Which tradition to follow?

• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 14:39

  Selective deception seems to awash here, read this lah - NOT the dictionay meaning of existence and so was for the labels God, Self and ,..... Intellectual understanding (of the mind) is good for passing exams, collecting certificates and what-not. Intelligence is of the heart is useless for passing exams n .... Using logic of the mind (intellect) and looking for logic in something that the human mind cannot grasp is fighting with what is not. When one's mirror that is thick with the dust of the past (knowledge, traditions beliefs n ...), one cannot see clearly what is. One only sees what one wants to see, hence one misses! One cannot respond to what is. One merely reacts and all one does is use the past. Of course, the past is dead, it is only alive in the mind. The wise knows and accepts that the illusion of certainty cannot co-exist with existential uncertainty. At the most, one is clutching at straws of certainty! Hence, I say parking one’s mind nowhere – there is a ’’possibility’’ of finding out. It it not out there but an inward journey and a journey not to attain or not attain cos there is nothing to be attained. Can two emptinesses meet? Can two beings meet? Transformation happens from the inner knowing. Change always from the outside. Change is akin to pruning the leaves and branches of a tree, it is superficial. Transformation is examining the roots and making the change from within. It has depth and there is a difference. Religion is that of being a spotlight and spirituality is that of being a floodlite.
• An Eternal Now

  28 Jan 12, 15:07

  Originally posted by Fugazzi:

  The meaning that was attributed to in the posting is not the dictionay meaning of existence and so was for the labels God, Self and ,.....
  Can one find existence, one can taste it, one can expereine it, can one conceptualize it? There is no meaning excepting what the human mind defines it to be, whiich is a limitation. Emptiness as Buddha had hinted to or not is about emptying ’’ONESELF’’ and ’’partaking’’ of his beingness .... one can expereince existence,it is not something to attain, iit is already herenow, all that is being aware that one is absent to oneself..

  It is beyond meaning and hence the conundrum and utter confusion!

  And the problem is that you fail to understand that liberation is not about 'existence', it is about realizing the NATURE of existence including its emptiness, and this requires right view.

  It is not just about dropping concepts - that will fall into the category of 'disease of nonconceptuality' and you will fail to realize anatta, emptiness, the profound truths that liberate.

  And no, emptiness is NOT about 'emptying oneself and partaking his beingness' - there is no beingness of Tathagata apart or inside the five aggregates. You will see that even 'existence' or 'non-existence' does not apply because a Beingness of Tathagata, or Self, cannot be established. This is the true of anatta.

  Emptiness is not 'emptying oneself' but realizing there is no self, and no substance of phenomena, the twofold emptiness. It is not an accomplishment through letting go, but realizing a fact that always already is so.

  No teachings except Buddhism talk about this - I mean seriously you will never find it elsewhere, including all mystical contemplative traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Sufism, Christian Mysticism and so on. Other religions talk about the Atman-Brahman, they talk about Existence, God and so on, but reify a truly existing metaphysical essence. There is a true transcendental experience and realization but falsely reified, so no true liberation can be found. I have been through those phases of insight and experience myself.

  Only in Buddhism will you find no-self and emptiness.

• Dharmadhatu

  28 Jan 12, 16:17

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  And the problem is that you fail to understand that liberation is not about 'existence', it is about realizing the NATURE of existence including its emptiness, and this requires right view.

  It is not just about dropping concepts - that will fall into the category of 'disease of nonconceptuality' and you will fail to realize anatta, emptiness, the profound truths that liberate.

  And no, emptiness is NOT about 'emptying oneself and partaking his beingness' - there is no beingness of Tathagata apart or inside the five aggregates. You will see that even 'existence' or 'non-existence' does not apply because a Beingness of Tathagata, or Self, cannot be established. This is the true of anatta.

  Emptiness is not 'emptying oneself' but realizing there is no self, and no substance of phenomena, the twofold emptiness. It is not an accomplishment through letting go, but realizing a fact that always already is so.

