What is the essence of all religions?

[Lunitik]

Where did I say it was irrelevant? I actually said that it is something you have to deal with, if you care to check my posts. I also said that bliss is not what it is all about--that it is part of a larger process.

I have also stated that it is experienced to a much higher degree in Nirvana, and that the enlightened man maintains his blissful state constantly. These you have rejected. I have lived in bliss for over a year now, unceasingly, yet you are telling me it is something to deal with? It is utterly enjoyable, although I can go back into Nirvana whenever I please.

Soul=a breather

It depends which school you are discussing, Buddha simply rejects the notion, many compare it to Atman in the Hindu school which is the individual mind or self. The Egyptians equated it with the heart chakra because of what I have discussed about it being the first encounter of seeking.

Ultimately, it is the drop of separation which must fall back into the ocean - which is the Spirit, Mind, or Self.

You might if you pay attention

Snappy! I have edited to respond.

Methinks you don't understand what anatta means.

It means "no-self", it is about the illusion of self, it is the notion of "I" which I go on emphasizing. Since there is no self in reality, why will one run from it? This was supposed to be a joke.

How closely have you looked into wei wu wei?

I live it, it is to permit existence, to detach from notions of doer-ship, it actually is simply the Taoist way of describing anatta, as the Christian explanation is to drop personal will and do the will of God.

LOL, creating trust by misrepresentation?

It is not misrepresentation at all, it is rather a correcting of a false representation. The problem is, as is always the case, it has not been written by the Master, and it has been translated to English at least 2000 years later - since English didn't exist during that time. I speak on the experience, I am not concerned with the words, although I will bring in concepts you might be familiar with.

[citation needed] (wikispeak)

It is one of the first lines in the Tao Te Ching

Can you see why I'm saying that you might want to examine to see if you are experiencing makyo? Etu Malku mentioned how you remain ignorant in spite of evidence presented.

You are asking an enlightened man to restrict himself to the experience of another instead of talking directly. Has Buddha restricted himself to what Krishna has said? Has Jesus restricted himself to what Moses has said? Certainly not, but both have used examples of the others where it has benefited them to utilize it.

Evidence does not affect the constant glimmering in my vision, the almost paper white screen I see when I close my eyes, I am not trying to compete with any mind, I am trying to bring people beyond mind.

Again, you are not privy to my experiences, or lack thereof. You are once again speaking from ignorance.

It is patently obvious, but if you wish to stick to this line I will not comment again on it.

You are not speaking with a fellow seeker though, please understand. It would be better to consider me a Bodhisatva, although to say I am directly would look like ego to you. You continue to try to teach me about the experience which I live, it is utterly absurd.

I do not want to present myself as being higher, and certainly I am not as learned in scripture, you must look at the purpose of what I say though, you must try to understand what my words are trying to lead you toward instead of engaging ego in disputing me. If something is not clear, I will be happy to clarify, but automatically you just say it is wrong. I address the person I am replying to, then you jump in and claim I am misrepresenting. It is merely that I am presenting something which is dialectic to show their view is not something meaningful, I am not even concerned with details most of the time because it is not the point.

It is merely your need to show your knowledge, then you wonder why I say I can see clearly that you haven't experienced much yourself. You do not even understand what is meaningful and what is simply a device in the various scriptures you are familiar with. You do not even understand that Buddha himself has said not to accept him absolutely, to go by your own experience. A lot of what he says is not actual at all, yet you treat it otherwise.

 

[Lunitik]

All forms of meditation are a form of trance induction.

How are you defining 'trance'?

I am using this: A half-conscious state characterized by an absence of response to external stimuli, typically as induced by hypnosis or entered by a medium.

This is not meditation AT ALL.

 

[Etu Malku]

Generally speaking, trance is generated using cognitive loops and involves neurological mechanisms and psychological implications.
Particularly speaking, meditation is a form of dissociative trance

The trance state in the human mind is an involuntary process. Trance is an altered state of consciousness. During trance state a person will be concentrating more on his inner self. During a trance state a person will get an opportunity to think about himself and make positive changes in the outlook towards life.

