Yadagoogle's Zen
Keynes
Keynes wrote:
>> Actually what I said has been the subject 100's of koans.
>> No doubt you're familiar with every one of them.
>> Can you name one? Two? Fifty? ANY?
>>
>> Put up or shut up, yadayada.
>> Put those inescapable facts of life right here right now.
>> Show the world that those things exist anywhere
>> besides in a dualistic deluded mind.
>
Yadagoogle wrote:
>Blah, blah, blah.
>
yadagoogle
Blah, blah, blah.
Is your food dead before or after you eat it?
Actually Keynes, you've shown us all your zen -- loud and clear.
Thank you for proving what I've seen all along. You have no integrity.
Now you've stooped to editing my posts to falsify the answer and
pervert the original intent. Is that your idea of Dharma
dude.?
You are so pathetic.
Below is the full post:
199
From: yadagoogle - view profile
Date: Sat, Sep 9 2006 12:59 am
Email: "yadagoogle" <yad...@yahoo.com>
Groups: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.zen,
talk.religion.buddhism
Keynes wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 08:09:48 -0700, "yadagoogle" <yad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Keynes wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep 2006 21:57:36 -0700, "yadagoogle" <yad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >stumper wrote:
> >> >> yadagoogle wrote:
> >> >> > There is only one reality.
> >> >> It looks that way to you
> >> >> because you are shallow.
> >> >> --
> >> >> ~Stumper
> >> >The sewer speaks. Anything cogent to say Stump or just more crap?
> >> >There is only one reality. Science looks at it from its point of view,
> >> >which is tested and valid from its perspective. Buddhism and zen looks
> >> >at reality from its point of view, which is more related to human
> >> >psychology and subjective perception. They are also completely valid
> >> >in
> >> >my opinion. But since there is only one reality, they must be
> >> >consistent. That's what the Dalai Lama said and that's what I think.
> >> >The Dalai Lama from his experience finds no inconsistency, and neither
> >> >do I.
> >> >Buddhism is primarily psychological but the Buddha made some very
> >> >profound and unique declarations about reality. First, are the three
> >> >marks of existance: anatta (no abiding self or soul in anything),
> >> >anicca (the impermanence of 'all' things, and dukkha (human
> >> >dissatisfaction with impermanence.)
> >> >Also cause and effect (karma) and Dependent origination, as you
> >> >mentioned. These are all profound statements about the nature of
> >> >reality itself
> >> >The Four Nobel Truths are primarily psychological but I think would
> >> >qualify as axioms of human psychology.
> >> >-- playin' in the dance. And the beat goes on.
> >> What if duality is mistaken perception?
> >> What if matters of fact are really just commonly accepted conjectures?
> >> Suppose a person were born blind. He'd learn something about
> >> smells and sounds, possibly shapes and textures, maybe distances
> >> and some concept of space. That would be his world and he'd
> >> swear by it and depend on what he knows about it.
> >> But he wouldn't know colors or light from dark. He wouldn't know
> >> faces or body language. He wouldn't know shapes in space that
> >> distinguish one thing from another at a distance. He wouldn't know
> >> pictures. He wouldn't know mountains or tall trees or the expanse
> >> of the sea and the sky, or the moon and the stars. He wouldn't know
> >> much. But how could you tell him so? There's no way to describe
> >> or explain those things.
> >> Dualism is a form of blindness in reverse. Dualistic reason allows
> >> one to 'see' what isn't there. Positivity is observable. Negativity
> >> is certainly not observable, but only inferable. By inference we
> >> create the negativities that are the pains of mankind. They aren't
> >> really there but by reasonable inference we declare that they must
> >> be, and even believe that we can see them. We say, "Look!
> >> It isn't there. It must be gone. Oh what can we do now?"
> >> What isn't there? What's there is there. There is no absence
> >> of anything at all to be seen. And yet reasonable people
> >> can see spooks and demons all over the place simply by
> >> the fact that they can't see them at all.
> >> Loss! Loss! Alas! A loss!
> >> Is that sort of dualistic reason reasonable?
> >> Physically speaking 'is' is valid. 'Is not' is only an inference,
> >> and never an actual observation. It's just plain imaginary.
> >> Like all the spooks that hound people to their graves
> >> and make them glad to finally be there.
