By implication (was Re: What are you looking like now?)
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> A LITTLE BOY LOST
>
> "Nought loves another as itself,
> Nor venerates another so,
> Nor is it possible to thought
> A greater than itself to know:
>
> [snip]
>
> -- William Blake, "Songs of Experience"
"Nought loves another as itself,
Nor venerates another so,
Nor is it possible to thought
A greater than itself to know:"
Which is why Buddhism teaches to let
go of the self and of thought. What is not
self can love what is not itself more than
itself, and what is not thought can know
what is greater than thought (and also
what is greater than itself), though strictly
speaking what is not thought cannot know
anything but can only experience in the
raw, and what is experienced in the raw,
outside of thought, is neither thought nor
thing.
Tang Huyen
Appledog
wrote:
> Déjà Flu wrote:
> > A LITTLE BOY LOST
>
> > "Nought loves another as itself,
> > Nor venerates another so,
> > Nor is it possible to thought
> > A greater than itself to know:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > -- William Blake, "Songs of Experience"
>
> "Nought loves another as itself,
> Nor venerates another so,
> Nor is it possible to thought
> A greater than itself to know:"
>
> Which is why Buddhism teaches to let
> go of the self and of thought.
No, Tang. That is not why Buddhism teaches to let go of the self and
of thought.
Actually FWIW Buddhism does not teach us to let go of thought, either.
Buddhism teaches us to think. For example any discussion of Right View
and/or Right Intention must include some definition of a cognitive
aspect of wisdom. This is hardly giving up thought. As well, the
fourth noble truth, that the path to cessation of suffering (hint) can
be known and followed, is hardly giving up thought.
The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
The first thing you need to do is apologize to me, Tang, for saying
some of the nasty things you've said in the past. If you need help on
this I could remind you. It's not that I am holding a grudge - it's
you that is. Your karma. It's causing you to make terrible errors in
judgement because you accused me of doing so. I urge you to consider
my words, Tang. Before it is too late...
-
Déjà Flu
Don't snip it.
Follow the whole thing out.
And for Dog's sake,
stop confusing yourself and others with all that junk.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Evelyn
news:5sOdnchMW9K12EPX...@supernews.com...
Excellent. :-)
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Déjà Flu
You could easily have skipped that last paragraph.
Why didn't you?
Think about it.
Evelyn
news:I8ydnWn3oL3t0EPX...@posted.toastnet...
Probably the same reason you didn't skip it.
Déjà Flu
This is why dogs lick their balls.
(Because they can)
Lee Rudolph
>Evelyn wrote:
...
>> Excellent. :-)
>
>This is why dogs lick their balls.
>(Because they can)
Say, Dr. Rorschach, now that you mention it, ":-)" *does* look like
a dog licking its balls.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
news:32550bec-6c54-42ce...@b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
> that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
This is a sound judgement.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
Canine envy.
Déjà Flu
Maybe.
I'd be damn suspicious whenever Ev pronounces
anything "excellent", though, Especially gibberish
like that.
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:18 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> > wrote:
Because I want to help Tang get over his bad karma.
> Think about it.
Because I want to help people.
-
oxtail
Zen does teach us to let go of thought.
>> > The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
>> > that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based
>> > on.
"Zen claims that neither 'no-thought' nor 'no-image' can be
linguistically or logically apprehended from its standpoint."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/
>> > The first thing you need to do is apologize to me, Tang, for saying
>> > some of the nasty things you've said in the past. If you need help on
>> > this I could remind you. It's not that I am holding a grudge - it's
>> > you that is. Your karma. It's causing you to make terrible errors in
>> > judgement because you accused me of doing so. I urge you to consider
>> > my words, Tang. Before it is too late...
>>
>> You could easily have skipped that last paragraph. Why didn't you?
>
> Because I want to help Tang get over his bad karma.
>
>> Think about it.
>
> Because I want to help people.
Wonderful.
But do you have to do it that way?
Ever heard of letting it go?
So thoroughly letting it go as to help
others to let it go easily?
--
oxtail
Appledog
Letting go of everything, including letting go, and letting go of the
desire of letting go, is a huge, paradoxical mistake. Zen is not about
letting go of thought. Zen is about calming the monkey mind - zen is
about finding the TRUTH. Zen is about a direct pipeline to RIGHT VIEW.
RIGHT INTENTION. RIGHT ACTION.
To say it is the let-go of thought is a very sad mistake. Zen is
founded on buddhism and is a vehicle of it. Do not mistake the
bathwater for the baby, friend.
-
^@%>---*=#**
>Letting go of everything, including letting go, and letting go of the
>desire of letting go, is a huge, paradoxical mistake.
much like you
> Zen is not about
>letting go of thought. Zen is about calming the monkey mind
so calming the monkey mind
increases thought ?
>- zen is
>about finding the TRUTH.
there is no truth.
> Zen is about a direct pipeline to RIGHT VIEW.
>RIGHT INTENTION. RIGHT ACTION.
check for hardened drool on
your caps lock key.
>To say it is the let-go of thought is a very sad mistake.
sad mistakes should be something
that you are overly familiar with.
> Zen is
>founded on buddhism and is a vehicle of it.
is that a hybrid ?
> Do not mistake the
>bathwater for the baby, friend.
your pomposity complex is only superceded
by your superiority addictions in that narcissistic
core of the ego where you dwell specific to a
fantasy delusion of your faux infallibility.
carry on. uselessnet can use all the
hilarity it can get.
zenworm
Charles E Hardwidge
news:56702c88-008a-48b5...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Letting go of everything, including letting go, and letting go of the
> desire of letting go, is a huge, paradoxical mistake. Zen is not about
> letting go of thought. Zen is about calming the monkey mind - zen is
> about finding the TRUTH. Zen is about a direct pipeline to RIGHT VIEW.
> RIGHT INTENTION. RIGHT ACTION.
>
> To say it is the let-go of thought is a very sad mistake. Zen is
> founded on buddhism and is a vehicle of it. Do not mistake the
> bathwater for the baby, friend.
That's about right.
These groups mirror traditional left and right politics. On the left, we
have the ideologies and hairshirt. On the right, we have the nonsense and
emotionalising. However, both are extremes. They've killed the centre which
is a more subtle, accessible, and long-term thing.
Back when the economic crisis hit the traditional left and right fell back
on their historical patterns. I argued that falling back to old left-right
politics was a mistake, that people needed calm, and that we should ignore
the talking down from vested interests and panic from partisan think-tanks,
and invest in the recovery. That seems to have caught on.
I'm not claiming any special genius or that the movers and shakers tracked
my online comment but some of my reasoning got traction and some of it can
find its roots in the more sensible discussion in these groups.
I made the right call on the things that mattered but my personal focus is
on translating that into personal success. Exhortations and fighting the
battles of yesterday doesn't help that, and something these groups need to
reflect on while the rest of the world moves on. The world economy will
recover and it will be a tragic irony if these groups remain in recessive.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:03 am, oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:47:27 -0700, Appledog wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 7:53 am, D�j� Flu <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Appledog wrote:
> > >> > On Oct 21, 7:18 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> > >> > wrote:
Gee, for once a useful post, in that you've gotten everything exactly
backwards. It would be like navigating with a reversed compass needle.
> Letting go of everything, including letting go, and letting go of the
> desire of letting go, is a huge, paradoxical mistake.
No, it would be a huge accomplishment!
> Zen is not about letting go of thought.
Um, it can be. Also relative to different values of the term "letting go".
> Zen is about calming the monkey mind
Well, some people would class this under "letting go of thought".
Certainly if one has "let go of thought", one will not be disturbed
by "monkey mind".
> - zen is about finding the TRUTH.
Well, other people here might contest that -- I'm inclined to
let it go. In any case, it is interesting that you contrast
"finding the TRUTH" with "letting go of thought".
> Zen is about a direct pipeline to RIGHT VIEW.
> RIGHT INTENTION. RIGHT ACTION.
But those are themselves only instrumental to the goal of
ending desire (tanha), and hence suffering, and not ends
in themselves.
See "Four Noble Truths".
If by "zen" you mean the goal of zen, awakening, then right view,
right intention, and right action are themselves a pipline, more
or less direct, to zen, in that sense.
Of course the word "zen" derives from "dhyana", which which would
be what right concentration is about, which is distinct from, and
only indirectly connected to, right view, right intent and right
action. Certainly there is no direct cause-and-effect from one
to the other -- the usual iconography is that of an eight-spoked
wheel.
> To say it is the let-go of thought is a very sad mistake. Zen is
> founded on buddhism and is a vehicle of it. Do not mistake the
> bathwater for the baby, friend.
To say that zen is founded on Buddhism is as senseless as saying
that the Methodist church is founded on Christianity. It is an
instance of Christianity, and part of the fabric of Christianity.
Methodists are Christians, not members of something distinct from
Christianity.
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > Zen is about calming the monkey mind
>
> Well, some people would class this under "letting go of thought".
> Certainly if one has "let go of thought", one will not be disturbed
> by "monkey mind".
You could class it like that if you were an ignoramus or trying to
change the substance of the meaning. There are things we know today,
in a general sense, about the human brain and "how things work" that
preclude us from entertaining such ridiculous notions as "letting go
of thought", and so forth - which, frankly, never was a real goal of
the buddha anyways. It's a popular mis-interpretation or mis-statement
of what is needed, sure. But if you choose to take the original words
at their intended meaning it is never true.
When you start accepting any old translation, trying to mesh every
rumor you heard about what needs to be done into some giant
hodgepodge, what you've really done is throw away your ability to
think critically about the subject. That's all I'm asking, a little
critical thinking please. I won't get bogged down in semantics with
you. I just won't respond when you start pushing that angle (which is
why I snipped everything so far except the above quote).
> > - zen is about finding the TRUTH.
>
> Well, other people here might contest that -- I'm inclined to
> let it go. In any case, it is interesting that you contrast
> "finding the TRUTH" with "letting go of thought".
There are always exceptions but in that right view is about seeing the
universe as it is, with no preconceptions, I stand on a rather firm
ground stating what I did about the truth. Ultimately, if we're going
to consider zen as part of Mahayana or as some sort of vehicle to
embody the teaching of Buddha (in that, simply, it was something that
he taught, not that he invented it) then you are going to have to
accept that his teachings of the actions and appearances (the
trappings of enlightenment) are going to be the results of the zen as
well as other vehicles.
So yes, zen is about finding truth. It certainly isn't about claiming
there is no truth and throwing all thought (and critical thinking) out
the window. There will always be people who put forth such ridiculous
notions. And, quite naturally, you won't be able to reason with them
either because they happen to have thrown reason out the window as
well. Pity more people like that aren't enlightened ;-) but, it goes
with the territory doesn't it? :)
> If by "zen" you mean the goal of zen, awakening, then right view,
> right intention, and right action are themselves a pipline, more
> or less direct, to zen, in that sense.
Sure, it works both ways. I'm not trying to imply a direction of time
when discussing these. They co-arise, for all I am concerned.
> Of course the word "zen" derives from "dhyana", which which would
> be what right concentration is about, which is distinct from, and
> only indirectly connected to, right view, right intent and right
> action. Certainly there is no direct cause-and-effect from one
> to the other -- the usual iconography is that of an eight-spoked
> wheel.
I think we agree about that. I could be wrong :-)
> > To say it is the let-go of thought is a very sad mistake. Zen is
> > founded on buddhism and is a vehicle of it. Do not mistake the
> > bathwater for the baby, friend.
>
> To say that zen is founded on Buddhism is as senseless as saying
> that the Methodist church is founded on Christianity. It is an
> instance of Christianity, and part of the fabric of Christianity.
> Methodists are Christians, not members of something distinct from
> Christianity.
Sure. Some examples may be in order. Have you ever asked a Satanist
why he thinks the Devil is going to win? Not that all satanists think
that, but I sometimes wonder, looking in from the outside - where do
we get all our information about God? He doesn't speak to us in an
audible voice. We read stories about God in the bible. And the bible
says that God created Satan, and that at the end of the world, God
will imprison Satan. Now, I am just stating, that for all intents and
purposes, this is all I know about the God-Satan thing. So the
information I get on the subject tells me God is going to win. That's
why I am not a Satanist, in a manner of speaking.
In the same way, there's certainly a point in taking Zen as a separate
little thing off to the side not really having anything to do with
Buddhism, but this isn't really true. Zen certainly is a form of
buddhism proper. It is certainly acceptable and true to say that if
Zen claims something that is too far out of line with what the Buddha
taught, then frankly it is wrong in that it is not internally
consistent.
At the very least we cannot throw away the basic points made in, say,
the four noble truths or the eightfold path, or claim the opposite, in
the name that proper Zen is about letting things go or doing your own
thing. If you or anyone is going to seriously follow zen, buddhism, or
both, that person is going to need to start from square one and
seriously start integrating the principles into their life.
Reading about it, knowing about it, and then doing the opposite means
absolutely nothing.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
When you meet the Buddha on the path, slay him.
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > There are things we know today,
> > in a general sense, about the human brain and "how things work" that
> > preclude us from entertaining such ridiculous notions as "letting go
> > of thought", and so forth - which, frankly, never was a real goal of
> > the buddha anyways. It's a popular mis-interpretation or mis-statement
> > of what is needed, sure. But if you choose to take the original words
> > at their intended meaning it is never true.
>
> Certainly if one has "let go of thought", one will not be disturbed
> by "monkey mind".
Why would you want to do that? The Buddha never said anything of the
sort. At any rate, there are things we know today, in a general sense,
about the human brain and "how things work" that preclude us from
entertaining such ridiculous notions as "letting go of thought", and
so forth. If we cling to superstition we will end up with nothing -
for that superstition is merely another delusion.
> > Reading about it, knowing about it, and then doing the opposite means
> > absolutely nothing.
>
> When you meet the Buddha on the path, slay him.
In other words - take action. Or have you misled me? 'Slay him' is a
metaphor for letting go of answers what may come during koan
meditation. Even if you find "the truth", let it go and ask the
question. The object of the exercise is not to find an answer, anyways
- so finding one clearly has nothing to do with your goal or reason
for asking. That's all it means, nothing more.
-
zenworm
wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is "sound judgement" oxymoronic?
ZN
^@%>---*=#**
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc491795-43f9-4764...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Is "sound judgement" oxymoronic?
ZN
-----------------------------------------
without sound judgement you
couldn't even listen to the radio.
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
belief is optional
ZN
^@%>---*=#**
>belief is optional
how many options ?
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cbaf4689-9c7f-4541...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 4:47 pm, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:dc491795-43f9-4764...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 20, 8:43 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:32550bec-6c54-42ce...@b3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
> > > > that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
>
> > > This is a sound judgement.
>
> > > --
> > > Charles E Hardwidge
>
> > Is "sound judgement" oxymoronic?
>
> > ZN
>
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> > without sound judgement you
> > couldn't even listen to the radio.
> >belief is optional
>
> how many options ?
opt til you drop
ZN
^@%>---*=#**
>opt til you drop
and become an optoholic ?
zenworm
since Moment never ends
it is never too late
ZN :D
trun...@yahoo.com
> Appledog wrote:
> > Letting go of everything, including letting go, and letting go of the
> > desire of letting go, is a huge, paradoxical mistake.
>
> No, it would be a huge accomplishment!
>
> > Zen is not about letting go of thought.
>
> Um, it can be. Also relative to different values of the term "letting go".
>
> > Zen is about calming the monkeymind
>
> Well, some people would class this under "letting go of thought".
> Certainly if one has "let go of thought", one will not be disturbed
>
> > - zen is about finding the TRUTH.
>
> Well, other people here might contest that -- I'm inclined to
> let it go. In any case, it is interesting that you contrast
> "finding the TRUTH" with "letting go of thought".
>
> > Zen is about a direct pipeline toRIGHTVIEW.
> >RIGHTINTENTION.RIGHTACTION.
>
> But those are themselves only instrumental to the goal of
> ending desire (tanha), and hence suffering, and not ends
> in themselves.
>
> See "Four Noble Truths".
>
To say the truth, until this day I don't care much about "Four Noble
Truths",
nirvana, ... but at this moment I care a lot about monkey mind, right
view, ...
That's why I rated both of your posts as 'excellent' , 'graduate-
level' and
would like to say thank you. By 'graduate' I mean s.t. like American
millionaire
in business. At this graduate level, I don't have much to say but this
page may
be useful :
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/LeighBrasington.html
(note the stmt "Don't cling to any view").
Someone (Buddha?) said that the more we discuss, the clearer [Zen]
truths are.
BTW many Zen books mention Albert Einstein. Do you think he had
graduate
understanding of *Zen* ? I myself was only a me-too student of Zen in
2001.
herbzet
Appledog
You're the only one that sees it that way.
Try changing your mind. Without drugs, this time.
-
norbu_tragri
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > Déjà Flu wrote:
>
> >> A LITTLE BOY LOST
>
> >> "Nought loves another as itself,
> >> Nor venerates another so,
> >> Nor is it possible to thought
> >> A greater than itself to know:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> -- William Blake, "Songs of Experience"
>
> > "Nought loves another as itself,
> > Nor venerates another so,
> > Nor is it possible to thought
> > A greater than itself to know:"
>
> > Which is why Buddhism teaches to let
> > self can love what is not itself more than
> > itself, and what is not thought can know
> > what is greater than thought (and also
> > what is greater than itself), though strictly
> > speaking what is not thought cannot know
> > anything but can only experience in the
> > raw, and what is experienced in the raw,
> > outside of thought, is neither thought nor
> > thing.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> Follow the whole thing out.