Trance state is often interpreted to be religious ecstasy that can be created using a variety of techniques like prayer, meditation, religious rituals, pranayama, music, fasting or consumption of drugs.

 

[Lunitik]

I need to stop using the word 'meditation', I was going to say is absent of thought but the dictionary disagrees.

I can say it is Zen or Dhyan but the translation comes back to meditation. It is not a contemplation, or even concentration. It is the very act of letting go, of returning to the original state. Free from mental and bodily movements, it is merely to be in pure awareness, to enter samadhi or nirvana ultimately, until then it is just nothing, you are trying to figure out what the state is.

You will experience glimpses of absolute reality when Zen begins to actually function in you, gradually you will understand how it happens. It is to reside in this, and gradually it becomes just your constant inner quality, now you can function even more efficiently in the outer world, yet your inner world is perfectly still, observing.

 

[Etu Malku]

I need to stop using the word 'meditation', I was going to say is absent of thought but the dictionary disagrees.

I can say it is Zen or Dhyan but the translation comes back to meditation. It is not a contemplation, or even concentration. It is the very act of letting go, of returning to the original state. Free from mental and bodily movements, it is merely to be in pure awareness, to enter samadhi or nirvana ultimately, until then it is just nothing, you are trying to figure out what the state is.

You will experience glimpses of absolute reality when Zen begins to actually function in you, gradually you will understand how it happens. It is to reside in this...

Nah . . . everything you are talking about is simply an altered state of consciousness that you have place some mystical empowerment on.
I do the same thing in ceremonial magick, except I am not deluded as to what's going on.

 

[Lunitik]

Nah . . . everything you are talking about is simply an altered state of consciousness that you have place some mystical empowerment on.
I do the same thing in ceremonial magick, except I am not deluded as to what's going on.

I have not said it is not an altered state of consciousness, I am simply saying it is also much more as well. I have already hinted towards this "much more" in this thread, but certainly these things haven't been available through drugs, something else has happened, it is not just a modification of consciousness.

 

[seattlegal]

I have also stated that it is experienced to a much higher degree in Nirvana, and that the enlightened man maintains his blissful state constantly. These you have rejected. I have lived in bliss for over a year now, unceasingly, yet you are telling me it is something to deal with? It is utterly enjoyable, although I can go back into Nirvana whenever I please.



It depends which school you are discussing, Buddha simply rejects the notion, many compare it to Atman in the Hindu school which is the individual mind or self. The Egyptians equated it with the heart chakra because of what I have discussed about it being the first encounter of seeking.

Ultimately, it is the drop of separation which must fall back into the ocean - which is the Spirit, Mind, or Self.



Snappy! I have edited to respond.

Methinks you don't understand what anatta means.

It means "no-self", it is about the illusion of self, it is the notion of "I" which I go on emphasizing. Since there is no self in reality, why will one run from it? This was supposed to be a joke.

Anatta

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of "not-self" or the illusion of "self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Please take a moment to let this sink in....

In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikāyas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups ("khandhas") that serve as the objects of clinging and as the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikāyas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living beings are "not-self", i.e. not "I" or "mine", but also that clinging to them as if they were "I" or "mine" gives rise to unhappiness.
According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways,​

Please take a moment to let this sink in...

only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#cite_note-Peter_Harvey_1995.2C_pages_57-58-0​

Do you honestly believe that there is no more room for improvement?

I live it, it is to permit existence, to detach from notions of doer-ship, it actually is simply the Taoist way of describing anatta, as the Christian explanation is to drop personal will and do the will of God.

It's knowing when to grasp, and when to release, and let the natural action (Tao) take over the task. Effortless doing. The connection with anatta is that you don't own it.

It is not misrepresentation at all, it is rather a correcting of a false representation. The problem is, as is always the case, it has not been written by the Master, and it has been translated to English at least 2000 years later - since English didn't exist during that time. I speak on the experience, I am not concerned with the words, although I will bring in concepts you might be familiar with.

