Buddha

[Vinaire]

"Subhuti, if a person is satisfied with lesser teachings than those I present here, if he or she is still caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self, then that person would not be able to listen to, receive, recite, or explain this Sutra to others."

...

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a good man or good woman who accepts, upholds, reads or recites this Sutra is disdained or slandered, if they are despised or insulted, it means that in prior lives they committed evil acts and as a result are now suffering the fruits of their actions. When their prior life's evil acts have finally been dissolved and extinguished, he or she will attain the supreme clarity of the most fulfilled, and awakened mind."


Buddhism is something else, indeed.

.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, but what kind of trap, particularly, will self-identifying as a thetan be? Even on the conventional level of truth?

See, Vinaire, there are 2 levels of reality, the conventional and the ultimate.

If you constantly dive into the ultimate in order to deny the conventional, you are not-ising the conventional. And we all know that not-isness results in....

Don't we?

Dear Alanzo,

That was quite beautifully spoken.

Mojo

P.S. I have much more to say on the matter but don't want to upsurb the succintness of what you have already said.

 

[Vinaire]

I don't think I really understand what Alanzo is saying there.

Two levels of reality? What is conventional reality? What is ultimate reality?

I have just the reality I have.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Chapter 17.

At that time, the venerable Subhuti then asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One, may I ask you a question again? If sons or daughters of a good family want to develop the highest, most fulfilled and awakened mind, if they wish to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom, what should they do to help quiet their drifting minds and master their thinking?"

The Buddha replied:

"Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: 'I must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been liberated.' Why is this so? If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."


There seem to be a deeper meaning here than what I have been able to contemplate so far. I really feel stupid.

.

 

[nexus100]

Chapter 17.

At that time, the venerable Subhuti then asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One, may I ask you a question again? If sons or daughters of a good family want to develop the highest, most fulfilled and awakened mind, if they wish to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom, what should they do to help quiet their drifting minds and master their thinking?"

The Buddha replied:

"Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: 'I must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been liberated.' Why is this so? If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."


There seem to be a deeper meaning here than what I have been able to contemplate so far. I really feel stupid.

.

That is one big hunk of tobakee. I expect to be chewing on that for a while.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Chapter 17.

At that time, the venerable Subhuti then asked the Buddha, "World-Honored One, may I ask you a question again? If sons or daughters of a good family want to develop the highest, most fulfilled and awakened mind, if they wish to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom, what should they do to help quiet their drifting minds and master their thinking?"

The Buddha replied:

"Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: 'I must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been liberated.' Why is this so? If a disciple cherishes the idea of a self, a person, a living being or a universal self, then that person is not an authentic disciple. Why? Because in fact there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind."


There seem to be a deeper meaning here than what I have been able to contemplate so far. I really feel stupid.

.

Well don't beat yourself up tooooo much. This touches on the most difficult aspect of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Basically scholars & logicians have been debating the aspects of "shunyata" for over two millenia and still lack "universal agreement".


Mark A. Baker

 

[nexus100]

Well don't beat yourself up tooooo much. This touches on the most difficult aspect of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Basically scholars & logicians have been debating the aspects of "shunyata" for over two millenia and still lack "universal agreement".


Mark A. Baker

Gee, "thanks".

 

[Alanzo]

I don't think I really understand what Alanzo is saying there.

Two levels of reality? What is conventional reality? What is ultimate reality?

I have just the reality I have.

.

[SIZE=+1]There once was a Vedic Hillbilly who roamed the dusty roads of India in a straw hat and bare feet, way back in the 2nd century. All the other Vedic rednecks and goobers called him Nagarjuna.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]He'd sit around the spittoon, hootin' and hollerin' with 'em all.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]One day, he came up with the idea of philosophizin' and clarifyin' the concept of the Middle Way in Buddhism.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]And in that thar story lies yer answer, Vinay-ur.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]Happy huntin'
[/SIZE]

 

[nexus100]

[SIZE=+1]There once was a Vedic Hillbilly who roamed the dusty roads of India in a straw hat and bare feet, way back in the 2nd century. All the other Vedic rednecks and goobers called him Nagarjuna.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]He'd sit around the spittoon, hootin' and hollerin' with 'em all.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]One day, he came up with the idea of philosophizin' and clarifyin' the concept of the Middle Way in Buddhism.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]And in that thar story lies yer answer, Vinay-ur.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]Happy huntin'
[/SIZE]

Your link reads 2nd Century, CE. What is CE, Consarn Eddification?

 

[nexus100]

Nemmine, Ah lukdit up.

 

[Mojo]

Well don't beat yourself up tooooo much. This touches on the most difficult aspect of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Basically scholars & logicians have been debating the aspects of "shunyata" for over two millenia and still lack "universal agreement".


Mark A. Baker

Scholars and logicians talk too much because they think too much. And that is the cause of their universal dis-agreement.