> And for Dog's sake,
> stop confusing yourself and others with all that junk.
>
> --
> Ubi dubium ibi libertas
i do see your point, and Tangs, but i think Mr.Blake used "self/
thought" in a different way from both of you (?), as in the "Third
Turning Sutras" where all is said to be "Mind".
"Mind" ("self/thought" via Blake) is synonymous with sunya - open
awareness - the open and infinite, whereas any finite being or thing
is the presence of that openesss - hence the
boy says in effect awareness is unlimited and the contents of
awareness limited -
"not greater than itself". But the boy goes on to say "Father, how can
i love you or
any of my brothers more?" The awareness (Blake's "self/thought") is
open, what arises in it is the presence of that openness one seems
greater, the other lesser, but it's like water poured into water -
hence the great infinite self/thought is just here as in the love of
a
little bird that picks up crumbs around the door - people surviving in
the finite while
infinite awareness ("love") is all around. Blake says such ideas are
not allowed by Fundamentalists, freedom of investigation persecuted,
the inquisitive pounced on and
destroyed, their families, who may of denounced them, left to suffer
guilt and loss.
This wasn't so abstract a notion - some years later Percy Shelley
expressed similar ideas
in his poems, questioned dogma. His first wife divorced him and he was
denied access to his children because he was an "Atheist".
(Following that he met Mary, etc)
Blake was protesting fundy dogmatism.
i don't know that Tang fits into the model of Cromwellian Puritan
burning
children at the stake...... might be pushing the metaphor a bit....
...interesting to see where this discussion will go....
Little Boy Lost
- Wm. Blake
"Nought loves another as itself,
Nor venerates another so,
Nor is it possible to thought
A greater than itself to know.
"And, father, how can I love you
Or any of my brothers more?
I love you like the little bird
That picks up crumbs around the door."
The Priest sat by and heard the child;
In trembling zeal he seized his hair,
He led him by his little coat,
And all admired the priestly care.
And standing on the altar high,
"Lo, what a fiend is here! said he:
"One who sets reason up for judge
Of our most holy mystery."
The weeping child could not be heard,
The weeping parents wept in vain:
They stripped him to his little shirt,
And bound him in an iron chain,
And burned him in a holy place
Where many had been burned before;
The weeping parents wept in vain.
Are such things done on Albion's shore?
norbu_tragri
> On Oct 21, 7:18 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
>
>
>
> > Déjà Flu wrote:
> > > A LITTLE BOY LOST
>
> > > "Nought loves another as itself,
> > > Nor venerates another so,
> > > Nor is it possible to thought
> > > A greater than itself to know:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > -- William Blake, "Songs of Experience"
>
> > "Nought loves another as itself,
> > Nor venerates another so,
> > Nor is it possible to thought
> > A greater than itself to know:"
>
> > Which is why Buddhism teaches to let
> > go of the self and of thought.
>
> of thought.
hi,
Blake and Tang are both using the word "thought" as an index to
different cognitive
phases as far as i can see...
But as far as Tang's comment "Buddhism teaches to let go of the self
and of thought" - don't reject that right out - the dharma teaches
phases
of active study and examination and of opening the mind and "just
looking" at ourselves, the world etc without preconceptions, stories,
etc. Here are some quotes from all the
traditions about that, starting with the Buddha (it's a *long* list of
quotes, copy/paste and read later at leasure:
FIRST TURNING SUTRAS :
And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
with renunciation arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own
affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of
both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to
Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a
night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do not envision
any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering
a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is
disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I
steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it.
Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed. (Similarly with
thinking imbued with non-ill will & harmlessness.)
Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with
sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
renunciation. (Similarly with thinking imbued with non-ill will &
harmlessness.)
Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have
been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows:
While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply
keeps himself mindful of 'those cows.' In the same way, I simply kept
myself mindful of 'those mental qualities.'
Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness
established.
My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated & single.
Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental
qualities,
I entered & remained in the first jhana:
rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed
thought & evaluation.
With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, I entered &
remained in the second jhana:
rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness
***free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance***.
With the fading of rapture I remained in equanimity, mindful & alert,
and physically sensitive of pleasure.
I entered & remained in the third jhana,
of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a
pleasurable abiding.'
With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier
disappearance of elation & distress -- I entered & remained in the
fourth jhana:
purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.
- MN 19
"Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to
there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains
at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, **'Thinking is
bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and
will, this perception of mine would cease, and a grosser perception
would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?' So he
neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing,
that perception ceases and another, grosser perception does not
appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the
alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of
perception." **
- DN 9
"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as
this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop
the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns
that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this
towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would
be fabricated.' ***One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for
the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not
sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the
world).*** Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is
totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'
"***Whereas formerly he foolishly had taken on mental acquisitions and
brought them to completion, he has now abandoned them, their root
destroyed***, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions
of development, not destined for future arising. Thus a monk so
endowed is endowed with the highest determination for relinquishment,
for this -- the renunciation of all mental acquisitions -- is the
highest noble relinquishment.
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow.
And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a
sage at peace.' Thus it was said. With reference to what was it said?
'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I
shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall
not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-
percipient' is a construing. ***Construing is a disease, construing is
a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he
is called a sage at peace.***
- MN 140
SECOUND TURNING SUTRAS :
"[The cultivator] thinks:
'Where does the Buddha come from?
Where do I arrive at?'
He thinks to himself:
'The Buddha does not come from anywhere,
I do not arrive anywhere.'
He thinks to himself:
'The modality of desire,
the modality of form,
the modality of the formless,
these three modalities are nothing but mind (citta-matra).
It is according as I discriminate (vikalpayati) that I see,
the mind makes the Buddha,
the mind sees itself,
the mind is the Buddha,
the mind is just myself.
Thought sees the Buddha,
thought does not know itself,
thought does not see itself.
**The notion of thought (citta-samjña) is ignorance (avidya),
the absence of notion of thought (citta-asamjña) is blowing-out. **
The Buddha utters a verse:
'Thought does not know itself,
thought does not see itself.
When thought gives rise to notions,
just that is ignorance (avidya),
when there is no mentation,
that is blowing-out.'"
- The Scripture of the Concentration in Which the Present Buddha-
s Appear Face to Face
(Pratyutpanna-Buddha-sammukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra), T, 13,
417, 899b-c
Sariputra: That thought which is no thought, is that something which
is?
Subhuti:** Does there exist, or can one apprehend in this state of
abscence
of thought either a "there is" or "there is not"?**
Sari: **No, not that.**
Su: **Was it then a suitable question when the Venerable Sariputra
asked
whether that thought which is no thought is something which is ?**
Sari: What then is this state of abscence of thought?
Su: It is without modification or discrimination.
Sari: Well do you expound this, Subhuti... ...
Su: I,-who do not find anything to correspond to this word
"Bodhisattva"
or to the words "prajna-paramita", - which Bodhisattva should I then
instruct and admonish in which "prajnaparamita"? <etc.>
- Astasahasrika (8,000 lines) Prajnaparamita Sutra [5 - 12
roughly]
The fuller version of this passage :
Sariputra: What is the transparent luminosity of thought?
Subhuti: It is a thought which is neither conjoined <attached> with
greed,
nor disjoined <repulsed/abhoring> from it, which is neither conjoined
with hate, delusions, obsessions, coverings, unwholesome tendencies,
fetters, or what makes for views, - nor "disjoined" from these.
Sa: That thought which is a nonthought, is that something which is?
Su: Does there exist, or can one apprehend, in this state of
abscence
of thought either a "there is" or a "there is not"?
Sa: No, not that.
Su: Was it then a suitable question when the venerable Sariputra
asked
whether that thought which is a nonthought is something which is?
Sa: What then is this state of abscence of thought?
Su: **It is without modification or discrimination. It is the
dharmata
< dharma-ness/totality/that which is/being in itself >. This is called
the
unthinkable No-thoughthood.**
Sa: And just as that no thoughthood is without modification or
discrimination, in the same way also form, and all dharmas up to
enlightenment, are without modification or discrimination?
Su: So it is, Sariputra.
- Pancavimsatisahasrika (25,000) Prajnaparamita Sutra (AA, I, 3)
The Lord: And how has the perfection of wisdom been set up for a
performance which equals the unequalled? Because nothing can be quite
equal to the Tathagatas, the Arhats, the fully Enlightened Ones, how
much less can anything be superior to them!
Subhuti: Are then Buddhahood, Tathagatahood, Self-Existence, and the
state of all-knowledge unthinkable, incomparable, immeasurable, and
equal to the unequalled?
The Lord: Yes, they are. And so are also form, etc. to: all-knowledge.