  No teachings except Buddhism talk about this - I mean seriously you will never find it elsewhere, including all mystical contemplative traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Sufism, Christian Mysticism and so on. Other religions talk about the Atman-Brahman, they talk about Existence, God and so on, but reify a truly existing metaphysical essence. There is a true transcendental experience and realization but falsely reified, so no true liberation can be found. I have been through those phases of insight and experience myself.

  Only in Buddhism will you find no-self and emptiness.

  Like this post!! 

• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 16:33

  does the fish in the sea feel the need to look for the sea, does it feel thirsty? Juggling semantics is commendable and to be mired in selective deception/attention and simply parroting and quotining texts to prop oneself is playing mind games. Only in Buddhism, this is pious egoism. Hence, I saythis, when what is not experienced and it is not a living reality - it is tantamount to lying
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 18:24

  I am not a fish, neither do you live an existence of a fish! Drop being presumptous of being knowing fish! Fundamental to Buddhism is the Four Noble Truths,the rest are a means to the end. Are you that shallow that you can't see beneath the unlying principle,adapted to myriad of people of different ages?! Your agravation is that more you scratch, the more you need to scratch, like what you are doing. You see no wisdom in conventionality, yet it endure despite your disapproval. You are also unable to abide in quietitude, allowing events unfold. Neither are you able provide tangible assistance to people wanting, only dismissal and disdain to anything else not you!
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 18:39

  Do not mistake similarities for sameness, each one of us takes a different individual path, learning and making mistakes as we go along. Because life is unsatisfactory that we keep seeking, because it is still unsatsifactory, seeking constantly! You are oblivious to different paths of suffering and only see superficiality! What a shame!
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 18:47

  .............................................................................................................................................. Can you elaborate further what does your “what is true….� refers specifically to? In your opinion, should we also transcends this “WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)�? If we are to transcend religion but bind ourselves to the “WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)�, are we not the same as being bound and confined to religions, dogma, and views? Can what is true be compressed into a box? what is ’’rite’’ now can become a ’’wrong’’ the next instant. What is true now may become untrue. Hence I uttered what is true, not truth – what is true – it is a continuous tense, eg My being rude can end , my being polite can end. However when I m labelled as stupid, clever or smart – i am already reduced into a thing, a labelled product is finished. Hence, this word ’’being’’ may appear like another concept – on closer srutiny it is akin to a river flowing (rivering). it is existential and always moving and yet not moving (it is a paradoxical phenomenon). The mind is a pond, being is a river (rivering). Hence I say, when one is present to one’s ’’self’’’ (fictional) one is absent to one’s being .............................................................................................................................................. I think you are 'too overly intelligent' that you have misunderstood my question. I have no problem with understanding of the distinction you made between 'what is true' and the 'truth' that encapsulated in concepts and expressed in language that are inherently limited. In fact, the buddhists are no stranger to what you have been parroting. These are themes that can be found in all buddhist texts. In fact, many forumers in this buddhist forum like AEN, simpo, thusness etc have talked about all the the stuffs you have been parroting in their post at length. The 'WHAT IS TRUE.....(not truth)' in my question refer to the 'REALITY' you assume to exist that cannot be commpressed in a box, the non-dictionary meaning of 'Truth' vs the conceptual truth, to use your own words. Nobody here is talking about the small letter conceptual truth with you here.
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 18:57

  You are not capable of addressing answers to the level ability of the individual,the maturity of his/her journey. We investigate according to our perceptions, there is no homogenity, but there are similiar temperaments and outlooks, thus different traditions. We deal and understand sufferings differently at our own evolutionary paths, needs to be catered at different levels. Letting go at different stages is different due to our false views at the point of time! False views changes from grosser to subtle.
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 19:00

