Which tradition to follow?
-
Originally posted by Sushism:
Fugazzi
Your descriptions best described yourselves. Your doings exposed your deep-seated fear, insecurity and self-insufficiency of your religion.
hhahahahaha…...........
heheheeehehehehehhhhhhhhhhheeeeee…........
i m not an atheist nor m i a non-atheist. -
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 Neither are there any buddhist here asserting we have monopoly over truth and wisdom. I think you have read too much into the various posts in the Buddhist forum, making you feel perhaps insecure or threatened. May be you can consider starting up a new forum called 'Fugazzi-ism" to preach your thinking.
-
Thanks, so many are paying attention to my rantings or .. it must be ringing alaram bells!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
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 lyingThis is far from semantics. It is a fact that only Buddhism talks about no self and emptiness - other religions establish an inherent existence. This is not semantics, but a quantum leap, a paradigm shift. As explained in Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
Experientially there is vast implications.
Only in Buddhism, will you realize Thusness Stage 5 and 6, and thus can attain true liberation, other religions are only 1 to 4:
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Stage 1: The Experience of “I AM”
It was about 20 years back and it all started with the question of “Before birth, who am I”. I do not know why but this question seems to capture my entire being. I can spend days and nights just sitting focusing, pondering over this question; till one day, everything seemed to come to a complete standstill, not even a single thread of thought arise. There is merely nothing and completely void, only this pure sense of existence. This mere sense of I, this Presence, what is it? It is not the body, not thought as there is no thought, nothing at all, just Existence itself. There is no need for anyone to authenticate this understanding.
At that moment of realization, I experience tremendous flow of energy being released. It is as if life is expressing itself through my body and I am merely nothing but this expression. However at that point in time, I am still unable to fully understand what this experience is and how I have misunderstood its nature.
Stage 2: The Experience of “I AM Everything”
It seems that my experience is supported by many Advaita and Hindu teachings. But the biggest mistake I made is when I spoke to a Buddhist friend, he told me about the doctrine of no-self, about no ‘I’. I rejected such doctrine outright as it is in direct contradiction with what I experienced. I was deeply confused for some time and could not appreciate why Buddha has taught this doctrine and worst still make it a Dharma Seal. Until one day, I experienced the fusing of everything into ‘Me’ but somehow there is no ‘me’. It is like an “I-less I’. I somehow accepted the 'no I' idea but then I still insist that Buddha shouldn't have put it that way...
The experience is wonderful, it is as if I am totally emancipated, a complete release without boundary. I told myself I am totally convinced that I am no more confused so I wrote a poem (something like the below),
I am the rain
I am the sky
I am the ‘blueness’
The color of the sky
Nothing is more real than the I
Therefore Buddha, I am I.
There is a phrase for this experience -- Whenever and wherever there IS, the IS is Me. This phrase is like a mantra to me. I often use this to lead me back into the experience of Presence.
The rest of the journey is the unfolding and further refining of this experience of Total Presence but somehow there is always this blockage, this ‘something’ preventing me from recapturing the experience. It is the inability to fully ‘die’ into total Presence..
Stage 3: Entering Into a State of Nothingness
Somehow something is blocking the natural flow of my innermost essence and preventing me from re-living the experience. Presence is still there but there is no sense of ‘totality’. It was both logically and intuitively clear that ‘I’ is the problem. It is the ‘I’ that is blocking; it is the ‘I’ that is the limit; it is the ‘I’ that is the boundary but why can’t I do away with it? At that point in time it didn’t occur to me that I should look into the nature of awareness and what awareness is all about, instead, I was too occupied with the art of entering into a state of oblivious to rid the ‘I’...this continues for the next 13+ years (in between of course there are many other minor events and the experience of total presence did occur many times but with few months of gap)…
However I came to one important understanding –
The ‘I’ is the root cause of all artificialities, true freedom is in spontaneity. Surrender into complete nothingness and everything simply Self So.
