Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The self centred thought is not who we are.
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Tang Huyen
Feb 20, 2012, 6:44:48 PM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 3:01 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> I liked it too. Very good ideas. But some parts
> I didn't understand:
>
> * What are "the three poisons"?
>
> * What are "the three jewels"?
>
> * What are "the three worlds", the happiness
> of which may disappear in a moment?
>
> * "The four formless states"?
>
> * "The five perfections"?
>
> * "The three domains"?
>
> * "The three spheres" (that apparently hold
> wisdom captive)?
>
> I thought it was a very good read, but I
> guess it's even better to a Buddhist who may
> be familiar with the terms above.
>
> Before anyone suggests it, I already know I
> could google these things, but that's
> inferior to knowing it by heart. That's why
> I think someone should write a poem that
> explains all those terms. I know there are
> lots of poets loitering (with intent?) all
> around the Buddhist usenet. I'd like to see
> them get busy with something worthwhile,
> for a change.
Much of Buddhism can seem counterintuitive,
and not just counterintuitive, but also
counterproductive. If Buddhism proclaims
itself as treating suffering and the
ending of suffering, why does it not then
concentrate on just those topics and
ignore everything else?
The reason is, that whilst Buddhism wants
to be simple and direct, namely about
suffering and ending of suffering, not
everybody can take simple and direct
talk. The Buddha has to dumb down -- to
dumb his teaching down -- to accommodate
hearers who want prolific discourse
bouncing around numberless topics,
perhaps to slow down or delay their
practice. In addition, right on these
boards, you can see lots of people who
are realist and literalist, and who want
to hear object-bound discourse and
objective discourse, and not purely
subjective and strictly sentimental
discourse that talks only about how to
come to peace with oneself (perhaps
such people are self-haters who cannot
stand themselves).
So, instead of saying something simple
and direct, like: "Calm yourself down,
come to peace with yourself, and you're
done", the Buddha has to talk round and
round, and enumerate this list and that
list, endlessly. Instead of saying
something like: "Discard your learning,
drop your knowledge, calm yourself
further and further, until your mind is
completely still and at rest, so that
you don't agitate thought to create a
self for yourself to carry around", the
Buddha has to excite the learning of his
hearers and grow their knowledge,
because that is the only way that they
will learn.
"The road of excess leads to the palace
of wisdom". - Blake.
If I get it aright, the attitude if
Buddhist masters from the Buddha on
down has been: if the students wants
rigmarole, give it to them, lay it
thick on them, until they choke. When
they choke, they'll wisen up. In
other words, fight poison with poison.
Make the error vivid, and it will be
given up, but it will not be given up
until after it has been made vivid.
Of course we humans are faced with
irony and antinomy, in that extremes
can produce each other. The extreme
of effort can produce the extreme of
the absence of effort, the extreme
of tension can produce the extreme of
absence of tension, the extreme of
exertion can produce the extreme of
the absence of exertion, etc.
"Wall-contemplation" is more than a
physical posture, it symbolises the
total, complete freezing of mind to
make mind behave like a thing, and
like a single thing. It symbolises
grabbing mind and turning it into
a wall. Total blocage. Total
blocage then collapses and turns
into its opposite, namely total,
unobstructed flow. Clear as
daylight.
In public case meditation, one
strives to roll oneself up into a
ball of tension, a ball of seizure.
In Shikantaza one strives to stop
all actions and do nothing instead.
In either case, what can be more
rigourous and hardcore than that?
What can be more non-wu-wei-ish
than that?
The main paradigm from the Buddha
on down is his awakening from the
six years of Jaina self-torture,
in the form of extreme
self-mortification and
self-starvation. He nearly
succeeded, as he was just days away
from success, namely death. He
woke up from the self-torture in
the nick of time, and given the
long and massive self-torture, his
waking up from it was vivid and
dramatic.
The Chan master wants to
intentionally make his students
engage in error/delusion, and as
big an error/delusion as possible,
he'll give them just the biggest
and grossest kind of
error/delusion to break their
head on.
His thinking goes along something
like:
"Look, idiots, Buddhism and Chan
are to cure you of realism and
literalism, on the way to curing
you of suffering (of you causing
suffering to yourself and
inflicting suffering on yourself,
all for nothing), but if you don't
wake up from realism and
literalism right off, I'm going to
lay them thick on you with a
vengeance. I'm going to make you
indulge in realism and literalism
all the way, to make you
exacerbate realism and literalism
to the extreme, so that you
freeze yourself in the farthest
catatonic seizure with realism
and literalism, until you wake up
and realise that that is what
you're doing to yourself. So I'll
use emptiness, an abstract concept,
and make you freeze it into a
thing, make you hypostatise it
into a reality (which is the
worst Buddhist *sin* possible),
so that you imagine it to be at
270 degrees to something or at 360
degrees to something else, until
you realise that that's totally
absurd and impossible. I twist
you around like a pretzel, until
you realise that you're stupid
enough to let me do it to you,
all for nothing. Hopefully you'll
come to that point and realise
what a stupid ass you've made of
yourself, with my help."
In order to learn wisdom, the
students have to go through
stupidity, and stupidity of the
most extreme form. In order to
learn flexibility, they have to
trudge through rigidity of the
most extreme form. In order to
see through realism and
literalism, they have to conjure
up the most extreme form of
realism and literalism, identify
with them, live with them for
years and decades (Chan
literature in Chinese talks of
turning mind into a sheet), until
they see the stupidity of realism
and literalism, *in the flesh*
so to speak. (Remember, the
Buddha spends six years in Jaina
self-torture in the flesh, it
isn't a picnic). They only play
with their own shadows.
Returning to the numberless lists
in Buddhism, some of which are
mentioned by you above, they
belong to this doubling down on
stupidity, so that the students
pile such lists sky-high on
themselves until they break under
their weight and realise how
stupid they have been carrying
such useless baggage in their
head. They'll then get rid of such
garbage (it is garbage) and go free.
But if you don't want them, just
relax and be serene. All such lists
are made up, they all are fluff,
and if you can just relax and be
serene, you're done.
The Buddha knows how to be ironical.
Tang Huyen
> I liked it too. Very good ideas. But some parts
> I didn't understand:
>
> * What are "the three poisons"?
>
> * What are "the three jewels"?
>
> * What are "the three worlds", the happiness
> of which may disappear in a moment?
>
> * "The four formless states"?
>
> * "The five perfections"?
>
> * "The three domains"?
>
> * "The three spheres" (that apparently hold
> wisdom captive)?
>
> I thought it was a very good read, but I
> guess it's even better to a Buddhist who may
> be familiar with the terms above.
>
> Before anyone suggests it, I already know I
> could google these things, but that's
> inferior to knowing it by heart. That's why
> I think someone should write a poem that
> explains all those terms. I know there are
> lots of poets loitering (with intent?) all
> around the Buddhist usenet. I'd like to see
> them get busy with something worthwhile,
> for a change.
Much of Buddhism can seem counterintuitive,
and not just counterintuitive, but also
counterproductive. If Buddhism proclaims
itself as treating suffering and the
ending of suffering, why does it not then
concentrate on just those topics and
ignore everything else?
The reason is, that whilst Buddhism wants
to be simple and direct, namely about
suffering and ending of suffering, not
everybody can take simple and direct
talk. The Buddha has to dumb down -- to
dumb his teaching down -- to accommodate
hearers who want prolific discourse
bouncing around numberless topics,
perhaps to slow down or delay their
practice. In addition, right on these
boards, you can see lots of people who
are realist and literalist, and who want
to hear object-bound discourse and
objective discourse, and not purely
subjective and strictly sentimental
discourse that talks only about how to
come to peace with oneself (perhaps
such people are self-haters who cannot
stand themselves).
So, instead of saying something simple
and direct, like: "Calm yourself down,
come to peace with yourself, and you're
done", the Buddha has to talk round and
round, and enumerate this list and that
list, endlessly. Instead of saying
something like: "Discard your learning,
drop your knowledge, calm yourself
further and further, until your mind is
completely still and at rest, so that
you don't agitate thought to create a
self for yourself to carry around", the
Buddha has to excite the learning of his
hearers and grow their knowledge,
because that is the only way that they
will learn.
"The road of excess leads to the palace
of wisdom". - Blake.
If I get it aright, the attitude if
Buddhist masters from the Buddha on
down has been: if the students wants
rigmarole, give it to them, lay it
thick on them, until they choke. When
they choke, they'll wisen up. In
other words, fight poison with poison.
Make the error vivid, and it will be
given up, but it will not be given up
until after it has been made vivid.
Of course we humans are faced with
irony and antinomy, in that extremes
can produce each other. The extreme
of effort can produce the extreme of
the absence of effort, the extreme
of tension can produce the extreme of
absence of tension, the extreme of
exertion can produce the extreme of
the absence of exertion, etc.
"Wall-contemplation" is more than a
physical posture, it symbolises the
total, complete freezing of mind to
make mind behave like a thing, and
like a single thing. It symbolises
grabbing mind and turning it into
a wall. Total blocage. Total
blocage then collapses and turns
into its opposite, namely total,
unobstructed flow. Clear as
daylight.
In public case meditation, one
strives to roll oneself up into a
ball of tension, a ball of seizure.
In Shikantaza one strives to stop
all actions and do nothing instead.
In either case, what can be more
rigourous and hardcore than that?
What can be more non-wu-wei-ish
than that?
The main paradigm from the Buddha
on down is his awakening from the
six years of Jaina self-torture,
in the form of extreme
self-mortification and
self-starvation. He nearly
succeeded, as he was just days away
from success, namely death. He
woke up from the self-torture in
the nick of time, and given the
long and massive self-torture, his
waking up from it was vivid and
dramatic.
The Chan master wants to
intentionally make his students
engage in error/delusion, and as
big an error/delusion as possible,
he'll give them just the biggest
and grossest kind of
error/delusion to break their
head on.
His thinking goes along something
like:
"Look, idiots, Buddhism and Chan
are to cure you of realism and
literalism, on the way to curing
you of suffering (of you causing
suffering to yourself and
inflicting suffering on yourself,
all for nothing), but if you don't
wake up from realism and
literalism right off, I'm going to
lay them thick on you with a
vengeance. I'm going to make you
indulge in realism and literalism
all the way, to make you
exacerbate realism and literalism
to the extreme, so that you
freeze yourself in the farthest
catatonic seizure with realism
and literalism, until you wake up
and realise that that is what
you're doing to yourself. So I'll
use emptiness, an abstract concept,
and make you freeze it into a
thing, make you hypostatise it
into a reality (which is the
worst Buddhist *sin* possible),
so that you imagine it to be at
270 degrees to something or at 360
degrees to something else, until
you realise that that's totally
absurd and impossible. I twist
you around like a pretzel, until
you realise that you're stupid
enough to let me do it to you,
all for nothing. Hopefully you'll
come to that point and realise
what a stupid ass you've made of
yourself, with my help."
In order to learn wisdom, the
students have to go through
stupidity, and stupidity of the
most extreme form. In order to
learn flexibility, they have to
trudge through rigidity of the
most extreme form. In order to
see through realism and
literalism, they have to conjure
up the most extreme form of
realism and literalism, identify
with them, live with them for
years and decades (Chan
literature in Chinese talks of
turning mind into a sheet), until
they see the stupidity of realism
and literalism, *in the flesh*
so to speak. (Remember, the
Buddha spends six years in Jaina
self-torture in the flesh, it
isn't a picnic). They only play
with their own shadows.
Returning to the numberless lists
in Buddhism, some of which are
mentioned by you above, they
belong to this doubling down on
stupidity, so that the students
pile such lists sky-high on
themselves until they break under
their weight and realise how
stupid they have been carrying
such useless baggage in their
head. They'll then get rid of such
garbage (it is garbage) and go free.
But if you don't want them, just
relax and be serene. All such lists
are made up, they all are fluff,
and if you can just relax and be
serene, you're done.
The Buddha knows how to be ironical.
Tang Huyen
Jigme Dorje
Feb 20, 2012, 7:27:59 PM2/20/12
to
liaM
Feb 20, 2012, 9:51:38 PM2/20/12
to
Bird spreads wings, bear crouches,
crane stands on one leg.
Cold garden, early morning,
I practice body-mind unification.
Inhale, swallow tongue and exhale universal Qi.
In my chest, free pure sky and earth mind.
(Seo Kyung Bo)
Sanford Manley
Feb 20, 2012, 10:19:39 PM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 7:27 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> It's a very good post. Exhausting the intellect.
Some people want to exhaust the intellect.
> It's a very good post. Exhausting the intellect.
Others want to annihilate the heart.
--
Sanford Manley "Trying to be right all the time is a very subtle way of
being wrong."
Jigme Dorje
Feb 20, 2012, 10:32:59 PM2/20/12
to
Sanford Manley
Feb 20, 2012, 10:44:10 PM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 10:32 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:19 pm, Sanford Manley<ansa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/20/2012 7:27 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very good post. Exhausting the intellect.
>>
>> Some people want to exhaust the intellect.
>> Others want to annihilate the heart.
>
> Good post also.
> On Feb 20, 10:19 pm, Sanford Manley<ansa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/20/2012 7:27 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>
>>> It's a very good post. Exhausting the intellect.
>>
>> Some people want to exhaust the intellect.
>> Others want to annihilate the heart.
>
As Patton would say: "Tank you very much!"
noname
Feb 21, 2012, 3:09:11 AM2/21/12
to
Sanford Manley
Feb 21, 2012, 3:34:01 AM2/21/12
to
On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
That is why they tell people not to get married:
> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
First comes the engagement ring,
Then comes the wedding ring,
Then comes the suffering.
I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
and the wrong woman immediately.
noname
Feb 21, 2012, 4:05:05 AM2/21/12
to
On 02/21/2012 01:34 AM, Sanford Manley wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
You snip; I appreciate that, I wish more people would do it. I am not
> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
blameless there myself, but usually I comment about middles rather than
ends, beginnings seem necessary for contextual purposes, and I can
seldom be certain where the beginning starts.
> That is why they tell people not to get married:
>
> First comes the engagement ring,
> Then comes the wedding ring,
> Then comes the suffering.
>
> I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
> and the wrong woman immediately.
springs forth from subtler things that you directly affect; it might be
best just to marry the first one who asks, and be the right man.
Sanford Manley
Feb 21, 2012, 4:28:35 AM2/21/12
to
Tang Huyen
Feb 21, 2012, 8:05:58 AM2/21/12
to
On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
> You are not ready to begin until you
> are done with suffering.
Nah. Suffering is what you create for
> are done with suffering.
yourself and inflict on yourself, in
closed circle.
The Buddha's six years' worth of
severe penance, in Jaina
self-mortification and self-starvation,
is the prime example. He then realises
that it has been an error, a big
error, relented, takes some milk to
regain strength -- he is just a few
days from success, meaning death -- at
which moment he is at peace with
himself and in reconciliation with
himself, after six years of extreme
self-torture, for nothing. This state
makes him a Stoic sage, content with
himself, sufficient with himself.
This is his first awakening.
He then remembers that in his youth,
he could calm down and enter the first
form meditation. He does so now, and
keeps climbing to the fourth form
meditation. He then quiesces his
thinking completely, stops all doing,
and awakes. This is his second
awakening. It makes him a Buddhist
awakened (Buddha).
The path that he is about to teach
essentially replicates his finding,
namely to quiesce all thinking and
stop all doing.
"When consciousness is unestablished,
it does not grow. Not growing, it
does nothing. Not doing anything, it
is liberated. By being liberated, it
is steady. By being steady, it is
content. By being content, he is not
agitated. Being not agitated, he
internally blows out." (Tad
apathitthitam viññanam avirulham
an-abhisankharañca vimuttam
vimuttatta thitam thitatta santusitam
santusitatta na paritassati
aparitassam paccattaññeva
parinibbayati). SN, III, 58 (22, 55).
The important part is: "not doing
anything" (an-abhisankharañca, variant
an-abhisankhacca), where sankhara is
from the stem kr- "to act, to do, to
make", from which karman in Sanskrit
and kamma in Pali come "deed, act",
also samskara in Sanskrit and sankhara
in Pali "composition" (literally
"together-making"), as in the fourth
aggregate (the compositions).
The idea is that what mind experiences
can be left alone and not solidified
into something on which mind can then
stand. But if mind stands on something
(which it solidifies for itself), mind
makes itself stiff and static, and not
flowing and free. The whole Buddhist
endeavour is summarised in such flat
tautological circles.
"Wherefore you, householder, must train
yourself thus: (you must think), 'I
will not grasp after sight and so will
have no consciousness dependent on
sight.' This is how you must train
yourself, householder." MLS, III, 310
(translation modified).
Hui-neng overheard a passage from the
Diamond and awoke, which is a direct
clone:
"the bodhi-sattva (a being devoted to
awakening) maha-sattva (a great being)
ought to give rise to an un-supported
thought (a-prati.s.thita.m cittam), to
a thought unsupported by anything (na
kvacit-pratis.thita.m cittam), to a
thought unsupported by form, sound,
scent, flavour, tangible,
object-of-mind."
If mind simply experiences on the fly
and leaves it there, without solidifying
anything into anything (concept, image,
etc.), it has no occasion to create
suffering for itself. But if it lingers
on what it experiences and elaborates it,
solidifies it, then just that act of
solidification is occasion for creating
suffering for itself.
Tang Huyen
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 21, 2012, 9:41:40 AM2/21/12
to
On Feb 20, 5:44 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
This i have. and my karma is melting away like summer snows.
and the moment of death will show its fruits.
wrote:
and the moment of death will show its fruits.
liaM
Feb 21, 2012, 7:41:52 PM2/21/12
to
You have depicted the source of his imperviousness
to suffering.
He avoids thinking about anything
so there's nothing for him to suffer about.
Therefore hail those among us who no longer suffer
because they have gone around the world mentally..
who have it all down and regularly sell their customers
remnants of cogitations past, in kaleidoscopic permutations
- yet containing not a speck of thoughtful novation.
And spread the word ! - Kitty, stop thinking!
Wilson, Ned, Lee and Luke, you too! Remember
Pi ! - Webmail ! - remember how they suffer so
obviously obsessed by thinking too much.
Tang Huyen
Feb 21, 2012, 8:41:22 PM2/21/12
to
On 2/21/2012 7:41 PM, liaM wrote:
> The happy moron applauds you, Tang.
>
> You have depicted the source of his
> imperviousness to suffering.
>
> He avoids thinking about anything
> so there's nothing for him to suffer
> about.
>
> Therefore hail those among us who no
> longer suffer because they have gone
> around the world mentally.. who have
> it all down and regularly sell their
> customers remnants of cogitations
> past, in kaleidoscopic permutations
> - yet containing not a speck of
> thoughtful novation.
>
> And spread the word ! - Kitty, stop
> thinking! Wilson, Ned, Lee and Luke,
> you too! Remember Pi ! - Webmail ! -
> remember how they suffer so
> obviously obsessed by thinking too
> much.
Be a happy moron, and you won't suffer.
> The happy moron applauds you, Tang.
>
> You have depicted the source of his
> imperviousness to suffering.
>
> He avoids thinking about anything
> so there's nothing for him to suffer
> about.
>
> Therefore hail those among us who no
> longer suffer because they have gone
> around the world mentally.. who have
> it all down and regularly sell their
> customers remnants of cogitations
> past, in kaleidoscopic permutations
> - yet containing not a speck of
> thoughtful novation.
>
> And spread the word ! - Kitty, stop
> thinking! Wilson, Ned, Lee and Luke,
> you too! Remember Pi ! - Webmail ! -
> remember how they suffer so
> obviously obsessed by thinking too
> much.
Be fresh and innocent, and you won't
suffer.
Tang Huyen
Jigme Dorje
Feb 21, 2012, 9:33:47 PM2/21/12
to
imperfections, you don't suffer and you save all sentient beings.
Déjà Kung Fuey
Feb 21, 2012, 10:31:32 PM2/21/12
to
On 2/21/2012 8:41 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> Be a happy moron, and you won't suffer.
> Be fresh and innocent, and you won't
> suffer.
How about both? Does somebody else decide,
> Be fresh and innocent, and you won't
> suffer.
then? Do you donate your brain to the church,
or to science? These are serious decisions.
Make up your mind.
i2i
Feb 22, 2012, 12:33:55 AM2/22/12
to
"Déjà Kung Fuey" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VJGdnSZ_N5M2_dnS...@posted.toastnet...
genetic heritage long before one
ever arrives in form. at least the
reactive nervous mind is.
i2i
Feb 22, 2012, 12:36:03 AM2/22/12
to
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:8sadnRRY1vtc2tnS...@supernews.com...
state is a non-knowing state so you have
to be dis-ultimate to know that.
noname
Feb 22, 2012, 5:23:01 AM2/22/12
to
that one can observe what is rather than what must be suffered through
to reach the second path.
noname
Feb 22, 2012, 5:26:58 AM2/22/12
to
more subtle and itself like most other effects causes little that is
original.
i2i
Feb 22, 2012, 9:58:06 AM2/22/12
to
"noname" <non...@no.email> wrote in message
news:ji2ft...@news6.newsguy.com...
you had that thought.
Tang Huyen
Feb 22, 2012, 9:59:45 AM2/22/12
to
On 2/22/2012 12:36 AM, i2i wrote:
> ignorance is bliss ? they say the ultimate
> state is a non-knowing state so you have
> to be dis-ultimate to know that.
Afterward, upon reflection, you can come
> ignorance is bliss ? they say the ultimate
> state is a non-knowing state so you have
> to be dis-ultimate to know that.
to know (intellectively) what you
experienced, but during the act itself,
which is a non-act (a non-doing), you
only experience in a flat, horizontal
mode devoid of distinction, especially
of distinction of levels of experience,
like one level experiencing and another
level interpreting the experience.
When the Buddha calmed himself down,
that night, and kept calming himself
down further and further, until all
thinking and willing stopped, gently
and not forcibly (he had been forcing
himself relentlessly during the prior
six years of intense Jaina self-torture),
he experienced calm and tranquility, all
the way, but he was not aware that he
had entered a state of non-doing in
which he did not kick up thought to
create a self for him to carry around.
Nor was he aware of what he later
called awakening (Bodhi).
He was open, fresh, innocent (whereas
for the previous six years of severe
penance, he had been utterly closed,
resistant, refractory), and merely
stopped there and let what happened
happen, without his intervention, even
less his interference (whereas for the
previous six years of severe penance,
which amounted to self-repression, he
had exerted extreme intervention and
extreme interference, on himself).
During such state of non-doing, he did
not know anything (intellectively), did
not cognise anything, by intuition or
whatever (like any cosmic order, like
Dependent Arisal or the Four Noble
Truths), but merely experienced calm and
tranquility, all the way, though he did
not call them so, namely calm and
tranquility, all the way. He experienced
what he experienced right at the surface,
just like that, and left it there. He
did not drill into it to chase details,
did not reflect on it to form a view of
it or a knowledge of it, but enjoyed it
flat out as such, at its level, without
messing with it (whereas he had been
messing with himself brutally for the
prior six years).
He later called such state awakening, a
state of non-doing, shorn of a self, and
invented his various schemes of teaching,
like Dependent Arisal or the Four Noble
Truths, to help others replicate such a
state, but during it, he knew nothing but
only experienced.
He was open, fresh, innocent. That was
what mattered. All else would be like
adding legs to a painting of a snake.
Tang Huyen
i2i
Feb 22, 2012, 9:59:37 AM2/22/12
to
"noname" <non...@no.email> wrote in message
do you need anything ?
i2i
Feb 22, 2012, 10:24:07 AM2/22/12
to
news:3JudneGg2Od8n9jS...@supernews.com...
kriya yoga and shankya yoga say that
when you are in a state of samadhi you
don't consciously realize it until afterwards
and then the conscious concept driven
assessments begin. when i go into very deep
meditations it seems as if i'm going to permanently
forget everything i know so i'm going over the
button sequences that run my machines at work.
don't know why i think i'll forget everything but
that's what it feels like to me.
when you are in a state of samadhi you
don't consciously realize it until afterwards
and then the conscious concept driven
assessments begin. when i go into very deep
meditations it seems as if i'm going to permanently
forget everything i know so i'm going over the
button sequences that run my machines at work.
don't know why i think i'll forget everything but
that's what it feels like to me.
Tang Huyen
Feb 22, 2012, 11:53:45 AM2/22/12
to
On 2/21/2012 5:07 AM, gbb wrote:
> Sevenhundred Elves:
> It's funny: the Tibetan Buddhists are in
>general big fans of classifying things
> and putting them into lists (The Five
>Somethings, The Sevens OtherThings) in
> order to make them easy to memorize. I
>personally find these easy-to-remember
> lists hard to remember.
>> * What are "the three poisons"?
> Attraction, aversion, indifference. I
>*think* Theravadins call them "kleshas".
>> * "The four formless states"?
> Different levels or states of meditation.
> I don't know much about this. Once again,
> I *think* Theravadins call them "jhanas"
The Tibetans inherit different versions
of Buddhism. The dominant version is
the Great Vehicle, with its various
schools, and the minority version, which
never developed into a school or sect of
its own in Tibet, was the school of
All-Exists (Sarva-asti-vada) which was
the most powerful sect in what preceded
the Great Vehicle. The All-Exists
followed the early canon (the Agama-s),
but also developed its own formidable
interpretation, the All-Exists
Abhidharma, which was by far the most
influential of all Indian Buddhist
schools of thought. In India, the Great
Vehicle was a minority sect, and the
majority belonged to what preceded
the Great Vehicle, often derided as the
Small Vehicle.
In pan-Indian Buddhist thought, the
All-Exists Abhidharma was the king. The
the All-Exists sect was huge and rich,
its universities were huge and rich,
and its scholars churned out the most
intellectually formidable set of
theories of all schools and sects of
what preceded the Great Vehicle, often
derided as the Small Vehicle. The
All-Exists Abhidharma was really
un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist, in that
it glorified the intellectual
distinctions and took them for real,
and generally believed in the absolute
objectivity of the Object. All
Abhidharma schools developed lists of
ultimates, the ultimate bricks of the
universe, from which they pretended to
be able to reconstruct the universe,
and this includes the Pali Abhidhamma
of the Theravada sect. They all took
their respective version of the
Abhidharma to be superior to what the
Buddha taught (the Agama-s). Later the
Great Vehicle followed the same trend
and took its own (invented) scriptures
to be superior to what the Buddha
taught (the Agama-s).
What the Buddha taught (the Agama-s)
was never translated into Tibetan,
except for a few single scriptures, and
the Tibetans never bothered to read
those few singletons that got
translated. But they massively followed
the All-Exists Abhidharma, from which
they got most of their lists. This
All-Exists Abhidharma served as the
foundation of Tibetan scholasticism,
and the various Great Vehiclistic
schools of thought were superimposed on
it to interpret it (which basically
cloned the intellectual hierarchy of
Indian Buddhism).
If you ignore the realist and literalist
tendency of the All-Exists Abhidharma,
its lists are all right. They are
shared across Buddhism, including the
Great Vehicle.
The three poisons are attachment,
aversion and delusion/error. This last,
delusion/error, is often concretised as
the Four Perversions (Viparyasa), like
to take something that is there for
something that is not there, or the
reverse. To take the self to be there
when it in fact is not there is the
prime example of delusion/error. To
take impermanent things for permanent
things is another one.
The four formless states are the four
formless attainments, which come after
and above the four form meditations.
The four form meditations are called
dhyana in Sanskrit, jhana in Pali. The
four formless states are infinite
space, infinite consciousness, the
state of nothing(ness), and the state of
neither conception nor non-conception.
This last state is called "with
remainder of the compositions" (the
compositions are the fourth aggregate).
Above it is the attainment of cessation
(nirodha-samapatti), which has no
composition, and confers awakening, if
not attained before.
In traditional Buddhist thought, the
four form meditations and the four
formless states are places for rebirth.
You meditate and get reborn in the state
corresponding to the state that you
attain in your present life, and you get
reborn because you still have the
compositions (the fourth aggregate). But
the attainment of cessation is not a
state that you can take rebirth in,
because it has no compositions left.
You can experience it only in this life.
The professional meditators can get
into it and remain motionless for weeks
on end. The famous Venerable Xu-Yun
"Empty Cloud" of China could enter it
and remain in it for ten or fifteen
days.
But it is for professionals. Don't try
it at home.
(Some people who remain motionless get
buried, especially in Japan and Haiti,
but they become motionless after eating
a poison known as fou-fou from the
porcupine puffer fish -- Don't try it
at home!).
Tang Huyen
> Sevenhundred Elves:
> It's funny: the Tibetan Buddhists are in
>general big fans of classifying things
> and putting them into lists (The Five
>Somethings, The Sevens OtherThings) in
> order to make them easy to memorize. I
>personally find these easy-to-remember
> lists hard to remember.
>> * What are "the three poisons"?
>*think* Theravadins call them "kleshas".
>> * "The four formless states"?
> I don't know much about this. Once again,
> I *think* Theravadins call them "jhanas"
The Tibetans inherit different versions
of Buddhism. The dominant version is
the Great Vehicle, with its various
schools, and the minority version, which
never developed into a school or sect of
its own in Tibet, was the school of
All-Exists (Sarva-asti-vada) which was
the most powerful sect in what preceded
the Great Vehicle. The All-Exists
followed the early canon (the Agama-s),
but also developed its own formidable
interpretation, the All-Exists
Abhidharma, which was by far the most
influential of all Indian Buddhist
schools of thought. In India, the Great
Vehicle was a minority sect, and the
majority belonged to what preceded
the Great Vehicle, often derided as the
Small Vehicle.
In pan-Indian Buddhist thought, the
All-Exists Abhidharma was the king. The
the All-Exists sect was huge and rich,
its universities were huge and rich,
and its scholars churned out the most
intellectually formidable set of
theories of all schools and sects of
what preceded the Great Vehicle, often
derided as the Small Vehicle. The
All-Exists Abhidharma was really
un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist, in that
it glorified the intellectual
distinctions and took them for real,
and generally believed in the absolute
objectivity of the Object. All
Abhidharma schools developed lists of
ultimates, the ultimate bricks of the
universe, from which they pretended to
be able to reconstruct the universe,
and this includes the Pali Abhidhamma
of the Theravada sect. They all took
their respective version of the
Abhidharma to be superior to what the
Buddha taught (the Agama-s). Later the
Great Vehicle followed the same trend
and took its own (invented) scriptures
to be superior to what the Buddha
taught (the Agama-s).