  Fugazzi, you have not answer my questions. pls don't beat around the bushes by parroting poetries with the same content in different wordings again and agian. Let me re-post the question here again. 1) Does the " transcendence" you have been talking about also includes the transcendence of the notion and belief in GOD to attain true liberation? Or do you implicitly make the notion of GOD an exception? [Note: here the label GODnot does refer to the everyday dictionary meaning] 2) Can you elaborate further what does your "what is true...." refers specifically to? In your opinion, should we also transcends this "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)"??? If we are to transcend religion but bind ourselves to the "WHAT IS TRUE (not truth)", are we not the same as being bound and confined to religions, dogma, and views?? [Note: I have clarify the usage of 'what is true' in this question in my previous post] To borrow your words, the GOD and 'WHAT IS TRUE' refer to your meaning of your analogy of the Sun that exists regardless of whether you believe or not. In other words, should we transcend YOUR SUN as well???????? Hope that this time is clear enough and you will no disapoint me..... hehehehehe......hahaahah
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 19:05

  Originally posted by Weychin:

  You are not capable of addressing answers to the level ability of the individual,the maturity of his/her journey. We investigate according to our perceptions, there is no homogenity, but there are similiar temperaments and outlooks, thus different traditions. We deal and understand sufferings differently at our own evolutionary paths, needs to be catered at different levels. Letting go at different stages is different due to our false views at the point of time! False views changes from grosser to subtle.

  
  Then say so lah, why bullshit. everybody seems to be copying n pasting and when one's stance of believing is transpiring and is threatened, one simply plays the artful dodger. When one is being empty, there is a chance, however behind the facade is of subtle deception, it is simply bullshitting One thing that is so palpable is that of constipated with concepts and all discussions seem to emnate from or is premised on this conceptualising stance. If i m afflicted with the disease as some here seem to feel so, it is fine, I m not latching onto some sutra, scripture and copying and pasting and quoting people. One is free to spout anything, I dont care much for whether it is accepted, embraced or subscribed. This is the fallacy of organized religion, can truth be organized?
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 19:23

  Fugazzi Just like 'YOUR SUN' that exists regardless of whether you believe or not, likewise the REALITY THAT BUDDHISM is the COMPLETE PATH to LIBERATION IS UNDENIABLE, whether you like it or not. By the way, what you have been parroting are actually buddhist stuffs, less your attachment to your subtle GOD. Im sure you are more aware than anyone else where your got your stuffs from. you should spend more time and reserve your materials for the ISLAM forum. NOT HERE. you are just wasting everbody time here to have a fruitful discussion of buddhism. hehehhehehe.................hhahahaahhaahahah
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 19:23

  I watch the TV all the time! Anything that does'nt resonate with me, I can say bullshit or switch channels! There many channels for different taste, but objective to viewer is the same, entertainment! There are so many sutras, embodying the noble truths! Not everybody are able to extract nuggets of wisdom, but even if only one maybe benefit, it is well worth it! Organized religion exist because a lot people respond well to it. When people congregate, it is then possible to plants seeds of Buddhism even as people go about doing religion the way they always has done. You must want to practise Buddhism; meditation, contemplation, whatever! In the meantime, preaching moral conduct; tolerance to devotees, is not a bad thing either. Donations will help sustain the Sangha, which not a bad thing either!
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 19:24

  @Sushism God is an empty word, when one is being kind, that is being godly, Can the latter be conceptualised, Cos any moment, one may start being unkind or ... notion and belief in GOD to attain true liberation - are all good for discussion and it is still building conceptual skyscrapers! In actual living as long as one is making references to the ideaor belief or defintions of god, awakening or ..... one is bound to add colour to transparency (one's beliefs, one's traditions, one's concepts distort what is or what is not) When one transcends these .... and one is left nothing to hold on to, one is open to ..... one can define a dead thing, can one define what is existential. One can belong to a church, a monastery or ... can one belong to existence? can one step into the same river twice? the latter is existential, one can taste it , one can experience it. The moment one conceptualizes it is already a dead thing, a past.... Hence I use the word pond for the mind and river for the heart (aka soul, god or whatever resonates with oneslef) What is a fiction needs maintenance cos it belies fear belies insecurity, what is true does not need any maintenance.
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 19:29

  If you feel excerpts of Sutras wanting, you may request commentaries, or further elucidations. It may prove more productive!
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 19:32

  I dont need to belong to any club to prop myself , i rather be confused and explore and find out.
• Weychin

  28 Jan 12, 19:43

  Participation here does'nt mean joining a secret society. Being here just means you're interested. Beneficial if you want to help or be helped!
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 19:47

  Originally posted by Weychin:

  Participation here does’nt mean joining a secret society. Being here just means you’re interested. Beneficial if you want to help or be helped!

