Cause of existence

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

In the core of the philosophy there aren't any conclusions like exist, not-exist, being, non-being, as fundamentally speaking, all views are wrong views, and therefore, any conclusion drawn by the mind is considered a 'wrong view'. ...

That's the case with escapist irrational philosophies of which there have arisen some in buddhism especially after Nagarjuna.
However even the buddha said that what the world unanimously knows as existing he himself proclaims to be existing.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

That's the case with escapist irrational philosophies of which there have arisen some in buddhism especially after Nagarjuna.
However even the buddha said that what the world unanimously knows as existing he himself proclaims to be existing.

If what's Nagarjuna view is a later view ( later developed after Buddha Sakyamuni) , then we have to consider, is his view just a human philosophy or philosophy from an enlightened Buddha point of view. That's how he said that way? Where his ideas derived from?

He wrote about the ultimate truth, emptiness, middle path.......... But that can or can't represent the same view of Buddha Sakyamuni? If not then I'll not consider them as good or genuine . That's my point of view. The reason is his view is just a scholar point of view but not from an enlightened Buddha point of view.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

That's the case with escapist irrational philosophies of which there have arisen some in buddhism especially after Nagarjuna.
However even the buddha said that what the world unanimously knows as existing he himself proclaims to be existing.

Gotama was sensible bloke, so he didn't say it isn't existing.

If you want to understand the Buddhist thing on 'views' then it's probably easily found on line. I don't think you are interested in it, though, so have no cause to bore you.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

But core of philosophy do mention about direct perception and this no need to use too much of intelligence and imagination or third eye.

In the teachings I'm familiar with I have heard no mention of the third eye. The practice of meditation I studied explicitly ruled out any use of visualisation or other imaginings, but advocated working to increase the sensitivity of perception so the aspirant would become conscious of subtler and subtler sensations.

As Buddhism teaching, all things present or exist in impermanent state but we're value in the moment or now. That's we view things of now but not before and after we can see with our eyes. So the meaning of existence is valid. But as you said, what's not exist or exist .......... So it will change a person's discrenment to a muddled-mind.

In my life I have beliefs and opinions, which are called 'views', but I already know these are not true, and that they are all 'wrong views'. This means I don't care if they are wrong, I already know they are wrong, but I only talk in meanings, so it doesn't even make sense to say I'm wrong. One can be certain, however, that I am not right.

As a Buddha or any Buddha, if he can't distinguish between right and wrong or true and false then he'll never present at that stage as a Buddha. Knowledge in Buddha's mind is clear and that's the basic techniques to derive the truth from things or life reality. This forms the essence of Buddha teaching.

I try to explain about 'knowingness', which is like, 'I know it is this way' - as different to 'knowledge', which is a drawn conclusion in the mind - an opinion or a belief which they really consider to be true. People are like 'what Buddhism really is', but they only have an idea - They say what a tradition is, but have never even lived in that culture, or any monastery or ashram. It's fair though, because I lived in an ashram and have 'knowingness' of all that, but I don't have the slightest idea what Buddhism is. 'Knowingness' is 'the way it is'... 'knowledge' is what one knows about it. Do you see what I mean - the difference?

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Gem

In the teachings I'm familiar with I have heard no mention of the third eye. The practice of meditation I studied explicitly ruled out any use of visualisation or other imaginings, but advocated working to increase the sensitivity of perception so the aspirant would become conscious of subtler and subtler sensations.



In my life I have beliefs and opinions, which are called 'views', but I already know these are not true, and that they are all 'wrong views'. This means I don't care if they are wrong, I already know they are wrong, but I only talk in meanings, so it doesn't even make sense to say I'm wrong. One can be certain, however, that I am not right.



I try to explain about 'knowingness', which is like, 'I know it is this way' - as different to 'knowledge', which is a drawn conclusion in the mind - an opinion or a belief which they really consider to be true. People are like 'what Buddhism really is', but they only have an idea - They say what a tradition is, but have never even lived in that culture, or any monastery or ashram. It's fair though, because I lived in an ashram and have 'knowingness' of all that, but I don't have the slightest idea what Buddhism is. 'Knowingness' is 'the way it is'... 'knowledge' is what one knows about it. Do you see what I mean - the difference?

My third eye is the combination of the light of my right and left eyes. That forms my third eye and it stays in the middle of my brain. The light is the senses that is connected with my brain. It can see outside where there're the gods or demons or ghosts stay. If one has no third eyesight he's no way to see the spiritual realm.

Buddha might not have third eye but he had only consciousness inside him to investigate his inner self. That's why he never mentioned about the third eye (only one eye).

Every opinion given by us is based on what we know or from our knowledge or encounter or experience. If it can be not right is we haven't get enough information or knowledge.

Buddhism is mainly based on the teaching of Buddha Sakyamuni teaching. And the later theory or view can be true or may different from Buddha Sakyamuni teaching. So not all sutras are compatible to the teaching of Buddha. That's especially the ones from Tibetan Buddhism or Dzogchen teaching. That's why I always try my best to tell the the forum members here to distinguish their differences between Buddhism and non Buddhism teaching.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

My third eye is the combination of the light of my right and left eyes. That forms my third eye and it stays in the middle of my brain. The light is the senses that is connected my brain. It can see outside where there're the gods or demons or ghosts stay. If one has no third he's no way to see the spiritual realm.

Buddha might not have third eye but he had only consciousness inside him to investigate his inner self. That's why he never mentioned about the third eye (only one eye).

Every opinion given by us is based on what we know or from our knowledge or encounter or experience. If it can be not right is we haven't get enough information or knowledge.

Buddhism is mainly based on the teaching of Buddha Sakyamuni teaching. And the later theory or view can be true or may different from Buddha Sakyamuni teaching. So not all sutras are compatible to the teaching of Buddha. That's especially the ones from Tibetan Buddhism or Dzogchen teaching. That's why I always try my best to tell the the forum members here to distinguish their differences between Buddhism and non Buddhism teaching.

I only know Dhamma teachings as told in the school of meditation I'm trained in. The Tibetan stuff people claim to know on this forum isn't in any teachings I'm familiar with, and it mostly sounds like nonsense to me personally, but these guys swear they are Buddhist, and I only know Buddhism in the way I have lived it myself. A lot of that stuff about what people call kandalini, as energy flow, or as blissfulness, comes up as consequence of the practice I have undertaken, but it's not the aim. The aim is basically to purify the lifeform though the pure awareness of sensation. When the mind goes to subtle levels, then the subtle body is perceived, and purified in the light of conscious awareness from the gross solid level right through to the subtle levels, and due to being thus purified from accumulated sankara, the free flow of energy moves through, and the heart opens to the universal love which people call 'bliss'. I have not heard this told about in the written text of Dhamma teaching, but the teachers of meditation privately discuss these things with the aspirants that experience them. The main problem with these 'wonderful experiences' is people are incited to crave them, which is distracting from the deeper aspects of the meditation.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Gem

I only know Dhamma teachings as told in the school of meditation I'm trained in. The Tibetan stuff people claim to know on this forum isn't in any teachings I'm familiar with, and it mostly sounds like nonsense to me personally, but these guys swear they are Buddhist, and I only know Buddhism in the way I have lived it myself. A lot of that stuff about what people call kandalini, as energy flow, or as blissfulness, comes up as consequence of the practice I have undertaken, but it's not the aim. The aim is basically to purify the lifeform though the pure awareness of sensation. When the mind goes to subtle levels, then the subtle body is perceived, and purified in the light of conscious awareness from the gross solid level right through to the subtle levels, and due to being thus purified from accumulated sankara, the free flow of energy moves through, and the heart opens to the universal love which people call 'bliss'. I have not heard this told about in the written text of Dhamma teaching, but the teachers of meditation privately discuss these things with the aspirants that experience them. The main problem with these 'wonderful experiences' is people are incited to crave them, which is distracting from the deeper aspects of the meditation.

What's you introduce by other to learn the energy stuff is the kundalini of Hinduism. I've revealed the secret of this bliss in the thread Buddhism and kundalini of post#365 . It's below this thread....

Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen are practicing of YabYum which is the same of orgasm feeling of love making . YabYum is human affairs but kundalini is entity inside one's stomach with the energy connection to one's nervous system that why he will feel the orgasm feeling from the entities who are love making in his stomach.

That's the religion of demons or practice and teaching by the demons teaching. But it's dangerous, do be careful and I don't know how much you've learned?

[naturesflow]

I

Originally Posted by Gem

In the teachings I'm familiar with I have heard no mention of the third eye. The practice of meditation I studied explicitly ruled out any use of visualisation or other imaginings, but advocated working to increase the sensitivity of perception so the aspirant would become conscious of subtler and subtler sensations



In my life I have beliefs and opinions, which are called 'views', but I already know these are not true, and that they are all 'wrong views'. This means I don't care if they are wrong, I already know they are wrong, but I only talk in meanings, so it doesn't even make sense to say I'm wrong. One can be certain, however, that I am not right.



I try to explain about 'knowingness', which is like, 'I know it is this way' - as different to 'knowledge', which is a drawn conclusion in the mind - an opinion or a belief which they really consider to be true. People are like 'what Buddhism really is', but they only have an idea - They say what a tradition is, but have never even lived in that culture, or any monastery or ashram. It's fair though, because I lived in an ashram and have 'knowingness' of all that, but I don't have the slightest idea what Buddhism is. 'Knowingness' is 'the way it is'... 'knowledge' is what one knows about it. Do you see what I mean - the difference?