> >> I've asked you to physically produce past or future, gain and loss,
> >> and life and death. You can't do it, because these boogy men
> >> are not real physical things. They're imaginary dualistic conjectures
> >> that exist nowhere else but in the dualisticly deluded mind.
> >> You have never bothered to answer. You believe in your
> >> hierarchy of imaginary demons and refuse to give them up.
> >> You can't even make excuses for them.
> >Well, if you're asking me will you ever know that you're dead when
> >you're dead.
> That was not the question.
> The question is 'show that those imaginary things
> have any physical existence at all'. If you can't show
> that, then they're all in your mind and nowhere else.
> >I doubt it. The moment before you die you're still alive.
> > The moment you're dead it's too late.
> This you know for a fact, I presume?
> >Waalaa! My God Keynes, you're absolutely correct. You've transcended
> >death. You will never actually be conscious of being dead so it must
> >not exist.
> You know that for a fact, do you?
> >Death does not exist. Wow!
> Bring out yer dead yadayada, and a few barrels of time,
> and yer Saturday Loss -- er Wash. If you have anything
> at all bring it here and show it right now.
> If you can't, you're just blowing smoke.
> >Keynes, you must publish right away before someone steals your
> >discovery. I want you to get full credit.
> >Congratulations.
> Actually what I said has been the subject 100's of koans.
> No doubt you're familiar with every one of them.
> Can you name one? Two? Fifty? ANY?
> Put up or shut up, yadayada.
> Put those inescapable facts of life right here right now.
> Show the world that those things exist anywhere
> besides in a dualistic deluded mind.
Blah, blah, blah.
Is your food dead before or after you eat it?
Robert Epstein
> Keynes wrote:
>
>>Keynes wrote:
>>
>>>>Actually what I said has been the subject 100's of koans.
>>>>No doubt you're familiar with every one of them.
>>>>Can you name one? Two? Fifty? ANY?
>>>>
>>>>Put up or shut up, yadayada.
>>>>Put those inescapable facts of life right here right now.
>>>>Show the world that those things exist anywhere
>>>>besides in a dualistic deluded mind.
>>>
>>Yadagoogle wrote:
>>
>>>Blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
> Is your food dead before or after you eat it?
>
> Actually Keynes, you've shown us all your zen -- loud and clear.
> Thank you for proving what I've seen all along. You have no integrity.
> Now you've stooped to editing my posts to falsify the answer and
> pervert the original intent. Is that your idea of Dharma
> dude.?
>
> You are so pathetic.
You do the same
so why complain?
Hypocrite.
Robert
---------------------------
Keynes
Yada's a troll.
His ignorance of buddhism and zen is vast.
He has no knowledge of or interest in dharma.
(or fair play.)
Zen aside, yada's a jerk playing petty games
to get a rise out of people. Responding to him
is just feeding his warped ego.
Ordinarily such antics are dismissable, but yada
can give a fair impression of zen authority by imitating
some popular books written by and for outsiders.
(And getting all the details wrong.) He is intentionally
misleading newbies.
Maybe it's better to respond to anyone who responds
to yadayada for information or guidance and tell that
person the score.
Dealing directly with yada is pointless.
He is a true asshole.
dkots...@yahoo.com
Took you long enough. Tangistically speaking, he must be doing
something right to have got you so hooked! I have not seen that he was
worth bothering with from about the 2nd day of reading his posts, but
you only now have picked up on it?
Since stumper has long risen above the flavor-of-the-month zen master
wannabe and risen to a more permanant status, I elect yada to fill his
old position and see if he has what it takes to usurp him as resident
long-term tester. They make perfect playmates, so just let those two
fling sand back and forth at each other for awhile and leave them be.
Oh and somebody needs to fill in for Julian as he doesn't seem to be
posting. Non brits need not apply. I hate to discriminate but I don't
see how it will work otherwise.
Recordkeeper Tang are you getting all this?
Uh..meeting adjourned..
-DaveK
Tang Huyen
"dkots...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> Recordkeeper Tang are you getting all this?
>
> Uh..meeting adjourned..
Agenda for future meetings: grace, bliss, serenity.
And it remains open-ended after that: the possibilities
are infinite. Fill them in with your best.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
wrote:
Would you have picked up on that if nobody
interacted with him?
Awaken21
Coming next on BuddhaDharmaSanghaSPAN
"Why My Karma Is So Much Better Than Your Dogma"
Times, Dates TBD.
dkots...@yahoo.com
I picked it up about 5 cliches in. I don't know how much interaction
was required to get that out of him.
Tang Huyen
Keynes wrote:
>
> >Took you long enough. Tangistically speaking,
> > he must be doing something right to have got
> > you so hooked! I have not seen that he was
> >worth bothering with from about the 2nd day
> > of reading his posts, but you only now have
> > picked up on it?
>
> Would you have picked up on that if nobody
> interacted with him?
He said some very nice things about dancing:
<<Aren't we all just walking, talking stardust? Bits of
the cosmos become awake and looking back at itself?
Is that cool or what?
Why can't we just relax, enjoy the beauty of it all, and
play in the dance?
It will all be over soon enough.
Why create our own suffering through endless greed?
Isn't that crazy?>>
<<True enlightenment embraces the whole coin, and
dances with it. It doesn't cling desperately to just one
side.>>
But he wholly failed to dance. He was rigid, angry,
abusive. He failed his own declared norms and
standards.
More precisely, he drilled down to details about Zen,
and got lost -- he was stuck in the details and forgot
to dance (actually, he never started to dance). He
argued the details but forgot calm, peace, serenity,
and that made the details (even if he argued them right,
which is most questionable) irrelevant.
Tang Huyen
yadagoogle
Show me you slimy liar.
yadagoogle
Why don't you project your consciousness and meke me disappear you
fool. I thought you were a zen adept. Can't you do that?
When liars are cornered they start screaming slander and crude names.
What a fraud.
Why don't you simply answer the questions? Mind and consciousness?
Yogacara?, Evolution? Is Keynes afraid to tell the tuth?
yadagoogle
Sometimes the truth hurts. Sorry you missed it. It's all there if
you're willing to look.
Can't be light and entertaining all the time. If I've told any lies
please point them out to me. Thanks.
yadagoogle
Keynes wrote:
> Would you have picked up on that if nobody
> interacted with him?
Our dance has just begun Mr. Scam artist.
If I'm wrong then just respond to the simple issues:
consciousness-only, Yogacara, evolution? How about it Guru Keynes, the
one who likes to falsely edit posts to perpetuate his lies.
yadagoogle
The dance doesn't reject anything. It embraces it all. If the dance
presents you with a liar and fraud then you just dance with them as the
liar and fraud that they are. That's zen.
(Zen doesn't make you a blind zombie and ask you to turn your back on
genocide -- or any other kind of flagrant abuse.)
But I'm very pleased you learned a little.
-- and the beat goes on
-- another rotten day in paradise.
Fu'do
wb, yg
We'll have to be patient.
Tang says he's working on it.
stumper
You are sadly mistaken about him.
He is a man of fundamental faith.
He is just like you.
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
ha ha ha, did you just call me "slimy?" That's not very nice.
Yadagoogly, I would never say anything that wasn't untrue. I'm not
great at finding past posts, but you most definitely did do the exact
thing to me, and I pointed out how you did it in my other post on this
subject. It is the post where I said "Fuck you" and in your response
you edited out the truly slimy statement that you made that was the
reason I said that. You just left the "Fuck you" there standing all by
itself and replied to it as if I had just arbitrarily hurled an insult
at you. That is called "Editing a post to falsify the answer." And the
thing that you had said at that time that I had said "Fuck you" to was
calling me "Keynes, I mean Robert," a practice of conflating me with
others whom you object to that I have asked you politely several times
to stop doing, as I find it an annoying and obfuscatory tactic. Instead
of dealing with your debating opponents according to what they say and
arguing on the merits, you dismiss them all together as being part of
the same group and launch ad hominem attacks that are not based on what
they actually say. This is a most scurillous and unethical way to
attack someone's view when your own power of debate is not strong enough
to engage with them.
At the time that I said "you have done the same thing, so you shouldn't
complain about Keynes doing it," you could have easily looked back one
or two posts and seen it for yourself. So if you haven't done that,
just take my word for it. The above description makes it clear exactly
what happened and why I make this claim. Apparently, you're not in
touch with your own actions. Maybe you should go back to basic
mindfulness practice.
In any case you owe me an apology for calling me a "slimy liar." I have
"shown you" in this description as requested when and how you edited the
post to make my response look unreasonable, and I expect an
acknowledgment. Now go do your homework! :)
Robert
------------------------
Robert Epstein
You do the same, so don't complain.
Robert
- - - - - -
Robert Epstein
Well the mood certainly turns sour when you're around. You are a downer!
:)
Robert
- - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
keep dancing as the liar and fraud that you are;
"that's zen, folks!"
robert
- - - - --
stumper
Don't let him drag you down to his level.
Just watch me ridicule him down to his lowest, please.
--
~Stumper
yadagoogle
Guess when my psychiatrist friend warned me about you guys he knew what
he was talkin' 'bout.
yadagoogle
Check out your delightful post above, Robert.
I know, I know. The devil made you do it, right?
You guys are so pathetic. See, I told you. The truth always wins out.
stumper
Can you do any better
than bring out the worst in people, moron?
--
~Stumper
yadagoogle
Okay, you keep sayin' that. So show me dude. Put up or shut up.
stumper
> Guess when my psychiatrist friend warned me about you guys he knew what
> he was talkin' 'bout.
>
Show him what you have written.
In writing, mind you.
Otherwise, you might be committed.
--
~Stumper
dkots...@yahoo.com
You're welcome.
stumper
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>> yadagoogle wrote:
>>
>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would you have picked up on that if nobody
>>>> interacted with him?
>>>
>>> Our dance has just begun Mr. Scam artist.
>>>
>>> If I'm wrong then just respond to the simple issues:
>>> consciousness-only, Yogacara, evolution? How about it Guru Keynes, the
>>> one who likes to falsely edit posts to perpetuate his lies.
>>>
>> You do the same, so don't complain.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
> Okay, you keep sayin' that. So show me dude. Put up or shut up.
>
If you fart a lot,
try eating less.
--
~Stumper
yadagoogle
Oh look, the calvary's arrived. I guess your cohorts are blowing it
again. Okay, I'll put one hand tied behind my back. But I got to warn
ya. You haven't got a chance. I've got a secret weapon. It's spelled
t---r---u---t----h.
yadagoogle
Sewer mouth burbs again. Stump, can you say anything cogent -- about
anything at all?
I get it. Your job is to harass and abuse anyone who challenges your
mind-only Yogacara buddies. Right?
Come on Stump, tell us about the profound Surangama sutra and how it
saved the cosmos.
dkots...@yahoo.com
If you can do any better than countless others who have came to this
group and made the same claim, I will be impressed. So far you have
been playing the part fairly predictably. I've only been on this forum
for not quite 3 years and I can recognize the pattern. You haven't
stood out.
Not that we don't want or need you here. It's as necessary a role as
any other. It gets the conversation flowing. It would be very dull
without you.
-DaveK
yadagoogle
Sorry friend. You're the one making false accusations again. False
generalizations or your senile delusions don't cut it. SHOW ME!
where's the beef?
Or apologize for your slimy lies.
I'm waiting.
yadagoogle
Exposed again.
stumper
His desperate cry for help deserves
the utmost care we can provide.
I have a reason to believe that
he will react favorably to flattery.
--
~Stumper
stumper
All dharmas are empty, moron.
BTW
You lied more than anyone here.
When was the last time you sat properly?
--
~Stumper
stumper
If you wanna read some,
I would recommend "Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_of_Faith_in_the_Mahayana
If you are not familiar with it already,
your teachers were smart enough to know you well.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Stumper is the self-declared
and self-appointed guard dog of this forum.
You are being exposed here, moron.
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
> yadagoogle wrote:
>> Show me you slimy liar.
> ha ha ha, did you just call me "slimy?" That's not very nice.
> Yadagoogly, I would never say anything that wasn't untrue. I'm not
> great at finding past posts, but you most definitely did do the exact
> thing to me, and I pointed out how you did it in my other post on this
> subject. It is the post where I said "Fuck you" and in your response
> you edited out the truly slimy statement that you made that was the
> reason I said that. You just left the "Fuck you" there standing all by
> itself and replied to it as if I had just arbitrarily hurled an insult
> at you. That is called "Editing a post to falsify the answer." And the
> thing that you had said at that time that I had said "Fuck you" to was
> calling me "Keynes, I mean Robert," a practice of conflating me with
> others whom you object to that I have asked you politely several times
> to stop doing, as I find it an annoying and obfuscatory tactic. Instead
> of dealing with your debating opponents according to what they say and
> arguing on the merits, you dismiss them all together as being part of
> the same group and launch ad hominem attacks that are not based on what
> they actually say. This is a most scurillous and unethical way to
> attack someone's view when your own power of debate is not strong enough
> to engage with them.
Gee whillikers am I confused.
I thought we had a solemn pledge to use only right speech around here,
but I see I can now hurl a "fuck you" and describe others as unethical
and scurrilous when I judge the circumstances appropriate.
Well goddamn that is fuckin reassuring to all us hoopleheads.
stumper
But, Robert is sincere as usual.
Attitude is everything!
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
> Stumper is the self-declared
> and self-appointed guard dog of this forum.
Chihuahua had a cold.
stumper
Stumper is magnanimous enough
not to bark at sick puppies.
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
Sincerity is not the sole mark of skillfulness, for many can be genuine,
honest, and straightforward about their hatreds and desires.
"I’ll tell you what. I may have fucked my life up flatter than hammered
shit, but I stand here before you today beholden to no human
cocksucker." - Al Swearingen "Deadwood"
stumper
Exactly.
BTW Yada is sincere in his own mind
but he has been defrauding himself all his life.
--
~Stumper
Keynes
Keynes
wrote:
>stumper wrote:
Where do you suppose he Does get his cocksuckers?
Hollywood Lee
A dramatic speculation on your part intended for effect?
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~Stumper
>>
>> Exposed again.
>>
>
>
>Stumper is the self-declared
>and self-appointed guard dog of this forum.
You are nothing of the sort, stumpy.
>You are being exposed here, moron.
The exposure is mutual. stumpy is pretending that he has not
undergone much the same as he gives you here from several of us,
including me.
Stumpy's advice (that he will give you after he grows tired of the
game) is that you should ignore him. In this, he is correct. It is
also true that some of us are unable to do that.
Noah Sombrero
Hollywood Lee
Texas.
Keynes
<hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Doh. Of course!
Robert Epstein
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
>>Fu'do wrote:
>>
>>
>>>yadagoogle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tang Huyen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"dkots...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Took you long enough. Tangistically speaking,
>>>>>>>he must be doing something right to have got
>>>>>>>you so hooked! I have not seen that he was
>>>>>>>worth bothering with from about the 2nd day
>>>>>>>of reading his posts, but you only now have
>>>>>>>picked up on it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you have picked up on that if nobody
>>>>>>interacted with him?
>>>>>
>>>wb, yg
>>>
>>>We'll have to be patient.
>>>Tang says he's working on it.
>>
>>keep dancing as the liar and fraud that you are;
>>"that's zen, folks!"
>>
>>robert
>>
>>- - - - --
>
>
> Guess when my psychiatrist friend warned me about you guys he knew what
> he was talkin' 'bout.
>
oooo, then you better get lost before you and your psychiatrist buddy
bet.....REALLY cRaZEeeeeeee.........woooooooooooo!!!!!
run, run, little rabbit, run run run..... the crazies are here....
WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert Epstein
>>>(Zen doesn't make you a blind zombie and ask you to turn your back on
>>>genocide -- or any other kind of flagrant abuse.)
>>>
>>>But I'm very pleased you learned a little.
>>>
>>>-- and the beat goes on
>>>
>>>-- another rotten day in paradise.
>>>
>>
>>Well the mood certainly turns sour when you're around. You are a downer!
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>- - - - - - -
>
>
> Check out your delightful post above, Robert.
>
> I know, I know. The devil made you do it, right?
>
> You guys are so pathetic. See, I told you. The truth always wins out.
>
Yup, you're winning. what's the prize? A day in the back with the
McDonald's dumpster?
Robert
- - - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
>>yadagoogle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Would you have picked up on that if nobody
>>>>interacted with him?
>>>
>>>
>>>Our dance has just begun Mr. Scam artist.
>>>
>>>If I'm wrong then just respond to the simple issues:
>>>consciousness-only, Yogacara, evolution? How about it Guru Keynes, the
>>>one who likes to falsely edit posts to perpetuate his lies.
>>>
>>
>>You do the same, so don't complain.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>- - - - - -
>
>
> Okay, you keep sayin' that. So show me dude. Put up or shut up.
>
Already did. Waiting for your acknowledgment.