Please refer to anatta above:

all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Your own experiences, especially sensory ones, must be questioned and examined. This is where scripture and commentary comes in handy.

It is one of the first lines in the Tao Te Ching

citation for this part of your claim:

Right off the bat Lao Tzu basically says reading his work is stupid because words can only point.

Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders​

You are asking an enlightened man to restrict himself to the experience of another instead of talking directly.

Please refer to anatta above:

all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Has Buddha restricted himself to what Krishna has said? Has Jesus restricted himself to what Moses has said? Certainly not, but both have used examples of the others where it has benefited them to utilize it.

Scriptures are good for comparison

Evidence does not affect the constant glimmering in my vision, the almost paper white screen I see when I close my eyes, I am not trying to compete with any mind, I am trying to bring people beyond mind.

Like I asked, how long can you try to hide from yourself? All things contrary to the Tao will soon end.

It is patently obvious, but if you wish to stick to this line I will not comment again on it.

LOL, how do you reconcile this with your statement immediately prior to this one?

Evidence does not affect the constant glimmering in my vision,

You are not speaking with a fellow seeker though, please understand. It would be better to consider me a Bodhisatva, although to say I am directly would look like ego to you. You continue to try to teach me about the experience which I live, it is utterly absurd.

Hey, at least we both agree about the absurdity!

I do not want to present myself as being higher, and certainly I am not as learned in scripture, you must look at the purpose of what I say though, you must try to understand what my words are trying to lead you toward instead of engaging ego in disputing me.

An honest skeptic is very helpful in uncovering truth, but some egos just can't handle this and project.

If something is not clear, I will be happy to clarify, but automatically you just say it is wrong. I address the person I am replying to, then you jump in and claim I am misrepresenting. It is merely that I am presenting something which is dialectic to show their view is not something meaningful, I am not even concerned with details most of the time because it is not the point.

Uh-huh...

It is merely your need to show your knowledge, then you wonder why I say I can see clearly that you haven't experienced much yourself.

Are you really certain about this?

You do not even understand what is meaningful and what is simply a device in the various scriptures you are familiar with.

Alright, if you say so.

You do not even understand that Buddha himself has said not to accept him absolutely, to go by your own experience. A lot of what he says is not actual at all, yet you treat it otherwise.

Actually, I present what Buddha actually said when you misrepresent what he said. Scriptures come in handy for checking such claims.​

 

[seattlegal]

Nah . . . everything you are talking about is simply an altered state of consciousness that you have place some mystical empowerment on.
I do the same thing in ceremonial magick, except I am not deluded as to what's going on.

Agreed. It is difficult to accurately perceive the objective world while metaphorically staring at your intestines with your head up your ass. (metaphorically speaking, of course)

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Anatta

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of "not-self" or the illusion of "self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Please take a moment to let this sink in....

In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikāyas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups ("khandhas") that serve as the objects of clinging and as the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikāyas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living beings are "not-self", i.e. not "I" or "mine", but also that clinging to them as if they were "I" or "mine" gives rise to unhappiness.
According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways,​

Please take a moment to let this sink in...

only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#cite_note-Peter_Harvey_1995.2C_pages_57-58-0​

Do you honestly believe that there is no more room for improvement?




It's knowing when to grasp, and when to release, and let the natural action (Tao) take over the task. Effortless doing. The connection with anatta is that you don't own it.




Please refer to anatta above:

all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Your own experiences, especially sensory ones, must be questioned and examined. This is where scripture and commentary comes in handy.




citation for this part of your claim:

Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders​

Please refer to anatta above:

all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
​

Scriptures are good for comparison


Like I asked, how long can you try to hide from yourself? All things contrary to the Tao will soon end.


LOL, how do you reconcile this with your statement immediately prior to this one?

​

Hey, at least we both agree about the absurdity!


An honest skeptic is very helpful in uncovering truth, but some egos just can't handle this and project.