Stage 4: Presence as Mirror Bright Clarity
I got in touch with Buddhism in 1997. Not because I wanted to find out more about the experience of ‘Presence’ but rather the teaching of impermanence syncs deeply with what I experience in life. I am faced with the possibility of losing all my wealth and more by financial crisis. At that point in time I have no idea that Buddhism is so profoundly rich on the aspect of ‘Presence’. The mystery of life cannot be understood, I sought for a refuge in Buddhism to alleviate my sorrows caused by the financial crisis but it turned out to be the missing key towards experiencing total presence.
I wasn’t that resistant then about the doctrine of ‘no-self’ but the idea that all phenomenal existence is empty of an inherent ‘self’ or ‘Self’ did not quite get into me. Are they talking about the ‘Self’ as a personality or ‘Self’ as ‘Eternal Witness’? Must we do away even with the ‘Witness’ itself or the Witness is another illusion itself?
There is thinking, no thinker
There is sound, no hearer
Suffering exists, no sufferer
Deeds there are, no doer
I was meditating the above stanza deeply… about its meaning until one day, suddenly I heard ‘tongss…’, it was so clear, there was nothing else, just the sound and nothing else! And ‘tongs…’ resounding…. It was so clear, so vivid!
That experience is so familiar, so real and so clear. It is the same experience of “I AM”….it is without thought, without concepts, without intermediary, without anyone there, without any in-between…What is it? IT is Presence! But this time it is not ‘I AM’, it is not asking ‘who am I’, it is not the pure sense of “I AM”, it is ‘TONGSss….’, the pure Sound…
Then comes Taste, just the Taste and nothing else….
The heart beats…..
The Scenery…
There is no gap in between, no longer a few months gap for it to arise…
There never was a stage to enter, no I to cease and never has it existed
There is no entry and exit point…
There is no Sound out there or in here…
There is no ‘I’ apart from the arising and ceasing…
The manifold of Presence….
Moment to moment Presences unfolds…Comments:
This is the beginning of seeing through no-self. Insight into no-self has arisen but non-dual experience is still very much 'Brahman' than 'Sunyata'; in fact it is more Brahman than ever. Now "I AMness" is experienced in All.
Nevertheless it is a very important key phase where practitioner experiences a quantum leap in perception untying the dualistic knot. This is also the key insight leading to the realization that "All is Mind", all is just this One Reality.
The tendency to extrapolate an Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness where we are part of this Reality remains surprisingly strong. Effectively the dualistic knot is gone but the bond of seeing things inherently isn't. 'Dualistic' and 'inherent' knots that prevent the fully experiencing of our Maha, empty and non-dual nature of pristine awareness are two very different 'perceptual spells' that blind.
The subsection "On Second Stanza" of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection" further elaborates this insight.Stage 5: No Mirror Reflecting
There is no mirror reflecting
All along manifestation alone is.
The one hand claps
Everything IS!
Effectively Phase 4 is merely the experience of non-division between subject/object. The initial insight glimpsed from the anatta stanza is without self but in the later phase of my progress; it appears more like subject/object is an inseparable union, than absolutely no-subject. This is precisely the 2nd case of the Three levels of understanding Non-Dual. I was still awed by the pristineness and vividness of phenomena in phase 4.
Phase 5 is quite thorough in being no one and I would call this anatta in all 3 aspects -- no subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent.
The trigger point here is the direct and thorough seeing that 'the mirror is nothing more than an arising thought'. With this, the solidity and all the grandeur of 'Brahman' goes down the drain. Yet it feels perfectly right and liberating without the agent and being simply as an arising thought or as a vivid moment of bell resounding. All the vividness and presence remains with an additional sense of freedom. Here a mirror/reflection union is clearly understood as flawed, there is only vivid reflection. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. Only in subtle recalling, that is, a thought recalling a previous moment of thought, that the watcher seems to exist. From here, I moved towards the 3rd degree of non-dual.
The Stanza One complements and refines Stanza Two to make the experience of no-self thorough and effortless into just only chirping birds, drum beats, footsteps, sky, mountain, walking, chewing and tasting; no witness whatsoever hiding anywhere! 'Everything' is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence.
