I post this as a warning to all who are interested in enlightenment, and in particular, in Eastern notions of enlightenment.

The problem I have found with Eastern notions of enlightenment, including from the Vedas and Buddhism, is that they are invariably world-denying. In essence, enlightenment consists of the realization that this world is mere illusion and that all is Brahma (or Void). There is no questioning the experience of Eastern notions of enlightenment in which the mind draws into itself, like the turtle draws its limbs and head into its shell. However, the interpretation of this experience is what I have a problem with. Namely, the idea that the world is mere illusion, mere dream, and that all is a creation of the infinite undying Self, disregards the persistent nature of objects in our consciousness, the mathematical nature of everything, and the fact that everything in existence can be measured and is finite (with few exceptions in which we are ignorant, like the true size of the universe).

In short, I seriously question the validity of the interpretations of Eastern notions of enlightenment. I think they are dangerous interpretations that lead to world-denial and to the loss of meaningful participation and interaction in the world. The actual experience of enlightenment is a whole other matter, and is meaningful and worth experiencing. However, the standard interpretations of this experience are, in my opinion, simply incorrect, and by espousing world-denial, are no different from Christianity and other barbaric religions that belittle this world in preference to some imaginary one.

Questioning interpretations is what the personal approach to enlightenment is all about.
I however would not assume the foundation of Eastern Traditions is in the denial of the manifest.
I would say that both the Eastern Traditions and the Western Teachings of Christianity have been distorted and tho popular acceptance of beliefs have painted some strange pictures of reality and God, there still exists within both a unity of Truth and information of the Truth.
One must delve into the Truth to find it in and amongst the dogma, similar to filtering out unwanted internal programs of the individual ego in order to realize the Self within.

Spoken by someone who has experienced Enlightenment?

There are many things one experiences in enlightenment, but enlightenment is not about focusing on the experiences.

lucid_dream, I agree with your outlook. At one time when I was much younger, I kind of believed that life was a game after briefly analyzing how people become successful in the real world for the first time. I never became disillusioned with this idea, but I did not abandon the concept either. I do not consciously live my life as a big social game or like monopoly simply because living a life like that would have no real significance. I am not saying that I don't play the social game, but that I don't intentionally go through life thinking life is an illusion in the form of a game. I believe that this type of disillusionment in understanding of enlightenment that you warn about will lead to people living under the life is a game/illusion mentality.

Any evidence to back up this claim? Can anyone suggest counterexamples?

my evidence is in the actual texts, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Yoga Vasistha, that espouse the world-denial interpretation of the enlightenment experience/mindset by attributing world appearance to Maya (illusion) and that advocate living life as if half-asleep, which amounts to a rejection of life. Like I said, the experience/mindset is one thing, the interpretation is another. I reject the interpretation.

Joesus, you are right about the personal approach being about questioning interpretations; however, I think the texts themselves espouse their own interpretation which is dangerous if it leads to world-denial. If the world is the reflection of Brahma, and if we are the universe conscious of itself, then it follows that this "world-appearance" is in itself valuable and informative, and should not be simply disregarded as a mere fantasy of the mind, on a par with dreaming. Comparing waking life with a dream is the dangerous and incorrect interpretation which leads to world-denial. Waking life is very different from a dream, as everyone knows. In a dream, anything and everything is possible. In waking life, there are constraints whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. You may call these self-imposed limits, but they are more than that.... they are the same limits which prevent people from magically flying around in the air without technological aids. For while this is possible to do in dreams, it cannot be done in waking life. If this seems obvious, then it should also be obvious that waking life and dreams are completely different phenomena, and to equate waking life with a dream is to belittle the meaning and significance of the former, which unfortunately is what most Eastern spirituality texts espouse, and which is not just incorrect, but a dangerous path to follow.

This is the old Lao_Tzu... (major BrainMeta password problems lately)

lucid, that's an interesting point you make (I'm referring to your first post here). However, I suspect you're making a few subtle mistakes with your terminology and that these may point to some subtle misunderstandings of Buddhist ontology (I can only speak for Buddhism, not the Vedas, and probably only in a limited and probably erroneous way even on Buddhism).

Of course, none of us (though I'm open to the possibility of correction here) is enlightened. So all we have to go on are others' descriptions of the enlightened perspective on reality. One major problems with this is that almost all descriptions of enlightenment (i.e. "interpretations" of the enlightenment experience) are negative; they say what the world is not like, rather than what it is like. The essential point is that it's basically indescribable, being utterly beyond the domain of words and concepts, but even that point is itself a positive description and so (therefore) not strictly true. Such is the kinky quandary.

I think I'd aim most of my argument at this sentence of yours: Namely, the idea that the world is mere illusion, mere dream, and that all is a creation of the infinite undying Self, disregards the persistent nature of objects in our consciousness, the mathematical nature of everything, and the fact that everything in existence can be measured and is finite (with few exceptions in which we are ignorant, like the true size of the universe).

Firstly, to be technical, but relevant, Buddhism doesn't say that the world is an illusion, just that it is illusory, and it uses this term to refer to a very specific characteristic of the world - its impermanence. If the world was said to be an illusion, that would be world-denying. However, it is not (correctly) said to be an illusion. Our experience attests to the truth of this: if the world was an illusion (i.e. fully apparition, without any substance) then swung swords would pass through us without hurting us, for instance. Our experience in this regard is not false; we really are hurt by impacting objects. So it cannot be an illusion. However, it is illusory in the sense that objects appear to have independent existence from their own side, but logical analysis shows us this can't be the case (but that's a topic for another topic).

I can't go into the idea of an infinite undying Self... that sounds more Hinduistic than Buddhistic, and that way a near-infinitude of very complicated semantic confusion lies.

My point regarding the world's impermanence also refers to your citation of "the persistent nature of objects in our consciousness", which you say the interpreted enlightenment experience disregards. I'd suggest that our impression of objects' persistence in our consciousness arises from our mistaken view of them as independent objects existing from their own side. We view them (erroneously) as inherently existent things, so we perceive their persistence. However, the act of designating a 'thing' with a name (i.e. the keyboard, as independent of your fingers or the mains electricity - all three being these contingent designations to which I refer) is a departure from reality; the 'thing' changes from moment to moment far too quickly for a name ever correctly to apply. Things are not really persistent; they arise and pass away each moment. The enlightened experience therefore does not disregard the apparent persistence of phenomena; it cuts through that erroneous conception of the world by seeing that forms do not have inherent or independent existence form their own side.

