An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy: Can you point out what is wrong in what I wrote (apart from the arrogant assumptions)? If you are upset by my assumption that there is nobody here with anything but limited understanding, then I can understand that, but that is my perception of the people I read and that is also true for all unenlightened people on the planet.
Since this is your perception then logic dictates that you perceive yourself to be enlightened and have full understanding.
Patriarch
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Patriarch »

ardy wrote:
"Enlightenment" is simple: it's self-awareness. Few people understand that concept of "self-awareness", however, so let me sum it up. Think of something you know. Be it your job, some hobby, whatever; doesn't matter, as long as you know the subject in and out - you've "mastered" it. When you're doing the activity, you've got all the facts and details in your head, you think about all the pieces, how they fit together, how you can move them. When you get really, really good at something, you stop thinking about it because it's instinctual, it's habit.
Patriarch: I am surprised that others have not questioned your understanding of enlightenment as many here have done work in that area. The basic rule about any description of it is that you cannot speak one word about it, as soon as you open your mouth you are wrong. In fact many who have done work in this area will tell you that you hit a point where you cannot even open your mouth.

Your description could equally apply to many great men of the past who mastered themselves and then lived instinctively from that point. Socrates, Julius Caesar are a couple of examples that jump to mind.

There is little that I or anyone here can offer you in terms of seeing it better and you seem limited in your understanding like the rest of us. I have been through your thinking about the 'logic' of enlightenment and the simplicity of it and it is a dead end. We are all too full of ourselves to recognise this fundamental part of us.


That's a fascinating perspective that I've never refuted, and explains everything. Have you ever heard the story of the island witch doctor?

It occurred to him, one day, to stare off into the ocean. He stared, and stared for days and months. The villagers thought him crazy - but he was the witch doctor afterall. One day, he saw something in the distance; he told the villagers, pointing, describing. They saw nothing until the ship dropped anchor in the bay. Why didn't they see it? Their entire lives, nothing came from the ocean, nothing was on the horizon; though they looked in that direction, they saw nothing.

Now let's try another approach: I assume you aren't colorblind, and can thus understand the concept that the combination of basic colors lead to more complex colors. That those colors can be combined, by an expert, into a captivating work of art. The point: just because you lack the ability to understand something does not mean no one can.

Opinions should be considered before shared: imagine if someone were to treat a false statement as fact; imagine if that statement proclaimed that jumping off a bridge allows one to fly - or some equally pointless nonsense.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Hi Movingalways and Patriarch: This is not about anything else apart from an understanding about enlightenment. I claim that there is nothing you can say about it that is true. The only way enlightenment is accepted is via the deep understanding of an enlightened person recognising it in another.

In Zen where my life lies, it is normally accepted via a poem, or via an understanding of a Koan being accepted as proof of enlightenment. The fact that many here ie DvR have excellent logical abilities does not mean diddly-squat in terms of enlightenment.

There are many here who have done a fair amount of work in this area but I have not had the recognition of understanding that comes on reading for example what Hui Neng or Hakuin had to say. Now in case there is a misunderstanding, Hui Neng speaking is vastly different to an ordinary person ie me writing something or speaking about enlightenment.

Still waiting for the poem or statement from someone here who claims they have broken through.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy: Hi Movingalways and Patriarch: This is not about anything else apart from an understanding about enlightenment. I claim that there is nothing you can say about it that is true. The only way enlightenment is accepted is via the deep understanding of an enlightened person recognising it in another.
But it is not true that there is nothing you can say about it that is not true. To be enlightened is to know one's true nature and there are words that say what it is and there are words that say what it is not. What one's true nature is not: inherently existing, externally objective, imagined. What one's true nature is: being one with the law of cause and effect. One who knows these things does not think about them as they go about their daily business, but when a moment comes up when when they are needed to be remembered, they come forth.