Any and all insight into the emptiness of being requires the emptiness of being to begin with. This means shutting up. Within. A task resevered for those pre-ordained for silencing their blabbering ego (within).

Lol!

Mojo

 

[nexus100]

Scholars and logicians talk too much because they think too much. And that is the cause of their universal dis-agreement.

Any and all insight into the emptiness of being requires the emptiness of being to begin with. This means shutting up. Within. A task resevered for those pre-ordained for silencing their blabbering ego (within).

Lol!

Mojo

"pre-ordained"? Is that what you really mean?

 

[Vinaire]

Scholars and logicians talk too much because they think too much. And that is the cause of their universal dis-agreement.

Any and all insight into the emptiness of being requires the emptiness of being to begin with. This means shutting up. Within. A task resevered for those pre-ordained for silencing their blabbering ego (within).

Lol!

Mojo

There is no permanent being to start with from Buddhist viewpoint. What is "emptiness of being"?

.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Does "helping ourselves" means puliing in wonderful effects such as, sex?

Descartes must be turning in his grave.

.

vinaire,

For the sake of argument I used sex when natuarlly there are other examples I could have used.

Like I said for the sake of argument.

And you saked it into an argument.

A static/thetan/OT/Clear should not feel invalidated at the mere occurrence of being effect.

Otherwise they would truly be *EFFECT*

Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

Rene, how about rising above Cause & Effect. Maybe you mean that.

.

 

[Mojo]

There is no permanent being to start with from Buddhist viewpoint. What is "emptiness of being"?

.

My Dear (Eternal) Friend Vinaire, should you find the silence of the mind, you will find the answer to the question you pose.

In the mean time, perhaps I can assist you in it's Revelation? Lol.

Emptiness of being is Emptiness of being. With no hidden secrets here.

It is this (& that) which preceeds any form whatsoever, and thus necessarily precludes any necessity of any speech about it.

I trust you jest in your demand for a spoken clarification of that (& this) which is unspeakable and unclarifiable. Elsewise your insinuation of being a lover of Vivekananda's works would be found to be disingenious. And I know you are not disingenious.

Mojo

 

[nozeno]

Rene, how about rising above Cause & Effect. Maybe you mean that.

.

Wishful thinking, grasshopper.

 

[nexus100]

I believe a central reason why the COS succeeded in enfolding so many into a life structure unsavory as the Sea Org is that the Tech took the bold step of answering the question, "How does one live?".
This is really the core of the tech. Not only does it free one, supposedly, but it frees one TO something. The issue I have been pondering for some time is, HOW does one live? One is alive, as the who, and in time, as the when. One is where one is, no matter where. All places are the same in terms of advantage and disadvantage to one's spirtual growth because one carries potential around as oneself. But HOW do you live? What constitutes the rules and wherefores?
The COS said, ethics. Ethics is unworkable, not because the COS decided for one what to do, but because that which allows one to grow must be a concert of experience disallowing immediate judgement. You can't decide what is "right" if you must experience what you must to get through it.
And ethics is a negative connotation, a prohibition. Life is the exact opposite. No truth contravenes life.
So what do you do to live while growing? That is really the issue, at least to me.

 

[Vinaire]

I believe a central reason why the COS succeeded in enfolding so many into a life structure unsavory as the Sea Org is that the Tech took the bold step of answering the question, "How does one live?".
This is really the core of the tech. Not only does it free one, supposedly, but it frees one TO something. The issue I have been pondering for some time is, HOW does one live? One is alive, as the who, and in time, as the when. One is where one is, no matter where. All places are the same in terms of advantage and disadvantage to one's spirtual growth because one carries potential around as oneself. But HOW do you live? What constitutes the rules and wherefores?
The COS said, ethics. Ethics is unworkable, not because the COS decided for one what to do, but because that which allows one to grow must be a concert of experience disallowing immediate judgement. You can't decide what is "right" if you must experience what you must to get through it.
And ethics is a negative connotation, a prohibition. Life is the exact opposite. No truth contravenes life.
So what do you do to live while growing? That is really the issue, at least to me.

Be willing to experience anything?

Cause only those things that others can experience?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Yes, but what kind of trap, particularly, will self-identifying as a thetan be? Even on the conventional level of truth?

See, Vinaire, there are 2 levels of reality, the conventional and the ultimate.

If you constantly dive into the ultimate in order to deny the conventional, you are not-ising the conventional. And we all know that not-isness results in....

Don't we?

For me "thetan" is not something out there that a person should identify oneself with. That would be a gross clinging to, and an insidious trap.

Because one is identifying oneself with some abstract notion. One is clinging to an abstract idea. One's thinking is modified by that idea and is trapped into looking through that idea.

Now, I have no idea of the two realities that you are talking about. I cannot presume to know your intimate experience with "thetan." So, I cannot comment on it.

.