Posted by Butcho on 5/14/2010, 7:36 am, in reply to "correction"
: Jesus's "lost years" were from age
: 12 to 30...the ones I named were his
: teaching years. Sorry, it's been so long
: & the old memory has blips.
: Discovered this Googling "lost
: years" and discovered yet another
I know that you don't like me repeating myself but then I am not the smartest adept in the litter.
Instead of focusing on the things that are different between various religions, between various relativities, I think it would be more effective to focus on what the sages and masters from every time and every place have been trying to tell us for the past several thousand years.
Let us start with Lao Tzu, the OldBoy himself.
The ground upon which Taoism stands is non-conceptual. Even the concept of yin/yang falls short where the absolute nature of the Tao is concerned. To think otherwise is to confuse the pointing finger with that which is being pointed at.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you understand this fundamental of Taoism. Nor do I think gar understands it. I think his and your understanding of the essence of Taoism is at the end of the day, superficial. Again, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, nor most likely not the last.
Thus I keep repeating myself, and so far pretty much wasting my time where the two of you are concerned. But I continue to do what I gotta do. Damn the criticisms, full speed ahead. But that isn't any good either, I don't want to shout what can't even be whispered. So please accept my apology for not being more patient with you. For being pushy. For being boring.
The realization of the ground upon which the great sages stand is far more interesting and important than any supposed difference they might have. Most such differences are cultural and popularized by their less enlightened followers than any actual differences between the great sages. Mystics everyone.
And what is that ground. It cannot be put into words. The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. Words can only suggest.
Is there a fundamental problem with human beings? Yes. There is. Not fundamental to their essence, but to their thinking, to our thinking. The notion of Maya. That anything is separate from the whole.
The most severe form of maya is the notion of a completely separate self from the Self of existence, or even from the relatively separate selves of others. No such completely separate self exists. What some call the "I-concept".
No concept is real.
We confuse our thoughts of reality for Reality. We confuse ourselves thinking that we have a self other than the Self of existence. The shared self of the Self of existence.
"Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9 per cent
Of everything you think,
And of everything you do,
Is for yourself--
And there isn't one." Wei Wu Wei.
rat will never find the happiness he seeks as long as he thinks he is rat.
Of separate beings,
Is non-separate being." Chuang Tzu.
There is an inside that is the inside of all outsides. At the center of everything is nothing. An object that is not an object. A thing that is not a thing, no thing. "From the first nothing is." Hui-Neng.
All objects are relative. All taos are relative objects. Projections. Whether they be subject or object they are objects of projection. To make an object the subject is to make the subject an object. Wheel go round in circles.
Nothing is. Before the Big Bang nothing is and always has been and always will be. For it is pure no thing. The ground of existence is no thing. No thing cannot be objectified. The tao that can be objectified is not the eternal Tao. Subjectivity. Thusness. The Void. The Tao. God. Ummagumma. Whatever. Names for that which has no name. I AM THAT I AM. Or, I AM NOT, therefore I Am. We are subjectivity itself. Not subject, not object, subjectivity. Buddha Mind. Neither personal or impersonal, rather, transpersonal.
The eye cannot see itself. Self cannot see itSelf, but it is itSelf. We were never born, and we will never die.
The Father and I are a unitive one.
Does a dog have Buddha nature? Do you have Buddha nature? Do I? Does the lower nature, the relative nature, have absolute nature? The sages say "Yes".
The manifest is the manifestation of the non-manifest.
The manifest is as real as the expression on one's face. Real but temporal. The non-manifest is beyond the concept of Time and Space. Heaven and Earth are a relativity. To swing back and forth between them without realizing as much is simply to vacillate between two seeming opposites. Vacillation is not the method of the Taoist. Relative reality is real but impermanent. This includes any self that one might imagine one has. There is only, permanently, the Self. We are that Self. Each a part of that which has no parts. Change is as much an illusion as is unchanging where the relative is concerned for both are relative concepts. There is nothing to change or not change. No object to change or not change. "There is neither advaita nor dvaita for both are relative concepts." Ramana Maharshi.
But such a realization is not one that anyone can be forced into for there is no one to be forced and no one to do the forcing.
My message is sound. My way of putting forth my message is still in need of refinement, in need of succinctness. Apologia Incompletia.
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓|