Dhamma Quotes

[lungmi]

Immigration US:

Officer: ID Card, Passport?

Zen Master: Wonderful. Give me one.

[Joop50]

Regarding the practice of the six paramita's and countless similar exercises, or

gathering endless amounts merit: you're essentially perfect in every way, so don't try to

supplement that perfection with such pointless exercises.

When the opportunity will arise to carry them out, do it, if that opportunity has passed, keep yourself comfortable.

If you're not absolutely convinced that the Spirit is the Buddha and when you are bound to

forms, exercises and meritorious acts, then you keep a wrong way of thinking which is in

no way to reconcile with the Way. The Spirit is the Buddha, and there are no other

Buddha's or other forms of Consciousness. He is bright and spotless as the space, and has no

shape or appearance. To use your consciousness to create concepts is beyond the essential steps and

will attach you to forms. The Ever Living Buddha is not a Buddha of shape or any restriction.

Practicing the six Paramitas and thousands of other techniques to become a Buddha, is

progress in stages, the Ever Living Buddha knows no stages. Wake up only in the

One Spirit, then there is nothing more to achieve. This is the real Buddha. The Buddha and all

living creatures are One Consciousness, and nothing else.

From 'The Zen teaching of Huang Po'

[Joop50]

The Way is not something which can be studied.

Study leads to the retention of concepts and so the Way is entirely misunderstood.

Moreover, the Way is not something specially existing;

it is called the Mahayana Mind – Mind which is not to be found inside, outside, or in the middle.

Truly it is not located anywhere. The first step is to refrain from knowledge-based concepts.

The Way is spiritual Truth and was originally without name or title.

It was only because people ignorantly sought for it empirically that the Buddhas

appeared and taught them to eradicate this method of approach.

Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name 'Way.'

Don't project a conceptual idea of this 'Way'!

Huang po

[lungmi]

You want to to have a 'Big Face'?

You will never have it.

Why?

You want it.

Adjahn Ekisit

Edited December 24, 2010 by lungmi

[lungmi]

Two monks in the jungle. One novice.

Every morning the two monks go over the water of a small river to meditate under a tree.

"You take the bridge there" they say to the novice. The novice follows.

After one week of meditation under the tree, the novice wanted to go over the water and nearly is drowned.

Now we can tell him where are the stones in the river, the two monks agree.

Buddhist legend

[camerata]

"When you take a step back from your own mind and look at it objectively, and apply wise selection you quickly train the mind. Whatever state of mind or train of thought you give attention and feed with thoughts - that state is reinforced. Whatever state you let go of, by not feeding it with thoughts and attention, loses its grip (attachment)."

- Phra Pandit Cittasamvaro

[IMA_FARANG]

Skillful speech not only means that we pay attention to the words we speak and to their tone but also requires that our words reflect compassion and concern for others and that they help and heal, rather than wound and destroy.

Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, "Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness"

[lungmi]

A poisonous snake asked me: Why you catch me and don't kill me?

I give you freedom to survive outside the Wat, we have dogs and cats inside the Wat

with low Buddha Teaching.

[lungmi]

You want to become coold, clean, clear, calm?

Yes.

You have a bad smell. Take a shower.

My wife after evening chanting together.

[lungmi]

The Origin of the Universe?

I don't know. Ask my dog.

Compilation Lord Buddha, Adjahn Luang Pho Kunjorn and lungmi.

[lungmi]

Zen legend;

Boddhidarma (supposed founder of Shao Lin Kungfu and Ch'an Buddhism) mets a Chinese Emperor who asked him if there is a "hell".

-Yes.

-The emperor with some Buddhist knowing fights back; No, there is no "hell". I study the Buddhist books.

-Yes, there is a "hell".

-The emperor gets angry: There is no "hell" , not for me, I'm Emperor. Stop to speak like this or the death penalty waits you.

- Yes, there is a "hell" and you in the "hell" in this moment.

[lungmi]

Zen legend;

Boddhidarma (supposed founder of Shao Lin Kungfu and Ch'an Buddhism) mets a Chinese Emperor who asked him if there is a "hell".

-Yes.

-The emperor with some Buddhist knowing fights back; No, there is no "hell". I study the Buddhist books.

-Yes, there is a "hell".

-The emperor gets angry: There is no "hell" , not for me, I'm Emperor. Stop to speak like this or the death penalty waits you.

- Yes, there is a "hell" and you in the "hell" in this moment.

[lungmi]

What is rebirth?

- I don't know,

Give your question to my hamster. He needs food.

- Where is your hamster?

In my head, he takes care of my hamster wheel.

--- Why do you give him food?

I love him, I cannot have awakening alone.

---------------

lungmi, spiritual master for hamster wheels, no diploma, only my hamster loves me.

[Joop50]

What is your trouble? Mistaken identity!

Wei Wu Wei

[lungmi]

Mistaken Identity? I ask my hamster.

No, you are a hamster.

But I don't stay in a hamsterwheel.

Sure?

---------------

No Identity

Edited February 14, 2011 by lungmi

[Joop50]

Presence and absence are dual aspects of appearance.

An absolute is positive and present.

