Huang Po (Obaku)
Keynes
29.
Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours, since it was first transmitted,
it was never taught that men should seek for learning or form concepts.
'Studying the Way' is just a figure of speech. It is a method of arousing
people's interest in the early stages of their development. In fact, the Way
is not something that can be studied. Study leads to the retention of concepts
and so the Way is entirely misunderstood. Moreover, the Way is not something
specially existing; it is called the Mahayana Mind -- Mind which is not to be
found inside, outside or in the middle. Truly it is not located anywhere. The
first step is to refrain from knowledge-based concepts. This implies that if you
were to follow the empirical method to the utmost limit, on reaching that limit
you would still be unable to locate Mind. The Way is spiritual Truth and was
originally without name or title. It was only because people ignorantly sought
for it that the Buddhas appeared and taught them to eradicate this method
of approach. Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name
'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental
concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more
attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way
is reached and Mind is understood. A 'monk' is so-called because he
has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of
attaining the monk stage is gained by putting an end to all
anxiety; it does not come from book learning.
"The Zen Teaching of Huang Po (Obaku, Died 850) ,
On the Transmission on Mind"
Translated by John Blofeld.
Huang Po was second generation from Hui Neng (sixth patriarch)
and second generation leading to Lin Chi (Rinzai). This address is
apparently to taoists, since it uses the term 'Tao' (Way) and quotes
both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the two great lights of original taoism.
Huang Po was obviously not ignorant of taoist principles.
Anders Honoré
> Huang Po was second generation from Hui Neng (sixth patriarch)
> and second generation leading to Lin Chi (Rinzai).
Fourth generation, actually.
Huineng -> Nanyueh -> Mazu -> Baizhang -> Huangpo
> This address is
> apparently to taoists, since it uses the term 'Tao' (Way) and quotes
> both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the two great lights of original taoism.
> Huang Po was obviously not ignorant of taoist principles.
The word Tao is just a Chinese word meaning 'way'. It doesn't have any
exclusive taoist significance.
It's not surprising he was not ignorant of taoist principles, since
like most all literati of his time, he would have studied the chinese
classics earlier in his career. This is not terribly different from
people raised in the west who are familiar with christian principles,
even without receiving a christian upbringing or looking earlier, the
obvious greek influences of Christian thinkers.
The influence taoism had on Chan Buddhism was a linguistic and
cultural one though, not doctrinal.
{:-])))
> Fearing that nobody would understand,
Fearing?
> they selected the name
>'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental
>concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more
>attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way
>is reached and Mind is understood.
Reminds me of tttt's, "Dao is medicine not food."
Once the dis-ease is gone, the medicine is put up.
Those who aren't broken have no need of fixing.
> A 'monk' is so-called because he
>has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of
>attaining the monk stage is gained by putting an end to all
>anxiety; it does not come from book learning.
So says the book, eh.
I'd rather ponder Dao as water.
It's very refreshing and fun to swim in.
-splashing and laughing
Keynes
<................@.................> wrote:
>Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>>29.
>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>...
>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>
>Fearing?
>
Someone asked Lin Chi (Rinzai) "What was
Bodidharma's purpose in coming from india
to china?" This is a stock question from
beginners meaning, "What is buddhism, and
why should I care? And if I do care, what can
I do about it all? Teach me."
But Rinzai took the question literally and said,
"If Bodidharma had any purpose, he could not
even save himself!"
>> they selected the name
>>'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental
>>concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more
>>attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way
>>is reached and Mind is understood.
>
>Reminds me of tttt's, "Dao is medicine not food."
>Once the dis-ease is gone, the medicine is put up.
>Those who aren't broken have no need of fixing.
>
Can one be so broken as not to know he's sick?
Apparently so.
>> A 'monk' is so-called because he
>>has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of
>>attaining the monk stage is gained by putting an end to all
>>anxiety; it does not come from book learning.
>
>So says the book, eh.
>
Chan scorns the path of words and learning
as useless, favoring 'direct pointing'. (Whatever
that might mean.) Transmission of mind to mind
in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
received, then it's not the real thing.
>I'd rather ponder Dao as water.
>It's very refreshing and fun to swim in.
>
>-splashing and laughing
Huang Po used the term 'Mind' for the ultimate
rather than 'Dao'. Perhaps because mind is not
a substantial thing in time and space that one
might pin down, know, and define. Yet we all
have mind and rely on it, and are not totally
unfamiliar with it. It is not completely distant.
But he often confessed that Mind isn't really mind.
