GENIUS FORUMS

Leah wrote:I think you'll find that the 'typical woman' works the other way around... first the affection, then the claws. This has nothing to do with me, you have just decided this is what I am doing, but it is not what I am doing.

You paid Nick attention, that is affection enough. But I am glad to see you recognize this particular feminine tactic, I don't think that you see it in your above response to Nick.

You've been burned or something in the past, this is what you are using to understand this situation. Typical human.

It is helpful to use past experience to gage future interactions.

BM: You probably wouldn't believe this, but I have no reaction whatsoever to women.

L: You must mean something other than the obvious by this, because here you are reacting to me, etc.

An overall attachment to woman is nonexistent in me. That's not to say that I don't occasionally get royally pissed at a woman's underhanded ways. That's my flaw.

Because I have been burned by underhanded tactics, I react to these.

BM: Aside from the residual chivalry, such as opening doors and other stupid shit that's been ingrained since I was small, I have zero reaction to women.

L: So you get about the place doing 'stupid shit', due to ingrained habitual tendencies? Wow, you are really advanced...

I am a creature of habit who has yet to overhaul his overall behavioral M.O. towards women.

BM: The break with your like only happened when I thought I saw it in a woman, than recognized both sides of what lay before me.

L: You can't help but bring up your scars in internet forum conversation... how does it go in the infinitely subtler realm of reason?

If there is at least one reader out there who can learn something from my experiences, than it was worth being real in my posts, and conveying my experiences openly without fear of being labeled.

Of course if you have no goals and wish to remain passive in the face of opposition then certainly you will never have anything to overcome. Yes, an enlightened world is a world in which everyone throws out their goals and aspirations to become as passive as a dead man! What could possibly stand in our way then?

There's nothing to overcome in order to become what we already are. The only thing to overcome is the idea that something must be overcome - the idea of "enlightenment" as an "attainment." Naturally enough, "path," "goal," and all of that babble must go along with it.

There's no path for a red-headed person to become red-headed, nor do they need to set a goal to do so. They are already red-headed. They have never been anything other than red-headed. The only trouble is that they think they are blonde.

And if anyone tells you this type of teaching is too "advanced" for the "lower-level seeker" or whatever, pay them no mind. They are just playing ego games for their own benefit.

Forget enlightenment, forget wisdom, forget path, forget goal, forget it all and stop trying to do anything. Does the dog have Buddha-nature? Mu. What is enlightenment? Toilet brush.

If all is illusion, all is real. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is samsara. Toilet brush is sticky buns, sticky buns are toilet brush. KATZ!

And that, O Shariputrid, is the Zen Teaching of Toilet Brush, as expounded by The Zen Masters Super Mario and Luigi-tse.

A red headed person doesn't need to strive to become a red headed person because that's what they are??? Your logic is terrible. A person attached to Woman doesn't strive to become a person attached to Woman, they strive to overcome this attachment. You must be insane if you really think that if someone chants this mantra of yours they are going to get anywhere. Even if someone were to take your advice it would still be a form of striving.

Nick Treklis wrote:A red headed person doesn't need to strive to become a red headed person because that's what they are??? Your logic is terrible.

O RLY?

A person attached to Woman doesn't strive to become a person attached to Woman, they strive to overcome this attachment.

Oh, you though that's what I was talking about. Well, I was talking about something else.

But since you mentioned it, why do they strive to overcome that attachment? Don't they and up equally attached (if not more so) to the idea of being non-attached to "Woman" or whatever else?

Hint: Yep. Observe this forum for evidence.

You must be insane if you really think that if someone chants this mantra of yours they are going to get anywhere. Even if someone were to take your advice it would still be a form of striving.

Agreed. No one should take my advice, they should do whatever comes naturally. And what comes naturally, of course, is to take my advice and give up this Quixotic quest for something we already have. You are frantically searching everywhere for an ox while riding on the back of one. In fact, you are the ox. Always were.

But hey, feel free to keep setting up paths, goals, obstacles, strivings, Herculean efforts, Titanic struggles, and all the rest. It's all quite heroic and builds up the "transcendent sage" self-image very nicely.

I tell you, there is no Buddha, no Dharma, no practice, no enlightenment. You go off like this on side roads, trying to find something. Blind Fools!
- Lin Chi

No Dharma was taught by the Buddha at any time, in any place, to any person.
- Nagarjuna

Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.
- Lin Chi

A monk asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" Ummon answered, "A dried stick of dung."

Indeed. But there's no ego-gratifying heroic quest in that, so I predict it will be dismissed or ignored. Only Mighty Strivings are worthy of Lofty Thinkers. Dung-stick and toilet brush don't edify that sort of thing, so they aren't psychologically useful.

Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the great enlightened being, said to venerable Shariputra, "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound and most perfect wisdom should see individual human existence to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all spiritual teachings are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no death. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no teachings, no eye element up to no mind element, no property of teachings, no mind consciousness element; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the enlightened beings have no attainment, they abide by means of the most perfect widsom.

-Heart Sutra (emphasis mine)

Unidian wrote:But since you mentioned it, why do they strive to overcome that attachment? Don't they and up equally attached (if not more so) to the idea of being non-attached to "Woman" or whatever else?

Hint: Yep. Observe this forum for evidence.

Not neccesarily. They could become full of pride for not being attached to Woman anymore, but this just reaffirms that the only attachment that really needs to be overcome is the attachment to the ego.

Unidian wrote:Agreed. No one should take my advice, they should do whatever comes naturally. And what comes naturally, of course, is to take my advice and give up this Quixotic quest for something we already have. You are frantically searching everywhere for an ox while riding on the back of one. In fact, you are the ox. Always were.

It's one thing to become aware of the true nature of reality. Depending on the person it may only take a day or two for the realization to completely set in after hearing a few words of wisdom. Still, to live in accordance with this realization does take effort in the relinquishment of the attachments that have been engrained in one's mind since they were a child. What you you have offered me simply doesn't apply to my situation.

Unidian wrote:And if anyone tells you this type of teaching is too "advanced" for the "lower-level seeker" or whatever, pay them no mind. They are just playing ego games for their own benefit.

I never though your teachings were too "advanced", they might work fine and well for someone who has yet to realize the true nature of Reality. To tell you the truth, your teaching methods are actually quite ineffective when compared to the methods of Jesus, the Buddha, or David Quinn and Kevin Solway. Now I hope you don't take this as some kind of an attack on your character and go off on some ego trip.

No buddha, no dharma, no practice, no enlightenment.

To tell you the truth, your teaching methods are actually quite ineffective when compared to the methods of Jesus, the Buddha, or David Quinn and Kevin Solway. Now I hope you don't take this as some kind of an attack on your character and go off on some ego trip.

Not at all. I thought it was a hoot. Jesus, the Buddha, David Quinn, and Kevin Solway, eh? Peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Four spiritual peers having a casual lunch down at the ashram. Yes indeed!

And hey, what about Dan? Isn't he equal to Jesus and the Buddha too? Poor Dan always gets the shaft.... LOL.

No "followers" around here. No sirree, Bob. Not a sycophant in sight. :)

Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the great enlightened being, said to venerable Shariputra, "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound and most perfect wisdom should see individual human existence to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all spiritual teachings are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no death. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no teachings, no eye element up to no mind element, no property of teachings, no mind consciousness element; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the enlightened beings have no attainment, they abide by means of the most perfect widsom.

Only someone who was delusional about reality could say such things as in the above quote. They are the statements of non-dualists and are wrong as a result. What this dude has done is to take one side, he has divided reality into emptiness and form, and then dropped the form side concentrating only on non-existence. All the rest of what he says is based on this one-sided perspective, and is thus not truth.

All these things exist, that such existence is temporary and empty of self-cause and absolute definability or objectivity is beside the point.

I don't mind them pointing out, not emptiness, but the interconnectedness of all things, which is really what underlies all this no, no, no shit. Interconnectedness allows one to see the totality as a thing. He is just concentrating on this perspective. The problem is every experience any being has is dualistic, we see/experience the parts and the parts fitting into a whole, not just the hole [intended sic]. It is delusion not to include both perspectives.

Philosophaster quoted:

No buddha, no dharma, no practice, no enlightenment.

Under that criteria, Islamic fundamentalists are among the wisest people on the planet!

I tell you, there is no Buddha, no Dharma, no practice, no enlightenment. You go off like this on side roads, trying to find something. Blind Fools!
- Lin Chi

No Dharma was taught by the Buddha at any time, in any place, to any person.
- Nagarjuna

Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.
- Lin Chi

A monk asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" Ummon answered, "A dried stick of dung."

These are good teachings, when applied in the right circumstances. But those circumstances don't arise very often.

They are advanced teachings for the few who have developed great intellectual insight into the nature Reality and relinquished all of their major attachments. Give them to anyone else and they become harmful.

Unidian chimed in:

And if anyone tells you this type of teaching is too "advanced" for the "lower-level seeker" or whatever, pay them no mind. They are just playing ego games for their own benefit.

You don't tell people who are riddled with major delusions and strong emotional attachments that there is no path and no enlightenment. That would be very foolish, for all it would do is encourage them to sink back into worldly ignorance again.

A little intelligence is needed here, guys. Less fundamentalism, and more intelligence.

-

edit: spelling

Unidian wrote:Not at all. I thought it was a hoot. Jesus, the Buddha, David Quinn, and Kevin Solway, eh? Peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Four spiritual peers having a casual lunch down at the ashram. Yes indeed!