What the Buddha taught (the Agama-s)
was never translated into Tibetan,
except for a few single scriptures, and
the Tibetans never bothered to read
those few singletons that got
translated. But they massively followed
the All-Exists Abhidharma, from which
they got most of their lists. This
All-Exists Abhidharma served as the
foundation of Tibetan scholasticism,
and the various Great Vehiclistic
schools of thought were superimposed on
it to interpret it (which basically
cloned the intellectual hierarchy of
Indian Buddhism).
If you ignore the realist and literalist
tendency of the All-Exists Abhidharma,
its lists are all right. They are
shared across Buddhism, including the
Great Vehicle.
The three poisons are attachment,
aversion and delusion/error. This last,
delusion/error, is often concretised as
the Four Perversions (Viparyasa), like
to take something that is there for
something that is not there, or the
reverse. To take the self to be there
when it in fact is not there is the
prime example of delusion/error. To
take impermanent things for permanent
things is another one.
The four formless states are the four
formless attainments, which come after
and above the four form meditations.
The four form meditations are called
dhyana in Sanskrit, jhana in Pali. The
four formless states are infinite
space, infinite consciousness, the
state of nothing(ness), and the state of
neither conception nor non-conception.
This last state is called "with
remainder of the compositions" (the
compositions are the fourth aggregate).
Above it is the attainment of cessation
(nirodha-samapatti), which has no
composition, and confers awakening, if
not attained before.
In traditional Buddhist thought, the
four form meditations and the four
formless states are places for rebirth.
You meditate and get reborn in the state
corresponding to the state that you
attain in your present life, and you get
reborn because you still have the
compositions (the fourth aggregate). But
the attainment of cessation is not a
state that you can take rebirth in,
because it has no compositions left.
You can experience it only in this life.
The professional meditators can get
into it and remain motionless for weeks
on end. The famous Venerable Xu-Yun
"Empty Cloud" of China could enter it
and remain in it for ten or fifteen
days.
But it is for professionals. Don't try
it at home.
(Some people who remain motionless get
buried, especially in Japan and Haiti,
but they become motionless after eating
a poison known as fou-fou from the
porcupine puffer fish -- Don't try it
at home!).
Tang Huyen
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 22, 2012, 3:00:43 PM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 10:53 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
the Buddha was at a bit of a loss for words when his disciples started
doing suicide thinking they would achieve the Ultimate.
wrote:
doing suicide thinking they would achieve the Ultimate.
liaM
Feb 22, 2012, 5:43:02 PM2/22/12
to
but also the reason the world is hell on earth.
He forgets to attend to his wife, so she divorces him.
He forgets to pay his bill, so the bank repossesses his hpouse.
He forgets about war and human misery, so he votes for a Tea Party
Republican..
Wars are the product of people's forgetfulness. People
forget to consider the consequences of their action,
of their votes.
There's a series of paintings by the french artist,
Jean Dubuffet, that says it best.. There, behind the
windshield of their S.U.V. sits a couple so happy smiling
morons.. like two peas in a pod.. like fresh and innocent
babies in their mother's womb.
How many people thoughtlessly mortgage their future
to pay for that S.U.V. in the sky?
brian mitchell
Feb 22, 2012, 10:18:19 PM2/22/12
to
Tang Huyen wrote:
>On 2/22/2012 12:36 AM, i2i wrote:
>
>> ignorance is bliss ? they say the ultimate
>> state is a non-knowing state so you have
>> to be dis-ultimate to know that.
>
>Afterward, upon reflection, you can come
>to know (intellectively) what you
>experienced, but during the act itself,
>which is a non-act (a non-doing), you
>only experience in a flat, horizontal
>mode devoid of distinction, especially
>of distinction of levels of experience,
>like one level experiencing and another
>level interpreting the experience.
>
>When the Buddha calmed himself down,
>that night, and kept calming himself
>down further and further, until all
>thinking and willing stopped [...]
>On 2/22/2012 12:36 AM, i2i wrote:
>
>> ignorance is bliss ? they say the ultimate
>> state is a non-knowing state so you have
>> to be dis-ultimate to know that.
>
>Afterward, upon reflection, you can come
>to know (intellectively) what you
>experienced, but during the act itself,
>which is a non-act (a non-doing), you
>only experience in a flat, horizontal
>mode devoid of distinction, especially
>of distinction of levels of experience,
>like one level experiencing and another
>level interpreting the experience.
>
>When the Buddha calmed himself down,
>that night, and kept calming himself
>down further and further, until all
>he experienced calm and tranquility, all
>the way, but he was not aware that he
>had entered a state of non-doing in
>which he did not kick up thought to
>create a self for him to carry around.
>Nor was he aware of what he later
>called awakening (Bodhi).
It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>the way, but he was not aware that he
>had entered a state of non-doing in
>which he did not kick up thought to
>create a self for him to carry around.
>Nor was he aware of what he later
>called awakening (Bodhi).
Whatever else awakening is, it's a transition. And I imagine it's been called awakening because the
difference between the two states, before and after, is as great and distinct as that between bodily
sleep and waking. To experience awakening (or indeed anything) must be to know, be aware of, its
intrinsic nature and attributes, what it *is*, even if you delay naming it. You couldn't afterwards
name it intelligibly unless you had known it for what it is in the very experiencing of it.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 22, 2012, 11:44:47 PM2/22/12
to
SG
Feb 22, 2012, 11:50:37 PM2/22/12
to
glints of precious gems..
web head
Feb 23, 2012, 1:09:06 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 10:59 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
but logic and higher orders of "knowing" improve inclarity in very
conscious states unless you're retarding your human capacities in
submission, which creates a mental crutch for the transmental which
therefore never really blossoms out. imo..
i think one doesn't become at all omniscient, but in time gets a
handle on ones own disordered and vague system of words and ideas to
such a point that it becomes fairly easy, within ones own framework,
to speak with authority on a variety of topics. you seem to be aware
of this shit.
wrote:
conscious states unless you're retarding your human capacities in
submission, which creates a mental crutch for the transmental which
therefore never really blossoms out. imo..
i think one doesn't become at all omniscient, but in time gets a
handle on ones own disordered and vague system of words and ideas to
such a point that it becomes fairly easy, within ones own framework,
to speak with authority on a variety of topics. you seem to be aware
of this shit.
i2i
Feb 23, 2012, 2:18:06 AM2/23/12
to
"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:ru7bk757td7emvnj9...@4ax.com...
in hindsight of specific 'depths' of awakening
is certainly only valid to that afterthought arena
of foci since it is said that in that 'ultimate' state
there is no 'person', per se, so no one to 'have'
an experience. they say [kriya] that in that state
experience, experiencing and experiencer are
all without distinction or difference.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:07:06 AM2/23/12
to
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:25:40 AM2/23/12
to
That's what they say. So they must not know. No?
Two realms are mutually exclusive, between them is the allegorical river
Styx we must drink from in passing from one to another, the river of
forgetfulness that gives us to remember what is on the other side, the
Gate, between Mystery and Manifestation.
On one side is the manifestation where we "wake up" in the morning and
rise from our beds sleepy-headed and unawakened... on the other side is
the mystery to which we retire when our bodies, our manifested selves,
become tired and need to "sleep", and in the mystery we are truly awake,
or at least awake in the more true realm, the realm of cause alone,
which is of course silliness since every cause has an effect, but since
the effects happen in the Manifestation is might as well be a realm of
cause alone.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:28:21 AM2/23/12
to
affect its cause.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:49:20 AM2/23/12
to
and knowing it. Intellectual awareness is a characteristic of the
Manifestation, the world of form and name, where we have a manifest
thinker. Knowing, which is not the same as being intellectually
certain, resides in the more subtle realm some call Mystery, the realm
from which the Manifestation springs.
> Whatever else awakening is, it's a transition. And I imagine it's been called awakening because the
> difference between the two states, before and after, is as great and distinct as that between bodily
> sleep and waking. To experience awakening (or indeed anything) must be to know, be aware of, its
> intrinsic nature and attributes, what it *is*, even if you delay naming it. You couldn't afterwards
> name it intelligibly unless you had known it for what it is in the very experiencing of it.
between Manifestation (where we say that we "wake up" in the morning)
and the Mystery (where we are no longer our bodies sleeping within the
Manifestation but the more subtle selves which have given those bodies
to exist).
All that we see within the waking world, within the Manifestation, is
effect that is caused by what is in Mystery. We play with secondary
effects within the Manifestation, observe tertiary effects and think we
have "caused" them, when the root causes remain within the Mystery, the
realm of the Unmanifest.
Pursuing science, remaining true to scientific method, ignoring no
observed data, sufficient skill brings one to the recognition that
science is a joke, useful within the manifestation yet limited because
all it can see is the effects of deeper cause, cause that remains
invisible to the sleeping scientist who woke up in the morning, woke up
in the Manifestation of that which truly is.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:50:18 AM2/23/12
to
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 3:52:58 AM2/23/12
to
thinker there are not thoughts, nor logical progressions of thoughts.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 4:00:48 AM2/23/12
to
On 02/22/2012 11:09 PM, web head wrote:
> but logic and higher orders of "knowing" improve inclarity in very
> conscious states unless you're retarding your human capacities in
> submission, which creates a mental crutch for the transmental which
> therefore never really blossoms out. imo..
>
> i think one doesn't become at all omniscient, but in time gets a
> handle on ones own disordered and vague system of words and ideas to
> such a point that it becomes fairly easy, within ones own framework,
> to speak with authority on a variety of topics. you seem to be aware
> of this shit.
Omniscience is only knowing the details of effects, and is irrelevant to
> but logic and higher orders of "knowing" improve inclarity in very
> conscious states unless you're retarding your human capacities in
> submission, which creates a mental crutch for the transmental which
> therefore never really blossoms out. imo..
>
> i think one doesn't become at all omniscient, but in time gets a
> handle on ones own disordered and vague system of words and ideas to
> such a point that it becomes fairly easy, within ones own framework,
> to speak with authority on a variety of topics. you seem to be aware
> of this shit.
those causing cause; running frantically with a towel to sop up each
drop is silliness to the fellow who stands laughing at the valve which
allows the water to sprinkle.
noname
Feb 23, 2012, 4:08:08 AM2/23/12
to
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 6:50:48 AM2/23/12
to
judging, when playing baseball, hugging a friend, doing Qi Gong.
We would not feel alive were we not to have such moments.