Uh-huh...


Are you really certain about this?

Alright, if you say so.

Actually, I present what Buddha actually said when you misrepresent what he said. Scriptures come in handy for checking such claims.​

wow really good SeatleGal.

How did u get to know so much ?​

 

[seattlegal]

wow really good SeatleGal.

How did u get to know so much ?

[satire]I deny everything and demand proof![/satire]

 

[radarmark]

We have been through this so often, Lunitik. You (like some others here) need to do just a minimum of research (even Google or wikipedia) before you post your "truths". Too often they are subjective, ideological statements misquoting or ignoring truth.

Your divine pronouncements from your own experience are defensible. Misrepresenting the words of Mahavir, Gautama and Laozi really is not.

 

[luecy7]

It requires two to tao. If the enlightenment is solo (1), or in non-existance (0), or in absolute servitude (-1), then someone and something is missing.

 

[Lunitik]

Do you honestly believe that there is no more room for improvement?

Improvement is a notion of some end in the future for which the mind must invent some means towards. I live utterly in the moment, but it is not belief based at all, it is experiential.

It's knowing when to grasp, and when to release, and let the natural action (Tao) take over the task. Effortless doing. The connection with anatta is that you don't own it.

No, it is to see there is nothing absolutely necessary, there is no releasing and grasping because this is a duality, there is only allowing as things arise. Ultimately it is because you were never the doer, now you just sit back and watch existence unfold, enjoying whatsoever arises.

Your own experiences, especially sensory ones, must be questioned and examined. This is where scripture and commentary comes in handy.

Questioning and examining is knowledge based, I choose not to remain in the witness state because there is no joy in it, no beauty. The key is to not become involved in what is experienced, but it sounds like you think ultimately you should not experience anything, this is simply idiotic. Certainly everything is false for me, I know that, but do you watch movies ever? Do you enjoy the movies? Do you cry or laugh during the movie? Will you continue being involved in the scene when the movie is over? You may discuss it briefly with whoever you watched it with and then move on to the next activity, it is much the same.

Like I asked, how long can you try to hide from yourself? All things contrary to the Tao will soon end.

There is no hiding possible, because there is nothing to hide.

An honest skeptic is very helpful in uncovering truth, but some egos just can't handle this and project.

Skepticism is a mental "no", it is utterly based in ego.

Actually, I present what Buddha actually said when you misrepresent what he said. Scriptures come in handy for checking such claims.

No one knows what Buddha actually said because it was never written, the monks gathered after his death to decide what should be recorded. You are willing to accept their infallibility over experiential experiences you consider contrary. It is certain those monks were not enlightened for the simple reason they have felt Buddha should not be forgotten, they are still clinging to their master who has died.

 

[Lunitik]

We have been through this so often, Lunitik. You (like some others here) need to do just a minimum of research (even Google or wikipedia) before you post your "truths". Too often they are subjective, ideological statements misquoting or ignoring truth.

Your divine pronouncements from your own experience are defensible. Misrepresenting the words of Mahavir, Gautama and Laozi really is not.

Which do you think will be more accurate? Knowledge based inference or direct experience related to the words? Nothing I say is ideological though, I find that insulting, it is an attempt to say exactly what is my everyday encountering, but you people seem to feel words in a scripture can match this, can be more meaningful than this?

It is laughable that people believe their mental understanding can compare to direct encountering with the experience. It shows a basic lack of understanding because if you have encountered it you know full well nothing can be said which is accurate - words and logic dictate you pick a side of truth.

People do not seem to understand that Buddhas words are not based on the experience, they are based on 45 years of trying to bring people to the experience. Lao Tzu has rushed to complete something while leaving a city because a soldier has forced him to share something of his wisdom. Again, right off the bat he says nothing he says can be his experience, that which is spoken is not the eternal Tao. As for saying I misrepresent Mahavir, I do not even know how that can be possible, he simply never picks a perspective to speak from, he says for every question there is seven possible answers and none are at all relevant. This does not help us discussing truth at all.