  
  Thanks that is so very heartwarming, i know many ''dislike'' views opinions spouted by me for what i say and utter, bo pian lor, this is a forum, i came prepared to be slaughtered lah!
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 19:56

  ........................................................................................................................................... Then say so lah, why bullshit. everybody seems to be copying n pasting and when one's stance of believing is transpiring and is threatened, one simply plays the artful dodger. When one is being empty, there is a chance, however behind the facade is of subtle deception, it is simply bullshitting One thing that is so palpable is that of constipated with concepts and all discussions seem to emnate from or is premised on this conceptualising stance. If i m afflicted with the disease as some here seem to feel so, it is fine, I m not latching onto some sutra, scripture and copying and pasting and quoting people. One is free to spout anything, I dont care much for whether it is accepted, embraced or subscribed. This is the fallacy of organized religion, can truth be organized? .............................................................................................................................................. Are you talking about yourself? Copy and paste is Ok. It more shameless if someone plagarized from buddhism and use the same stuffs (with tricky play of poetry wordings) to attack the source of these stolen stuffs with a hidden agenda. Ya, Buddhsim as taught by the Buddha is not a religion. It only becomes a religion when one reify and hypostasized it. Just like when Emptiness is reify, it become Allah devoid of all human conceptual descriptions (nonetheless, ironically, it can still be affirm as an existent GOD). No one in this forum is imposing buddhism as a religion, dogma, doctrine or view on anyone else. We are just communicating the buddha dharma for the benefits of sentient beings, just like what you have been doing which you think is something noble. Despite parroting so much, I think you are the most CLOSED MINDED.
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 19:59

  Fugazzi Since you said you are not a muslim or sufis and does'nt belong to any group (I assume you are speaking the truth..hehehhe), I have no worry asking you this question. In the context of what you have been parroting, I would like to know what is your assessment of Islam particularly sufism. Thank you.
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 20:11

  Originally posted by Sushism:

  ...........................................................................................................................................
  Then say so lah, why bullshit. everybody seems to be copying n pasting and when one’s stance of believing is transpiring and is threatened, one simply plays the artful dodger. When one is being empty, there is a chance, however behind the facade is of subtle deception, it is simply bullshitting One thing that is so palpable is that of constipated with concepts and all discussions seem to emnate from or is premised on this conceptualising stance. If i m afflicted with the disease as some here seem to feel so, it is fine, I m not latching onto some sutra, scripture and copying and pasting and quoting people. One is free to spout anything, I dont care much for whether it is accepted, embraced or subscribed. This is the fallacy of organized religion, can truth be organized?
  ..............................................................................................................................................

  Are you talking about yourself?

  Copy and paste is Ok. It more shameless if someone plagarized from buddhism and use the same stuffs (with tricky play of poetry wordings) to attack the source of these stolen stuffs with a hidden agenda.

  Ya, Buddhsim as taught by the Buddha is not a religion. It only becomes a religion when one reify and hypostasized it. Just like when Emptiness is reify, it become Allah devoid of all human conceptual descriptions (nonetheless, ironically, it can still be affirm as an existent GOD).

  No one in this forum is imposing buddhism as a religion, dogma, doctrine or view on anyone else. We are just communicating the buddha dharma for the benefits of sentient beings, just like what you have been doing which you think is something noble.

  Despite parroting so much, I think you are the most CLOSED MINDED.