What happens when one does not understand these things about their true nature can also be said and understood. Things such as being confused, being inwardly torn, being deluded. From my perspective, all conversations about one's true nature stem from the two fundamental truths of a non inherent existence and causality, or in more spiritual terms, being one with the (spirit) Word of God or the law of the Spirit of life.
ardy: There are many here who have done a fair amount of work in this area but I have not had the recognition of understanding that comes on reading for example what Hui Neng or Hakuin had to say. Now in case there is a misunderstanding, Hui Neng speaking is vastly different to an ordinary person ie me writing something or speaking about enlightenment.
I had never heard of Hui Neng before you mentioned his name, so I did a Google search and found his sutra "The Treasure of the Law." (think about it, The Treasure of The Law). From Chapter II on "Prajna":
Hui Neng: Learned Audience, the Wisdom of Enlightenment is inherent in every one of us. It is because of the delusion under which our mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we can know our own Essence of Mind. You should know that so far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is ignorant of it. Now, let me talk to you about Maha Prajnaparamita, so that each of you can attain wisdom.
What he says here and what he says as the sutra expands has been said many times in many different ways on this board, why you have not recognized these statements as being statements of prajna, I cannot say. What i will say is that it is a whole lot different reading the words of those who are awake to their true nature and know it than it is to communicate/reason with these who are awake to their true nature and know it. The first part of awakening, the reading part, is relatively easy which is why the second and more difficult part, the communicating/reasoning part is so often postponed.

As an aside, if it were true that there is nothing one can say about enlightenment that is true as you say, then Hui Neng's pants are on fire. :-)
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

Ardy,
ardy wrote:The only way enlightenment is accepted is via the deep understanding of an enlightened person recognising it in another.
With that being said, and..
I have never claimed any particular attainment or even deep understanding as you should know if you read any of my posts about my history.
..that being the case, then..
Still waiting for the poem or statement from someone here who claims they have broken through.
exactly how valuable is your judgement for those on the path?


Patriarch,
Russell,

And what was lacking in the first post?
The best I can come up with to answer this is a question: Can you give an example of someone you might consider enlightened, and why?
User avatar
John Paul
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:17 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by John Paul »

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused. I don't get why you feel his response was irrelevant to your post. He's stating a perspective.I kind of relate to that point of view and feel that it has a lot to do with experience.We are condemn to perpetually observe reality to the filter of our though systems.Life it self develops it's character and meaning through action and interaction
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

John Paul wrote:We are condemn to perpetually observe reality to the filter of our though systems.
Are you stating here a perspective that appears to be valid for everyone? The question is more if you want to examine it, for example why is it a condemnation, what is that "reality" under observation and what is a "thought system" exactly for you? Of course everyone needs to examine that for themselves but sometimes it can help to have others question it for you and force the issue like that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:Thanks DvR - I most probably earned that but that does not make you right or me wrong. I have never claimed any particular attainment or even deep understanding as you should know if you read any of my posts about my history.
Yeah, I know. It was a tongue in cheek kind of jousting. Perfectly harmless but you have to admit it would be an extremely difficult judgment to really know if anyone here would have something or not to offer to anyone else. Better to speak of your own experience instead of applying it to everyone in one fell swoop. The fact that you're here tells me something is being offered somehow and you're taking it. At a different harder to discern level but pay attention!

As for what might be wrong with what you wrote, there's always something that can be brought forward. First of all you go for the "cheap" interpretation of the unspeakable like "any description of it is that you cannot speak one word about it, as soon as you open your mouth you are wrong". While in fact even the whole fucking Tao Te Ching is one demonstration of speaking words all creating a lot of clarity including making it clear what happens when we do open our mouths. This means that surely we can speak about enlightenment and even absolutes without any contradiction. We'd be doomed if that wasn't the case and had to be silent for ever. But we'd be also doomed when we do speak....the fact is that we find ourselves already speaking from the start. That's the position under review!

While I don't disagree with your observation that "we are all too full of ourselves" as being the general condition, it doesn't mean that wisdom is not possible and all is equally corrupted by this. Why even bother otherwise? To me it seems like it's you who is trying to simplify it all with some lame attempt at being logical all the while claiming others are the ones simplifying it or trying to be too "logical". A classic trick but hardly consciously being played out. And a cure for that is to encourage everyone to examine that logic and possibly discard it. Fighting fire with fire! We're full of ourselves mostly because of some really faulty logic, some serious messed up conceptualization of cause and logic, self and what it means to exist. One way to address this would be to break that down and introduce a more sound and consistent concept, where a concept is needed, like when reasoning properly. Can we reason all the way to enlightenment? No way but one can reason at least a way out of the Swamp Where No Light Ever Will Get Through. Only then we could possibly start to talk about not needing anymore anything else.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

John Paul wrote:Sorry, I'm a little bit confused. I don't get why you feel his response was irrelevant to your post. He's stating a perspective.I kind of relate to that point of view and feel that it has a lot to do with experience.We are condemn to perpetually observe reality to the filter of our though systems.Life it self develops it's character and meaning through action and interaction
I wasn't questioning the relevancy of his statement as much as his motivation for it.