There IS no presence, there IS no absence,

Both are positive phenomenal concepts.

Is and is-not are positive and negative isness,

But no form of isness IS.

All saying is thinking, all thinking is mental activity.

Only absolute absence is beyond phenomenality.

Wei Wu Wei

[lungmi]

Yesterday my "isness and no issness" were absent, but not absolutely.

My hangover today tells me.

[sabaijai]

As for the innermost advice,

no matter what kind of

disturbing emotion you feel,

look into the emotion

and it tracelessly subsides.

The disturbing emotion

is thus naturally freed.

This is simple to practice.

--Padmasambhava, 8th century AD

[lungmi]

As for the innermost advice,

no matter what kind of

disturbing emotion you feel,

look into the emotion

and it tracelessly subsides.

The disturbing emotion

is thus naturally freed.

This is simple to practice.

--Padmasambhava, 8th century AD

Songkran Festival in the home town of my wife.

I follow inside and outside.

The disturbing emotion is naturally freed.

I go back on the road to see my friends.

This is simple to practice.

My hangover will tell me tomorrow if it was simple to practice..

[dutchguest]

In the political elections you can only vote for the other, which other party you give power over you (and power to enrich himself). Actually you can only choose whether you prefer a toothache or a headache.

Through meditation, which should be the core of any religion, you can distance yourself from this sickening game and you can choose for yourself (without choosing against the other or harming the other).

Anonymus

[khaowong1]

Another reason why we do not regard others as precious is that we pay attention to their faults whilst ignoring their good qualities. Unfortunately we have become very skilled in recognizing the faults of others, and we devote a great deal of mental energy to listing them, analyzing them, and even meditating on them!

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Transform Your Life

Myself and another monk were just talking about this same thing yesterday..

[cosmicwoman]

A wrong action regretted, together with the resolve not to repeat it, is a lesson well learned.

Dhamma is anything and everything (including God?).

To attain Dhamma is to oust anything (concept of defilement) from one's mind and bar everything (concept of defilement-to-be) to enter it.

Just my skeptical thought

[lungmi]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)

To be and not to be - one answer.

Not to be and not not to be another.

To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)

Taoist tetralemma

[Xangsamhua]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)

To be and not to be - one answer.

Not to be and not not to be another.

To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)

Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on. But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0? And what is left if you subtract n from n? It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples: If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing. The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity. There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless. Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

[lungmi]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)

To be and not to be - one answer.

Not to be and not not to be another.

To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)

Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on. But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0? And what is left if you subtract n from n? It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples: If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing. The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity. There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless. Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.

Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.

The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.

Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

No, all is zero.

[Xangsamhua]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)

To be and not to be - one answer.

Not to be and not not to be another.

To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)

Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on. But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0? And what is left if you subtract n from n? It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples: If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing. The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity. There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless. Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.

Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.

The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.

Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

No, all is zero.

Hi Lungmi

Yes, I guess all is zero if One is formless, and formlessness is sunyata (emptiness, zero).

[lungmi]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)

To be and not to be - one answer.

Not to be and not not to be another.

To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)

Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on. But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0? And what is left if you subtract n from n? It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples: If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing. The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity. There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless. Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.

Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.

The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.

Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).

No, all is zero.

Hi Lungmi

Yes, I guess all is zero if One is formless, and formlessness is sunyata (emptiness, zero).

Exactly

Śūnyatā

Suan Mokh monks in Esaarn put it over the Toilet room.

[lungmi]

This morning I go outside. Big smokefrom the burning fields.

I closed all doors and windows.

I went inside myself. No answer for the smoke.

I wanted to open the doors and the windows.

Buddha says to me, wait, the next rain and wind is coming.

[anon7]

Lord Buddha, accurately and completely understood the workings of nature and it's underlying theory (Reality in it's true essence). Only he had the ability to model the whole thing inside his mind. He also very clearly and accurately explained the workings of the human mind, it's interactions with nature and how to free the mind totally from effects of external forces (both inside and outside body) which is eternal bliss. Having read Lord Buddha's teachings Albert Einstein has proved most of those mathematically. When all it is nature, why do people use separatist words like 'Buddhist', 'Buddhism'. Aren't they putting the greatest master's teachings in jeopardy? People should talk about what they have realistically understood not just memorized stuff. Otherwise they will be misleading others as well as them selves.

[lungmi]

Lord Buddha, accurately and completely understood the workings of nature and it's underlying theory (Reality in it's true essence). Only he had the ability to model the whole thing inside his mind. He also very clearly and accurately explained the workings of the human mind, it's interactions with nature and how to free the mind totally from effects of external forces (both inside and outside body) which is eternal bliss. Having read Lord Buddha's teachings Albert Einstein has proved most of those mathematically. When all it is nature, why do people use separatist words like 'Buddhist', 'Buddhism'. Aren't they putting the greatest master's teachings in jeopardy? People should talk about what they have realistically understood not just memorized stuff. Otherwise they will be misleading others as well as them selves.

Right, if anyone understands the Truth of his own religion, there will be only the Law of Nature -Dhamma, including (Buddha, God, Allah, Vishnu, .................)

Edited March 3, 2012 by lungmi