I do not depend on any because it is my own reality, it is only those who haven't encountered it who will cling to the words, and it is especially humorous when people cling to words of men who say absolutely not to cling to them. People seem to approach these men like they approach Jesus or Muhammad, these men are not so egoistic to say they matter at all.

 

[Lunitik]

Zarathustra says something awesome: He says you must depart from the Master, because even the Master can be your enemy in search of Truth. Not only this, he goes a step further, he says that you should even be embarrassed of the master because maybe he has tricked you. He says you must go into your own aloneness and find the truth yourself, then you can return to him if you please.

The words the Master states are utterly irrelevant for the truth you must find in yourself, he is ultimately there for encouragement alone.

 

[Lunitik]

It requires two to tao. If the enlightenment is solo (1), or in non-existance (0), or in absolute servitude (-1), then someone and something is missing.

Tao takes even the loss of the one.

 

[taijasi]

"There's a million ways to laugh/And every one's a path/
I want you to join together with the band!"

Religion, per se, is certainly not about separativism & divisiveness.
Normally I don't feel too thrilled about saying I am or want to be religious.

In this case, however, I can't imagine being religious enough!

My 2 cents for the day, inspired straight from the jukebox.

 

[Lunitik]

It is _you_ which fights the Tao, and this brings suffering.

It is as though you are swimming against a strong current unsure of where it might lead, yet it is going exactly where you need to be. All happiness, all joy arises when you stop fighting the current, when you become part of the current, when you permit what is occurring to happen and go totally into this moment.

Man has a basic problem with trusting life, he wants to be in control of everything, and from this is the nature of all suffering. Fundamentally, suffering happens because things are not the way we want, it is basically selfishness. What must happen is that your desires are changed or dropped completely, for truth has been the case before you and will be after you, why should it bend just because you are here? No, to the contrary, it is you that must bend for it.

You should be as a blade of grass, capable of bending to the forces of nature, not like a tree which will be uprooted by it. Instead, seeing the tree can be knocked down, you build stronger buildings to withstand the forces around you. You come further and further away from nature, away from the natural self, but still your building can so easily crumble under particular forces, this is the nature of fear, that you must succumb no matter what. Religion is about creating an environment where you willfully succumb now rather than delaying the inevitable, and then you see your stupidity because once you have succumbed life becomes infinitely more enjoyable, now it is simply a symphony of celebration.

This is what all the wise ones go on trying to make clear, the wiser still see that you will not accept until you are ready, these you never hear from. Death is following like a shadow, you cannot run from it. The Self is realized when you face it and see it is also something beautiful, even more beautiful than life.

Religion is a defeating of fear, and all fear is basically founded in death. You must find that part of you which is deathless, and then you can overcome fear itself.

This is why all the great ones go on crying: Die Yogi, die.

 

[Lunitik]

I have been dead for over a year now, yet you debate with me about different ways to die... they are irrelevant, just die already!

Now the duality of life and death is transcended.

This is the enlightened state.

 

[Lunitik]

It is liberation - moksha - from the problems which have arisen because you choose life. Choosing life, you want to run from death, you are choosing against it but you cannot avoid it. Deeply you know that choosing life you must eventually give it up, when you deeply digest this inevitability, you turn to simply face it now - you want to get it over and done with.

What you fundamentally are cannot die though, it is immortal, eternal, infinite... allowing all which is temporary in you to die, all that is left is this. Encountering this for the first time, you will not hold back any more in life, this has always been a protective measure against death. Now life is there abundantly for you because no more is death a shadow for it.

The suicidal person has gone the other way, they have chosen death. The enlightened man has simply inquired into death to see what it is, encountering it all fallacy dies but he remains alive.

This is Nirvana, watching both life and death without involvement in either, he has risen above both, he is no longer entangled, so he is free to simply enjoy. He knows his own nothingness, and how can nothingness be affected by anything?

All problems arise when nothingness tries to prove it is something.

That somethingness is maya - just an illusion.