Put another way: Are we here to look for someone to agree with or to personally grow enough to come up with the answers on our own?
Patriarch
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Patriarch »

ardy wrote:Hi Movingalways and Patriarch: This is not about anything else apart from an understanding about enlightenment. I claim that there is nothing you can say about it that is true. The only way enlightenment is accepted is via the deep understanding of an enlightened person recognising it in another.

In Zen where my life lies, it is normally accepted via a poem, or via an understanding of a Koan being accepted as proof of enlightenment. The fact that many here ie DvR have excellent logical abilities does not mean diddly-squat in terms of enlightenment.

There are many here who have done a fair amount of work in this area but I have not had the recognition of understanding that comes on reading for example what Hui Neng or Hakuin had to say. Now in case there is a misunderstanding, Hui Neng speaking is vastly different to an ordinary person ie me writing something or speaking about enlightenment.

Still waiting for the poem or statement from someone here who claims they have broken through.
I'm sorry, I lost interest after the second sentence: you literally just refuted your own argument. Correct your position with your next post, or you confirm your delusional nature, and I thus ignore you.
Patriarch
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Patriarch »

John Paul wrote:Sorry, I'm a little bit confused. I don't get why you feel his response was irrelevant to your post. He's stating a perspective.I kind of relate to that point of view and feel that it has a lot to do with experience.We are condemn to perpetually observe reality to the filter of our though systems.Life it self develops it's character and meaning through action and interaction
Many people who fancy themselves above retarded levels immediately become aggressive and demeaning when their perspectives are challenged; you'd do well to watch me, should you wish to identify any in the vicinity.
Patriarch
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Patriarch »

Russell wrote:
Patriarch,
Russell,

And what was lacking in the first post?
The best I can come up with to answer this is a question: Can you give an example of someone you might consider enlightened, and why?
Ok. So, if you can't follow the conversation, what makes you think you can judge the participants? If you actually read the fucking post, instead of getting emotional, and sharing your fucking feelings, you could answer that god damned question. You're wasting my fucking time.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

Patriarch, you definitely don't seem ready for a steady, productive discussion on any of the topics this forum has to offer.

Not to suggest that you leave, but if you feel compelled to stay, I recommend that you take it much slower. Get a better feel for what's really being discussed here (you've barely scratched the surface, as far as I can tell). Then, to paraphrase yourself, see if dealing with us other members is really worth your time. It may help keep you from flipping out in cases of disagreement!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Patriarch wrote:
John Paul wrote:Sorry, I'm a little bit confused. I don't get why you feel his response was irrelevant to your post. He's stating a perspective.I kind of relate to that point of view and feel that it has a lot to do with experience.We are condemn to perpetually observe reality to the filter of our though systems.Life it self develops it's character and meaning through action and interaction
Many people who fancy themselves above retarded levels immediately become aggressive and demeaning when their perspectives are challenged; you'd do well to watch me, should you wish to identify any in the vicinity.
Nice one! You're indeed being watched, hah! Just in case you're blind to it: you're the one being the most aggressive and demeaning so far but perhaps not understanding how you are being challenged (you dismiss that as irrelevant to the discussion but you are being challenged). Now this forum does not dismiss aggression as long as it accompanies a point and doesn't get too repetitive and mindless. It's okay to challenge but accept the fact you're being challenged as well. Try to find some common ground to dispute otherwise it quickly will become a waste of time as you so rightly fear.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Patriarch wrote:
ardy wrote:Hi Movingalways and Patriarch: This is not about anything else apart from an understanding about enlightenment. I claim that there is nothing you can say about it that is true.
Still waiting for the poem or statement from someone here who claims they have broken through.
I'm sorry, I lost interest after the second sentence: you literally just refuted your own argument. Correct your position with your next post, or you confirm your delusional nature, and I thus ignore you
Patriarch: Nothing to be accepted or rejected here. If you want to prove some understanding then just make a one sentence statement (even a word will do) about the fundamental truth of your existence or write a poem. It might be fascinating but I guess from your native aggression you have little to offer...
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
ardy wrote:Thanks DvR - I most probably earned that but that does not make you right or me wrong. I have never claimed any particular attainment or even deep understanding as you should know if you read any of my posts about my history.
Yeah, I know. It was a tongue in cheek kind of jousting. Perfectly harmless but you have to admit it would be an extremely difficult judgment to really know if anyone here would have something or not to offer to anyone else. Better to speak of your own experience instead of applying it to everyone in one fell swoop. The fact that you're here tells me something is being offered somehow and you're taking it. At a different harder to discern level but pay attention!