It's just a word. Huang Po was a teacher of thousands
of seekers. Although there's really nothing to say,
he had to say something and occasionally did.
So what does Jay say?
More beer, less talk?
(I think not.)
noname
>Perhaps because mind is not
>a substantial thing in time and space that one
>might pin down, know, and define. Yet we all
>have mind and rely on it, and are not totally
>unfamiliar with it. It is not completely distant.
Keynes, have I told you lately what a big dummy you are?
What makes you think we all rely on mind? I mean sure, we can rely on
it to be what it is, a little Murphy in our heads to be watched every
minute for its next betrayal. But other than that? Psah!
Big dummy. <g>
--
escaping harmony
{:-])))
> Jay wrote:
>>Keynes wrote:
>>>
>>>29.
>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>...
>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>>
>>Fearing?
>>
>
>Someone asked Lin Chi (Rinzai) "What was
>Bodidharma's purpose in coming from india
>to china?" This is a stock question from
>beginners meaning, "What is buddhism, and
>why should I care? And if I do care, what can
>I do about it all? Teach me."
>
>But Rinzai took the question literally and said,
>"If Bodidharma had any purpose, he could not
>even save himself!"
If he wanted to save somebody,
be it himself or somebody else,
that's kinda strange to me, inaway.
Having no purpose is cool.
If he had no purpose, then he had no purpose.
I didn't know Zen was out to save people.
>>> they selected the name
>>>'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental
>>>concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more
>>>attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way
>>>is reached and Mind is understood.
>>
>>Reminds me of tttt's, "Dao is medicine not food."
>>Once the dis-ease is gone, the medicine is put up.
>>Those who aren't broken have no need of fixing.
>>
>
>Can one be so broken as not to know he's sick?
>Apparently so.
I'd say most certainly.
One might be very broken or
just a little broken or in between
and be completely unaware of it.
Knowing that one is not sick,
that may be a sickness as well.
How well is well? How deep?
When the Way is reached
and Mind is understood,
one may or may not know stuff.
Knowing stuff, one may or may not share stuff.
Sharing stuff with so-called "others" strikes me
as a funny thing for One to be doing.
>>> A 'monk' is so-called because he
>>>has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of
>>>attaining the monk stage is gained by putting an end to all
>>>anxiety; it does not come from book learning.
>>
>>So says the book, eh.
>>
>
>Chan scorns the path of words and learning
>as useless, favoring 'direct pointing'. (Whatever
>that might mean.)
Books say lots of stuff.
Some books speak of words
and of not-books and scorning words and
of doing away with words and knowing.
>Transmission of mind to mind
>in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
>gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
>received, then it's not the real thing.
If there is nothing
then there is no real thing.
If there is only one, then there are
no others. In a blink, all links vanish.
Thoughts disappear, for a spell.
>>I'd rather ponder Dao as water.
>>It's very refreshing and fun to swim in.
>>
>>-splashing and laughing
>
>Huang Po used the term 'Mind' for the ultimate
>rather than 'Dao'. Perhaps because mind is not
>a substantial thing in time and space that one
>might pin down, know, and define. Yet we all
>have mind and rely on it, and are not totally
>unfamiliar with it. It is not completely distant.
I've lost one of mine from time to time.
>But he often confessed that Mind isn't really mind.
>It's just a word. Huang Po was a teacher of thousands
>of seekers. Although there's really nothing to say,
>he had to say something and occasionally did.
Some birds like to sing.
Song-birds they may be called.
Called, they may respond.
Some fly and sing at the same time.
Some sing of flying. Others simply fly.
>So what does Jay say?
>
>More beer, less talk?
>
>(I think not.)
Jay likes to think, and to compose.
Thinking about words, books, speech,
language, paradigms, world-views, and
writing, drawing maps, toying with figures
skating on thin ice, leaping out of the water.
Three unknowns come to Mind.
Tao is reached. Reach out and grab
some air, big air. Grasp water and
understand how it slips thru the fingers.
Basically, I think you and I think along
the same lines and streams and trains
of thought. We have different ways of
expressing our impressions.
We can joke and play and discuss.
Argue debate share and reframe.
Metaphors vary. All are partial.
We are birds chirping
while playing ping-pong.
-happy fish don't say much
Keynes
>Keynes wrote:
>> Jay wrote:
>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>29.
>>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>>...
>>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>>>
>>>Fearing?