[Given the foregoing, I'm rather surprised that you ascribe a "nature" to everything, and then venture to give a description ("mathematical") to that nature... since we're talking about the fundamental nature of reality here. I'm also quite impressed that you say everything in existence is finite and can be measured! Bold statements. But not my ambit here.]

To be more concrete and less metaphysical, I think the examples of a few highly realised (to all intents and purposes enlightened) humans, or even the historical tale of Buddha Shakyamuni, would suffice to convince you that enlightenment does not lead to world-denial or withdrawal. On the contrary, it would seem that it leads to a particularly energetic, wise and compassionate engagement with the world.

And a footnote to all of this, in the same vein as my preamble: enlightenment might well be (incompletely) described as the absence of all interpretations. Interpretations, after all, necessitate putting labels on things, and labels, being dependent on words and concepts, can never describe the ultimate truth. So in a sense this entire discussion is moot.

The descriptions of the world in its appearance by the enlightened are descriptions based on a different point of reference than the world appearance.
Basically the world as it appears to the waking state without the experience of the absolute as a foundation or point of reference is such that the world is very real and it happens around the observer with little or no ability to affect the way one experiences it. Tho experiences change in the waking state they seem subject to the conditions of the world and its movement.
From the experience of the enlightened and from the point of reference in which the awareness is established in the absolute, the manifest is a reflection of thought and intention.
When one discovers the absolute and then allows it to move from the depths of the inner experience of the self to the outer experience as the Self/self the entire experience of life changes. It is not unlike a dream, one that is more lucid than most experience in lesser states of consciousness and with the unification of thought feeling and action of all things perceived to exist in awareness.

The perception described does not prescribe that one of lesser awareness attempt to step into something without knowledge or to step off of a cliff without the ability to transcend the lesser states of awareness.
These are the complaints that fuel the fear based arguments of ignorant unaware people toward enlightenment and the scripture written by the enlightened.

Most complaints come from not knowing rather than from knowing.

In my own experience with people, you can say anything, and observe those who would make assumptions or who are not paying attention, or have no experience of what I'm talking about take the information so far from the meaning it is no longer what I have said.

This is most often the case when it comes to interpretation of scripture, be it Eastern or Western.

By the way, have you read Baird Spaldings Books about his time spent with the Eastern Masters and his observances and experiences of their abilities?


Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East, by Baird Spalding. DeVorss press
They go into very good detail about Eastern and Western Teachings, and the potential of the Human life in relation to the manifest world.

Oh and one last thing. You can't get enlightened by reading a book.

I'm having trouble acquiring Baird Spalding's works, but like you noted Joesus, enlightenment is not realized by reading or hearing verbal descriptions. Lao Tzu mentions enlightenment can be described as the absence of all interpretations, but I think on second thought, Lao Tzu, that you will recant, as there are states of mind with minimal interpretations that cannot be said to be enlightened. Is a mentally disabled person who is thoroughly confused and cannot form interpretations considered enlightened in your book? All of perception is interpretation. Besides that, the state of mind in which awareness turns completely back on itself and is characterized by one-pointedness can itself be said to be just an interpretation. One general rule is that conscious awareness invariably involves interpretation, even when that interpretation is not overtly conceptual.

Reflect on the following:
In science, self-satisfaction is death. Personal self-satisfaction is the death of the scientist. Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science.
- Jacques Monod 1910-1977, New Scientist, 1976.

Now consider how Eastern traditions espouse self-satisfaction as the highest goal in life. Is this productive? Do you want to be self-satisfied if it means giving up on all of your goals and ambitions of your youth? If we're really honest about it, self-satisfaction is the goal of mainly old, tired people who have given up on life. Their self-satisfaction is their only consolation in life, even if it means buying into an illusion and turning their backs on all of what they previously considered worthy. This is the problem I have with Eastern traditions and institutions that claim any sort of affiliation with Eastern traditions, that they try to sell snake oil to desperate individuals who seek a more meaningful life. The truth of the matter is that you don't need Eastern dogma to achieve a state of enlightenment, nor does enlightenment imply world-denial. This is the only thing I'm griping about. I'm not denying the experience/mindset of enlightenment, but merely pointing out that Eastern traditions gratuitously insert their own interpretations which are irresponsible, false, and dangerous if taken seriously.

Ah, lucid, that's a disappointing response. You have either read my post very hastily or you're deliberately ignoring my nota bene that my afterthought (and you didn't reply to the meat! very disappointing) was an incomplete description of enlightenment. And even if it had been a definitive description, it still wouldn't follow that all states of mind that lacked interpretation were enlightened.


No - the state of mind itself is not an interpretation. But when we label it or describe it as such, that is an interpretation. There is consciousness beyond concepts. But this is just mutual headbutting; after reflecting on what I say here you can accept it or not, because I've got no real arguments to support it.

I must say that your argument regarding self-satisfaction strikes me as rather specious, involving the conflation of many different meanings of self-satisfaction, variously as arrogance, smugness, contentment and, finally, (a synonym you claim, and which I would certainly dispute) as enlightenment.

However, I do agree with you on this:

Full agreement!

But actually you didn't stop there...

Well, I would hesitate to call it gratuitous. Although, as I admit, all description falls short, the finger pointing at the moon is nonetheless useful in helping people to look in its direction!

Perhaps the idea is not to take them too seriously (anything is dangerous if taken too seriously, after all).

But overall I would suggest a more careful and thorough reading of these 'interpretations'.

that's not a very enlightened response...


I read through it hastily but not too hastily, and did not respond to what I didn't see any problems with. However, on further examination, I see you defining interpretation as necessarily involving placing labels on things, and this I certainly dispute. All of perception involves interpretation, whether you are aware of placing labels on things or not. This is an experimentally verified fact. And my claim is a generalization of the preceding fact; namely, that all of conscious awareness involves interpretation, whether we recognize it as an interpretation or not. Certainly interpretation is not limited to placing labels on things in my book.


Prove it. Better yet, try working out the implications of state of mind being an interpretation, and see how it meshes with your reality.


I was using the term to mean satisfied in the sense of not showing any interest in the world or its mysteries because of the belief that it is just an illusion.


This we agree on.

Ha! I never claimed to be enlightened, okay? Or always to respond in an 'enlightened manner' (however that might look, as if any of us would know).

