Some Questions of Trevor

[Bo]

Bo, Kow's quote was that Buddha said you bring yourself to completion through heedfulness, and I ask what is heedfulness, and you answer that it is per the above. So it's not much of an explanation.

Yes on a different tangent. My answer was simply attention.

In any case the quote as brought was not a defintion but since it's here, even if irrelevant -

“Heedfulness is the way to the Deathless. Heedlessness is death.”

- Buddha

[kowtaaia]

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: That you try to argue that ego and thought are not present during the manifestation of non-duality isn't relevant. Just the fact that you assert non-duality begins where duality ends is enough to turn non-duality into a duality.

K: It doesn't begin. It IS the absence of thought.

Yes, you've already stated that. You're the monk who seeks to wipe the dust from the mirror.

It's very clear that you don't understand what "the activity of thought within its own reality" means. Thought is the 'inner'. The activity of thought (as David, the 'me') perpetuates that phenomenon. There is no agency that can "act upon". There is only thought.

You don't understand what you're talking about. Stop arguing just for the sake of it and look at what is being pointed to.

The trouble is, your pointing thus far has been too riddled with contradictions to be effective.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that thoughts are a part of non-duality, or separate from it?

There is no relationship. One is when the other is not. Your question proves that you haven't understood a goddamn word!

.

[Cory Duchesne]

Beebuddy wrote,

Now I'll refresh your memory. You quoted me above responding to this arrogant rot...

Cory: The intolerant reactions that you and Kow demonstrate for peoples reasonable inquires displays symptoms of two rather small minded, foolish individuals.

I said that after you insulted me. I'm not letting you get away with this dishonesty!

You threw the first stone on December 4th. It was a very uncalled for comment. It wasn't until December 5th that I returned an insult. And rightly so.

Refresh your memory by re-reading the opening of the thread, it'll take you 30 seconds

Beebuddy: Everything was quite polite until this post. Since you act like an asshole, you get it in kind.

I don't believe you are consciously lying, perhaps you are in some sort of denial - -regardless, you are not being truthful. Check out this link and face yourself as you really are.


I don't hold grudges and I don't neccesarily want you to leave the forum, as I know you and kow, despite being a bit obtuse at times, are both fairly intelligent and have potential - - however, you both have a bit of straightening out to do.

[Cory Duchesne]

Beebuddy wrote,

The fact is is that on more than one occasion people start making personal remarks to me in an otherwise polite conversation. There are also many remarks about how someone doesn't like so & so's style of posting/writing, but style is nothing compared to these pointless personal observations and thinly veiled insults.

It would be really be nice if it stopped, I really feel that way. So please don't give me any BS about how I "do it too." Because I don't like it

Well perhaps this forum is an opportunity for you to not only toughen up a bit, but become a bit more flexible in your writing.

There may be forums where cowardly diplomacy is the rule and mere 'profound sounding' text is accepted as something impressive and worthwhile, however this forum is not one of those places.

You are expected to have an awareness of, or develop an awareness of how sentences can be interpreted in a number of ways and therefore, it is demanded of you to make an effort to communicate what you mean in a number of different ways, rather than sticking to and emphasizing the same string of words over and over, creating a situation where the reader has no choice but to ask some questions, only to get condescending and ineffective responses with frozen smiley faces (edit - the phoney smiley faces are more kows thing though)

beebuddy: I don't want it and I don't start it.

Well, on the 'Consciousness and matter' thread you did indeed initiate some abusive behavior. Personally, I dont mind - however you can't become indignant when you get attacked back. By doing so, you end up becoming the dishonest complainer.

However, I understand how a bit of resentment spilled over from older threads and onto the 'consciousness and matter' thread - - we didn't get off to a good start, however, you and Kow haven't been recieved warmly by most, so I don't think its just me. You have some contradictions to resolve.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

beebuddy,

I think you may have missed the welcome thread. Playing nice isn't really part of the game here...

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the bravehearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex. It is sometimes said that genius is "the infinite capacity for giving pain." This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life?

(I believe these words belong to Dan Rowden, but they may be from David Quinn - the authorship is a little vague on the welcome thread.)

Anyway, they don't want it nice in here. They want philosophy to be like a drunken brawl in here.

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: That you try to argue that ego and thought are not present during the manifestation of non-duality isn't relevant. Just the fact that you assert non-duality begins where duality ends is enough to turn non-duality into a duality.

K: It doesn't begin. It IS the absence of thought.

DQ: Yes, you've already stated that. You're the monk who seeks to wipe the dust from the mirror.