Perhaps what distinguishes a realized buddha such as Gautama,
is the fact that he has found the switch that turns the buddha
in him "on". And of course, a mahayanan buddha wishes
everyone to do the same for themselves .. like Tim Leary wanted,
promoting LSD as the switch, or Tang Huyen promoting fluff,
or a good laugh for Sanford :)
To everyone his or her poison. The distinguishing mark of the
historical buddha, is that his poison was dedication to
finding the truth of suffering, using all that his being a
human offered him for the task : that means, using his head.
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 7:05:10 AM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 8:56:24 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 2:18 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "brian mitchell" <brainm...@fishing.net> wrote in message
Awakening from the dream of self.
> "brian mitchell" <brainm...@fishing.net> wrote in message
Tang Huyen
Feb 23, 2012, 10:03:13 AM2/23/12
to
On 2/22/2012 10:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he
> was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>
> Whatever else awakening is, it's a
> transition. And I imagine it's been
> called awakening because the difference
> between the two states, before and after,
> is as great and distinct as that between
> bodily sleep and waking. To experience
> awakening (or indeed anything) must be
> to know, be aware of, its intrinsic
> nature and attributes, what it *is*,
> even if you delay naming it. You
> couldn't afterwards name it intelligibly
> unless you had known it for what it is
> in the very experiencing of it.
As I have often said, you are a realist
> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he
> was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>
> Whatever else awakening is, it's a
> transition. And I imagine it's been
> called awakening because the difference
> between the two states, before and after,
> is as great and distinct as that between
> bodily sleep and waking. To experience
> awakening (or indeed anything) must be
> to know, be aware of, its intrinsic
> nature and attributes, what it *is*,
> even if you delay naming it. You
> couldn't afterwards name it intelligibly
> unless you had known it for what it is
> in the very experiencing of it.
and literalist, with a
Platonic-Abhidharmic mindset. This
mindset believes in the absolute
objectivity of the Object. To this
mindset, mind attains to reality when
it perceives the (absolute) Object,
from which it borrows the objectivity.
In itself, mind is deprived of any
worth, as worth (validity) depends on
Objectivity.
The Buddha's mindset goes in the
opposite direction. Whatever happens
(iow, whatever happens to mind,
whatever happens in mind), mind can
plane above it and not be bothered by
it, or mind can also take the opposite
tack, in experiencing directly what it
experiences, without putting any
distance between mind and what it
experiences. Mind can choose to be
open, fresh, innocent, regardless what
actually occurs in it. In either case,
the attitude of mind trumps the
content of mind.
That night, if I get it aright, the
Buddha chose to be open, fresh,
innocent, and it was that attitude
that was essential. What happened in
content was important, and it was a
state of non-doing, shorn of
thinking and willing, but it was not
as important as the attitude of
being open, fresh, innocent. In this
attitude, if thought came, fine, if
thought did not come, fine, if
Nirvana came, fine, if Samsara came,
fine, the Buddha was open, fresh and
innocent, and could take any and all
of them, without distinction.
It was this attitude that was
awakening. The content (non-doing)
was a good content to experience,
for sure, but the essential was his
attitude. The attitude made the
content fungible.
This attitude was pure faith, but
faith devoid of content. Whatever
content came, faith was open, fresh
and innocent to it, and not at all
ready or eager to impose on it. It
was at antipodes with the Buddha's
attitude of the previous six years,
which had been one of brutal and
imperious imposition. What happened
could only have been what he had
expected to happen, and nothing else.
In his prior peregrination, the
Buddha had been taught content, in
that he had been taught to do this
to attain to that, in meditation or
in self-torture (in some circles,
the two were the same), but nobody
had taught him non-doing, and nobody
had taught him the attitude of being
open, fresh and innocent, in total
disregard to content.
But the two things that he had not
been taught, he found out by chance
that night, and it turned out that
they either were the same, or at
least connived to a wonderful degree.
In non-doing, he did nothing, and
only experienced what happened in
him (and put up no resistance to it).
In his attitude of being open, fresh
and innocent, he was receptive to
what happened in him, and imposed no
condition on it, no prior framework
on it. He made no effort (which
would be doing) to fit what occurred
in him into his existing knowledge,
and just that was awakening.
So, the two things that he had not
been taught and that he found out by
chance that night, non-doing and the
attitude of being open, fresh and
innocent, either were the same, or at
least connived to a wonderful degree.
One hand washed the other. And the
whole event was unexpected to him. It
was pure surprise. Which doubled the
pleasure, so to speak. He did nothing
and got everything. That was grace.
Tang Huyen
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 10:41:01 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 9:03 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
Precisely. being happy is a completely arbitrary decision on the part
of the individual.
one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
the circumstances.
wrote:
of the individual.
one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
the circumstances.
i2i
Feb 23, 2012, 10:46:29 AM2/23/12
to
"Jigme Dorje" <jdor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b038e97-2f5f-4095...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
always awakened. it is only the factor
of the temporary fleeting human-ness
that comes and goes like a dream that
addles the reaches of that principle and
makes it appear that its unlimited nature
has been limited by a physical form.
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 10:55:04 AM2/23/12
to
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 12:49:02 PM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 2:14:34 PM2/23/12
to
when you are not in the way.
brian mitchell
Feb 23, 2012, 2:34:49 PM2/23/12
to
Tang Huyen wrote:
>whatever happens in mind), mind can
>plane above it and not be bothered by
>it, or mind can also take the opposite
>tack, in experiencing directly what it
>experiences, without putting any
>distance between mind and what it
>experiences...
>whatever happens in mind), mind can
>plane above it and not be bothered by
>it, or mind can also take the opposite
>tack, in experiencing directly what it
>experiences, without putting any
>distance between mind and what it
Mind is its content. When did you start believing in souls?
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 2:40:59 PM2/23/12
to
Awareness of content is one of its modalities.
Sanford Manley
Feb 23, 2012, 3:14:04 PM2/23/12
to
On 2/23/2012 10:41 AM, roy....@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Precisely. being happy is a completely arbitrary decision on the part
> of the individual. one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy
> or not, regardless of the circumstances.
So if you are not a sock puppet, how much is Tang writing stooge checks
>
> Precisely. being happy is a completely arbitrary decision on the part
> of the individual. one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy
> or not, regardless of the circumstances.
for these days?
--
Sanford Manley "Trying to be right all the time is a very subtle way of
being wrong."
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 3:17:11 PM2/23/12
to
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 3:17:51 PM2/23/12
to
Le 23/02/2012 16:41, roy....@hotmail.com a écrit :
> Precisely. being happy is a completely arbitrary decision on the part
> of the individual.
> one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
> the circumstances.
Good luck... !
> of the individual.
> one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
> the circumstances.
brian mitchell
Feb 23, 2012, 3:30:09 PM2/23/12
to
>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>>
>> Whatever else awakening is, it's a transition. And I imagine it's been called awakening because the
>> difference between the two states, before and after, is as great and distinct as that between bodily
>> sleep and waking. To experience awakening (or indeed anything) must be to know, be aware of, its
>> intrinsic nature and attributes, what it *is*, even if you delay naming it. You couldn't afterwards
>> name it intelligibly unless you had known it for what it is in the very experiencing of it.
>
>Well of course.
>>
>> Whatever else awakening is, it's a transition. And I imagine it's been called awakening because the
>> difference between the two states, before and after, is as great and distinct as that between bodily
>> sleep and waking. To experience awakening (or indeed anything) must be to know, be aware of, its
>> intrinsic nature and attributes, what it *is*, even if you delay naming it. You couldn't afterwards
>> name it intelligibly unless you had known it for what it is in the very experiencing of it.
>
Did I say something right?
(I never know. With heavy hitters like Tang I just try to get the ball back over the net)
brian mitchell
Feb 23, 2012, 3:58:10 PM2/23/12
to
noname wrote:
>On 02/22/2012 08:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> Nor was he aware of what he later
>>> called awakening (Bodhi).
>>
>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>
>There is a difference between being intellectually aware of something
>and knowing it...
>On 02/22/2012 08:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> Nor was he aware of what he later
>>> called awakening (Bodhi).
>>
>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>
>There is a difference between being intellectually aware of something
Grandmother... eggs...
>Awakening is going to sleep without sleeping...
brian mitchell
Feb 23, 2012, 4:02:05 PM2/23/12
to
which experiences and that which interprets, but then has his mind planing over its own content.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 4:32:12 PM2/23/12
to
Tang has a good, sound understanding of sutra and an impressive
scholarly command of the language(s) and their nuances. He's very good
analytically, piecing it together and gleaning what it points to.
Whatever he admits to missing in experience, he makes up for in
intellectual rigor and, from that perspective, its content is accurate.
Others - take noname, for instance - make affective guesses from
internalized content, for example from analysis of the Tao Te Ching and
busy internal ruminations, with uneven results.
The simile of the lute here comes to mind, and I'll use the metaphor of
a musician. The former personality type described above is steeped in
theory, and the later, in creativity. The former is more precise if not
inspired, and the later, inspired and occasionally brilliant if
inconsistent.
An accomplished musician in any genre has absorbed the theory, practiced
technique, and transcended it in sheer freedom of expression. Take
Charlie Parker, disciplined enough to never take an improvisational solo
exceeding a few bars, yet was flawless and inspired enough that today
his solos are transcribed and studied as spontaneous musical compositions.
This is only a metaphor intended to point to the idea that some take a
more intellectual, right brain approach, and others, a more creative,
left brain approach. But if either lacks openness, he tends toward
self-absorption, shutting the mind to the fullness of possibility.
One of the Buddha's insights was, as you know, that a lute strung too
tight would break, while one too loose would not resonate well. In the
delicate balance between extremes is the optimal conditions for music.
And what is music, anyway? In the final analysis, why do fifths
harmonize while half steps jar? Music is a harmonious interaction of the
ear with the instrument.
In Buddhist terms, harmony is the reconciliation of the perceptual
processes. Compositions (samskara) shape energetic activity into a less
flexible and more stagnant form, and it is here that the discordant note
is sounded. This is conditioned on avidya (gnorance) - a "narrowness of
experience" that is described by Steven Goodman as "a continuous
gradient characterizing not so much a particular state of being, but the
quality or direction of situational patterning, experienced as a
'falling away from' the modality of pristine awareness."
Awaken has said he believes that part is just made up or "figured out."
It could be that the whole explanation is made up after the fact, but
that's not the point, which is very simple:
At a certain point in the perceptual process, the mind interprets, which
narrows the field of experience. This ultimately gives rise to tanha
(desire/thirst), upadana (attachment) and bhava (becomming), so there
arises an illusory self/other conundrum, and sense of the discordant and
suffering.