All dharmas in fact are unthinkable, immeasurable, and equal to the
unequalled. With regard to the Dharmahood of all dharmas no thought,
and no dharmas belonging to thought, can be apprehended. Form also, as
unthinkable, etc. cannot be conceived, and so up to the knowledge of
all modes.
Su: For what reason can form, etc. as unthinkable, etc. not be
conceived?
The Lord: Because with regard to form, etc. one cannot conceive of the
thinking, the comparing, the measuring, the equality or inequality.
Su: And for what reason is that so?
The Lord: Because also of form, etc. the own-being is unthinkable,
etc. What do you think, Subhuti, can form, etc. be apprehended in what
is unthinkable, etc. ?
Su: No, 0 Lord!
The Lord: In that manner all dharmas are unthinkable, etc. And these
Tathagata-dharmas of the Tathagata are unthinkable, etc. ***They are
unthinkable because thinking has ceased and been transcended,
comparing and measuring have ceased and been transcended, equality and
inequality have ceased and been transcended.*** 'Unthinkable', that is
a synonym of incomparable, etc. These Tathagata-dharmas of the
Tathagata are unthinkable because space is unthinkable, incomparable
because space is incomparable, etc. etc. This also is of the Tathagata
the Tathagata unthinkability, -incomparability, -immeasurability, and -
equality to the unequalled, which cannot be thought or compared by the
world with its gods, men, and Asuras. Thus are the Buddhas
immeasurable, thus are the Buddhadharmas immeasurable.
When this chapter on the Tathagata's unthinkability, etc. was being
taught, the minds of 500 monks were freed, without further clinging,
from the outflows, and so were the minds of 2,000 nuns; 6,000 lay
brethren obtained with regard to dharmas the pure, dispassionate,
unstained Dharma-eye, 20,000 Bodhisattvas won the patient acceptance
of dharmas which fail to be produced, and the Lord has predicted that
they will become Buddhas in this very Bhadra-kalpa.
- Pancavimsatisahasrika (25,000) Prajnaparamita Sutra (AA, V,2,4.)
THIRD TURNING SUTRAS :
"Issued from so much merit, the Buddha's "body" is pure
and illuminates without opaque reductionisms/reifications."
**"When it is no longer eager for name-and-form, then thought
becomes prabhasvara (transparent illumination-luminosity)."**
- The Samadhiraja Sutra
Mañjushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as without inequality and
nondual, this is
right view.
**Mañjushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as unseen, seeing them
as without thought,
without conception, completely without discursive thought, this is
right thought.**
**Mañjushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as inexpressible, this
is right speech.**
Mañjushri, completely establishing all dharmas in a manner without
effort and without
establishing is right effort.
Mañjushri, seeing all dharmas without engaged attention and
mindfulness is right
mindfulness.
**Mañjushri, since all dharmas are not conceptualized, they are
naturally at rest in meditative
equality/equanimity. Seeing them in the non-disturbance of non-
conception is right
samadhi.**
- The Sutra Teaching the Side of Enlightenment (byang chub phyogs
bstan pa’i mdo)
MADHYAMIKA :
5. ***Through the ceasing of action and affliction, there is freedom.
Action and affliction [come] from thoughts and they from fixations.
Fixations are stopped by emptiness.***
9.*** Not known through others, peaceful, not fixed by fixations,
without conceptual thought, without differentiation: these are the
characteristics of suchness.***
-MMK 18
7. If nirvana were not a thing, how could it possibly be nothing? The
one for whom nirvana is not a thing, for him it is not nothing.
- MMK 25
10. **The root of life is formative impulses. Therefore, the wise do
not form impulses. Therefore, the unwise are formers, but not the wise
since they see reality.**
- MMK 26
13. Therefore, “the self occured, did not occur, both or neither:” all
those views of the past are invalid.
29.
Because of the emptiness of all existing things,
How will the views about "eternity," etc., come into existence, about
what, of whom, and of what kind?
30.
To him, possessing compassion, who taught the real dharma
For the destruction of all views -to him, Gautama, I humbly offer
reverence.
- MMK 27
19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn
All things come to an end.
So there is nothing inherently substantial
And all things are utterly pure.
- Mahayanavimsaka by Nagarjuna
***"By freedom from thought Nirvana is easily gained;
there is no other way."***
- Aryadeva, Catuhsataka, VIII, 11
YOGACARA
27
As long as one places something before himself and, taking it as an
object, Declares that it is the nature of Mere-consciousness, He is
really not residing in the state of Mere-consciousness, Because he is
in possession of something.
28
***If, in perceiving the sphere of objects, Wisdom (jnana) no longer
conceives any idea of the object, Then that wisdom is in the state of
Vijnaptimatrata, Because both the object to be appended and the act of
apprehending by consciousness are absent.***
- Trimsika(Thirty Stanzas)
By Vasubandhu
CH'AN / ZEN :
Someone asked : What is the very thing (i.e., enlightenment)?
Chao Chou (Joshu) : It is when the first thought has not yet arisen.
Someone asked : Ordinary consciousness distorts the object.
How can one transcend this?
Chao Chou : Leave consciousness alone.
Someone asked : When you do not carry a single thing with you, how is
it then?
Chao Chou : Put it down.
- The Saying Of Chao Chuo, 154; 332; 335
39.A monk asked, ‘Are words and speech also mind?’
M: Words and speech are concurrent causes; they are not mind.’
Q: ‘What is this mind which lies beyond all concurrent causes?’
M: ‘There is no mind beyond words and speech.’
Q: ‘If there is no mind beyond words and speech, what is that mind in
reality?’
M: **‘Mind is without form and characteristics; it is neither beyond
nor not beyond words and speech; it is for ever clear and still and
can perform its function freely and without hindrance. The Patriarch
said:
It is only when the mind is seen to be unreal That the dharma of all
minds can be truly understood.**
- Hui Hai,
A Treatise on the Essential Gateway to Truth by Means of
Instantaneous Awakening
(Tun Wu Ju Tao Yao Mon Lun)
MAHAMUDRA :
Still water stung by an icy wind
Freezes hard in starched and jagged shapes;
**In an emotional mind agitated by critical concepts
The unformed becomes hard and intractable.
The relatively real is free of intellectual constructs,
And ultimately real mind, active or quiescent, is no-mind,**
And this is the supreme,the highest of the high, immaculate;
Friends, know this sacred high!
In mind absorbed in samadhi that is concept-free,
Passion is immaculately pure;
Like a lotus rooted in the slime of a lake bottom,
This sublime reality is untouched by the pollution of existence.
***It cannot be denied nor yet affirmed,
And ungraspable it is inconceivable.
Through conceptualisation fools are bound,
While concept-free there is immaculate sahaja.***
The concepts of unity and multiplicity do not bring integration;
Only through awareness do sentient beings reach freedom.
Cognition of radiance is strong meditation;
Abide in a calm, quiescent mind.
- The Royal Song by Saraha
***The world is enslaved by thought, Saraha says,
And no one has known this non-thought.
The whole world is tormented by words
And there is no one who does without words.
But insofar as one is free from words
Does one really understand words.
See thought as thought, O fool, and leave all false views.***
-------
The fair tree of thought that knows no duality,
Spreads through the triple world.
It bears the flower and fruit of compassion,
And its name is service of others.
The fair tree of openness/emptiness abounds with flowers,
Acts of compassion of many kinds,
And fruit for others appearing spontaneously
For this joy has no actual thought of another.
So the fair tree of the emptiness/openness also lacks compassion,
Without shoots or flowers or foliage,
And whoever imagines them there, falls down,
For branches there are none.
The two trees spring from one seed,
And for that reason there is but one fault.
He who thinks of them thus indistinguishable,
Is released from Nirvana and Samsara.
- The Treasury of Song by Saraha
Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases;
Likewise, when mind gazes into mind itself,
The train of discursive and conceptual thought ends
And supreme enlightenment is gained.
Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air,
Going nowhere but ceasing to be,
Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation, dissolve,
When you behold your mind's true nature.
Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease,
Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo,
Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds.
The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed
By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises
Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka;
The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals.
By harbouring rigid precepts the true samaya is impaired,
But with cessation of mental activity all fixed notions subside;
When the swell of the ocean is at one with its peaceful depths,
When mind never strays from indeterminate, non-conceptual truth,
The unbroken samaya is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness.
Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles,
The truth of every school and scripture is revealed.
In the transcending of mind's dualities is Supreme Vision <View>;
In a still and silent mind is Supreme Meditation;
In spontaneity is Supreme Activity;
And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached.
Beyond all mental images the mind is naturally clear:
Follow no path to follow the path of the Buddhas;
Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightenment.
***The truth beyond mind cannot be grasped by any faculty of mind;
The meaning of non-action cannot be understood in compulsive activity;
To realise the meaning of non-action and beyond mind,
Cut the mind at its root and rest in naked awareness.***
Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.