It's very clear that you don't understand what "the activity of thought within its own reality" means. Thought is the 'inner'. The activity of thought (as David, the 'me') perpetuates that phenomenon. There is no agency that can "act upon". There is only thought.

Yes, you've said that. You are the monk who believes that the dust (thoughts) has to be absent before the mirror (non-duality) can shine bright, without realizing that such a belief destroys the very identity of non-duality by turning it into a duality.

That is why Hui Neng's stanza was superior to the monk's. It consistently maintains the identity of non-duality throughout, which is a rare form of integrity. It doesn't mangle non-duality with faulty thinking.

DQ: Let me ask you this: Do you believe that thoughts are a part of non-duality, or separate from it?

K: There is no relationship. One is when the other is not. Your question proves that you haven't understood a goddamn word!

I didn't ask if there was a relationship. I asked if you believed thought was a part of non-duality or separate from it.

In any case, you've inadvertently answered the question. When thought is absent, you say, non-duality is there. They are two separate, distinct things in your mind. Two dualistic objects, like night and day. Again, this is a case of mangling non-duality through poor-quality thinking.

If you want to progress further along the path, you are going to have to give up that attachment of yours to your past mystical experiences and altered states of consciousness. It is causing you to chain non-duality to these things, which automatically distorts and twists its nature beyond all recognition, thereby preventing you from realizing its true nature. You need to throw off all these experiences like a diseased bedspread and move on.

Or alternatively, you can jump up and down, flap your arms about and scream at me about how deluded I am.

-

[kowtaaia]

David,

You are caught in the Dzogchen trap and you don't even know it. There are just too many quotes of the Buddha that dismiss your type of nonsense, to even bother posting them. You are really and truly bogus.

Here is one of the more profound pointings.



The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra

Thus have I heard. Once the Buddha was dwelling in the garden of Anathapin-dada, in the Jeta Grove near Sravasti, accompanied by one thousand monks, ten thousand Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, and many gods of the Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form.

At that time, Bodhisattva-Mahasattva Manjusri and the god Suguna were both present among the assembly. The World-Honored One told Manjusri, "You should explain the profound state of Buddhahood for the celestial beings and the Bodhisattvas of this assembly."

Manjusri said to the Buddha, "So be it, World-Honored One. If good men and good women wish to know the state of Buddhahood, they should know that it is not a state of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, or the mind; nor is it a state of forms, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, or mental objects. World-Honored One, the nonstate is the state of Buddhahood. This being the case, what is the state of supreme enlightenment as attained by the Buddha?"

The Buddha said, "It is the state of emptiness, because all views are equal. It is the state of signlessness, because all signs are equal. It is the state of wishlessness, because the three realms are equal. It is the state of nonaction, because all actions are equal. It is the state of the unconditioned, because all conditioned things are equal."

Manjusri asked, "World-Honored One, what is the state of the unconditioned?"

The Buddha said, "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned."

[kowtaaia]

The problem for you, David, is that even though you intellectually grasp that "ultimate reality" cannot be an experience; you want to be there with awareness exploding out of your head into infinity. Thusly, this ridiculousness: "I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite."

[Dan Rowden]

Kow, you're being a little dense here. Do you really even know what David means by that phrase? It means abiding in emptiness. It means non-attachment, non grasping, no false conceptualising about reality. It doesn't mean some sort of direct experience of infinitude, which would be ridiculous. It just means not grasping for the ungraspable. That's how one immerses oneself in the Infinite.

[kowtaaia]

You guys are living in a fantasy. No one abides in emptiness.

[Dan Rowden]

It's just a turn of phrase for christ's sake! No words can capture what it is because it isn't anything in particular.

[David Quinn]

Iolaus,

Can I ask that you identify the poster you are responding to. The conversations can become too difficult to follow, otherwise.

DQ: He understood that spiritual development needs to be led by the intellect. The student needs to be intellectually focused on resolving the core riddle of existence. Koans are a way of facilitating this.

Iolaus: You call it being led by the intellect, but in this case my impression is that the intellect is caused to become exhausted and snaps, allowing some sort of dawning to occur.

It's the opposite, in fact. As one approaches enlightenment, the intellect becomes more awake and can make those deeper connections that it otherwise wouldn't make.

This dawning seems closer to experiential than to intellectual.

It's both. Experience without intellectual understanding is shallow and aimless. Intellectual understanding without experience is mere syllogisms and book-learning. Enlightenment is the full flowering of both.

Enlightenment occurs, and the experience is attained, in the very moment that one's intellectual understanding of Reality sheds all flaws and becomes perfected.

