Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I understood this perfectly when I was 11. I learned about it on MTV.
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box
Religion, is a smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
i know what I know if you know what I mean
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Oh I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy, is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion, is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Do do ya
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what you are
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Da da da da
I say I say I say I do hey hey hey hey hey hey
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what you are
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Or what you are oh
Or what you are oh oh oh
Say what I am
Science is one of the major religions in this century.
I don't see it as a religion, it doesn't have large structures of faith and mysticism and it has a utility beyond controlling and mollifying.
What do you think the Buddha is thinking of when he speaks of science?
People who love science often attribute great powers to it, much like those who love their God praise His powers.
Maybe they do, I am not one of them. I dont know any.
On the other hand, the universe itself deserves some reverance in my mind.
Often people, who self style themselves as the holders of reason, are very attracted to science because the methods of science seem to plod along and make audacious claims to understanding, much as their thinking does.
One doesnt make claims to reason S9, one simply thinks reasonably. It isnt difficult to do, in fact its hard not to do it if you put your mind to it.
Buddha was a man
All men are mortal
Buddha was mortal.
<<< What is so controverisal about such reasonings?
Don’t believe everything you hear. ; ^ )
Oh trust me, i really dont.
Be mindful of this point: The seed of your disdain for the skeptical mind lays in your own mind.
Science is one of the major religions in this century. People who love science often attribute great powers to it, much like those who love their God praise His powers.
O dear. It's normally born again Christians I hear use this argument for evolution. Try to discredit science by saying it's just really a modern form of religion. It's just a different way of interpreting the world.
O dear. It's normally born again Christians I hear use this argument for evolution. Try to discredit science by saying it's just really a modern form of religion. It's just a different way of interpreting the world.
Exactly:)
Evidence for evolution, relativity, thermodyncamics... etc lots and lots.
Evidence for rebirth/heaven/god... meh...not so much.
J: You will die no matter what, and that is the only surety you will ever find.
S9: What about taxes? ; ^ ) KID DING ; ^ )
J: What you make of it is up to you.
S9: Isn’t that one of the points here…that most people don’t know what to make of it? It is one of the BIG question marks in their life.
And:
This is not to mention that the instinctive survival mechanism has us ALL by the throat.
: ^ (
There is much to be overcome, before we can claim to be fearless.
J: The Buddha claimed these types of questions are irrelevant.
S9: Irrelevant to what it was that he was trying to teach at the moment, no doubt. But surely the question of life and death is not irrelevant, when you are being chased by a man eating shark. : ^ (
I believe that thinking life and death is complete irrelevant, in all instances, would be taking Buddha's words out of context.
J: Indeed many embark on this quest for knowledge and end up empty and are miserable in the process.
S9: But than, I have run into a number of people who have stopped short, believing that Buddha's Awakening can’t be found, and that it is a sham. So many people are looking for a short cut. : ^ (
Many of the wisdom books I have read, say that 'perseverance' is one of our most important allies. So much that we look for simply can’t be found, "YET."
So:
How is one to divide what can’t be found, "YET," from what actually can’t be found at all?
Remember:
Buddha did tell us not to take his word for it, to look and find out for ourselves. Surely this would include not taking his word for what should be dropped without investigation.
There is a paradox here. Is there not? : ^ )
J: He is telling you that it is easier to simply not worry about those questions.
S9: When did knowing that worrying wasn’t fruitful, really ever stop most of us from worrying? We just change the name of ‘worrying,’ renaming it ‘planning,’ and go right on doing it. ; ^ )
“Quote: Old habits die hard.”
J: Instead immerse yourself in this world and penetrate this reality in all of its phenomenon rather than search for some other hidden meaning that is invisible or non-existent.
S9: Behind every mistaken notion, there is an ‘as yet’ invisible truth to be found. Perhaps it only seems non-existent because we haven’t found it, YET. Like the idea of germs was a crazy notion not sooo very long ago.
Certainly the perspective of an open mind makes a good deal of what we finally find, available to us. How is one to know when to slam a door shut, and lock it, even if at first glance that seems easier? Easier is not synonymous with right.
I would say that if something is driving you nuts or scaring the b-jesus out of you, like death so obviously does many, than it merits some of your attention until you can clear it up a bit.
J: My first post with the Sutta was intended for those struggling with questions such as whether one should believe in rebirth or not. I went through the same process and in my particular case, when I read this Sutta the answers to those questions that induce such fear became irrelevant to me. I am just simply sharing my insight.
S9: But, this is the thing, as I see it. Insights are a blessed event that happens TO YOU, and not necessarily something that you actually DO. So you can’t say, "DO this insight," to someone and just expect it to happen, just like that, anymore than that particular sutra would have made any difference in your life, if you happened to run into it when you were in the 2nd grade of elementary school.
S9: Ah confidence, a much better explanation, IMO. It shows that at least some of what you believe is based upon your personal experience. : ^ )
S: I have confidence in Buddhist teachings and meditation from experience. I see benefits to my own mind and heart and those of others.
S9: I would have to say, if it works for you, and improves your lot in life, than it is right for you in a more practical sense, if not a universal sense.
S: Is having emotion antithetical to meditation? How about having a body?
S9: There are many types of meditation. Some of these become so ratified that they leave everything behind.
Although, I consider Mindfulness to be a form of meditation, and that doesn’t disallow anything at all. Acceptance is its keyword.
S: Love is emotion, is it not?
S9: There are very many things or states that are called love. Many of these are quite different from each other. Are you familiar with the word agape? Some say agape is the highest form of love.
I must admit that love remains quite a mystery to me, not the more sentimental love people claim to understand. But, I doubt even this is actually understood.
In Islam, Love is one of the names of God.
I have been studying love, close at hand, for most of my life and am as yet unable to unravel its mysteries, and yet I do know this. I would be unable to live without it.
Metta is certainly a wonderful addition to our Buddhist compassion.
S: Why bother practicing at all if it doesn't lead to the development of positive qualities.
S9: To tell you the truth, I have no choice. My path is no longer something I do. It is who I am.
But attributes are not MY highest goal. I am a Buddhist Mystic. My goal is to go beyond ALL attributes.
Friendly Regards,
S9
Love has a specific meaning to me in the light of teachings I've received that point out the difference between love and attachment. Love is the wish for another being to be happy, and compassion is the wish for another being to be free of suffering.
Human beings have a mix of love and attachment, most of what we enjoy as 'romantic love' is the exaggerated (and delightful) state of attachment, and not love.
As we mature in our relationships we may include more love in the sense that I'm defining it.--that is based on Lam Rim teachings.
Notice how difficult it is to discuss this topic without me, me, me.
The suggestion that science is just the same as religion. The person has to either agree, or say no it isn't, and say why. Then the other person replies with things like "why don't quantum or relativity match up" you answer "we don't know yet" "exactly" Say they knowingly. Or scientists are just as wrong and fanatical as religious people look at Lowel and the Martians etc etc etc.
The thing I love about Buddhism is to me it models the world like a physicist, it models the mind like a psychologist and it adds the elements compassion. And it asks us to use method to explore these things
As a Buddhist I look around me and see all is impermanent as a physicist and mathematician I see entropy governing everything. Two side of one coin.
But always there remains this idea of reincarnation (call it energy, soul, karma or as someone said thingy) it's all the same if you pass on where is impertinence. Where is the law of entropy that governs the whole of space time. Where is non-self.
The thing I love about Buddhism is to me it models the world like a physicist, it models the mind like a psychologist and it adds the elements compassion. And it asks us to use method to explore these things
Me too:) And lets not forget morality.
It's so complete, so encompassing. It so doesn't need the majic.
But always there remains this idea of reincarnation (call it energy, soul, karma or as someone said thingy) it's all the same if you pass on where is impertinence.
Assuming you mean impermanence, i agree:p Its a glaring contradiction in dharma with rebirth, whatever way you look at it.
Where is the law of entropy that governs the whole of space time.
Where is non-self.
I don't understand that. When I break the statement down I just cant see what it could mean?
I think that's the point. It's not about conceptually understanding what it means.
There is a reason these self-secret teachings are taught through various methods; oral, symbolic and mind-to-mind.
If you try and grasp them through intellect alone, you'll be lost. These are teachings to go into a cave with for the rest of your life. I'm not a qualified teacher of such sublime topics. I'm barely a qualified student.
The teachers who are qualified to teach these subtle and sublime topics have spent their whole lives moment to moment immersed in study, contemplation, meditation and non-meditation.
We aren't all born with the acumen to realize these teachings in this very life.
For most of us, the gradual path works the best. The three jewels, the three roots, the three kayas. The four immeasurable qualites; love, compassion, joy and equanimity. The six perfections etc.
Is it to do with suckling on the delusions of there being more to life than this?
