I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask
some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute
truth, what does this mean? Is it that they are now learning openly to
the greatest of their potential? What sort of knowledge of reality
emerges? What abilities does this give the person? How many truely
enlightened masters exist, do you think? How do they live? Would they
have any preferences in taste in music?
Cheers!
it means you think that enlightenment and truth are related.
it also means you think there is meaning at the point of enlightenment.
you are making a qualitative assumption, which means
you are depending on sensation/mentation.
does truth or knowledge require a mind to know them?
>What sort of knowledge of reality emerges?
some buddhists claim that knowledge of reality becomes extinquished.
>What abilities does this give the person?
i think the ablility to choose.
>How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
why do you ask this question?
i think there are none, which is enough.
>How do they live?
as necessary.
eating when hungry.
sleeping when tired.
>Would they have any preferences in taste in music?
my guess would be yes.
* * *
is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
if enlightenment is beyond one's comprehension, then would
one recognize an enlightened being as an enlightened being?
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Maybe it's like the Zen master who was so enlightened that birds nested
in his hair and animals came to him. His master visited him and
enlightened him still further. The birds and other animals left. His
serenity had become *invisible*, *indistinguishible*.
If someone truly enlightened were posting here, would we recognize it?
--
Douglas Henderson
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> >When a person reaches the state of pure,
> >total enlightment and absolute truth,
> >what does this mean?
> >Is it that they are now learning openly to the greatest of their
> >potential?
>
> it means you think that enlightenment and truth are related.
I was under the impression (at least from a Buddhist point of view) that
the true state of enlightenment is also the true perception of reality or
"absolute truth"?
> it also means you think there is meaning at the point of enlightenment.
In a totally formless way, I thought there would be?
> you are making a qualitative assumption, which means
> you are depending on sensation/mentation.
I was just asking without really knowing what I am talking about, in order
to hopefully understand more!
> does truth or knowledge require a mind to know them?
In my opinion, probably.. Not sure..!
> >What sort of knowledge of reality emerges?
>
> some buddhists claim that knowledge of reality becomes extinquished.
Please could you expand on this?
> >What abilities does this give the person?
>
> i think the ablility to choose.
Choiceless/spontaneous?
> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
>
> why do you ask this question?
Not sure! I am interested!
> i think there are none, which is enough.
What do you mean (enough)?
> >How do they live?
>
> as necessary.
> eating when hungry.
> sleeping when tired.
I wondered whether they might teach, or whether any might live in a
typical job/family/house situation?
> >Would they have any preferences in taste in music?
>
> my guess would be yes.
>
> * * *
>
> is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
I would guess it would definately be shades of gray.
> if enlightenment is beyond one's comprehension, then would
> one recognize an enlightened being as an enlightened being?
Not sure!
Cheers!
Paul.
it may be.
but the ability to see all things means that one will look at all things.
it may be a matter of when thing come into view.
>> it also means you think there is meaning at the point of enlightenment.
>In a totally formless way, I thought there would be?
at this point a zen koan would probably be appropriate.
you are trying to think about something that defies thought.
>> you are making a qualitative assumption, which means
>> you are depending on sensation/mentation.
>I was just asking without really knowing what I am talking about,
>in order to hopefully understand more!
i noticed.
the view can be affected by the type of glasses one wears.
>> does truth or knowledge require a mind to know them?
>In my opinion, probably.. Not sure..!
i don't know either, but some things like 1 + 1 = 2 seems to
be independent of observation. other things like the quantum
mechanical state seem to depend on observation. observation
being a technical term in physics. perhaps the buddhist notion
of dependent origination is correct.
>> >What sort of knowledge of reality emerges?
>> some buddhists claim that knowledge of reality becomes extinquished.
>Please could you expand on this?
when there is no mind/ego to perceive, then no thing is perceived.
reality is a thing.
>> >What abilities does this give the person?
>> i think the ablility to choose.
>Choiceless/spontaneous?
perhaps.
spontaneity is qualitative.
>> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
>> why do you ask this question?
>Not sure! I am interested!
so perhaps you should think about this.
why do you want to know if enlightend masters exist.
>> i think there are none, which is enough.
>What do you mean (enough)?
the world gets by with the exact number of enlightened masters it has
at this very moment.
>> >How do they live?
>> as necessary.
>> eating when hungry.
>> sleeping when tired.
>I wondered whether they might teach, or whether any might live in a
>typical job/family/house situation?
i think they might.
>> is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
>I would guess it would definately be shades of gray.
why do you think this?
>> if enlightenment is beyond one's comprehension, then would
>> one recognize an enlightened being as an enlightened being?
>Not sure!
then why do you ask?
* * *
why is enlightenment important?
* * *
in taoism the trick to enlightenment is to realize you are already
holding the light.
in buddhism the trick to enlightenment is to realize there is no you
to hold a light.
which may be the same thing.
typo.
but the ability to see all things does not mean that one will look at all
things.
>
>at this point a zen koan would probably be appropriate.
>you are trying to think about something that defies thought.
Do you think so?
.
>>I was just asking without really knowing what I am talking about,
>>in order to hopefully understand more!
>
>i noticed.
Probably a first.
>>> does truth or knowledge require a mind to know them?
>>In my opinion, probably.. Not sure..!
>
>i don't know either, but some things like 1 + 1 = 2 seems to
>be independent of observation. other things like the quantum
>mechanical state seem to depend on observation. observation
>being a technical term in physics. perhaps the buddhist notion
>of dependent origination is correct.
>
>>> >What sort of knowledge of reality emerges?
>>> some buddhists claim that knowledge of reality becomes extinquished.
>>Please could you expand on this?
>
>when there is no mind/ego to perceive, then no thing is perceived.
>reality is a thing.
Reality is a word - nothing more. "Knowledge of reality" is a non
sequitur.
>
>>> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
>
>>> i think there are none, which is enough.
Right, but for all the wrong reasons.
>
>the world gets by with the exact number of enlightened masters it has
>at this very moment.
Right again! If only you knew.
>
>>> >How do they live?
>>> as necessary.
>>> eating when hungry.
>>> sleeping when tired.
...!
>>I wondered whether they might teach, or whether any might live in a
>>typical job/family/house situation?
>
>i think they might.
You might be right.
>
>>> is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
>>I would guess it would definately be shades of gray.
>
>why do you think this?
He doesn't think this, its only a definite guess.
Enlightenment is beyond any spectrum you could know.
>
>>> if enlightenment is beyond one's comprehension, then would
>>> one recognize an enlightened being as an enlightened being?
>>Not sure!
>
>then why do you ask?
;->
>
>* * *
>
>why is enlightenment important?
You are peddling your own watered down version - you should know an
answer to this.
>
>* * *
>
>in taoism the trick to enlightenment is to realize you are already
>holding the light.
In taoism, you ARE the light.
>in buddhism the trick to enlightenment is to realize there is no you
>to hold a light.
>
>which may be the same thing.
but actually isn't.
*lol*
no
>>when there is no mind/ego to perceive, then no thing is perceived.
>>reality is a thing.
>Reality is a word - nothing more. "Knowledge of reality" is a non
>sequitur.
*shrug*
if it means nothing, then ignore it.
>>>> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
>>>> i think there are none, which is enough.
>Right, but for all the wrong reasons.
*lol*
>>the world gets by with the exact number of enlightened masters it has
>>at this very moment.
>Right again! If only you knew.
*lol*
>>>> is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
>>>I would guess it would definately be shades of gray.
>>why do you think this?
>He doesn't think this, its only a definite guess.
>Enlightenment is beyond any spectrum you could know.
whatever, why does he guess this, then?
*shrug*
>>why is enlightenment important?
>You are peddling your own watered down version -
:)
>you should know an answer to this.
i know several different answers.
but i think people need to learn/decide for themselves.
>>in taoism the trick to enlightenment is to realize you are already
>>holding the light.
>In taoism, you ARE the light.
a poetic failure then.
>>in buddhism the trick to enlightenment is to realize there is no you
>>to hold a light.
>>which may be the same thing.
>but actually isn't.
*lol*
listening to wind
a young child's crying is heard
but it is just wind
>> In a totally formless way, I thought there would be?
>
> at this point a zen koan would probably be appropriate.
> you are trying to think about something that defies thought.
That's not true at all. Enlightenment does not defy thought.
It can be thought or talked about quite easily. It is only
difficult to experience. Zen koans are not appropriate if you
want to think about enlightenment. They are only appropriate
if you wish to experience being more awake.
> >> does truth or knowledge require a mind to know them?
> >In my opinion, probably.. Not sure..!
Truth is a correspondence between an idea and another idea,
or between and idea and the world as it naturally exists.
In both cases ideas are involved and thus a mind is needed.
Knowledge is justified, true belief. To have a belief, as
well as to justify it, also entails mental functions.
> i don't know either, but some things like 1 + 1 = 2 seems to
> be independent of observation. other things like the quantum
> mechanical state seem to depend on observation.
These are the two basic kinds of truths, analytic truths and
synthetic truths. Analytic truths are true by definition, and
are deduced from axioms and are true, as Leibniz pointed out,
'in all possible worlds'. An example: "All bachelors are unmarried."
They are true, as is 1 + 1 = 2, by definition, or legislation.
Synthetic truths have to do with correspondence truth, that the
sentence corresponds to the territory, and they can be false. An
example is "Bishops are just about worth the same as Knights."
The movement of the Bishop as diagonal and the Knight as across
a 3x2 matrix, in an 'L'-shape, are analytical truths. That's how
the pieces are defined in the rules of chess. The Bishops being
worth about as much as knights, or slightly more, is not deduceds
by the rules, but drawn by inference from observations of games.
> observation being a technical term in physics. perhaps the
> buddhist notion of dependent origination is correct.
Dependent Origination merely states that all things are empty
of any permanant essense, and that all things are caused by
other things and never are the sole causes of themselves. In this
sense, everything is connected to everything else and the cause
of everything else, but some connections are stronger and more
direct than others; however, there are no uncaused causes.