This phase is a very thorough non-dual experience; there is effortlessness in non-dual and one realizes that in seeing always just scenery and in hearing, always just sounds. We find true delights in naturalness and ordinariness as commonly expressed in Zen as 'chop wood, carry water; spring comes, grass grows'. With regards to ordinariness (see "On Maha in Ordinariness"), it must also be correctly understood. A recent conversation with Simpo summarizes what I am trying to convey with regards to ordinariness. Simpo (Longchen) is a very insightful and sincere practitioner, there are some very good quality articles written by him regarding non-duality in his website Dreamdatum.Yes Simpo,
Non-dual is ordinary as there is 'no-beyond' stage to arrive at. It appears to be extraordinary and grandeur only as an afterthought due to comparison.
That said, the maha experience appearing as "universe chewing" and the spontaneity of pristine happening must still remain maha, free, boundless and clear. For that is what it is and cannot be otherwise. The "extraordinariness and grandeur" that result from comparison must also be correctly discerned from the 'what is' of non-dual.
Whenever contraction steps in, it is already a manifestation of 'experiencer-experience split'. Conventionally speaking, that being the cause, that being the effect. Whatever the condition is, be it the result of unfavorable situations or subtle recalling to arrive at certain good sensation or attempting to fix an imaginary split, we have to treat it that the 'non-dual' insight has not pervaded into our entire being like the way 'karmic tendency to divide' does. We have not fearlessly, openly and unreservedly welcome whatever is. :-)
Just my view, a causal sharing.Practitioners up to this level often get over excited and misunderstand that this phase is final; in fact it does appear to be a sort of pseudo finality. Nothing much can be said. Practitioner will also be naturally led into spontaneous perfection without going further emptying the aggregates. :-)
For further comments: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/210722?page=6Comments:
The drop is thorough, the center is gone. The center is nothing more than a subtle karmic tendency to divide. A more poetic expression would be sound hears, scenery sees, the dust is the mirror. Transient phenomenon itself has always been the mirror; only strong dualistic view prevents the seeing.
Very often cycles after cycles of refining our insights are needed to make non-dual less 'concentrative' and more 'effortless'. This relates to experiencing the non-solidity and spontaneity of experience. The subsection "On First Stanza" of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection" further elaborates this phase of insight.
At this phase, we must be clear that emptying the subject will only result in non-duality and there is a need to further empty the aggregates, 18 dhatus. This means one must further penetrate the emptiness nature of the 5 aggregates, 18 dhatus with dependent origination and emptiness. Practitioner now moves from 'Brahman' to 'Sunyata'. This individual stream of consciousness is itself non-dual and entire; the need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences. This leads to the understanding of the empty nature of non-dual presence.Stage 6: The Nature of Presence is Empty
Phase 4 and 5 are the grayscale of seeing through the subject that it does not exist in actuality (anatta), there are only the aggregates. However even the aggregates are empty (Heart Sutra). It may sound obvious but more often than not, even a practitioner that has matured the anatta experience (as in phase 5) will miss the essence of it.
As I have said earlier, phase 5 do appear to be final and it is pointless to emphasize anything. Whether one proceeds further to explore this empty nature of Presence and move into the Maha world of suchness will depend on our conditions.
At this juncture, it is necessary to have clarity on what Emptiness is not to prevent misunderstandings:• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
Source: Non-Dual Emptiness TeachingAnd I would like to add,
Emptiness is not a path of practice
Emptiness is not a form of fruition
Emptiness is the ground of all experiences. There is nothing to attain or practice. What we have to realize is this ground, this ‘ungraspability’, ‘unlocatability ’ and ‘interconnectedness’ nature of all vivid arising. Emptiness will reveal that not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’. Be it ‘I’, ‘Here’ or ’Now’, all are simply impressions that dependently originate in accordance to the principle of conditionality.When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.The profundity of this four-liner principle of conditionality is not in words. For a more theoretical exposition, see Non-Dual Emptiness Teachings by Dr. Greg Goode; for a more experiential narration, see the subsection "On Emptiness" and "On Maha" of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection".
Comments:
Here practice is clearly understood as neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to thoroughly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the on-going reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature.
I am unable to express well in words this empty nature of presence. The article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta narrates this experience pretty well.