Hmm, okay, I think I might be able to understand how a mere state of mind could be an interpretation ... in the sense that any state of mind would necessarily involve a 'human angle on reality' which would be an interpretation even if it didn't involve labelling? (Contrasted with a 'tree angle' or a 'star angle' or a 'hydrogen atom angle', all different 'interpretations'?) Is that the sort of thing you mean?

So do you reckon we can't have a primordially raw, uninterpreted experience? I wonder what the implications of that would be for enlightenment.

Thinking aloud (getting tired)... wouldn't that thesis rest on a dualistic conception of the world? (I.e. experience, experiencee, and experiencer? Or [raw reality], [filter], [necessarily interpretatious experience]?) That would, in my view, be wack. But then, I'm not sure whether we agree that any kind of dualism is, at bottom, untenable...

I can only stomach so much of the thinly veiled arrogance and error that tries to pass itself off as absolute truth. I know my experiences and mindsets, and I know what can and cannot be said about them, and I think it irresponsible to make universal claims that have no support outside of one's imagination. Most of the interpretations of enlightenment within the Eastern tradition are often little more than glorified solipsism. And this is supposed to be a pinnacle of human thought and spirituality? Give me a break! There is so much there that hasn't been tapped.

I was joking.


the thesis that all conscious awareness involves interpretation is not limited to dualistic modes of thought. Any mindset and anything we are consciously aware of, I would claim, is an interpretation. I am not certain of this claim, but do currently find it plausible, and have been trying to work out the implications.

Arg, I missed this bit...


Yeah well. I think that is a greater malaise than can be attributed to Eastern religions. Strict materialists get it too (though perhaps for different beliefs)!

But fortunately (from the P.O.V. of that statement) I am still fascinated by the mystery of, for instance, why women's skin is so niiize. And I don't think that enlightenment will do much to change that.

I cite Ikkyu (erotic-minded Zen monk, poet and illegitimate son of the Japanese emperor - all rather romantic really):

Why is it all so beautiful?
This fake dream
This craziness -- why?

And perhaps most relevantly:

sick of it whatever it's called sick of the names
I dedicate every pore to what's here

So this magician is driving down the road, and he turns into a driveway...

Maybe LifeMirage has some insight. It seems his name pretty much sums the eastern notions of enlightenment...saying life is merely a mirage..."dangerous interpretations that lead to world-denial and to the loss of meaningful participation and interaction in the world." Plus it would be interesting to see his perspective on a different forum that doesn't deal with nootropics.

Eastern Traditions are often misinterpreted to the understanding that being fully immersed in praise gratitude and unconditional love means being stoned on God to the point of losing ones ability to integrate their actions and intellectual comprehension of that which was interpreted before the bliss wiped out all perspectives of reality before and after enlightenment.

There is a saying,"Before enlightenment, Chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, Chop wood, carry water."

If you haven't shared the conscious experience of consciousness and the manifest in Union as has been described by someone who speaks of their enlightenment you cannot share understanding. You can project all over it according to the box you stand in and speak from but you cannot share their perspective or experience.

Truth which is universal, (and not all relative truths are universal) is Truth that can be experienced by anyone.
In the relative world if you know what red is and you have ridden in a red convertible you could have an experience that can be shared tho your experience is not going to be exactly the same as another.
Similarly with enlightenment resonance takes place in the foundation of one pointed awareness and union of the awareness and the manifest. If someone is speaking of it from the awareness of it there is a vibrational resonance that can be felt and experienced by another who also has their awareness of it.

Desire for fulfillment is often pursued from relative reference points. Happiness is chased after by the mind that interprets experiences of brief happiness and the attempt to repeat the past by bringing it into the present. The waking state mind takes this to the idea of preserving this idea into the future in all possibilities and probabilities. This is the ego in action, the need to manipulate the world to fill needs of attachment and perception.
Youth has an advantage in innocence. Children haven't been exposed to so much thought of protecting themselves from future failures. When a child goes outside to play they don't think about failing or the idea they might have a bad day at play. That doesn't come until the mind grasps onto a few experiences that it doesn't like and starts to project failure and fear into future moments.

Have you ever seen a child fall, cry, and get up to go on with what it was doing without dragging the moment and the experience with it. The child will put the experience aside and receive the next moment without dragging the past along. This is what is described as being in the moment, or as Jesus spoke of the innocence of a child in reference to the mind returning itself to being in innocence of the moment.

Eastern Traditional teachings that speak of attachments to desire recognize that most desires are those that pop into the head and are associated with being cures for ailments of boredom and sadness.
Lets say you want to have a relationship because you are lonely. You think this will make you happy, but the Truth of the matter is once you have what you want you will want something else if your life is anchored in relative ideas of potential suffering and emptiness.
If you are not stable in the appreciation of yourself and your life, or in other words you don't love yourself, then you will feel all self worth and happiness is relatively dependent on the love coming from someone else or everyone else.
Some teenagers feel happiness is dependent on their physical freedom and they need a car to have that.
100 years ago it was probably a horse.
The thinking behind the Teachings of enlightenment is that there are wasted thoughts and energies that are focused on relative ideas that bring temporary fulfillment to the mind that is dysfunctional in its awareness of reality.

Its easy enough to watch a friend who is suffering because he lost his favorite dog, car, girlfriend or whatever and think he/she will get over their loss and go on. But the mind that dives into the suffering and the loss without moving on is the choice that is made not from greater awareness but from the emotion and the attachment to the emotion.
One person may shake it off and move on instantly and another would and will wallow in feelings and some to excess.

The ascension of intellect or the rising of awareness beyond such ignorance is the ability to witness and re-cognize the reality that things do not make us who we are. Relationships with people do not make us who we are. We are amazing in the fact that we can make a choice to be what we are and we often choose to lean on the external so heavily that we depend on our attachments to make us what we feel we should be.

Illusions that create temporary fixes in a world of ignorance can be ascended.
Enlightenment means recognizing the greatness within so that we can bring it into all aspects of knowledge and experience rather than depending on someone elses interpretations of happiness.
Think about what mainstream society has done to human interaction and expectations.

There is a way to be popular according to societal standards and they are different in different countries.
Here in the good ol' USA owning the right kind of car, house and drinking the right beer is important. TV, radio and news tell us what is important and we listen and are influenced.
This influence shadows our real Self and we desire to be what others think we should be and what others want us to be.

There is nothing dangerous about giving up such thinking nor losing any codependent lifestyle that leaves us feeling empty without our things to make us whole.

If one lives with the fulfillment of being satisified with themselves, their energies are not directed toward filling the holes that are created by ignorant thoughts about ones self worth. They are free to create from a solid foundation of being rather than one that is built on balloons that pop every time ones desires aren't fulfilled.

Behaviour - we live the proximate to achieve the ultimate*.

Then there is enlightenment - we understand that the proximate will never achieve the ultimate**.

* = why
** = fulfillment

With enlightenment the ultimate fades from the dream leaving only the real. No longer settling for the proximate while dreaming of the ultimate all energies are focused achieving perfection in every thought feeling and action.

Like woah guy

Joesus, about chopping wood and carrying water after enlightenment: most Eastern traditions recommend doing this as if half-asleep, and promote the interpretation of the world-experience as only a dream. You don't think this is irresponsible advice? Do you live your life as if half-asleep and believe your world-experience is just like a dream? There is an element of responsibility which is missing from all of the Eastern texts I have come across, unless I've missed something, as if the writers had no sense of responsibility and that they regarded their whole life, and everyone elses, as little more than a dream, and as of little consequence. That's why I think such ideas are dangerous and irresponsible, and that the Eastern traditions should be held accountable for being irresponsible and introducing false ideas.

I would not be raising these criticisms of the Eastern Traditions if I thought this was the case. Of course you are free to think otherwise.

One of the questions may seem to be whether having a sense of responsibility is incompatible with detachment, which is presumably why you talked at length about the negative effects of attachments above. I don't think they are incompatible, and so the question becomes, why are Eastern Traditions so irresponsible, or lack any sense of responsibility? My answer is that it is because the originators of the Eastern Traditions were irresponsible, and this was likely due to the fact that they regarded their world-experience as inconsequential, as being no different from a dream. And for anyone who places any value or significance on their world-experience, or who has a sense of responsibility, they may rightly ask, are these really the beliefs and the mindset that I wish to cultivate?

This is your interpretation. The reference to someone being described in a state of fullness as seeming to be in a dreamlike state or half asleep is one that I have experienced in my own teacher. Sometimes it seemed as if he was somewhere else rather than present in the room, yet at any given moment if asked to engage he was sharp and to the point.

Eastern Traditions do not promote any kind of outward appearance. The reference you are suggesting as a recommendation is misinterpreted.


I know better than to assume from reading a book or from listening to another just what reality is without engaging myself in the Topic fully.
I've immersed myself in the Eastern and Western Philosophies for 12 years now and know that misinterpretations of Truth lead to bizarre concepts of reality, and often fatal translations of scripture.

And by the way, it didn't take me 12 years to figure it out.

I may appear overly cynical or otherwise, but I know my experiences and mindsets, and I know what can and cannot be said about them,.... and my own readings of Eastern texts, in an effort to gain better insights into interpreting my experiences and mindsets, have left me with the impression that unwarranted and incorrect claims and interpretations are being presented. Granted, I may be misinterpeting things, or there could be translation issues, and this is not being ruled out, in which case, my warnings above would be directed towards a particularly insidious interpretation of Eastern traditions. And I would assume, that if this is a misinterpretation on my part, that others will likely be misinterpreting as well, and this could be a problem.

but the reference to living life as if half-asleep is not limited to meditating or sedentary activities, but to all activities. How would you feel if your teacher always appeared to you to be half-asleep, or otherwise was always occupied with one pointedness or with purely imaginary worlds in his head? Does your teacher denigrate world-appearance? Does he have a sense of responsibility, and if so, then of what? What is the Eastern Tradition's stance on responsibility? I am eager to correct my misinterpretations!

I see there's a related topic at http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14730

It would appear to be a problem both with Eastern and Western Teachings of enlightenment. That is why my Teacher always said without enlightened guidance learning about ones own enlightenment is slightly more difficult than building a starship with a manual and no experience.


I used to wonder about his sense of perception and what he actually saw while appearing to be living in another world but he was as I said always present and sharp. Keen to respond to any situation his outward appearance was deceiving to the untrained or unconscious awareness.
His description of world appearance is that it is not the same to everyone. Tho we share similarities in perceptions each individual sees the world according to the things we personally associate meaning. The underlying support system that allows all to exist in individuality and perception that is both different and similar at the same time exists solely at the discretion of our intentions and belief as reflection of belief.
One man can stand in a room and make a statement to 100 people and each will have their own thoughts and feelings. The man that speaks does not control the 100 people, rather the individual creates the situation and perceives reality as they understand it.
Life is a dream, a very complex and simple extension of universal mind as it takes forms and meanings according to personality.
We can exist in union with each other or find ourselves in conflict with each other depending on our state of conscious awareness.
Responsibility comes into different forms of intent and meaning at different levels of conscious awareness.
To the responsible adult teaching their children, what is important is not what the child does so much but what the child learns and utilizes to become self sufficient and successful at whatever endeavor it chooses to participate in.
To the enlightened, service to awakening or destruction of ignorance is primary because this service serves the enlightened as if they were gathering all sundered parts of ones self to the One and healing the whole. This is a metaphor only because the enlightened are not invested in their tasks only surrendered to do so with great joy, like letting go of any attempts to steer the river in a direction we think it should go rather than that in which it is going.
Water cuts its own path of least resistance upon the earth but humans are stubborn and will resist change, and resist their own evolution out of fear and judgment of the unknown future life may create if one was to simply approach it in innocence.
Without a greater understanding of what is needed through a point of conscious surrender how would one know what serves the individual in awakening to their highest good and enlightenment?

My Teacher taught me to seek first my own enlightenment before I could help anyone. How could anyone who themselves are still struggling with their own interpretations of life possibly help another?

In my own Teaching and use of world appearance I can only direct one to the Truth and then the student must utilize that truth to become useful to themselves and the world without trying to do so from a handful of ideas and experiences.
With a firm foundation of conscious awareness, or from the awareness firmly planted in the absolute each Teacher I have Taught surrenders the individual personality in the process of teaching by tuning into the needs or evolutionary path of the individual. This is called getting out of the way in surrendering to the universal mind rather than the individual mind or personality.
It's fairly simple if you have spent some time integrating the absolute into the awareness and have established the ability to both witness your own thoughts and the thoughts of others and not be attached to identifying with either.
This process is tantamount to the appearance of being in a dreamlike state in the approach to living life in the moment.
One can be effectively participating in life without being attached to it and jerked about by emotional transgressions and the judgments that arise because of those attachments.

In the sense of mathematics as a mental approach to reality? Please explain. Lucid, for some reason you've always shown through your posts as if you have a beef with Budhism. Do you? Whatever they're holy books say, Budhists seem to have something right: They don't start wars in the name of god, they don't crucify a mistic gods as an excuse to comit genocide against other peoples, and they lead a life as in in pursuit of internal peace through a peaceful existence. Isn't that what life is all about in the end anyway? Hell if I ever sign-up to any religion, Budhism or Jainism, with their apparent uncoditional respect towards the universe and its inhabitants would definitely be at the top of my list!

In my experience, Buddhist teachings certainly do not recommend chopping wood and carrying water as if half-asleep! Imagine the peril in which one's toes would be placed, for one thing. In fact, on the contrary, they recommend maintaining an alert mindfulness at all times!

That thing about chopping wood and carrying water, as Joesus presented it, is actually meant as an illustration of the fundamental sameness of things pre- and post-enlightenment, and not as a guide to practice.


In that case, perhaps you have missed these texts concerning responsibility and other things of some consequence:

He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill.
Do not injure any being, either strong or weak in the world.
Sutta Nipata II,14

All meditation must begin with arousing deep compassion.
Whatever one does must emerge from an attitude of love and benefitting others.
- Milarepa

This quote may clarify the essence of lucid's problem regarding Eastern religions' views of the world's illusoriness (note, not actual illusion):

Renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting that they pass away.
- Aitken Roshi

That is why we can have, in the same verse from Atisha:

The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.

and then later

The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.

Lucid, don't you think that at the heart of your dilemma is the distinction between relative and ultimate truth? On the level of relative truth, things are important, the world is for engaging in, etc. And on the level of ultimate truth, there are no things, there is no importance, there is no engager, etc. Importantly, though, the fact of the ultimate truth does not obliterate the importance of the relative truth. Perhaps a greater understanding of the interpenetration of these two levels of truths, and the differences between them, would be very helpful.

Code buttons, I mean mathematics as inherent in nature, which we become cognizant of. It's not the case that we merely project mathematics into our experiences; but rather that this Totality has an inherent mathematical structure quite independent of our particular projections.


you say "holy", I say "holey" (as in full of holes)

Seriously, I do not have a "beef" with Buddhism; it's a general critical outlook, not with the aim of simply pointing out faults, but rather with a long-term constructive aim though it may not be evident now.


What you interpret as unconditional respect, I interpret as apathy and lassitude, and this is wrong.

Good point but is this limited to Zen?


Is it really the same when one's conscious awareness becomes enlarged so that one sees more of the bigger picture and, I would argue, becomes more consciously aware of the responsibilities allotted to each and every one of us, responsibilities that exist whether we are cognizant of them or not? My own experiences suggest that belittling the world-experience is completely wrong-headed. It's dangerous and irresponsible to do this, yet we find this in all of the major religions and spiritual movements, either by offering an imaginary heavenly afterlife which is far superior to real life, or by offering a catch-22 mindset which cripples the mind in its functions and powers, rendering it incapable of assessing the degree to which is has strayed down the wrong path by not recognizing the meaning and significance of world-experience and of one's responsibilities as a sentient being.


yes, I missed these, and this is the sort of information I was looking for. However, the Sutta Nipata reads no different from the ten commandments, and really is not relevant for most people, including myself. The Milarepa quote seems more along the lines of what I was looking for though. Thanks.


you are introducing divisions (absolute versus relative) which are not clear. Can you elaborate on the differences between them, since any notion of absolute seems to me to be relative?

hmm... there seems to be a large probability that the "Teacher" is a fraud and therefore of no help or worse, whereas even without a Teacher, people have become enlightened. So the question is, is it reasonable to seek a "Teacher" given the possibility for fraud and the possibility that it is possible to achieve enlightenment without one? The "Teacher" cannot induce enlightenment in the individual, as this comes entirely from the individual himself. Do we really need "Teachers"? What could they possibly teach that we cannot find out through alternative avenues?


how is this different from glorified solipsism?


if everyone took the path of least resistance, we would not be as scientifically and technologically advanced as we are today. We would still be living in the stone age. Is this what you espouse?


being firmly rooted in a greater awareness does not imply that life is a dream or that we should be dream-like in our daily activities. Quite the contrary.

You mean fear creates the thought that nothing outside of our own resolve is trustworthy and reliable. Could you really pretend that you take nothing from what is given to you from outside of your own experience? The internal programs of mistrust in any type of authority is what keeps the ego in control.

The following was taken from something My Teacher said:
SIGNS OF A TRUE TEACHER
A. SURRENDER TO A TRUE TEACHER NATURALLY LEADS TO SERVICE. Service to humanity, not to the desires of the waking state ego.
B. IS THE ADVICE FROM THE TEACHER GIVEN TO HELP HEAL ALL OF HUMANITY AND ALL OF THE EARTH? Or is it for some lesser cause?
C. WHERE DOES THE TEACHER'S FOCUS LEAD? Is the Teacher's advice to look inside for confirmation? All true teachings ultimately point the finger of understanding back at one's own heart. All true growth comes from the inside out. The best Teacher can only give you the blueprints. you still have to build the house by yourself.
D. DOES THE TEACHER'S TEACHING LEAD TO ENLIGHTENMENT? Does Surrender mean faster growth is occurring? Is one becoming less stuck every day? Are the previous areas of falseness and compromise being replaced by honesty, truth and integrity? Are the experiences of the subtle increasing in depth and power? Is life's focus shifting from absorption in the past and future to life Here and Now?


From the mind anything can be misinterpreted. From consistent experience value is added and realized.


Not so negatively approached and without knowledge no.
Basically here we could use an example. An enlightened master stands before the student and says take this path for it will lead you to the fastest route to self realization.
The Student says no thanks I think I can find my own way and in doing so takes several lifetimes to realize what could have taken a single lifetime.
The path of least resistance in this case is to give up ones sense of fear and control and turn ones trust over to someone who has some experience.
Scientific advancements do not always come thru struggle and sacrifice. Some come with relative ease when one empties themselves of negativity and doubt. But learning to move beyond the fear and doubt is not something the ego does with any grace or dignity.


No it doesn't, the idea that life is a dream is more complex than a comparison to dreams experienced from an unconscious state of mind such as sleep, so why stay stuck on this idea? Why not move onto greater things and let the ignorance remain with those who are desiring to cherish it?

Is enlightenment contrary to intellectual development? Since science and technology are dependent on the latter, is enlightenment contrary to science and technology? And if not, then what is the role of intellectual development within the context of enlightenment? Are they completely independent or does the intellect often get in the way? The intellectual mindset seems very different from the enlightened mindset, which may explain why Buddhist monks and spiritual teachers invariably contribute nothing to advancing science and technology, and so to what extent are these mindsets mutually exclusive? If responsible conduct dictates that we advance science and technology to benefit all, then to what extent does an enlightened mindset prevent this, and would it not be irresponsible to remain exclusively within an enlightened mindset as opposed to an intellectual one?

What I am looking for is a coherent, comprehensive interpretation that subsumes these different mindsets, that is consistent with all experiences and mindsets, and that recognizes the responsibilities that each of us have, both locally and globally/cosmically. The problem I have with the Eastern Tradition is that it does not address my issues and concerns, in large part, and is therefore largely irrelevant, or at any rate, too one-sided and myopic. We cannot rely exclusively on the past to guide our future... at some point we must re-create the wisdom of the past to make it relevant to the present and to guide us towards the future.

Definitely not. Tibetan Buddhism and, I am fairly confident, most other forms of Buddhism place strong emphasis on the importance of mindfulness as a prerequisite for any more advanced meditation practices which would lead to realisation and enlightenment. It is taught, in my (limited) experience and study, that mindfulness should come to pervade every moment of experience.


I agree...


That is indeed your thesis, which I'm contending...


Well... here I think you've gone completely overboard I don't think Buddhism does either of those things. It doesn't posit an afterlife - enlightenment brings cessation of the cycle of rebirth (as rebirth is seen to be a cycle of suffering). It also doesn't offer a catch-22 mindset that cripples the mind; on the contrary, a synonym of enlightenment is liberation - the mind is free.

But all that we've done here is to state our opposing theses, so there's no need to belabour these points any more.


Yes, that is quite true and very important. I'll do my best to explain...

The differentiation between relative (or conventional) and absolute (perhaps better expressed as ultimate) truth is called the "two truths doctrine" or satya-dvaya... and I think this wikipedia entry about it seems accurate enough, as an introduction:

The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a relative, or commonsense truth, and an "ultimate" truth or highest spiritual truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is no "self") and practical statements that make reference to things that, while not expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., talking to a student about "himself" or "herself"). While this division, particularly when referred to as the "satya-dvaya", is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, its history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought have often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify its doctrines with Plato or Kant.

It is much more complicated than this, though. To quote from the link I've provided below:

_____________

The uniqueness of much of Buddhism lies in the way it seeks "Ultimate Truth" and the manner of Ultimate Truth it finds. Truth, for Buddhism, is relative. [Just as you say, Lucid] There is no single, unchanging, absolute ground of being like there is in most of the world's thought.
.....
The Buddha did not teach that there is an Ultimate, nor did he deny it. He did not declare the Ultimate to be ineffable because mystical and inherently beyond the scope of thought, nor did he embrace agnosticism and say that we just can never know its nature.
.....
* This approach has no parallels.
* It is not a form of skepticism , for the Buddha was very clear in enunciating doctrines that his followers must accept on at least a conventional level.
* It is not agnosticism, for the Buddha did not just say that we cannot know about the nature of Ultimate reality, but rather he said that it truly is "not this, not that, not both, and not neither."
* It is not pessimism, for the Buddha taught that all unpleasantries can be overcome and that there is a definite goal to be striven for.
* Finally, it is not mere mysticism , for [N.B.!] the Buddha stressed the importance of directing one's consciousness to concrete affairs.

This unique non-affirming non-negating approach of the Buddha is implicit in all schools of Buddhism. It is the most explicit in three: the Perfection of Wisdom school of the first centuries BE., the Madhyamika and Yogacara movement of the first millenium C.E., and Zen and its predecessor, Ch'an, of the modern era. All of these teach the non-dual, non-conceptual, non-existential nature of reality and [most important for this topic, lucid] the applicability of mentation to the pragmatic sphere only.

_____________

(italics and bold square-bracketed comments my own)

One of the major ramifications of this is that all expressible truth is necessarily conventional (being necessarily expressed in symbols or language, i.e. with the use of conventions). Even though we may be talking about the ultimate, we can only do so in a conventional way. Even calling something the ultimate may be wrong-headed (and on reflection we can see that it is probably quite unlikely to be right-headed). We are not referring to any ultimate nature, we are only working within our conventions. Our statements are true (i.e. the sky is blue) or false (i.e. the sky is full of pigs) in a conventional and relative way (relative to human eyesight, for instance), not in an ultimate or absolute way.

NEVERTHELESS, relative truth is true and useful. Its only limitation is that it is limited. Although we can make extremely useful observations, and create extremely helpful systems of thought and communication (science and philosophy, for instance) our language-based communication and thought are always at least at one level of abstraction from the 'true nature of reality' (i.e. ultimate truth).

That is why it is impossible to describe the experience of enlightenment, or in fact the ultimate nature of anything (though we can describe its conventional nature and/or aspects of it to a tee). Even a statement like "The enlightened one sees the universe as one inseparable whole" or "The enlightened one realises her oneness with the universe and everything in it" is a sentence that structurally implies the duality it semantically denies; it speaks of an enlightened one as though he/she was separate from the universe that is a whole. Language and linear thought cannot get around that problem. Such is the quandary!

For more on the distinction between relative and ultimate truth, I would recommend checking this out:
http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/other...juna/nag02.html

Thanks Lao. I need to assimilate this material further, as my understanding of Buddhism does not extend far beyond the Dhammapada and a few Zen works. I would be curious to hear Joesus's thoughts over the Buddhist claim of universal impermanence.

Btw, there's a very good translation of the Dhammapada at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/dhammapadatxt1.pdf

Is being and living as an adult contrary to having been a child and growing into adulthood?
Of course not, but relative needs may be superseded by greater knowledge and abilities than those displayed by lesser understandings and common practices. There may be better things to do than to join in with a dysfunctional family and live as they expect so that they may be justified in living with their own compromise.

There's some interesting history in some of the artifacts that are kept in secret by certain monastic orders. They describe cultural living on a grander order than that of survival and social segregation. The civilizations they describe existed several hundred thousand years ago both in the area of the Gobi Desert and North America. These civilizations made great achievements in social and scientific technologies that were implemented freely for the good of all rather than controlled by the few for the good of industry and profit. Disease, crime, poverty and psychological disorders were nonexistent and the people lived for hundreds of years rather than a few decades.


The history of enlightenment in terms of science and intellect may vary from the knowledge and achievement of enlightenment in the enlightened.
Scientifically there may be terms and limits to what enlightenment is and so those who project their expectations of enlightenment on those who seek enlightenment, may be disappointed by a difference in experience and choice to pursue life accordingly.
The miracles performed by such masters as Jesus and documented in scripture are called miracles by those who don't understand the universe and its relative nature to desire and intent.
The science of spirituality is often ignored by relative scientific explorers who have no tolerance for anything they do not wish to understand or is not supported at the level of their focus and belief.
Just as a wise adult will not try to undermine the growth and development of the child into its adulthood there are certain things that the enlightened will not interfere with in the spiritual development of society at any level of intellectual concern.
One can lend ideas or plant seeds and see if they will take root and grow but society as a whole is rather superstitious and arrogant in its steadfast belief that God and reality should and will be a certain way.


The enlightened do not interfere with Human free will or prevent evolution.


You don't have to re-invent the wheel if it already exists. The wisdom of the past only appears to be something of the past because few can relate to it here in the present, and so the tales of mystery are shrugged off as myth and wild imaginings of lunatics and religious fanatics.
One only need to let go of everything they think is real and what is left after that is the experience of reality that underlies all relative ideas and their projections of reality.
This doesn't mean that you have to be irresponsible it only means that you will find out how certain ideas only exist in illusion of belief.
The mind is a very powerful influence on the manifest. Science is beginning to understand how much stress created by belief affects the body and its health. Doctors are beginning to understand how much the patients mindset affects both disease and healing. The medical industry has to approach each patient according to individuality rather than take for granted that humanity will react the same way to treatments and fall ill the same way.
If one begins to understand how much the mind really influences reality they would begin to seek the refinement of thought rather than to manufacture band aids for changing ideas and stresses that are never addressed in the treatment of illness. Rather than prescribing drugs for everything the actual stress that causes the dysfunction could be eliminated by elevating the mental conditioning of human thought and perception beyond its limited beliefs in habitual degeneration and death.


The Buddhists aren't unique to this thought or perspective. Even the relative beliefs of the waking state often mutter the inevitability that no thing lasts forever.

There is only One absolute and that is beyond all relative measure.

Preposterous to assume that enlightenment could reveal the real. How might the real "real" be proven, if there even is reality? It might always be a step away or a changing goal(post)? And how could you know any different? Unless you could see the future ... uhm.I've heard something like this before ..... ah, yes ..... evolution. Of course, (scientific) experience shows that perfection is never achieved. Those dang goalposts again! And of course, although perfection is a fond word in religion, there is no evidence of it, of course.Becoming as God? Blasphemy!

One could settle for the proximate and accept it as the only real reality but then there would be no desire to create anything different without the belief that there was anything different, or a way to experience it.


An imperfect process that is in a constant state of evolution will perpetually fail at resolving the perfection of an absolute.


Scientific reasoning?

Lao, your lack of respect for Litle Grasshopper with your statement here is, frankly, appalling. I saw him with these two very eyes one time chopping wood, carring two large buckets of water (and holding them both at shoulder hight all throughout), and walking over rice paper without leaving a trail; all these back to back and while half-asleep after enlightment!

Damn you, code buttons. You got me. You and your enlightened little grasshopper. You will both pay.


Agreed.


But it seems there are differences in our beliefs, Joesus, because the Buddhists would not condone this statement; they do not posit an absolute. There is, to quote one of them, no supraphenomenal metastasis.

But whatever Is probably not very important.

Thanks, lucid, for that Dhammapada link. It's a very beautiful piece of writing.

Yeah, to investigate this two-truths thing (a characteristic of the very prominent Madhyamaka school of thought) I'd recommend reading some commentaries on Nagarjuna. I can send you some if you like - just send me a PM with your email address.

The following is the first two paragraphs from a document
titled "The Buddhist View on the Concept of God."
It comes from the same website that Lucid's Dhammapada link originates.

Christianity is a God centered religion. It sees God as the focus of
meaning in human life and history as the unfolding of God's plan. It comes
as a suprise to most Christians that there are relgions, such as Buddhism,
that are not God centered and have comparitively little to say about Him.
The purpose of this essay is to clarify Buddhist ideas about God and make
them seem reasonable to the non-Buddhist, even if not persuading him. In
this essay instead of talking about "God" I will use the term "the
absolute" to avoid confusion. The word "God" carries too many asociations
that are difficult to lay aside when discussing the subject from a fresh
(Buddhist) perspective. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the absolute
as "the ultimate source of reality regarded as one and yet the source of
variety; as complete, or perfect, and yet as not divorced from the finite,
imperfect world."
First, Buddhists believe that the absolute is not something you believe
in, or worship, but instead something you experience. The experience of the
absolute is called enlightenment. Because of this emphasis on experience,
the terminology of Buddhism is often elusive. More attention is given to
how to attain the experience of the absolute than to a specific description
of its character. Indeed Buddhism teaches that no verbal description of the
absolute is possible. That is, Buddhism insists that the absolute is
ineffable.

Like Christianity which has fractured itself into many different belief systems it would appear that Buddhism has taken a similar path. The website titles 4 variations to the title of "Buddhism."
Theravada Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism
Zen/Chan Buddhism

On your comment:
Beliefs change and what I teach and immerse myself in is not a belief system (tho it can appear so to some) because Truth is universal and it works regardless of belief.

Similar to the statement of the absolute made in the description of the Buddhist approach, the absolute can be experienced, or I should clarify that the reflection of the absolute can be experienced because the absolute itself is beyond measure and experience.
All True teachings originate in the absolute, are interpreted by human intellect at different levels of experience and are labeled according to beliefs. Yet if you look beyond the individual colorings that appear on the surface as words that have the flavor of the personality they can be traced back to the same origin.
This is, in itself not a belief but a Truth in the relationship of the manifest and the absolute. No matter who says anything different according to a belief this Truth does not change.

This is also stated in the same document beyond the first two paragraphs I pasted at the beginning of this post.


Basically a True Teaching points the finger back at ones own heart which is the seat of the soul, and this is what makes a teaching an experiential teaching rather than a teaching of beliefs.
Your statement that we have different beliefs would seem to reveal that what you call your belief is heavily supported by information rather than experience or immersion into the source of Buddhism.

