Serious question for Rena
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I have personally seen and heaard so many interesting things from
people who have experienced what seems to be some kind of communication
from loved ones who have passed on, that it is hard to dismiss it out
of hand as supserstitious nonsense."
When my maternal grandmother passed on, I was filled with much
grief for a good four years. I had a very deep soul-bond, connection
with her. As a process of my own healing, I began to experience her
presence of love with me in many ways, even to the point of others'
smelling 'smells' in the air that were very reminiscent in conjunction
with my grandmother (she would put coffeegrounds in dressing in a
soup chicken, for example). This odor was definitely smelled by
me and one other person at one point when I began to realize the
immortality of the soul and the continuance of life beyond the
grave.
Many of the saints (such as Papa Ramdas) have spoken about life
after the dropping of the physical shell and the various planes a spirit
may go to or evolve to, etc. What you say about Buddha makes sense to me.
..maybeat the highest most realized level, it is seen as all Emptiness
or Nirvana..when the soul has reached total unification with
the Supreme Self/Void/or whatever you wish to label That Which Is..
There is no death, only continuation of life.
Kathy
--
KSS
Although there are a number of details to be sorted out, as regards
atman / anatman, etc. I am happy you posted this because it confirms
also my experience. I spoke to a relative yesterday, pointing out certain
feelings I have of an overwhelming kind of positivity around me ever
since my mother died, which does not seem to come from my brain
but from an unidentifiable realm beside me. My relative feels the same.
Ah well, there will always exist people who will question and scorn
our experiences just because we can't prove them.
Putting our experience in front of a "court" so to speak doesn't prove
anything, If the highest theology / buddhology can be simulated by
a mechanistic mind, maybe such theology / buddhology is wrong
-or irrelevant to our experience.
In order for the very subtle energies of intution about things beyond
death to manifest we need to be freed of all artificial intellectuality
and pseudo-logical thinking blocking our awareness.
People who grew up in the tradition of western logic are very
unfortunate, because they mistaken the predicate for the real
thing, and the distinction between spaces as an absolute truth
value of "true" and "false", whereas it's just a topological mark
created by the mind distinguishing inside from outside.
We also have a pest who will surely intervene at this point to "prove"
how stupid we are. We are paranoid conspiracy theorists conspiring
with dreams and fairly tales no doubt, to overthrow American Culture. ;-)
Karma Samten Sangpo
KSS
<7fqigm$p...@hercules.ntsource.com>...
>Many of the saints (such as Papa Ramdas) have spoken about life
>after the dropping of the physical shell and the various planes a spirit
>may go to or evolve to, etc. What you say about Buddha makes sense to me.
>..maybeat the highest most realized level, it is seen as all Emptiness
>or Nirvana..when the soul has reached total unification with
>the Supreme Self/Void/or whatever you wish to label That Which Is..
Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't believe
in anything beyong the physical brain. According to their theories if you
put together a few information processing units and let them "interact" with
an environment, if their structural complexity is high enough then they will
also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness", (As if awareness could
ever be imposed from the outside-in).
I remain a pantheist and an agnostic at heart no matter what consequences.
Nowadays we dont have time to test every single crappy cult or theory that
claims to possess absolute validity. So we have to test theories and cults
purely by their results, or their effects on human experience. Which means
that the true test for a theory is not within it but outside it. If the
highest truth
makes people miserable or victimises them or makes them unhappy, we
ought to reject it. If the stupidest truth makes people happy or better or
gives them a purpose in life, we ought to respect it.
This is just nursery school of course. But only when the light of something
inexplicable shines within our hearts do we begin to feel the need to
explain it, and hence perhaps... destroy it. The true challenge is to learn
how NOT to destroy it anymore.
KSS
P.S. I have serious technical problems to send e-mail, by the way.
Looks like I may even have to reinstall windows from scratch.
What a bore... It's all the Anti-Christ's fault (Microsoft),
hehehe
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"KSS" <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote:
Kathy:
>> Many of the saints (such as Papa Ramdas) have spoken about life
>> after the dropping of the physical shell and the various planes a
>> spirit may go to or evolve to, etc.
And many of the saints believed in a flat earth, in an earth-centered
solar system, in gods and ghosts, in alchemy, in a 4-element physics,
and so forth. What this indicates is not that because Joe Schmo was a
saint and great spritual master, that Joe Schmo's terminology must
necessarily refer to how the universe actually is. What it *does*
indicate is how such spiritual talk is shaped by the contemporary
culture in which Joe Schmo lives, and what domain assumptions are taken
as given in that setting. A good example of this is the domain assumption
of transmigration or reincarnation of a soul in the Buddha's culture.
The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating, but
rather asserts that only patterns were passed on. In fact, the Buddhists
were almost indistinguishable from the materialists of the Buddha's day.
KiSS-up writes:
> Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't believe
> in anything beyong the physical brain. According to their theories if
> you put together a few information processing units and let them
> "interact" with an environment, if their structural complexity is high
> enough then they will also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness",
Is that what you believe, KiSS-up? That's pretty stupid, I'd say. Since
I don't think a 'few' particles interacting could ever become conscious,
and certainly there is no such thing as magic. Everything that happens
is in the end a matter of physical laws and physical interaction. If you
really believe this quackery, you are more deluded than I ever imagined.
Rather, it has taken billions of years for life to evolve to the stage
of critters like us who can bicker endlessly over virtual communication
devices.
> (As if awareness could ever be imposed from the outside-in).
Actually, we are for once in total agreement there!!! Awareness could
never be imposed from the outside-in, which is what non-physicalists are
saying: that some spirit or mindstream or self or soul could 'leave' a
dead body and then 'enter' a new one. This is absurd, isn't it, because
the whole idea of imposing awareness from the outside gives nature a
kind of mechanical feel, as if we are aliens from outside being thrust
into an artefact of mechanical clockwork. (And often there is some
omnicient watchmaker added to the story as well.) The result is a very
alienating view of nature.
In fact, I claim that often we believe in souls or life after death because
we are alienated from nature and think we are imposed on the world from
the outside. The idea that we were grown from the inside-out and this is
where intelligence and awareness is emerging from, as we grow into a
powerful enough complexity, is what disgusts those who are alienated from
nature, and from their bodies, and from facing our physicality.
> Nowadays we dont have time to test every single crappy cult or theory that
> claims to possess absolute validity. So we have to test theories and cults
> purely by their results, or their effects on human experience.
Well, that is a different kind of test: whether a claim is true versus
whether it is helpful. The latter might be a harmless placebo, like taking
Carlos Castaneda's books literally, or astrology or reiki or radionics,
which may be helpful to people and make them feel great, but are grounded
in hot air. And then there are equally absurd examples of quackery, like
Scientology (and what ever happened to Valley Boy Koodies? Did one of
Mahasanti's beasties get'im or what?) which has led to lots of paranoia
and crime, even though it started as a clever hoax.
So you can argue that whether a belief is helpful or harmful is a more
important question, in terms of human suffering, than whether it is true
or false. Fair enough. However, I tend to feel that true claims have a
big advantage over false ones. Thus if I can have the same effect from
some kind of meditation practice directly that I could have by being given
a sugar pill and falsely believing it contains Boddhisattva powers, I'd
rather go for the direct route than be duped by the sugar pill. Or the
salt pill, in Bhava's case.
> If the stupidest truth makes people happy or better or gives them a
> purpose in life, we ought to respect it.
By 'truth', I think you mean 'belief' and not truth at all, and I think
by 'stupidest' you mean 'most obviously false'. And I disagree. I really
think that the truth will set you free, and it is better to bite the
bullet and try to believe, or perhaps accept, just that which empirically
is demonstrated to be most likely to be true, and to unconditionally reject
that for which there is no empirical evidence or sound reasoning.
> This is just nursery school of course. But only when the light of
> something inexplicable shines within our hearts do we begin to feel
> the need to explain it, and hence perhaps... destroy it.
Well, it depends whether the creatures that come out of the shining UFO
have blasters in there paws or not, I would say! Or a book that reads
"To Serve Man". Don't be fooled, KiSSer: it's really a COOKBOOK!
> The true challenge is to learn how NOT to destroy it anymore.
Right. We want to find a way just to waste the aliens but preserve their
flying saucers, so that we may steal their tech, of course. Good thinking.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
"The poets were not alone in sanctioning myths, for long before the
poets the states and the lawmakers had sanctioned them as a useful
expedient. They needed to control the people by superstitious fears,
and these cannot be aroused without myths and marvels."
-Strabo (c. 58 B.C.--c. 24 A.D.), Greek geographer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I am happy you posted this because it confirms also my experience."
I have had many experience in this life. There is no death, only
leaving of the physical shell, or what Karunamayi refers to as the
'body cage'. Consciousness continues.
As far as reincarnation and the discussion of it goes, I believe
Murshid (H.I.Khan) once said to his mureeds that it is not the
soul that reincarnates, but rather, the personality, continuing
where it left off (in previous lifetime or existence). In other
words, it is a series of 'personalities' that continues forward.
KSS: "...certain feeling I have of an overhwleming kind of positivity
around me ever since my mother died."
I am sorry to learn about the passing of your mother. The loss of
a loved one is never easy to take. They say that Milarepa (even
though enlightened) still grieved for the loss of his child.
Years ago some friends of mine lost his brother and wife in a small
airplane crash. This friend of mine told me how she could feel
the presence of them around her. They ended up adopting the child
they left behind and raising her for their own. Love never dies.
Energy never ceases to be, it merely changes form.
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating but
rather asserts that only patterns were passed on."
Well, did you get this straight from the Buddha's mouth, Dharmatroll?
As I understand it, Buddha never wrote down one single word of
his "teachings"....it was his followers/disciples. How do you know
for sure that they 'heard' the Buddha right? Seems to me that
oftentimes the followers of the followers get things a little mixed
up at times.
As far as your demeaning statements about saints, just before I
read your post, I was looking in a book (RAMDAS SPEAKS), which
were words/conversations of Beloved Papa Ramdas (not the American
Ram Dass) -- someone asked him about saints--
From p. ll6 OPEN YOUR HEART TO SAINTS
"Q. But we do not have saints here. We do not know where they are.
Nobody cares to see them.
Ramdas: To recognise saints you must have some qualities in you. The
intellect is ordinarily too much at work. When we go before a saint,
we must keep down the intellect and open the heart. The windows of
the heart must be opened to receive the influence that subtly comes
to you from saints. It enlivens and awakens you. Then only you will
be benefitted by their contact, by their presence and by their talks."
In another section of the book, service is spoken about in
conjunction with spiritual knowledge:
Q. What is the best method of giving spiritual knowledge?
Ramdas: Serve your fellowmen selflessly and move freely with them.
By so doing you will infuse spirituality in them. Such a life will
reflect upon their souls and awaken them to the consciousness of their
inner Divinity." (p. l20-l2l of RAMDAS SPEAKS, Vol. I)
Kathy
--
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
Mubul <mu...@aol.com> wrote:
> Karma Samten Sangpo wrote:
>
> > People who grew up in the tradition of western logic are very
> > unfortunate, because they mistaken the predicate for the real
> > thing, and the distinction between spaces as an absolute truth
> > value of "true" and "false", whereas it's just a topological mark
> > created by the mind distinguishing inside from outside.
Mubul:
> If there is an award for the most convoluted and pretentious piece of
> drivel written, the above paragraph would surely be a candidate.
Wah hah hah. And that gets the award for most accurate critique of KiSS!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
> Let me ask the author a few questions so that I can begin to sort out
> what he is trying to say.
>
> 1. What do you mean by Western logic? How does Western logic differ from
> any other kind of logic? What are the alternatives to it?
>
> 2. How on earth could anyone mistake a predicate for a thing? What does
> it mean to make such a mistake? Can you give an example of something
> making such a mistake? How can this mistake be avoided?
>
> 3. What do you mean by the expression "the distinction between spaces"?
>
> 4. What do you mean by "the mind distinguishing inside from outside"?
> Inside and outside what?
>
> 5. What do you mean by a "topological mark"? (I am familiar with several
> different senses of the word "topology", but none of them quite fits
> your usage of it.
>
> Any clarification you can provide will be most gratefully received.
>
> Mubul
> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
> Albert Einstein
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> There is no death, only leaving of the physical shell
There is death and you are a human being, not a hermit crab.
> Years ago some friends of mine lost his brother and wife in a small
> airplane crash. This friend of mine told me how she could feel
> the presence of them around her.
And you think that a grieving mother that is attached to the memory
of her children and in pain is objectively having a seance psychic
connection with a ghostie of a dead person on account of that?
So what UFO did you land in, anyway?
> Energy never ceases to be, it merely changes form.
And the same for matter. Some day, you will be energy for worms.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"There is death and you are a human being."
There is death to the body (or moretal shell). There is no
death to Consciousness.
Dharmatroll: "And you think a grieving mother that is attached to
the memory of her chidlren...is having a seance psychic connection."
You didn't even get the story straight: it was my friend's brother-in
law and sister-in-law that were killed in the airplane crash. My friend
felt the PRESENCE of them around her. She was the one who took
in their child to live with her (she was *not* the "grieving mother").
Dharmatroll: "And the same for matter. Some day, you will be
energy for worms."
No, I will not be the energy for the worms--the body which has
encased my soul/spirit/being will be the energy for the worms.
I am consciousness, and not "just" this human coil/frame.
Kathy
--
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> "The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
> doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating but
> rather asserts that only patterns were passed on."
> Well, did you get this straight from the Buddha's mouth, Dharmatroll?
> As I understand it, Buddha never wrote down one single word of
> his "teachings"....it was his followers/disciples.
You know damned well I am talking about the mythical Buddha and not
the historical Buddha. I don't care if there even was an historical
Buddha, or if Buddhism is the teachings of many generations or teachers.
Either way, the fact remains, there is no soul nor transmigration of
any soul in Buddhism, only rebirth, which is the patterns of dharmas
being repeated. So what is your point, Kathy?
> I have great love for Buddha in my heart.
And just what Buddha is that, anyway? Duh.
> In my opinion, Jesus was a true yogi. There is one incident recorded
> in the Bible where a man is healed and He tells the man
What the hell does this tale have to do with Buddhism? Jesus has
nothing to do with Hindu yogis and neither with Buddhism. Are you
just free-associating, or have you dropped acid one too many times?
Are you going to follow KiSS-my-Butt's example and post reams of
nonsense, such as this crap:
> Ramdas: Such a life will reflect upon their souls and awaken them
> to the consciousness of their inner Divinity.
What does this tirade about "Divinity" and "souls" have to do with
anything? It certainly has nothing to do with what the Buddha taught!
> It is said in Scripture something to the effect
This is not a Christian list, nor a Hindu list. Now why don't you go
off somewhere and chant "Hare Krishna" in private like a good girl?
> Faith has great power. Sometimes I think/feel that faith is a gift.
> It is not anything that can be "explained" or "intellectualized"
That is about the most stupid thing you have said to date. "I think/feel
blah blah blah but it cannot be explained or analyzed, that way I can
babble all the bullshit I want and think I can ignore any criticism."
That kind of babble works in reiki and radionics. It doesn't in Buddhism.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
in midst of KiSS-the-Sky's sandstorm of stupidity and superstition, from
Prof. Mubul Hayes. Woo Hoo!!! The Coyote kicks ass. Much better than even
my reply to the old Frat Boy.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
In article <37219C85...@aol.com>,
Mubul <mu...@aol.com> wrote:
> KSS wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't
> > believe in anything beyong the physical brain.
>
> Really? Do you mean there are people who do not believe in muscles,
> bones, the heart, kidneys, muscles and so on? How do these people think
> that brains get from one place to another and communicate their thoughts
> to each other?
>
> > According to their theories if you
> > put together a few information processing units and let them "interact"
> > with an environment, if their structural complexity is high enough then
> > they will also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness", (As if
> > awareness could ever be imposed from the outside-in).
>
> I think the view you are caricaturing here is one that says a single
> neurone is very dull, but a few billion linked together can collectively
> acquire abilities that no one of them has alone. There is nothing
> particularly magical about this. It is true of just about everything in
> the universe. One human being acting alone could probably do very little
> damage to the world's oceans, but five billion working together can
> pollute the oceans seriously enough to cause the extinction of many
> marine species. One human being acting alone could never design, build,
> launch and navigate a rocket to Mars, but a network of several thousands
> of people working together can. In general, we see it happen very often
> that networks of interrelated things have capacities than individuals
> lack. Why could this not also be true of neurones?
>
> Offhand, I cannot think of any reason to consider "awareness" as
> different in kind from any other function or capacity that a physical
> organism can have. Why should awareness be any different from, say,
> strength or plasticity or resilience or firmness? All these other things
> are properties that a single atom lacks but that an object made of
> several billion begins to acquire. I can see no principle that rules out
> the possibility that what we call awareness is any different from these
> other abstract properties that we give to complex multipartite objects.
>
> Mubul
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
DT: <<There is death and you are a human being who ate the donut.>>
> There is death to the donut (or yeasty shell).
> There is no death to the DonutHole.
If the donut is eaten, there is no "DonutHole" to go anywhere.
There is no death to what never existed. The hole was simply
a property or relationship among the parts of the donut.
To reify it as a separate thing is a linguistic error.
> Dharmatroll: "And you think a grieving mother that is attached to
> the memory of her chidlren...is having a seance psychic connection."
>
> You didn't even get the story straight: it was my friend's brother...
I don't care. The point is still the same. After your friend ate her
donut, she claimed to experience the same DonutHole around her and
felt an unusual sense of familiarity next time she saw a bagel.
Again, you forget how many cups of coffee she had drank that morning.
DT: "Some day, you will be energy for worms."
> No, I will not be the energy for the worms--the body which has
> encased my soul/spirit/being will be the energy for the worms.
> I am consciousness, and not "just" this human coil/frame.
Sorry, but you are a New Ager who identifies herself with a few stupid
thoughts. What you call "I" is really no more than a few brain farts,
and when the brain dies and is eaten by worms, it will stop farting.
And Kathy's new little Greek boyfriend, KiSS'n'Tell, who also likes
to fart, it seems, wrote:
> Although there are a number of details to be sorted out, as regards
> atman / anatman, etc. I am happy you posted this because it confirms
> also my experience. I spoke to a relative yesterday, pointing out
> certain feelings I have of an overwhelming kind of positivity around
> me ever since my mother died, which does not seem to come from my
> brain but from an unidentifiable realm beside me.
That's called farting, George. The positive sensation comes from eating
a lot of beans, not from your dead mother. And that unidentifiable realm
is your own asshole, which you can't seem to distinguish from a hole in
the astral plane. Didn't you mention that your mother used to fart a lot,
btw? Maybe the smell brings back some nice pleasant family memories.
Have you ever considered that aside from the conscious babble you post
and think, that you might have what is called the "subconscious" out of
which all sorts of stuff arises? Sure, there could be ghosts or goblins
who invisibly float around beside you lurking in the astral plane,
giving you all those goose pimples and funny feelings in your stomach.
Or, it could be subconscious memories and feelings about your mommy
bubbling up into consciousness. Both are logically possible, I suppose,
but which one is really more likely do you think, George?
Now George, why don't you and Kathy run along and play astrology some more,
then later on your Aunt Evelyn will make you both some nice tea and cookies.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
KSS
>Dharmatroll writes:
>
>"The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
>doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating but
>rather asserts that only patterns were passed on."
>
>Well, did you get this straight from the Buddha's mouth, Dharmatroll?
He didn't. It's his own delusions of grandeur to build... conscious
machines which brought him here in the first place. The Buddha
would have never used non-existent technocratic terms like
"patterns", BTW.
Read his other posting where he says "humans and animals
based on meat are a DISEASE". Then, take a trip into Nazi
Web-sites, claiming exactly the same thing. He is a semi-conscious
techno-fascist, and all techno-fascists hate humanity because they
hate themselves, i.e. the human aspect of themselves, so they
invest in destroying this human-eness in others too. Which is
why he also acts as a CIA-agent-provokateur facing... KGB spies
(as regards my own humble presence here).
>As far as your demeaning statements about saints, just before I
He doesn't just demean saints, he hates them. He thinks they
are losers, like God who is also "a loser". Like Clinton, he's a
ruthless ultra-elitist Yankee, determined to step on corpses.
-Saintly corpses if necessary. Do you know how he will deal
with a real saint, if he met one? By telling him that there is
"no God" and recommending also... thorazine, in the end.
;-)))
KSS
John Waterman
KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:7frlvl$3gc$1...@ns1.otenet.gr...
>
> Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't believe
> put together a few information processing units and let them "interact"
with
> an environment, if their structural complexity is high enough then they
will
> also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness", (As if awareness
could
> ever be imposed from the outside-in).
>
"....... few information processing units...."!!!
It is not the information processing units (neurones) that are important but
the connections between them. And believe me, *few* is not an appropriate
word.
I would suggest a study of Complexity and Emergence to gain some insights to
the inevitable (not magical) emergence of phenomena when a system is of
sufficient complexity and appropriate connectivity.
You may as well write:
"According to their theories if you put together a few H2O molecules and let
them "interact" with an environment, if the structural complexity is high
enough then they will also (quite magically) begin to possess "liquidity",
(As if liquidity could be imposed from the outside-in)
I don't know whether this idea that "mind" is an emergent property of the
brain is correct (although it makes sense to me and the mathmatics is being
developed that will enable us to investigate the idea further), but I find
no other suggestion anywhere near as convincing.