The last 3 subsections ("On Emptiness", "On Maha in Ordinariness", "Spontaneous Perfection") of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection" elaborates this phase of emptiness insight and the gradual progress of maturing the experience into the effortless mode of practice. It is important to know that in addition to the experience of the unfindability and ungraspability of emptiness, the interconnectedness of everything creating the Maha experience is equally precious.Stage 7: Presence is Spontaneously Perfected
After cycles and cycles of refining our practice and insights, we will come to this realization:Anatta is a seal, not a stage.
Awareness has always been non-dual.
Appearances have always been Non-arising.
All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.
Emptiness is the ground of all experiences.All are always and already so. Only dualistic and inherent views are obscuring these experiential facts and therefore what is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly (See section "On Spontaneous Perfection"). However this does not denote the end of practice; practice simply moves to become dynamic and conditions-manifestation based. The ground and the path of practice become indistinguishable.
Comments:
The entire article of On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection can be seen as the different approaches toward the eventual realization of this already perfect nature of awareness. -
Originally posted by Ghostpel:
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.
What Fugazzi says and what Buddhism teach are different.
Fugazzi is falling into the 'disease of non-conceptuality', read The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
-
Just follow what the Buddha has taught, his basic teachings, 4 noble truths and noble eightfold path and meditation, and the no self teachings and learn to let go of both good and bad, even the dhamma and buddha.
-
@An Eternal Now, i dont belong to any ''club'' to shore myself up. So as to ur statement about me being ''diseased'', it is fine, i rather explore and find out, i rather risk, then repeat and fall back on what someone tells me. I am for ''truth'' not carbon copies!
-
Fugazzi. (some more 4 U) .............................................................................................................................................. One can play mind games (pious egoism is more like it) but one's intuitive heart never lies! .............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. Hence I use the word pond for the mind and river for the heart (aka soul, god or whatever resonates with oneslef) .............................................................................................................................................. You seem to suggest there are two mode of experiencing, namely through the mind/consciousness and heart. You also appear to associate the logic/conceptual with the inherent nature of the mind, and the intuition with the heart. Hence, effectively, you have dichotomised two modes of access to knowledge, with the latter being limited and cannot be trusted. This mistaken view led you to assert that those that engage the mind in meditation are playing mind game (which you have explicitly mentioned). We cannot talk about emotions in separation from the mind. Sadness and happiness is a state of the mind, not the heart. It is the state of mind that influence the heartbeat and bloodflow, arousing sensation and emotions, which are physiological manifestation of the mind. Similarly we can only have a bad or good mind but not a bad or good heart, although in the convention of language we put it in this way. When speak of a painful heart or a bad heart, we do it as a convention of language. Convention is NOT EQUAL to reality. I can create a synthetic / artificial heart and install it into a machine, but can the resulting machine express any emotion??? Can an inanimate object without mind/consciousness has emotions? Emotional complexity correlates with how highly evolved our consciousness is. The origination of emotion ultimately trace back to the mind, not the heart. Even love ultimately involves the mind not the heart. Disposition, which partly influences who you love, trace back to the mind, not the heart. So, the soul, god or whatever label (which you believe to exist) can only be found in the mind/consciousness, not in the heart. Both intuition and discursive (analytical, conceptual) thinking are two modes in which our mind flows. Intuition comes from the mind not the heart. Intuition is not even emotion. Intuition is NOT EQUAL to EMOTION. You seem to confuse the two. Therefore, there is only a flowing (river) or non-flowing (pond) mind. There is no such thing as a flowing (river) heart and a non-flowing (pond) mind. A mind in its natural state (devoid of conceptual fabrications) is flowing, while a mind that is contrived with concepts is inhibited. Therefore, we can only access the ultimate reality via the mind, not the heart, by liberating ‘into’ (as opposed to ‘out of’) the natural luminosity state of our mind, which have always been there but is obscured by human thoughts (much like a sun obscured by the clouds). This is what the Buddhist call direct un-mediated knowledge via intuition (NOT EMOTION). The heart does not play any part at all. If anyone cannot get this right (like Fugazzi), he is not just playing a mind games, but also an EMOTIONAL GAME. These people are not only imposing subtle concepts unknowingly on their experiences but human emotions as well. This this reason why people, like fugazzi, who fathom the ultimate with emotions always describe their experience with phrases like ‘ecstatic‘and ‘flowing or outpouring of love and spirituality’. They are using human emotions as an epistemological base of knowledge. This mistaken view is a result of a lack of understanding of the nature of our mind. People who are too afraid or feel threatened (religious ego), like Fugazzi, to explore their mind by meditation will never attain true knowledge. If fugazzi confuses intuition with emotions, I afraid to put much credibility on what he has preached. Just my 0.5 cents worth of comment. I don't claim to be an expert just like you.