>>>
>>
>>Someone asked Lin Chi (Rinzai) "What was
>>Bodidharma's purpose in coming from india
>>to china?" This is a stock question from
>>beginners meaning, "What is buddhism, and
>>why should I care? And if I do care, what can
>>I do about it all? Teach me."
>>
>>But Rinzai took the question literally and said,
>>"If Bodidharma had any purpose, he could not
>>even save himself!"
>
>If he wanted to save somebody,
>be it himself or somebody else,
>that's kinda strange to me, inaway.
>
The diamond sutra speaks of a bodisatva
saving all sentient beings from suffering,
but in that saving no beings are saved. Why?
Because a bodisatva who holds the notion
of a being or beings as truly existing is no
bodisatva. No self, no other than self.
>Having no purpose is cool.
>If he had no purpose, then he had no purpose.
>I didn't know Zen was out to save people.
>
Daoism pretends to teach extraordinary success,
beginning with success in worldly affairs and
going on beyond. Buddhism begins with the
four noble truths, that life as commonly lived
and understood is not sweet, and that there is
a way to sweeten it. Daoism speaks of success,
while buddhism speaks of liberation. In the end
all paths lead to the same place, but they begin
from different places, different desires, but the
same dissatisfaction. Maybe not so different?
>>>> they selected the name
>>>>'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental
>>>>concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more
>>>>attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way
>>>>is reached and Mind is understood.
>>>
>>>Reminds me of tttt's, "Dao is medicine not food."
>>>Once the dis-ease is gone, the medicine is put up.
>>>Those who aren't broken have no need of fixing.
>>>
>>
>>Can one be so broken as not to know he's sick?
>>Apparently so.
>
>I'd say most certainly.
>One might be very broken or
>just a little broken or in between
>and be completely unaware of it.
>
>Knowing that one is not sick,
>that may be a sickness as well.
>How well is well? How deep?
>
How Long is a chinaman?
Not asking needs no answer.
One nice feature of chan is that it insists on
non-abiding. No resting in any concept.
There is oneness and there is multiplicity.
Which is true? Both and neither. Can't be said.
Passing between the sharp horns of dualism,
right and wrong, good and bad, one or many,
is true passing. The Way that can be followed
is not the true Way.
Probably so.
>We can joke and play and discuss.
>Argue debate share and reframe.
>
>Metaphors vary. All are partial.
>
>We are birds chirping
>while playing ping-pong.
>
>-happy fish don't say much
Do tell. ;-)
Maybe they just make bubbles.
Keynes
Happy to see you.
john
> Keynes wrote:
>
> >Bodidharma's purpose in coming from india
> >to china?" This is a stock question from
> >beginners meaning, "What is buddhism, and
> >why should I care? And if I do care, what can
> >I do about it all? Teach me."
>
> >But Rinzai took the question literally and said,
> >"If Bodidharma had any purpose, he could not
> >even save himself!"
>
> If he wanted to save somebody,
> be it himself or somebody else,
> that's kinda strange to me, inaway.
>
> Having no purpose is cool.
> If he had no purpose, then he had no purpose.
> I didn't know Zen was out to save people.
>
>
> When the Way is reached
> and Mind is understood,
> one may or may not know stuff.
>
> Knowing stuff, one may or may not share stuff.
> Sharing stuff with so-called "others" strikes me
> as a funny thing for One to be doing.
>
While out walking a path in the foothills near the Mount of No Purpose
one day, Old Spontaneous passed a still pond. Looking into it, he
noticed someone looking back at him, with a cut on their cheek that
was bleeding and dirty. Without thinking, he reached up to his own
face and cleaned the wound.
> [...]
> Metaphors vary. All are partial.
>
Metaphorical interpretation involves (among other aspects)
representation and selection.
Selection involves a kind of partiality.
The stronger the selection component relative to the representation,
the larger the "partiality" of an interpretation.
The stronger the representation compared with the selection, the more
"open" the metaphor is for the interpreter.
Speaking of Zen, Koans are a bit about this: by allowing the
metaphorical representation to remain partially uninterpreted, the
interpretation tends to be less partial and more...representational.
noname
Is she still working at that strip joint in north hollywood?
--
when you can't remember what you sig-line means
it's time to change it.
{:-])))
> Jay wrote:
>> Keynes wrote:
>>> Jay wrote:
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>29.
>>>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>>>...
>>>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>>>>
>>>>Fearing?
>The diamond sutra speaks of a bodisatva
>saving all sentient beings from suffering,
>but in that saving no beings are saved. Why?
>Because a bodisatva who holds the notion
>of a being or beings as truly existing is no
>bodisatva. No self, no other than self.
