It maybe that thoughts are all that we have ...

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

Yes we may need the two, but once they have done their job, we might not need 1 or the other or both.


Well then what happens to the us or me when there is no thought?

I think you still aren't understanding the analogy.

Not sure, how do you think a Buddhist would answer?



Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

Well I think its the application that we are looking at differently, but if we need to clarify the analogy more I think thats fine.

well the reason the question arose was because we pointed out that different types of Buddhists will give different answers.

What I think this leads to is, all the "I' (we) , the illusory part, the ego has maybe thought. But the part without thought, or what 'we' or 'I' is without thought, is the 'true' nature.

I suppose you might agree, but still say the 'I' born of thought is necessary, as Buddhism suggests it's so ?

I think you also might be suggesting that thought and no thought states are separate and have to and should remain that way but that there will always be both, and we cannot just have a thoughtless existence?

There is no 'we' or 'I' without thought, it doesnt exist, its illusory, it only exists in the content of thought, its not real, its imaginary, there is no such thing, either with or without thought.

There is no 'true nature' either. Thats just more identification, more grasping, there is no 'I' or 'we' to have , possess or notice our true nature.

Yes this I think is logical and obvious.
I somewhat question this, we might agree that there is a false nature: a belief that 'me' or 'I' exists without thought?

If we agree that there is a false or illusory nature, we might see that when the illusion is cleared there is 'true' nature. We just need to make sure we don't personify this nature, or give it form.

A zen master was weighing flax. A student approached him and asked "What is Buddha nature?" The master answered "Three pounds of flax."

Two students were arguing about a flag moving in the wind. One argued that actually the wind was moving. The other argued that actually the flag was moving. A zen master overheard this conversation and said that actually only their mind was moving, not the flag and not the wind. But the zen master made a big mistake. If you contemplate this riddle and leave all thoughts behind (deep or shallow) then the body will give the correct answer.

So who recorded this moment into words? Was it meant for the student in the story, or for the student reading the story. I hear a lot of people quote this to sound zen like but really most people use it as a cop out. It reminds me when mma guys say a belt is only good for holding your pants up, then they laugh, but a belt in martial arts holds the gi closed and the pants have a draw string.
This is fine but I think we can speak clearer and more logically about the whole thing.

Buddhist is what North Americans call themselves when they become atheist but don't have the balls to admit it.

If you want to meet the flakiest group of depressed, lost souls, start going to Buddhist gatherings. Any North American that tells me they are Buddhist is on my list of people to keep at arms length. And don't lend them anything. Lending $$$ and to a Buddhist and expecting back is as dumb as leaving you child alone with a Catholic priest.

Buddhism is just another Fu($ed religion that is full of lies. It is ancient Mythology that was written down about 2000 years ago. No different then the Greek or Viking Gods. Why were all these religions created about 2000 years ago? Is it coincidence? Is it a miracle? Is it god? No...paper was invented about 2000 years ago. The 1st thing written down was the ancient stories.

^ lol

Remarkable. Just when you think a thread could not get any worse, it does.

writing is a lot older than 2 thousand years (man is older than 5k years).

I said the invention of paper, not writing.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/papermaking.shtml

sure but it makes no sense to think paper was the mark of the creation of any religion. It really just sounds like you only know about religion to the point of 2k years ago.

What a coincidence. We know very little about any history before 2000 years ago. Thats because the invention of paper allowed writing to be easily stored in books. So unless it's written on stone or very crude paper like bark. Very little written history exists before 2000 years ago. Imagine how much we would know about ancient Egypt if books exists from them.

The invention of paper is probably mans greatest invention. Possibly greater then the wheel. Until the Chinese invented paper in 105 CE you needed a cart with wheels to cary a book of information.

I wouldn't at all attribute this to a lack of paper. There were plenty of records taken, many destroyed, most by Christian civilizations. We should pretend it was a lack of paper, we burned a lot of history in the name God (bible).


I think its more because your view on the past sees it that way.

So we can see the importance of the pyramids. I think we should be imagining how little we would know about the Egyptians if they didn't make structure to write on that stood thousands of years (certainly more than 2 thousand though).