DQ: Kensho is simply genuine insight into the nature of Reality. It encompasses both intellectual understanding and direct experience.

Iolaus: My impression is that the direct experience comes first, and the intellectual meaning just after, perhaps very quickly after, perhaps not.

You're talking about the mystical experience/altered state here, which is a lesser attainment to kensho.

DQ: He emphasized the importance of studying koans, meditating on them and resolving them

Iolaus: Many texts present the resolving of koans as a way to gain kensho, and they are used in zen practice. You can sit zazen with or without use of a koan. But if he emphasized koans, why did he seem to disparage them along with the teachings he despised? Or was it that they minimized the value of the koan?

DQ: Where did he disparage them?

Iolaus: The way I read that first paragraph you quoted:

At present, we are infested in this country with a race of smooth-tongued, worldly-wise Zen teachers who feed their students a ration of utter nonsense. "Why do you suppose Buddha-patriarchs through the ages were so mortally afraid of words and letters?" they ask you. "It is," they answer, "because words and letters are a coast of rocky cliffs washed constantly by vast oceans of poison ready to swallow your wisdom and drown the life from it. Giving students stories and episodes from the Zen past and having them penetrate their meaning is a practice that did not start until after the Zen school had already branched out into the Five Houses, and they were developing into the Seven Schools. Koan study represents a provisional teaching aid which teachers have devised to bring students up to the threshold of the house of Zen so as to enable them to enter the dwelling itself. It has nothing directly to do with the profound meaning of the Buddha-patriarchs' inner chambers."

The above would make it seem that everything within the quotes is suspect. These smooth-tongued teachers said the underlined portion about koans.

Hakuin is saying that these false teachers downplay the importance of studying koans (i.e. intellectual reasoning), relegating it to the beginning stages of the path, or even dismissing it altogether.

It is very similar to what Kevin, Dan, and I have to deal with every day with regards to modern people constantly scoffing at reason and lauding its supposed limitations. It's a very common disease.

Also, is Hakuin agreeing or disagreeing that the Buddha-patriarchs were afraid of words and letters? Because he said this:

Don't you realize that every syllable contained in the Buddhist canon - all five thousand and forty-eight scrolls of scripture - is a rocky cliff jutting into deadly, poison-filled seas?

Which seems to agree with what the smooth-tongued ones said.

Hakuin is basically saying that wise words and thoughts have substance and are dangerous to the ego. It is foolish to ignore them and to dismiss their spiritual power. So he is actually disagreeing with the smooth-tongued ones here.

DQ: You can certainly attain some interesting, even mind-blowing, experiences via LSD or blanking the mind. There is no denying that. However, if you're a person riddled with delusions and mental blocks, you are almost certainly going to misunderstand these experiences. You won't have the wisdom to place them in the proper context, and unless you have already awakened your rationality to some degree and developed a solid grasp of what Truth might be, you are only going to be led astray by them.

Iolaus: That is certainly so, but they might be useful to one on the path precisely because they are in a better position to use them.

They can be helpful in the beginning stages. I think of them as the very first stirrings of an awakening consciousness, so they definitely have their value. But people have a tendency to turn them into trophies and inwardly hold them up as evidence of how spiritual they are. Sooner or later, they need to stop clinging to these trophies and grow beyond this phase altogether.

-

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia quoted:

The Buddha said, "It is the state of emptiness, because all views are equal. It is the state of signlessness, because all signs are equal. It is the state of wishlessness, because the three realms are equal. It is the state of nonaction, because all actions are equal. It is the state of the unconditioned, because all conditioned things are equal."

Yes, this is a fleshed-out expression of the core truth that all things lack inherent existence. All things are equal in their illusoriness.

Manjusri asked, "World-Honored One, what is the state of the unconditioned?"

The Buddha said, "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned."

What the Buddha is saying here is aligned with what he said above. "It is the state of no-thought, because all thoughts are equal."

The Buddha obviously isn't referring to complete thoughtlessness here, in the sense that an enlightened person ceases thinking altogether. That would be stupid. No, he is referring instead to the profound truth that, along with everything else in the Universe, thoughts lack inherent existence as well. Thoughts have always been fundamentally non-existent since the very beginning.

What do you spend your days doing, kowtaaia? Do you try and block out all thought from the mind and make it as blank as possible?

The problem for you, David, is that even though you intellectually grasp that "ultimate reality" cannot be an experience; you want to be there with awareness exploding out of your head into infinity. Thusly, this ridiculousness: "I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite."