> >> >What sort of knowledge of reality emerges?
> >> some buddhists claim that knowledge of reality becomes extinquished.
> >Please could you expand on this?
>
> when there is no mind/ego to perceive, then no thing is perceived.
> reality is a thing.
That is wrong. 'Reality' is not a thing. Real is an adjective and
it gets wrongly nominalized (thingafied) into a thing. The word
'reality' does not denote a thing ever; rather, it denotes the
state in which things actually are as they are (as opposed to
illusion or fantasy, which is a perception which fails to
correspond to anything real).
Going back to Dependent Origination, no self-existing permanent
things are percieved. They are not perceived because there simply
ain't any such things. However, the Buddha clearly points out
that things are perceived, however, all things are seen to be
'empty', which means that they are impermanent and interdependent.
> >> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
> >> why do you ask this question?
> >Not sure! I am interested!
>
> so perhaps you should think about this.
> why do you want to know if enlightend masters exist.
There are four levels of awakening. The first one is called
stream entry. Supposedly many people have reached this level.
The highest of the four may not be reached by anyone alive.
Whether one has reached it cannot be known by oneself, as
one might be deluded, nor by others.
Enlightenment, or full awakening, would entail the complete
ending of the cycle of craving and suffering, so that one
would no longer have any addictions or unreasonable expectations
and would fully accept whatever situation happens and respond
in an appropriate way spontaneously, rather than out of old
conditioned patterns.
>>> i think there are none, which is enough.
> >What do you mean (enough)?
>
> the world gets by with the exact number of enlightened masters
> it has at this very moment.
The world gets by no matter what, barring global nuclear war.
However, if less people suffered, that would be preferable.
And since enlightenment means the cessation of suffering, more
enlightened folks would mean less suffering as a whole. Thus
from a utilitarian standpoint, the more people who are
enlightened the better, and everyone being enlightened would
be the best of all.
> >> >How do they live?
> >I wondered whether they might teach, or whether any might
> >live in a typical job/family/house situation?
Here's an interesting story about the life of one:
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha054.htm
Here's another story from the same site:
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha012.htm
> >> is enlightenment blackandwhite or shades of gray?
> >I would guess it would definately be shades of gray.
> why do you think this?
One view of enlightenment, which is not the most traditional
view but is very common, is that it is an abstract ideal limit,
like absolute zero or a frictionless plane, and one can only
approach it asymtotically, so one needs only to get close
enough to be freed up psychologically so one can live the rest
of ones life peacefully. Another popular view, which is not in
the traditional teachings but was a later addition, is that of
the Boddhisattva, who chooses not to become totally enlightened
at the highest level, so that he one may choose to be reborn
and help other people. The advantage of this view, found in the
Mahayana school, is that it takes the emphasis off of working
on personal gain.
> >> if enlightenment is beyond one's comprehension, then would
> >> one recognize an enlightened being as an enlightened being?
> >Not sure!
> then why do you ask?
One might recognize a strong sense of kindness and compassion
and clarity in another. That is an indication of enlightenment,
but we can never know for sure. We can make a good guess though
as to whether they are in the same ballpark, if we are around
them enough and we don't see them reacting in conditioned ways
or craving after things. Again, whether enlightenment is an
actual final state or an abstract ideal doesn't really matter
too much, as ending all or most of your suffering is what counts.
Getting rid of 99% of the suffering I create would be fine by me.
I wouldn't really care if the last 1% were even possible to get
rid of, actually.
> why is enlightenment important?
Because suffering doesn't feel good. If you don't suffer, then
don't waste your time getting enlightened: go out and live life.
> in taoism the trick to enlightenment is to realize you are already
> holding the light. in buddhism the trick to enlightenment is to
> realize there is no you to hold a light.
>
> which may be the same thing.
Both those are over-simplifications. The 'trick' in Buddhism is to
see the connection between craving and suffering, and to end one's
craving. Part of ending one's craving is seeing that there is no
self-existing soul or person which is separate from the world.
Taoism is a bit different. The Chinese never cared as much about
metaphysics and reality as did the Indian philosophers, but were
more into living in harmony with nature, with society and with
one's family and community. The existential problem of suffering
is not at issue in the sense that it is central to Budddhism, but
the traditions do overlap, and in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism they have
been combined in various ways.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> Hi!
>
> I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask
> some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
I have some of those.
> When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute
> truth, what does this mean?
What is 'meaning'? Wilhelm, taught by Lao Nai-hsuan, translated Tao as
Meaning.
> Is it that they are now learning openly to
> the greatest of their potential?
learning/unlearning.. a mystery, but 'potential' seems a key..
> What sort of knowledge of reality
> emerges?
'reality'~~what is it? We live with mystery.. Accepting it is the bonus.
> What abilities does this give the person?
Detachment?
> How many truely
> enlightened masters exist, do you think?
Oy, enumeration, there's a prob ;-)
I take a wide-angle view, many 'enlightened' in many traditions..
> How do they live?
Simply. Without fuss or bother.
> Would they
> have any preferences in taste in music?
Hey, there's a question!
I don't know.
--lawrence
>
>
> Cheers!
Being skeptical just implies that your mind is on something else.
You already know the meaning of a
"state of pure, total enlightment and absolute truth"; you
generated the question.
Have you ever learned at your greatest potential - can you imagine it?
Reality is spontaneous.
Consequently:
There is no executable judgment on a given master.
Descriptions and preferences are indepenent forms generated by the
viewer at that viewers discretion.
/*------------------------------------------
Christopher McCready
http://www.metro.net/nowon
mailto:no...@metro.net
*/------------------------------------------
----------
In article <3753F270...@netcraft.com>, Paul Humphries
<p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask
>some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
>
>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute
>truth, what does this mean? Is it that they are now learning openly to
>the greatest of their potential? What sort of knowledge of reality
>emerges? What abilities does this give the person? How many truely
>enlightened masters exist, do you think? How do they live? Would they
>have any preferences in taste in music?
>
>Cheers!
Regards,
Darren
Paul Humphries wrote in message <3753F270...@netcraft.com>...
>Hi!
>
>I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask
>some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
>
>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute
>truth, what does this mean? Is it that they are now learning openly to
>the greatest of their potential? What sort of knowledge of reality
>emerges? What abilities does this give the person? How many truely
>enlightened masters exist, do you think? How do they live? Would they
>have any preferences in taste in music?
>
>Cheers!
Sorry that I am answering with this is an old letter. I do hope the
words of Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng can answer a bit of your
question even if he did not mention his preferences for music be it
classical, hard rock or heavy metal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have mourned that many of my books stayed back in my home town
while I was wandering ,working and staying elsewhere.
But a selection of John Blofeld's books followed me.
I thought I quote one of my favorite portion from his book 'Taoism,
The Secret and Sublime' which may help others understand and decide
for themselves if Taoism is a philosophy or a religion.
I myself, never did feel that either path is important.
He was talking to this Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.
(now using also his format and capitalizations..)
--------------------------------------------------------
Having heard from me of Sir Edwin Arnold's lovely expression for
entering Nirvana, 'the dew-drop slips into the shining sea', he
exclaimed with delight, but added:
'And yet it does not capture the whole. Since the Tao is all and
nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are
identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate
existence, he is not lost in the Tao. By casting off his imaginary
limitations, he becomes immeasurable.
Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the
finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.
Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret
cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns
to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED
TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!'
The Taoistic Idiot
>> Would they
>> have any preferences in taste in music?
>
>Hey, there's a question!
>I don't know.
some folks, er trolls, eat them for breakfast, with music!
survey says that enlitened masters taste bad without milk,
but they are low in calories and the bad polyesterAll
charlie says
-tell 'em starkist sent ya
Perhaps you would be better off asking this in a Buddhist group.
Taoists do not seek enlightenment.
Taoists do not seek anything.
There is no such thing as absoulte truth.
Two
"Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty
only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.
Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever."
Tao Te Ching, Translation Gia-fu Feng and Jane English .
> respond
>in an appropriate way spontaneously,
from One pov
it is impossible to respond any other way.
even wobbling is appropriate
when done-without-doing
>Thus
>from a utilitarian standpoint, the more people who are
>enlightened the better, and everyone being enlightened would
>be the best of all.
an infinite task, asymtotically speaking
yet mountains have been known
to again become mountains
and trees, trees.
>Another popular view, which is not in
>the traditional teachings but was a later addition, is that of
>the Boddhisattva, who chooses not to become totally enlightened
>at the highest level,
another view
is the idea of nothing
which, when reached, is a Taoistic thingy\non/thingee
Would an individual who attained a level of _the sage_
be said to have also been "enlightened" and reached
>The highest of the four may not be reached by anyone alive.
such that it is the case that, sew-two-ask
is not _the sage_ beyond life\death?
>Whether one has reached it cannot be known by oneself, as
>one might be deluded, nor by others.
knowing not-knowing is spoken of
as a wheel depends upon the emptiness of a hub
in order to get around and around
>Enlightenment, or full awakening, would entail the complete
>ending of the cycle of craving and suffering
it has been argued
as to whether _the sage_ has emotions.
eye supposes that One would crave-without-craving
from a Taoist (at least my Unreal) pov.
-fwiw
{:-])))
> In article <3753F270...@netcraft.com>,
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to
> ask
> > some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
> >
> > When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and
> absolute
> > truth, what does this mean?
>
> Perhaps you would be better off asking this in a Buddhist group.
> Taoists do not seek enlightenment.
> Taoists do not seek anything.
> There is no such thing as absoulte truth.
Actually Tao-te-ching verse 16 does deal with enlightenment according to
Wing-tsit Chan's translation:
"Attain complete vacuity.
Maintain steadfast quietude.
All things come into being,
And I see thereby their return.
All things flourish,
But each one returns to its root.
This return to its root means tranquillity.
It is called returning to its destiny.
To return to destiny is called the eternal (Tao).
To know the eternal is called enlightenment..."
John Wu translates this last bit as:
"To return to the root is to find peace.
To find peace is to fulfill one's destiny.