Robert
Robert Epstein
ha ha, I've discovered who yadagoogoo really is: steven colbert!
:)
[Tang, I owe you an apology: I am resorting to some of your behavior
here that I objected to, won't say what, but I get one hypocrite ticket
for doing so.]
robert
Hollywood Lee
You have it wrong. Tang to my knowledge has rarely (never?) resorted to
the foul language you have used over the past day or so. His tests may
be "harsh" but his language has not been crude.
stumper
Exactly.
If it's true, too bad.
If not, I'm giving him a chance to shine.
The deeper truth looks like a lie to morons.
--
~Stumper
dkots...@yahoo.com
I propose an a.p.z. renewal of vows thread.
-DaveK
stumper
you don't seem to understand
the terms 'self-declared' and 'self-appointed'.
Look them up, please.
Anyhow, you are rather like Yada
in your addiction to objective truths.
Unfortunately, there are no such things.
Even if you can make some up,
they would be useless for your awakening.
When are you going to realize this?
--
~Stumper
stumper
What's your point?
Robert is a lot gentler and more considerate than Tang.
But, don't mind me, please.
I also think Stumper is most compassionate.
--
~Stumper
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>you don't seem to understand
>the terms 'self-declared' and 'self-appointed'.
>Look them up, please.
Oh, yes, I understand.
>Anyhow, you are rather like Yada
>in your addiction to objective truths.
Is that an objective truth?
>Unfortunately, there are no such things.
I would say that to you.
>Even if you can make some up,
>they would be useless for your awakening.
That's ok. Everything else is too.
>When are you going to realize this?
Ready for another round of the game?
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>> A dramatic speculation on your part intended for effect?
>
>
>If it's true, too bad.
>If not, I'm giving him a chance to shine.
>
>The deeper truth looks like a lie to morons.
deeper truth=objective truth?
Or something else?
What is the nature of this deeper truth?
Noah Sombrero
stumper
Is life a game to you?
The way I see it,
you are deeply saddened by something.
Verbal jousting might help
but sitting without thinking would be better.
--
~Stumper
stumper
How would I know?
You cannot go after it.
It comes to you.
--
~Stumper
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>Is life a game to you?
No I was talking about how you interact with people.
>The way I see it,
>you are deeply saddened by something.
>
>Verbal jousting might help
>but sitting without thinking would be better.
And this is one of the things you try with me. Change the subject to
be what you see as my trouble. No, stumper, I would never discuss
such things with a gamer. My interest is to bring your, and
especially others, attention to your game. Once there, the
conversation is over, until the next time.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>>> The deeper truth looks like a lie to morons.
>>
>> deeper truth=objective truth?
>>
>> Or something else?
>>
>> What is the nature of this deeper truth?
>>
>
>
>How would I know?
>
>You cannot go after it.
>It comes to you.
If not objective, then absolute, or at least making you feel your
perceptions are superior to those of others? Which gives you moral
ground to talk about morons and lies?
Noah Sombrero
stumper
Is that your game?
My game is to hang around here
telling clueless people what to do
even though I'm clueless myself.
That's the power of going straight -- don't know.
What is your practice, again?
--
~Stumper
stumper
What makes you think I think
my opinions are superior to those of others?
Do you have an inferiority complex or something?
--
~Stumper
Tang Huyen
stumper wrote:
> Can you do any better
> than bring out the worst in people, moron?
He should be congratulated for that. He got somebody
as unflappable as Keynes to jump vigourously for quite
some time. Not bad at all.
But thinking again on the issue, there was a precedent
with Keynes (14 Nov 2005, about Peter Olcott):
<<Peter is posing as an authority and posts more
than anyone else. He does not ask. He tells.
He knows everything except the fact that he
knows nothing.
Are these groups, these electronic sanghas, to not
stand up for dharma? Newcomer Peter finds a guru
in Raan, since they are materialist birds of a feather
who misunderstand and disparage buddhism yet post
more prolifically than anyone. Does it matter if the
chaff overtops the wheat? If there is to be a sangha it
matters.>>
Keynes tends to jump hard on pretenders like Peter
and yadagoogle, loses balance and perspective, keeps
doing it for months whenever they show up, and
seems not to learn from the past. It is one thing to
"stand up for dharma", and something else to show the
detachment and serenity that one's cultivation has
brought to one. Without that detachment and serenity
(the wheat), one's cultivation has been for nought,
regardless how well one can impress others with
technicalities, like public cases or suchlike trash (the
chaff), which are empty words when one loses control
and objectivity, time and again.