Regards
John
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"KSS" <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote in <7fsdts$r...@hercules.ntsource.com>...
DT:
> >"The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
> >doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating but
> >rather asserts that only patterns were passed on."
> >
> >Well, did you get this straight from the Buddha's mouth, Dharmatroll?
> He didn't. It's his own delusions of grandeur to build... conscious
> machines which brought him here in the first place. The Buddha
> would have never used non-existent technocratic terms like
Like "recurring dharmas", which is what I qualified by my use of the
term pattern later in the post. This is in the Buddhist suttas.
What the Buddha actually said, that is a red herring. The point is
that the suttas do talk about rebirth with recurring dharmas and not
about transmigrating souls. Period. If you don't like it, then there
are plenty of other wonderful religions that have immortal souls.
Buddhism does not.
> Which is why he also acts as a CIA-agent-provokateur facing...
Whether it is CIA or UFO or GOD or ghosts and goblins, none of this
has any bearing on Buddhist rebirth being the recurrance of dharmas
and not the transmigration of a soul which sheds bodies like clothing.
KSS
John Waterman wrote in <7ftabq$h0f$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:7frlvl$3gc$1...@ns1.otenet.gr...
>> Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't believe
>> in anything beyong the physical brain. According to their theories if you
>> put together a few information processing units and let them "interact"
>with
>> an environment, if their structural complexity is high enough then they
>will
>> also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness", (As if awareness
>could
>> ever be imposed from the outside-in).
>>
>
>"....... few information processing units...."!!!
>
>It is not the information processing units (neurones) that are important
but
>the connections between them. And believe me, *few* is not an appropriate
>word.
You are absolutely right. A few billion may be more appropriate phrase.
But this is not the point. If consciousness can arise in a few billion
neurons
it must also exist, albeit embryonically, in only a few.
>I would suggest a study of Complexity and Emergence to gain some insights
to
>the inevitable (not magical) emergence of phenomena when a system is of
>sufficient complexity and appropriate connectivity.
I am familiar with these topics, though left them behind by about 10 years
and recently read more about them through the net. They do seem quite
convincing explanations for many "things" but not consciousness. There
is something deeper going on with consciousness. Just take a look at
the sites: http://tony.ai and http://www.formal.com, among many others.
>You may as well write:
>"According to their theories if you put together a few H2O molecules and
let
>them "interact" with an environment, if the structural complexity is high
>enough then they will also (quite magically) begin to possess "liquidity",
Nope; because liquidity and heat are not on the same _level_
as consciousness. Confusion between levels and between
things themselves and the words we use for those things is
what's causing the problem (IMNSHO).
>(As if liquidity could be imposed from the outside-in)
Liquidity CAN be imposed from the outside-in. It's a mechanical
property of matter and it arises e.g. by melting a solid.
>I don't know whether this idea that "mind" is an emergent property of the
>brain is correct (although it makes sense to me and the mathmatics is being
>developed that will enable us to investigate the idea further), but I find
>no other suggestion anywhere near as convincing.
This is the problem I also came across many years ago. But
I was then fortunate to read George Spencer Brown's book
"Laws of Form" and most of my conceptual problems in
reconciling science with _some_ kind of spirituality were subdued.
There is only one mathematics that needs to be developed
further and this is Logic, in particular those Logics which contain
topological concepts of inside/outside. These Logics when
extended to multiple truth values begin to tell us also something
about the concepts of quantum mechanics etc. in a way which
is revolutionary and modifies the paradigm of science considerably,
But you don't have to believe all this until you see it, and if you dont
bother to see it you can be rest assured that "the game is not over
yet", i.e. mechanistic science has NOT yet succeeded to "explain
away" the human psyche or the mind, or all those phenomena
which Dharmatroll rejects a priori as quackery. I know plenty of
people with experience of telepathy, for example, people who
according to mechanistic materialists (like DT) ought to be locked
up. I also had a girlfriend many years ago who WAS locked up
on account of her strange experiences. Hence the reason for my
FURY with DT, believe it or not.
Anyway... these are open-ended issues. We cannot close them
so CHEAPLY by equating "heat" and "liquidity" with "awareness",
lowering ourselves down to this crude barbaric type-less realm.
-Especially when we know, or like, or practise Buddhism.
Very best regards
(ignore my flame-fests to DT, I'm quite relaxed actually... :-) )
KSS
KSS
but
>the connections between them. And believe me, *few* is not an appropriate
>word.
One more note, and I stop: The connections are extremely important
and I am not denying it. But the mistake is both functional (in each
processing element) and structural (in what exactly the structure DOES
or what the complexity accomplishes).
As you probably heard, dolphins have two brains, rather than one,
each brain with two hemispheres. A total of four hemispheres. Some
of their cousins (certain whales) certainly communicate between them
holographically via sonar, and live in a vastly superior level of
consciousness than humans (though there is still debate on this).
Well, the point of the complexity has to do with degrees of freedom
and with multiple worlds, most probably. Neurons, like other cells,
are not just mechanical information processors but interfaces between
the depths of the "unborn" universe (quantum-level etc) and the
"born" or manifest universe. Ask Dirk Bruere to tell you more on this
(he nearly succeeded to... reform DT but failed so far).
Finally, the concept of "interface" must be modified. Given that
Brownian Logics reduce the entire propositional calculus to
a couple of simple laws about the relationship between Inner
and Outer, it seems that the interfaces are interfaces of awarenss
distinguishing itself from non-self. Probably capsules containining
an unfathomable inner reality shielding it from the hostile outside.
Brief summary of Laws of Form:
In a clear space, draw a circle. Imagine the circle to be like an ego
(or self). Then consider two laws of awareness: (1) That hitting the
boundary many times does not cancel the boundary, and (2)
that crossing the boundary twice means coming back to the
starting point. These are the two Brownian axioms for the
primary arithmetic, kind of "ameoba-level logic". From these axioms
ALONE, the entire conventional propositional calculus arises, and
is isomorphic to Boolean Algebra, as you probably heard or know.
If now you add "colour" or a multiplicity in such boundaries,
Clifford Algebras arise, which produce elegant structures of
"reality" within the mathematics of quantum mechanics. I worked
on "Multiple Form Logic" -a multiple-truth variant of Brown calculus
since about 1984.
BTW, the Clifford Algebra interpretation of Brownian topological...
metaphysics, gives a good way to define numbers too, from literally
nothing. But this nothing is not empty; it is full. It is probably as
religious as Dharmakaya or Nirmanakaya -dont know exactly which.
So if my guess is correct that DT is writing some thesis on these
things (though I found his web-pages and he's no more than a
student of medical engineering with an interest in basketball,
Tolkien, Star Wars etc), it;s possible he's just caught strange fish
to add to his thesis, instead of offering us mechanical... faeces. ;-)
Bye for now
KSS
John Waterman
KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:7ftjjn$s26$1...@ns1.otenet.gr...
> At last a sane posting!
>(even though I disagree,
I thought someone would.
>though not totally)
Oh no, and me a new devotee of His Trollness - what will he think? :-)
> John Waterman wrote in <7ftabq$h0f$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >KSS <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:7frlvl$3gc$1...@ns1.otenet.gr...
> >> Nevertheless, there are posters in these newsgroups who don't believe
> >> in anything beyong the physical brain. According to their theories if
you
> >> put together a few information processing units and let them "interact"
> >with
> >> an environment, if their structural complexity is high enough then they
> >will
> >> also (quite magically) begin to possess "awareness", (As if awareness
> >could
> >> ever be imposed from the outside-in).
> >>
> >
> >"....... few information processing units...."!!!
> >
> >It is not the information processing units (neurones) that are important
> but
> >the connections between them. And believe me, *few* is not an appropriate
> >word.
>
>
> You are absolutely right. A few billion may be more appropriate phrase.
> But this is not the point. If consciousness can arise in a few billion
> neurons
> it must also exist, albeit embryonically, in only a few.
>
I don't think this is correct. As far as I am aware an interesting thing
about emergence is that the nature of the emergent property of a complex
system cannot be guessed at by studying the nature of just one of its
"members". Are you really suggesting that consciousness lies embryonic in
each individual neurone?
Of course at present this is all just mind games really, as emergence is
still a *very* new area.
At the Santa Fe Institute recently
"John Holland, of the University of Michigan, kicked off the discussion with
some general comments about the concept of emergent phenomena, a notion
whose definition is still-emerging. Holland probably knows more about
emergence than anyone does (that is, as the old joke has it, he's perplexed
on a higher and more significant level),"
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-winter99/emergenc
e.html
> >I would suggest a study of Complexity and Emergence to gain some insights
> to
> >the inevitable (not magical) emergence of phenomena when a system is of
> >sufficient complexity and appropriate connectivity.
>
> I am familiar with these topics, though left them behind by about 10 years
> and recently read more about them through the net. They do seem quite
> convincing explanations for many "things" but not consciousness. There
> is something deeper going on with consciousness. Just take a look at
> the sites: http://tony.ai and http://www.formal.com, among many others.
>
Tony's URL is now http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/TShome.html and I
enjoyed some of it.
I agree that there is very likely to be "something deeper" going on (if by
that you mean "something we don't yet understand"), but it still doesn't
mean that we have to "<<<believe in anything beyond the physical brain. >>>"
If your interested in finding out more about complexity etc check out the
references I gave a couple of days ago in the re: sex thread. They were
http://www.calresco.org/index.htm
and the Santa Fe Institute (referenced above)
> >You may as well write:
> >"According to their theories if you put together a few H2O molecules and
> let
> >them "interact" with an environment, if the structural complexity is high
> >enough then they will also (quite magically) begin to possess
"liquidity",
>
> Nope; because liquidity and heat are not on the same _level_
> as consciousness. Confusion between levels and between
> things themselves and the words we use for those things is
> what's causing the problem (IMNSHO).
>
I don't think that the levels make any difference to the principle of
emergence, but I agree that liquidity was not a particularly good example of
an emergent poperty, although the "sloshiness" and "drippiness" of water is
not "embryonic" within a single water molecule, but appears when many
combine and interact in a complex way, so producing a phenomenon that is of
a different order than the "individual agent" (to use the terminology of
complexity theory).
I don't really follow the other stuff about levels and things, but don't
think there's a problem for which to find a cause here.
>
> >(As if liquidity could be imposed from the outside-in)
>
> Liquidity CAN be imposed from the outside-in. It's a mechanical
> property of matter and it arises e.g. by melting a solid.
>
Like I said - bad example.