To fulfill one's destiny is to be constant.
To know the Constant is called Insight."
The idea of 'vacuity' certainly echoes with the 'forgetting' in the
Chuang-tzu.
Sung-era Taoist Shao-yung also related enlightenment with tranquillity,
eg,:
"The Mind is the Great Ultimate.
The human mind should be as calm as still water.
Being calm it will be tranquil.
Being tranquil it will be enlightened."
(WT Chan trans)
fwiw,
--lawrence
Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
>I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so
>wish to ask some questions to anyone who has any ideas..
>
>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and
>absolute truth, what does this mean?
It means immortality
(via) "Taoism: Road to Immortality" by John Blofield.
(shamballa/boston, 1978).
"...The Ch'an (Zen) masters, who are as much the heirs of early
Taoism as of Indian Buddhism, teach methods much closer to Taoist
cultivation of the Way and therefore to the teaching of Lao and
Chuang than is generally realised. Their terse aphorisms and
characteristic humour are both highly reminiscent of those sages.
What they mean by Mind and its indivisibility from individual
minds is not different from what Taoists mean by the Tao as the
Great Void and the Tao that is to be found within the individual
when the mists of delusion have been swept away. The Ch'an
doctrine that ENLIGHTENMENT is to be attained in the Here and Now
is precisely the Taoist doctrine of 'ATTAINING IMMORTALITY'
properly understood. The Taoist word shen and the Ch'an Buddhist
term hsin, the one meaning 'spirit', the other 'mind', are often
interchangeable and, in later Taoist works, hsin often replaces
shen. If there is any real difference in the two modes of
cultivation, it is to be found only in the stress placed by
Taoists on using physical as well as mental endowments as a means
to attainment...."
Regards,
Zhou
I prefer the Feng and English version of 16.
It is similar to John Wu's.
Insight, or an acknowledgement of reality
which produces an understanding, is the Way.
But that understanding is not the same as
what buddhist consider to be 'enlightenment',
which is what I perceived the question to be.
Insight is not a state of pureness and it is not absolute truth.
Taoist philosophy being non-duelistic, contends that all things
contain an element of their opposite.
True contains an element of false.
Yin contains an element of Yang.
Nothing is absoulte.
Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither pure
nor total.
Sixteen
"Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind become still.
The ten thousand things rise and fall
while the self watches their return.
They grow and florish and then return to the source.
Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The way of nature is unchanging.
Knowing constancy is insight.
Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
Being openhearted, you will act royally.
Being royal, you will atain the divine.
Being divine, you will be at one with Tao.
Being at one with Tao is eternal.
And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away."
Perhaps you are right. Buddhism evolved through many changes.
In the Tang period in China, Ch'an is very close to Taoism, but other
traditions vary.
> Insight is not a state of pureness and it is not absolute truth.
This idea is in Peng's poem, roughly seeing the hills and valleys without a
speck of dust. That suggests 'purity', but of course 'absolute truth' is a
more complex and philosophical question. Maybe it is approachable only as
a pure 'sensory' experience?
>
> Taoist philosophy being non-duelistic, contends that all things
> contain an element of their opposite.
> True contains an element of false.
> Yin contains an element of Yang.
> Nothing is absoulte.
>
> Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
A good point. As soon as evaluation occurs, then one
is in the 'conception' rather than the 'perception'.
A pure moment may not be 'digestible' within conception.
> Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
> which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither pure
> nor total.
>
> Sixteen
>
> "Empty yourself of everything.
> Let the mind become still.
> The ten thousand things rise and fall
> while the self watches their return.
> They grow and florish and then return to the source.
> Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
> The way of nature is unchanging.
> Knowing constancy is insight.
> Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
> Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
> With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
> Being openhearted, you will act royally.
> Being royal, you will atain the divine.
> Being divine, you will be at one with Tao.
> Being at one with Tao is eternal.
> And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away."
>
> Tao Te Ching, Translation Gia-fu Feng and Jane English .
Oy, aside from the last few lines Feng's translation (Jane English is the
photographer)
is ok. But some trans's point to 'immortality' in those debatable lines,
eg, Wu:
"To be heavenly is to be one with Tao;
To be one with Tao is to abide forever.
Such a one will be safe and whole
Even after the dissolution of his body."
and WT Chan has:
"Being one with Nature, he is in accord with Tao.
Being in accord with Tao, he is everlasting,
And is free from danger throughout his lifetime."
An interesting verse! My favourite.
--lawrence
A "thing" can be defined as a "distinction," as "reality" is an idea
"distinguishable," it is a thing.
> The word
> 'reality' does not denote a thing ever; rather, it denotes the
> state in which things actually are as they are (as opposed to
> illusion or fantasy, which is a perception which fails to
> correspond to anything real).
As well as the "state" of a mind [is a thing].
>
> Going back to Dependent Origination, no self-existing permanent
> things are percieved. They are not perceived because there simply
> ain't any such things. However, the Buddha clearly points out
> that things are perceived, however, all things are seen to be
> 'empty', which means that they are impermanent and interdependent.
In Buddha's eye/mind, such idea—'empty'—is permanent and independent.
>
> > >> >How many truely enlightened masters exist, do you think?
> > >> why do you ask this question?
> > >Not sure! I am interested!
> >
> > so perhaps you should think about this.
> > why do you want to know if enlightend masters exist.
>
> There are four levels of awakening. The first one is called
> stream entry. Supposedly many people have reached this level.
> The highest of the four may not be reached by anyone alive.
If "the highest of four" cannot be experienced by a living thing, then
it doesn't exist, i.e. an illusion, as we [as alive] have yet to know
what "death" is.
> Whether one has reached it cannot be known by oneself, as
> one might be deluded, nor by others.
Then, who would know?
>
> Enlightenment, or full awakening, would entail the complete
> ending of the cycle of craving and suffering,
Not necessarily, as "craving and suffering" is a [your] presumption.
The final enlightenment cannot be anything more than to realize one's
true "indescribable" [self] nature.
> so that one
> would no longer have any addictions or unreasonable expectations
> and would fully accept whatever situation happens and respond
> in an appropriate way spontaneously, rather than out of old
> conditioned patterns.
As the true nature is indescribable, there's no "craving and suffering,"
reincarnation has no "reality" base.
> .....
>
> > why is enlightenment important?
To know life... what else out there to do?
Enjoy the thrills of living, :)
IS
.....
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
> I prefer the Feng and English version of 16.
> It is similar to John Wu's.
> Insight, or an acknowledgement of reality
> which produces an understanding, is the Way.
> But that understanding is not the same as
> what buddhist consider to be 'enlightenment',
> which is what I perceived the question to be.
>
> Insight is not a state of pureness and it is not absolute truth.
> Taoist philosophy being non-duelistic, contends that all things
> contain an element of their opposite.
Only things which are described contain their opposite, surely?
Here is my attempt at explaining my current understanding/opinion:- The
indescribable source of all things contains no element of its opposite.
The void has no opposite. There is nothing which it excludes or opposes.
Dualistic thought arises from the void. Within dualistic thought itself,
things arise in pairs which are polar opposites. Descriptions are
necessary for communication in words, but are most useful when forgotten
afterwards. If the descriptions are believed to be real (and attachments
made to them) illusions arise because the Universe has no parts - it is
One.
> True contains an element of false.
> Yin contains an element of Yang.
> Nothing is absoulte.
Except the Tao? The Tao is the indescribable source - the void from which
everything originates.
> Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
But not if it remains undefined?
> Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
> which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither pure
> nor total.
Don't follow that part.. From a non-dualistic perspective, no names exist
and the flow is pure and total, surely?
> "Empty yourself of everything.
> Let the mind become still.
> The ten thousand things rise and fall
> while the self watches their return.
> They grow and florish and then return to the source.
> Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
> The way of nature is unchanging.
> Knowing constancy is insight.
> Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
> Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
> With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
> Being openhearted, you will act royally.
> Being royal, you will atain the divine.
> Being divine, you will be at one with Tao.
> Being at one with Tao is eternal.
> And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away."
>
> Tao Te Ching, Translation Gia-fu Feng and Jane English .
>
> I prefer the Feng and English version of 16.
> It is similar to John Wu's.
> Insight, or an acknowledgement of reality
> which produces an understanding, is the Way.
> But that understanding is not the same as
> what buddhist consider to be 'enlightenment',
> which is what I perceived the question to be.
>
> Insight is not a state of pureness and it is not absolute truth.
> Taoist philosophy being non-duelistic, contends that all things
> contain an element of their opposite.
>>Only things which are described contain their opposite, surely?
>>Here is my attempt at explaining my current understanding/opinion:- The
indescribable source of all things contains no element of its opposite.
The void has no opposite. There is nothing which it excludes or opposes.
Dualistic thought arises from the void. Within dualistic thought itself,
things arise in pairs which are polar opposites. Descriptions are
necessary for communication in words, but are most useful when forgotten
afterwards. If the descriptions are believed to be real (and attachments
made to them) illusions arise because the Universe has no parts - it is
One. (Paul H)
> True contains an element of false.
> Yin contains an element of Yang.
> Nothing is absoulte.
Except the Tao? The Tao is the indescribable source - the void from which
everything originates.
> Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
But not if it remains undefined?
> Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
> which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither pure
> nor total.
>>Don't follow that part.. From a non-dualistic perspective, no names exist
and the flow is pure and total, surely? (Paul H)
Perhaps by understanding one limits... who really knows what exist & what
doesn't? are any of the scholars any better able to comprehend than you? Or
just another con job to look intelligent? What is this dualistic & non but more
limits... who knows if names exist & is total enough? and pure could be only
partial.... Time & space could have zillions of possibilities we are not even
capable of seeing. and why not.. if tao is all... are there any limits?
and if so who the hell created them?
I would say so.
The non-descript would be non-things or nothing,
which doesn't somehow seem to fit into all things.
>
> Here is my attempt at explaining my current understanding/opinion:-
The
> indescribable source of all things contains no element of its
opposite.
Wu-chi would not. But then again is wu-chi a thing?
I was speaking of all THINGS having an element of their opposite.
