why say "Or"? cannot admit it ah? because of your ego right? i
know, lol Thusness was right to 'admonish' you. i'm sure that word
is very familiar to you. save for Thusness, you simply love to talk
down to others to prove your point and assumed superiority. Ever
considered going to see a shrink? I hope you enjoy all the
recognition you get when u publish your stuff :)
I shouldn't have said 'Or'. Just 'factual' is enough. Whatever I
wrote is factual.
I could care less what other people think of me based on their
own projections: humble, proud, deluded fool, enlightened person,
ordinary, special, whatever.
I only care about expressing facts: not what opinions people
form with regards to the truths I expressed from my knowledge and
experience. Ultimately, since my concern is only for truth, I have
no intention to sugar coat it or make it sound nice to people. I
also have no intention to write in false humility. I have also no
interest to follow the bullshit taboos surrounding awakening and
insights, making things obscure for people. I value an environment
where open discussions about practice, experience, insights, states
and stages could be done, which is what this forum should be, and
by the way is what the ancient Sangha in Buddha's times was
like.
If for example, by my expressing something, you felt from your
own projections that it was ‘condescending’, I could care less
about it (and I have no ego to care about them – without a sense of
self/Self, the only interest is objective truth, not subjective
feelings/emotions/what-not). I have said my piece and it is not my
business what you make of it. If you think that I have a huge
fucking oh-so-enlightened or oh-so-holy ego, so be it, and I could
care less (though I personally find it hilarious and amusing),
since I only express objective observable experiential facts and
have no concerns about people’s opinions and feelings about them. I
could also care less if you believe what I said, since my job and
concern is simply to speak what I know to be true, not what you
make out of what I said.
I do not write to impress people. And because I do not write to
impress people, I also do not write in fear of offending people.
Whether people are impressed, offended, angry, or confused (though
I am always happy to clarify if they want to), and from their own
projections find me egotistic, humble, wise, deluded, or whatever,
those are none of my business. My only business is to impart truths
and facts that I know, observed, and experienced… cold hard truths
so to speak. And I say to them: since these are facts I know and
discover, you too can know and discover them. And I say to them:
why don’t you step out of your delusional zone of feelings and
beliefs, and see objective/experiential/observable truth for
yourself. Who cares about what this guy or that guy or what I said.
What I said can only be of value when you truly see it for
yourself, so just take whatever you think is useful and see things
for yourselves.
I know for a fact that majority (like 99% of those ‘enlightened
teachers’) do not speak from the realization of Anatta – once you
realize Anatta it will be very apparent who is and who is not
speaking about Anatta. Those teachers offer genuine insights, just
not Anatta. I know for a fact that Anatta insight is very rare, but
not non-existing. I know for a fact these people realized Anatta
based on their experiential descriptions: Buddha (of course!),
Dogen (dead, but
Genjo Koan is gold), Steve Hagen (Buddhism Is Not What You
Think – profound), Toni Packer, Alex R. Weith (Zen priest,
his stuff can be found here), Kenneth Folk, Daniel M. Ingram
(but he sees anatta in terms of states which probably shows some
immaturity of insight). I know for a fact that there probably is
more, but not known by me possibly because they do not write books,
or do not speak about their experience much. Believe me (or not)
when I say I have scoured through the Buddhist bookshops for true
experiential description because it is always interesting to have
someone who I can learn from and compare notes with, but often to
my disappointment (this explains why I am always interested and in
search of materials from true practitioners). I also know for a
fact that it is true the vast majority of teachers and authors
simply do not speak about anatta. However I also know for a fact
that there are some practitioners who are much much more advanced
than me in insight and experience – Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s book on
Mahamudra being one of them, which I am currently reading. Even
then, his path is different from mine even though there are
overlapping areas - there simply isn't any other book on Earth I
could find that is anything quite like the path I gone through.
(sorry Thusness, but 'on Earth' is apt for me at the moment, until
one day I discover another similar book, or someone shows me
another similar book which I would definitely be interested to see,
then I stand corrected hehe)
Oh and I would also add: recognizing that your insight surpassed
many teachers is not something to be proud of. It is something far
more tragic and sad. So to me, pride is never an issue when you
come to this moment of recognition, because how can you be proud of
something which is so tragic and sad (though I don't feel sadness
since I no longer have attachment to persons, masters, teachers,
lineages, etc unlike the past)?
Those great traditions and teachers that you once held in high
esteem (and of course still do), that you thought you could find
wisdom in and look up to, somehow just doesn't express what you
realized. Maybe there are some – but very rare. There is some
disillusionment. You may have some kind of crisis of faith even (if
you are a very faith type of person, not saying myself), which is
not fun.
It is best not to attach to anyone - not to great practitioners,
not to great teachers, masters, or even Buddha. Ultimately,
spirituality is not about attaching to someone seen as being great
or superior. I have no intentions to appear as such a person to
become another object of attachment for another. In Zen, they say,
when you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha. It means kill your
attachment.
Ultimately, I think I would have attained the slightest benefit
out of my spiritual practice if one day I am able to completely
relinquish any attachments... to teachers, masters, Buddha, even to
my mother, father, even to myself, my mind, my body, my life. If
one day I could be so dispassionate as to be unconcerned/unattached
that my life would end the next moment, that I have no concerns
about mind and body, I would have at least achieved something I set
for in this path.
From hell to Buddha... there is not a single thing not
illusory... not a single thing that when grasped through delusion,
invariably leads to suffering.
p.s. no disrespect to Buddha or great practitioners meant. The
greatest respect you can pay to Buddha is to put his teaching into
practice.
