My Incorrect Buddha Definition

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.”

That said.

“A Buddha is just a nobody purposely not existing.”

11 thoughts on “My Incorrect Buddha Definition

  1. Watch out now. You’re going down that slippery slope that Vinaire has his fingernails and toenails and maybe his dick dug into trying to anchor from slipping into the black hole at the bottom of this ant-lion’s den cone.

    Call a Buddha a Static, I don’t care, but if a Buddha is just a nobody purposely not existing then you wouldn’t know anything about it anyway and neither would “she.”

    With humor but also sincerity, I truly feel that neither the right answers nor the right questions lie down that dead-end alley. My reasons are mathematical and the statistics are stacked in favor of finding answers on the meat-thingy side of this equation than on the Buddha side.

    In a sense, you and I are teetering on a similar pivot. On one side of the curtain is something and on the other side of the curtain is nothing and I am currently believing this analogy to be false. There may not be any curtain at all.

    I get the idea that you argue for both points of view. Your post seems at odds with your meat-thingy cult. Do you think that I am understanding you or misunderstanding you?

    • “I get the idea that you argue for both points of view. Your post seems at odds with your meat-thingy cult. Do you think that I am understanding you or misunderstanding you?”

      I do the “meat culty thing” to see if anyone can disprove it or dislodge something new that can add light to reality.

      They can’t disprove it and there is ample evidence of us being meat. No proof of a free-will self will emerge that I can see.

      But … I … WANT free will. Even if it’s just a result of an evolutionary process.

      So I guess I’m doomed to look for it forever, in spite of the evidence that says “no.”

      Perhaps This:

      UNIVERSE A: “I feel a soul, no proof of a soul and there is NO soul.”
      UNIVERSE B: “I feel a soul, no proof of a soul and there IS a soul.”

      If you can’t tell which Universe you are in, do you have a soul or not?

      • Exactly. “. . . If you can’t tell which universe you are in . . .” This is what is leading my thinking to stop thinking of other universes to explain what I don’t know about my own and to try to focus on understanding this one that I am experiencing right now. For the time, I am proceeding that there is no “veil between worlds” anymore than there was a “sound barrier.”

      • “This is what is leading my thinking to stop thinking of other universes to explain what I don’t know about my own and to try to focus on understanding this one that I am experiencing right now. For the time, I am proceeding that there is no “veil between worlds” anymore than there was a “sound barrier.””

        Me too. Technology barrier? Yes. Actual barrier – no.

        TWO TYPES OF SUFFERING:

        UNIVERSE A: “I have no soul and I want one.”
        Is there a soul? Mu.

        UNIVERSE B: “I have a soul and I DON’T want one.”
        Is there NOT a soul? Mu.

        Two Universes (more options available I’m sure) with two different desires for enlightenment from a suffering. What can we factor out?

        Mu.

        I wish I had something more sexy than that Chris.

        🙂

      • hehe – More sexy? What is it about us humanoids which seems to be continually in denial of the amazing wondrousness in which we are dipped and to insist that the really truly enjoyable existence is just around the corner? Me don’t know but keep going, I have a premonition.

      • 🙂

        Yeah. Thanks for posting that. I’ve seen it before, but it is brilliant, and I’m glad it’s here.

        My wife and I are constantly talking about things like this guy points out.

        I’m currently deeply enjoying my “mu” practice. It is creating some great effects in my body. Traditionally, the paradox is supposed to be “stuck” in your throat and you keep pushing “mu” down into your belly. You embrace the paradox and use it. Eventually, you can let go of the conscious mind and let the natural mind of mu take over when you let go of ego. Mu eventually will “seat” into your tung-sin point with enough creative work. This is the reason Samurai believed the soul to be the Tung-sin point.

        True? Well, I consider it a created effect of my body – one that I really like.

        People don’t feel mu in this way for a long time because it takes time to create such effects in our nervous systems.

        I call such effects “body metaphors” because I don’t know of another name to call them.

        When my “mu” acts naturally, it is typically my best self acting without conscious thought. Conscious mind just keeps track of what has naturally occurred.

        Kind of the opposite of some opinions on how it should go.

        My teacher sometimes when goes “mmm” right before he says something in his talks. You can tell when he does this that he is dropping the conscious mind with “mu” and letting it speak from his belly. And when he does this, he is much more powerful and relaxed in his delivery.

        That’s the power of mu. To center the practitioner into his/her body and let it speak without effort.

      • As a martial artist, I would have to go with “Kia.”

        You practice it. You create your own signature version of it. It is used to make you relax during execution.

  2. And one more thing – there is space and time enough left over after all that has been created to hold that much again quad-trillions of quad-trillions of times over again. The vast expanses of astro physics and of quantum physics haven’t consumed yet one fleck of spittle in the bucket of this universe.

    If you only want to blow your mind, meditate on what I have written for it surely will blow the mind of any humanoid.

    • Yes YES indeed! And the blowing of mind never stops does it? Eventually our meat would HAVE to happen again statistically speaking. Rare mind you. You and I in this universe would NEVER find a copy of our meat based on odds

      Have you read “A Universe From Nothing” based on this lecture by Lawrence Kraus?” It’s on iTunes. You can tell because great books are usually short and to the point. The audio book is under two hours.

      Here is the book link:
      http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/universe-from-nothing-lawrence-krauss/1102495919

      • Hey, yes, I have some small familiarity with Krauss as he is out here in my home town. I caught him on a public radio interview one day and he is quite bright. I think I could learn a lot from him.

        Something I wrestle with today is the pathway itself. What road to take? There as many roads to any truths as there are truths. I like physics and see in it a fierce determination to uncover the mechanisms which make this “Rube Goldberg” turn. I like auditing and have re-invented a few wheels or have had a few wheels revealed to me through my own research lines if that sounds better. I am not a kid and the end of my own iteration is close enough to motivate me to want to make my minutes count for something. Count for something to whom? To me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s