To find out other examples and a whole lot more, see the article
http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm
from which the following is taken:
"So what is this emergence exactly ? Generally it is defined by saying 'the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts'. In other words we cannot
predict the outcome from studying the fine details. Examples include
cellular metabolism, ant colonies, organism development, snowflakes. Of
course 'knowing' the outcome we can develop reductionist explanations for
explaining (to some degree of probability) the small scale interactions
involved - this is a one to many process, we break down the trait into
multiple isolated parts. The reverse process, many to one - in other words
explaining from first principles what actual forms will appear - seems
beyond us. The essence of the phenomena however is that 'new' descriptive
categories are necessary, in other words the features cannot be described
within our existing vocabulary, we require new terms, new concepts to
categorise them. This is a feature of 'open-ended' evolution - 'novelty'
appears outside our current experience or that of the system. In these cases
we cannot easily apply a 'fitness function' since the 'function' is
initially unknown. " Chris Lucas, Complexity & Artificial Life Research,
Manchester U.K.
> >I don't know whether this idea that "mind" is an emergent property of the
> >brain is correct (although it makes sense to me and the mathmatics is
being
> >developed that will enable us to investigate the idea further), but I
find
> >no other suggestion anywhere near as convincing.
>
> This is the problem I also came across many years ago. But
> I was then fortunate to read George Spencer Brown's book
> "Laws of Form" and most of my conceptual problems in
> reconciling science with _some_ kind of spirituality were subdued.
>
I don't have a problem reconciling science with spirituality. I'm a
Buddhist.
> There is only one mathematics that needs to be developed
> further and this is Logic, in particular those Logics which contain
> topological concepts of inside/outside. These Logics when
> extended to multiple truth values begin to tell us also something
> about the concepts of quantum mechanics etc. in a way which
> is revolutionary and modifies the paradigm of science considerably,
Beginning to lose me here, I'm afraid, old man. [with home counties English
accent]
> But you don't have to believe all this until you see it, and if you dont
> bother to see it you can be rest assured that "the game is not over
> yet", i.e. mechanistic science has NOT yet succeeded to "explain
> away" the human psyche or the mind, or all those phenomena
Why "explain away", why not just explain. And of course science hasn't
explained everything. It continues to provide theories and explanations that
fit the observable, noticeable, knowable evidence. They change as better
explanations and more complete theories replace them. That is the fun, that
is the mystery, that is why I have no problem reconciling science and
spirituality.
> which Dharmatroll rejects a priori as quackery. I know plenty of
> people with experience of telepathy, for example, people who
> according to mechanistic materialists (like DT) ought to be locked
> up. I also had a girlfriend many years ago who WAS locked up
> on account of her strange experiences. Hence the reason for my
> FURY with DT, believe it or not.
>
I'm a bit of a rationalist too, I'm afraid, and tend not to believe the
x-files stuff. Wouldn't lock them up though, just ask DT to post a "funny"
about them, it obviously drives you crazy when he does. I think you need to
lighten up a bit about him.
> Anyway... these are open-ended issues. We cannot close them
> so CHEAPLY by equating "heat" and "liquidity" with "awareness",
> lowering ourselves down to this crude barbaric type-less realm.
> -Especially when we know, or like, or practise Buddhism.
>
> Very best regards
> (ignore my flame-fests to DT, I'm quite relaxed actually... :-) )
> KSS
>
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Why the need to shout "CHEAPLY" - a
little tense maybe?
Regards
John
>
>
>
>
KSS
>In article <7fslt2$4...@hercules.ntsource.com>,
> grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>And Kathy's new little Greek boyfriend, KiSS'n'Tell, who also likes
>> atman / anatman, etc. I am happy you posted this because it confirms
>> also my experience. I spoke to a relative yesterday, pointing out
>> certain feelings I have of an overwhelming kind of positivity around
>> me ever since my mother died, which does not seem to come from my
>> brain but from an unidentifiable realm beside me.
>
>That's called farting, George. The positive sensation comes from eating
>a lot of beans, not from your dead mother. And that unidentifiable realm
>is your own asshole, which you can't seem to distinguish from a hole in
>the astral plane. Didn't you mention that your mother used to fart a lot,
>btw? Maybe the smell brings back some nice pleasant family memories.
I rest my case, I never for one single moment (ever since you
betrayed our friendship in Usenet) doubted the impression
that you are an asshole and a mother-fucker, who likes to insult
people as badly as you can in order to provoke their hatred,
(which is a very natural human reaction) and then blame them
for being hateful.
If I hear you again insulting my mother by your dirty Yankee humour
telling me that she farted a lot, I will begin thinking that you deserve
more than mere custard pies on your face, and will consider seriously
writing up a very serious FAQ on who you are.
In anycase, rest assured that I make these statetements in the
calmest possible temper, and that revenge in such cases is
not at all hateful, but just. It's also served cold.
In fact my mother died of liver cancer and watching those
biomedical engineering experts handle the machinery
near her bed while treating her like another machine has
provided precious insights into what kind of asshole YOU
are, Mr. Masters Degree student in Biomedical Engineering.
I think that if cancer patients rise from their beds and stab
you one day, I will be very pleased and not compassionate.
So yes, I am cold-bloodedly hateful. Scum like you do NOT
deserve to live. You are soul-murderers even more than
anything else. Now go fart in front of the mirror and put a
picture of your dirty ass in the same website.
Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hung
grrrrrr :-)))))
George
KSS
<7fteeb$pa...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7ft58a$lan$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>,
> "KSS" <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>> grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote in <7fsdts$r...@hercules.ntsource.com>...
>DT:
>> >"The Buddha, incidently, went against this to a large extent, as his
>> >doctrine of rebirth denies the existence of a soul transmigrating but
>> >rather asserts that only patterns were passed on."
>> >
>> >Well, did you get this straight from the Buddha's mouth, Dharmatroll?
>
>> He didn't. It's his own delusions of grandeur to build... conscious
>> machines which brought him here in the first place. The Buddha
>> would have never used non-existent technocratic terms like
>
>Like "recurring dharmas", which is what I qualified by my use of the
>term pattern later in the post. This is in the Buddhist suttas.
BULSHIT. Tell me now, looking back on the above, lines
WHY did you erase the word you used? The word is PATTERNS,
which is what you _project_ on recurring dharmas, reducing them
to what _you_ think they are.
If you were an honest debater, BTW, you would not chop off your
own intially self-chosen word: "Patterns", dharmeyboy, not
"recurring dharmas" (which you brought into your rant later).
It's your inability to read anything less mechanical than "patterns"
into Buddhism which led to your mutant Buddhism in the first
place.
>What the Buddha actually said, that is a red herring.
YOU are the red herring. You also stink, because your
shitty transhumanism is already transcended. You are
committing Viral Crimes, by your own terminology
(assuming you are a "Virion" / transhumanist).
I am not anti-Virian. On the contrary, Virian ethics sound
pretty good as far as I am concerned. They do NOT
advocate spreading around memes like "friend of Ray
and Liguo Sun", BTW.
KSS
KSS
DT:
>>That's called farting, George. The positive sensation comes from eating
>>a lot of beans, not from your dead mother. And that unidentifiable realm
>>is your own asshole, which you can't seem to distinguish from a hole in
>>the astral plane. Didn't you mention that your mother used to fart a lot,
>>btw? Maybe the smell brings back some nice pleasant family memories.
[...]
KSS:
>So yes, I am cold-bloodedly hateful. Scum like you do NOT
>deserve to live. You are soul-murderers even more than
>anything else. Now go fart in front of the mirror and put a
>picture of your dirty ass in the same website.
>
>Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hung
>grrrrrr :-)))))
>George
And anyone who fails to notice what the "grrr :-)))" means,
perhaps will understand it after the artificially intelligent by
DT gets on the air soon. He is so thick-headed that he wants
to prove my mind creates categories like "us versus them",
"goodies versus baddies". So let him prove it.
In fact if DT thinks it's a politically incorrect sin to lump him
together with all other scum in this world, then it becomes
imperative to DO SO, precisely as his harrasing political
correctness suspects and screams out to us all.
I am not and you are not oblidged to speak nicely to someone
who tells you that your mother farted a lot. And if someone thinks
they can insult you and then get away with being humourous
even more so.
No, I don't think DT is all that evil. I've seen his picture, I've seen
his joyful life on his web-pages, I'm sure that if we were in the
same university we might even become friends. But this is beside
the point. The point is: He is hiding behind a non-existen e-mail
address with the explicit aim of harrassing incessantly the rest
of the world, insulting everyone who disagrees with him, and not
caring a bit about the consequences.
So, the "memes" he carries in his head are truly deadly memes,
(even though the meme theory is largely suitable for the trashbin
and we ought to keep from it only the good seeds without the
weeds). DT knows all this and more. He _is_ smart, he knows
what he's talking about when he "psychoanalyses" anybody's
tendency to indulge in polarized thinking about him. But he
MISUSES this knowledge for the explicit purpose of scapegoating
others, tiring them out, subduing them into his power trip. Such
a meme is even worse. Whoever carries it is dangerous. Hence,
or otherwise, I do not regret telling him _exactly_ what he expects
to hear, in his lunacy to reject other people's protests as "hateful".
He has blood in his hands, at least virtually. So what's the point
of political correctness after all?
Grrrrr :-))))))
KSS
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"You know damned well I am talking about the mythical Buddha and not
the historical Buddha. I don't care if there even was an historical
Buddha, or if Buddhism is the teachings of many generations or
teachers.
Either way, the fact remains, there is no soul nor transmigration of
any soul in Buddhism, only rebirth which is the pattern of dharmas
being repeated. So what is your point?"
You say you are talking about the "mythical" Buddha and not the
"historical" Buddha, eh? I am interested in the truth of what
Buddha *really* said and taught, and that means the living Buddha,
not some "myth" that might be convenient to my brain. As I said
before, it was the followers/disciples of Buddha who wrote things
(teachings?) down--and very possibly changed them or used words
that Buddha may not even have used.
Someone may use the word soul and it could very well mean the
same thing that another word being used by 'buddhists'.
Dharmatroll: "What does this tirade about "Divinity" and "souls"
have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with what the
Buddha taught?"
So which Buddha taught what, Dharmatroll? The true, living Buddha
that *actually* lived, or your contrived, made up mythological
one?
I prefer to go with what was really taught, rather than myth. The
trouble is, sometimes it is hard finding that out, especially if
one is following "teachings" that may not exactly be "right on"
to what Lord Buddha really said/revealed/taught/exemplified, etc.
Kathy
Another exceprt (for those interested) from "Blessing Power of the
Buddhas" by Norma Levine:
"There is some _namchak_ so powerful,' Thrangu Rinpoche told me, 'that
if you put it on the head, one becomes cured.' I decided to return
to Chokyi Nyima and asked him to explain the incident I had witnessed
with the Nepalese man a few years before. 'The _vajra_ heals physical and
mental problems,' he said. 'At first I was almost afraid to use it [as
it has so much power]. Sometimes people were fainiting, sometimes
falliing unconscious for a few seconds. Some people think this is
some kind of electric shock, like a charge. Some feel heat over their
heads; some feel it is going through their body to the feet. If
something happens, then it is curing. If there's no experience, then
nothing is happening.
'It works best through a combination of faith and power meeting together.
If both meet together then it's very powerful. If there's not much
faith but the object is very powerful, then the blessing is still
strong. If there is no belief but still openness, it helps.
'But if there's wrong belief, then it is difficult. Wrong belief means
this person thinks the object is really nothing. Then not much will
happen when that person is touched with it. I can try, but it's
very strange.
'There's another interesting story about this vajra,' he continued.
'In the afternoon I don't see people, so my monks tell a little lie--
they lock the door from the outside and say that I am not in. One
day a few people came, according to my attendant, two men who
looked like very important ministers, and one woman who looked very
strange.
'My monk said I was not in, but the woman insisted, "Yes, he's there,
I saw him."
"How did you see him?" my attendant asked.
"I know," she replied. Apparently she was psychic.
"So I was curious to see her, but at the same time I did not want them
to know that I was the lama because we had already lied. So I just
walked out looking not very special, the same as any of my monks.
'Immediately she grabbed my hand in a powerful grip. "You are the
incarnation lama," she said, and would not let me go. She was
very strong. "We need help from you. Till now I was helping these
people but this time my power is not enough. You have the power," she
pleaded, "Give me a blessing."
'So I put the _vajra_ on her head. Her reaction was much greater
than the Nepalese man whom you saw--strange words, dancing, gestures.
Afterwards she prostrated to me very beutifully, precisely three
times.
"Do you know who I am?" she asked.
"I really don't know," I replied.
"In the time of the Buddha I was a local deity, but ever since the
Buddha gave teaching to me I have only wanted to help others. On one side
of the Swyamdbud there is a temple where many people go. That is
where I stay."
'Then I understood that inside that lady there was another mind that
came from Swyamdbud, and which even now stays in Swyamdbud and helps
people, like a spirit. She was very powerful. Later I found out that
she is quite famous.'
From p. 64:65, Chapter entitled: 'The Limitless Expanse',
from BLESSING POWER OF THE BUDDHAS, Sacred Objects, Secret
Lands by Norma Levine
Note: The Foreward contained in this book is by The Twelfth Tai Situpa
and reads as follows:
"We are in an era of great discoveries, and one of the consequences of
the rapid advances of science and technology is the widening of
each individual's horizons.
We have liberated many boundaries.
One of the most important elements for development is getting to the
heart of the issue through an accurate and direct means.
This book, BLESSING POWER OF THE BUDDHAS, will serve to open up and
clarify Vajrayana Buddhist culture, philosophy and principles.
I believe this book will be of great benefit.
With my sincere prayers,
The l2th Tai Situpa."
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I really think that the truth will set you free..."
So do I.
Kathy
--
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
In response to Kathy's smart-alek question of how I know exactly
what the Buddha said:
DT:<< You know damned well I am talking about the mythical Buddha
and not the historical Buddha. I don't care if there even
was an historical Buddha, or if Buddhism is the teachings
of many generations or teachers.
Either way, the fact remains, there is no soul nor
transmigration of any soul in Buddhism, only rebirth which
is the pattern of dharmas being repeated. So what's your point?>>
> You say you are talking about the "mythical" Buddha and not the
> "historical" Buddha, eh? I am interested in the truth of what
> Buddha *really* said and taught, and that means the living Buddha,
Sorry, he's dead. Rotted and was eaten by worms 2500 years ago.
And sorry, no CNN videotapes or DVD's of what he said. Just lots
of stuff passed down for 500 years or so by word of mouth, and then
written in foreign languages and then translated by people who live
in a different culture. But even with all that, after lots of work,
we can get a feel for the Buddha's teachings which I feel are helpful.
One of the core teachings is anatta, which is the claim that there is
no permanent soul, and no reincarnation, but that instead there is
rebirth, which is the recurring of psychological patterns only.
> not some "myth" that might be convenient to my brain.
Well, except for our obnoxious egos, our brains work in terms of myth
and metaphor. All that deep subconsious stuff in our animal brain is
stored in images and archetypes, and conscious linear sentences and
factoids are a recent newcomer to the scene, and they certainly don't
move us the way that images and metaphors and myths can. I'm surprised
with you, Kathy: I thought you were familiar with intuition!
> Someone may use the word soul and it could very well mean the
> same thing that another word being used by 'buddhists'.
Then you have to do the research. I do think that people use 'soul'
in many differing ways, and some are quite compatible with Buddhism.
For example, if by soul, you mean a recurring psychological pattern
which is conditioned, but not a self-existing, single thing, then
sure, it could very well mean something being used by 'buddhists'.
Do you?
> So which Buddha taught what, Dharmatroll? The true, living Buddha
> that *actually* lived, or your contrived, made up mythological one?
Impossible to say. When you read stories about the Buddha flying or
having magical powers or popping across the world by twitching his
nose and appearing before people, then that is most likely the
'contrived, made up mythological one'. Though you have to understand
that your logical scientific view doesn't work on mythology. It is
something that is intuitive, that is not true or contrived, but rather
metaphor which inspires one. Do you understand what inspiration is?
> I prefer to go with what was really taught, rather than myth.
Well, it's not an option. However, you can delude yourself and claim
that you know the actual words, and then insult anyone who disagrees
with you. This is a common tactic. I don't find it very helpful, nor
does it look too helpful for those who employ it, from my point of view.
> Another exceprt (for those interested) from "Blessing Power of the
> Buddhas" by Norma Levine:
>
> "There is some _namchak_ so powerful,' Thrangu Rinpoche told me,
> 'that if you put it on the head, one becomes cured.'...
Yes, this is a good example of metaphor and myth. For teaching that are
probably a lot like what the Buddha literally said, and how he literally
acted, I'd try Thich Nhat Hahn, as he seems to capture (for me) the
spirit of how the historical Buddha acted and told stories and so on.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
"...when the brain dies..."
> Sorry, you mix up brain with consciousness.
> Consciousness pervades BOTH the donut and the donut hole.
No, you didn't understand the metaphor. The brain is the donut.
Consciousness is the donuthole. I did not mix them up. You did.
Also to reify the process of 'conscious of' into '-ness' is
called a nominalization. There is always conscious-of something,
as it is a relationship.
The donut metaphor utilizes the same linguistic misappropriation.
That is, "the donut hole" is reified into a thing, when in fact
it is a relationship term, as is center of gravity, etc. So when
you treat it as a tangible object the co-exists with the donut,
then when the donut gets eaten, the wherabouts of the hole becomes
a paradox. Same with the paradox of where does the funnel go when
the water in the whirlpool all goes down the drain. And just so
with the process of being-conscious-of, when the brain stops
functioning.
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> << "I really think that the truth will set you free..." >>
>
> So do I.
Then stop talking about souls and channeling and vibrations, dammit!
Your magic crystals have no power on this newsgroup, sweetie.
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I'm surprised with you, Kathy. I thought you were familiar with
intuition."
Of course I am. Myth and metaphor can indeed by powerful, but when
you start discounting/invalidating/doubting the actual Buddha who lived
and walked in an actual human body--my eyebrows go up a little.
I would venture to say that there was/is the living Buddha who not
only walked and talked through the vehicle of a human body, but
also in the land of myth and realms that may "inspire" you.
Do you also discount the fact that there were over 500 Buddhas, also?
Dharmatroll: "I do think that people use 'soul' in many differing
ways, and some are quite compatible with Buddhism. For example, if
by soul, you mean a recurring psychological pattern which is conditioned
but not self-exisiting, single thing, then sure, it could very well
mean something being used by 'buddhists'. Do you?"
I would be great indeed if I could give you viable "definitions" of
soul, spirit, psyche, mind, etc. Obviously, there are *many*
"differing" ways people use or mean that which is represented by
the word soul. For you to ask me to definie how I mean "soul"
might be something quite impossible for me to answer, as you probably
know that my background points towards Vedanta/bhakta/devotion in
which soul is INDEED mentioned by many of the great ones/saints.
A definition, which I will share, which was given about/regarding
soul by Hazrat Inayat Khan:
"The soul has no birth, no death,
no beginning, no end. Sin cannot
touch it, nor can virtue exalt it.
Neither can wisdom open it, nor
can ignorance darken it. It has
always been, and always it will be.
This is the very being of man,
and all else is its cover, like a globe
on the light.
The soul's unfoldment comes from
its own power, which ends in its
breaking through the ties of the
lower planes.
It is free by nature, and looks
for freedom during its captivity.
All the holy beings of the world
have become so by freeing the soul,
its freedom being the only object
there is in life."
--H. I. Khan
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"No, you didn't understand the metaphor. The brain is the donut,
consciousness is the donut hole."
Consciousness is *both* the donut and the donut hole. The donut
is consciousness expressed in form. The donut hole is
consciousness expressed as formlessness.
When I say pervade, think of it as the formless within form, etc.
Dharmatroll: "I did not mix them up, you did."
You had something in your mind that for you is/was a "metaphor".
I have likewise. It is called different perceptions, or seeing
things in a different manner.
Dharmatroll: "...where does the funnel go when the water in the
whirlpool all goes down the drain."
It ceases to be (or to be activated), until the water is again present,
going down the drain. Consciousness expressed as the movement of a
"whirlpool", or the whirlpool.
Kathy
--
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
DT: <<I'm surprised with you, Kathy.
I thought you were familiar with intuition.>>
> Of course I am. Myth and metaphor can indeed by powerful,
> but when you start discounting/invalidating/doubting the actual
> Buddha who lived and walked in an actual human body--
I did not deny the existence of the historical Buddha. I simply
pointed out that we have no CNN tapes to know what he actually said.
> I would venture to say that there was/is the living Buddha
Your use of "was/is" and "living" are mistaken. I suspect that this
is tied to some sort of perennial view which involves astral planes
and vibrations and channelers, and the rest of your New Age props.
The Buddha died 2500 years ago. Buddhism, however, is a living
and evolving tradition.
> Do you also discount the fact that there were over 500 Buddhas, also?
There has only been one Buddha, since "Buddha" is the title of the
particular human who founded the religions. As to whether there have
been any others who have been as awakened as the Buddha, or exactly
how many have done so, or how one could measure this, I have no idea.
Though I can't see why just because he was the founder, nobody else
could be just as awakened and aware as was the Buddha.