Whats most ironic about what you are pointing out, is that it was the rosetta stone that finally allowed us to decipher these things.

its also ironic kinda of that since we have no records from more than a few thousand years ago, we don't know if we had paper before then and it was just suppressed. Like papyrus maybe.

In the Dalai Lama's book "The Universe in a Single Atom", he described the prioritization of "methods of inquiry" (finding truth, etc) from a Buddhist point of view as the following:

3: Buddhist texts/writings
2: Meditation
1: Experience

(3 being the least reliable method of inquiry and 1 being the most reliable)

jon_midas, like many others I've noticed that the current Dalai Lama seems quite 'progressive' (maybe not the right word) in his Buddhism. Stuff like this:

Is this common for the Dalai Lama(s), or is Tenzin Gyatso somewhat unique in this regard?

Pretty close I think. I would not say necessary, rather I would prefer to say its unavoidable. The distinction could be a bit nitty I suppose.




I'm curious... How so? Obvious?






Zen attempts to break down a person's logic.


Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums

I'd like to question this for instance one could say its futile to 'let go of letting go' because the process of letting go IS the process we are trying to eliminate, but I don't think thats the end of the issue at hand. In other words one can be 'free' of letting go while not trapped in letting go of letting go. But to be in the process of letting go is not 'letting go of letting go'.




Because without thought the nature of what is left changes completely, we can see this for ourselves, but not through thought.







Zen can possibly break down fallible logic, to reveal the infallible. The infallible can't be broken down, but its obviously still logical. There is an error in standard logic, and it can be shown mathematically.

I am not sure how this follows from saying an "I" is an unavoidable part of being human.

But what is the process, the obvious logic.
I am confused... I think the Zen Buddhist would say without the infallible you can't have the fallible. The classic koan: What's the sound of one hand clapping?

I just assumed it was a nitty distinction but after re reading, i see we differ on views drastically. I am questioning the belief that we need a thoughtful existence, and there can be no thoughtless existence.

I believe the latter is possible, but I won't say for a 'human' it is for sure possible, however our true nature is certainly not human, and im guessing you agree on that.


Its obvious but maybe not so easily and quickly understood. If its true there is obvious logic and i understand it, then i'd suggest that not being able to exist in an 'I'-less state with no that is blocking the obvious logic.

A koan can mean anything you want it too, that is the nature of a koan and we know this already.

First, I would like to go on the record as saying, yes we are human. You can't get around it.

Part of being human is having to deal with an ego - this may be what Buddha was saying with his first truth. It is our suffering.


If I may address asdf's question...

I think you can say this is specific to Tenzin, but also keep in mind Tibet has been pretty closed off to the Western world.

Anyhow, generally - Buddha, at his first teaching, stated that you must examine what he says againdt experience if reality. If, by your experience, you don't think its valid you must abandon it.

Coincidentally, I was just listening to the Ven. Robina Courtin - the first part of the talk was basically about examining Buddha's words.

[URL = http://ia600704.us.archive.org/29/items/Ven_Robina_Courtin/05_Karma_and_Emptiness/]Karma and Emptiness[/URL]

We should go into this then. For example, when we die, are we still human? Or is human mean the body. Does it mean the whole body? Or just the head or the brain?

Does the human need thoughts to remain human? If we are human when we leave these bodies, then what part of us is 'human', thought? soul? spirit? memories?

I think its important we go into this things before laying down a certain view.



I think in a way it may have been, but if we aren't destined to remain human, or have 'life' in the karmaic sense, then ego and suffering isn't something that is 'inspeperable' from our true nature.

I think this fits great, and we must understand and admit the distance between the moment Buddha said this things and now. Not only interpretation problems, but context, language, perception, predjudice etc. all are between us and his words and his words come between the true meaning of what he was conveying.

But if we can inquire into some of the former then afterwards i would invite you to relate it to your 'experience' and if it doesn't fit (ie logical) then after that you should discard it as nonsense or simple incorrect.

You can worry about a future that doesn't exist or you can deal with the present.


Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using 2+2 Forums