He could have taught that detachment and serenity to
them *by example* instead, which would have been
the most effective method of teaching. That would
have been a most admirable way to "stand up for the
dharma", by showing its effectiveness *in person*.
Some detachment and serenity may be apposite.
Begin again.
Tang "Recordkeeper" Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> You have it wrong. Tang to my knowledge has
> rarely (never?) resorted to the foul language you
> have used over the past day or so. His tests may
> be "harsh" but his language has not been crude.
My policy has been for some years to apply to
people their own declared teachings, norms and
standards. It does not need any foul language.
The mere application to people of their own
self-stated teachings, norms and standards often
sends them into a rage all by itself, without any
extraneous decoration. All happens as if people
considered their own teachings, norms and
standards as the most evil things in the world,
to be repelled by the most violent blowups.
They would wipe them off the face of the earth
rather than face them.
To apply to people their own declared teachings,
norms and standards is the simplest and most
effective test for whether people have actually
started Buddhist practice of any kind or not. It
does not require any knowledge of exactly what
it is that they preach. It only applies what they
preach back to them.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
Dang. Without thinking, the mirror casts a harsh reflection, eh?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > My policy has been for some years to apply to
> > people their own declared teachings, norms and
> > standards. It does not need any foul language.
> > The mere application to people of their own
> > self-stated teachings, norms and standards often
> > sends them into a rage all by itself, without any
> > extraneous decoration. All happens as if people
> > considered their own teachings, norms and
> > standards as the most evil things in the world,
> > to be repelled by the most violent blowups.
> > They would wipe them off the face of the earth
> > rather than face them.
> >
> > To apply to people their own declared teachings,
> > norms and standards is the simplest and most
> > effective test for whether people have actually
> > started Buddhist practice of any kind or not. It
> > does not require any knowledge of exactly what
> > it is that they preach. It only applies what they
> > preach back to them.
>
> Dang. Without thinking, the mirror casts a harsh
> reflection, eh?
If one preaches calm, peace, serenity, *and* practices
them, how can any mirror cast a harsh reflection? It
can only reflect them back to one, thus helping one to
grow them, as if by osmosis.
Tang Huyen
stumper
Dream on.
--
~Stumper
stumper
You too, Tang.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Only if you have no self.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Realized the compassion of harsh words yet?
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
What harsh words would those be?
Fu'do
Oh, mine to Colin Hankie about his poo-pooing of
science while posting on TRB, for example (which
Tang is fond of quoting). I hope they shocked him
enough so that he thought twice about his insane
position.
Hollywood Lee
Tang has long been focused, when he focuses on you, on an early life
experience that you apparently related here some time ago. Got me to
thinking about how I have had all sorts of reflective moments when
experience leads to small, useful insights. But over the years, I have
had a few (2 or 3) really aha! sort of moments. Not like thunderbolts
shot out my ass or I experienced transcendental union with Brahma or
anything, but moments of a real paradigm shift (or paradigm drop) that
continue to inform my practice.
Fu'do
The only one I related (here and to Tang) was the first.
That was because the whole progress of that first experience
seemed (to me) to be important in terms of conditions
and teaching those.
The rest were simply refreshments, but also tied to
some of those conditions. I tried quite sincerely to
describe that, but words aren't enough and there's also
the necessity of letting go of it - minimizing it, not
carrying around (as Sphere would say) a story, and not
making something important of it.
These weren't reflective moments, though. I described them
as "reintegration" and various other stuff. I've also said
that we can't subjectively objectify this science. But sooner
or later we will be able to describe and practice this more
accurately.
Hell, that's not a lot of help, is it?
Sorry.
Hollywood Lee
Ah. Not looking for help. Though I do consider you a friend and would
look to you if I needed it.
But those "experiences" that I suspect we have all had can be powerful.
And because they are powerful, I like to handle them carefully. Even
describing them is weird. Not sure why.
Fu'do
Just so we have some common terms here...
What you describe are called "kensho" experiences
in Zen. No matter what people say about it,
Japanese Zen is very precise. Perhaps (I think,
anyway) this kensho progression is really the Soto,
Northern Chan, or Vipassana 'path'. It seems to work.