- Tilopa's Mahamudra Instruction to Naropa in Twenty Eight
Verses
Rest in the true nature, free of fabrication.
Meditate without searching for dharma-body-
**It is devoid of thought.
If your mind searches, your meditation will be confused**.
All phenomena are empty of intrinsic nature
And the mind that clings to emptiness dissolves in its own ground.
**Freedom from conceptual activity
Is the path of all the Buddhas**.
- Maitripa's Essential Mahamudra Instruction
'By entirely refraining from forming thoughts and mental
visualizations,
By maintaining the bodily calmness of a sleeping babe,
And endeavouring meekly and ardently to follow the teachings
There will undoubtedly arise the Co-emergent State.'
- ( Saraha? ), and...
This is the Wisdom of the Intellect of him who knows himself;
It is indescribable by use of speech, and is not an object of the
mind.
I, Tilopa, have [beyond this] nothing [further] to reveal.
Act so as to know yourself by means of symbols in your own mind :
**Do not imagine, do not think, do not analyse,
Do not meditate, do not reflect;
Keep the mind in its natural state.**
Herein, in these verses, is contained the essence of all that has gone
before.
- Tilopa, and
When the mind is left in the primordial, unmodified condition,
Knowledge dawns;
When this condition is maintained, comparable in its calmness to the
flow of a calm river,
Knowledge in its completeness is attained,
Wholly abandon all directing and shaping of thoughts;
Ever maintain quiescence of mind, O yogin.
- Milarepa (this was added to the Manuscript after it was
translated into Tib.)
'Mind-made goals <lta-ba, views>, however noble, end in
disillusionment,
And the mind-transcending Thatness cannot thus be called a goal <lta-
ba, view>;
For inseparable is the seeing from the seen
This ease is the meeting of teacher <world> and student non-dual.'
- Jinendra ( gyal-wa'i wang-po )
Since all things are born of the mind,
Therefore is the mind itself (-as-such, sems.nyid - emptiness that is
none other than awareness)
that is the teacher.
- Saraha
-- quoted in The Manuscript Of Mahamudra
DZOGCHEN :
The maha ati is of the greatest simplicity. It is what is. It cannot
be shown by analogy; nothing can obstruct it. It is without limitation
and transcends all extremes. It is clear-cut nowness, which can never
change its shape or colour. When you become one with this state, the
desire to meditate itself dissolves; you are freed from the chain of
meditation and philosophy, and conviction is born within you. ***The
thinker has deserted. There is no longer any benefit to be gained from
"good" thoughts and no harm is to be suffered from "bad" thoughts.
Neutral thoughts can no longer deceive.*** You become one with
transcendental insight and boundless space.
People often try to discriminate between "good" thoughts and "bad"
thoughts, like trying to separate milk from water. It is easy enough
to accept the negative experiences in life but much harder to see the
positive experiences as part of the path.
***Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence
of thoughts as meditation, but it should be borne in mind that that
which notes what is happening is the tight grip of ego.***
When thoughts are absent the meditator is completely immersed in the
space of non-thought. ***The "absence of thoughts" does not mean
unconsciousness or sleep or withdrawal from the senses, but simply
being unmoved by conflict.*** The three signs of meditation clarity,
joy and absence of thoughts may occur naturally when a person
meditates, but if an effort is made to create them the meditator still
remains in the circle of samsara.
Look out for the subtle hindrance of trying to analyze experiences.
This is a great danger. It is too early to label all thoughts as
dharmakaya [the body of ultimate truth]. The remedy is the wisdom of
nowness, changeless and unfailing. Once freed from ***the bondage of
philosophical speculation***, the meditator develops penetrating
awareness in his practice.
It is a mistake to try to concentrate on emptiness and, after
meditation, intellectually to regard everything as a mirage.
***Primordial insight is the state which is not influenced by the
undergrowth of thoughts.*** It is a mistake to be on guard against the
wandering mind or to try and imprison the mind in the ascetic practice
of suppressing thoughts.
It is likewise a mistake, when discursive thoughts are pacified, to
overlook the clarity and regard the mind as merely blank. The
experience of true insight is the simultaneous awareness of both
stillness and active thoughts.
*It is a mistake to try to introduce some remedy for thoughts without
realizing that thoughts are by nature void and that one can free
oneself like a snake unwinding.*
It is also a mistake to hold a nihilistic view that there is nothing
but the void, no cause and effect of karma and no meditator nor
meditation, failing to experience the void which is beyond
conceptions.
The Lion's Roar by Jigme Lingpa
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own
condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in
itself is quite ordinary. **In the present, do not grasp (at thoughts
that arise) but allow (the mind) to remain in a state like the sky.**
**When you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any
discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid
clarity without anyone being there who is the observer; only a naked
manifest awareness is present.**
Everything that appears is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though intrinsic awareness which is self-originated primal
awareness appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though (the experience) of remaining in a state of one-pointed
concentration without any discursive thoughts appears to you, it is
but a manifestation of mind.
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do
not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood.
Appearances are not erroneous in themselves, but because of your
grasping at them, errors come into existence.
**But if you know that these thoughts only grasp at things which are
mind, then they will be liberated by themselves.**
With respect to your own sense faculties, everything will be
understood immediately without any intervening operations of the
intellect.
**Your immediate awareness is an unfabricated inherent clarity.
Without accepting or rejecting anything, just letting things be as
they are without trying to modify them**,
Such conduct or behavior alone is pure.
***When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
If there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected,
And when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
If there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them,
Then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without anything
being projected.***
- Self Liberation Through Naked Awareness by Karma Lingpa
>
> Actually FWIW Buddhism does not teach us to let go of thought, either.
> Buddhism teaches us to think. For example any discussion of Right View
> and/or Right Intention must include some definition of a cognitive
> aspect of wisdom. This is hardly giving up thought.
There are two ways of approaching the eightfold path and those three
aspects - as what is to be done and what is to dropped. Hence Jigme
Lingpa's comment:
"Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence of
thoughts as meditation, but it should be borne in mind that that which
notes what is happening is the tight grip of ego."
Samatha meditation doesn't grasp either, hence samatha (peacefulness)
lets vipasyana (insight)
happen - that "logic" is there from Threavadin to Mahayana/Ch'an/Zen/
etc to Vajrayana to whatever. Basic Mindfulness.
> As well, the
> fourth noble truth, that the path to cessation of suffering (hint) can
> be known and followed, is hardly giving up thought.
errmmm...actually, both Theravada and Mahayana describe it a bit like
that:
(another couple longish quotes, copy and paste for later reading if u
want)
"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as
this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop
the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns
that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this
towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would
be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the
sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not
sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the
world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally
unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"Whereas formerly he foolishly had taken on mental acquisitions and
brought them to completion, he has now abandoned them, their root
destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of
development, not destined for future arising. Thus a monk so endowed
is endowed with the highest determination for relinquishment, for this
-- the renunciation of all mental acquisitions -- is the highest noble
relinquishment.
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow.
And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a
sage at peace.' Thus it was said. With reference to what was it said?
'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I
shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall
not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-
percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a
cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is
called a sage at peace.
- MN 140
The Tathagata: Here the Bodhisattva, the Mahasattva, thinks thinks
thus:
"Countless beings should I lead to Nirvana, and yet there are none who
lead to Nirvana, or who should be lead to it." However many beings he
may
lead to Nirvana, yet there is not any being that has been lead to
Nirvana,
nor that has lead others to it. For such is the true nature of
dharmas, seeing
that their nature is illusory. Just as if, Subhuti, a clever magician,
or magician's
apprentice, were to conjure up at the crossroads a great crowd of
people,
and then make them vanish again. What do you think, Subhuti, was
anyone
killed by anyone, or murdered, or destroyed, or made to vanish?
Subhuti: No indeed, Lord.
T: Even so a Bodhisattva, a Mahasattva, leads countless beings to
Nirvana,
and yet there is not any being that has been lead to Nirvana, nor that
has lead
others to it. To hear this exposition without fear, that is the great
thing which
entitles the Bodhisattva to be known as "armed with the great armour".
S: As I understand the meaning of the Lord's teaching, as cetainly
not armed
with an armour should this Bodhisattva, this Mahasattva, be known.
T: So it is. For all-knowledge is not made, not unmade, not
effected. Those
beings also for whose sake he is armed with the great armour are not
made,
not unmade, not effected.
S: So it is. For <the skandha> "Form", etc., is niether bound nor
freed. And that
is true also of the tathata <thus-ness/such-ness, etc.> of "Form", the
tathata of
<the skandha> "Feeling", etc. < the rest of the skandhas>.
Purna: But what then is that form of which you say that it is
neither bound nor
freed, and what is that tathata of "Form", etc.?