When the mind ceases to operate in this manner, there is a fundamental
change in the perceptual process. Tang likes to say that compositions
cease. On the other hand, he contrarily says that they don't cease but
that the mind "planes above" them. In my experience, such as it is, it
is both. The Diamond Sutra expresses it best for me - the mind flows
freely attaching to nothing. There may still be composing, but the mind
observes this as a transparent process and is not wrapped up in it. It
flows untouched as the processes continue at a lower level, and that's fine.
When the burden of compulsive composing is lifted, there is an
overwhelming sense of relief. Instead of being stuck in mud, one now
flows freely and as you say above, the experience is clear. There is no
thought of self, but freedom.
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 5:24:57 PM2/23/12
to
definition.
it's one of the non-sequiturs of the Buddha's teaching that is very
embarrassing.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 5:36:43 PM2/23/12
to
explanation that needs top be internally coherent.
The Buddha taught non permanence, not reincarnation. Rebirth as a notion
was in currency at the time, but the Buddha made clear that there was no
permanent essence to be reborn. However, people who believe are by
nature believers, and the mind is wired such that it will find ways to
accommodate the belief.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7822696446273926158&hl=en
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 6:09:26 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 4:36 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
well, then, why is the canon so gorged with copious references to "the
round of rebirths" and such?
round of rebirths" and such?
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 6:41:10 PM2/23/12
to
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 6:53:57 PM2/23/12
to
understand properly. Being so ego fixed, they block the reality of
rebirth in their own lives. They do not know themselves. They do not
acknowledge the possibility that they were other than themselves in the
past. Their current ego seems to them unique and eternal.
They haven't allowed what mindfulness should have taught them eons of
rebirths ago.
Night and day, we are born to new days and nights, and this from the day
of our human birth. And not only days, hours, minutes, even a second's
thought bubbling in our mind is a rebirth.
It is said a buddha remembers all his past lives. Indeed he does within
his own life, so long as he is not saddled with the ponderous weight
of his ego's stultifying interpretations repeated and repeating as if
there was no tomorrow.
A famous poet wrote "Je suis un autre" - Maybe Tang can explain this
curious phrase which relates to the present discussion..
brian mitchell
Feb 23, 2012, 6:54:35 PM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje wrote:
>On 2/23/2012 2:34 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Mind is its content.
>On 2/23/2012 2:34 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>
>Awareness is mind.
>Awareness of content is one of its modalities.
So what is mind when there's nothing to be aware of? Even if you say that awareness can be aware of
>Awareness is mind.
>Awareness of content is one of its modalities.
itself, that doesn't contradict "mind is its content."
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 7:00:56 PM2/23/12
to
> Rebirth is something ideologically congealed people have a hard time to
> understand properly. Being so ego fixed, they block the reality of
> rebirth in their own lives. They do not know themselves. They do not
> acknowledge the possibility that they were other than themselves in the
> past. Their current ego seems to them unique and eternal.
> They haven't allowed what mindfulness should have taught them eons of
> rebirths ago.
>
> Night and day, we are born to new days and nights, and this from the day
> of our human birth. And not only days, hours, minutes, even a second's
> thought bubbling in our mind is a rebirth.
>
> It is said a buddha remembers all his past lives. Indeed he does within
> his own life, so long as he is not saddled with the ponderous weight
> of his ego's stultifying interpretations repeated and repeating as if
> there was no tomorrow.
>
> A famous poet wrote "Je est un autre" - Maybe Tang can explain this
> understand properly. Being so ego fixed, they block the reality of
> rebirth in their own lives. They do not know themselves. They do not
> acknowledge the possibility that they were other than themselves in the
> past. Their current ego seems to them unique and eternal.
> They haven't allowed what mindfulness should have taught them eons of
> rebirths ago.
>
> Night and day, we are born to new days and nights, and this from the day
> of our human birth. And not only days, hours, minutes, even a second's
> thought bubbling in our mind is a rebirth.
>
> It is said a buddha remembers all his past lives. Indeed he does within
> his own life, so long as he is not saddled with the ponderous weight
> of his ego's stultifying interpretations repeated and repeating as if
> there was no tomorrow.
>
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 7:06:12 PM2/23/12
to
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 7:28:51 PM2/23/12
to
ta gueule :)
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 7:36:41 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 6:28 pm, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
> Le 24/02/2012 01:06, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a crit :
> Le 24/02/2012 01:06, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a crit :
>
>
>
> > these comments are sooooooo lame.
>
> ta gueule :)
va te faire foutre, trouduc
>
>
> > these comments are sooooooo lame.
>
> ta gueule :)
SG
Feb 23, 2012, 7:38:12 PM2/23/12
to
liaM
Feb 23, 2012, 8:01:17 PM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 8:07:57 PM2/23/12
to
Maybe that's your koan.
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 8:09:40 PM2/23/12
to
What do you think?
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 8:27:31 PM2/23/12
to
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 8:43:37 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
i think that it is very clear from the buddhist scriptures that
ultimately the Buddha is talking about release from the, otherwise,
never-ending round of rebirths, from one lifetime to the next,
through the attainment of Nirvana, which this the unique state of
Anatta (no soul).
ultimately the Buddha is talking about release from the, otherwise,
never-ending round of rebirths, from one lifetime to the next,
through the attainment of Nirvana, which this the unique state of
Anatta (no soul).
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 9:13:02 PM2/23/12
to
is no permanent enduring self, that the self is a temporary and every
changing nexus of 5 psycho-physical aggregates (skandhas.)
Rebirth in Buddhism concerns an evolving consciousness
(samvattanika-vinnana) or stream of consciousness upon the dissolution
of the aggregates, ie. death, which becomes one of the contributing
causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The new consciousness is
neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but
the two form a causal continuum or stream.
To place it in historical perspective, The Buddha lived at a time of
great philosophical creativity. Among the many conceptions of the nature
of life and death that were proposed were annihilism, holding that the
self is annihilated at death, and eternalism, postulating an eternally
existent self or soul or atman that reincarnates as another living
being, based on its karmic inheritance.
The Buddha rejected all the current notions. He held that there is no
self tying these lives together (anatta or not-self) but that all
compounded things are subject to dissolution, including all the
components of the human person and personality (anicca).
What's interesting about this is that it's sort of self defeating. It's
a "yes and no" kind of answer. So does it really matter?
The more important question is whether such speculation is considered
necessary or even practical, and the answer, according to the evidence
of much of the Pali sutras, is no. While it's hard to separate the
adventitious from the actual, but the Pali Sutras do portray a picture
of a very pragmatic awakened who didn't care much for this metaphysical
speculation.
In the context of practice, it isn't really something that we bother to
speculate about. Speculation is really a form of asking the wrong question.
So what Liam said is pretty good. The Buddha, as Liam wrote, is said to
have remembered all his past lives before awakening. The notion of
"self" and all the narratives of "self" are illusions that cause us
unnecessary suffering. To do away with the sense of self and to flow
freely is nirvana, the escape from the self-perpetuating cycle of
becoming, freedom, unbinding.
A lot of words? Oxtail might have said "Who cares?"
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 9:19:59 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 8:13 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
when the Buddha talks about "rebirth" he is not talking
about re-emergence from one moment to the next.
rather, he is talking about re-emergence from one
lifetime to the next (reincarnation). (certainly, the
mechanism for this re-emergence from either one moment
to the next or one lifetime to the next is the same:
ie. Dependent Origination.
about re-emergence from one moment to the next.
rather, he is talking about re-emergence from one
lifetime to the next (reincarnation). (certainly, the
mechanism for this re-emergence from either one moment
to the next or one lifetime to the next is the same:
ie. Dependent Origination.
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 9:23:17 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anatta (no soul).
i think that it is very clear from the buddhist scriptures that
ultimately the Buddha is talking about release from the, otherwise,
never-ending round of rebirths, from one lifetime to the next,
through the attainment of Nirvana, which is the unique state of
ultimately the Buddha is talking about release from the, otherwise,
never-ending round of rebirths, from one lifetime to the next,
Anatta (no soul).
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 9:13:21 PM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 9:54:40 PM2/23/12
to
rebirth, he answer was "yes and no." Thanissaro Bhikku summarizes that
it was the pragmatic, not the cosmological that forms the central focus
of Buddhist practice:
Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "Although the Buddha never used any word
corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a
process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate
conditions are present."
Bhikku goes on: "As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some prominent contemplative
schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth while others affirmed
it...However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools on
both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether or
not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what," what it
is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations as, "If I
take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in the future?"
"He put all these questions aside because they interfered with the path
of practice leading to the end of suffering. Instead, he focused on the
process of how birth happens, because the process involves factors that
are immediately apparent to one's awareness throughout life and lie
enough under one's control to turn them toward the ending of birth. An
understanding of the process as process — and in particular, as an
example of the process of dependent co-arising — can actually contribute
to the end to suffering, because it gives guidance in how to apply the
tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to all the factors in the
process leading up to birth."
Finally, he was clearly not talking about any "thing" that is reborn. A
subtle distinction follows:
"On the level of dependent co-arising, the Buddha did not treat the
concept of a being as a "what." His definition of a "being" shows that
he recommended that it, too, be regarded as a process. Thus the Buddha
advocated viewing a "being" simply as a process of attachment to desire,
passion, delight, and craving."
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 10:00:51 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 8:54 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you. from your help here i can see that buddhist scholars
have
the arguments on both sides well in hand. thank you :)
have
the arguments on both sides well in hand. thank you :)
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 10:06:36 PM2/23/12
to
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 23, 2012, 10:07:55 PM2/23/12
to
Jigme Dorje
Feb 23, 2012, 10:29:41 PM2/23/12
to
perspective myself anymore though, simply a pragmatic one. To me, if
Buddhism is just another patient to dissect, it might not be worth
saving. Lol!
(not sure what the acronym means though!)
halfawake
Feb 23, 2012, 10:40:49 PM2/23/12
to
Sanford Manley wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>
>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
>
>
> That is why they tell people not to get married:
>
> First comes the engagement ring,
> Then comes the wedding ring,
> Then comes the suffering.
>
> I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
> and the wrong woman immediately.
>
"Marry me, and you'll never see me again."