DT correctly points out:
>> I do think that people use 'soul' in many differing ways, and some
>> are quite compatible with Buddhism. For example, if by soul, you
>> mean a recurring psychological pattern which is conditioned but not
>> self-exisiting, single thing, then sure, it could very well mean
>> something being used by 'buddhists'. Do you?"
> I would be great indeed if I could give you viable "definitions" of
> soul, spirit, psyche, mind, etc.
No, you would be having an intelligent conversation, instead of using
terms one way and then in another in the next sentence. Saying what
you mean is pretty important in having an intelligent conversation.
> as you probably know that my background points towards
> Vedanta/bhakta/devotion in which soul is INDEED mentioned
However, Buddhism is not Vedanta, and they differ considerably, and
Buddhism does not use 'soul' nor are its terms equivalent. In fact,
Buddhism specifically denies what Vedanta claims to be true. Hence,
if you equate them, you have gotten muddled. However, if Vedanta
moves you and is helpful to you, that's great. Don't call it Buddhism.
> A definition, which I will share, which was given about/regarding
> soul by Hazrat Inayat Khan:
Khan is a Sufi, and I've read and enjoyed his stuff. He is not a
Buddhist, however, and what he claims about 'soul' is not claimed
in Buddhism. Furthermore, I claim it is mistaken. I don't say this
because the Buddha said this, but rather for independent reasons
after looking at the issue. If you wish to discuss the matter and
the reasoning behing various views, that is fine.
> "The soul has no birth, no death, no beginning, no end.
> It has always been, and always it will be."
I think this is nonsense, and I don't think *anything is* permanent.
Everything, I claim, is permanent and changing and not self-existent.
I might be wrong. I might also be wrong about God, vibrations, auras,
and astral planes. However, all the evidence available leads me to
feel that I am right, and that this kind of permanent soul that has
eternally existed is pure rubbish. Many Buddhists agree with me.
So do many Western philosophical free-thinkers. You apparently do not.
If you can present solid reasoning and evidence for your disagreeing
with me, however, then I will be happy to discuss the matter with you.
Otherwise we can simply agree to disagree. Unless of course you make
any more claims about the existence of souls or vibrations or UFOs.
In which case I will ruthlessly rip apart your claims and expose them
as well as I can as rubbish.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> "No, you didn't understand the metaphor. The brain is the donut,
> consciousness is the donut hole."
>
> Consciousness is *both* the donut and the donut hole.
No it's not!! It's *my* metaphor, and I say it's the hole!
Besides, even if it is both, it is again no more after you
eat the donut. You can't eat your donut and have it too, Kathy.
Wahahahahahaha.
> The donut is consciousness expressed in form.
> The donut hole is consciousness expressed as formlessness.
So then consciousness is simply language, you are saying and
refers to both positive and negative expressions. That's fine.
Then just say "language and syntax" instead of abducting a
term about particular brain states that are experienced.
> When I say pervade, think of it as the formless within form, etc.
Oh, you mean like the old sheath within the sheath tactic. You
must have put two mirrors across from each other, looked at the
recursion in the mirrors, and have concluded that you were seeing
the astral stairway to heaven, right? Isn't that how you do your
metaphysics? And don't forget that mirrors contain glass *crystals*!
Oooh, cosmic formless reiki, man. Become one with the mirror.
> Dharmatroll: "...where does the funnel go when the water in the
> whirlpool all goes down the drain."
>
> It ceases to be (or to be activated),
Exactly. Thus it is with being conscious.
> until the water is again present, going down the drain.
Then there is the process of "swirling" again. Just so, when there
are brains again with the proper conditions, then there again is
the activity of "being conscious of" again.
However, there is no thing called 'consciousness' which misteriously
possesses the brain, just as there is no thing called 'funnel' which
myseriously leaves the water and then 'enters' the next whirlpool.
So no Hindu Self is needed, nor any Sufi dancing around the issue.
When you try to reify such a process into a thing, you then have to
add double-talk like "expressed as" and posit an extra further fact
which exists and is being expressed. This is an artefact of the way
you talk, yet has no real referent. Really, single-talk decribes the
entire situation, by seeing consciousness as pattern/process, and
without positing any additional critter, such as a soul or your
mysterious ineffable 'consciousness', which leaves and enters bodies.
No such further facts or double-talk are needed. Just clear thinking.
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"...even if it is both, it is again no more after you eat the
donut."
Yes, IT still IS, it's just that you no longer perceive it
as "donut hole".
Dharmatroll: "So then consciousness is simply language."
No..way beyond language..
Dharmatroll: "Thus it is with being conscious."
Conscious or not, Consciousness IS--always.
Dharmatroll: "...there is no thing called 'consciousness' which
mysteriously possesses the brain."
Consciousness expresses "as brain" -- and many more things, as
well as "no thing", etc.
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"The Buddha died 2500 years ago."
Siddhartha dropped his body 2500 years ago--the mindstream of
enlightenment or Buddhi continues on..
Dharmatroll: "Buddhism, however, is a living and evolving tradition."
Yup. So is sufism. So are some other traditions.
Dharmatroll: "In fact, Buddhism specifically denies what Vedanta
claims to be true."
Well, as I've mentioned over in good ol' AZ, I correspond with
a Zen Buddhist priest (Richard Kirsten Daiensai, who is a Roshi).
He is quite an artist and many of his beautiful artworks come
from his meditations. Here is a quote by Oshita Toyomichi Roshi:
"Daiensai...with your minds brush paint the glory and the power
of God's will."
Hmmmm..interesting, this mention of God, eh, by a Roshi?
Daiensai spends 6 months out of every year living in Japan,
painting and creating. He has spoken to me about the gods/goddesses
of Japan (such as Kwan Yin, etc)--I think he referred to them
as "Kami Sama" (if my memory serves me correctly).
In a write up of a little brochure he sent me, it says:
"All of Kirsten-Daiensai's paintings result through and from an
ecsatic trancelike state of meditation through which the unconscious,
intuitive, spontaneous element flows with the heart, mind and
spirit energy."
Hmmmmm..there's that word "spirit", again, Dharmatroll. Did you
notice in my other post the mention of "sprit" in regard to the psychic
that had inside her "another mind that came from Swyamdbud"?
Here's another quote for you regarding devotion (from the Levine
book again):
"Having pure devotion is a form of realization." (p. 25)
Here's another one from the Levine book (from the chapter: "The Womb
of Origination") BLESSING POWER OF THE BUDDHAS:
"The whole universe and all the realms of existence became like an
open book to Padmasambhava. His buddha mind absorbed all fields
of knowledge as he engaged with beings on all levels of existence.
He mastered all 360 languages of the beings of the six realms, includ-
ing the language of gods and demons, and all fields of knowledge--
astrology, logic, medicine and the yogic arts.: (p. 38)
Hmmmmm..there's mention of gods and demons. What do you know,
Trollster!!
Another quote from Levine book: "Because he wished to find a teaching
which, when applied, would be effective immediately, Padma (meaning
Padmasambhava) went to what is described as the highest Buddha heaven to
receive teachings of the Great Perfection of Dzogchen from the primordial
Buddha. The highest Buddha heaven is not a place, however, but a state
of mind, 'the "universal expanse" that cannot be somewhere else because
it's everywhere.' Similarly, the primordial Buddha was not someone
giving him something, but a facet of the awakened mind. So the
teaching was spontaneously revealed to Padmasambhava through the power
of his awakened buddha mind.
He held complete mastery over all of phenomenal existence: in
various forms he subjugated all demons and evil spirits, subdued
the deities of other religions, dominated the lords of death, and
brought the nine planets under his dominion. In every realm of
existence he taught the liberating truth of _dharma). Monk, scholar,
bodhisattva, Tantric yogi, Dzogchen master of naked awareness--
Padmasambhava gained complete mastery of all the paths, used all
the skilful means and, in fulfilment of the Buddha's prophecy,
surpassed Sakyamuni himself in spiritul power. 'I will plant the
banners of the Truth in the ten directions of this world,' declared
Padma. 'I am the matchless teacher of all.'
--Norma Levine: BLESSING POWER OF THE BUDDHAS, p. 39
Kathy
--
David Yeung
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> "I'm surprised with you, Kathy. I thought you were familiar with
> intuition."
>
> Of course I am. Myth and metaphor can indeed by powerful, but when
> you start discounting/invalidating/doubting the actual Buddha who lived
> and walked in an actual human body--my eyebrows go up a little.
Dharmatroll hasn't done this. You yourself said that you can't be sure
that what Buddhists claim to be the Buddha's word can be traced back to
him. Dharmatroll's just turning this around and pointing out that he
can't be sure either. Both his conception of the Buddha and yours are
"mythological" in that sense. However, he does have Buddhist tradition
on his side, since the teachings attributed to the Buddha clearly refute
the existence of a permanent "soul".
> Do you also discount the fact that there were over 500 Buddhas, also?
Actually, there are an infinite number of Buddhas. At least from the
later Mahayana point of view. In the history of early Buddhism, there
was just Gautama the Buddha, but it was implied that there were Buddhas
before him and Buddhas after him. When the canon was compiled, that
figure had jumped from one to seven, then again to twenty-seven (or
something in that order of magnitude). The number of Arahats jumped
from twelve to eighteen to five hundred. By the time the Mahayana
rolled around, there were hundreds of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and
finally "even the grass and the trees will be enlightened". So it isn't
so much a "fact" that there are five hundred Buddhas as a convenient
teaching tool (upaya), an adaptation to the cultural circumstances in
order to make a point (that Buddhahood is available to anyone and
everyone).
> I would be great indeed if I could give you viable "definitions" of
> soul, spirit, psyche, mind, etc. Obviously, there are *many*
> "differing" ways people use or mean that which is represented by
> the word soul. For you to ask me to definie how I mean "soul"
> might be something quite impossible for me to answer, as you probably
> know that my background points towards Vedanta/bhakta/devotion in
> which soul is INDEED mentioned by many of the great ones/saints.
May I suggest that you might be more at home in a Hindu or Sufi
newsgroup? You're welcome to post here, but Buddhism really doesn't
agree with the Vedanta conception of soul. And Dharmatroll is going to
keep pointing this out, I'm afraid.
> A definition, which I will share, which was given about/regarding
> soul by Hazrat Inayat Khan:
>
> "The soul has no birth, no death,
> no beginning, no end. Sin cannot
> touch it, nor can virtue exalt it.
> Neither can wisdom open it, nor
> can ignorance darken it. It has
> always been, and always it will be.
Since there is no mirror,
On what will dust fall?
(paraphrasing the 6th Patriarch)
> Kathy
>
> --
>
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
DT: "...even if it is both, it is again no more after
you eat the donut."
> Yes, IT still IS, it's just that you no longer perceive it
> as "donut hole".