> The void has no opposite.
But it does, not-void or all things.
> There is nothing which it excludes or
opposes.
Nothing excludes everything. void is opposed by the lack of void.
> Dualistic thought arises from the void. Within dualistic thought
itself,
> things arise in pairs which are polar opposites. Descriptions are
> necessary for communication in words, but are most useful when
forgotten
> afterwards. If the descriptions are believed to be real (and
attachments
> made to them) illusions arise because the Universe has no parts - it
is
> One.
That is why I say there are no absolutes.
Truth is a polar opposite that has an opposite false.
Tao is the reality of those opposites combined as one.
If both are there in one, neither can exist alone.
Therefore truth cannot be absolute. Absolute implys an
ultimate or extreme where nothing but truth can exist.
>
> > True contains an element of false.
> > Yin contains an element of Yang.
> > Nothing is absoulte.
>
> Except the Tao? The Tao is the indescribable source - the void from
which
> everything originates.
If anything can be absoulte it would be oneness.
In this I agree with Ichin Shen.
"One and None are synonym. At the "terminus,"
T'ai-Chi and Wu-Chi are the same."
"Is not that "Ultimate" the "terminus"? When one still has 'Noneness' in
mind, as well as, "Tao" for Taoist, "Buddha" for Duddhist, "G-d" for
Todist, etc., one is still in "Relative reality." "Oneness" is
absolute." -Ichin Shen
But to call Tao the absolute truth is to
label Tao as polar opposite, because anything
that is true must have an element of false.
It may be absolute, but true it is not.
The very idea of true by itself negates the idea of T'ai-Chi.
>
> > Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
>
> But not if it remains undefined?
Having a name of absolute truth, has it not already been defined?
>
> > Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
> > which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither
pure
> > nor total.
>
> Don't follow that part.. From a non-dualistic perspective, no names
exist
> and the flow is pure and total, surely?
T'ai-Chi to Wu-Chi and Wu-Chi to T'ai-Chi return is pure and total
but it is not true or good or righteous.
>
> > "Empty yourself of everything.
> > Let the mind become still.
> > The ten thousand things rise and fall
> > while the self watches their return.
> > They grow and florish and then return to the source.
> > Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
> > The way of nature is unchanging.
> > Knowing constancy is insight.
> > Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
> > Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
> > With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
> > Being openhearted, you will act royally.
> > Being royal, you will atain the divine.
> > Being divine, you will be at one with Tao.
> > Being at one with Tao is eternal.
> > And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away."
> >
>Only things which are described contain their opposite, surely?
without descript-ions,
what is th'air to say?
>Here is my attempt at explaining my current understanding/opinion:- The
>indescribable source of all things contains no element of its opposite.
>The void has no opposite. There is nothing which it excludes or opposes.
okay sew-far-ring
> Descriptions are
>necessary for communication in words,
sew-long and sew-rite
>but are most useful when forgotten afterwards.
or, perhaps important to keep in mind
even while using t'hem
> If the descriptions are believed to be real
the catch, Te be sure
> (and attachments made to them)
t'hen ya gots reel trouble
> illusions arise because the Universe has no parts - it is One.
okay, sew-far-rings
>> True contains an element of false.
>> Yin contains an element of Yang.
>> Nothing is absoulte.
>
>Except the Tao?
then how is not-Tao possible?
>The Tao is the indescribable source - the void from which
>everything originates.
yet the Tao may fail, it may become obscured.
War horses turn farmlands into border-x-ings.
methinks Tao is not only source,
for some aspects of "Taoism."
>> Absolute truth would ignore the element of false which it contains.
>
>But not if it remains undefined?
if it remains undefined,
then ipso facto 'taint "Absolute truth."
>> Pure total enlightenment would ignore the element of impureness
>> which it contains. From a non-duelistic perspective it is neither pure
>> nor total.
>
>Don't follow that part.
neti-neti, not-not.
the Way of negat-ion tends
to approach the point of origin
with a way of affirmat-ion tends
perhaps otherwise.
> From a non-dualistic perspective, no names exist
if no names exist, then "Absolute truth" also ceases to exist.
>and the flow is pure and total, surely?
surely!
-a silly
opinion
[knowing batter
yet responding anywho]
{;-])))
The chinese never did accept pure buddhism. After all, the indians
are an evil people right? And chinese are perfect. One can have all
the good stuff without all that guilt.
Right?
"I believe in the power, and the resurrection of Khan" Mongol 1:87
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
go...@ij.net
Pragmatic-Egoist-Nihlist-Phlegmatic treatise:
All outside myself is nothing.
All life is suffering for those worse off than me.
I always get anything I want. But not everything I want.
My way is no way (No points to defend).
You are nothing. I am everything. Pain is pleasure.
I'm happy as long as i'm right, no matter what the issue.
Pain is pleasure. Pleasure is pain.
Hate is love. Love is hate. Love backwards is evoL.
Its not arrogance when your always right.
EXACTLY! It isn't! I don't know! I'm confused! SOMEONE HELP PLEASE!!
Umm.... let's try:
The void is total and complete - there is nothing which it excludes or
opposes.
The ability to describe the world emanates from the void - "The nameless is
the source of the named".
Attachments to descriptions of the world come from another source (WHERE?!)
and create illusions.
Returning to the source, we release our attachments and become alive, fluid
and at One with the Universe again.
Help appreciated!
Cheers,
Paul.
>> >> Nothing is absoulte.
>> >
>> >Except the Tao?
>>
>> then how is not-Tao possible?
>
>EXACTLY! It isn't! I don't know! I'm confused! SOMEONE HELP PLEASE!!
perhaps it's semantics.
perhaps more than one level exists
from which to view this\that.
>Umm.... let's try:
>
>The void is total and complete - there is nothing which it excludes or
>opposes.
perhaps Tao is not the same as the void.
many people say Tao is yu (Being), or wan-wu (10k);
yet some say nay.
some say Tao is wu (Nonbeing);
some say wu and yu are the same.
some say two-sides of One thing\non/thingy.
wordswords? pointless-points?
>The ability to describe the world emanates from the void - "The nameless is
>the source of the named".
perhaps Tao includes
both wu-ming (nameless) and yu-ming (named).
perhaps the Tao Te Ching was a compilation
which drew from many sources over time.
thus; con-fuse-ions arise
>Attachments to descriptions of the world come from another source (WHERE?!)
from desire\clinging?
What translation of what are you using?
>and create illusions.
in a manner of speaking,
sew-two speak.
>Returning to the source, we release our attachments and become alive, fluid
>and at One with the Universe again.
methinks this revolves around naming and not-naming.
Tao may connote Teaching\Method\Way.
A direction is indicated. Robbery is not-Tao.
Being in the prime is not-Tao.
from another level, yes
Tao is within all things. Tao is within the failure of Tao.
Tao is within the loss\obscurity of Tao.
Tao as a thing waxes and wanes
it wanes and it waxes
while it remains
in the dark unseen.
Ch'eng Hsuan-ying says, "The true Tao exists
and yet does not exist. It dos not exist and yet
it does not not exist."
-at times
Tao may connote Teaching\Method\Way.
A direction is indicated. Robbery is not-Tao.
Being in the prime is not-Tao.
from another level, yes
Tao is within all things. Tao is within the failure of Tao.
Tao is within the loss\obscurity of Tao.
Tao as a thing waxes and wanes
it wanes and it waxes
while it remains
in the dark unseen.
Ch'eng Hsuan-ying says, "The true Tao exists
and yet does not exist. It dos not exist and yet
it does not not exist."
-at times (jay)
--------------------------------------------------
Well put imso.......
& perhaps as a given you also ment
knowing & not knowing
and not capable of knowing
and not knowing if yer not knowing...
and if this thing we call tao
is forced to be that which we call all....
a box is built
which then resides somewhere
else...
:-) tl
>Well put imso.......
>& perhaps as a given you also ment
>knowing & not knowing
>and not capable of knowing
>and not knowing if yer not knowing...
>and if this thing we call tao
>is forced to be that which we call all....
>a box is built
>which then resides somewhere
>else...
>
>:-) tl
my my my
how very sage-like!
have a nice day.
have a nice day.(lisa)
--------------------------------------
Why thank you lisa!
Still building those boxes i see......
That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
Cheers! tl
>Why thank you lisa!
>Still building those boxes i see......
What boxes would those be?
>
>That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
Cats...curiosity....
I'm curious as to the thought processes leading to your reminding.
I'm also curious if you're this vicious with your friends and family members;
or is a.p.t. and its participants the sole recipients?
>
>Cheers! tl
>
Can I have it tested for poison first?
rgds,
lisa
>Why thank you lisa!
>Still building those boxes i see......
What boxes would those be?(lisa)
You really don't see do you? (TL)
>
>That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
Cats...curiosity....
I'm curious as to the thought processes leading to your reminding.(lisa)
You know.. but choose to pretend. I bet you think i'm a fool. (TL)
I'm also curious if you're this vicious with your friends and family members;
or is a.p.t. and its participants the sole recipients? (lisa)
You speaking for others again?
In your eyes i will be anything you choose. go for it.
In a way it makes you God. You can color everything.
I'm fine with that.. Go for it.
I will even play along at times... I support yer rite to make me an asshole,
vicious..whatever..
Funny thing about Wars & Battles. So many different ways to participate. Some
even pretend to be non players.
But the Dark Hateful light shines through and is quite transparent.
But it does seem some are having to fight their own battles these days.. Thats
too bad.. perhaps "they" will find another sucker to play junkyard dog.. :-)
I could give you some advise on that as it really is my speciality. Getting
others to do yer dirty work is so much more efficient and you never even get
your hands dirty.
But in the end the pile of corpses lie their with yer name on them. Not a
pleasant sight.
But we can pretend to be non participants.
TL
Will you please try to answer my question?
>>
>>That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
>
>Cats...curiosity....
>
>I'm curious as to the thought processes leading to your reminding.(lisa)
>
>You know.. but choose to pretend.
No, I don't. You are the only one with your thought processes. I'm trying to
understand what makes you tick.
>I bet you think i'm a fool. (TL)
Why do you think that?
>I'm also curious if you're this vicious with your friends and family members;
>or is a.p.t. and its participants the sole recipients? (lisa)
>
>You speaking for others again?
I'm speaking for myself. I observe you and a.p.t.'s participants.
>In your eyes i will be anything you choose. go for it.
Trying to understand your motivation. Do you want to be attacked?
>In a way it makes you God. You can color everything.
To many, each person is their own god. If it is not so for you, who is yours?
>I'm fine with that.. Go for it.
>I will even play along at times... I support yer rite to make me an asshole,
>vicious..whatever..
I make you nothing.
>
>Funny thing about Wars & Battles. So many different ways to participate. Some
>even pretend to be non players.
Who would that be?
>But the Dark Hateful light shines through and is quite transparent.
What light is that?
>
>But it does seem some are having to fight their own battles these days..
>Thats
>too bad.. perhaps "they" will find another sucker to play junkyard dog.. :-)
You seem to have some kind of a conspiracy set up for at least more than one of
the a.p.t. folks. Do you feel you are outside of any conspiracy? Do you stand
solo in these interactions going on here?
Does the idea of community bother you in some way?
>I could give you some advise on that as it really is my speciality. Getting
>others to do yer dirty work is so much more efficient and you never even get
>your hands dirty.
What dirty work are you talking about?
>
>But in the end the pile of corpses lie their with yer name on them. Not a
>pleasant sight.
Where are the corpses?
>But we can pretend to be non participants.
>
hmmmm......
Will you please try to answer my question? (lisa)
You answer it yourself. I will not waste my time.
I would suggest you look at your adjenda. I would also suggest that you look at
what I was before I switched sides. :-) Now & then was boxes.
>>
>>That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
>
>Cats...curiosity....
>
>I'm curious as to the thought processes leading to your reminding.(lisa)
>
>You know.. but choose to pretend.
No, I don't. You are the only one with your thought processes. I'm trying to
understand what makes you tick. (Lisa)
Why? Best perhaps not to go there? By understanding the Lid is nailed on the
Box.
>I bet you think i'm a fool. (TL)
Why do you think that? (lisa)
Actually a guess... I'm not sure.. nor does it matter.
>I'm also curious if you're this vicious with your friends and family members;
>or is a.p.t. and its participants the sole recipients? (lisa)
>
>You speaking for others again?
I'm speaking for myself. I observe you and a.p.t.'s participants.(lisa)
And does your adjenda play a part in this decision?
Is the air a bit clearer now? Not quite the stench of the 2 years past? Have
the reds & commies taken us over?
Strange how ones being/behavior is reflected by if we agree with their actions.
When we were pals & had mutual enemies my actions were fine. But now that i
live in the seedy side of town.... :-)
>In your eyes i will be anything you choose. go for it.
Trying to understand your motivation. Do you want to be attacked? (lisa)
Sometimes yes... I do troll a bit,,, the fishing is fine this time of the year.
From your actions I would say you enjoy the fishing too.... or are you going to
claim you didn't start this with me? careful with your answer Lisa... Deja has
documentation.... Starting with your remark about me switching sides &
protecting Esther. Your innocence is of question here sweetie.
I have no problem with it but please spare me the con games..... or at least
mask them a bit .
>In a way it makes you God. You can color everything.
To many, each person is their own god. If it is not so for you, who is
yours?(lisa)
actually Jesus & Oden on sundays...I also have the Deveil to thank on
wednesdays but thursdays I'm a devote Athiest.
>I'm fine with that.. Go for it.
>I will even play along at times... I support yer rite to make me an asshole,
>vicious..whatever..
I make you nothing. (lisa)
Yea right..... and yer still not happy...now to want to figure me out... and
then understand me.... jeez give me a break....ok?
>
>Funny thing about Wars & Battles. So many different ways to participate. Some
>even pretend to be non players.
Who would that be? (lisa)
Oh.... let me think.......
>But the Dark Hateful light shines through and is quite transparent.
What light is that? (lisa)
look in the mirror.... :-)
>
>But it does seem some are having to fight their own battles these days..
>Thats
>too bad.. perhaps "they" will find another sucker to play junkyard dog.. :-)
You seem to have some kind of a conspiracy set up for at least more than one of
the a.p.t. folks. Do you feel you are outside of any conspiracy? Do you stand
solo in these interactions going on here? (lisa)
no.. and the only conspiracy is fear on the part of a few here. Thats your
trip remember..... I don't give people that much credit. Don't ask me to
repeat private conversations you made, because i will not.
Does the idea of community bother you in some way? (lisa)
Yes in some ways it does & i have expressed that many times here. If the
community becomes a Prison camp.....
TL
Why all the effort to describe what the Tao is since when you can describe
it , that isn't it. Rgds Ken ( Just a little smart arseing to stir the
pot"
Switched from what to what?
>
>>>
>>>That reminds me... i need to kick the shit out of that cat next door...
>>
>>Cats...curiosity....
>>
>>I'm curious as to the thought processes leading to your reminding.(lisa)
>>
>>You know.. but choose to pretend.
>
>No, I don't. You are the only one with your thought processes. I'm trying
>to
>understand what makes you tick. (Lisa)
>
>Why? Best perhaps not to go there?
Why not?
By understanding the Lid is nailed on the
>Box.
By not, the lid remains unlifted. Why don't you want me to see the real you?
>>I bet you think i'm a fool. (TL)
>
>Why do you think that? (lisa)
>
>Actually a guess... I'm not sure.. nor does it matter.
>
Why did you say it?
>>I'm also curious if you're this vicious with your friends and family
>members;
>>or is a.p.t. and its participants the sole recipients? (lisa)
>>
>>You speaking for others again?
>
>I'm speaking for myself. I observe you and a.p.t.'s participants.(lisa)
>
>And does your adjenda play a part in this decision?
What is my agenda?
>Is the air a bit clearer now? Not quite the stench of the 2 years past? Have
>the reds & commies taken us over?
>
>Strange how ones being/behavior is reflected by if we agree with their
>actions.
>When we were pals & had mutual enemies my actions were fine.
What actions?
>But now that i
>live in the seedy side of town.... :-)
Where is that?
>>In your eyes i will be anything you choose. go for it.
>
>Trying to understand your motivation. Do you want to be attacked? (lisa)
>
>Sometimes yes... I do troll a bit,,, the fishing is fine this time of the
>year.
What are looking for on your trolls?
>From your actions I would say you enjoy the fishing too.... or are you going
>to
>claim you didn't start this with me? careful with your answer Lisa... Deja
>has
>documentation.... Starting with your remark about me switching sides &
>protecting Esther. Your innocence is of question here sweetie.
Please post anything you can find. I want to see what you're seeing.
>
>I have no problem with it but please spare me the con games..... or at least
>mask them a bit .
>
>>In a way it makes you God. You can color everything.
>
>To many, each person is their own god. If it is not so for you, who is
>yours?(lisa)
>
>actually Jesus & Oden on sundays...I also have the Deveil to thank on
>wednesdays but thursdays I'm a devote Athiest.
>
>>I'm fine with that.. Go for it.
>>I will even play along at times... I support yer rite to make me an asshole,
>>vicious..whatever..
>
>I make you nothing. (lisa)
>
>Yea right..... and yer still not happy...now to want to figure me out... and
>then understand me.... jeez give me a break....ok?
What would my reasons be for otherwise?
>>
>>Funny thing about Wars & Battles. So many different ways to participate.
>Some
>>even pretend to be non players.
>
>Who would that be? (lisa)
>
>Oh.... let me think.......
>
>>But the Dark Hateful light shines through and is quite transparent.
>
>What light is that? (lisa)
>
>look in the mirror.... :-)
>
>>
>>But it does seem some are having to fight their own battles these days..
>>Thats
>>too bad.. perhaps "they" will find another sucker to play junkyard dog..
>:-)
>
>You seem to have some kind of a conspiracy set up for at least more than one
>of
>the a.p.t. folks. Do you feel you are outside of any conspiracy? Do you
>stand
>solo in these interactions going on here? (lisa)
>
>no.. and the only conspiracy is fear on the part of a few here. Thats your
>trip remember..... I don't give people that much credit. Don't ask me to
>repeat private conversations you made, because i will not.
LOL
By not, the lid remains unlifted. Why don't you want me to see the real you?
(lisa)
Interesting way to look at things lisa....
Putting data together to understand the whole
What you see in that box? Lots of things...
Who do they belong to? you or me?
The real me you see is created by you.
Another way would be to remove data & see whats left.
but then there might not be anything there....
or even perhaps you would find yourself?
my my my
how very sage like.....
TL
lol.
silly man.
get a room
(chuckle) tl
>Why all the effort
tis effortless-effort, in a Way
> to describe what the Tao is since when you can describe
>it , that isn't it.
cuz if we didn't say what it is
then we couldn't unlearn,
from whence we may
get too
what it isn't
> Rgds Ken ( Just a little smart arseing to stir the pot"
-aye
of knewt
{;-])))
Oh heck, snapped again. Bubble bubble. Regds Ken
I doubt that there's an end to enlightenment, so it makes no sense to
talk about "total" enlightenment. Any expansion of consciousness is an
enlightenment. For example, a moral person is enlightened when compared
to an immoral one.
>Is it that they are now learning openly to
>the greatest of their potential?
I think learning at a higher rate is certainly a measure of
enlightenment, but it isn't the only criterion.
>What sort of knowledge of reality
>emerges?
I can only speak to the level I'm on and below, but can speculate about
the next level up. Here are some of the insights that on my level I've
had, but which on the next level I suspect are an everyday
understanding:
1. People are in more ways than not the same person. In other words, we
have more qualities in common than we realize. When I hurt you, I hurt
myself. You are just me with a different life experience. There are
all kinds of implications for human behavior given this understanding.