But from the other side, I can't really say - I have an
ass full of thunderbolts and one fart destroys the world. ;)
Fu'do
It's simple embarrassment, in front of the whole world.
That which we learned as children. Only a few have dared
here on these public forums. There's no shame either way.
We can hide or reveal. We can completely expose ourselves
or choose to put on a mask. It's not rocket science and
either alternative is ok. It's just for fun, it's just a
game. That's what we do. It's just us.
Just imagine being naked in front of the whole world. :)
Hollywood Lee
I don't know. The only japanese thing that has happened to me is
getting the soft shell crab sushi caught in my throat while visiting
Tempe, Arizona.
Hollywood Lee
Yeah. For all the talk that goes on here, very little seems daring,
risk-taking in exposing the fragile ego that all apparently walk around
with, but shielding from any real work.
Fu'do
That's expected, though, isn't it?
But some people are fairly open.
And that makes it all worthwhile.
Finding honest friends is hard work,
but it's worth it.
Fu'do
yikes!
here on the east coast there's a "soft-shelled crab"
thingie. it's more like chewing fingernails...
Hollywood Lee
They were actually quite good. It was the meeting of my daughter's
republican boyfriend that was the direct cause of the coughing fit.
Thank god she dumped the fool when he wouldn't support her desire to go
to medical school. She is now married to a good democrat from Detroit.
Fu'do
Maybe "good democrat from Detroit." warrants some kind
of a headstone in front of the Michigan Supreme Court building.
My fav quote of all usenet time is dar's - "You aren't like me.
Let me make you more like me."
stumper
You are a pretentious moron
just like Stumper and Yada.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Why did you fail to learn to be skillful?
--
~Stumper
stumper
You sound hollow.
Is that intentional?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Only if you believe in work-righteousness.
Do you have a Catholic background?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Most people are honest.
But, making friends is difficult;
especially if you act like a smartass.
BTW
It's almost impossible to do science
with something that cannot be repeated at will
or repeatedly observable in reasonable time.
When is the last time you had one of those "experiences"?
--
~Stumper
Charles E Hardwidge
> risk-taking in exposing the fragile ego that all apparently walk around
> with, but shielding from any real work.
An open door needs no key.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Hollywood Lee
>> Yeah. For all the talk that goes on here, very little seems daring,
>> risk-taking in exposing the fragile ego that all apparently walk around
>> with, but shielding from any real work.
>
> An open door needs no key.
>
A bald man doesn't need a comb and a snake doesn't need sneakers. Got
any others?
Charles E Hardwidge
Don't let the door bang your ass on the way out.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Hollywood Lee
Nah. Doesn't have that zen simpleton flavor. Maybe "the door that
bangs your ass is like the leaves falling from a tree in October" or
some such BS.
Keynes
Yeah.
So what's yer point?
yadagoogle
What an obnoxious little creep you are Stump.
yadagoogle
stumper wrote:
> yadagoogle wrote:
>
> > stumper wrote:
> >> yadagoogle wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert Epstein wrote:
> >>>> yadagoogle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Keynes wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Would you have picked up on that if nobody
> >>>>>> interacted with him?
> >>>>> Our dance has just begun Mr. Scam artist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I'm wrong then just respond to the simple issues:
> >>>>> consciousness-only, Yogacara, evolution? How about it Guru Keynes, the
> >>>>> one who likes to falsely edit posts to perpetuate his lies.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You do the same, so don't complain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert
> >>>>
> >>> Okay, you keep sayin' that. So show me dude. Put up or shut up.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you fart a lot,
> >> try eating less.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~Stumper
> >
> > Sewer mouth burbs again. Stump, can you say anything cogent -- about
> > anything at all?
> >
> > I get it. Your job is to harass and abuse anyone who challenges your
> > mind-only Yogacara buddies. Right?
> >
> >
> > Come on Stump, tell us about the profound Surangama sutra and how it
> > saved the cosmos.
> >
>
>
> If you wanna read some,
> I would recommend "Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakening_of_Faith_in_the_Mahayana
>
> If you are not familiar with it already,
> your teachers were smart enough to know you well.
>
> --
> ~Stumper
Why don't you just touch on the high points Stump and enlighten us all.
Afterall, it did wonders for you, You have about ten stock phrases
and a bunch of juvenile names.
Anything else?