Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human no subjeto

The Tao or Way of the World is perfect. Humans do not follow the Tao though..at least VERY few. We think. Thinking creates opposites. Thus, perfect and imperfect. We go from the void or zen circle to the yinyang

Okay, so the world is perfect. Hooray.
It's thinking makes it unperfect. And we all think. (except for a handful--perhaps a couple thousand truly enlightened 'individuals'.) If we all think, then it ain't perfect no more.

We use it as an excuse to not go within because we are afraid that we will find out that we are "perfect, whole, and complete.".

Have you ever considered the possibility that people may use spirituality as an excuse not to engage the world? I don't necesarily believe that. But I think it may be true with many people.

Anthony Robbins sees those who go off into their own corner of the world and 'be spiritual' as selfish. Sure, they're gettin' happy. But they are evading their responsibility to humanity.

As Einstein said when querried by a reporter as to the meaning of life, "To help other people... yes... what other reason could their possibly be?"

And is television not just a manifestation of all the yuk that is already in us??

We all have sexual and aggresive drives left-over in the ole DNA. Consider them embers. Television fans and nutures those embers as the flames grow. These embers should be dying out as we evolve as a species, but they are not, because television has these ancient genetic codings on life-support.

Funny, from 1900 to about 1970, the opposite was thought to be true--Freud, with this Catharsis theory. That watching violent television saps our aggressive drive via vicarious experience or imagination. Would watching a pornographic film sap your sex drive? Pure bull..yet that view prevailed among the 'experts' for upwards of 70 years.

It is easier to blame the TV than to see that it's all in us--

I'm going to wager that when you began watching television, you were a wee lass. Television shaped an enormous part of your identity and the character attributes which you eventually took up--though you may not realise it. Children aren't knowledgable enough to know what the television is doing to them. We are spoonfed candy-coated crap without our knowing, and as the saying goes, gargage in, gargage out (GIGO is all I remember from my computer science dayze ) I've been pouring through oceans of research on the children and the media this semester. I grow continually disturbed. Television and children? There's no 'excuse' about it... television IS mind control and mind formation. I blame the television.

To change the world all you have to do is "change your mind".

Very true. But how functional is that belief? It serves you. But what about us?

just some food for thought.

"In some respects, the idea of a spirituality of resistance is very old, and this book is part of a religious conversation that has been going on for thousands of years. One side of this conversation has typically stressed the need to develop the kind of spiritual virtues I described at he beginning of the chapter: listening to inner voices, renouncing attachments, being grateful for all we have, surrendering to the will of God. On the other side have been the rousing calls to serve God by feeding the poor, removing the arrogant from the seat of power--or at least extending a helping hand to your neighbor. There are those who center their energies on the search for personal peace, and those who see resistance to evil as essential to the spiritual path. There has been the "horizontal" dimension of concern for social justice and collective well-being. And there has been the "vertical" dimension of a personal relationship to God or spiritual development. The crucial, and often quite difficult, task is to join both dimensions. And, for out time, to do so in the face of global environmental catastrophe."

A: "$"

Douglas Adams - "Oddly enough, it's not the small green pieces of paper that are unhappy..."

A translation:
“You don’t exist. Nothing matters. There is no truth. All is perspective and all perspective is limited and skewed. All that is there are the internal and external sensory representations of individual minds...present moment consciousness.” “Anything beyond this is irrelevant and wrong.”

I say, wonderful. But where do you go from there? Are we to expect that with the snap of the fingers, we will magically eradicate years of conditioning and zap ourselves to primary consciousness (or whatever word you want to use)?

You’ve said that ‘there is no enlightenment’. Yet what you describe as the only reality IS enlightenment--realizing you’re the universe, direct experience and all that.

Also, you’re decrying intellectual notions with an intellectual notion. Ha!

Further, why are you ‘sickened’ by words when you claim to be experiencing the ultimate reality? Shouldn’t you be beyond all that? Shouldn’t the yinyang have turned into the zen circle? Shouldn’t you be existing beyond the realm of duality?

You’re just a barrel of contradictions, aren’t you?

No matter what you correlate it with, and no matter how clever you think you are at representing it, your are wrong.

Yes, yes, we know. We all know that words are not the thing. They are representations of the thing—words are a finger pointing at the moon... it is folly to mistake the finger for the moon. Any fool can see they are not the same. But is using symbols to represent reality the same thing as mistaking the symbol for the reality? I don’t think so. If that were so, Zen monks would never communicate, they would never speak, they would never write, they would never think. Symbols, perceptions are useful. You’ve used them in crafting your post. If you truly lived by the ‘words’ you just related to me, you should be walking around like a beast-- breathing, eating, sleeping, nothing more, like Rousseau’s Natural Man. But you’re not. You think, you talk, you write... you use symbols to express your perceptions.

Realize that it is no sin to talk about what cannot be perfectly articulated—as long as we don’t confuse the word for the thing.

Indeed, how did you arrive at your current understanding of the Tao? I’ll wager it was either through a book or through a master...you were taught through representations, through words. Eventually, you may have, through mindfulness and meditation, begun to experience what those words represented. But it began with an intellectualization.

I agree that EXPERIENCE IS ALL. But how do you get there from here? Intellectualization is part of the process. If you don’t believe me, do a search for the ’10 Bulls’ on yahoo—a 13th century Zen classic chronicling the path toward XXX. Go to the second Bull. ‘Perceiving the Bull’ it’s called if I remember correctly. It is step two on a ten step journey toward what you describe.