2. Our thoughts and feelings are more real (or more important) than the
physical world in which we live. Psychologists analyze a person's
behavior and figure out what family-of-origin issues the person is
trying to work out by everything he does. An enlightened person would
easily perceive these motivations in the behavior of the people around
him. He would see everything a person does as having a psychological
and emotional motivation, and respond to it accordingly.
In addition to particular insights, an enlightened person would:
1. Have very little emotional baggage.
2. Take care of his body. For example, an enlightened person would
never be overweight.
>Would they
>have any preferences in taste in music?
Probably they'd only be interested in music written by other enlightened
masters. Anything else would be boring.
>>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and
>>absolute
>>truth, what does this mean?
>
>I doubt that there's an end to enlightenment, so it makes no sense to
>talk about "total" enlightenment.
th'airs th'at speck in Te corner.
>In addition to particular insights, an enlightened person would:
>...
>2. Take care of his body. For example, an enlightened person would
>never be overweight.
so much for Yogananda?
he was a dweeb anyway.
are enlightened people hung-up
on size and shape and weight?
does health and life and death matter that much?
sounds like a klesha two-me. mebbe knot.
didn't Pu-tai carry an extra pound or too?
Why is Buddha fat?
>>Would they
>>have any preferences in taste in music?
>
>Probably they'd only be interested in music written by other enlightened
>masters. Anything else would be boring.
enlightened masters' top ten hits!
they hit-without-hitting.
not sold in stores.
mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7kdtrq$mgt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and
>>absolute
>>truth, what does this mean?
>
>I doubt that there's an end to enlightenment, so it makes no sense to
>talk about "total" enlightenment. Any expansion of consciousness is an
>enlightenment. For example, a moral person is enlightened when compared
>to an immoral one.
>
>>Is it that they are now learning openly to
>>the greatest of their potential?
>
>I think learning at a higher rate is certainly a measure of
>enlightenment, but it isn't the only criterion.
>
>>What sort of knowledge of reality
>>emerges?
>
>I can only speak to the level I'm on and below, but can speculate about
>the next level up. Here are some of the insights that on my level I've
>had, but which on the next level I suspect are an everyday
>understanding:
>
>1. People are in more ways than not the same person. In other words, we
>have more qualities in common than we realize. When I hurt you, I hurt
>myself. You are just me with a different life experience. There are
>all kinds of implications for human behavior given this understanding.
>
>2. Our thoughts and feelings are more real (or more important) than the
>physical world in which we live. Psychologists analyze a person's
>behavior and figure out what family-of-origin issues the person is
>trying to work out by everything he does. An enlightened person would
>easily perceive these motivations in the behavior of the people around
>him. He would see everything a person does as having a psychological
>and emotional motivation, and respond to it accordingly.
>
>In addition to particular insights, an enlightened person would:
>
>1. Have very little emotional baggage.
>
>2. Take care of his body. For example, an enlightened person would
>never be overweight.
>
>>Would they
>>have any preferences in taste in music?
>
>Probably they'd only be interested in music written by other enlightened
>masters. Anything else would be boring.
>
>
Omnivore wrote:
> I like your observations.
> I wonder about your conclusions.
Yes, ditto.
Chogyam Trungpa was already a bit chubby when he showed up to give a lecture
on enlightenment at U of Toronto circa 1972. He came on stage with a cigarette
in one hand and a beer in the other. Then he said (roughly)~"These things have
nothing to do with it."
Makes one wonder..
--lawrence
lol! On the surface what you say seems so simple, but it's deep! very deep!
forgive the quick rambling...
i think about the maimed creatures in chuang tzu's stories...is it so
far-fetched to believe that a club-footed man could have many women falling at
his feet, wanting to be his concubine over being someone's wife (ct story)....
i haven't read trungpa but he has been recommended to me by at least a few
people.... is it possible that he, despite his overweightness, drinking, and
smoking, had nonetheless learned to "strike plaster from another's nose without
touching the nose"? i've known sages--and know sages--who were/are seriously
"messed up" yet their sight is burning! i bow to the club-footed man and the
plaster striker.
fond regards,
lisa
lisa wrote:
I guess Chogyam Trungpa would qualify as both enlightened and seriously messed up.
Sort of a Tibetan Jack Kerouac. Eventually his group dissolved in an AIDS scandal,
which also killed him. The lower ranks were extremely disciplined and the upper
extremely
licentious. I read two of his books. The first was autobiographical, called maybe
'Escape from Tibet' about the flight with refugees when the Chinese invaded.
Very dramatic and well written. (He went first to England and got a degree in
psychology.) The other was 'Meditation in Action' which was sort of a summary of
essential Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps in a bit of a warning he illustrates
'Transmission'
with the master-pupil relationship of Tilopa and Naropa. Tilopa is an utter
scoundrel and Naropa takes 15 years of abuse before getting enlightened one day as
he is being slapped in the face with a sandal (!).
Also lucid for my understanding of Tibetan stuff was
'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' by Lama Govinda
who I later learned was actually German. Totally weird was Lobsang Rampa
who had pioneered the field National Enquirer style. His books sold in drugstore
paperback racks and had lurid covers and titles like 'The Third Eye'.
His account of his own escape from Tibet was astral enough to stretch anyone's
credulity.
Exploring in the bardo he discovered an illiterate Irish alcoholic who was just
about to commit suicide. Oh, if you don't want that body anymore may I have it?
Like a scene from 'The Matrix' suddenly Lobsang is in Dublin churning out
book after book. English skeptical investigator Colin Wilson explored the
history detective style while researching 'The Occult' and couldn't crack it,
however
that doesn't necessarily make it true: because of the anti-communist angle
it may have been British intelligence planting propaganda.
Anyways nowadays things are a lot easier,
the Dalai Lama himself writes in English, and no scoundrel he.
rgds,
-l
lawrence day wrote in message <376CE0B9...@pathcom.com>...
I like it!! :)
Paul.
well, that all depends . . . goes the theory thus: high tulkus
(reincarnating lamas) tend to manifest themselves in the form most
likely to "reach"/"get through to" their students and consequently
often reflect the nature of their students. a great many of trungpa
rinpoche's students were abusers of alcohol and other substances ere
they e'er met rinpoche. ergo....
and then there's the notion of: how would we *know* for sure the
difference between someone who was "seriously messed up" (i.e., who
violated our sensibilities and notions of propriety)? trungpa rinpoche
was a primary example of the tibetan "crazy wisdom" tradition, in which
enlightened beings f*** with your head and with conventional norms
precisely because they *are* enlightened and see through these norms'
artificiality. to my mind, this is more than slightly analogous to
nutty eccentric taoists tweaking confucian rites and manners....
except it may be a bit more proactive in trying to challenge folks to
overcome their prisons of Received Wisdom and Absolute Morality.
one of my favorite stories of recent lamas is of a certain gelugpa lama
(the gelug tradition is, stereotypically, considered the more
"straightlaced", bookish tradition in tibetan buddhism; trungpa
rinpoche was instead a kagyu and nyingma lineage holder, which
traditions are much more "freewheeling"). this gelugpa lama lives in a
reestablished monastery in northern india, attached to which is a
tibetan refugee settlement along a river. the lama -- despite being an
ordained monk who has vowed to abstain from alcohol completely -- is
rather fond of chang, a tibetan alcoholic beverage. routinely he sits
in a chang shop in the refugee settlement and spends the day getting
snockered. one day a young monk from his monastery came along and saw
this and started berating the lama for breaking his vows, for bringing
shame upon their monastery, and upon the gelug tradition, and upon
buddhism, etc etc. the lama listened for a bit, then dumped out the
remaining chang in his cup. gathering his robes about him, he left the
chang shop and headed into the settlement, the monk following him and
chastising him along the way. when they reached the river, he headed
down to a spot downstream from the settlement -- a spot just downstream
from where the villagers dumped all their excrement and urine. dipping
his cup into the river, the lama filled it and put it to his lips and
downed the entire cup. then he turned to the young monk and said:
"when you can do that, you can tell me not to drink chang".
this is a tibetan buddhist story, but i think it expresses as well an
important lesson about implementing taoist principles and
realisations. as many have said about the taoist texts (using a chan
metaphor?), when you reach the other side of the river, discard the
boat.
so i don't think trungpa rinpoche was simply (?!) "enlightened and
seriously messed up", as if these were 2 different things. i think he
manifested what appeared to conventional eyes to be "seriously messed
up" behaviour *because* he was enlightened and because that enabled him
to understand and be understood by his students and because it
challenged the rigid boxes of "this is proper behaviour"/"that is
improper behaviour".
but the proof is in the pudding, i.e., in the final analysis of: did
trungpa rinpoche help more beings or hurt more beings through his
approach/behaviour? which is why there are a couple of facts that need
to be set straight:
> Sort of a Tibetan Jack Kerouac. Eventually his group dissolved in an
AIDS scandal,
> which also killed him.
no, no, no. first off, his "group" is quite alive and thriving and
remains one of the major forces in tibetan buddhism in the west: the
shambhala centers, which include "three gates":
vajradhatu/dharmadhatu, an explicitly tibetan buddhist wing; shambhala
training, which takes buddhist meditation techniques and principles but
expresses them in a "secular" way that folks can combine with other
philosophies or religions; and a wing devoted to contemplative arts.
trungpa rinpoche's students assembled many books out of his teachings,
and i have yet to read one that was anything less than brilliant. so,
through the shambhala centers (now headed by his son, mipham rinpoche)
and his lasting legacy of teachings in books and on tape, trungpa
rinpoche continues to reshape minds and hearts all over the west. so
judging from the result, he musta been doing something right....
second, trungpa rinpoche did not die of AIDS. he died, apparently, of
his "vices" and of exhaustion, given the tremendous energy he continued
to put into his work. (heart attack, i believe i was told, but i'm not
sure.)
third, the AIDS scandal in the late 80s (*after* trungpa rinpoche had
already died) did profoundly shake the shambhala organisation, but it
did not dissolve and has emerged strong and vibrant. the scandal
revolved around not trungpa rinpoche but his appointed successor as
head of the organisation, the "vajra regent" osel tendzin (i believe
his western name was thomas rich?). osel was bisexual, apparently, and
contracted HIV, then had sex with a male student, who seroconverted and
in turn unknowingly passed HIV on to his wife or girlfriend. this is
all tragic enough, but apparently osel *knew* for some time that he was
HIV-positive and nonetheless continued having unprotected sex and not
telling his sex partners of his status. it seems osel thought that his
advanced spiritual realizations, plus tantric practices he was doing,
would be sufficient to protect all involved, and to ensure that he
himself never got sick. when the top lamas of the kagyu tradition
found out all of this, they emphasised that trungpa rinpoche himself
had observed that, while osel was highly accomplished spiritually, he
was not yet fully enlightened -- and they ordered him into retreat. he
was still "on retreat" when he died of AIDS, and the kagyu lamas
summoned mipham rinpoche to take over the leadership of his father's
organisation, which was rapidly imploding in the face of the scandal.
since then, though, mipham rinpoche has overseen shambhala's
flourishing.
