Compassion

[Aetherous]

What is relevant about that quote, is the authors attachment to the relative. Thanks for revealing another misguided Buddhist.

 

I know that your heart has been harmed in many ways throughout your life, and that the discussion in this thread has caused you to go into a violent and bitter defensive mode. Sometimes that's necessary. Just want you to know that you can drop it...no one is going to harm you here. In fact, you're just harming yourself with that state of mind.

[C T]

 

One of the first steps is the realization that the relative is relative,...and its OK to to talk about it.

 

The truth is, the absolute cannot be realized through the relative,...the 6 senses cannot observe the absolute. Does not matter if an absolute is or not,...what is, is that it cannot be realized through the 6 senses.

 

Of course its ok to talk about it... that is obvious, and that is what others have been trying (exhaustively) to tell you, but what is exasperating is that you switch from one aspect to the other, then switch back and forth, which simply adds confusion and unnecessary head-banging off walls. This is why its not at all useful to engage with you.

 

Another thing, why do you always assume that rebuttals arise due to emotional reactions in those who debate with you? Strange characteristic you have. Not pleasant at all. Only saying...

[idiot_stimpy]

Vmarco I'm really enjoying reading your posts. Thank you

[Ya Mu]

My suggestion is that members read VMarco's posts as if they are containing something helpful.

 

I would love to see some responses that are making the effort to see what is constructive in VMarco's stance. There is no need to take what is said personally. It is an opportunity to learn something, as everything is.

...

We can wonder what grain of truth VMarco's posts might be showing us. It might be more helpful to look for the grain of truth than to repudiate.

This thread is full of gems that have not been talked about. Why not, as you say, look for the positive learning experience?

 

Here are some of the points of Vmarco's that I thought were gems, along with some IMO thoughts:

 

... No,..."we all" are not on the same page regarding yin and yang,...few understand them relatively,...nearly none understand them absolutely.

 

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative." Shantideva

...

Everything you see and think is attached to Form (yang),...thus, seeing and thinking alone, is a barrier to the integration necessary to realize the Tao.

 

...

As for compassion,..it cannot be developed, for it is a quality that is uncovered through our own liberation.

 

Lao Tzu purportedly said, "If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of your self."

 

No one can awaken all of their self, without understanding the Great Feminine.

...

 

"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect"

I would think most would agree with this; especially anyone who actually practiced inner Chinese arts. Anyone practicing pure mental techniques may not, because it would challenge mental concepts.

 

It seems the argument about this statement is where it comes from. I propose that it wouldn't matter if it came from a falling down drunk person in a bar. I think it boils down to truth is truth no matter where it comes from.

 

...

If Buddha was pointing to the ultimate source, and Lao Tzu was pointing to the ultimate source, then both must match,...or one or both are wrong.

...

Having an integrated practice of Buddhist, Taoist, and shamanic techniques leads me to the same conclusion. Any perceived conflict in the teachings is only due to one's own personal mental trap. Although frankly I will say that to me, these being umbrella terms does allow mistranslated texts and misunderstood concepts to enter the picture and this can certainly lead to confusion not only in these systems but in all "systems". To me, the overall picture is FAR more important.

 

Spoken like an arrogant, cerebral-centric American who gets his information from wiki.

...

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."

-Thomas Jefferson

...

Agree that wiki leaves a lot to be desired and is often filled with not well researched information; to think of it as absolute good source is often truly misleading. But IMO nothing wrong with a person consulting wiki for quick overviews of a subject if they are willing to dig deeper based on what they read and know. Thought I would point out that all Americans are not cerebral-centric; just like the rest of the world this country does contain cerebral-centric people and non-cerebral centric people.

 

Good TJ quote.

My understanding is that no information is valid (totally embraced by) for any particular person, even if it is truth, until confirmed by the true-heart (I believe this to be the same as your "heart-mind") of that person. Otherwise it will always be something that is just mentally believed to be true and not something embraced by the whole person. This confirmation is how each of us can KNOW if something is really true as it becomes self-evident and until it becomes self-evident it is only a belief.

 

"...But likely your physical senior, with ten times more experience, as spirituality (not religion) has been a full time occupation for roughly the last 37 years. ..."

As a physical senior also with about the same long-term experience as you I do agree that some who post on this board do not take into account the validity of long-term experience. I also think the opinion will not truly change until a person has that long-term experience for themselves. At which point they will face the younger generation where there will be many that exhibit the same non-respect for long-term experience. I also believe that sometimes a fresh perspective can also refresh our own thinking; especially our methods of explaining what we do know.