S: The form of an illusory man is neither bound nor freed. The
tathata of an
illusory man is neither bound nor freed. Because in reality it is not
there at all,
because it is "isolated", because it is unproduced. This is the great
armour,
the great non-armour of a Bodhisattva, a Mahasattva, who is armed with
the
great armour, who has set out in the great vehicle, who has mounted on
the
great vehicle.
and furthermore:
T: But no one has demonstrated it, no one has heard it, no one has
recieved it,
and no one realizes it, in the past, present, or future. Nor by this
demonstation
of dharma does anyone ever go to Nirvana. Nor by this demonstration of
dharma
has anyone been made worthy of gifts.
and so:
S: ...I do not get at any of the dharmas which constitute a
Bodhisattva. I do not
see that dharma which the word "Bodhisattva" denotes. Perfect wisdom
<prajna-
paramita> also I neither see nor get at. ... "Buddha",
"Bodhisattva", "Perfect
wisdom", all these are mere words. And what they denote is something
uncreated.
It is as with the "self". Although we speak of a "self", yet
absolutely the self is
something uncreated.
- The Astasahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra, 20-23, 205, 26
>
> The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
> that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
It's not "the giving up of thought" per say - that's a short-hand way
of
referring to not being caught-up in stories and dramas about
ourselves.
In the West "Tansactual-Analysis" covered some of this ground, other
Western traditions such as NLP and Semantics covered the same ground
as how reifying words and concepts set up psuedo mapping systems...
Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
fractal
math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
fields...
The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
eventually
Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
course ...
anyhoo, hope these quotes are interesting, grounds for further ideas,
discussions...
- best wishes,
- n.
Appledog
I know what has been troubling you . . . Listen to me. Don't continue
to be a pawn of the posters here! Ever since I've known you, you've
been searching for a life greater than that of an ordinary
householder. A life of significance, of conscience.
Norbu, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all
its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of one school or one
"household" (read: armchair) practitioner. If you wish to become a
complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the
dharma. Be careful of people who redefine words on the fly, as you
mentioned above.
They fear you. In time they will destroy you. Norbu.. through me can
you achieve a power greater than any of these unenlightened fools.
Learn to know the transcendant dharma, Norbu, and you will be able to
save your wife from certain death.
Use my knowledge, I beg you . . .
-
Hollywood Lee
> I know what has been troubling you . . . Listen to me. Don't continue
> to be a pawn of the posters here! Ever since I've known you, you've
> been searching for a life greater than that of an ordinary
> householder. A life of significance, of conscience.
>
> Norbu, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all
> its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of one school or one
> "household" (read: armchair) practitioner. If you wish to become a
> complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the
> dharma. Be careful of people who redefine words on the fly, as you
> mentioned above.
>
> They fear you. In time they will destroy you. Norbu.. through me can
> you achieve a power greater than any of these unenlightened fools.
> Learn to know the transcendant dharma, Norbu, and you will be able to
> save your wife from certain death.
>
> Use my knowledge, I beg you . . .
>
Darth Vader: You cannot hide forever, Luke.
Luke: I will not fight you.
Darth Vader: Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can
save your friends. Yes, your thoughts betray you. Your feelings for them
are strong. Especially for... sister. So, you have a twin sister. Your
feelings have now betrayed her, too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from
me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the Dark
Side... then perhaps she will...
Luke: [igniting light saber, screams] NO!
herbzet
Beat me to it, dammit: "Come to the Dark Side, Norbu!"
--
hz
^@%>---*=#**
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcs364$t3c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
so appledork is norbu's father ?
Hollywood Lee
Yes, but we don't know that until I think episode 3 (which ignores the 3
horrible pre-quels).
trun...@yahoo.com
> > Truths",
> > nirvana, ... but at this moment Icarealotabout monkey mind, right
> > view, ...
> > That's why I rated both of your posts as 'excellent' , 'graduate-
> > level'
>
> What an embarassment, to be rated equal to a jackass.
>
> Thanks alot.
>
written by both of you) , NOT 'you'.
herbzet
norbu_tragri wrote:
[...]
Overall, wonderful post -- already saved it.
> Appledog wrote:
> > The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
> > that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
>
> It's not "the giving up of thought" per say - that's a short-hand way
> of referring to not being caught-up in stories and dramas about
> ourselves.
Also, people insist on mistaking the stilling of thought as a practice
of meditation, with the idea that one should permanently "give up thought".
I'm running into a similar thing when suggesting to people that they
"empty their awareness" -- they think I mean permanently, rather than
as an exercise.
Of course the sage still thinks. It is said that he thinks like the
wind blows, like the rain falls.
> In the West "Tansactual-Analysis"
That's "Transactional Analysis" -- the analysis of transactions.
> covered some of this ground, other
> Western traditions such as NLP and Semantics covered the same ground
> as how reifying words and concepts set up psuedo mapping systems...
>
> Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
> fractal
> math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
> fields...
>
> The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
> eventually
> Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
> course ...
>
> anyhoo, hope these quotes are interesting, grounds for further ideas,
> discussions...
Thanks very much.
It would be nice if you could get around to a brief summary of why it's
called "first", "second", and "third" turning. You told me this once,
but unfortunately it didn't stick, and I lost my notes.
--
hz
Allen Barker
norbu_tragri wrote:
> Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
> fractal
> math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
> fields...
>
> The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
> eventually
> Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
> course ...
Not only oversimplifying, but missing the deepest level
of what Buddha taught. That seems to reflect the scientism
which is implicit in much of modern thought.
Chaos and complexity theory is fascinating stuff. I love
quantum theory. But, at the end of they day, they are
only theories. Just that: theories (albeit with some
empirical falsifiability). Tools in the toolbox,
fun soduku puzzles, at times even elegant works of art.
Science is science: in the realm of empirically verifiable,
quantifiable phenomena in the physical world science should
be applied -- indeed, it is foolish not to.
It is also foolish, however, to attempt to extend science
to domains beyond that.
The goal of science is not to end suffering, or to achieve
awakening. Scientists can develop science for another
500 years and they still won't approach what the Buddha
really taught. They are different domains -- not that
there won't be cross-fertilization of ideas and metaphors,
or that individual scientists won't also have deeper
realizations.
It isn't out of the question that science could be used
as skillful means, as a path to the gate. But there still
needs to be a transcendence, which is necessarily
unquantifiable and thus outside the realm of science.
Disclaimer: These are all discriminations, and there
is no such "thing" as science in an absolute sense.
Appledog
> On 11/4/2009 3:09 PM, ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
What part of what I said caused you to consider my words an illusion,
that in another time, when wouldn't be said, would cause you to think
it wasn't an illusion?
Even if you miss the point, don't miss the revelation I have given you
here, it may be the last chance you ever get to taste real wisdom
.
heron stone
Allen Barker <allendotel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Science is science: in the realm of empirically verifiable,
> quantifiable phenomena in the physical world science should
> be applied -- indeed, it is foolish not to.
>
> It is also foolish, however, to attempt to extend science
> to domains beyond that.
.of course one important question is...
?are there domains beyond that or
are those so-called domains merely
more linguistic flapdoodle
.there is no apparent limit to the
number of ways we can talk about
experience
.some appear to be more useful than
others
.the idea, "empirically verifiable,
quantifiable phenomena in the
physical world" is merely another
theory (language) built over our
experience
.the idea of "objective, hard, outside
reality" is nothing more than an
idea... a way to talk about and
make sense of our experience
.for me, the word "reality" means
nothing more than my immediate
experience
.the rest is language about experience
and, as alfred korzybski said,
"the map is not the territory"
no string of phonemes, no matter how
clever or elegant, can capture
THE TRUTH
.at bottom, we are left with a mystery...
the ineffable... the unspeakable
hallelujah
--
unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded, http://gendo.net
must be obeyed. mailto:her...@gendo.net
herbzet
Hurry! Supplies are limited!
--
hz
norbu_tragri
> norbu_tragri wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Overall, wonderful post -- already saved it.
It was a copy/paste of a couple old posts...there were a couple
translations on
re-reading it that i thought could have been clearer...oh well...i
think it can
be figured out...
>
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > The giving up of thought is a perversion of what the Buddha taught
> > > that shows you do not understand Zen, nor the Buddhism it is based on.
>
> > It's not "the giving up of thought" per say - that's a short-hand way
> > of referring to not being caught-up in stories and dramas about
> > ourselves.
>
> Also, people insist on mistaking the stilling of thought as a practice
> of meditation, with the idea that one should permanently "give up thought".
There are phases of practice that call for gradual stilling of
reactions, thoughts, etc
in the "Peacefulness" phase of meditation - the "Jhana/Dhyana" phase
of Samatha.
my Theravadin and Mahayana teachers all said that the higher dhyanas
were a sort of mental
gymnastics - shutting everything down just to see what would happen,
and the Buddha says
pretty much the same thing in the Suttas - these were techniques he
learned from his
Hindu teachers - the final two dhyanas of "nothingness" and "niether
perception or
non-perception" are not his invention and he said that they did not
lead to liberation
from suffering. my teachers said that only "access dhyana" was
required - do the basic
sitting practice until it becomes automatic - you no longer get lost
in thought,
you return to mindfulness/posture/breath without effort, so to speak
(you're just there,
no where else to be, no story) and just be mindful - watch/be/whatever
with whatever
arises (vipassana/vipasyana)..."awareness" and "content-of-awareness"
then find the
same flat ground just looking...One analogy is of a finger tracing
images on water,
but that there is no finger above or water below, just this "sahaja" -
co-emergence...
mindfulness...
>
> I'm running into a similar thing when suggesting to people that they
> "empty their awareness" -- they think I mean permanently, rather than
> as an exercise.
hmmm maybe try "open your heart" ? different ways of saying drop the
drama
and just look, see what happens without dogma. Western version, "let
go of
the narrative..."
>
> Of course the sage still thinks. It is said that he thinks like the
> wind blows, like the rain falls.
Tang says (quoting from memory) "Situations enact the Awake". Whatever
stories
other folks have, human, cat, dog, dolphin, whatever - their
"narrative" -
that's the weather and landscape - elements play - lightning, rivers,
and seasons, etc
...it's their story...we just are there as a friend...no particular we
or them...
>
> > In the West "Tansactual-Analysis"
>
> That's "Transactional Analysis" -- the analysis of transactions.
... i type with all the elegance of a seal...two flippers, whap, whap,
also i find as i get
older i'm getting a bit dyslexic...on the other paw, nothing new,
things i wrote in my teens would often have connective words skipped
over...thinking ahead to the next phrase...
Pathetic.
>
>
>
> > covered some of this ground, other
> > Western traditions such as NLP and Semantics covered the same ground
> > as how reifying words and concepts set up psuedo mapping systems...
>
> > Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
> > fractal
> > math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
> > fields...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_systems_theory
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL5300293M/Relevance_of_general_systems_theory
>
> > The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
> > eventually
> > Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
> > course ...
>
> > anyhoo, hope these quotes are interesting, grounds for further ideas,
> > discussions...
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> It would be nice if you could get around to a brief summary of why it's
> called "first", "second", and "third" turning. You told me this once,
> but unfortunately it didn't stick, and I lost my notes.
That's a Northern/Mahayana lingo.
The First Turning Of The Wheel Of Dharma is the Suttas/Sutras in
common with the
Theravada - the Agamas, etc. (Some historical post required there re
how the
north and south went off into a dozens of different ways, most of
which died off...)
What remained was pretty much identical re the suttas and "First
Turning Sutras"...
"The Second Turning Of The Wheel Of Dharma Sutras" refers to the
first
"Mahayana" sutras - the "Pajnaparamita" sutras which emphasize that
all
concepts are empty - that the map is not the territory.
"The Third Turning Of The Wheel Of Dharma Sutras" refers the
Lankavatara Sutra, Avatamsaka
Sutra, etc that focus on "Tathagata-garbha" - the awake stuff going on
even when there
is confusion, so to speak - that if you let go of the grasping and
narrative the awake is already there, always has been...you don't have
to crank up any "Awake" thing, just drop
the B.S. ...
The actual southern traditions teach something akin to both these -
The Theravada tradition
should not be confused with what those sutras refer to as "Hinayana".
Early Western
translators made that mistake. Theravada teaches individual liberation
and the bodhisatta
path - Mahayana teaches individual liberation and emphasizes the
bodhisattva path...
Southern and Northern monks and nuns of the then various traditions
used to live together
in old India...
>
> --
> hz
norbu_tragri
wrote:
> norbu_tragri wrote:
> > Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
> > fractal
> > math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
> > fields...
>
> > The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
> > eventually
> > Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
> > course ...
>
> Not only oversimplifying, but missing the deepest level
> of what Buddha taught. That seems to reflect the scientism
> which is implicit in much of modern thought.
By "oversimplifying" i meant exactly what you say here.
i'd thought the readers here would know that.
maybe not. hmmm...
thnx. i prolly shud of said this as well...
norbu_tragri
> In article <WUSIm.3245$%j4.3...@newsfe18.iad>,
some interesting ways of talking about all this:
heron stone
<d057a909-ca71-4d1b...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
norbu_tragri <norbu....@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks
.i'll check them out
?have you read korzybski
> some interesting ways of talking about all this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_systems_theory
>
> http://openlibrary.org/b/OL5300293M/Relevance_of_general_systems_theory
--
unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded, http://gendo.net
must be obeyed. mailto:her...@gendo.net
norbu_tragri
> > Semantics went to Catastrophe theory then Chaos theory then all the
> > fractal
> > math we now call Complexity theory - how Quantum dynamics play out in
> > fields...
>
> > The Buddha approached it from beyond the idea of field and subject and
> > eventually
> > Western science saw the same dynamics...i'm over simplifying of
> > course ...
>
> Not only oversimplifying, but missing the deepest level
> of what Buddha taught. That seems to reflect the scientism
> which is implicit in much of modern thought.
Actually, i'm on the same side of the cultural exchange as well.
The buddhadharma and science agree on some points of how to
describe experience, the deconstruction of ideas of identity,
etc, etc. But those views are not the same as the dharma -
they see the three points that all is transitory, all is
un-resolving, all without some identity-thingy. But science does
not go on to address how to live in this world that has no
safe ground for reactive ego, how to work with ego games of
gaining and losing territory, ignoring, etc.
Some Western systems have approached that such as General Semantics,
General Systems Theory, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Transactional
Analysis, etc, but they tend to be adaptive. Maslow tried to go a bit
further ideas about value and human potential, but it still wasn't
quite the dharma. The buddhadharma is unique - there are many
parallels
throughout human history, but nothing quite the same in the reach of
vision of liberation...although there are traditions that are quite
close...
Tathagatagarbha is the birth right of all beings, and it tends to
surface
as much as ego insanity does.
>
> Chaos and complexity theory is fascinating stuff. I love
> quantum theory. But, at the end of they day, they are
> only theories. Just that: theories (albeit with some
> empirical falsifiability). Tools in the toolbox,
> fun soduku puzzles, at times even elegant works of art.
>
> Science is science: in the realm of empirically verifiable,
> quantifiable phenomena in the physical world science should
> be applied -- indeed, it is foolish not to.
>
> It is also foolish, however, to attempt to extend science
> to domains beyond that.
Science is a way of examining and describing experience, life...
It's going to overlap with buddhadharma, other philosophies,
etc. Science might explain if the moon is made of cheese or silicon,
but what each person feels as seeing the moon on any particular night,
how that fits into their development, or not, etc etc etc,
what they do with that experience, etc...no...
> The goal of science is not to end suffering, or to achieve
> awakening.
Just so.
> Scientists can develop science for another
> 500 years and they still won't approach what the Buddha
> really taught. They are different domains -- not that
> there won't be cross-fertilization of ideas and metaphors,
> or that individual scientists won't also have deeper
> realizations.
>
> It isn't out of the question that science could be used
> as skillful means, as a path to the gate. But there still
> needs to be a transcendence, which is necessarily
> unquantifiable and thus outside the realm of science.
>
> Disclaimer: These are all discriminations, and there
> is no such "thing" as science in an absolute sense.
Well said.
- n.
norbu_tragri
>
> norbu_tragri <norbu.tra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> thanks
>
> .i'll check them out
>
> ?have you read korzybski
i read a couple articles/excepts from Korzybski - Mostly i've read
Hayakawa on the one side
(who, yes, some say he left the amorphous questions for a more
semantic approach) and
Rapoport and his group leading into Chaos Theory, Complexity, Fractal
dynamics, etc.
>
> > some interesting ways of talking about all this:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_systems_theory
>
> >http://openlibrary.org/b/OL5300293M/Relevance_of_general_systems_theory
>
> --
> unDO email address
> ___
> Nature, heron stone
> to be commanded, http://gendo.net
> must be obeyed. mailto:hero...@gendo.net
herbzet
trun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > trung2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > To say the truth, until this day I don'tcaremuch about "Four Noble
> > > Truths",
> > > nirvana, ... but at this moment Icarealotabout monkey mind, right
> > > view, ...
> > > That's why I rated both of your posts as 'excellent' , 'graduate-
> > > level'
> >
> > What an embarassment, to be rated equal to a jackass.
> >
> > Thanks alot.
> >
> Please note I wrote 'your posts' (I really meant 'the two posts
> written by both of you), NOT 'you'.
Nice try, but not a lot of help, really.
But don't let me chase you off with my brusqness, stick around.
--
hz
Tang Huyen
many scriptures, beginning with some in the early
canon, that teach that all that happens during cultivation
and attainment is purely on the side of mind, more
specifically on the side of the ablation of mentation,
therefore that all that happens during cultivation
and attainment is purely subjective and strictly
sentimental, with nothing objective out there that
can pin cultivation and attainment down, for real.
There is nothing to perceive or intuit, or adjust to,
objectively, out there, but the cultivator only quiesces
his mind, more specifically quiesces his thinking,
without further ado.
To be noticed are the passages marked by Norbu with
asterisks. Thank you, Norbu.
Tang Huyen
*******************************************
norbu_tragri wrote:
> FIRST TURNING SUTRAS :
> **The notion of thought (citta-samj�a) is ignorance (avidya),
> the absence of notion of thought (citta-asamj�a) is blowing-out. **
>
> The Buddha utters a verse:
>
> 'Thought does not know itself,
> thought does not see itself.
> When thought gives rise to notions,
> just that is ignorance (avidya),
> when there is no mentation,
> that is blowing-out.'"
>
> - The Scripture of the Concentration in Which the
> Present Buddhas Appear Face to Face
> Ma�jushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as without inequality and
> nondual, this is right view.
>
> **Ma�jushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as unseen, seeing them
> as without thought, without conception, completely without discursive
> thought, this is right thought.**
>
> **Ma�jushri, wherever someone sees all dharmas as inexpressible, this
> is right speech.**
>
> Ma�jushri, completely establishing all dharmas in a manner without
> effort and without establishing is right effort.
>
> Ma�jushri, seeing all dharmas without engaged attention and
> mindfulness is right mindfulness.
>
> **Ma�jushri, since all dharmas are not conceptualized, they are
> naturally at rest in meditative equality/equanimity. Seeing them in
> the non-disturbance of non-conception is right samadhi.**
> - Trimsika (Thirty Stanzas)
> thus be called a goal <lta-ba, view>;
> [snip]
>
> There are two ways of approaching the eightfold path and those three
> aspects - as what is to be done and what is to dropped. Hence Jigme
> Lingpa's comment:
>
> "Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence of
> thoughts as meditation, but it should be borne in mind that that which
> notes what is happening is the tight grip of ego."
>
> Samatha meditation doesn't grasp either, hence samatha (peacefulness)
> lets vipasyana (insight) happen - that "logic" is there from Threavadin
> to Mahayana/Ch'an/Zen/ etc to Vajrayana to whatever. Basic Mindfulness.
>
> [snip]
> S: As I understand the meaning of the Lord's teaching, as certainly
> not armed with an armour should this Bodhisattva, this Mahasattva,
> be known.
>
> T: So it is. For all-knowledge is not made, not unmade, not
> effected. Those beings also for whose sake he is armed with the great
> armour are not made, not unmade, not effected.
>
> S: So it is. For <the skandha> "Form", etc., is neither bound nor
> freed. And that is true also of the tathata <thus-ness/such-ness, etc.>
> of "Form", the tathata of <the skandha> "Feeling", etc. < the rest of
> the skandhas>.
>
> Purna: But what then is that form of which you say that it is
> neither bound nor freed, and what is that tathata of "Form", etc.?
>
> S: The form of an illusory man is neither bound nor freed. The
> tathata of an illusory man is neither bound nor freed. Because in reality
> it is not there at all, because it is "isolated", because it is
> unproduced.
> This is the great armour, the great non-armour of a Bodhisattva, a
> Mahasattva, who is armed with the great armour, who has set out in
> the great vehicle, who has mounted on the great vehicle.
>
> and furthermore:
>
> T: But no one has demonstrated it, no one has heard it, no one has
> received it, and no one realizes it, in the past, present, or future. Nor
> by
> this demonstation of dharma does anyone ever go to Nirvana. Nor by
> this demonstration of dharma has anyone been made worthy of gifts.
>
> and so:
>
> S: ...I do not get at any of the dharmas which constitute a
> Bodhisattva. I do not see that dharma which the word "Bodhisattva"
> denotes. Perfect wisdom <prajna-paramita> also I neither see nor get
> at. ... "Buddha", "Bodhisattva", "Perfect wisdom", all these are mere
> words. And what they denote is something uncreated. It is as with the
> "self". Although we speak of a "self", yet absolutely the self is
> something uncreated.
>
> - The Astasahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra, 20-23, 205, 26
>
> [snip]
>
> It's not "the giving up of thought" per say - that's a short-hand way
> of referring to not being caught-up in stories and dramas about
> ourselves. In the West "Transactual-Analysis" covered some of this
herbzet
norbu_tragri wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > norbu_tragri wrote:
> > > In the West "Tansactual-Analysis"
> >
> > That's "Transactional Analysis" -- the analysis of transactions.
>
> ... i type with all the elegance of a seal...two flippers, whap, whap,
> also i find as i get
> older i'm getting a bit dyslexic...on the other paw, nothing new,
> things i wrote in my teens would often have connective words skipped
> over...thinking ahead to the next phrase...
Well, I'm not big on spelling flames, unless there's some clear
and usually comic (ha-ha) reason for the flame, but I think it's
important for people to understand that one of the features of
transactional analysis is that it is primarily about looking
at the transactions that occur between people, rather than the
usual intra-psychic emphasis of ordinary psychotherapy. It's
just a mental tic on my part.
I knew it would be a slight pin-prick to correct your diction,
but I couldn't think of a nice way to do it -- just do it, hope
Norbu doesn't get too annoyed.
[...]
Ok, thanks again, Norbu, for that general summary.
--
hz
norbu_tragri
> norbu_tragri wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > norbu_tragri wrote:
> > > > In the West "Tansactual-Analysis"
>
> > > That's "Transactional Analysis" -- the analysis of transactions.
>
> > ... i type with all the elegance of a seal...two flippers, whap, whap,
> > also i find as i get
> > older i'm getting a bit dyslexic...on the other paw, nothing new,
> > things i wrote in my teens would often have connective words skipped
> > over...thinking ahead to the next phrase...
>
> Well, I'm not big on spelling flames, unless there's some clear
> and usually comic (ha-ha) reason for the flame,
agreed ! ;) Serious spelling flames - blah, who cares. If there is a
heeeeeeeeee - in there yep, do it. Kick a bit of the robot language
away.
In this case i did a garbled typo - for anyone encountering TA for the
first time
it would be very confusing...
> but I think it's
> important for people to understand that one of the features of
> transactional analysis is that it is primarily about looking
> at the transactions that occur between people, rather than the
> usual intra-psychic emphasis of ordinary psychotherapy.
Yep.
> It's
> just a mental tic on my part.
There are tics and tics of various sorts...i don't think your reply
is a tic of any sort...my typo might qualify as a tic...
>
> I knew it would be a slight pin-prick to correct your diction,
> but I couldn't think of a nice way to do it -- just do it, hope
> Norbu doesn't get too annoyed.
Not a pin-prick at all. When a typo/mispelling/etc muddles a post
correcting it is just helpful for everyone.
BTW, you have carte blance to be nice or rude, or whatever with me,
i value honesty, corrections, questions, alternive views, etc.
:}
zenworm
> BTW, you have carte blance to be nice or rude, or whatever with me,
closet bipolar 'butter me up' masochistic agendas?
> i value honesty, corrections, questions, alternive views, etc.
> :}
what about lies, errors, answers, standard views, etc.?
wouldn't you be valueless without them? :P
today is 'imp' day
ZN :D
norbu_tragri
> On Nov 13, 6:38 am, norbu_tragri <norbu.tra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, you have carte blance to be nice or rude, or whatever with me,
>
> closet bipolar 'butter me up' masochistic agendas?
not really. on the one paw that is just what everyone has the freedom
to do,
just a statement of fact, so to speak. On the other paw i wuz saying
that i don't
react negatively/with combativeness to criticism, disagreement, etc -
it's conversation, exchanging ideas, etc. And on another paw, well,
whatever.
And on the fourth paw the dance goes on.
>
> > i value honesty, corrections, questions, alternive views, etc.
> > :}
>
> what about lies, errors, answers, standard views, etc.?
> wouldn't you be valueless without them? :P
If there is honesty - just looking - then that's all there, lots of
room for it all.
If there is no honesty there is still lots of room and it's all still
there.
If anyone makes some norbu out of all that, with value or without,
whatever, that's a
a three pawed dance...on the other paw "norbu" is just a name i was
given, like "i"...
the stories about "norbu" from others and the stories about "i" from
"i" are all just
stories...this kitsune does not give names here or there...Inari the
harvest sends out the
kitsunes to dance, the future harvest causes the past on that fourth
paw, three paws
would stagger ...complete as a fox the fox leaps and plays. Inari
sends out foxes...
What is O-Kami Inari ?
>
> today is 'imp' day
> ZN :D
everyday is today :)
zenworm
oh yeah!
"an imp a day keeps the ego away"
LOL
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action