As for what might be wrong with what you wrote, there's always something that can be brought forward. First of all you go for the "cheap" interpretation of the unspeakable like "any description of it is that you cannot speak one word about it, as soon as you open your mouth you are wrong". While in fact even the whole fucking Tao Te Ching is one demonstration of speaking words all creating a lot of clarity including making it clear what happens when we do open our mouths. This means that surely we can speak about enlightenment and even absolutes without any contradiction. We'd be doomed if that wasn't the case and had to be silent for ever. But we'd be also doomed when we do speak....the fact is that we find ourselves already speaking from the start. That's the position under review!

While I don't disagree with your observation that "we are all too full of ourselves" as being the general condition, it doesn't mean that wisdom is not possible and all is equally corrupted by this. Why even bother otherwise? To me it seems like it's you who is trying to simplify it all with some lame attempt at being logical all the while claiming others are the ones simplifying it or trying to be too "logical". A classic trick but hardly consciously being played out. And a cure for that is to encourage everyone to examine that logic and possibly discard it. Fighting fire with fire! We're full of ourselves mostly because of some really faulty logic, some serious messed up conceptualization of cause and logic, self and what it means to exist. One way to address this would be to break that down and introduce a more sound and consistent concept, where a concept is needed, like when reasoning properly. Can we reason all the way to enlightenment? No way but one can reason at least a way out of the Swamp Where No Light Ever Will Get Through. Only then we could possibly start to talk about not needing anymore anything else.
DvR it is late and I will write more tomorrow. BUT to quote the Tao Te Ching...

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders


Make any sense? It has to me over the last 25 years and has been a book I have read many times, always gaining more from it and I still don't understand its fundamental essence.....What is your beef with the unspoken Tao?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend
ardy, what do you make of the final line of the final chapter of the Tao te ching?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
So if I read that quote right, there are two Tao's? Of one true and one false?

It's interesting in the original text as it reads more like "Tao doing Tao vs constant Tao".
Some illustation where you can see the character repeat, the form as powerfull in intent as content.

Image

It's funny realizing it might just say that what changes does not stay the same, what moves is different from what doesn't move. This is the theme of the whole of taoiism, its whole underlying duality and the interplay between the nameless and the names. Not a request to stay silent on it as if one could.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
ardy wrote:The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
So if I read that quote right, there are two Tao's? Of one true and one false?

It's interesting in the original text as it reads more like "Tao doing Tao vs constant Tao".
Some illustation where you can see the character repeat, the form as powerfull in intent as content.

Image

It's funny realizing it might just say that what changes does not stay the same, what moves is different from what doesn't move. This is the theme of the whole of taoiism, its whole underlying duality and the interplay between the nameless and the names. Not a request to stay silent on it as if one could.
DvR: I have always read it as there is only one Tao and those who talk about 'it' and compare it do not understand it.

The whole of the Tao strikes me as about breaking through the dualities and joining the natural flow of life. Therefore the Tao Te Ching is discussing the impossible by comparing our normal life with the vast emptiness and flow of Tao. Which is what makes it one of the great books in the world. It seems to be aimed at those in power rather than the average person. Still don't understand all of it.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:
The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend
ardy, what do you make of the final line of the final chapter of the Tao te ching?
Hi Pam? It strikes me as a simple statement about Tao and another way I look at it is that its always bubbling away beneath (or above us or anywhere really) and it neither helps nor harms it just is. The reference to sages states that they do not create argument (about the things we jump up and down about) but assist mankind.