The basis of Jesus' Teachings is that miracles or supraphenomenal metastasis as you put it are not extraordinary. The separation that is believed to exist between God and man is imagined. The True nature of man is that God having created man in its image has imbued man with all of God's abilities.
Since the absolute is the source of all things then all things are linked to the unbounded power that supports its being. There is no less of that infinite at either end of the point of perspective because they are both the same at its essence which is beyond the illusions of labels and perspectives of individual interpretation.

Language paints the picture that is best understood by the intellect that is saturated in the experience of separation from infinite potential. It paints a picture of union between a source and a something connected to the source but in reality they are the same.
Like looking in a mirror you believe the real you is standing in front of the mirror while the reflection is looking back at you but this is just an illusion of appearance.
We believe what we are destined to be exists in a greater reflection of ourselves in some future, or existed in some far off past that has to be discovered, but it is right here and right now.
Beliefs change and there is a way to transcend belief. One just has to be willing to allow their beliefs to be put aside for a moment, to realize something different.

Joesus, I don't think I'm alone in saying that you set an excellent example and have admirably addressed many of the "spiritual issues" I have had. If ever there was a quintessential spiritual teacher, you're it, which brings me to the following: Do you harbor any doubts or concerns about your spiritual beliefs, or are there any spiritual questions or difficulties that you have? Do you believe the absolute is consciousness itself (which is the claim of the Yoga Vasistha) or is it something else, and if it's something else, then why is there consciousness at all? Inquiring minds want to know!

You may not be alone but you don't represent the majority either, tho I do appreciate your honesty.

No I have no doubts. I do sometimes have questions. This is normal tho and always, the answers become available.

My Teacher described two paths that are commonly used in the approach to enlightenment. The Path of the Sages and the path of the Gods.
The path of the Sages is one of vigilant surrender of every thought feeling and action to the absolute. Basically its an approach of ruthless one pointed focus setting aside all whining and attachments to stay the course. Its also called the path of Joy because stability of experience in fulfillment surpasses random experiences of relative happiness.

The path of the gods is the path of enjoyment basically because there is so much to enjoy in life. If you were to take a trip from the West Coast to the East Coast and decided to take all the back roads and see all the sights, it would more or less represent the path of the Gods.

Thing is, once you realize how the ego keeps you traveling back and forth to the places you have already been then the path of the Gods becomes more like Ground Hog Day (the movie).
Living lifetime after lifetime repeating habits and desires that include disappointment and suffering, the true nature of reality becomes a desirable and stable goal to approach.
We all want a stable point of reference in which to be, and to discard the moments of unhappiness and disappointments in ourselves and in others. This can't happen as long as you drag that reality with you unknowingly or unconsciously.

Something I wrote earlier for another website:

"Oh Sacred Drop, winning The Stars, winning The Senses,
winning Power and winning the Human Dance,
you are the Soul of The Sacrifice"
From the Rg Veda, Sukta 2 of the 9th mandala

All of life is represented in this verse:
"The Stars" represent The Known; "The Human Dance" represents the knower; "The Senses" represent the process of knowing; "Power" represents the unbounded, stable point that exists in all experience which we will call the "Absolute."

"Soul of the Sacrifice": Sacrifice means to abandon a lesser-evolved state for a more evolved one. By giving up the restrictions of a lesser belief one rises or Ascends in expansion. This is the essence of all life, this is evolution.
By intelligently abandoning boundaries of lesser beliefs one rises in unbounded-ness that is not restricted by those beliefs in boundaries. By intelligently seeing beyond the boundaries of beliefs one can easily rise above them into unbounded awareness and release all restrictions in the process of living life.

Sacrifice, then is the Art of Ascension.
It is not a painful or destructive act; true sacrifice is
the highest Joy. One gives up what one no longer wants for a more highly evolved state. It is the purest act of wisdom and is the basis for all true growth.
If you don't like the word Sacrifice then we could call it "Intelligent Effort."



Sacrifice can seem appropriate at times when the struggle between the ego and the Higher Self create conflict in the experience of giving up attachments to habit and emotions.
Some habits are hard to kick and there is going to be a struggle if you seek to hang on to habit more than you desire to change.
The path of the Sages is not an easy path because you inevitably find those things that you have a hard time letting go of. Even tho you know they ultimately will not give you what you want you still want to keep them.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and All else will be given unto you."

As my Teacher would say, "This doesn't mean maybe all things will be given to you, or if you do this you will get something eventually, it means do this and you will receive everything now."
Problem is doubt creates hesitation and the ego will subvert all action and thought to its habitual points of reference in beliefs and illusions of reality.

It takes a little effort in self discipline but its worth it.


Consciousness and the absolute are the same.

Ha! ha! Don't make me laugh, Lao!. Little Grasshopper would have your neck stretched and bent into a knot before you could say "oops!"
He's my hero! And he did all those things I claim of him. I'm not joking, he wasn't initiated into the Shaolin priesthood through a flaming cauldron for nothin, you know! Show some respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KungFU.jpg

(Joesus, note that in my above post, I am tipping my hat to you and not necessarily validating the content of your posts)

From Nietzsche's Will to Power, section 11A:


In other words, there are psychological reasons for believing in an Absolute, or a Unity, but this does not imply it is in fact the case. Further, belief in the Absolute, or a Unity, is seen here as a sign of weakness, as a crutch for living life. So the question becomes, to what extent, if any, do we need this belief in an Absolute, or a Unity?

Here are Nietzsche's thoughts over Buddhism, from section 23 of Will to Power:


And here is some additional food for thought from section 11B of Will to Power:


I have started a separate thread over the Will to Power at http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17693&hl=

Didn't take it that way.
Ultimately, whether one agrees with you or not is still to be settled inside of ones self.

Nietzsche, trained as a philologist, was more a social critic than a philosopher. Impatient with the tools of philosophy, Nietzsche gained recognition with his popular writing. Here, he slanders Buddhism without any substantive evidence.

Ayn Rand, also a social critic, called herself a "philosopher," but like Nietzsche, she spread her views through a series of popular novels and one prose volume (The Romantic Manifesto). Ayn Rand also slanders Buddhism (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) unwarrantedly. These incorrect slanders, unfortunately, still unduly have influence.

I'm more interested in how Buddhism (and other passive states) can deal or survive in a future where there will always have to be competition. As in natural selection, even elevated humans (physically or spiritually) of the future will not be satisfied with universal equality. Indeed, this would be stifling, of novelty, innovation and ideas. And competition means there will be losers, and that leads to unrest and conflict. Tell me a way out of this. I go along with Nietzsche.