Then why speak or write of it?
The diamond sutra, maybe it has facets.
Reminds me of a Steely Dan song tho.
>>Having no purpose is cool.
>>If he had no purpose, then he had no purpose.
>>I didn't know Zen was out to save people.
>>
>
>Daoism pretends to teach extraordinary success,
>beginning with success in worldly affairs and
>going on beyond. Buddhism begins with the
>four noble truths, that life as commonly lived
>and understood is not sweet, and that there is
>a way to sweeten it. Daoism speaks of success,
>while buddhism speaks of liberation. In the end
>all paths lead to the same place, but they begin
>from different places, different desires, but the
>same dissatisfaction. Maybe not so different?
Everything is different.
Everything is the same.
Everything is similar.
Everything is dissimilar.
Still, are there bodisattvas in Zen?
You mentioned some Zen doctrine
and how the dude had a fear.
Then you switched to a bodhisattva ideal.
I'm pondering another beer.
[...]
>>>Transmission of mind to mind
>>>in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
>>>gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
>>>received, then it's not the real thing.
>>
>>If there is nothing
>>then there is no real thing.
>>If there is only one, then there are
>>no others. In a blink, all links vanish.
>>Thoughts disappear, for a spell.
>>
>
>One nice feature of chan is that it insists on
>non-abiding. No resting in any concept.
'Spacially knot fear.
But the dude had a fear doctrine. Hmmm.
[...]
>>Basically, I think you and I think along
>>the same lines and streams and trains
>>of thought. We have different ways of
>>expressing our impressions.
>>
>
>Probably so.
>
>>We can joke and play and discuss.
>>Argue debate share and reframe.
>>
>>Metaphors vary. All are partial.
>>
>>We are birds chirping
>>while playing ping-pong.
>>
>>-happy fish don't say much
>
>Do tell. ;-)
>
>Maybe they just make bubbles.
What was noname doing
when he was in North Hollywood, anyWay?
{:-])))
[...]
>While out walking a path in the foothills near the Mount of No Purpose
>one day, Old Spontaneous passed a still pond. Looking into it, he
>noticed someone looking back at him, with a cut on their cheek that
>was bleeding and dirty. Without thinking, he reached up to his own
>face and cleaned the wound.
[...]
>Metaphorical interpretation involves (among other aspects)
>representation and selection.
>Selection involves a kind of partiality.
>The stronger the selection component relative to the representation,
>the larger the "partiality" of an interpretation.
>The stronger the representation compared with the selection, the more
>"open" the metaphor is for the interpreter.
>Speaking of Zen, Koans are a bit about this: by allowing the
>metaphorical representation to remain partially uninterpreted, the
>interpretation tends to be less partial and more...representational.
Thanks very much for this.
I've been trying to get ahold of the "open"
part of metaphors. This helps.
Not sure if I got it
but at least it kinda brings it closer to home,
in my own understanding, which may be
entirely not what was meant.
-cheers!
Keynes
>Keynes wrote:
>> Jay wrote:
>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>> Jay wrote:
>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>29.
>>>>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>>>>...
>>>>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>>>>>
>>>>>Fearing?
>[...]
>>The diamond sutra speaks of a bodisatva
>>saving all sentient beings from suffering,
>>but in that saving no beings are saved. Why?
>>Because a bodisatva who holds the notion
>>of a being or beings as truly existing is no
>>bodisatva. No self, no other than self.
>
>Then why speak or write of it?
>The diamond sutra, maybe it has facets.
>Reminds me of a Steely Dan song tho.
>
Instructional stuff. Guidance.
>>>Having no purpose is cool.
>>>If he had no purpose, then he had no purpose.
>>>I didn't know Zen was out to save people.
>>>
>>
>>Daoism pretends to teach extraordinary success,
>>beginning with success in worldly affairs and
>>going on beyond. Buddhism begins with the
>>four noble truths, that life as commonly lived
>>and understood is not sweet, and that there is
>>a way to sweeten it. Daoism speaks of success,
>>while buddhism speaks of liberation. In the end
>>all paths lead to the same place, but they begin
>>from different places, different desires, but the
>>same dissatisfaction. Maybe not so different?
>
>Everything is different.
>Everything is the same.
>Everything is similar.
>Everything is dissimilar.
>
>Still, are there bodisattvas in Zen?
>
More or less.
>You mentioned some Zen doctrine
>and how the dude had a fear.
>Then you switched to a bodhisattva ideal.