The calf because its a Hindu idea?
No silly, it is the part of tibetan ritual Dalai Lama doesn't speak of in his books.
It's Tibetan ritual magic. They have things like padmasambhava invisibility stick and rituals to catch a thief, magics that ward against zombies, making people sleepwalk and so on.
The name implies something that nourishes, something good for maintaining life and health. It is a category of books with a lot of things from tibetan medicine, moral maxims but also magic rituals. It is like a Tibetan Grimoire. Cool right? People don't talk a lot about it.
Some magics are even harmful.
This shows you that Tibetan Buddhism is not all reason, only in my mind, no-nonsense like westerners like to believe. It did get mixed with sorcery. So the western rationalizations stop working when a copy of Handbook of Moon's Mystery falls on your lap.
I am gonna put a spell on you MatSalted. lol (just joking :P)
I've always had problems with that. My wifes work friend stopped going to the local temple due to it becoming "all Tibetan and weird". I myself after listening to several good audio books by HHDL found it rather disturbing when listening (I think a "meaningful life") when he started on about meditating to become a deity and meditating for better Karma for a better reincarnation. I might be wrong but I'm sure audiobook actually used the term transmigration.
It is not that is weird Tony. It is their culture. We have ours. We may not accept rebirth, but that doesn't mean we can go to the Buddha like we are bff's and say he also didn't.
I am not trying to make Tibetan Buddhism sound strange, I am sorry if I did. It is that you see SO MUCH effort in trying to fit Buddhism into western thought that we forget to examine the context where it grew and developed.
In an extreme this is what happened when Buddhism came to the west:
Monk: This is Pandmasambhava's invisibility wand, it is supposed to make you invisible. You make it by burning a stick of this plant with salt and a bird feather.
Lay westerner: The wand represents the Dharma, The invisibility represents the supression of the ego that sometimes happens during meditation, the ritual to make it is just encouragement to meditation.
meditating for better Karma for a better reincarnation.
That doesn't make all else less valid. There are a lot in Buddhist doctrines that help just about anybody, just because you disagree with a part doesn't mean that the rest won't work for you.
When he talks about rebirth and karma he really means it, but he also talks about anger and fear and mindfulness and compassion and a lot of other things. In fact, if you like audio teachings and you are not into the more mystical doctrines you will love Pema Chodron. She is really funny, and her talks feel very personal, she interacts with an audience and is more down to earth then the Dalai Lama.
The teachers who are qualified to teach these subtle and sublime topics have spent their whole lives moment to moment immersed in study, contemplation, meditation and non-meditation.
And their starting assumption is the hindu notion of rebirth, which I am now sure the Buddha considered delusional and warned against but it got edited by later generations into "self-mortification".
We aren't all born with the acumen to realize these teachings in this very life.
Ewww thats sad. Buddhism is for everyone, yet when we try to make it more accessible... see at happens:(
S: Love has a specific meaning to me in the light of teachings I've received that point out the difference between love and attachment.
S9: I think that it is extremely difficult to know the difference between Love and attachment, simply because it is so 'knee jerk' to be attached to that which you love. After all, love is so ‘dog-gone’ pleasurable, and pleasure naturally attracts us to it.
It probably always comes back to a number line…how attached are you to any one thing or person, or even a teaching of any kind. Or even, when does dis-attachment become indifference?
I think when it comes to Love, that the best you can hope for, as a human animal, is to be able to 2nd think it or how you come at it, an overview in you will. As in, "I don’t own this person," "I can’t control this person,", and "this person also is impermanent."
So we hold someone close to are heart, with great affection, and yet ever so gently and certainly not in a death grip, and that we are able to let them go, when the time comes, without resentment, or clinging, or heaven forbid even lingering bitterness.
Quote: “This too will pass.”
S: Love is the wish for another being to be happy, and compassion is the wish for another being to be free of suffering.
S9: I am not sure where the line between love and compassion falls. Certainly compassion is at least a close cousin of love. Certainly if you love someone, or something, you wish it well. It is probably easier to wish someone well if they bring you pleasure, and usually in equal proportion.
Often when you love someone a great deal, you tend to see them as an extension of yourself like your children, or your mate. This is an emotional response, even though you admit logically that physically this is not the case. People often say thing like when my wife/child died it felt like my heart was cut out of me, (without anesthesia), or part of me died with my child/wife and I will never be the same. : ^ (
S: Human beings have a mix of love and attachment, most of what we enjoy as 'romantic love' is the exaggerated (and delightful) state of attachment, and not love.
S9: Often the very same love has many faces, for the very same person or pet. Love can be quite complex. For instance, my mate is my romantic soul mate, my best friend ever, and also my spiritual teacher for many decades, not to mention my partner against the tribulations that this world will certainly put before us.
S: As we mature in our relationships we may include more love in the sense that I'm defining it.--that is based on Lam Rim teachings.
S9: Relationships are as varied and unique as the individuals in each one of these relationships. When someone tells me that he loves everyone equally, I can only wonder when he is going to come back to earth? This is the kind of thing you can only pretend in your head. This is not a possibility in the human heart. Don’t believe it for a minute. Love that lukewarm isn’t love at all. Sorry, is that too passionate? : ^ (
Of course, than again, the word love is certainly all over the place, and means so many diverse things, as “I sure I love chocolate ice cream” couldn’t possibly be the same thing or proportion as “I sure love my child.” No way would I lay down my life for a chocolate ice cream cone.
Smiles coming your way.
S: Notice how difficult it is to discuss this topic without me, me, me.
S9: You, you, you, is just somebody else’s me, me, me. Is their me more important than your me? Or is it that no one is important? We must love ourselves, too. After all, we are just little animals doing the best we can, and deserving compassion, on one level.
I think what you are missing here is that Buddhism IS accessible to everyone, simply because of its vast diversity. Watering it down to one tasteless flavor won’t please everyone. It will make Buddhism lose its wide appeal and usefulness. : ^ (
So many social experiments throughout history have tried this uniformity, and they have come and gone, unlike Buddhism. Perhaps, there just ISN”T “one size that fits all,” at least not comfortably.
As I have traveled this path, I have changed many times in my understanding, and each time was a perfect fit within that time only. How much more is this diversity required when you multiply it by the number of individuals that have and will live, and their multiple changes? : ^ )
M: I don't see it (science) as a religion, it doesn't have large structures of faith and mysticism and it has a utility beyond controlling and mollifying.
S9: Every group of persons has its "True Believers." It isn’t the subject, so much, that invites it, but the extreme attitude or passionate approach that determines this.
M: What do you think the Buddha is thinking of when he speaks of science?
S9: That’s a new one. You tell me? I didn’t know he had opinions on science.
I'm thinking that your definition of science is simply a convenient one, which works well for you, but that you don't share with many others. Something just you and your pal Buddha share. ; ^ )
T: O dear. It's normally born again Christians I hear use this argument for evolution. Try to discredit science by saying it's just really a modern form of religion. It's just a different way of interpreting the world.
S9: I don’t discredit science. It certainly is useful in many ways. I worked in medicine for many decades, including the soft science psychology. What I am saying here is that some people almost worship Science and see it as the answer to everything. Obviously it isn’t.
It is good in its narrow sphere.
I also do not see religion as a bad thing. It too is very useful in its own sphere.
But when religious teachers, or scientists, or even politicians for that matter, start think they know everything, and no one else knows anything, well, they are certainly getting a little weird and too big for their britches.
: ^ (
Too often these fellows are prone to say, “What I think is either reasonable, or Right, (AKA self righteous), and the other guy (if he doesn't agree) is either a fool, or a scoundrel.
With such thinking can war, full prisons, or a lack of free thought, and real unhappiness and dissatisfaction be far behind. : ^ (
S9: Isn’t that one of the points here…that most people don’t know what to make of it? It is one of the BIG question marks in their life.
J: The 'it' I was referring to in "It's what you make of it" was the sutta, not death or anything else. I'm not defending a position for I have no position to defend unless you think that by sharing that sutta I have done something wrong.
And:
S9: This is not to mention that the instinctive survival mechanism has us ALL by the throat.
: ^ (
There is much to be overcome, before we can claim to be fearless.
J: Very true indeed. We all have our own way of coping with different situations.
S9: Irrelevant to what it was that he was trying to teach at the moment, no doubt. But surely the question of life and death is not irrelevant, when you are being chased by a man eating shark. : ^ (
I believe that thinking life and death is complete irrelevant, in all instances, would be taking Buddha's words out of context.
J: I would assume it to be so as well (out of context that is). There are many instances within the Tipitaka in which the Buddha comes across as a mystic who does believe in rebirth, yet there also exists many instances in which the Buddha seems completely disconnected with such matters. It truly depends upon one's interpretation.
S9: But than, I have run into a number of people who have stopped short, believing that Buddha's Awakening can’t be found, and that it is a sham. So many people are looking for a short cut. : ^ (
J: No doubt those types of cases exist. I for one am an agnostic on awakening anyways. I look at awakening as the path itself, and not whether one obtains "nirvana" or not. The reason why I do so is simply because at this point in my life I am happier than I have been as an all-out agnostic, atheist, new atheist or a Christian. I keep my eyes open for all improvements in life that may pass me by, but I am content with my current condition.
S9: Many of the wisdom books I have read, say that 'perseverance' is one of our most important allies. So much that we look for simply can’t be found, "YET."
So:
How is one to divide what can’t be found, "YET," from what actually can’t be found at all?
Remember:
Buddha did tell us not to take his word for it, to look and find out for ourselves. Surely this would include not taking his word for what should be dropped without investigation.
There is a paradox here. Is there not? : ^ )
J: Haha Subjectivity, very observable. Indeed, there does seem to be a paradox there. Don't go by the Buddha's word alone, for he also says:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."
The following discourse is in the Kalama Sutta.
S9: When did knowing that worrying wasn’t fruitful, really ever stop most of us from worrying? We just change the name of ‘worrying,’ renaming it ‘planning,’ and go right on doing it. ; ^ )
“Quote: Old habits die hard.”
J: Very wise words. I myself know that worrying is pointless and futile, yet even so I continue to worry about things. Although, one thing I have observed is that I worry over much much much less things than I previously did since taking the Buddha's words into account. And if you consider my current "worrying" to be "planning" then, none the less, I am happier now than previously.
S9: Behind every mistaken notion, there is an ‘as yet’ invisible truth to be found. Perhaps it only seems non-existent because we haven’t found it, YET. Like the idea of germs was a crazy notion not sooo very long ago.
Certainly the perspective of an open mind makes a good deal of what we finally find, available to us. How is one to know when to slam a door shut, and lock it, even if at first glance that seems easier? Easier is not synonymous with right.
J: Yet again I agree. I know of such instances where things once thought non-existent ended up existing in first place. That is why I myself do not shut the door on matters. That is why I am an agnostic, and not a gnostic or an atheist (although sometimes I do refer to myself as an atheist since the term is more well known).
S9: I would say that if something is driving you nuts or scaring the b-jesus out of you, like death so obviously does many, than it merits some of your attention until you can clear it up a bit.
J: Surely this is true. It is human nature to inquire into such matters. Key words you stated: "until you can clear it up a bit." That is was the point of my first posting, which was the thing that cleared things up for me.
S9: But, this is the thing, as I see it. Insights are a blessed event that happens TO YOU, and not necessarily something that you actually DO. So you can’t say, "DO this insight," to someone and just expect it to happen, just like that, anymore than that particular sutra would have made any difference in your life, if you happened to run into it when you were in the 2nd grade of elementary school.
Sure you can plant the seed. : ^ )
J: Don't "DO" anything you don't want to. Do what you will, and I wasn't suggesting one "DO this insight." As I said, what you make of the parable I posted is your own insight. I was simply placing it out there for people to see.
:cool:
J: The 'it' I was referring to in "It's what you make of it" was the sutta, not death or anything else. I'm not defending a position for I have no position to defend unless you think that by sharing that sutta I have done something wrong.
S9: I do not think that it is wrong to share a sutra, or anything Buddhist on a Buddhist forum, as long as we maintain a civilized tone and a modicum of respect.
; ^ )
However:
If you do post a quotation anywhere on a forum, in a way you are saying that ”I agree with these words (unless otherwise stated) and I am ready to say why.” Otherwise it just becomes spiritual Spam.
But, surely you must know that bringing anything up on a forum, declares it ‘open season’ to either reinvestigate on it, or to simply look at it from multiple perspectives; many, many, many (even, amazingly unbelievable) perspectives.
; ^ )
We can stay home and talk to our mirror if we just want agreement. ; ^ )
But than, having people look at what we are thinking, and saying, and actually taking time out of their own busy days to put in their 2cents is a good thing.
Looking at it in this way would certainly make us grateful, instead of irritated by their diversity, because it is sort of like team work, or “Two heads are better than one.” But, isn’t this what our ‘E-SANGHA,’ (AKA Buddhist forum) is all about, helping each other to break through our mental ‘blind-spots?’
J: The Buddha comes across as a mystic who does believe in rebirth.
S9: Just a little aside, in way of explaining:
I think that the word MYSTIC has gotten a bad rap, because so many people think of it as all about what they call the ‘hocus pokus’ stuff out there. And I won’t deny that many people who play around with the sidhis (psychic powers, and predicting the future) also call themselves mystics. But some mystics (a more ancient definition, and still accepted) believe that we should look directly at truth, and not simply be religious, (accepting other people’s experiences over our own). So unfortunately, the word mystic is all over the place, and quite watered down.
I am a ‘look directly’ Mystic.
J: Yet there also exists many instances in which the Buddha seems completely disconnected with such matters. It truly depends upon one's interpretation.
S9: I think that when people start writing down what they believe they heard, when listening to the Buddhas words, that they have already filtered these words through their own personal understanding. Not that this is diabolical plot, but rather that this something that cannot be helped. Sutras don’t somehow magically avoid this problem, simply because the writers of these sutras where NOT all 100% Enlightened.
This is not so terrible though, (all is not lost), because as you get further along in your own personal understanding, it becomes a lot easier to read between the lines and see what Buddha was alluding to.
J: No doubt those types of cases exist. I for one am an agnostic on awakening anyways. I look at awakening as the path itself, and not whether one obtains "nirvana" or not. The reason why I do so is simply because at this point in my life I am happier than I have been as an all-out agnostic, atheist, new atheist or a Christian. I keep my eyes open for all improvements in life that may pass me by, but I am content with my current condition.
S9: I don’t think that you have to be ‘out and out miserable’ to be moving along your path. In the later stages, people are often quite content. It is more an attitude of vigilant alertness, and a loving attraction to/for the truth that continues to fuel their progress.
: ^ )
I am actually quite content. The reason I keep looking is that every new discovery is a delight. It feeds my heart. One of the reasons that I continue to write here is that it is like a love song to do so, and I also hope to aid others to be as happy as I am, in some small way. Love wants to share.
: ^ )
I think that the word MYSTIC has gotten a bad rap...So unfortunately, the word mystic is all over the place, and quite watered down.
What all these watered down or concrete "mysticisms" share is a profound lack of any evidence, reason or causation in support or explanation.
They are believed because they are comforting, not because there is a single reason to believe they are true, there are many to believe they are false. Hence mysticism is delusion, whatever way you look at it.
M: What all these watered down or concrete "mysticisms" share is a profound lack of any evidence, reason or causation in support or explanation.
S9: I can easily see why you might say this, because you are a bright boy-o, and you are obviously also still “mind-bound.” Been there/done that. ; ^ )
When I speak of transcendence, and you say, “Okay prove this to my mind,” you are obviously missing the whole point. : ^ (
Don’t cry…you’ll get over it, given time. : ^ )
Transcendence is what Buddha meant when he said, “I am Awake,” ant not just that his alarm clock went off that morning and he got up as usual. ; ^ )
This particular Transcendence, I speak of, is an intimate experience. It is not a group experience, and no one can do it for you, or even give it to you, although there are ways to be more receptive to it.
No, You don’t just pretend it. But than, it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
: ^ (
Doubt is a very good tool, used wisely. But, anything can be over done. If you make an idol out of your doubt, it will be a dead thing and can actually end up working against wisdom at some point. : ^ (
I never said that you should believe anything without proof. I merely said to stay alert and keep an open mind.
Don’t worry, your brains won’t fall out if you do this. But, they may suffocate if you don’t open a few windows, and let in a little fresh air, (AKA new insights) once in a while.
; ^ )
M: They are believed because they are comforting, not because there is a single reason to believe they are true.
S9: This may be the case for some, but for many years I was a Jnani, and my path was the mind. So I thought, and thought, and thought, until it was time to move on. Not fall back 'mind you.' I was at least reasonable, and than added transcendence.
S9: I can easily see why you might say this... and you are obviously also still “mind-bound.”
I just don't know what that means.
And you will look me with big wide knowing virtual eyes and say, "Ahh, my son, you will one day, you will know... oh yes..."
I have had that attitude many times from all kinds of Buddhists.
But to me in all senses it seems no differnt to a staement I would tell to my kids about Santa. (Incidentally a bone of contention with my wife and I is that I will not partake in her pushing of "The Santa Deception")
Been there/done that. ; ^ )
Then I am in lucky company, indeed.