 

...

The truth is, the absolute cannot be realized through the relative,...the 6 senses cannot observe the absolute. Does not matter if an absolute is or not,...what is, is that it cannot be realized through the 6 senses.

 

"don't seek love, but seek and find all the bariers you have built against it" Now, exchange the word "love" with liberation, enlightenment, Unborn Awareness, etc.

 

V

Nice. I have found this true in my own life. We can never solve any problem or arrive at any higher level understanding on the level of that problem or understanding. In our energetics system I speak of your 2nd sentence I quoted as "dissolving filters".

[Jetsun]

Muted

Then you haven't heard much of HH Dalai Lama. As you profess to like TV, try the DVD, HH Dalai Lana on the 4 Noble Truths. http://www.downtr.co/1011757-dalai-lama-four-noble-truths-2012.html

 

If you study the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Buddhist teachings such as Lojong at depth it is clear why he often teaches the importance of relative limited compassion, because within those teachings there are many meditations which involve invoking the love your mother has for you and extending it as well as evoking limited compassion and extending it to all beings equally. Essentially those teachings are meditations on limited compassion in order to realise the truth of unlimited, which is why the Dalai Lama says in his autobiography that the most important compassion he ever received was the limited compassion of his mother because that allowed him to realise the truth of unlimited compassion in emptiness, so if you understand the way this teaching works relative compassion is fundamental because it is the root or building block which allows further realisations of unlimited heart.

 

There are other methods of course to realise emptiness and big compassion which are equally valid , it can be done through the mind or body, but the Tibetan way is through the heart and through the means of limited compassion.

[C T]

Muted

 

If you study the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Buddhist teachings such as Lojong at depth it is clear why he often teaches the importance of relative limited compassion, because within those teachings there are many meditations which involve invoking the love your mother has for you and extending it as well as evoking limited compassion and extending it to all beings equally. Essentially those teachings are meditations on limited compassion in order to realise the truth of unlimited, which is why the Dalai Lama says in his autobiography that the most important compassion he ever received was the limited compassion of his mother because that allowed him to realise the truth of unlimited compassion in emptiness, so if you understand the way this teaching works relative compassion is fundamental because it is the root or building block which allows further realisations of unlimited heart.

 

There are other methods of course to realise emptiness and big compassion which are equally valid , it can be done through the mind or body, but the Tibetan way is through the heart and through the means of limited compassion.

Well said.

[konchog uma]

I don't think compassion is all that hard to understand. We don't need to put in on a high philosophical pedestal. In my opinion, like many concepts the best way to understand compassion is through stories and parables. And the best way to show it is action.

 

amen

[Vmarco]

[C T]

 

You may try to attack my Heart, but the essence of Heart cannot be penetrated by the relative in that way,...

Perceiving an attack is as harmful, if not more, than being actually attacked. Why? Because you are imagining and plotting all sorts of stories in your head, while in actuality, imo, no attack nor vicious intention did Scotty have in posting that. Vmarco should take a step back, evaluate her response, and abide by her own advice because some of it is actually very proper.

 

If you truly abide in the absolute (as claimed) then how do you reconcile your reactionary responses with all that you espouse? It all appears very contradictory. Funnily enough, having observed thus, i already (almost) can feel what you will say to this.. You are quite predictable by now, seemingly hemmed in by your own inflexible, absolute and extreme position.

[Aetherous]

The Heart can NEVER be harmed.

 

Or you could get real for a second.

 

As for your personal take on Buddhist philosophy, relative truth is by definition not false, and is not a prison to escape from.

[Vmarco]

[三江源]

The Heart can NEVER be harmed.

 

Or you could get real for a second.

 

As for your personal take on Buddhist philosophy, relative truth is by definition not false, and is not a prison to escape from.

 

Isnt a lot of the seeming 'disagreement' in this thread to do with relative stances of viewpoint? It seems to me VMarco has a radical/fundamental/cutting through viewpoint, and others have viewpoints from ...wherever their stance is.

 

Isnt it true + true here, rather than true v false.

 

Maybe the issue is what stance do we choose, and why?

 

I doubt it is just me that knows the experience of speaking to someone from an everyday level about one's feelings and being undercut by being told 'well, you have no self anyway' and feeling the sophistry of switching frameworks suddenly being a great denial technique + truth...

[dwai]

Isnt a lot of the seeming 'disagreement' in this thread to do with relative stances of viewpoint? It seems to me VMarco has a radical/fundamental/cutting through viewpoint, and others have viewpoints from ...wherever their stance is.