Immersing oneself in the Infinite simply means no longer being spellbound by finite forms.

You are caught in the Dzogchen trap and you don't even know it. There are just too many quotes of the Buddha that dismiss your type of nonsense, to even bother posting them.

I make a distinction between enlightenment (the realization of emptiness) and ignorance, which places me directly at odds with Dzogchen's view that everyone is already enlightened.

-

[kowtaaia]

It's just a turn of phrase for christ's sake! No words can capture what it is because it isn't anything in particular.

Thank you. :)

[kowtaaia]

kowtaaia quoted:

Manjusri asked, "World-Honored One, what is the state of the unconditioned?"

The Buddha said, "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned."

What the Buddha is saying here is aligned with what he said above. "It is the state of no-thought, because all thoughts are equal."

The Buddha obviously isn't referring to complete thoughtlessness here, in the sense that an enlightened person ceases thinking altogether. That would be stupid. No, he is referring instead to the profound truth that, along with everything else in the Universe, thoughts lack inherent existence as well. Thoughts have always been fundamentally non-existent since the very beginning.

Oh, so when the Buddha said: "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned.", he really didn't mean what he was saying! He must have been using one of those 'turn of phrases' that Dan mentioned.

Don't ignore a true direct pointing, for the sake of backing up your ridiculous argument.

What do you spend your days doing, kowtaaia? Do you try and block out all thought from the mind and make it as blank as possible?

Is this another one of those "turn of phrases" that Dan mentioned? Do you understand how ignorant the question is? Do you know what the mind is, David?

The problem for you, David, is that even though you intellectually grasp that "ultimate reality" cannot be an experience; you want to be there with awareness exploding out of your head into infinity. Thusly, this ridiculousness: "I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite."

Immersing oneself in the Infinite simply means no longer being spellbound by finite forms.

The original 'turn of phrase'!

You are caught in the Dzogchen trap and you don't even know it. There are just too many quotes of the Buddha that dismiss your type of nonsense, to even bother posting them.

I make a distinction between enlightenment (the realization of emptiness) and ignorance, which places me directly at odds with Dzogchen's view that everyone is already enlightened.

-

A distinction? Hui Neng would have been so disappointed in you. :)

By the way, your translation of Hui Neng's poetry, stinks.

From memory:

There never was a Bodhi Tree,
Nor bright mirror standing.
Fundamentally, not one thing exists,
So where is there dust to cling?

Do you understand why the above translation points directly to truth and why the one that you posted, does not?

[unwise]

I thought I would let this food fight continue on indefinitely without my presence, but when I saw the following quote from the Buddha and a faulty interpretation assigned to it, well, I am duty bound to correct it.

The Buddha said, "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned."

What the Buddha is saying here is aligned with what he said above. "It is the state of no-thought, because all thoughts are equal."

The Buddha obviously isn't referring to complete thoughtlessness here, in the sense that an enlightened person ceases thinking altogether. That would be stupid. No, he is referring instead to the profound truth that, along with everything else in the Universe, thoughts lack inherent existence as well. Thoughts have always been fundamentally non-existent since the very beginning.

I think I stated at the beginning of this thread that enlightenment was a state in which thought does not arise. I did not even know Buddha had said the same thing. I cannot tell you if anyone else ever said it because it doesn't matter to me since I KNOW and do not need collaboration.

You can assign your 'inherent existence' BS to that statement, but the statement stands perfectly as is - enlightenment is a state in which thought does not arise (and one is aware that thought is not arising). This differentiates it from unconsciousness. He obviously did not mean unconsciousness, did he?

You take the OPPOSITE approach and advise endless thinking. That is indeed what it is - endless. Like these threads. Like the 'search.'

The Koans and the other techniques are OBVIOUSLY used to shut the mind off. To confuse it into non activity. To blow it up.

Endless thinking is what Einstein did. At least wear a sweater and smoke a pipe while doing it and enjoy yourself, but don't call it enlightenment. If anyone is entitled to that moniker through extensive thinking into the DEPTHS OF REALITY it was certainly THAT mo fo - or Max Planck, or Kant, or Heisenberg, or Camus, or Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche or......or......or.......A bunch of crazy motherfuckers for the most part.

Maintaining sanity while thinking deeply ought to be your goal. That is goal enough. Will you make it?

[sschaula]

Ha! Here is a koan for you: if no thought arises how are you coming up with all of this?

[Dan Rowden]

You'll have to try and get Nemo to explain the difference between thought arising and being.

Good luck.