If you have been where I am now, and have emerged through the same kind of foolish, silly doubts I have now then please, i implore you to tell me how?
I had these doubts from the start, but smuggled them out of my thoughts BECAUSE of people telling me "you will see, my son, you will see." etc
But I didn't see S9. I still don't. After years of this being the singular question I have dedicated my time to.
Please show me the way, without being circular, why Rebirth is not a delusion and why the Buddha did not teach that it is a delusion.
This particular Transcendence, I speak of, is an intimate experience.
I have zero problem with that and I believe it, completely. I am aware of and amazed by the minds capability for transcendent experiences.
But can you explain to me where this connects with the idea of Rebirth and the mystical. You dont need the rebirth delusion to explain your transcendental experiences, so why have it?
I just dont get it:(
S9: it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
I have no proof that there is not a unicorn's horn in Uranus but I am as certain to anything as I can be.
We could talk for weeks on proof but it would just be another ye olde athiest versus Christains slagging match, utterly pointless.
Buddha has shown us we have many delusions, I now see rebirth as just another one of them.
e
Please don't expect me to belive that my ego is real or there can be eternal things or that there is rebirth:)
Doubt is a very good tool, used wisely. But, anything can be over done.
I really think many people here dont get this point. they get sucker-punched by the "doubt" defilement and loose it.
Consider this:
Imagine Bob believes Proposition X and Mary believes Proposition Y.
Bob has tested Proposition X in every way he can. Tried to refute it, tried to disprove it, tried to get others to disprove it, looked at the science for it and after years it remains unshakable.
Mary believes Proposition Y because someone told her it was true.
Who would you say is entitled to the most certainty about their respective postpositions?
Doubt is the bedrock of wisdom, science and insight. The Buddha knew this, he was the first of the guiding principles, that which he told to The kalamas.
Have a nice day. : ^ )
You too:) I like talking with you, we have very oppossing views but manage to keep it relatively low on forum dukka!:)
RE: S9: I can easily see why you might say this... and you are obviously also still “mind-bound.”
M: I just don't know what that means.
S9: It is a form of “Spiritual Materialism,” referred to by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. It happens when you are moving along quite nicely, and then get stuck somewhere in the mind because you enjoy it so much, or it feeds into your ego, or any number of reasons.
And:
No I am not a Tibetan Buddhist. I am far too eclectic to choose just one particular tradition. So please don’t try to ‘type-cast’ me, so that you can easily dismiss what I say.
LIKE THIS: And you will look me with big wide knowing virtual eyes and say, "Ahh, my son, you will one day, you will know... oh yes..."
M: I have had that attitude many times from all kinds of Buddhists.
S9: And, often shared that very attitude, I might add. It makes little difference if you cloak it in…"You cannot reason things out, unlike my superior, and extremely reasonable self." he/he
(Mat walks away, smugly patting himself on the back…with very little, or no shame.)
I guess we all have to keep an eye out for our sneaky crafty (BIG) egos. Me, too.
; ^ )
M: Incidentally a bone of contention with my wife and I is that I will not partake in her pushing of "The Santa Deception"
S9: Wow, you sound like a fun guy. ; ^ )
Do you also snatch away your son’s toy trucks, or your daughter’s dolls, saying “Grow up, these are not real?”
Sorry…none of my business. Butting out. The devil made me say this.
: ^ (
M: If you have been where I am now, and have emerged through the same kind of foolish, silly doubts I have now then please, i implore you to tell me how?
S9: Not silly, but certainly overdone, IM(not so)HO .
Don’t you mean, “I implore you to make a damn fool out of your self, so I can feel superior?” : ^ (
Okay, S9 sticks the neck way out, because maybe someone here will hear it, and gain from it in some way.
What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what WAS Permanent and Ever Present. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging, my very own Awareness.
Not the 'consciousness of' that is brain dependent, and goes away if someone hits you on the head with a hammer really hard.
Like any profound insight, it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, but so much more.
All great insights have an element of surprise.
M: But, I didn't see S9. I still don't. After years of this being the singular question I have dedicated my time to.
S9: Yes, I know. We all do this in one way or another. The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t the mind. Mind is in IT.
You are looking to understand Being, your Buddha Nature. This is in no way a mental thing.
M: Please show me the way, without being circular.
S9: You are saying please show me without the circular mind, as everything in the mind is circular, as in the ‘Wheel of Samsara.’ Getting off the wheel is refusing to identify with mind, and her thoughts.
I am not a great believer in reincarnation. I am more Zen in this, as in “Never born, never dies…and Original Face.”
M: I have zero problem with that and I believe it, completely. I am aware of and amazed by the minds capability for transcendent experiences.
S9: Wow, that’s great. I am very happy for you. : ^ )
RE: S9: it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
M: I have no proof that there is not a unicorn's horn in Uranus, but I am as certain to anything as I can be.
S9: My advice is to give up on the unicorn because everyone admits that it is a myth.
However, please do not be too quick to dismiss that there is something permanent that you are not noticing yet. You say you want to understand, and I believe you. So just look, because you are looking always any way. Just look for this, too.
Lin Chi, “Look, look.”
This is a direct insight and happens in an instant…but is total life changing. Don’t believe it…just look.
M: I really think many people here don’t get this point. they get sucker-punched by the "doubt" defilement and loose it.
S9: I get it. It is like Zen’s “Great Doubt.” But, you can’t use it like a wall in front of your eyes. Use it more like a broom to sweep up whatever you see through. Not everything, any old time. The stuff you actually SEE through. ; ^ )
I like talking to you, too. Mostly because I feel that you are a serious seeker.
S9: And, often shared that very attitude, I might add. It makes little difference if you cloak it in…"You cannot reason things out, unlike my superior, and extremely reasonable self." he/he
M: Pushing universal doubt is a bit different to peddling mystcial dogma;)
S9:I guess we all have to keep an eye out for our sneaky crafty (BIG) egos. Me, too.
M: I often admit i let my ego get the better of me here. i am very aware of that, all i can do is try.
S9: Do you also snatch away your son’s toy trucks, or your daughter’s dolls, saying “Grow up, these are not real?”
M: Toys are not myths;)
S9: What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what wasn’t impermanent. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging.
M: OK, and what was that and how do you know its not illusionary?
S9: Yes, I know. We all do this in one way or another. The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t the mind. Mind is in IT.
M: That's just words, and no differnt from saying" Jesus is lord".
S9: My advice is to give up on the unicorn because everyone admits that it is a myth.
M: We might find a tribe of people who have been indoctrinated that it isn't a myth for 25 centuries?
S9: I get it. It is like Zen’s “Great Doubt.” But, you can’t use it like a wall in front of your eyes.
I cannot doubt Dharmna, I can doubt magic, what should I do?
I like talking to you, too. Mostly because I feel that you are a serious seeker.
Very very. Just because I dont such the myticis pipe it doesn't mean I have not dedicated my life to dharma.
RE: S9: What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what wasn’t impermanent. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging.
M: OK, and what was that and how do you know its not illusionary?
S9: What you are asking me to do is to break down what exactly I have found, or experienced outside of the mind, this being alternately called, “Being,” “Pure Awareness,” or “Buddha Nature,” (same/same), into a mental concepts/words, which you can easily grasp with your mind.
But, I have told you repeated (have I not?) that the “Buddha Nature” is not a mind object, and cannot be captured either conceptually or completely within a cage of words.
The ball is in your court. YOU must LOOK. Buddha Nature is not Fast Food. : ^ )
Perhaps this is why nature builds in SUFFERING so we won’t (can’t) give up easily.
Buddha Nature is a kind of healing; a finding of wholeness. Dis-satisfaction goes on to point out that we are incomplete, and only living partially, when we live FROM our ego self, (AKA Wrongful Identification.)
Perhaps this is the very reason that a Zen master will say, “I can only point at it.” You (my e-friend) must look at WHERE I am pointing. Or a Zen master (again) might further say, “Don’t look at my finger,” (AKA "Don't look at my words).
The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t IN the mind. Mind is an ongoing dream within Buddha Nature.
Buddha Nature is not contained IN the mind. The mind finds it ineffable.
You don't actually look AT Buddha Nature with your mind, you look FROM Buddha Nature, because it is your REAL home, your base of operations.
Lin Chi: "Who is this fellow going in and coming out of my eyes?"
In other words, Buddha Nature is like the SUN, and mind is like the MOON. The Moon is only reflecting the Sun, lik a mirror, but never quite in its fullness. So the moon tell us of the Sun, or by looking at the moon we can extrapolate that there must be a Sun, but we can never go on to think that therefore the moon IS the SUN. ; ^ )
S9: What you are asking me to do is to break down what exactly I have found, or experienced outside of the mind, this being alternately called, “Being,” “Pure Awareness,” or “Buddha Nature,” (same/same), into a mental concepts/words, which you can easily grasp with your mind.