What could that even mean? If there is no more donut, what
could it even mean that there still exists a donut hole, yet
that donut hole, though existing, is 'no longer perceived'?
That sounds like nonsense, and again I suspect that it is an
artefact of the way we talk.
> Dharmatroll: "So then consciousness is simply language."
No, I said that nominalizing a process or state into a noun
and then treating the noun as having reference to a thing is
a mistake caused by a misunderstanding of the language.
> No..way beyond language..
Now you're really losing it. What could it mean to be even
slightly beyond language, much less way beyond language?
In the case of riding bicycles or having orgasms, knowledge
of how the process works is not the same as the actual feel
you get from the experience, sure, but that doesn't mean
that either riding bicycles or orgasms are beyong language.
In fact, to say something is beyond language is really to say
it is nonsense, or unintelligible.
> Conscious or not, Consciousness IS--always.
Another nonsense statement. You are now repeating nonsense
statements, which make you feel warm and fuzzy while you
rub your crystals perhaps, but which say nothing. When you
are conscious, there is consciousness of something, when you
are not, there is not. This "IS--always" makes no sense.
Or is it just a New-Age crystal-reiki kind of way for you to
say that you believe in God?
> Consciousness expresses "as brain" -- and many more things
Again, you have simply proclaimed this utter nonsense, and
you have not explained how you have reached such a stupid
and mistaken conclusion. What you need to do now is to show
your work and how you reached this conclusion, so that you
may find out where you went wrong, Kathy, or else argue for
each step and try to show that you didn't make any mistakes.
However, as it stands, there is no reason for accepting something
you have proclaimed as true which blatantly looks false unless
you can provide any reasoning at all for this absurd claim.
So let's go over this again:
There is no reason to posit an eternally existing thing which
is denoted as 'consciousness' and which mysteriously possesses
brains, just as there is no reason to posit an existing thing
denoted as a 'funnel' which myseriously leaves the water and
then 'enters' the next whirlpool. Just the water swirling, or
the brain minding, fully accounts for everything that is invoved.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
DT: "The Buddha died 2500 years ago."
> Siddhartha dropped his body 2500 years ago
No Siddhartha did not 'drop his body' like dropping a napkin.
He died. Kicked the bucket. Croaked. Meat. Food for worms. Dust.
> --the mindstream of enlightenment or Buddhi continues on..
There is no such thing as "mindstream of enlightenment."
There are human animals who have the possibility of awakening.
Dharmatroll: "Buddhism, however, is a living and evolving tradition."
> Yup. So is sufism. So are some other traditions.
I did not deny that. Sufism is a wonderful tradition. So are most
others. I don't know any tradition that has been around for many
centuries that has not been helpful and inspiring to people.
> Dharmatroll: "In fact, Buddhism specifically denies what Vedanta
> claims to be true."
> Well, as I've mentioned over in good ol' AZ, I correspond with
> a Zen Buddhist priest (Richard Kirsten Daiensai, who is a Roshi).
> He is quite an artist and many of his beautiful artworks come
> from his meditations. Here is a quote by Oshita Toyomichi Roshi:
>
> "Daiensai...with your minds brush paint the glory and the power
> of God's will."
> Hmmmm..interesting, this mention of God, eh, by a Roshi?
Gee, you cite a particular person trying to explain their religion
by appealing to the terms of another for that audience, and you
want to say that Buddhism is theistic? Give me a break, Kathy.
Please show me references in the Pali Sutta that specifically
posit the existence of 'God'. There are numerous references to
various gods (devas) and Buddhism is certainly polytheistic,
but there are none of a single omnicient "God".
> Daiensai spends 6 months out of every year living in Japan,
> painting and creating. He has spoken to me about the gods/goddesses
> of Japan (such as Kwan Yin, etc)--I think he referred to them
> as "Kami Sama" (if my memory serves me correctly).
As I said, Buddhism is polytheistic, but there is no belief in
a single omnicient creator-God of any size, shape, or color.
> In a write up of a little brochure he sent me, it says:
>
> "All of Kirsten-Daiensai's paintings result through and from an
> ecsatic trancelike state of meditation through which the unconscious,
> intuitive, spontaneous element flows with the heart, mind and
> spirit energy."
>
> Hmmmmm..there's that word "spirit", again, Dharmatroll.
There are also Buddhists who have murdered and stolen. Are you also
going to claim that Buddhism teaches murder and dishonesty?
Again, please cite a textual reference. There are people who call
themselves Buddhists, for example the followers of Nichiren, who
believe all sorts of crap. In Japan, there was a Buddhist leader
who tried to poison people on a subway in an act of terrorism.
So what is your point exactly?
> Here's another quote for you regarding devotion (from the Levine
> book again):
That isn't a sutta.
> "Having pure devotion is a form of realization." (p. 25)
Awakening in Buddhism is possible (and this is referenced in the
pali texts) in several ways, according to the Buddha. One can
awaken from experiential practice after meditating, one can awaken
from intellectual study and understandiing, and one can awaken
through devotion. All of these are ways people have awakened.
Devotion is one way. So what is your point?
> Hmmmmm..there's mention of gods and demons.
> What do you know, Trollster!!
That's because Buddhism is polytheistic. I've said that many times.
What is your point? Again, Buddhism denies an omnicient creator
God or cosmic Self which is One-with-everything. If that is what
you want, then go see a hot dog vendor, not a Buddhist teacher.
You then quote more stuff that belongs on Mahasanti's web site.
The Mahayana sutras contain all sorts of wonderful mythology.
They are not literal stories, and you can find all sorts of wild
tales if you would like. However, these are metaphors for our
experinces in real life. They also have been mixed in with the
local religions of various cultures. Tibetan Buddhism for example
has a particularly interesting flavor in this regard.
So there is a wonderful abundency of mythology and rich metaphor
in Buddhism, granted. More than anyone could ever read in a single
lifetime. So again, what is your point?
When you say that the Buddha didn't die, and wasn't human but was
some ghost or comic book superhero who "dropped his body" while
he was floating around or whatever, you dishonor the Buddha, who
was a simple man without magical powers or the ability to escape
death. He made mistakes and he had such bad back pains later on
that he couldn't even meditate without leaning against a tree.
And he grew old and died just as does every other animal.
Stories about people living hundreds of years and looking like
a stud on GQ magazine or magical ghosts who "drop bodies" don't
appeal to me. The real, flesh and blood Buddha, backaches and
old age and dying like everyone else, is whom I find inspiring.
If you prefer to read comic books, Karma Tharchen has some
wonderful ones: more than the standard variety of of DC and Marvel
Comics. And don't forget to get your advance tickets for Star Wars.
djuhl...@aol.com
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> There are people who call themselves Buddhists, for example the followers of
> Nichiren [Daishonin]
For information about Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism:
http://www.cebunet.com/nst
http://www.primenet.com/~martman/ns.html
http://www.ul-m.demon.co.uk/
Derek N.P.F. Juhl
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"If there is no more donut, what could it even mean that there still
exists a donut hole.." [etc. snipped]
That is not what I said. Consciousness exists: EVERYWHERE--in
all space and is omnipresent. The space where once a donut hole
existed, still exists, with or without the donut there.
Dharmatroll: "...your mysterious ineffable 'consciousness' which
leaves and enters bodies.."
It does not leave or enter bodies...consciousness expresses
as bodies (as well as other forms and also formlessness)
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"You're welcome to post here, but Buddhism really doesn't agree with
the Vedanta conception of soul."
Maybe the problem/difficulty is really one of semantics. Maybe
what the Hindus refer/call the Supreme Self is the same very
thing as what a Buddhist may call/term "the pure essence of egoless
voidness--Prajna". What do you think, any possibility of that?
Maybe what they call 'soul' is what you might call 'recurring
patterns' or 'rebirth'?
I took my copy of Tsultim Allione's book off the shelf just
a little while ago: WOMEN OF WISDOM--did you
ever read it, David?
Have you ever done any buddhist meditations on Tara?
On p. l77 of the book in the chapter "Biography" and the section
titled "Meeting with Tara" is the following:
"Tara said: "Listen, yogini, your past is cleared from your heart
but I will explain it to you. The Great Mother is the void state
of all the dharmas which we call Mother of all Creation. The
Mother is the Mother of the Buddhas of the Three Times, the Dharmata
of the Absolute State, beyond all obstructions, the pure essence of
egoless voidness--Prajna. But accordingly, the Great Mother who
is the object of offerings and accumulation of merit, by the
energy of the prayers and invocations of sentient beings and by
means of the luminosity of the voidness of the egolessness of things
as they are, became a sphere (Tig.le) of yellow-red light which
manifested as the Great Mother in a palace of pure vision, surrounded by
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Ten Directions. She had one face and
four arms and was a golden color. She sat in the lotus position and
in her heart was the orange letter M U M in a bead of light." (p. l77)
Now I find this all quite interesting, as I had asked Karunamayi
(Her name means 'Compassionate Mother') to sign a photo that I had
of Her. And guess how She signed it? She personally signed
it:
My Kathy
With much motherly love
Your's Mum
(Hindu OM symbol)
And guess what color Her sari is in the picture I had asked Her
to sign? Yup--orange.
Now I have a great devotion to Divine Mother. I don't see Tara
as a separate being APART from Divine Mother. Tara is Divine
Mother. So is Karunamayi. So are many other embodiments
walking the eart Divine Mother.
So why are you trying to tell me that Buddhism is separate and
apart from these things, when even a Zen Buddhist Priest
(who is a Roshi) tells me that all streams go into the ocean?
Kathy
--
KSS
>> Dharmatroll: "So then consciousness is simply language."
>
>No, I said that nominalizing a process or state into a noun
>and then treating the noun as having reference to a thing is
>a mistake caused by a misunderstanding of the language.
That;s really beautiful. I guess after computers develop enough
we all ought to go back into a new Stone Age, and instead of...
mutant assholes become _mute sheep_. Anything we can't find
words to express it ought to be _exterminated_. This is in fact
precisely what Dharmatrollster does: Exterminating anything
that doesn't fit his Procrustean bed of language. HIS language,
needless to say. But let's have a closer look in the way he keeps
harassing Kathy, attempting to confuse and gag her out of
existence in order to deny how confused and gagged he is,
himself:
>> No..way beyond language..
>
>Now you're really losing it.
Q.E.D. Anyone saying things like "beyond language"
IS mad. In fact I plan to show transcript of Dharmatroll's
hateful deliriums against anything human to a friend who
studies psychiatry, and is very concerned about people
who decimate anything beyond words.
>What could it mean to be even
>slightly beyond language, much less way beyond language?
1) Polite answer:
Indeed, what could it mean? What could it mean?
Anyone and anything even _slightly_ beyond language,
according to this faulty logic, ought to be exterminated.