And hey, what about Dan? Isn't he equal to Jesus and the Buddha too? Poor Dan always gets the shaft.... LOL.

As if Jesus and the Buddha were other worldly or something. HA! NOBODY CAN EQUAL THE ALMIGHTY JESUS AND BUDDHA! UNIDIAN HAS SPOKEN!

And what in the world do you mean by "equal" anyhow?

Unidian wrote:No "followers" around here. No sirree, Bob. Not a sycophant in sight. :)

With comments like these it is obvious you are a sycophant of yourself. It's quite disgusting actually.

Under that criteria, Islamic fundamentalists are among the wisest people on the planet!

On the contrary, Islamic fundamentalists seek "understanding of ultimate reality," or what they think is ultimate reality, all the time. They just reach conclusions you don't approve of.

David Quinn wrote:These are good teachings, when applied in the right circumstances. But those circumstances don't arise very often.

Nagarjuna's teaching sounds pretty unconditional to me. No time, at any place, to any person?

Philosophaster wrote:

DQ: Under that criteria, Islamic fundamentalists are among the wisest people on the planet!

P: On the contrary, Islamic fundamentalists seek "understanding of ultimate reality," or what they think is ultimate reality, all the time. They just reach conclusions you don't approve of.

Do you really think that submitting to a pre-packaged belief system and closing one's mind to everything else is on a par with exercising one's reason to the fullest extent and challenging everything without fear or favour?

DQ: These are good teachings, when applied in the right circumstances. But those circumstances don't arise very often.

P: Nagarjuna's teaching sounds pretty unconditional to me. No time, at any place, to any person?

Again, the true meaning of this teaching is something that can only understood by the wise few. I can tell by your words, for example, that you haven't yet understood it.

Obviously, the teaching wasn't meant to be taken in the shallow, literalist sense that the Buddha never taught anything, because his entire career consisted of preaching the Dharma. It has a much deeper meaning, which can only really be understood when one understands the nature of the Tao itself.

-

Do you really think that submitting to a pre-packaged belief system and closing one's mind to everything else is on a par with exercising one's reason to the fullest extent and challenging everything without fear or favour?

No, but most religious people and most people in general do not think that they are acting in the former manner. Everybody likes to think of himself as critical, fearless toward all evidence and arguments, open to the facts. All part of building up the self-image.

Again, the true meaning of this teaching is something that can only understood by the wise few.

Okay, humor me and tell me what the true meaning of this teaching is. I am interested to see what you think it is. Even if you believe that I won't be able to understand it yet, I can save your words and come back to them later to see if I understand them then.

Philosophaster wrote: No, but most religious people and most people in general do not think that they are acting in the former manner. Everybody likes to think of himself as critical, fearless toward all evidence and arguments, open to the facts. All part of building up the self-image.

For most people it is, it's all about image, but for a select few it is about finding Absolute Truth. Of course appearing to be someone who is out to only build up their self image is someone you would never want right? Oh wait, that means you are in fact protecting your self image, ironic!

Hmm. Okay, what have we here?

Jamesh says the Heart Sutra, a foundational text of Mahayana Buddhism and the sutra most often described as "Buddhism in a nutshell" is deluded.

Oooookay... :)

David makes the "it's too advanced for you nitwits" argument in regard to the "no teaching, no path" material, and then proceeds to quote me predicting that he would do exactly that. Kewl.

David asks Philosophaster:

Do you really think that submitting to a pre-packaged belief system and closing one's mind to everything else is on a par with exercising one's reason to the fullest extent and challenging everything without fear or favour?

Didn't the original Muslims investigate reality to the fullest extent of their capabilities? If you doubt it, read the Sufi mystic Al-Arabi. Heavy duty stuff there - but unfortunately, that didn't become the Islam we know today. Nor would QRS doctrines become the QRSism of 300 years hence, supposing it were to last that long. I predict a religious anti-woman holocaust would result long before that, among other things.

Again, the true meaning of this teaching is something that can only understood by the wise few. I can tell by your words, for example, that you haven't yet understood it.

Obviously, the teaching wasn't meant to taken in the shallow, literalist sense that the Buddha never taught anything, because his entire career consisted of preaching the Dharma. It has a much deeper meaning, which can only really be understood when one understands the nature of the Tao itself.

Yeah, I get it quite clearly. And I know you do, too. So why not teach that? What is the purpose of teaching these watered-down "baby-step" things you give to the others around here, who eat them up and think they are halfway up Mt. Everest? If not to play a game of "sage and students," then what? Do you think people can't get it without this whole "path" and "attainment" business? If they can't, what's the use? Why fight delusion with delusion?

Nick Treklis wrote: For most people it is, it's all about image, but for a select few it is about finding Absolute Truth.