M: Do you see that that amounts to you simply saying "I cannot answer in words?"
Now that's fine about some things. For example qualitative experiences. I cannot explain to you many experiences I have in terms of commposite parts, this is what emmergence is:)
I cant explain to you my love of my Mother or the experince of now in more simple terms.
But that is not what is being discussed:)
I am asking you what your solution was to the rebirth delusion.
But, I have told you repeated (have I not?) that the “Buddha Nature” is not a mind object, and cannot be captured either conceptually or completely within a cage of words.
Buddha Nataure is a lovelly concept. And i think we have it in us, but its a shorthand for the truth of the compassionate loving kind moral path that dharma dictates. it isn't, to me, a "thing" but ameans of expression some Buddhists use.
(Incidentally I don't think the Buddha taught about buddha nature, it seems to be a very later addition, but its still a nice concept)
The ball is in your court. YOU must LOOK. Buddha Nature is not Fast Food.
Can you tell me why that is not identical to a Christan saying "Have faith!"
Perhaps this is why nature builds in SUFFERING so we won’t (can’t) give up easily.
No nature has no choice but to condition suffering, it is necessary of all consistent finite realities. Do you understand why i say this? It is very clear to see from the three marks... sometimes with Dharma you need to think rather than "nonthink";)
Perhaps this is the very reason that a Zen master will say, “I can only point at it.” You (my e-friend) must look at WHERE I am pointing. Or a Zen master (again) might further say, “Don’t look at my finger,” (AKA "Don't look at my words).
I think this is all just mystifying distraction. It doesnt provide any evidence for rebirth, ergo rebirth remains delusional to me.
Why can I not just point to the absence of rebirth and say something woo like "It is at the absence of where my finger points where the extinguishing of your question arises."?
S9The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery.
S9: So mind isnt the tool. Nor is science. Nor is reason. Nor insight. And what the tool is you cannot say, other than use some wishy-washy zen metaphore?
Comments
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box
Religion, is a smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
i know what I know if you know what I mean
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Oh I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy, is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion, is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Do do ya
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what you are
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Da da da da
I say I say I say I do hey hey hey hey hey hey
Choke me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
Don't let me get too deep
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what you are
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
Or what you are oh
Or what you are oh oh oh
Say what I am
I don't see it as a religion, it doesn't have large structures of faith and mysticism and it has a utility beyond controlling and mollifying.
What do you think the Buddha is thinking of when he speaks of science?
Maybe they do, I am not one of them. I dont know any.
On the other hand, the universe itself deserves some reverance in my mind.
One doesnt make claims to reason S9, one simply thinks reasonably. It isnt difficult to do, in fact its hard not to do it if you put your mind to it.
Buddha was a man
All men are mortal
Buddha was mortal.
<<< What is so controverisal about such reasonings?
Oh trust me, i really dont.
Be mindful of this point: The seed of your disdain for the skeptical mind lays in your own mind.
Smiles,
S9[/QUOTE]
O dear. It's normally born again Christians I hear use this argument for evolution. Try to discredit science by saying it's just really a modern form of religion. It's just a different way of interpreting the world.
Exactly:)
Evidence for evolution, relativity, thermodyncamics... etc lots and lots.
Evidence for rebirth/heaven/god... meh...not so much.
What is?
J: You will die no matter what, and that is the only surety you will ever find.
S9: What about taxes? ; ^ ) KID DING ; ^ )
J: What you make of it is up to you.
S9: Isn’t that one of the points here…that most people don’t know what to make of it? It is one of the BIG question marks in their life.
And:
This is not to mention that the instinctive survival mechanism has us ALL by the throat.
: ^ (
There is much to be overcome, before we can claim to be fearless.
J: The Buddha claimed these types of questions are irrelevant.
S9: Irrelevant to what it was that he was trying to teach at the moment, no doubt. But surely the question of life and death is not irrelevant, when you are being chased by a man eating shark. : ^ (
I believe that thinking life and death is complete irrelevant, in all instances, would be taking Buddha's words out of context.
J: Indeed many embark on this quest for knowledge and end up empty and are miserable in the process.
S9: But than, I have run into a number of people who have stopped short, believing that Buddha's Awakening can’t be found, and that it is a sham. So many people are looking for a short cut. : ^ (
Many of the wisdom books I have read, say that 'perseverance' is one of our most important allies. So much that we look for simply can’t be found, "YET."
So:
How is one to divide what can’t be found, "YET," from what actually can’t be found at all?
Remember:
Buddha did tell us not to take his word for it, to look and find out for ourselves. Surely this would include not taking his word for what should be dropped without investigation.
There is a paradox here. Is there not? : ^ )
J: He is telling you that it is easier to simply not worry about those questions.
S9: When did knowing that worrying wasn’t fruitful, really ever stop most of us from worrying? We just change the name of ‘worrying,’ renaming it ‘planning,’ and go right on doing it. ; ^ )
“Quote: Old habits die hard.”
J: Instead immerse yourself in this world and penetrate this reality in all of its phenomenon rather than search for some other hidden meaning that is invisible or non-existent.
S9: Behind every mistaken notion, there is an ‘as yet’ invisible truth to be found. Perhaps it only seems non-existent because we haven’t found it, YET. Like the idea of germs was a crazy notion not sooo very long ago.
Certainly the perspective of an open mind makes a good deal of what we finally find, available to us. How is one to know when to slam a door shut, and lock it, even if at first glance that seems easier? Easier is not synonymous with right.
I would say that if something is driving you nuts or scaring the b-jesus out of you, like death so obviously does many, than it merits some of your attention until you can clear it up a bit.
J: My first post with the Sutta was intended for those struggling with questions such as whether one should believe in rebirth or not. I went through the same process and in my particular case, when I read this Sutta the answers to those questions that induce such fear became irrelevant to me. I am just simply sharing my insight.
S9: But, this is the thing, as I see it. Insights are a blessed event that happens TO YOU, and not necessarily something that you actually DO. So you can’t say, "DO this insight," to someone and just expect it to happen, just like that, anymore than that particular sutra would have made any difference in your life, if you happened to run into it when you were in the 2nd grade of elementary school.
Sure you can plant the seed. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Human beings have a mix of love and attachment, most of what we enjoy as 'romantic love' is the exaggerated (and delightful) state of attachment, and not love.
As we mature in our relationships we may include more love in the sense that I'm defining it.--that is based on Lam Rim teachings.
Notice how difficult it is to discuss this topic without me, me, me.
'My view is better than your view'.
The thing I love about Buddhism is to me it models the world like a physicist, it models the mind like a psychologist and it adds the elements compassion. And it asks us to use method to explore these things
As a Buddhist I look around me and see all is impermanent as a physicist and mathematician I see entropy governing everything. Two side of one coin.
But always there remains this idea of reincarnation (call it energy, soul, karma or as someone said thingy) it's all the same if you pass on where is impertinence. Where is the law of entropy that governs the whole of space time. Where is non-self.
The Buddha taught the Middle Way beyond extremes.
Me too:) And lets not forget morality.
It's so complete, so encompassing. It so doesn't need the majic.
Assuming you mean impermanence, i agree:p Its a glaring contradiction in dharma with rebirth, whatever way you look at it.
Occluded by delusion?
I cannot find the answer to that.
I agree, but think it is between the extreams (mysticism/nihilism), not beyond:)
I don't understand that. When I break the statement down I just cant see what it could mean?
Just for fun, ever heard of calf nipple? lol
Is it to do with suckling on the delusions of there being more to life than this?
The calf because its a Hindu idea?
Other than that, nope.
I think that's the point. It's not about conceptually understanding what it means.
There is a reason these self-secret teachings are taught through various methods; oral, symbolic and mind-to-mind.
If you try and grasp them through intellect alone, you'll be lost. These are teachings to go into a cave with for the rest of your life. I'm not a qualified teacher of such sublime topics. I'm barely a qualified student.
The teachers who are qualified to teach these subtle and sublime topics have spent their whole lives moment to moment immersed in study, contemplation, meditation and non-meditation.
We aren't all born with the acumen to realize these teachings in this very life.
For most of us, the gradual path works the best. The three jewels, the three roots, the three kayas. The four immeasurable qualites; love, compassion, joy and equanimity. The six perfections etc.
It's Tibetan ritual magic. They have things like padmasambhava invisibility stick and rituals to catch a thief, magics that ward against zombies, making people sleepwalk and so on.
The name implies something that nourishes, something good for maintaining life and health. It is a category of books with a lot of things from tibetan medicine, moral maxims but also magic rituals. It is like a Tibetan Grimoire. Cool right? People don't talk a lot about it.
Some magics are even harmful.
