Empty Your Cup

[Apech]

21 minutes ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.

 

It cannot be defined.

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.
 

How about, "define the nature of human reality?"
 

There can… come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

... When a presence of mind is retained as the placement of attention shifts, then the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention draws out thoughts initial and sustained, and brings on... concentration:

 

… there is no need to depend on teaching. But the most important thing is to practice and realize our true nature… [laughs]. This is, you know, Zen.

 

(Shunryu Suzuki, Tassajara 68-07-24)

 

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

(in 500 words or less...)

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Mark Foote

[stirling]

15 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

They should be skilfully manipulated, so the practitioner can awaken to reality (wuzhen). The goal of one line of neidan. 

 

My answer is being answered from a Buddhist perspective. That might be the philosophy of cultivation traditions, but it is not shared in Buddhism, generally speaking. In Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism it is understood that one is always ALREADY enlightened, but lacks the insight to see that it is so. From the perspective of enlightened mind NO practice actually illuminates the student, they merely make one "accident prone". 

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” - Shunryu Suzuki Roshi

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.

 

I am referring to: Dao, emptiness, Buddha nature, non-duality, "Self", etc.

 

Define it? There are thousands of ways to do that, but today it looks like the simple, still awareness that underlies all experiencing, having no center, "self", time, or space. 

[old3bob]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

It cannot be defined.

 

Even by the Beatles?

[ralis]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I am referring to: Dao, emptiness, Buddha nature, non-duality, "Self", etc.

 

Define it? There are thousands of ways to do that, but today it looks like the simple, still awareness that underlies all experiencing, having no center, "self", time, or space. 

 

That is how nihilism is defined. No self is Advaita Vedanta belief system. None of your definitions are provable, but are based on myth. 

[stirling]

22 minutes ago, ralis said:

That is how nihilism is defined. No self is Advaita Vedanta belief system. None of your definitions are provable, but are based on myth. 

 

Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. Life as an individual IS ultimately meaningless, but not at all in the way one would imagine, and certainly not in a nihilistic fashion. The Advaita Vedanta system believes in the "Self" - NO-self is Buddhism. 

 

Only experiential knowledge is proof, though it is possible to point to emptiness where the student has a few months of decent meditation under their belt. It isn't based in myth my friend, it is based on thousands of years of realization. There are enlightened beings all over the place, if you care and you are paying attention. If you live near a decent sized town there will be a few even there that could point you in the right direction. I know a number in my town. If the teachings were nonsense, why would anyone bother. Why do you bother with Qigong?

[ralis]

25 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. Life as an individual IS ultimately meaningless, but not at all in the way one would imagine, and certainly not in a nihilistic fashion. The Advaita Vedanta system believes in the "Self" - NO-self is Buddhism. 

 

Only experiential knowledge is proof, though it is possible to point to emptiness where the student has a few months of decent meditation under their belt. It isn't based in myth my friend, it is based on thousands of years of realization. There are enlightened beings all over the place, if you care and you are paying attention. If you live near a decent sized town there will be a few even there that could point you in the right direction. I know a number in my town. If the teachings were nonsense, why would anyone bother. Why do you bother with Qigong?

 

There is a vast difference between myth and fact which is my point. You assume I know nothing of which I am talking about. Moreover, I have been around most every teaching that is known in this world, and you assume I am not paying attention, or need direction! I have been around teachers that are dangerous and.................

 

Many over thousands of years have believed in nonsense, and yet, e.g., there are believers in a flat earth, and a young earth of 6k years old, but still vehemently adhere to religious mythos in the face of contradictory fact based evidence.

 

The Pali Canon is said to be the exact words of the Buddhas teachings, and was an oral transmission for over 500 years before it was written down. Is that factual, or based on myth? 

[liminal_luke]

If someone is doing something and they find it to be helpful in their own life, that´s good enough for me.  What´s the use of going around telling people not to do what they like?  Doesn´t mean, of course, that I need to take the philosophical underpinnings of their system as absolute gospel.  I listen and make up my own mind.  But this business of constantly putting down what everyone else is doing seems like a big energy sink to me -- don´t any of us have to go to work?