ignorance and clinging or B ) show how my view is inherently illogical or contradictory. High level and I do mean VERY high level debates due to high level cultivation attainments go on at this site all the time now - you yourself being one of the most prominant reasons it's such a high level.

 

I am a simple person with simple views. I have not reached the stage of Contemplation of my views that you are saying is neccessary and healthy (a view I agree with). I do not have the ability to debate endlessly what's oh-so wrong with my POV. Which is what almost all of these high level debates have become.

 

To put it down in simple terms I feel like the playing field is more level if I were to debate my POVs with someone like Marblehead than you. You don't match a Division AAA team with a Division A.

[Informer]

I am already engaging in Anapana. I haven't reached the stage of Contemplation yet unlike you or others on this site. Until I reach the stage of cessation of thought "Healthy Contemplation" isn't even an option.

 

 

 

It has to do with the fact that I am not capable of 'debate' or 'discussing' my views with any sort of standard of intelligence and logic which I feel this site has aquired over time.

 

The moment I post my views or understanding of Buddhist sutra somebody somewhere is going to A ) come in and tell me how I'm either interpreting wrong due to experiential ignorance and clinging or B ) show how my view is inherently illogical or contradictory. High level and I do mean VERY high level debates due to high level cultivation attainments go on at this site all the time now - you yourself being one of the most prominant reasons it's such a high level.

 

I am a simple person with simple views. I have not reached the stage of Contemplation of my views that you are saying is neccessary and healthy (a view I agree with). I do not have the ability to debate endlessly what's oh-so wrong with my POV. Which is what almost all of these high level debates have become.

 

To put it down in simple terms I feel like the playing field is more level if I were to debate my POVs with someone like Marblehead than you. You don't match a Division AAA team with a Division A.

 

You should cherish criticism as it will aid in understanding.

 

If you put the sensitivity into other things besides you, I think that it will form an empathy that could stem the greatest of compassion.

[JustARandomPanda]

You should cherish criticism as it will aid in understanding.

 

Thank you for sharing your POV.

[Informer]

Thank you for sharing your POV.

It's not my POV just a POV.

 

There is nothing to own in a POV, it is just one way to look at things.

 

I know your probably thinking Semantics, who needs them, but it is these subtlties that will bind or release.

[Todd]

Interesting. I wish people like Red Pine would translate more obscure works and not just the famous ones. Daoist cannon, from what I've read about it, is huge. Why do people only translate Daodejing? Why not translate say 50-100 different works? Currently I think we have something like ten-ish works translated.

 

I mean, just look at the bottom of this page, what do we have translated from it? Something like 4 books or so?

 

It seems like the only way to read it all is to learn Chinese.

 

 

Yeah, it would be nice if more works were translated well. I think the website that you linked to gives some of the reasons why not. Also, there doesn't seem to be as much of a market for these, in comparison to Buddhist texts. Also, I think it is a lot harder to make a translations of these that will be of use to people. Zhuangzi in particular is known as being very difficult to understand, even in the Chinese. Apparently, many of the characters that he used are only known to have been used by him. If you look them up in a dictionary, the only definition is "used in Zhuangzi". Apparently he had a thing for neologisms.

 

A lot of the works that are listed at the bottom of your link have been translated, though I can't say anything about the quality of most of the translations. Sometimes the translations are hard to find, since they don't come up by simply searching for the name of the text.

 

For example:

 

The Huangting Neijing Yu Jing.

 

and

 

The Cantong Qi.

 

Some of them are also only available as expensive academic translations (reflecting the limited audience). In particular the Huainan Zi, and good translations of the Huangdi Neijing, the best of which apparently can only be gotten through contacting the author and it is in the $100-200 range (the author is Henry C. Lu, though I do not have it to comment on. Seems some people don't like this translation either.).

 

I guess its roughly analogous to the situation for non-English speakers and science. There is some available, but to really participate in the discourse, one needs to learn English. The main difference is that many/most people in the world have some exposure to English instruction, especially if they might pursue science, but very few outside of Asia have exposure to Chinese instruction.

 

Learning to read Chinese is doable, if you are willing to devote some time to it (like 2-4 hrs a day for a year or two), though to get to a near native level might take a long time.