This shows you that Tibetan Buddhism is not all reason, only in my mind, no-nonsense like westerners like to believe. It did get mixed with sorcery. So the western rationalizations stop working when a copy of Handbook of Moon's Mystery falls on your lap.
I am gonna put a spell on you MatSalted. lol (just joking :P)
I am not trying to make Tibetan Buddhism sound strange, I am sorry if I did. It is that you see SO MUCH effort in trying to fit Buddhism into western thought that we forget to examine the context where it grew and developed.
In an extreme this is what happened when Buddhism came to the west:
Monk: This is Pandmasambhava's invisibility wand, it is supposed to make you invisible. You make it by burning a stick of this plant with salt and a bird feather.
Lay westerner: The wand represents the Dharma, The invisibility represents the supression of the ego that sometimes happens during meditation, the ritual to make it is just encouragement to meditation.
That doesn't make all else less valid. There are a lot in Buddhist doctrines that help just about anybody, just because you disagree with a part doesn't mean that the rest won't work for you.
When he talks about rebirth and karma he really means it, but he also talks about anger and fear and mindfulness and compassion and a lot of other things. In fact, if you like audio teachings and you are not into the more mystical doctrines you will love Pema Chodron. She is really funny, and her talks feel very personal, she interacts with an audience and is more down to earth then the Dalai Lama.
And their starting assumption is the hindu notion of rebirth, which I am now sure the Buddha considered delusional and warned against but it got edited by later generations into "self-mortification".
Ewww thats sad. Buddhism is for everyone, yet when we try to make it more accessible... see at happens:(
S: Love has a specific meaning to me in the light of teachings I've received that point out the difference between love and attachment.
S9: I think that it is extremely difficult to know the difference between Love and attachment, simply because it is so 'knee jerk' to be attached to that which you love. After all, love is so ‘dog-gone’ pleasurable, and pleasure naturally attracts us to it.
It probably always comes back to a number line…how attached are you to any one thing or person, or even a teaching of any kind. Or even, when does dis-attachment become indifference?
I think when it comes to Love, that the best you can hope for, as a human animal, is to be able to 2nd think it or how you come at it, an overview in you will. As in, "I don’t own this person," "I can’t control this person,", and "this person also is impermanent."
So we hold someone close to are heart, with great affection, and yet ever so gently and certainly not in a death grip, and that we are able to let them go, when the time comes, without resentment, or clinging, or heaven forbid even lingering bitterness.
Quote: “This too will pass.”
S: Love is the wish for another being to be happy, and compassion is the wish for another being to be free of suffering.
S9: I am not sure where the line between love and compassion falls. Certainly compassion is at least a close cousin of love. Certainly if you love someone, or something, you wish it well. It is probably easier to wish someone well if they bring you pleasure, and usually in equal proportion.
Often when you love someone a great deal, you tend to see them as an extension of yourself like your children, or your mate. This is an emotional response, even though you admit logically that physically this is not the case. People often say thing like when my wife/child died it felt like my heart was cut out of me, (without anesthesia), or part of me died with my child/wife and I will never be the same. : ^ (
S: Human beings have a mix of love and attachment, most of what we enjoy as 'romantic love' is the exaggerated (and delightful) state of attachment, and not love.
S9: Often the very same love has many faces, for the very same person or pet. Love can be quite complex. For instance, my mate is my romantic soul mate, my best friend ever, and also my spiritual teacher for many decades, not to mention my partner against the tribulations that this world will certainly put before us.
S: As we mature in our relationships we may include more love in the sense that I'm defining it.--that is based on Lam Rim teachings.
S9: Relationships are as varied and unique as the individuals in each one of these relationships. When someone tells me that he loves everyone equally, I can only wonder when he is going to come back to earth? This is the kind of thing you can only pretend in your head. This is not a possibility in the human heart. Don’t believe it for a minute. Love that lukewarm isn’t love at all. Sorry, is that too passionate? : ^ (
Of course, than again, the word love is certainly all over the place, and means so many diverse things, as “I sure I love chocolate ice cream” couldn’t possibly be the same thing or proportion as “I sure love my child.” No way would I lay down my life for a chocolate ice cream cone.
Smiles coming your way.
S: Notice how difficult it is to discuss this topic without me, me, me.
S9: You, you, you, is just somebody else’s me, me, me. Is their me more important than your me? Or is it that no one is important? We must love ourselves, too. After all, we are just little animals doing the best we can, and deserving compassion, on one level.
; ^ )
Peace and love,
S9
I think what you are missing here is that Buddhism IS accessible to everyone, simply because of its vast diversity. Watering it down to one tasteless flavor won’t please everyone. It will make Buddhism lose its wide appeal and usefulness. : ^ (
So many social experiments throughout history have tried this uniformity, and they have come and gone, unlike Buddhism. Perhaps, there just ISN”T “one size that fits all,” at least not comfortably.
As I have traveled this path, I have changed many times in my understanding, and each time was a perfect fit within that time only. How much more is this diversity required when you multiply it by the number of individuals that have and will live, and their multiple changes? : ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
M: I don't see it (science) as a religion, it doesn't have large structures of faith and mysticism and it has a utility beyond controlling and mollifying.
S9: Every group of persons has its "True Believers." It isn’t the subject, so much, that invites it, but the extreme attitude or passionate approach that determines this.
M: What do you think the Buddha is thinking of when he speaks of science?
S9: That’s a new one. You tell me? I didn’t know he had opinions on science.
I'm thinking that your definition of science is simply a convenient one, which works well for you, but that you don't share with many others. Something just you and your pal Buddha share. ; ^ )
Smiles,
S9
T: O dear. It's normally born again Christians I hear use this argument for evolution. Try to discredit science by saying it's just really a modern form of religion. It's just a different way of interpreting the world.
S9: I don’t discredit science. It certainly is useful in many ways. I worked in medicine for many decades, including the soft science psychology. What I am saying here is that some people almost worship Science and see it as the answer to everything. Obviously it isn’t.
It is good in its narrow sphere.
I also do not see religion as a bad thing. It too is very useful in its own sphere.
But when religious teachers, or scientists, or even politicians for that matter, start think they know everything, and no one else knows anything, well, they are certainly getting a little weird and too big for their britches.
: ^ (
Too often these fellows are prone to say, “What I think is either reasonable, or Right, (AKA self righteous), and the other guy (if he doesn't agree) is either a fool, or a scoundrel.
With such thinking can war, full prisons, or a lack of free thought, and real unhappiness and dissatisfaction be far behind. : ^ (
Respectfully,
S9
M: I agree. We should be skeptical about science.
J: The 'it' I was referring to in "It's what you make of it" was the sutta, not death or anything else. I'm not defending a position for I have no position to defend unless you think that by sharing that sutta I have done something wrong.
And:
S9: This is not to mention that the instinctive survival mechanism has us ALL by the throat.
: ^ (
There is much to be overcome, before we can claim to be fearless.
J: Very true indeed. We all have our own way of coping with different situations.
S9: Irrelevant to what it was that he was trying to teach at the moment, no doubt. But surely the question of life and death is not irrelevant, when you are being chased by a man eating shark. : ^ (
I believe that thinking life and death is complete irrelevant, in all instances, would be taking Buddha's words out of context.
J: I would assume it to be so as well (out of context that is). There are many instances within the Tipitaka in which the Buddha comes across as a mystic who does believe in rebirth, yet there also exists many instances in which the Buddha seems completely disconnected with such matters. It truly depends upon one's interpretation.
S9: But than, I have run into a number of people who have stopped short, believing that Buddha's Awakening can’t be found, and that it is a sham. So many people are looking for a short cut. : ^ (
J: No doubt those types of cases exist. I for one am an agnostic on awakening anyways. I look at awakening as the path itself, and not whether one obtains "nirvana" or not. The reason why I do so is simply because at this point in my life I am happier than I have been as an all-out agnostic, atheist, new atheist or a Christian. I keep my eyes open for all improvements in life that may pass me by, but I am content with my current condition.
S9: Many of the wisdom books I have read, say that 'perseverance' is one of our most important allies. So much that we look for simply can’t be found, "YET."
So:
How is one to divide what can’t be found, "YET," from what actually can’t be found at all?
Remember:
Buddha did tell us not to take his word for it, to look and find out for ourselves. Surely this would include not taking his word for what should be dropped without investigation.
There is a paradox here. Is there not? : ^ )
J: Haha Subjectivity, very observable. Indeed, there does seem to be a paradox there. Don't go by the Buddha's word alone, for he also says:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."
The following discourse is in the Kalama Sutta.
S9: When did knowing that worrying wasn’t fruitful, really ever stop most of us from worrying? We just change the name of ‘worrying,’ renaming it ‘planning,’ and go right on doing it. ; ^ )
“Quote: Old habits die hard.”