-
ghostpel <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Buuaalhhaahhahahahah.........SPOT ON..... How can someone who PLAGARISED ever get it right............ He don't know how to put the stolen pieces back into their proper relations...............that's why.................... LAU KUI (shamed) ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's is the reason why a Sufis WEEPS..................................... hehehhehehehh......................hhahahahahhaahha
-
@ghospel .............................................................................................................................................. If fugazzi confuses intuition with emotions, I afraid to put much credibility on what he has preached. .............................................................................................................................................. Buuaalhhaahhahahahah.........SPOT ON..... How can someone who PLAGARISED ever get it right............ He don't know how to put the stolen pieces back into their proper relations...............that's why.................... LAU KUI (shamed) ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ............................................................................................................................................. The heart does not play any part at all. If anyone cannot get this right (like Fugazzi), he is not just playing a mind games, but also an EMOTIONAL GAME. These people are not only imposing subtle concepts unknowingly on their experiences but human emotions as well. This this reason why people, like fugazzi, who fathom the ultimate with emotions always describe their experience with phrases like ‘ecstatic‘and ‘flowing or outpouring of love and spirituality’. They are using human emotions as an epistemological base of knowledge. .............................................................................................................................................. That is the reason why a Sufis WEEPS.
-
Originally posted by Sushism:
ghostpel <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Buuaalhhaahhahahahah.........SPOT ON..... How can someone who PLAGARISED ever get it right............ He don't know how to put the stolen pieces back into their proper relations...............that's why.................... LAU KUI (shamed) ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems that most of my postings seems to be creating paranoia , it could be that of a straw-clutching stance that one's beliefs one's traditions, one's '"bible'' is questioned and this defense seems premised on numbers as opposed to questioning, examining. ? I can understand the seekers, but followers, know lah, they are just sheep. Most seem to not know the difference between pschological growth as opposed to spiritual growth. The former is easy, just repeat knowledge, repeat, and use the past to ... hence it is intellectual, a reaction, the latter is that of responding and that has no past in it. It is intelligence and being intelligent does not need the past! If one is earnest about truth, one need not form a ''club'' truth cannot be found in a club, and is there such a thing as collective truth. One has to grapple with this reality - is one seeking truth or is one just belonging to a çlub cos of one's insecurity or one needs to be in a group to be validated. This presupposes self-honesty and of course, that sadly cannot be found in any book, scripture, temple or church. Last but not least, anyone is free to spout ,, label or ... even castigate me ... the problem is not mine, the problem is inside the one who is reacting to what my postings challenge or .... That cirumstances create people is a myth, reality is that it reveals, what is denied, what one is attached to ... surfaces. The irony of it is this - why personalize it? must be an attachment? must be a sense of self that is derived from a belief, a tradition or an attachment. One should not discount this - ego gratification/glory. So much for awakening! Ps - when one judges another one assume that one is talking or remarking about another - no lah, the other is a mere excuse, the reality of the one judging speaks volumes of what is inside of this person. me not excluded -
Religion is learning and of course, for the seeker it becomes a devict to being spiritual. For the follower, if one is sleepwalking - it is nothing but rituals after rituals. spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unload all the ''rubbish''. True of false all depends where one is on the spectrum!
-
@fugazzi Ai yah, as long as you feel happy and dignity redeemed, who cares what you are parroting......... Hehehhhhh.... By the way, I don't understand what you are writting.... Perhaps I'm stupid than you.....I can't understand poetry...... Pls write clearly..... Don't rush to post..... We know the pressure cooker in you are desparately finding a vent hole...... LAU KUI......
-
"Disease of Non-Conceptuality" Is this disease as contagious as SARS, H1N1 and Mad Cow Disease?????? Eeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!! Frightening !!!!! Hhehehehehhh.....hahahhhhahah.....
-
the ones who are fearful that their attachments to ..., that their sense of self is derived from ... is being challenged will certainly care. I would also fear if my sense of self is identified as being a Buddhist,a Muslim,or any role or when i am atttached to ... or seek fulfilment in something outside of me. it is only human, but being self-honest makes all the difference that one is identifying/attaching or ... One has to grapple with this one is either being self-conscious or one is being unself-conscious. To each his own, assuminng the pschological terrain is aware.
-
Correction: You seem to suggest there are two mode of experiencing, namely through the mind/consciousness and heart. You also appear to associate the logic/conceptual with the inherent nature of the mind, and the intuition with the heart. Hence, effectively, you have dichotomised two modes of access to knowledge, with the FORMER being limited and cannot be trusted. This mistaken view led you to assert that those that engage the mind in meditation are playing mind game (which you have explicitly mentioned).
-
Originally posted by Ghostpel:
Correction:
You seem to suggest there are two mode of experiencing, namely through the mind/consciousness and heart. You also appear to associate the logic/conceptual with the inherent nature of the mind, and the intuition with the heart. Hence, effectively, you have dichotomised two modes of access to knowledge, with the FORMER being limited and cannot be trusted. This mistaken view led you to assert that those that engage the mind in meditation are playing mind game (which you have explicitly mentioned).
Mind games- by that was implied rationalizing, using logic, and confusing psycholigical or equating it with spirituality. Religion (any) is temporal in nature and spirituality is eternal. Mind cannot sustain uncertainty (aka existential happening/unhappening) and hence it will latch onto anything to keep it alive. Hence the certainty of things, people, or .... anything that support the mind is always welcome. Anything that threatens its survivial or malnourishes it is rejected. Mind and awarness never co-existed and can never co-exist. There are no absolutes in truth, When it is absolute it is a dead thing. So, the predicament is that of knowing whether one is being a seeker or a follower and that entails being self-honest. The conundrum is that of knowing or not knowing and that is this: is it consistency of mind or the allowing of the inconsistencies (inherent in exenstial happenings/not happening) to manifest from the faceless One can find a Chinese mind, one can find a Buddhist mind and so on so forth.Ever heard of finding a Chinese heart? or a Buddhist heart and so on so forth. PS - Religion is learning and of course, for the seeker it becomes a devict to being spiritual. For the follower, if one is sleepwalking – it is nothing but rituals after rituals. spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unload all the ’’rubbish’’. True or false all depends on where one is on the spectrum of ....learning/unleraning/relgion/spirituality it is an opinion: witnessing/watching the mind (aka thougths) is meditating, The question is who is behind the witnessing/watching or .... the ''knowing'' of the meditator or the meditation -
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Mind games- by that was implied rationalizing, using logic, and confusing psycholigical or equating it with spirituality. Religion (any) is temporal in nature and spirituality is eternal. Mind cannot sustain uncertainty (aka existential happening/unhappening) and hence it will latch onto anything to keep it alive. Hence the certainty of things, people, or .... anything that support the mind is always welcome. Anything that threatens its survivial or malnourishes it is rejected. Mind and awarness never co-existed and can never co-exist. There are no absolutes in truth, When it is absolute it is a dead thing. So, the predicament is that of knowing whether one is being a seeker or a follower and that entails being self-honest. The conundrum is that of knowing or not knowing and that is this: is it consistency of mind or the allowing of the inconsistencies (inherent in exenstial happenings/not happening) to manifest from the faceless One can find a Chinese mind, one can find a Buddhist mind and so on so forth.Ever heard of finding a Chinese heart? or a Buddhist heart and so on so forth. PS - Religion is learning and of course, for the seeker it becomes a devict to being spiritual. For the follower, if one is sleepwalking – it is nothing but rituals after rituals. spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unload all the ’’rubbish’’. True or false all depends on where one is on the spectrum of ....learning/unleraning/relgion/spirituality it is an opinion: witnessing/watching the mind (aka thougths) is meditating, The question is who is behind the witnessing/watching or .... the ''knowing'' of the meditator or the meditationThere is no one behind witnessing/watching, its just thoughts arising all the time, creating the impression that there is a witness.