-Groucho Marx to Margaret Dumont
> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>
>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
>
>
> That is why they tell people not to get married:
>
> First comes the engagement ring,
> Then comes the wedding ring,
> Then comes the suffering.
>
> I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
> and the wrong woman immediately.
>
"Marry me, and you'll never see me again."
-Groucho Marx to Margaret Dumont
halfawake
Feb 23, 2012, 10:42:55 PM2/23/12
to
Sanford Manley wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 4:05 AM, noname wrote:
>> blameless there myself, but usually I comment about middles rather than
>> ends, beginnings seem necessary for contextual purposes, and I can
>> seldom be certain where the beginning starts.
>> springs forth from subtler things that you directly affect; it might be
>> best just to marry the first one who asks, and be the right man.
>
>
> Okay...who wants me?
>
Do you dress up nice?
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> On 2/21/2012 4:05 AM, noname wrote:
>
>> On 02/21/2012 01:34 AM, Sanford Manley wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
>>
>>
>> You snip; I appreciate that, I wish more people would do it. I am not
>> On 02/21/2012 01:34 AM, Sanford Manley wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2012 3:09 AM, noname wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are not ready to begin until you are done with suffering.
>>
>>
>> blameless there myself, but usually I comment about middles rather than
>> ends, beginnings seem necessary for contextual purposes, and I can
>> seldom be certain where the beginning starts.
>>
>>> That is why they tell people not to get married:
>>>
>>> First comes the engagement ring,
>>> Then comes the wedding ring,
>>> Then comes the suffering.
>>>
>>> I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
>>> and the wrong woman immediately.
>>
>>
>> Their rightness or wrongness only becomes manifest over time, and
>>> That is why they tell people not to get married:
>>>
>>> First comes the engagement ring,
>>> Then comes the wedding ring,
>>> Then comes the suffering.
>>>
>>> I am kidding. I would marry the right woman in a minute
>>> and the wrong woman immediately.
>>
>>
>> springs forth from subtler things that you directly affect; it might be
>> best just to marry the first one who asks, and be the right man.
>
>
> Okay...who wants me?
>
Do you dress up nice?
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
i2i
Feb 24, 2012, 2:04:58 AM2/24/12
to
"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:o4adk7hea1jimcg34...@4ax.com...
> "i2i" wrote:
>
>>
>>"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
>>news:ru7bk757td7emvnj9...@4ax.com...
>>in hindsight of specific 'depths' of awakening
>>is certainly only valid to that afterthought arena
>>of foci since it is said that in that 'ultimate' state
>>there is no 'person', per se, so no one to 'have'
>>an experience. they say [kriya] that in that state
>>experience, experiencing and experiencer are
>>all without distinction or difference.
>
> Can you tell that to Tang? He first says that this experience is flat,
> without levels such as that
> which experiences and that which interprets, but then has his mind planing
> over its own content.
unity in theory is much
simpler than in practice.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 5:47:16 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 02:32 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>
> Tang has a good, sound understanding of sutra and an impressive
> scholarly command of the language(s) and their nuances. He's very good
> analytically, piecing it together and gleaning what it points to.
> Whatever he admits to missing in experience, he makes up for in
> intellectual rigor and, from that perspective, its content is accurate.
>
> Others - take noname, for instance - make affective guesses from
> internalized content, for example from analysis of the Tao Te Ching and
> busy internal ruminations, with uneven results.
<sniles, nods, walks away>
> On 2/23/2012 3:30 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>
>> Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>
>>> Well of course.
>>
>> Did I say something right?
>> (I never know. With heavy hitters like Tang I just try to get the ball
>> back over the net)
>
> Right/wrong, self/other, heavy/light.
>>
>> Did I say something right?
>> (I never know. With heavy hitters like Tang I just try to get the ball
>> back over the net)
>
>
> Tang has a good, sound understanding of sutra and an impressive
> scholarly command of the language(s) and their nuances. He's very good
> analytically, piecing it together and gleaning what it points to.
> Whatever he admits to missing in experience, he makes up for in
> intellectual rigor and, from that perspective, its content is accurate.
>
> Others - take noname, for instance - make affective guesses from
> internalized content, for example from analysis of the Tao Te Ching and
> busy internal ruminations, with uneven results.
<sniles, nods, walks away>
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 5:48:34 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 06:56 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:18 am, "i2i"<boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> "brian mitchell"<brainm...@fishing.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ru7bk757td7emvnj9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Try awakening also from the dream of no self.
> On Feb 23, 2:18 am, "i2i"<boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> "brian mitchell"<brainm...@fishing.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ru7bk757td7emvnj9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> the expression of conceptual descriptions
>> in hindsight of specific 'depths' of awakening
>> is certainly only valid to that afterthought arena
>> of foci since it is said that in that 'ultimate' state
>> there is no 'person', per se, so no one to 'have'
>> an experience. they say [kriya] that in that state
>> experience, experiencing and experiencer are
>> all without distinction or difference.
>
> Awakening from the dream of self.
>> in hindsight of specific 'depths' of awakening
>> is certainly only valid to that afterthought arena
>> of foci since it is said that in that 'ultimate' state
>> there is no 'person', per se, so no one to 'have'
>> an experience. they say [kriya] that in that state
>> experience, experiencing and experiencer are
>> all without distinction or difference.
>
Try awakening also from the dream of no self.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 5:51:32 AM2/24/12
to
contradictions and implications and of that all gets very confusing and
difficult to keep track of.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:08:57 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 01:58 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> noname wrote:
>
>> On 02/22/2012 08:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> and knowing it...
>
> Grandmother... eggs...
>
>> Awakening is going to sleep without sleeping...
>
> This seems to be the kernel in the husk. Can you say anything more about it?
What is asleep and what is awake? Two realms, separate yet connected.
In one realm being is, in one realm things are. Things spring from being.
Within a warehouse there is one wall that divides it, and one door that
permits movement from one side to another. From either side, the other
side is different. Walk from the sleepy side to the other side and you
feel awake, until that becomes the sleepy side. Stand in the doorway
and you can see both sides at once.
> noname wrote:
>
>> On 02/22/2012 08:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>>>> Nor was he aware of what he later
>>>> called awakening (Bodhi).
>>>
>>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>>
>> There is a difference between being intellectually aware of something
>
>>>> Nor was he aware of what he later
>>>> called awakening (Bodhi).
>>>
>>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>>
>> and knowing it...
>
> Grandmother... eggs...
>
>> Awakening is going to sleep without sleeping...
>
> This seems to be the kernel in the husk. Can you say anything more about it?
What is asleep and what is awake? Two realms, separate yet connected.
In one realm being is, in one realm things are. Things spring from being.
Within a warehouse there is one wall that divides it, and one door that
permits movement from one side to another. From either side, the other
side is different. Walk from the sleepy side to the other side and you
feel awake, until that becomes the sleepy side. Stand in the doorway
and you can see both sides at once.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:17:26 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 08:03 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> and literalist, with a
> Platonic-Abhidharmic mindset. This
> mindset believes in the absolute
> objectivity of the Object. To this
> mindset, mind attains to reality when
> it perceives the (absolute) Object,
> from which it borrows the objectivity.
> In itself, mind is deprived of any
> worth, as worth (validity) depends on
> Objectivity.
>
> The Buddha's mindset goes in the
> opposite direction. Whatever happens
> (iow, whatever happens to mind,
> open, fresh, innocent, regardless what
> actually occurs in it. In either case,
> the attitude of mind trumps the
> content of mind.
>
> That night, if I get it aright, the
> Buddha chose to be open, fresh,
> innocent, and it was that attitude
> that was essential. What happened in
> content was important, and it was a
> state of non-doing, shorn of
> thinking and willing, but it was not
> as important as the attitude of
> being open, fresh, innocent. In this
> attitude, if thought came, fine, if
> thought did not come, fine, if
> Nirvana came, fine, if Samsara came,
> fine, the Buddha was open, fresh and
> innocent, and could take any and all
> of them, without distinction.
>
> It was this attitude that was
> awakening. The content (non-doing)
> was a good content to experience,
> for sure, but the essential was his
> attitude. The attitude made the
> content fungible.
>
> This attitude was pure faith, but
> faith devoid of content. Whatever
> content came, faith was open, fresh
> and innocent to it, and not at all
> ready or eager to impose on it. It
> was at antipodes with the Buddha's
> attitude of the previous six years,
> which had been one of brutal and
> imperious imposition. What happened
> could only have been what he had
> expected to happen, and nothing else.
>
> In his prior peregrination, the
> Buddha had been taught content, in
> that he had been taught to do this
> to attain to that, in meditation or
> in self-torture (in some circles,
> the two were the same), but nobody
> had taught him non-doing, and nobody
> had taught him the attitude of being
> open, fresh and innocent, in total
> disregard to content.
>
> But the two things that he had not
> been taught, he found out by chance
> that night, and it turned out that
> they either were the same, or at
> least connived to a wonderful degree.
> In non-doing, he did nothing, and
> only experienced what happened in
> him (and put up no resistance to it).
> In his attitude of being open, fresh
> and innocent, he was receptive to
> what happened in him, and imposed no
> condition on it, no prior framework
> on it. He made no effort (which
> would be doing) to fit what occurred
> in him into his existing knowledge,
> and just that was awakening.
>
> So, the two things that he had not
> been taught and that he found out by
> chance that night, non-doing and the
> attitude of being open, fresh and
> innocent, either were the same, or at
> least connived to a wonderful degree.
> One hand washed the other. And the
> whole event was unexpected to him. It
> was pure surprise. Which doubled the
> pleasure, so to speak. He did nothing
> and got everything. That was grace.
>
> Tang Huyen
You make Buddha sound wise from the go, intellectually choosing to take
on a new attitude instead of continuing toward further self-mortification.
When you've tried everything from hedonism to self-mortification and
none of it works worth a damn, sometimes you just give up and get ready
to die, and in that letting go it is discovered.
I think it was not any intellectual wisdom, or persevering in any
practice, that took Buddha to that place you wish to go. I think rather
that it was a purity of heart so to speak, a determination of being,
refusing to accept what was not the way, allowing even death rather than
to depart from the path.
> On 2/22/2012 10:18 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
>
>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he
>> was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>>
>
>> It strikes me as highly unlikely that he
>> was "not aware of [...] awakening."
>>
>> Whatever else awakening is, it's a
>> transition. And I imagine it's been
>> called awakening because the difference
>> between the two states, before and after,
>> is as great and distinct as that between
>> bodily sleep and waking. To experience
>> awakening (or indeed anything) must be
>> to know, be aware of, its intrinsic
>> nature and attributes, what it *is*,
>> even if you delay naming it. You
>> couldn't afterwards name it intelligibly
>> unless you had known it for what it is
>> in the very experiencing of it.
>
> As I have often said, you are a realist
>> transition. And I imagine it's been
>> called awakening because the difference
>> between the two states, before and after,
>> is as great and distinct as that between
>> bodily sleep and waking. To experience
>> awakening (or indeed anything) must be
>> to know, be aware of, its intrinsic
>> nature and attributes, what it *is*,
>> even if you delay naming it. You
>> couldn't afterwards name it intelligibly
>> unless you had known it for what it is
>> in the very experiencing of it.
>
> and literalist, with a
> Platonic-Abhidharmic mindset. This
> mindset believes in the absolute
> objectivity of the Object. To this
> mindset, mind attains to reality when
> it perceives the (absolute) Object,
> from which it borrows the objectivity.
> In itself, mind is deprived of any
> worth, as worth (validity) depends on
> Objectivity.
>
> The Buddha's mindset goes in the
> opposite direction. Whatever happens
> (iow, whatever happens to mind,
> whatever happens in mind), mind can
> plane above it and not be bothered by
> it, or mind can also take the opposite
> tack, in experiencing directly what it
> experiences, without putting any
> distance between mind and what it
> experiences. Mind can choose to be
> plane above it and not be bothered by
> it, or mind can also take the opposite
> tack, in experiencing directly what it
> experiences, without putting any
> distance between mind and what it
> open, fresh, innocent, regardless what
> actually occurs in it. In either case,
> the attitude of mind trumps the
> content of mind.
>
> That night, if I get it aright, the
> Buddha chose to be open, fresh,
> innocent, and it was that attitude
> that was essential. What happened in
> content was important, and it was a
> state of non-doing, shorn of
> thinking and willing, but it was not
> as important as the attitude of
> being open, fresh, innocent. In this
> attitude, if thought came, fine, if
> thought did not come, fine, if
> Nirvana came, fine, if Samsara came,
> fine, the Buddha was open, fresh and
> innocent, and could take any and all
> of them, without distinction.
>
> It was this attitude that was
> awakening. The content (non-doing)
> was a good content to experience,
> for sure, but the essential was his
> attitude. The attitude made the
> content fungible.
>
> This attitude was pure faith, but
> faith devoid of content. Whatever
> content came, faith was open, fresh
> and innocent to it, and not at all
> ready or eager to impose on it. It
> was at antipodes with the Buddha's
> attitude of the previous six years,
> which had been one of brutal and
> imperious imposition. What happened
> could only have been what he had
> expected to happen, and nothing else.
>
> In his prior peregrination, the
> Buddha had been taught content, in
> that he had been taught to do this
> to attain to that, in meditation or
> in self-torture (in some circles,
> the two were the same), but nobody
> had taught him non-doing, and nobody
> had taught him the attitude of being
> open, fresh and innocent, in total
> disregard to content.
>
> But the two things that he had not
> been taught, he found out by chance
> that night, and it turned out that
> they either were the same, or at
> least connived to a wonderful degree.
> In non-doing, he did nothing, and
> only experienced what happened in
> him (and put up no resistance to it).
> In his attitude of being open, fresh
> and innocent, he was receptive to
> what happened in him, and imposed no
> condition on it, no prior framework
> on it. He made no effort (which
> would be doing) to fit what occurred
> in him into his existing knowledge,
> and just that was awakening.
>
> So, the two things that he had not
> been taught and that he found out by
> chance that night, non-doing and the
> attitude of being open, fresh and
> innocent, either were the same, or at
> least connived to a wonderful degree.
> One hand washed the other. And the
> whole event was unexpected to him. It
> was pure surprise. Which doubled the
> pleasure, so to speak. He did nothing
> and got everything. That was grace.
>
> Tang Huyen
You make Buddha sound wise from the go, intellectually choosing to take
on a new attitude instead of continuing toward further self-mortification.
When you've tried everything from hedonism to self-mortification and
none of it works worth a damn, sometimes you just give up and get ready
to die, and in that letting go it is discovered.
I think it was not any intellectual wisdom, or persevering in any
practice, that took Buddha to that place you wish to go. I think rather
that it was a purity of heart so to speak, a determination of being,
refusing to accept what was not the way, allowing even death rather than
to depart from the path.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:21:42 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 08:41 AM, roy....@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:03 am, Tang Huyen<tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> Precisely. being happy is a completely arbitrary decision on the part
> of the individual.
> one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
> the circumstances.
Without being bound by desire, why would one decide to be happy?
Being free, one can accept what is, whatever it is; having then accepted
the present, one participates in the creation of the future.
> On Feb 23, 9:03 am, Tang Huyen<tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> of the individual.
> one can simply arbitrarily decide to be happy or not, regardless of
> the circumstances.
Without being bound by desire, why would one decide to be happy?
Being free, one can accept what is, whatever it is; having then accepted
the present, one participates in the creation of the future.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:27:20 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 12:34 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>> whatever happens in mind), mind can
>> plane above it and not be bothered by
>> it, or mind can also take the opposite
>> tack, in experiencing directly what it
>> experiences, without putting any
>> distance between mind and what it
>> plane above it and not be bothered by
>> it, or mind can also take the opposite
>> tack, in experiencing directly what it
>> experiences, without putting any
>> distance between mind and what it
>> experiences...
>
> Mind is its content. When did you start believing in souls?
I don't think mind is its content at all. Mind is only the shadow cast
>
> Mind is its content. When did you start believing in souls?
into the world of form and name by the true self. Does mind need
content? What is this 'content' anyway? Something necessitated by the
presumption that the world of form and name is all that exists, or even
the determining portion of all that exists?
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:31:40 AM2/24/12
to
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:34:05 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 07:13 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> In the context of practice, it isn't really something that we bother to
> speculate about. Speculation is really a form of asking the wrong question.
Practice amounts to doing the wrong things consistently until they prove
> In the context of practice, it isn't really something that we bother to
> speculate about. Speculation is really a form of asking the wrong question.
that no fruit will be born of doing them.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:36:15 AM2/24/12
to
> rather, he is talking about re-emergence from one
> lifetime to the next (reincarnation). (certainly, the
> mechanism for this re-emergence from either one moment
> to the next or one lifetime to the next is the same:
> ie. Dependent Origination.
through which the future emerges from the past.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:38:24 AM2/24/12
to
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:41:34 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 04:53 PM, liaM wrote:
> Rebirth is something ideologically congealed people have a hard time to
> understand properly. Being so ego fixed, they block the reality of
> rebirth in their own lives. They do not know themselves. They do not
> acknowledge the possibility that they were other than themselves in the
> past. Their current ego seems to them unique and eternal.
> They haven't allowed what mindfulness should have taught them eons of
> rebirths ago.
>
> Night and day, we are born to new days and nights, and this from the day
> of our human birth. And not only days, hours, minutes, even a second's
> thought bubbling in our mind is a rebirth.
>
> It is said a buddha remembers all his past lives. Indeed he does within
> his own life, so long as he is not saddled with the ponderous weight
> of his ego's stultifying interpretations repeated and repeating as if
> there was no tomorrow.
>
> A famous poet wrote "Je suis un autre" - Maybe Tang can explain this
> curious phrase which relates to the present discussion..
It's interesting that born-again Christians think that a single rebirth
will last them a lifetime, but they seem to tend toward abject
literalism and acceptance of dogma-de-jour.
> understand properly. Being so ego fixed, they block the reality of
> rebirth in their own lives. They do not know themselves. They do not
> acknowledge the possibility that they were other than themselves in the
> past. Their current ego seems to them unique and eternal.
> They haven't allowed what mindfulness should have taught them eons of
> rebirths ago.
>
> Night and day, we are born to new days and nights, and this from the day
> of our human birth. And not only days, hours, minutes, even a second's
> thought bubbling in our mind is a rebirth.
>
> It is said a buddha remembers all his past lives. Indeed he does within
> his own life, so long as he is not saddled with the ponderous weight
> of his ego's stultifying interpretations repeated and repeating as if
> there was no tomorrow.
>
> A famous poet wrote "Je suis un autre" - Maybe Tang can explain this
> curious phrase which relates to the present discussion..
It's interesting that born-again Christians think that a single rebirth
will last them a lifetime, but they seem to tend toward abject
literalism and acceptance of dogma-de-jour.
noname
Feb 24, 2012, 6:42:56 AM2/24/12
to
On 02/23/2012 06:27 PM, roy....@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:01 pm, liaM<cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>> Le 24/02/2012 01:36, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 6:28 pm, liaM<cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 24/02/2012 01:06, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a crit :
>>
>>>>> these comments are sooooooo lame.
>>
>>>> ta gueule :)
>>
>>> va te faire foutre, trouduc
>>
>> Ne te fais pas attendre, petiot :)
>
> yoh mamuh
I'm glad you two finally got done ordering dinner.
> On Feb 23, 7:01 pm, liaM<cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>> Le 24/02/2012 01:36, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 6:28 pm, liaM<cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 24/02/2012 01:06, roy.ma...@hotmail.com a crit :
>>
>>>>> these comments are sooooooo lame.
>>
>>>> ta gueule :)
>>
>>> va te faire foutre, trouduc
>>
>> Ne te fais pas attendre, petiot :)
>
> yoh mamuh
I'm glad you two finally got done ordering dinner.
roy....@hotmail.com
Feb 24, 2012, 7:21:35 AM2/24/12
to
On Feb 24, 5:36 am, noname <non...@no.email> wrote:
that's very good. and it still doesn't alter the fact that Dependent
Origination not only results in re-emergence from one moment to the
next, but also continues on through from one lifetime to the next
(reincarnation) (the round of rebirths). we, "the self" are nothing
other than this mechanistic process of Mother Nature, and the Buddha
discovered the way for us to end such suffering, for each of us,
individually. the Buddha's "method" is there, try it or not.
Origination not only results in re-emergence from one moment to the
next, but also continues on through from one lifetime to the next
(reincarnation) (the round of rebirths). we, "the self" are nothing
other than this mechanistic process of Mother Nature, and the Buddha
discovered the way for us to end such suffering, for each of us,
individually. the Buddha's "method" is there, try it or not.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages