Originally posted by casino_king:But then what were those angels you were talking about?
There is no such thing as True or Fake Buddhism at the summit or the epic center of Buddhism. You will recognise it when you have reached it. Those that have gone before can only guide you as you make the journey.
{b]It is your own journey. It is your own effort. {/b]Nobody can take credit when you have reached the destination.
If it were possible for an external source to bring you into the epic center, many more would be there. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the perspective of whether you are looking from the outside or you are looking in, the journey is your own.
The good thing about this then is that, unlike dogmatic religions, you can actually reach the destination through guidance from an internet forum. You see, it is your own effort and not somebody's teaching. (There is a duality here. It is 100% effort and 0% effort. That is not important. [b]For now you have to take it as 100% effort.)
Since it is your own effort, what would be the problem if you received "bad" guidance? Whatever "guidance" you received has to pass through you. It is your effort, it is your journey. You have to work it out for yourself what is "good" and what is "bad" anyway.
You have to test it. You have to taste it. The "bad" teaching can open your eyes to what is bad and that is as important as knowing what good is; if you are to reach the epic center.
It then follows that there is no "fake" Buddhism at all. That which is fake will teach you what "fake is" and that which is "true" you cannot accept anyway unless you yourself know it to be true after you have tested it and tasted it.[/b]
You never give up one, do you? I told you it is your own effort and it is your own journey and you must experience (or realize) it for yourself but you still insist on finding out about other people's experiences. Do you believe that you have a Buddha nature in you?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:But then what were those angels you were talking about?
Ultimate reality is kinda boring. (I'm thinking I have got it)Originally posted by casino_king:You never give up one, do you? I told you it is your own effort and it is your own journey and you must experience (or realize) it for yourself but you still insist on finding out about other people's experiences. Do you believe that you have a Buddha nature in you?
How can it be boring? Obviously you yourself do not agree or you would have gone off into the sunset. While there is no "fake Buddhism or True Buddhism there is nevertheless "fake" Buddhists and "true" Buddhists. The fake Buddhists nevertheless think that they are the true Buddhists. They can fool many people into thinking that they are true Buddhists but what is the point of that? Be true to yourself.Originally posted by Eric Cartman:Ultimate reality is kinda boring. (I'm thinking I have got it)
It is boring for this body and mind but it is not boring for the buddha nature. So this mind knows that all these are not self, then what? This body needs to carry on with life and get more entertainment.Originally posted by casino_king:How can it be boring? Obviously you yourself do not agree or you would have gone off into the sunset. While there is no "fake Buddhism or True Buddhism there is nevertheless "fake" Buddhists and "true" Buddhists. The fake Buddhists nevertheless think that they are the true Buddhists. They can fool many people into thinking that they are true Buddhists but what is the point of that? Be true to yourself.
Ultimate reality is Life more abundant, to quote Jesus Christ. Do you think that Christians have a Buddha Nature in them? So how, do you think that you have a Buddha Nature in you?
"boring for this body and mind" and "Not boring for the buddha nature"Originally posted by Eric Cartman:It is boring for this body and mind but it is not boring for the buddha nature. So this mind knows that all these are not self, then what? This body needs to carry on with life and get more entertainment.
Gone off into what sunset?
The buddha nature doesnt exist.Originally posted by casino_king:"boring for this body and mind" and "Not boring for the buddha nature"
so one or two?
huh? So, the earlier post you made, about boring mind and body and exciting buddha nature was...?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:The buddha nature doesnt exist.
I never said exciting buddha nature. Just like our true self is no self, buddha nature is having no nature.Originally posted by casino_king:huh? So, the earlier post you made, about boring mind and body and exciting buddha nature was...?
"Not boring for the buddha nature" is not "exciting for the buddha nature" than what?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:I never said exciting buddha nature.
It simply means not boring. It is neither boring nor not boring.Originally posted by casino_king:"Not boring for the buddha nature" is not "exciting for the buddha nature" than what?