[sschaula]

I don't think I can get Nemo to do anything.

Kow,

Oh, so when the Buddha said: "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned.", he really didn't mean what he was saying! He must have been using one of those 'turn of phrases' that Dan mentioned.

Don't ignore a true direct pointing, for the sake of backing up your ridiculous argument.

That saying from the Buddha doesn't contradict what David explained.

[beebuddy]

Beebuddy wrote,

Now I'll refresh your memory. You quoted me above responding to this arrogant rot...

Cory: The intolerant reactions that you and Kow demonstrate for peoples reasonable inquires displays symptoms of two rather small minded, foolish individuals.

I said that after you insulted me. I'm not letting you get away with this dishonesty!

You threw the first stone on December 4th. It was a very uncalled for comment. It wasn't until December 5th that I returned an insult. And rightly so.

Refresh your memory by re-reading the opening of the thread, it'll take you 30 seconds

Beebuddy: Everything was quite polite until this post. Since you act like an asshole, you get it in kind.

I don't believe you are consciously lying, perhaps you are in some sort of denial - -regardless, you are not being truthful. Check out this link and face yourself as you really are.


I don't hold grudges and I don't neccesarily want you to leave the forum, as I know you and kow, despite being a bit obtuse at times, are both fairly intelligent and have potential - - however, you both have a bit of straightening out to do.

Cory,

You got me there, apparently I did throw the first stone. Either way, there is a difference between what I said and your dismissive comments. The point was for you to evaluate your misunderstanding and ask a smarter question. There was no point to what you said.

This isn't to say a stone isn't a stone so I will probably leave out the possible reasons for others misunderstanding from now on so that what I say doesn't come back to me.

[Cory Duchesne]

Ok beebuddy, good enough.

[beebuddy]

Good, so stop that stupid shit.

5$ if you can find the edit.

[kowtaaia]

I don't think I can get Nemo to do anything.

Kow,

Oh, so when the Buddha said: "The absence of thought is the state of the unconditioned.", he really didn't mean what he was saying! He must have been using one of those 'turn of phrases' that Dan mentioned.

Don't ignore a true direct pointing, for the sake of backing up your ridiculous argument.

That saying from the Buddha doesn't contradict what David explained.

Huh? :) Does "the absence of combustibles" mean that there are some combustibles? That would be 'partial absence', wouldn't it? David is confusing the manifestation of the non-dual with enlightenment. Although there is no enlightenment without that manifestation, the manifestation ends when thought again arises. Enlightenment doesn't mean an ongoing state of non-duality.

'Unwise' has made an impossible statement, as well, but tomorrow starts very early and Morpheus is calling.

[Cory Duchesne]

Good, so stop that stupid shit.

5$ if you can find the edit.

hmmmmm........a head scratcher.

Yes, seems more polite or something......the word stupid ducked down a hole I think. Ah but then the bugger scrambled down to the next post and popped its ignoble little head out again.

aw Shucks.

Makes a person want to stick their hands in their pocket with their head down and kick a stone on a dusty old road in the middle of nowhere.

[sschaula]

Kow,

Does "the absence of combustibles" mean that there are some combustibles? That would be 'partial absence', wouldn't it?

You have to understand what "the unconditioned" means. It could mean many different things. Truth, the enlightened person, the enlightened state, etc...

My brain isn't working right now, otherwise I'd work it all out for you in clear terms.

Maybe I seem stupid posting this little amount of information into why I've said what I did. Like I'm saying "I'm right and you're wrong, and I don't have to prove a damn thing!" Oh well.

David is confusing the manifestation of the non-dual with enlightenment. Although there is no enlightenment without that manifestation, the manifestation ends when thought again arises. Enlightenment doesn't mean an ongoing state of non-duality.

Who cares about enlightenment? What about truth, which IS nonduality!

There is no manifestation of the non-dual.

...

You know what? After writing that, I just realized something. Me saying those things is like a man climbing, then standing on top of a mountain and screaming at the top of his lungs down to the people in the valley below, "Look at all of this!"

The people only hear some strange noise and are unable to make out what it is, because he's too far up there. He's seen the whole face of the mountain, and they haven't even begun up his trail. Or maybe some are halfway, and they hear his cries a little bit, but they can't make out his words. Some may be able to understand, and they will look around but still miss the whole picture, having not reached the peak.

A person has to make the journey themselves to be able to understand. Otherwise there's no understanding.

To put it in the most honest terms that I can: you have to see that it's all a bunch of bullshit (every single bit of it!) to be able to say what I have said.

That may not even make sense.