Generally in practice it's good to keep questioning and observe the nature of thoughts and beliefs. Bear in mind that there is no denying that we are in a conditioned world, and it does not serve well that we deny that we live in a world of concepts or try to distance away from concepts. It has to be through these concepts that we free the attachments and, only then, can we use concepts freely without attachments. One builds the scaffoldings in order to set up the foundation, once that is up, we can tear the scaffolds down, but only then.
-
If Buddha was here, he would have been very mad, to know that there are so many traditions.
But since there is already so many traditions, be happy the Core Teachings are still the same.
Going into which tradition is a matter of preference based on your personality.
My first conscious contact with Buddhism was thru' Guang Im. From there I was intrigue and learnt as much as I can. Finally I went into Theravada, because my style is to be strict when pursuing a goal. I am still very devoted to Guang Im Ma for having shown me the way to my Great Teacher Buddha.
At the end of the day, we should be more concerned about what Buddha teaches. In a nutshell, "Stop Unwholesome", "Cultivate Wholesome", "Purify the mind". That will be an ideal Buddhist.
-
Muse over this: A ''good'' question may avail one to the predicament one may be in and may not be in. That question that may elicit some understanding is this: "'do i believe in myself''? If for eg, I beleive in myself, and expand on it, I am bound to believe in ..... However when I do not ''believe'' or ''disbelieve'' and allow it to happen as it happens, then i m being in space and being ''space'' there is no boundary and one cannot be enclosed! However, when I do believe in ...., it is always to the exclusion of something ...... One can relax and flow or one can make a goal out relaxation (meditation not excluded, idea of .....) and most likely the latter stance is no longer of flowing but futurizing. Mind vacillates between the past n future and inherently it is of anguish n anxiety; of memory n desire.
-
Whenever one settles and posit oneself, yet one does not investigate. One will make a false assumption that one is settled., as one is not aware of one's habitual patterns that dictate the individual actions and thoughts. The person is unaware of one's conceptual patterns, not knowing it has existed or arisen. One posits oneself and yet fails to practise vigilance. One ignore the need to be aware of mundane existence, dismissing it's absurdity.
-
Muse over this when there is no boundary in ''space'' (in being empty aka excepting being awarenss, in being ...... ) can one settle (the mind would want to settle cos it cannot accept anything that is uncertain) One can at the most ''see'' and of course seeing with what ones to see, or what one is suppose to see is already lapsing into the mind. Habitual patterns, at least, it must be the mind cos habits are formed from the past. as for existence, there is no rite/wrong, no up/down,no past/future, so one can assume that one has imposed colour on a that which is existentential (transparency). If I am swimming in the sea, would I be looking for the sea? Does one who has dropped something, retrieves it or tries to retreive it? Can I look for existence, I am already in it. If I m looking for existence or existential meaning in ...., then it is most likely that I have already defined and attitributed meaning on .... and most likely i would miss immediacy of living. The conundrum seems to that of either one of this - i think n so i exist/i exist so i think PS Religion (organized) is learning and of course, for the seeker it can be a device to being spiritual (not becoming). For the follower, if one is sleepwalking – it is nothing but rituals after rituals. spirituality is unlearning, not collecting, it is unlearning, a process where one unloads all the ’’rubbish’’ one has acquired from within/without. True or false all depends on where one is on the spectrum
-
Each moment of awareness comes with each arising thoughts, arising sensations, rises and fall, all transitory. We all need learn to unlearn, ironical, is'nt it?!! Some will continue to sleepwalking, simply because they have'nt awoken yet. Only if status quo is unsatisfactory, that one's quest begins! Why should one strive if it so easy to fall back to status quo!
-
With the constant refrain of right view and right intention, the so called rubbish, well repeated over and over, create space for awareness and contemplation!