>
>I'm pondering another beer.
>[...]
"Fearing that no one would understand"
is just a figure of speech. Not like the
fear of death and taxes.
>>>>Transmission of mind to mind
>>>>in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
>>>>gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
>>>>received, then it's not the real thing.
>>>
>>>If there is nothing
>>>then there is no real thing.
>>>If there is only one, then there are
>>>no others. In a blink, all links vanish.
>>>Thoughts disappear, for a spell.
>>>
>>
>>One nice feature of chan is that it insists on
>>non-abiding. No resting in any concept.
>
>'Spacially knot fear.
>But the dude had a fear doctrine. Hmmm.
>
Sometimes you're thicker than air.
>[...]
>>>Basically, I think you and I think along
>>>the same lines and streams and trains
>>>of thought. We have different ways of
>>>expressing our impressions.
>>>
>>
>>Probably so.
>>
>>>We can joke and play and discuss.
>>>Argue debate share and reframe.
>>>
>>>Metaphors vary. All are partial.
>>>
>>>We are birds chirping
>>>while playing ping-pong.
>>>
>>>-happy fish don't say much
>>
>>Do tell. ;-)
>>
>>Maybe they just make bubbles.
>
>What was noname doing
>when he was in North Hollywood, anyWay?
What happen in North Hollywood stays in
the papers for a day or two.
noname
Fear is fear. Fear that nobody will appreciate the special bow on
your prom dress is no different than fear that the rhino will poke you
through with its horn or fear that you will go to hell. Fear is
something that happens when we have forgotten the path.
>>>>>Transmission of mind to mind
>>>>>in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
>>>>>gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
>>>>>received, then it's not the real thing.
>>>>
>>>>If there is nothing
>>>>then there is no real thing.
>>>>If there is only one, then there are
>>>>no others. In a blink, all links vanish.
>>>>Thoughts disappear, for a spell.
>>>>
>>>
>>>One nice feature of chan is that it insists on
>>>non-abiding. No resting in any concept.
>>
>>'Spacially knot fear.
>>But the dude had a fear doctrine. Hmmm.
>>
>
>Sometimes you're thicker than air.
Sometimes he's thicker than a brick.
>>[...]
>>>>Basically, I think you and I think along
>>>>the same lines and streams and trains
>>>>of thought. We have different ways of
>>>>expressing our impressions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Probably so.
>>>
>>>>We can joke and play and discuss.
>>>>Argue debate share and reframe.
>>>>
>>>>Metaphors vary. All are partial.
>>>>
>>>>We are birds chirping
>>>>while playing ping-pong.
>>>>
>>>>-happy fish don't say much
>>>
>>>Do tell. ;-)
>>>
>>>Maybe they just make bubbles.
>>
>>What was noname doing
>>when he was in North Hollywood, anyWay?
>
>What happen in North Hollywood stays in
>the papers for a day or two.
What doesn't happen there is on the front page for weeks.
{:-])))
>Jay wrote:
>> Keynes wrote:
>>>Jay wrote:
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>Jay wrote:
>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>29.
>>>>>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fearing?
[...s]
>>>The diamond sutra speaks of a bodisatva
>>>saving all sentient beings from suffering,
>>>but in that saving no beings are saved. Why?
>>>Because a bodisatva who holds the notion
>>>of a being or beings as truly existing is no
>>>bodisatva. No self, no other than self.
>>
>>Then why speak or write of it?
>>The diamond sutra, maybe it has facets.
>>Reminds me of a Steely Dan song tho.
>>
>
>Instructional stuff. Guidance.
For whom?
Seams contradictory, two-me.
I'm just tea'singing really tho.
Folks get all tied up in mental knots
and it's nice to have a bodhisattva around
to help present them with what's inside,
after the bows are untied.
>>Still, are there bodisattvas in Zen?
>>
>
>More or less.
Compassionate Zen.
>>You mentioned some Zen doctrine
>>and how the dude had a fear.
>>Then you switched to a bodhisattva ideal.
>"Fearing that no one would understand"
>is just a figure of speech. Not like the
>fear of death and taxes.
Maybe it's, like, a koan.
>>>>>Transmission of mind to mind
>>>>>in buddhism is the passing, giving, achieving,
>>>>>gaining of absolutely nothing. If there is anything
>>>>>received, then it's not the real thing.
>>>>
>>>>If there is nothing
>>>>then there is no real thing.
>>>>If there is only one, then there are
>>>>no others. In a blink, all links vanish.
>>>>Thoughts disappear, for a spell.