 

Isnt it true + true here, rather than true v false.

 

Maybe the issue is what stance do we choose, and why?

 

I doubt it is just me that knows the experience of speaking to someone from an everyday level about one's feelings and being undercut by being told 'well, you have no self anyway' and feeling the sophistry of switching frameworks suddenly being a great denial technique + truth...

There in lies the greatest fallacy of no self. The truth is that the no self is all that is not the real self. That doesnt mean there is no self, only that what people consider self is not the real self.

 

And those who misunderstand this basic fact tend to have all sorts of wishywashy ideas and structures built upon this fallacious foundation. Suddenly they think they know....when really they dont know.

 

It is the case of letting a view nuance the interpretation....its better to experience without interpreting....so no words would be necessary.

[Vmarco]

 

I doubt it is just me that knows the experience of speaking to someone from an everyday level about one's feelings and being undercut by being told 'well, you have no self anyway' and feeling the sophistry of switching frameworks suddenly being a great denial technique + truth...

 

Certainly,...however, TTB is not "everyday level" dialogue,...although some may want it be. Most here would not recognize me in a physical conversation in an "everyday level" environment. When I'm at a grocery store, nearly everyone smiles. Yesterday, the checkout girl sneezed, and a male person behind me said "god bless you." I looked at the girl puzzlingly and asked, "are you a christian?" She happily responded, "no, but who doesn't like to be blessed." At which point we smiled together.

[三江源]

There in lies the greatest fallacy of no self. The truth is that the no self is all that is not the real self. That doesnt mean there is no self, only that what people consider self is not the real self.

 

And those who misunderstand this basic fact tend to have all sorts of wishywashy ideas and structures built upon this fallacious foundation. Suddenly they think they know....when really they dont know.

 

It is the case of letting a view nuance the interpretation....its better to experience without interpreting....so no words would be necessary.

 

so..is it that, say, ones 'real self' cannot have a heart that is harmed... and the self from which one experiences day to day living can feel harmed in the heart centre... if that is the case, then can one live day to day as ones 'real self'...

[三江源]

Certainly,...however, TTB is not "everyday level" dialogue,...although some may want it be. Most here would not recognize me in a physical conversation in an "everyday level" environment. When I'm at a grocery store, nearly everyone smiles. Yesterday, the checkout girl sneezed, and a male person behind me said "god bless you." I looked at the girl puzzlingly and asked, "are you a christian?" She happily responded, "no, but who doesn't like to be blessed." At which point we smiled together.

 

Exactly. You are capable of stance movement! We all are mobile in such a way. Integration is the issue.

[Aaron]

Certainly,...however, TTB is not "everyday level" dialogue,...although some may want it be. Most here would not recognize me in a physical conversation in an "everyday level" environment. When I'm at a grocery store, nearly everyone smiles. Yesterday, the checkout girl sneezed, and a male person behind me said "god bless you." I looked at the girl puzzlingly and asked, "are you a christian?" She happily responded, "no, but who doesn't like to be blessed." At which point we smiled together.

 

Did you ask yourself why you refer to the clerk as a girl and the man as a male person? You're attributing human attributes to the girl, but not to the man. That might be something you could examine. For me it seems like you view woman as people and men as objects. If you're raising a son or sons, I can't remember which, if you have this kind of bias, they'll know and it will effect them in the long run. I'm not pointing this out to put you on the spot, but rather to make you aware of an observation.

 

Aaron

Edited April 18, 2012 by Twinner

[JustARandomPanda]

There in lies the greatest fallacy of no self. The truth is that the no self is all that is not the real self. That doesnt mean there is no self, only that what people consider self is not the real self.

 

 

Hmm..

 

It was my understanding this was THE constant source of disagreement between you and Xabir and Vajrahidaya. They said your interpretation goes against what the Buddha himself taught (with Xabir doing his usual lengthy cut and paste of Buddhist Suttas/Sutras) and that your PoV (posited above) ultimately was not disputing with either of them but rather was disputing with the Buddha.

[dwai]

Hmm..

 

It was my understanding this was THE constant source of disagreement between you and Xabir and Vajrahidaya. They said your interpretation goes against what the Buddha himself taught (with Xabir doing his usual lengthy cut and paste of Buddhist Suttas/Sutras) and that your PoV (posited above) ultimately was not disputing with either of them but rather was disputing with the Buddha.

It is the result of them not understanding the buddha's teachings. But im sure many "buddhists" disagree with me...