SteveS55

Welcome aboard, Mark. I know where you are coming from, so keep coming back! Steve

Hi Art, Personally I think you might need some professional help. You don't sound quite rational to me. I'm not saying that to be mean-spirited - just being honest. In the process you might get some asistance with this whole "spiritual gift" thing. Bouncing around from one forum to another probably isn't going to be helpful. Steve

Any "advice" given is probably less important than the spirit in which it is given. Steve

Welcome aboard, Lissy. Keep stirring things up and keep that wonderful sense of humor! Steve

You know your parents better than anyone else, so you need to ask your voice of reason. But, it seems to me when someone is very excited about a newly found spiritual path (or any other path for that matter), and they suspect they are about to get cold water thrown in their face, it might be wise to hold back for a while. You have no obligation to share your spiritual life with any other human. It's an "inside" job, so it will manifest (hopefully) to others in the manner in which you live your life. Peace, Steve

"One asked the other if they could grasp emptiness. "Indeed" said one, and then grasped at the air. "No" said the other, before grabbing his companions nose and twisting it. 'THAT is how you grasp emptiness'". I'm guessing that's the demonstration of "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".

The quote from the Sutta Nipata doesn't bode well for those of us who express our opinions on this forum! I guess we all annoy each other! Steve

Now I get it! Thanks for the clarification, Tariki. I guess he went from " why practice" to "why not practice". That whole Zazen thing is way too macho for me!

Its fine for an enlightened or realized being to say that practice is not required because we already possess what we need. But I'm wondering if Dogen didn't practice. I think he probably did his share of meditation, reflection, contemplation, etc. There is a certain tried and true methodology involved with all of this. Some probably don't need to bother, but for most ordinary beings, we have to deal with a dualistic perspective and are destined to a graduated path. This requires commitment, dedication, devotion and so on. This is true of any endeavor, so why would we think it's any different in what we refer to as the spiritual life. Personally, I think it's a bit unwise to listen too closely to those who claim we already have what we need. There remains the question of afflictive and mental obscurations and how to deal with them.

What is to be made manifest, or realized, is at the same time presently obscured. We don't see things the way they are. But I'm quite sure Jesus did.

if there is nothing more to learn, I would suggest finding a teacher and allowing them to push you into the abyss. Steve

Hi Joseph, When I was a practicing Catholic, I always made it a point to partake of the Eucharist. I never actually stopped to think if I was assenting to anything theological or not. I did it for the pure experience of it, if there is such a thing as "pure" experience. But, everyone has to decide for themselves why they do or don't do something. Steve

Yes, I believe that I have no beliefs! Steve

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs. Steve

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology. Steve

" 'That there is suffering, this I know' So proclaimed the Buddha" The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things. To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real? Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations. If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed. Steve

Guess I should ask a card carrying Buddhist! Does a believer have to prove God's existence, or do I have to disprove it? Whatever, I still say it is not relevant to our predicament.

But that is the problem...existence is neither real nor true...from a Buddhist perspective! "God" or gods is actually not relevant. Steve

"WWAD (What would Aquinas do?)" He would have stopped writing and thinking. "I can write no more. Everything I write is like straw" - Thomas Aquinas.

At least I don't have to worry about "missing the point" of your post, Tariki. I would wave if I could see you. There must be a mountain in the way (or a mole hill). The best we can do is send up digital smoke signals from time to time and hope a stiff breeze doesn't make them unintelligible. If we fail to follow our own inclinations, as delusional or true as they may be, we risk confounding the Tao of our existence. Delusions will resolve when we look at them. Steve

Happy New Year to one and all! Steve

"What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"?" I think I like this guy, and especially this quote. What indeed gives us the right to be arbiter of the cosmos? We are mere specks of dust.

Come to think of it, use of the word "one" is probably incorrect. And what in the world is "one-NESS"? Excuse my contradiction, but it is far too "dualistic"! Steve

"If one believes cause and effect to be true or at least a sensible proposition, then a form of oneness is a logical conclusion if not the logical conclusion." I also agree with this conclusion, Rom. I have no reason to reject it as the evidence seems to be there. I don't mean to suggest that you, or anyone else participating on this forum, adheres to a strict belief in "kumbaya oneness" (well, maybe with a few exceptions!). Eliminating the "lovey-dovey", "God is love" sentiments, then most of us can probably agree that we are all made of the same stuff, and intimately dependent on every other thing to a greater or lesser extent. In this sense we could probably say that "everything is one", but that is essentially meaningless in our day to day comings and goings. We just don't experience things like that. I find it interesting that intellectually we can accept the evidence suggesting that cause and effect leads to a conclusion of a sort of "oneness", yet experience existence in an entirely different way. I suppose this is just proof of the illusory nature of reality!

"....the idea of the many in the One is part of the entire history and intellectual life of Christianity (and other traditions)." "If everything returns to the One, Where does the One return to?" - Zen koan Personally, I'm not a "oneness" kind of guy. And, the notions of dualistic/non-dualistic seems a bit of "dualistic" irony. It can't even be grasped conceptually, and it is not how existence is presented to me. So, I get where Burl is coming from. The pragmatic approach is generally the smart play. Steve