Or about thinking of themselves as the select few who really want absolute truth, so much better than all of these who merely pretend to want it.

Of course appearing to be someone who is out to only build up their self image is someone we would never want right? Oh wait, that means you are in fact building up your self image, ironic!

"Got your nose! Got your nose!"

I'm just some dude pounding on a keyboard, not a sage or buddha. And no, I don't think that being a "regular guy" is superior to being a buddha or somebody who thinks he's a buddha, either. It is what it is, and that's it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That is exactly the problem when talking about anything at all here, like enlightenment, truth and so on. What kind of approach would you suggest instead? Some new-speak?

An intelligent one... one that examines the data and formulates the most useful response for it, rather than applying the same archaic mallet-handed self-celebratory idiot-fuel to whoever is unfortunate enough to offer their ear. One that is concerned with illuminating the listener, rather than being concerned with the ego of the talker. You appear to talk exclusively from your ego, you speak so as to hear yourself being smart. That is what I meant when I suggested you were using people to preen your feathers.

But whatever, you will go on clucking like the clergy if you wish to, talking of good and evil and saints and devils and whatnot.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:My writing tends not to be so personal. What would I care about the state of whoever?

Yeah, who cares Diebert? Just go on raping 'whoever' for glory-warmth, without even catching their eye.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It might go over ones head or under ones heels but it might still effect someone else in the process.

Oh it always effects 'one', regardless of if it goes over their head or wherever... much care must be taken for this reason, one has to be very aware. A clumsy ego-based attempt to illuminate somebody is a horribly ugly and damaging thing.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The truth has this property, like a lamp, that it cannot stand being hidden. Its property is to express itself - it is its own fuel. It's life.

Twang a ruler on the edge of a desk. Note that if you continue to twang it, it will not settle. Note that if you twang it up or down, it moves in the same way. This is the lamp hidden. Hiding stillness from the ruler requires energy.
Leave it alone, remove the energy, and the ruler will eventually come to a stop, right in the middle of its previous movement. This is the lamp, or truth, or, in this example, stillness, 'expressing itself'.

Nick,

For most people it is, it's all about image, but for a select few it is about finding Absolute Truth.

You won't find that with anything written here or elsewhere. Nor will you find it with thoughts, beliefs, positions, struggles, efforts, or anything else. You can't "find" what you already are. Look in the mirror. That's Absolute Truth. Look out the window. That's Absolute Truth, too. All this heroic searching for the reality of existence is pretty humorous when all along it's staring us in the face and in fact is the face itself. Absolute truth is ants fighting. It is toilet brush.

Babble about Absolute Truth (including this babble) is not Absolute Truth except in the sense that it is exactly that - babble about about Absolute Truth. A=A. Fish don't fry in the kitchen, beans don't burn on the grill. Mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers, babble is babble.

Reality is what it is, not what we say it is. That's the first line of the Tao Te Ching and the essence of Zen, paraphrased for the sticky buns edition.

Philosophaster wrote: Or about thinking of themselves as the select few who really want absolute truth, so much better than all of these who merely pretend to want it.

Of course, no one could possible proclaim that they honestly want to uncover Absolute Truth unless it was so they could be "better" than everybody else. Always about self image right?

Philosophaster wrote:And no, I don't think that being a "regular guy" is superior to being a buddha or somebody who thinks he's a buddha, either. It is what it is, and that's all it is.

What's all this take about superiority? It's just obvious that you are worried about being percieved as someone who is worried about their self image. Which is simply another way of worrying about your self image.

Unidian wrote:You won't find that with anything written here or elsewhere. Nor will you find it with thoughts, beliefs, positions, struggles, efforts, or anything else. You can't "find" what you already are. Look in the mirror. That's Absolute Truth. Look out the window. That's Absolute Truth, too. All this heroic searching for the reality of existence is pretty humorous when all along it's staring us in the face and in fact is the face itself. Absolute truth is ants fighting. It is toilet brush.

Babble about Absolute Truth (including this babble) is not Absolute Truth except in the sense that it is exactly that - babble about about Absolute Truth. A=A. Fish don't fry in the kitchen, beans don't burn on the grill. Mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers, babble is babble.

Reality is what it is, not what we say it is. That's the first line of the Tao Te Ching and the essence of Zen, paraphrased for the sticky buns edition.

Good grief! Why so wordy?

Of course, no one could possible proclaim that they honestly want to uncover Absolute Truth unless it was so they could be "better" than everybody else. Always about self image right?

Not necessarily. But be wary. :-)

It's just obvious that you are worried about being percieved as someone who is worried about their self image. Which is simply another way of worrying about your self image.

Nah, I'm not worried. But that's really a pointless path to go down -- "You are too worried!" -- "No I'm not!" -- so I'll leave it at that.