> The lower ranks were extremely disciplined and the upper
> extremely
> licentious.
IMO, much too broadbrushed a summary.
> I read two of his books. The first was autobiographical, called maybe
> 'Escape from Tibet' about the flight with refugees when the Chinese
invaded.
> Very dramatic and well written. (He went first to England and got a
degree in
> psychology.) The other was 'Meditation in Action' which was sort of
a summary of
> essential Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps in a bit of a warning he
illustrates
> 'Transmission'
> with the master-pupil relationship of Tilopa and Naropa. Tilopa is an
utter
> scoundrel and Naropa takes 15 years of abuse before getting
enlightened one day as
> he is being slapped in the face with a sandal (!).
which today might well prompt a lawsuit.
> Also lucid for my understanding of Tibetan stuff was
> 'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' by Lama Govinda
> who I later learned was actually German. Totally weird was Lobsang
Rampa
> who had pioneered the field National Enquirer style. His books sold
in drugstore
> paperback racks and had lurid covers and titles like 'The Third Eye'.
> His account of his own escape from Tibet was astral enough to stretch
anyone's
> credulity.
> Exploring in the bardo he discovered an illiterate Irish alcoholic
who was just
> about to commit suicide. Oh, if you don't want that body anymore may
I have it?
> Like a scene from 'The Matrix' suddenly Lobsang is in Dublin churning
out
> book after book.
lobsang rampa was a complete fraud, a plumber who thoroughly
misunderstood what he read about tibetan buddhism in the local library,
and simply made up the rest.
if he were still around, he no doubt would be on USENET and be a
newsgroup star!
> English skeptical investigator Colin Wilson explored the
> history detective style while researching 'The Occult' and couldn't
crack it,
> however
> that doesn't necessarily make it true: because of the anti-communist
angle
> it may have been British intelligence planting propaganda.
> Anyways nowadays things are a lot easier,
> the Dalai Lama himself writes in English, and no scoundrel he.
>
> rgds,
> -l
best,
chino
chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
Yes, this is what the I Ching said. In the explication of 788797~~"...The
illness is innocently incurred because this ...represents a person by
nature free of illness; that he appears ill comes from his taking the
illness of others upon himself. His central, correct and ruling position
predisposes him to allow the ills of others, vicariously taken on himself,
to work themselves out in him." (W/B, p. 513)
> and then there's the notion of: how would we *know* for sure the
> difference between someone who was "seriously messed up" (i.e., who
> violated our sensibilities and notions of propriety)? trungpa rinpoche
> was a primary example of the tibetan "crazy wisdom" tradition, in which
> enlightened beings f*** with your head and with conventional norms
> precisely because they *are* enlightened and see through these norms'
> artificiality. to my mind, this is more than slightly analogous to
> nutty eccentric taoists<--
:-)
Yes, that makes sense.
The twist on the metaphor I heard was that Taoists didn't bother crossing
over; they just got midstream and then went with the flow.
> so i don't think trungpa rinpoche was simply (?!) "enlightened and
> seriously messed up", as if these were 2 different things. i think he
> manifested what appeared to conventional eyes to be "seriously messed
> up" behaviour *because* he was enlightened and because that enabled him
> to understand and be understood by his students and because it
> challenged the rigid boxes of "this is proper behaviour"/"that is
> improper behaviour".
Makes sense.
>
>
> but the proof is in the pudding, i.e., in the final analysis of: did
> trungpa rinpoche help more beings or hurt more beings through his
> approach/behaviour? which is why there are a couple of facts that need
> to be set straight:
>
> > Sort of a Tibetan Jack Kerouac. Eventually his group dissolved in an
> AIDS scandal,
> > which also killed him.
>
> no, no, no. first off, his "group" is quite alive and thriving and
> remains one of the major forces in tibetan buddhism in the west: the
> shambhala centers, which include "three gates":
> vajradhatu/dharmadhatu, an explicitly tibetan buddhist wing; shambhala
> training, which takes buddhist meditation techniques and principles but
> expresses them in a "secular" way that folks can combine with other
> philosophies or religions; and a wing devoted to contemplative arts.
> trungpa rinpoche's students assembled many books out of his teachings,
> and i have yet to read one that was anything less than brilliant. so,
> through the shambhala centers (now headed by his son, mipham rinpoche)<--
So Tibetan Buddhist monks don't have to be celibate!? Interesting.
>
> and his lasting legacy of teachings in books and on tape, trungpa
> rinpoche continues to reshape minds and hearts all over the west. so
> judging from the result, he musta been doing something right....
>
> second, trungpa rinpoche did not die of AIDS. he died, apparently, of
> his "vices" and of exhaustion, given the tremendous energy he continued
> to put into his work. (heart attack, i believe i was told, but i'm not
> sure.)
There is an 'expose' book written by a disgruntled ex-pupil. I forget what
it's called.
Maybe it is not true. Also, because of the China-Tibet conflict there is
always the danger of propaganda masquerading as history.
> third, the AIDS scandal in the late 80s (*after* trungpa rinpoche had
> already died) did profoundly shake the shambhala organisation, but it
> did not dissolve and has emerged strong and vibrant. the scandal
> revolved around not trungpa rinpoche but his appointed successor as
> head of the organisation, the "vajra regent" osel tendzin (i believe
> his western name was thomas rich?). osel was bisexual, apparently, and
> contracted HIV, then had sex with a male student, who seroconverted and
> in turn unknowingly passed HIV on to his wife or girlfriend. this is
> all tragic enough, but apparently osel *knew* for some time that he was
> HIV-positive and nonetheless continued having unprotected sex and not
> telling his sex partners of his status. it seems osel thought that his
> advanced spiritual realizations, plus tantric practices he was doing,
> would be sufficient to protect all involved, and to ensure that he
> himself never got sick. when the top lamas of the kagyu tradition
> found out all of this, they emphasised that trungpa rinpoche himself
> had observed that, while osel was highly accomplished spiritually, he
> was not yet fully enlightened -- and they ordered him into retreat. he
> was still "on retreat" when he died of AIDS, and the kagyu lamas
> summoned mipham rinpoche to take over the leadership of his father's
> organisation, which was rapidly imploding in the face of the scandal.
> since then, though, mipham rinpoche has overseen shambhala's
> flourishing.
Thanks for the details.
> > The lower ranks were extremely disciplined and the upper
> > extremely
> > licentious.
>
> IMO, much too broadbrushed a summary.
Yes. In fact I was thinking only of the Nova Scotia group, not realizing
all the others.
Perhaps he was a front man for someone who didn't want to be known?
Wilson checked out the plumber&library possibilty, but still found
inexplicables.
Of course I'm not recommending reading it. I only read one, and I was about
13.
> > English skeptical investigator Colin Wilson explored the
> > history detective style while researching 'The Occult' and couldn't
> crack it,
> > however
> > that doesn't necessarily make it true: because of the anti-communist
> angle
> > it may have been British intelligence planting propaganda.
> > Anyways nowadays things are a lot easier,
> > the Dalai Lama himself writes in English, and no scoundrel he.
> >
> > rgds,
> > -l
>
> best,
> chino
tx for the info!
--lawrence
of course, in tibetan buddhism one cannot exactly take upon oneself the
karma of others and work it out for them per se. but one can model how
folks with problems nonetheless have buddha nature themselves and are
capable of enlightenment, and what an "enlightened drunkard" might look
like. and a tulku can, in theory, intentionally create circumstances
which would bring to the fore certain karma of another individual in
such a way that that karma can/must be addressed more immediately, and
it "ripens" in a more benign way than it otherwise might have, and so
is easier for the individual to work with and resolve.
is that wilhelm you're quoting? i'm curious to see how the original
chinese reads, as perhaps the original text may be more amenable to
tibetan buddhism's idea that one cannot directly take on the karma of
another (a la jesus christ?) but can nonetheless indirectly maneuver
that individual into working out their own karma. does anyone have
other translations of this passage? meanwhile, i'll try to find my
chinese version in storage. personally, i find fascinating the
implications of the passage you quote, although not certain that it's
compatible per se with tibetan buddhism, if in fact it is stating that
one individual can vicariously take on the "ills of others".
> > and then there's the notion of: how would we *know* for sure the
> > difference between someone who was "seriously messed up" (i.e., who
> > violated our sensibilities and notions of propriety)? trungpa
rinpoche
> > was a primary example of the tibetan "crazy wisdom" tradition, in
which
> > enlightened beings f*** with your head and with conventional norms
> > precisely because they *are* enlightened and see through these
norms'
> > artificiality. to my mind, this is more than slightly analogous to
> > nutty eccentric taoists<--
>
> :-)
he he he . . .
:-)!!! rotflol... have not heard that one before!
> > so i don't think trungpa rinpoche was simply (?!) "enlightened and
> > seriously messed up", as if these were 2 different things. i think
he
> > manifested what appeared to conventional eyes to be "seriously
messed
> > up" behaviour *because* he was enlightened and because that enabled
him
> > to understand and be understood by his students and because it
> > challenged the rigid boxes of "this is proper behaviour"/"that is
> > improper behaviour".