J: Very wise words. I myself know that worrying is pointless and futile, yet even so I continue to worry about things. Although, one thing I have observed is that I worry over much much much less things than I previously did since taking the Buddha's words into account. And if you consider my current "worrying" to be "planning" then, none the less, I am happier now than previously.
S9: Behind every mistaken notion, there is an ‘as yet’ invisible truth to be found. Perhaps it only seems non-existent because we haven’t found it, YET. Like the idea of germs was a crazy notion not sooo very long ago.
Certainly the perspective of an open mind makes a good deal of what we finally find, available to us. How is one to know when to slam a door shut, and lock it, even if at first glance that seems easier? Easier is not synonymous with right.
J: Yet again I agree. I know of such instances where things once thought non-existent ended up existing in first place. That is why I myself do not shut the door on matters. That is why I am an agnostic, and not a gnostic or an atheist (although sometimes I do refer to myself as an atheist since the term is more well known).
S9: I would say that if something is driving you nuts or scaring the b-jesus out of you, like death so obviously does many, than it merits some of your attention until you can clear it up a bit.
J: Surely this is true. It is human nature to inquire into such matters. Key words you stated: "until you can clear it up a bit." That is was the point of my first posting, which was the thing that cleared things up for me.
S9: But, this is the thing, as I see it. Insights are a blessed event that happens TO YOU, and not necessarily something that you actually DO. So you can’t say, "DO this insight," to someone and just expect it to happen, just like that, anymore than that particular sutra would have made any difference in your life, if you happened to run into it when you were in the 2nd grade of elementary school.
Sure you can plant the seed. : ^ )
J: Don't "DO" anything you don't want to. Do what you will, and I wasn't suggesting one "DO this insight." As I said, what you make of the parable I posted is your own insight. I was simply placing it out there for people to see.
:cool:
J: The 'it' I was referring to in "It's what you make of it" was the sutta, not death or anything else. I'm not defending a position for I have no position to defend unless you think that by sharing that sutta I have done something wrong.
S9: I do not think that it is wrong to share a sutra, or anything Buddhist on a Buddhist forum, as long as we maintain a civilized tone and a modicum of respect.
; ^ )
However:
If you do post a quotation anywhere on a forum, in a way you are saying that ”I agree with these words (unless otherwise stated) and I am ready to say why.” Otherwise it just becomes spiritual Spam.
But, surely you must know that bringing anything up on a forum, declares it ‘open season’ to either reinvestigate on it, or to simply look at it from multiple perspectives; many, many, many (even, amazingly unbelievable) perspectives.
; ^ )
We can stay home and talk to our mirror if we just want agreement. ; ^ )
But than, having people look at what we are thinking, and saying, and actually taking time out of their own busy days to put in their 2cents is a good thing.
Looking at it in this way would certainly make us grateful, instead of irritated by their diversity, because it is sort of like team work, or “Two heads are better than one.” But, isn’t this what our ‘E-SANGHA,’ (AKA Buddhist forum) is all about, helping each other to break through our mental ‘blind-spots?’
J: The Buddha comes across as a mystic who does believe in rebirth.
S9: Just a little aside, in way of explaining:
I think that the word MYSTIC has gotten a bad rap, because so many people think of it as all about what they call the ‘hocus pokus’ stuff out there. And I won’t deny that many people who play around with the sidhis (psychic powers, and predicting the future) also call themselves mystics. But some mystics (a more ancient definition, and still accepted) believe that we should look directly at truth, and not simply be religious, (accepting other people’s experiences over our own). So unfortunately, the word mystic is all over the place, and quite watered down.
I am a ‘look directly’ Mystic.
J: Yet there also exists many instances in which the Buddha seems completely disconnected with such matters. It truly depends upon one's interpretation.
S9: I think that when people start writing down what they believe they heard, when listening to the Buddhas words, that they have already filtered these words through their own personal understanding. Not that this is diabolical plot, but rather that this something that cannot be helped. Sutras don’t somehow magically avoid this problem, simply because the writers of these sutras where NOT all 100% Enlightened.
This is not so terrible though, (all is not lost), because as you get further along in your own personal understanding, it becomes a lot easier to read between the lines and see what Buddha was alluding to.
J: No doubt those types of cases exist. I for one am an agnostic on awakening anyways. I look at awakening as the path itself, and not whether one obtains "nirvana" or not. The reason why I do so is simply because at this point in my life I am happier than I have been as an all-out agnostic, atheist, new atheist or a Christian. I keep my eyes open for all improvements in life that may pass me by, but I am content with my current condition.
S9: I don’t think that you have to be ‘out and out miserable’ to be moving along your path. In the later stages, people are often quite content. It is more an attitude of vigilant alertness, and a loving attraction to/for the truth that continues to fuel their progress.
: ^ )
I am actually quite content. The reason I keep looking is that every new discovery is a delight. It feeds my heart. One of the reasons that I continue to write here is that it is like a love song to do so, and I also hope to aid others to be as happy as I am, in some small way. Love wants to share.
: ^ )
Friendly regards,
S9
What all these watered down or concrete "mysticisms" share is a profound lack of any evidence, reason or causation in support or explanation.
They are believed because they are comforting, not because there is a single reason to believe they are true, there are many to believe they are false. Hence mysticism is delusion, whatever way you look at it.
M: What all these watered down or concrete "mysticisms" share is a profound lack of any evidence, reason or causation in support or explanation.
S9: I can easily see why you might say this, because you are a bright boy-o, and you are obviously also still “mind-bound.” Been there/done that. ; ^ )
When I speak of transcendence, and you say, “Okay prove this to my mind,” you are obviously missing the whole point. : ^ (
Don’t cry…you’ll get over it, given time. : ^ )
Transcendence is what Buddha meant when he said, “I am Awake,” ant not just that his alarm clock went off that morning and he got up as usual. ; ^ )
This particular Transcendence, I speak of, is an intimate experience. It is not a group experience, and no one can do it for you, or even give it to you, although there are ways to be more receptive to it.
No, You don’t just pretend it. But than, it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
: ^ (
Doubt is a very good tool, used wisely. But, anything can be over done. If you make an idol out of your doubt, it will be a dead thing and can actually end up working against wisdom at some point. : ^ (
I never said that you should believe anything without proof. I merely said to stay alert and keep an open mind.
Don’t worry, your brains won’t fall out if you do this. But, they may suffocate if you don’t open a few windows, and let in a little fresh air, (AKA new insights) once in a while.
; ^ )
M: They are believed because they are comforting, not because there is a single reason to believe they are true.
S9: This may be the case for some, but for many years I was a Jnani, and my path was the mind. So I thought, and thought, and thought, until it was time to move on. Not fall back 'mind you.' I was at least reasonable, and than added transcendence.
Have a nice day. : ^ )
Friendly regards,
S9
I just don't know what that means.
And you will look me with big wide knowing virtual eyes and say, "Ahh, my son, you will one day, you will know... oh yes..."
I have had that attitude many times from all kinds of Buddhists.
But to me in all senses it seems no differnt to a staement I would tell to my kids about Santa. (Incidentally a bone of contention with my wife and I is that I will not partake in her pushing of "The Santa Deception")
Then I am in lucky company, indeed.
If you have been where I am now, and have emerged through the same kind of foolish, silly doubts I have now then please, i implore you to tell me how?
I had these doubts from the start, but smuggled them out of my thoughts BECAUSE of people telling me "you will see, my son, you will see." etc
But I didn't see S9. I still don't. After years of this being the singular question I have dedicated my time to.
Please show me the way, without being circular, why Rebirth is not a delusion and why the Buddha did not teach that it is a delusion.
I have zero problem with that and I believe it, completely. I am aware of and amazed by the minds capability for transcendent experiences.
But can you explain to me where this connects with the idea of Rebirth and the mystical. You dont need the rebirth delusion to explain your transcendental experiences, so why have it?
I just dont get it:(
S9: it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
I have no proof that there is not a unicorn's horn in Uranus but I am as certain to anything as I can be.
We could talk for weeks on proof but it would just be another ye olde athiest versus Christains slagging match, utterly pointless.
Buddha has shown us we have many delusions, I now see rebirth as just another one of them.
e
Please don't expect me to belive that my ego is real or there can be eternal things or that there is rebirth:)
I really think many people here dont get this point. they get sucker-punched by the "doubt" defilement and loose it.
Consider this:
Imagine Bob believes Proposition X and Mary believes Proposition Y.
Bob has tested Proposition X in every way he can. Tried to refute it, tried to disprove it, tried to get others to disprove it, looked at the science for it and after years it remains unshakable.
Mary believes Proposition Y because someone told her it was true.