>>>>
>>>
>>>One nice feature of chan is that it insists on
>>>non-abiding. No resting in any concept.
>>
>>'Spacially knot fear.
>>But the dude had a fear doctrine. Hmmm.
>>
>
>Sometimes you're thicker than air.
There's no self, no one to be saved,
nothing permanent nor abiding, no resting
in any concept. "Hey, let's write all this down
so it can be passed on down thru the ages."
If air is thicker than space,
what is space thicker than?
-hmmm
Keynes
You're rationalizing dualisticially here.
It must be either this or that, and whichever,
certain consequences must follow and others
after those.
Rationalization is how we try to navigate to
comfort, but it never works. Rationalizing
is dualistically limited and uncomfortable
by nature. Picking and choosing and fear
of incomprehensible contradictions are
self limitations.
But you knew all that.
shazi
>>"Fearing that no one would understand"
>>is just a figure of speech. Not like the
>>fear of death and taxes.
>
>Fear is fear. Fear that nobody will appreciate the special bow on
>your prom dress is no different than fear that the rhino will poke you
>through with its horn or fear that you will go to hell. Fear is
>something that happens when we have forgotten the path.
totally unrelated, but in regard to 'fear'
i was reading of aung san suu kyi today.
she said, "It is not power that corrupts but fear.
Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it
and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those
who are subject to it."
she's an amazing lady.
-shazi
noname
> Picking and choosing and fear
>of incomprehensible contradictions are
>self limitations.
Huh? Why be afraid of the thing that most makes life interesting?
I'm glad I'm not required to understand everything you write, Keynes.
Keynes
>Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
>> Picking and choosing and fear
>>of incomprehensible contradictions are
>>self limitations.
>
>Huh? Why be afraid of the thing that most makes life interesting?
>
>I'm glad I'm not required to understand everything you write, Keynes.
I don't recommend fear.
{:-])))
>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>29.
>>>>>>>>>Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours,
>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>> Fearing that nobody would understand,
>You're rationalizing dualisticially here.
The choir is the choir.
The peanut gallery is the peanut gallery.
>It must be either this or that, and whichever,
>certain consequences must follow and others
>after those.
Doctrine arises from fear.
Cud be on, two sum ting.
>Rationalization is how we try to navigate to
>comfort, but it never works. Rationalizing
>is dualistically limited and uncomfortable
>by nature. Picking and choosing and fear
>of incomprehensible contradictions are
>self limitations.
>
>But you knew all that.
When a bird chirps
might it also be preaching?
-while musing
^@%>---*=#
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:lkbu14trlhl6m3735...@4ax.com...
can you rationalize without dualism ?
> It must be either this or that, and whichever,
that's more like multiplicitisms
than dualisms
> certain consequences must follow and others
> after those.
when that pebble hits the water
it turns into a butterfly
> Rationalization is how we try to navigate to
> comfort, but it never works.
i never understood those pocket
mice comfort zones.
> Rationalizing
> is dualistically limited and uncomfortable
> by nature.
you're more comfortable being unrational ?
bully for you.
Picking and choosing and fear
> of incomprehensible contradictions are
> self limitations.
so is any need to rationalize
that sentence
> But you knew all that.
i am all that
^@%>---*=#
"{:-])))" <.......@.......> wrote in message
news:nf0224l3ru8nibefg...@4ax.com...
complaining. fine whine
> -while musing
a
noname
Fear is your friend, like poison ivy it tells you that you're off the
path. It is within those "incomprehensible contradictions" that new
levels of consistency can be found. Putting that together, if you're
afraid of incomprehensible contradictions your understanding is going
to shrink rather than expand. Shrinking levels of understanding might
be "taoist" but in my view it isn't the Way.
Keynes
>Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:34:04 -0700, noname <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Picking and choosing and fear
>>>>of incomprehensible contradictions are
>>>>self limitations.
>>>
>>>Huh? Why be afraid of the thing that most makes life interesting?
>>>
>>>I'm glad I'm not required to understand everything you write, Keynes.
>>
>>I don't recommend fear.
>
>Fear is your friend, like poison ivy it tells you that you're off the
>path. It is within those "incomprehensible contradictions" that new
>levels of consistency can be found. Putting that together, if you're
>afraid of incomprehensible contradictions your understanding is going
>to shrink rather than expand. Shrinking levels of understanding might
>be "taoist" but in my view it isn't the Way.
Why fear paradox?
The whole world is a paradox.
Staying out of the way of traffic needn't involve fear either.