>
> Makes sense.
*and* non-sense!
well, hmm... actually, they *do* have to be celibate, but trungpa
rinpoche "gave back his robes" and become a lay person again while he
was in the west, at the start of his shambhala period. in fact, he
married a westerner, diana mukpo (mukpo was rinpoche's family village
in tibet), and they remained married until he died.
now, tibetan lamas can be either ordained monks/nuns, or they can be
laypeople/"householders", or they can be ngakpas/ngakmas (tantric
yogis/yoginis who *must* take a consort, wear their hair long and
uncut, unlike the shaved-headed monastics, etc.) "lama" just means
teacher/guru. a tulku (reincarnated/reincarnating lama) like trungpa
rinpoche ("rinpoche" means "precious one" and is a title of respect for
tulkus) remains a tulku and a lama regardless of marital or ordination
status.
so, trungpa rinpoche having a son isn't a big deal. what *is* strange
to me, and that i don't know the scoop on, is that his son is not from
his marriage with diana mukpo but rather was born around 1962 or so,
back in india, well before (i believe) he returned his robes. (his
son's mother is/was a tibetan noblewoman, i believe.) i've never seen
this seeming bizarreness addressed; it would appear that perhaps he
broke his monastic vow of celibacy in fathering mipham rinpoche. but
dunno, maybe he had given robes back already, then took them up again
later, then again disrobed in the west. (one is permitted to go back
and forth between ordained and lay status 3 times.)
anyway, i'm now squarely off-topic for APT, but wanted to address the
factual question you raised.
> > and his lasting legacy of teachings in books and on tape, trungpa
> > rinpoche continues to reshape minds and hearts all over the west.
so
> > judging from the result, he musta been doing something right....
> >
> > second, trungpa rinpoche did not die of AIDS. he died, apparently,
of
> > his "vices" and of exhaustion, given the tremendous energy he
continued
> > to put into his work. (heart attack, i believe i was told, but i'm
not
> > sure.)
>
> There is an 'expose' book written by a disgruntled ex-pupil. I forget
what
> it's called.
not familiar with it. would be curious to read it, although most
shambhala folks tend on their own to be pretty forthcoming about
scandals and perceived scandals in their organisation's and founder's
past.
> Maybe it is not true. Also, because of the China-Tibet conflict there
is
> always the danger of propaganda masquerading as history.
this is very much true, and is believed to be evident even today in
such things as the NKT movement's attacks on HH the Dalai Lama, the
karma kagyu schism over the identification of the true incarnation of
HH the Karmapa, the PRC/Dalai Lama fight over the identification of the
true incarnation of HH the Panchen Lama, etc.
from what i understand, yes, even the halifax, nova scotia, branch (the
HQ of the organisation) has cleaned house and is thriving. (there's
also a wonderful nun there named pema chodron whose books are well
worth a read.)
if so, that person knew as little about tibet and tibetan buddhism as
tuesday lobsang rampa himself.
> Wilson checked out the plumber&library possibilty, but still found
> inexplicables.
> Of course I'm not recommending reading it. I only read one, and I was
about
> 13.
actually, a lot of western tibetan buddhists attribute their original
interest in the religion to TLR's books, and only realised as they went
down the path into more serious sources how terribly off TLR was. so i
suppose there's still a value to the TLR books.
just don't anyone go drilling holes in their foreheads to open up their
3rd eye! (BTW, one of the dead giveaways as to the inauthenticity of
the TLR books is/was the assertion that the lamas vehemently defended
the notion that God exists...)
best,
chino
Yes, the third book, the 'commentaries' , page 513 in the Bollingen
edition.
(W/B = Wilhelm/Baynes)
Lao Nai-hsuan/Wilhelm/Baynes have the original line translated via German to
English:
"Use no medicine in an illness
Incurred through no fault of your own.
It will pass of itself."
The Huang's classical Taoist version has the line:
"An unexpected illness
Needs no medicine to cure."
with their commentary:
"An illness or ill event brought about by your own willful misconduct
cannot be cured by medicine, but rather by a change of heart
and a subsequent change of behaviour."
The Buddhist version, Chih-hsu Ou-i (17th century) translated by Thomas
Cleary (with help from Lui I Ming) has:
"For sickness without error, do not use medicine--
there will be joy."
with commentary:
"The fifth yang is sane strength balanced correctly. Self-help is already
complete, so one acts compassionately for the benefit of others. It is no
longer necessary to use 'medicine' to cure oneself..."
The W/B commentary is most likely Confucian in origin, but seemed totally
applicable to the question about CT.
Uh, I notice I'm ambiguous.. which CT you may wonder. Chuang or Chogyam?
Slippery dudes those tulkus!
> i'm curious to see how the original
> chinese reads, as perhaps the original text may be more amenable to
> tibetan buddhism's idea that one cannot directly take on the karma of
> another (a la jesus christ?) but can nonetheless indirectly maneuver
> that individual into working out their own karma. does anyone have
> other translations of this passage? meanwhile, i'll try to find my
> chinese version in storage. personally, i find fascinating the
> implications of the passage you quote, although not certain that it's
> compatible per se with tibetan buddhism, if in fact it is stating that
> one individual can vicariously take on the "ills of others".
Maybe it is the ills of an age?
Surely to see how an enlightened dude would deal with the current probs
must be a benefit. It certainly does 'make one wonder'!
Medicine/pharmaceuticals/western capitalist morality is right there on the
cutting edge of modern civilisation. America's drug policy is a main chapter
in 20th century humanity. I see Chogyam Trungpa as 'enlightened' AND 'going
with the flow'.
> > > and then there's the notion of: how would we *know* for sure the
> > > difference between someone who was "seriously messed up" (i.e., who
> > > violated our sensibilities and notions of propriety)? trungpa
> rinpoche
> > > was a primary example of the tibetan "crazy wisdom" tradition, in
> which
> > > enlightened beings f*** with your head and with conventional norms
> > > precisely because they *are* enlightened and see through these
> norms'
> > > artificiality. to my mind, this is more than slightly analogous to
> > > nutty eccentric taoists<--
> >
> > :-)
>
> he he he . . .
>
> > > tweaking confucian rites and manners....
> > > except it may be a bit more proactive in trying to challenge folks
> to
> > > overcome their prisons of Received Wisdom and Absolute Morality.
> > >
> > > one of my favorite stories of recent lamas is of a certain gelugpa
> lama
> > > (the gelug tradition is, stereotypically, considered the more
> > > "straightlaced", bookish tradition in tibetan buddhism; trungpa
> > > rinpoche was instead a kagyu and nyingma lineage holder, which
> > > traditions are much more "freewheeling").<--
Ho, the beats and the squares.. There's human nature!
It's sort of Hui-neng via Chao-chou via Ned Ludd and explicating Lu Kuan Yu.
> > > so i don't think trungpa rinpoche was simply (?!) "enlightened and
> > > seriously messed up", as if these were 2 different things. i think
> he
> > > manifested what appeared to conventional eyes to be "seriously
> messed
> > > up" behaviour *because* he was enlightened and because that enabled
> him
> > > to understand and be understood by his students and because it
> > > challenged the rigid boxes of "this is proper behaviour"/"that is
> > > improper behaviour".
> >
> > Makes sense.
>
> *and* non-sense!
and zenze!
It sounds like the tranquil script that lasted a thousand years got torn up
for the new millenium. If Mao hadn't upset the balance maybe we in the west
would never have been exposed to these novel ideas? Assuming that the
universe unfolds as it should, there must be a positive value to balance
China's imperialism in Tibet. Here in Toronto we have Tibetan temples now,
that must be a positive, I deduce.
What was once 'for Tibet' is now for the world.
We are the beneficiaries it seems.
> now, tibetan lamas can be either ordained monks/nuns, or they can be
> laypeople/"householders", or they can be ngakpas/ngakmas (tantric
> yogis/yoginis who *must* take a consort, wear their hair long and
> uncut, unlike the shaved-headed monastics, etc.) "lama" just means
> teacher/guru. a tulku (reincarnated/reincarnating lama) like trungpa
> rinpoche ("rinpoche" means "precious one" and is a title of respect for
> tulkus) remains a tulku and a lama regardless of marital or ordination
> status.
>
> so, trungpa rinpoche having a son isn't a big deal. what *is* strange
> to me, and that i don't know the scoop on, is that his son is not from
> his marriage with diana mukpo but rather was born around 1962 or so,
> back in india, well before (i believe) he returned his robes. (his
> son's mother is/was a tibetan noblewoman, i believe.) i've never seen
> this seeming bizarreness addressed; it would appear that perhaps he
> broke his monastic vow of celibacy in fathering mipham rinpoche. but
> dunno, maybe he had given robes back already, then took them up again
> later, then again disrobed in the west. (one is permitted to go back
> and forth between ordained and lay status 3 times.)
Maybe, like Lin-chi in Ch'an, he didn't pay any attention to the 'rules'?
On the 'Beat Zen'- 'Square Zen' scales of Alan Watts Chogyam Trungpa seems
clearly 'beat'.
> anyway, i'm now squarely off-topic for APT, but wanted to address the
> factual question you raised.
Rick is off at the north pole setting ambushes for Mephistophiles,
and while the cat's away the mice may play.. ;-)
Nonetheless, your point is taken.
--lawrence
> > > and his lasting legacy of teachings in books and on tape, trungpa
> > > rinpoche continues to reshape minds and hearts all over the west.
> so
> > > judging from the result, he musta been doing something right....
(...)
No ambushes need be set. Wei-wu is a practice as well as a concept.
I think he was tired of being the bouncer anyway.
Rick is dead, let him rest in peace.
-passing brewskie
thru Te portal, chilled.
{:-])))
That would be a Budweiser from a bud wiser.
((([-:}
-R
You mean the war is over? Good for you.
"Tasty grapes wine reflects the star light;
Tempting to drink, yet, PiPa plays the battle call;
If I get drunk tonight, don't ridicule;
Ancient battles since, how many soldiers returned?"
I drink to that,
IS
>
> ((([-:}
> -R