Who would you say is entitled to the most certainty about their respective postpositions?
Doubt is the bedrock of wisdom, science and insight. The Buddha knew this, he was the first of the guiding principles, that which he told to The kalamas.
You too:) I like talking with you, we have very oppossing views but manage to keep it relatively low on forum dukka!:)
Mat
RE: S9: I can easily see why you might say this... and you are obviously also still “mind-bound.”
M: I just don't know what that means.
S9: It is a form of “Spiritual Materialism,” referred to by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. It happens when you are moving along quite nicely, and then get stuck somewhere in the mind because you enjoy it so much, or it feeds into your ego, or any number of reasons.
And:
No I am not a Tibetan Buddhist. I am far too eclectic to choose just one particular tradition. So please don’t try to ‘type-cast’ me, so that you can easily dismiss what I say.
LIKE THIS: And you will look me with big wide knowing virtual eyes and say, "Ahh, my son, you will one day, you will know... oh yes..."
M: I have had that attitude many times from all kinds of Buddhists.
S9: And, often shared that very attitude, I might add. It makes little difference if you cloak it in…"You cannot reason things out, unlike my superior, and extremely reasonable self." he/he
(Mat walks away, smugly patting himself on the back…with very little, or no shame.)
I guess we all have to keep an eye out for our sneaky crafty (BIG) egos. Me, too.
; ^ )
M: Incidentally a bone of contention with my wife and I is that I will not partake in her pushing of "The Santa Deception"
S9: Wow, you sound like a fun guy. ; ^ )
Do you also snatch away your son’s toy trucks, or your daughter’s dolls, saying “Grow up, these are not real?”
Sorry…none of my business. Butting out. The devil made me say this.
: ^ (
M: If you have been where I am now, and have emerged through the same kind of foolish, silly doubts I have now then please, i implore you to tell me how?
S9: Not silly, but certainly overdone, IM(not so)HO .
Don’t you mean, “I implore you to make a damn fool out of your self, so I can feel superior?” : ^ (
Okay, S9 sticks the neck way out, because maybe someone here will hear it, and gain from it in some way.
What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what WAS Permanent and Ever Present. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging, my very own Awareness.
Not the 'consciousness of' that is brain dependent, and goes away if someone hits you on the head with a hammer really hard.
Like any profound insight, it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, but so much more.
All great insights have an element of surprise.
M: But, I didn't see S9. I still don't. After years of this being the singular question I have dedicated my time to.
S9: Yes, I know. We all do this in one way or another. The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t the mind. Mind is in IT.
You are looking to understand Being, your Buddha Nature. This is in no way a mental thing.
M: Please show me the way, without being circular.
S9: You are saying please show me without the circular mind, as everything in the mind is circular, as in the ‘Wheel of Samsara.’ Getting off the wheel is refusing to identify with mind, and her thoughts.
I am not a great believer in reincarnation. I am more Zen in this, as in “Never born, never dies…and Original Face.”
M: I have zero problem with that and I believe it, completely. I am aware of and amazed by the minds capability for transcendent experiences.
S9: Wow, that’s great. I am very happy for you. : ^ )
RE: S9: it isn’t very receptive on your part to claim that you know everything about it, either. What proof do you have that it doesn't exist?
M: I have no proof that there is not a unicorn's horn in Uranus, but I am as certain to anything as I can be.
S9: My advice is to give up on the unicorn because everyone admits that it is a myth.
However, please do not be too quick to dismiss that there is something permanent that you are not noticing yet. You say you want to understand, and I believe you. So just look, because you are looking always any way. Just look for this, too.
Lin Chi, “Look, look.”
This is a direct insight and happens in an instant…but is total life changing. Don’t believe it…just look.
M: I really think many people here don’t get this point. they get sucker-punched by the "doubt" defilement and loose it.
S9: I get it. It is like Zen’s “Great Doubt.” But, you can’t use it like a wall in front of your eyes. Use it more like a broom to sweep up whatever you see through. Not everything, any old time. The stuff you actually SEE through. ; ^ )
I like talking to you, too. Mostly because I feel that you are a serious seeker.
Friendly Regards,
S9
S9: And, often shared that very attitude, I might add. It makes little difference if you cloak it in…"You cannot reason things out, unlike my superior, and extremely reasonable self." he/he
M: Pushing universal doubt is a bit different to peddling mystcial dogma;)
S9:I guess we all have to keep an eye out for our sneaky crafty (BIG) egos. Me, too.
M: I often admit i let my ego get the better of me here. i am very aware of that, all i can do is try.
S9: Do you also snatch away your son’s toy trucks, or your daughter’s dolls, saying “Grow up, these are not real?”
M: Toys are not myths;)
S9: What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what wasn’t impermanent. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging.
M: OK, and what was that and how do you know its not illusionary?
S9: Yes, I know. We all do this in one way or another. The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t the mind. Mind is in IT.
M: That's just words, and no differnt from saying" Jesus is lord".
S9: My advice is to give up on the unicorn because everyone admits that it is a myth.
M: We might find a tribe of people who have been indoctrinated that it isn't a myth for 25 centuries?
S9: I get it. It is like Zen’s “Great Doubt.” But, you can’t use it like a wall in front of your eyes.
I cannot doubt Dharmna, I can doubt magic, what should I do?
Very very. Just because I dont such the myticis pipe it doesn't mean I have not dedicated my life to dharma.
Much metta
Mat
RE: S9: What worked for me was to keep an eagle eye out for what wasn’t impermanent. At first it seemed like there was no such thing. After some time, I began to notice that something was Present and Unchanging.
M: OK, and what was that and how do you know its not illusionary?
S9: What you are asking me to do is to break down what exactly I have found, or experienced outside of the mind, this being alternately called, “Being,” “Pure Awareness,” or “Buddha Nature,” (same/same), into a mental concepts/words, which you can easily grasp with your mind.
But, I have told you repeated (have I not?) that the “Buddha Nature” is not a mind object, and cannot be captured either conceptually or completely within a cage of words.
The ball is in your court. YOU must LOOK. Buddha Nature is not Fast Food. : ^ )
Perhaps this is why nature builds in SUFFERING so we won’t (can’t) give up easily.
Buddha Nature is a kind of healing; a finding of wholeness. Dis-satisfaction goes on to point out that we are incomplete, and only living partially, when we live FROM our ego self, (AKA Wrongful Identification.)
Perhaps this is the very reason that a Zen master will say, “I can only point at it.” You (my e-friend) must look at WHERE I am pointing. Or a Zen master (again) might further say, “Don’t look at my finger,” (AKA "Don't look at my words).
The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery. What you are looking for isn’t IN the mind. Mind is an ongoing dream within Buddha Nature.
Buddha Nature is not contained IN the mind. The mind finds it ineffable.
You don't actually look AT Buddha Nature with your mind, you look FROM Buddha Nature, because it is your REAL home, your base of operations.
Lin Chi: "Who is this fellow going in and coming out of my eyes?"
In other words, Buddha Nature is like the SUN, and mind is like the MOON. The Moon is only reflecting the Sun, lik a mirror, but never quite in its fullness. So the moon tell us of the Sun, or by looking at the moon we can extrapolate that there must be a Sun, but we can never go on to think that therefore the moon IS the SUN. ; ^ )
Warm Regards : ^ )
S9
M: Do you see that that amounts to you simply saying "I cannot answer in words?"
Now that's fine about some things. For example qualitative experiences. I cannot explain to you many experiences I have in terms of commposite parts, this is what emmergence is:)
I cant explain to you my love of my Mother or the experince of now in more simple terms.
But that is not what is being discussed:)
I am asking you what your solution was to the rebirth delusion.
Buddha Nataure is a lovelly concept. And i think we have it in us, but its a shorthand for the truth of the compassionate loving kind moral path that dharma dictates. it isn't, to me, a "thing" but ameans of expression some Buddhists use.
(Incidentally I don't think the Buddha taught about buddha nature, it seems to be a very later addition, but its still a nice concept)
Can you tell me why that is not identical to a Christan saying "Have faith!"
No nature has no choice but to condition suffering, it is necessary of all consistent finite realities. Do you understand why i say this? It is very clear to see from the three marks... sometimes with Dharma you need to think rather than "nonthink";)
I think this is all just mystifying distraction. It doesnt provide any evidence for rebirth, ergo rebirth remains delusional to me.
Why can I not just point to the absence of rebirth and say something woo like "It is at the absence of where my finger points where the extinguishing of your question arises."?
S9The problem is that your mind isn’t the right tool for this discovery.
S9: So mind isnt the tool. Nor is science. Nor is reason. Nor insight. And what the tool is you cannot say, other than use some wishy-washy zen metaphore?
Please see why I am not convinced at all here:)
Mat