Also interesting is the first part of the final chapter you quoted:

Chapter 81
True words are not beautiful
Beautiful words are not true
Those who are good do not debate
Those who debate are not good
Those who know are not broad of knowledge
Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Sages do not accumulate
The more they assist others, the more they possess
The more they give to others, the more they gain


I think we all here, fall into the third and fourth lines. A couple here also fall into the fifth and sixth lines.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Patriarch wrote:You're wasting my fucking time.


Patriarch please tell me what is so important about your time compared to ours?

You talk like a precocious child who wants desperately to prove they are superior but not too sure if they are or not. There are many here to learn from if you listen before you pull the trigger.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:I have always read it as there is only one Tao and those who talk about 'it' and compare it do not understand it.
That would mean the author Laozi would not understand it either? It's clear he cannot stop talking about it, directly or indirectly! There are really two options then: talking more true and clear or otherwise bringing more ignorance -- it's not like the conversation stops (as we find ourselves living in it).
The whole of the Tao strikes me as about breaking through the dualities and joining the natural flow of life. Therefore the Tao Te Ching is discussing the impossible by comparing our normal life with the vast emptiness and flow of Tao. Which is what makes it one of the great books in the world. It seems to be aimed at those in power rather than the average person. Still don't understand all of it.
It's certainly discussing the nature of things like some natural flow with its many natural oppositions and disasters, recoveries, conquests and submissions. Then again Taoism as a whole seems very preoccupied with long life, success and prosperity. Perhaps like the Gospels we should not treat it too much like gospel. Sometimes someone can go far beyond the limitations of self, context and time to touch briefly upon, something else.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That would mean the author Laozi would not understand it either?
The way IT is spoken of is generally in what it's not - thus 'the Tao that is spoken of is not the great Tao'.
It's clear he cannot stop talking about it, directly or indirectly!
He is trying to tell about the untellable and in doing so pointing a finger at the moons reflection in a pond.
There are really two options then: talking more true and clear or otherwise bringing more ignorance -- it's not like the conversation stops (as we find ourselves living in it).
It is impossible to talk more true or clear about IT and there is a strong possibility of bringing more ignorance ---- as we often do here.
Then again Taoism as a whole seems very preoccupied with long life, success and prosperity. Perhaps like the Gospels we should not treat it too much like gospel.
I think that is a Chinese philosophy and has little to do with the Tao. I think you can treat what Lao Tzu is trying to say exactly like a gospel but written from the point of view of a Chinese and not a Judaeo-Christian.
Sometimes someone can go far beyond the limitations of self, context and time to touch briefly upon, something else.


This happens a lot and even you with your crazy iron head will have touched IT occasionally. The hard part is living in the Tao and not just bouncing off its atmosphere.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That would mean the author Laozi would not understand it either?
The way IT is spoken of is generally in what it's not - thus 'the Tao that is spoken of is not the great Tao'.
That holds just as much for speaking about a speck of dust. The speck of dust that is spoken of is not the Great Speck of Dust!

It's not helping to suggest there are different types of Tao to go around. Obviously a part is not complete (by definition) and a representation is not the same as what's being represented (by definition). In the same way anything said or done (movement) does not equal that what by definition not moves: the eternal and constant. Since the nature of existence is flux, the unchanging does not exist. Unless we'd say nothing exists but the eternal.
He is trying to tell about the untellable and in doing so pointing a finger at the moons reflection in a pond.
Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk.
It is impossible to talk more true or clear about IT and there is a strong possibility of bringing more ignorance ---- as we often do here.
More true or clear just means bringing less ignorance. Remove the contradiction and all words will resonate with all wisdom!
I think that is a Chinese philosophy and has little to do with the Tao. I think you can treat what Lao Tzu is trying to say exactly like a gospel but written from the point of view of a Chinese and not a Judaeo-Christian.
It's still mostly nonsense also according to Lao Tzu himself! Didn't he just warn it's not the Great Tao he's talking about? At least that's how you read it.
This happens a lot and even you with your crazy iron head will have touched IT occasionally. The hard part is living in the Tao and not just bouncing off its atmosphere.
The hardest part is letting go whatever is preventing one realizing there was never any living, thinking or walking outside any Tao.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk
.
Yep. So in truth, we are all of the feminine mind. Oh the irony!
Locked