« Is awareness watching awareness the highest truth? | Main | Primal mystery: the birth of consciousness »

December 15, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I am not sure the excerpt by Albert Low really reflects our exchange since neither Tucson nor I would acquiesce to the first poem:
The body is a Bodhi tree,
The mind a mirror bright.
Wipe it carefully day by day
And let no dust alight.

Regarding Hui-neng's poem, I would like to emphasize two aspects of it:

IN BODHI there is no tree,
Nor a mirror bright,
From the beginning not a thing is,
Where can the DUST alight?

The last sentence does not deny the actuality of the dust (which represent any relative beings, or dharmas in some stands of Buddhism). My intervention was simply to highlight the fact that Tucson's narratives immediately become elusively non-nonsensical and naive as soon as someone inquires about the 'dust' (why are we striving for unity or something, the reality of suffering, the experience of resistances, etc.). In ways, he masks the 'operational' or 'functional' poverty of his views by launching into 'nondual evocations' coming from his 'guts' or 'arising spontaneously' (what a load of crap!), which often just denied the dust (very convenient); sidetracking from my intent: I have red a load of crap--which some contradict Tucson's own views--whose authors pretended that what they said or wrote arose 'spontaneously' or 'from nowhere'; that kind of pretension is no sign of anything. His narratives evokes fake ambivalences (Tucson writes: "the apparent paradox of what inconceivably we are.") while missing the real ambiguity of reality (and part of that ambiguity is that Reality, or All, is One; I never said otherwise; like Hui-neng wrote "IN BODHI there is no tree"). That was the simple point I tried to make.

Here is an observation: I might be wrong or right, I don't know. My observation is that his problem to relate his perspective to the 'dust' in the most basic way is probably why somehow my latest intervention led Tucson to once again immediately use his traditional ploys: he accused me of intervening because I am irritated, perturbed, frustrated, defensive, etc. I guess I am full of dust :); and he also, on a large scale, attributed to my person claims, views and perspectives that I have consistently denied in the past. Basically he engaged his exchange with an imaginary interlocutor.

He does that invariably every time I wish to engage a discussion with him--whatever is the subject, nature and form of my intervention--our exchanges in the archives are evidence A,B,C, etc... your Honor. I think the unconditional and invariable nature of his reactions reveals quite a bit about the level of discourse he wish to have and perhaps evidently reinforces my latest point (and if he does not want to have a discussion then why does he reply?).

Intellectual acuity and insightful rumination can never, ever reveal the mystery of the Supreme Being. This is all the churning of water and kicking up dust. It is useless and the only thing that is fed is one's impoverished ego which is desperate even for a crumb of recognition. Hopefully, eventually these minds will exhaust themselves so that the real desire and yearning can manifest its splendor. Then, something will be done to mollify one's sordid condition. Intellect is a monster that devours the innermost essence of surat...our real and true nature that has one desire only: to return to its source.

The Elephant, thanks for pointing out the emphasized words. I hadn't thought about the fact that DUST is still around, no matter whether a mirror exists. Makes me feel better about my untidy mind.

Albert, who here (including me) disagrees with what you said? This is, almost entirely, a gathering of churchless after all -- not people who believe in wordy religious dogma.

I've mentioned this before in regard to similar comments: people who criticize those who write about spiritual/mystical issues do so in writing (as you did) using their "intellectual acuity and insightful rumination" (your words) to compose their comment.

It seems that you're being as dogmatic in your own way as a fundamentalist. You believe that you know how our "real and true nature" is to be revealed. But you don't describe it, though your use of the word "surat" (soul) implies that you are a Sant Mat devotee.

So I gather any guru who wrote or spoke about his realizations is similarly deluded? That their talking and writing about mysticism was a sign of their "impoverished ego desperate even for a crumb of recognition"?

How do you communicate without using your mind or intellect? Apparently you did so, managing to use the Internet and your computer just with your soul. Please share how this is done. I'm curious.

The Elephant and I have a great time misunderstanding each other which probably will continue. However, I am not inclined to much further debate. Take it or leave it:

The dust IS the mirror bright. I can only be as all beings and only exist as all appearances. I am only experienced as whatever is known, thought, seen, heard or felt. Every concept is a concept of what i am and all that seems to be is my being because I am not any 'thing'. Whatever is phenomenally appearing, that which perceives it cannot be perceived, and since only I perceive, how coulod I perceive that which is perceiving? What I am is what i perceive including dust in the mirror mind whcih can never be seen as such.

Regarding death: Since i am the conceiver of time, when could I have been born? Since I conceive the space in which all things are, where could i live? If I conceive life, birth and death, how can I die since I who conceive it can't be conceived?

What I am is the being of all being, yet it is my objects that live. Your living is my living because transcending all that appears I am present as all things. I am immanent and yet unfindable because I am no 'thing'.

But I am that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.