Cheers,
Brian

***Further, why are you ‘sickened’ by words when you claim to be experiencing the ultimate reality? Shouldn’t you be beyond all that? Shouldn’t the yinyang have turned into the zen circle? Shouldn’t you be existing beyond the realm of duality?***

I have never claimed to be experiencing the "ultimate reality". Really, you are drawing some huge generalizations from my comments. They were directed only at the posts on this topic. And what does it look like when the yinyang turns into the Zen circle? Something like a unit circle rolling along a sine wave? Am I close?

***Indeed, how did you arrive at your current understanding of the Tao?***

Can one "understand" the Tao? Is this the same Tao that can't be written about? Tell me how dude! I have absolutely no understanding of the Tao, none at all.

***Are we to expect that with the snap of the fingers, we will magically eradicate years of conditioning and zap ourselves to primary consciousness (or whatever word you want to use)?***

Its been known to happen. And at a fundamental level, it must happen.

***YOU'RE JUST A BARELL OF CONTRADICTIONS AREN'T YOU?***

I'll take this as a very pure compliment. But on another level, Brain, realistically, aren't we all?

Whatever you say about enlightenment is wrong. Whatever you think about realization is wrong. Whatever you intellectualize about liberation is wrong. There is no Brian who will become enlightened and there is a Brian who will become enlightened. Don't mistake the real for reality. Its not an experience, its not a realm, and I hope you take issue with some of this because I'm so damn bored!

Yes, you’re right. I think of my ‘self’ as a master of words. I’ve carefully cultivated my writing and argumentative style from a very early age. I can think of nothing more important than the profitable use of words. Communication is paramount to success, obviously. ...I remember in 5th grade, I crafted and assimilated a more sophisticated accent (the one I currently use) in order to distinguish myself from my classmates. Words. There’s no escaping them. If you want to live in the world and rock ass, you better damn well be proficient in their use.

And tell me Brian, if you want to talk about realization is it better to make sense or not make sense? (I believe your Zen boys are fond of not making sense)

There are innumerable paths toward short-circuiting the ego. Paradoxical Zen Koans are one of them. Marveling at a magnificent mountain is another. Listening to a tone of 100hz in the left ear and 105hz in the right ear each night for two years is one again, natural brilliance another...

Please explain or define what you mean by intellectualization because I seem to think it has more to do with our bondage than liberation.

I would say intellectualization means to understand a concept through the faculty of reason. I can intellectually understand that I shouldn’t eat ice cream, because it spikes my blood sugar. Yes, I can intellectually understand that, but to turn that understanding into experience is another matter. Again, the finger and the moon.

My point is that you have to begin somewhere. And often (not always) we begin at an intellectual understanding of the path we must walk before we walk it.

I have never claimed to be experiencing the "ultimate reality". Really, you are drawing some huge generalizations from my comments.

You intellectually described the ultimate reality. You further trashed those who use words to describe the ultimate reality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you (or at least think that you) are living in the ultimate reality.

And what does it look like when the yinyang turns into the Zen circle?

The Yin Yang is duality. It is the contrast of Reason. We perceive, learn, identify, separate via this contrast. Erase the line inside the yin yang and what do you get? No more contrasts. Nothing and everything.

The Zen Circle is the void. Nothingness. Emptiness. --What you described. The ego, the body, what is outside of us... we no longer make those distinctions.

Can one "understand" the Tao? Is this the same Tao that can't be written about? Tell me how dude! I have absolutely no understanding of the Tao, none at all.

“The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao” is essentially a disclaimer that Lao Tzu is about to talk about something that can’t be talked about, true. But does he do after those first two lines? He goes on to talk about it for another 80 pages!!! Lol. Why does he do this? To further our intellectual understanding in the hopes that one day this intellectualization will turn into direct experience. If I hadn’t dissected this book clause by clause two years ago (and it was a great intellectual struggle), I would never have perceived the path. Those 80 pages of words by ‘the man himself’, pointed the Way for me, showed me where to walk.

I hope you take issue with some of this because I'm so damn bored!

I’m not really taking issue with what you’re saying. In fact, I agree. But I go further. I acknowledge the pragmatic usefulness of words, thoughts, and expression. I acknowledge the pragmatic benefits of alpha-consciousness. But I further realize that to make a spiritual quest our sole purpose in life is folly. Why? Because people are suffering and all is not right with the world.

How many people can we say are truly enlightened, actually living this 100%? A thousand out of 6 billion? They live in mountains and monasteries. The TRULY enlightened enlightened are the ones who come back to share their light with the world. –the Tenth and final Bull, called ‘In the World’.

I think that somewhere you have gotten lost in the intellectual notion that there are no intellectual notions. If that’s where you are, and you are NOT experiencing the ultimate reality... then honestly.....what good is it doing you?

And Lao-Tsu only wrote The Tao Te Ching at the request of his unelightened followers.

We are all walking the path, there is no first step. It certainly doesn't begin with the intellect. I think its funny that you keep asserting how valuable words are for pragmatic purposes: communicating, describing, expressing and of course pointing at the moon. Duh! Of course they are. As a matter of fact they are the essence of pragmatic, Newtonian reason. They are also the essence of our misery. Ever read the Siva Sutras? "Limited knowledge is bondage". And what is this limited knowledge? Good old words! Now if you take this as an attack on language you miss the point. Its an attack on the ego.

I imagine if Lao Tsu new you wasted two years dissecting his written "Tao" he would be most disappointed in you. Its not a product of the intellect and can never be grasped by the intellect.

***I think that somewhere you have gotten lost in the intellectual notion that there are no intellectual notions. If that’s where you are, and you are NOT experiencing the ultimate reality... then honestly.....what good is it doing you?***

My reply: I think that somewhere you have gotten lost in the intellectual notion that there ARE intellectual notions. If that's where you are, and you are NOT experiencing the ultimate reality... then honestly..... what good is it doing YOU?

You can go ahead and live in the world and rock ass Brian. I'd rather let the world live in me and rock ass