Third eye activation is interesting because many in my view of others still contained by "need to know" rather than allowing the truth and knowing to arise of itself as a knowing to take you deeper, often reflect its over functioning simply because they need to know and the need to tell others their knowing. I had some deeper first hand work and personal experience with myself going deeper beyond this and others wanting to remain there. So you will notice many who want to connect a greater picture in process will often show themselves still in "I need to know" functioning and this correlates to the mind, third eye and often an unconscious/unknown process still contained in its own knowing. Where as I now live more present with both without need to know so my third eye is more integrated into my heart as one. Which naturally through a more compassionate awareness of others it just knows. And the wise self moves differently to how many here move themselves(besides you of course )it moves more present and aware of all things moving in and of itself. Wisdom of self listens more directly through the whole self to not only itself but all others as that.
.
Check out my signature.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I

Third eye activation is interesting because many in my view of others still contained by "need to know" rather than allowing the truth and knowing to arise of itself as a knowing to take you deeper, often reflect its over functioning simply because they need to know and the need to tell others their knowing. I had some deeper first hand work and personal experience with myself going deeper beyond this and others wanting to remain there. So you will notice many who want to connect a greater picture in process will often show themselves still in "I need to know" functioning and this correlates to the mind, third eye and often an unconscious/unknown process still contained in its own knowing. Where as I now live more present with both without need to know so my third eye is more integrated into my heart as one. Which naturally through a more compassionate awareness of others it just knows. And the wise self moves differently to how many here (besides you of course )more present and aware of all things moving in and of itself. Wisdom of self listens more directly through the whole self to not only itself but all others as that.
.
Check out my signature.

With my third eye I didn't open up, but my forehead tingled constantly for a few years and sometimes goes intense all swirly vortex like - and during the meditations it connects to the crown feeling like a whole head chakra teehee.

I wonder why people need to know and what is there to know when you are not actually knowing it. Isn't the knowledge just rising in memory and then going away? 'Knowingness' is more like seeing the knowledge rise up when it's needed for something and letting it disappear again when it has no use. Knowingness is seeing the nature of it, which is called 'insight', and insight is 'the truth that sets you free'. As m'boy Krishnamurti put it, 'it is the truth that liberates, not your efforts to be free'.

On this forum we see, I think obviously, when one parades about as the one who knows, the whole conversation degenaratres into petty infantile nonsense. As soon as the one who knows stops, people regain their senses. It's simple really - knowledge is power - and one has to be acutely aware of its forces. If persons don't know that, they are unqualified in 'helping'. You know in my 'real life' I'm qualified as a professional helper, and in that game we understand how to create the space and open possibilities for people to move and grow without telling them anything... It's a game of listening with complete full attention, and responding in a way that opens up to more... People are amazed sometimes because no one has ever listened to them. People have always had advice, had the answer, had the solution to the problem, but no one has ever actually listened and heard the story.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Gem

With my third eye I didn't open up, but my forehead tingled constantly for a few years and sometimes goes intense all swirly vortex like - and during the meditations it connects to the crown feeling like a whole head chakra teehee.

I wonder why people need to know and what is there to know when you are not actually knowing it. Isn't the knowledge just rising in memory and then going away? 'Knowingness' is more like seeing the knowledge rise up when it's needed for something and letting it disappear again when it has no use. Knowingness is seeing the nature of it, which is called 'insight', and insight is 'the truth that sets you free'. As m'boy Krishnamurti put it, 'it is the truth that liberates, not your efforts to be free'.

On this forum we see, I think obviously, when one parades about as the one who knows, the whole conversation degenaratres into petty infantile nonsense. As soon as the one who knows stops, people regain their senses. It's simple really - knowledge is power - and one has to be acutely aware of its forces. If persons don't know that, they are unqualified in 'helping'. You know in my 'real life' I'm qualified as a professional helper, and in that game we understand how to create the space and open possibilities for people to move and grow without telling them anything... It's a game of listening with complete full attention, and responding in a way that opens up to more... People are amazed sometimes because no one has ever listened to them. People have always had advice, had the answer, had the solution to the problem, but no one has ever actually listened and heard the story.

I know how people meditate for liberation in their mind. When some shaped energy is gathered in their brains and their consciousness passing the shaped energy , their consciousness passing them so to cancel the energy there or your consciousness can gain certain amount of that energy and it can get stronger and strengthened each time. That process of cancellation is called liberation or free of that energy connection or burden. Finally, or one day you may have enough or stronger energy for your consciousness to do spiritual work as Buddha like. That's the practice of Buddha Sakyamuni teaching. But he didn't tell clearly.

I never do meditation but I jump over that part and I do gain differently that's a dangerous way that can damage your eyesight or your brain. so I'll not telling my methods here.