So there is a buddha nature that is "neither boring nor not boring"?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:It simply means not boring. It is neither boring nor not boring.
Buddha nature is no nature.Originally posted by casino_king:So there is a buddha nature that is "neither boring nor not boring"?
and by "no nature" you mean?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:Buddha nature is no nature.
It means you cannot see it or observe it.Originally posted by casino_king:and by "no nature" you mean?
How do you know it exists?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:It means you cannot see it or observe it.
I never said it exists.Originally posted by casino_king:How do you know it exists?
You said: "not boring for the buddha nature" andOriginally posted by Eric Cartman:I never said it exists.
Simple, it neither exists nor not exist. It has no nature that we can observe (and therefore not boring). What you observe isn't gonna be you or ultimate reality right?Originally posted by casino_king:You said: "not boring for the buddha nature" and
"Buddha nature is no nature." How do you reconcile those two statements with "I never said it exists"?
What do you understand by "it neither exists nor not exist"? What is the difference if I say "ghtfghbvvfg" that does not exists in reality, is not boring? Why would I bother to describe something that does not exists in reality as "not boring"? Why would I bring it up at all if it does not exists in reality? Why bother to talk about it at all? Why bother to say that it is "not boring?"Originally posted by Eric Cartman:Simple, it neither exists nor not exist. It has no nature that we can observe (and therefore not boring). What you observe isn't gonna be you or ultimate reality right?
"it neither exists nor not exist" means not to put any label on it in your mind. Your mind is all you have got. It does not exist in your mind only, because if it doesn't exist then how did all existence get here? (you should forget this statement cos you may start to put labels on it again.)Originally posted by casino_king:What do you understand by "it neither exists nor not exist"? What is the difference if I say "ghtfghbvvfg" that does not exists in reality, is not boring? Why would I bother to describe something that does not exists in reality as "not boring"? Why would I bring it up at all if it does not exists in reality? Why bother to talk about it at all? Why bother to say that it is "not boring?"
What does putting a label on it do?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:"it neither exists nor not exist" means not to put any label on it in your mind. It does not exist in your mind only, because if it doesn't exist then how did all existence get here? (you should forget this statement cos you may start to put labels on it again.)
Since we are on a buddhist forum and you were telling me to walk my own path so I thought I should put in "buddha nature" in there. And you might wanna pray to God again.
Putting a label on it collapses it into one reality instead of being in a state of "superposition ".Originally posted by casino_king:What does putting a label on it do?
"It does not exist in your mind only" means that it exists in your mind also?
"because if it doesn't exist then how did all existence get here?: means that it exists in reality?
And if I put labels on it... so?
If we were not in a Buddhist forum, you would not have "put in "buddha nature""; what would you had put in? Let me quote that phrase you used again: "It is boring for this body and mind but it is not boring for the buddha nature. "
Can I put a label on it knowing full well that it is in a "state of "superposition " ? Can I put a label on it knowing full well that it is in a "state of "superposition " and use that label for communicating with you?Originally posted by Eric Cartman:Putting a label on it collapses it into one reality instead of being in a state of "superposition ".
It also doesn't exist in my mind. Or I have a symbol for it and when I recall that symbol my body and mind reacts and like a lifelong friend of mine my body and mind knows what I want without having to ask it feels ultimate reality again.
You asked about reality. You can't know ultimate reality. Your reality meant the reality in your mind.
I would have put God, because there is only God and nothing else.
(respective paragraphs)Originally posted by casino_king:Can I put a label on it knowing full well that it is in a "state of "superposition"? Can I put a label on it knowing full well that it is in a "state of "superposition" and use that label to communicate with you?
Can I put a label on it without "my body and mind reacts and like a lifelong friend of mine my body and mind knows what I want without having to ask it feels ultimate reality again."?
The statement: "You can't know ultimate reality" is to tell me what? The significance of which is?
"Your reality meant the reality in your mind" and is that reality as well?
"there is only God and nothing" and so are you "nothing" or are you "something"?