  
  Buddhism - got copyrighted truth is it? truth is simply truth, can one find Muslim truth? can one find Christian truth? One can find a Buddhist mind (aka conditioning) one can find a Muslim mind ( conditioning). One can play mind games (pious egoism is more like it) but one's intuitive heart never lies! I never thought what i said was noble, u are saying it, u are projecting ur own prejducices, bigotry and fears, deal with that lah, I m fully aware of my fallacies, my shortcomings. and if questioning and ... is perceived n is personalized, is it my problem? My postings not only, in many other forums have been lambasted, so what m i going to do? Personalize it, I would the moment it is a threat to my sense of self, or what I am attached to.Why? cos i m propping myself up with somthing that is outside of me.
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 20:21

  Assessment of Islam and Sufism? what is there to say excepting this, cos this seems to be generally all pervasive in all of organized religion(s): there are two types one is a follower and the other of seeking, which are u asking about the follower or the seeker. Perhaps those who are Muslims and Sufists can avail u of assessment or ....
• Ghostpel

  28 Jan 12, 20:33

  I think what fugazzi have said are very much concordant with buddhism. So I don't understand the bickering happneing over here. I see there is a parrellel (or at least on the surface) Perhaps, Fugazzi lacks an understanding of Buddhism (or pretend to be lack of it). If he knows Buddhism, i don't think he would have wasting time here in this forum. With regard to the issue of view, I think there is an agreement here. To quote Nagarjuna: Ultimate serenity is the coming to rest of all ways of taking things, the repose of named things; no truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone, anywhere. - Nagarjuna So, in my understanding, the RIGHT VIEW the buddhists and AEN talking about is the an expression of the above insight. It is not any CONCEPTUAL human FABRICATION. It should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of 'view' ( to borrow your words heheheh...). I guess that is what trigger off your objection to AEN posts In the same vein, what you have been preaching can be said to constitute a 'view' as well. Of course, you may resist and prefer to resort to words play. If you think that having such a 'view' (as opposed to dictionary view) is an obstacle to realising reality, then you should stop talking for what you said can also be an obstacle. Ultimately, the Buddha teaches us to take things with detachment. To take things with detachment is to view the mutitude of things AS IT IS WITHOUT IMPOSING CONCEPTUAL AS WELL AS EMOTIONAL FABRICATIONS. This what the Buddha means by THUSNESS or SUCHNESS. Many has misunderstood THUSNESS as meaning a transcendental reality that can only be described at best in APOPHATIC terms. This is WRONG. In fact the so-called 'transcendent' like GOD is just another kind of mental fabrication.
• Ghostpel

  28 Jan 12, 20:41

  What I have posted are what i have learnt from Buddhism, and the various articles posted by AEN and other buddhist forumers. So, if I can see a concordance of views between Buddhism and Fugazzi, I don't see the reason behind Fugazzi keep taking issues with Buddhism, unless he has a hidden agenda as suggested by some forumers here.
• Sushism

  28 Jan 12, 20:46

  Fugazzi Your descriptions best described yourselves. Your doings exposed your deep-seated fear, insecurity and self-insufficiency of your religion. hhahahahaha.............. heheheeehehehehehhhhhhhhhhheeeeee...........
• Fugazzi

  28 Jan 12, 20:46

  Certainly, it is a ''mental fabrication'' if one were to have an idea, i never defined god, it would be ''stupid'' to define existence, one can utter what god is not, one can utter what englightenment is not, one can utter what existence is not; this stance allows one to .... in this stance one cannot conclude, how to conclude, except being aware to where is one parking one's mind or not parking! When the knowing of what I am not is a knowing ''phenomenon'' within me, I am going to find out what I am all about. Of course, it all depends whether I am willing to face and unlearn or sweep it under the carpet and bleat away and ignore it. The question of whether one is learning or unlearning does make a difference. There is no monopoly on wisdom, Jesus was wise, Mohd was wise and there were so many others. To attribute it to being Hindu wisdom, Buddhism wisdom is good , yes , good for vested interests. catch the drift?