2) Straight answer:
It would mean being human, instead of a destructive
techno-fascist piece of scum, scapegoating others who
dont share your terms.
>In the case of riding bicycles or having orgasms, knowledge
>of how the process works is not the same as the actual feel
>you get from the experience, sure, but that doesn't mean
>that either riding bicycles or orgasms are beyong language.
It's precisely the "actual feel" that to a large extent cannot
be expressed in words, and it's precisely this reason why
as Wittgenstein said "the limits of my language are the
limits of my world". After reading DT however, I begin to
realize that _maybe_ Wittgenstein was _wrong_.
Well, a Buddhist needs a troll as a fish needs a bicycle.
Now... where have I heard this before? ;-)
>In fact, to say something is beyond language is really to say
>it is nonsense, or unintelligible.
Q.E.D. Wittgensteinian to the core. I love Wittgenstein,
but if he was alive today he'd seriously revize some of
his stuff, following trash like this.
>> Conscious or not, Consciousness IS--always.
>
>Another nonsense statement. You are now repeating nonsense
>statements, which make you feel warm and fuzzy while you
>rub your crystals perhaps, but which say nothing.
Of course, just like poetry or like Magritte's paintings, or
anything "beyond language". Let's burn all these things
and throw them to the dustbin.
>When you
>are conscious, there is consciousness of something, when you
>are not, there is not. This "IS--always" makes no sense.
>Or is it just a New-Age crystal-reiki kind of way for you to
>say that you believe in God?
As regards Reiki, I've met people whose experience
tells them that it _works_. So does Dr. Wilhelm Reich's
orgonomy, and many other condemnable New Age things.
I agree that to a large extent the excesses of such New Age
things ought to be curbed or eliminated. E.g. one can read
beautiful sugary New Age sites like Judi's and get a completely
wrong idea of who Judi and her guru and her problems actually
are. In general mistrust of New Age cults is correct, but not in
order to throw the baby together with the bathwater.
>> Consciousness expresses "as brain" -- and many more things
>
>Again, you have simply proclaimed this utter nonsense, and
>you have not explained how you have reached such a stupid
>and mistaken conclusion.
Why is it stupid and mistaken? Because the trollster
thinks it is so? There are serious scientists who dont
agree and they are not stupid at all. But we all ought
to get a... license from Dharmatrollster's "Ministry of Truth"
in order to "think correctly" and not "stupidly".
>So let's go over this again:
AAAA this is beautiful. He is giving a lecture in an
amphitheatre, impressing his audience, now. Watch it:
>There is no reason to posit an eternally existing thing which
>is denoted as 'consciousness' and which mysteriously possesses
>brains, just as there is no reason to posit an existing thing
>denoted as a 'funnel' which myseriously leaves the water and
>then 'enters' the next whirlpool. Just the water swirling, or
>the brain minding, fully accounts for everything that is invoved.
Yep. flush it all down the toilet. Dont forget to wash
the blood in your hands afterwards.
>When you try to reify such a process into a thing, you then have to
>add double-talk like "expressed as" and posit an extra further fact
>which exists and is being expressed.
Look who is talking. The reifier par excellence!!! :-)))))))))))
Because mama, we are all crazy now, crazy now. (Gary Glitter).
>This is an artefact of the way
>you talk, yet has no real referent. Really, single-talk decribes the
>entire situation, by seeing consciousness as pattern/process, and
>without positing any additional critter, such as a soul or your
>mysterious ineffable 'consciousness', which leaves and enters bodies.
>No such further facts or double-talk are needed. Just clear thinking.
This is all stolen from Hofstadter's "The Mind's Eye", most probably.
Same trash as before. Instead of facing the paradox, trashing it as
non existent.
What's really amazing is how everybody stands and listens to these
things. No protest at all. No sound.
Well, it looks like there is no need to lock up the audience as a whole,
since they are not speaking to ya, Dharmeyboy. They're dead silent.
Karma Samten Sangpo
The Ruuts
David Yeung wrote in message <3723E148...@cyberdude.com>...
in reply to Kathy;
>May I suggest that you might be more at home in a Hindu or Sufi
>newsgroup? You're welcome to post here, but Buddhism really doesn't
>agree with the Vedanta conception of soul. And Dharmatroll is going to
>keep pointing this out, I'm afraid.
David,
I have respectfully mentioned before, the fact that Kathy's particular
belief system is more of a smorgasbord of various traditions, not really
essentially buddhist. Unfortunately, although her interests lean toward
buddhism in some aspects, she is not a buddhist.
Perhaps this insistence on providing buddhists with her own blend of
beliefs rather than learning what buddhism actually teaches is the cause of
some of her past difficulties on other newsgroups? I don't know.... I do
know that in the past we had some extensive discussions on anger and her
belief that it is justified sometimes. Our conversations were always
respectful, although we parted still differing.
Evelyn
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
In article <7g0vr9$3...@hercules.ntsource.com>,
grail...@xnetsource.comm [Kathy of Borg] wrote:
> Consciousness exists: EVERYWHERE--in all space and is
> omnipresent. The space where once a donut hole existed,
> still exists, with or without the donut there.
So by consciousness, you mean "nothing" or "empty space"?
(Even that isn't true, by the standards of modern physics!)
DT: <<...your mysterious ineffable 'consciousness'
which leaves and enters bodies..>>
> It does not leave or enter bodies...consciousness expresses
> as bodies (as well as other forms and also formlessness)
Again, why not say that there is matter and space, rather than
matter and space and something which expresses itself as matter
and space? How does it "express" and what does it look like or
smell like or taste like? What would something be like if
'consciousness' did not 'express' as it?
> So why are you trying to tell me that Buddhism is separate and
> apart from these things, when even a Zen Buddhist Priest
> (who is a Roshi) tells me that all streams go into the ocean?
>
> Kathy
Yes, I am telling you that, and so was David. One Zen Priest's
personal synthesis does not speak for the entire 2500 year old
tradition. Heck, it doesn't even speak for all of Japanese Zen,
or even much of it at all. Besides, Zen is a distant branch of
Buddhism, so you're claiming that anything a particular Mormon
says would then apply to every mainstream orthodox Catholic as
well: that would be a pretty crazy claim to make, wouldn't it?
As for metaphors having to do with merging into the ocean,
Bhikku Bodhi expresses Buddhism's distinctiveness in a clear way:
"For the non-dual systems, two similes stand out as predominant.
One is *space*, which simultaneously encompasses all and permeates
all yet is nothing concrete in itself; the other is the *ocean*,
which remains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of
its waves. [In contrast,] similes used within the Ariyan Dhamma
are highly diverse, but one theme that unites many of them is
acuity of vision -- vision which discerns the panorama of visible
forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality."
Also, whereas Vedanta goes for an underlying "Oneness", Buddhism
posits an underlying diversity and complexity:
"In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the
diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order
to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. Concrete
phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere
appearance, while true reality is the One. [Whereas in Buddhism,]
Wisdom leaves diversity and plurality untouched. It instead seeks
to uncover the characteristics of phenomena, to gain insight into
their qualities and structures."
However, you are certainly correct in that there are mixures of
the two to be found all over the place. Since you are rather fond
of Tibeten Buddhism, may I suggest Kalu Rinpoche, as he tries to
make connections and metaphors that would appeal to your sense of
a Cosmic Self. One of the most contraversial things Kalu said,
which is rejected by traditional Buddhists yet is a really cool
quote which I think you will enjoy, is:
<< You live in illusion and the appearance of things.
There is a reality, but you do not know this.
When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing.
And, being nothing, you are everything.
That is all.
>>
That's the kind of thing you are looking for, isn't it? Certainly
this is not what traditional Buddhism claims, but there are all
sorts of flavors of Buddhism for everyone. Hopefully you will find
some which appeal to your particular tastes. Perhaps someone on the
tibetan list can provide more references along these lines. So I
see where your intuitions are going here, and I sincerely hope that
this might be helpful and you may find pockets of Buddhism which
appeal to your taste in Non-Dual Vedanta. However, it is still good
to know how Buddhism differs from such system and not wrongly claim
that Buddhism is reducible to Vedanta in a trivial semantic way.
For example:
> David Yeung writes:
>
>> You're welcome to post here, but Buddhism really doesn't
>> agree with the Vedanta conception of soul.
>
> Kathy:
> Maybe the problem/difficulty is really one of semantics.
> Maybe what the Hindus refer/call the Supreme Self is the
> same very thing as what a Buddhist may call/term "the pure
> essence of egoless voidness--Prajna". What do you think,
> any possibility of that?
Absolutely none, Kathy. There is no "essence" of being egoless.
Buddhism does not use different terms for the Supreme Self yet
posit such a Self in any way, simply using different terms.
It is incommensurable with Non-Dual Vedanta, even though they
share several basic background domain assumptions which are not
shared by many Western systems. Buddhism specifically denies any
such essence and specifically denies any Supreme Self.
> Maybe what they call 'soul' is what you might call
> 'recurring patterns' or 'rebirth'?
The Buddha *specifically* denied the soul and reincarnation
and *replaced* this with rebirth, Kathy. What you are saying is
that maybe Buddhism is full of shit and there is no such thing;
hence every distinction the Buddha made is false, and really
Buddhism is just your religion but is using different words.
That particular line of attack is called perennialism. It is
probably the most rude and degrading attack one can wage on
another system, as it superficially appears to agree and embrace
the system, while its goal is to undermine and devastate the
system's uniqueness and reduce it entirely to one's own. That is,
we have: "I am Kathy of Borg. Resistance is futile. Your religion
will be assimilated and added to the collective."
Kathy then quotes lots of Borg stuff...
> Now I find this all quite interesting, as I had asked Karunamayi
> (Her name means 'Compassionate Mother') to sign a photo that I had
> of Her. And guess how She signed it? She personally signed it:
>
> My Kathy
> With much motherly love
> Your's Mum
> (Hindu OM symbol)
>
> And guess what color Her sari is in the picture I had asked Her
> to sign? Yup--orange.
So some Hindu guruette tells you she's your mummy and she wears
the same color as do Buddhist monks and you feel all warm and fuzzy
and in touch with your inner brat: so what? How is that evidence
that the Buddha was really full of *shit* about anatta and anicca,
and that really, Buddhism *just* uses different words for soul and
God and is *just* your religion in disguise, but Buddhists being
the ignoramuses they are don't realize that they are really Hindus?
You conclude this because an inspiring and helpful teacher in an
orange robe signs her book to you as your "Mum"? Not convincing.
> Now I have a great devotion to Divine Mother. I don't see Tara
> as a separate being APART from Divine Mother. Tara is Divine
> Mother. So is Karunamayi. So are many other embodiments
> walking the earth Divine Mother.
Again, if this metaphor of Divine Mother moves you (and I admit
we don't have enough such female deities, as all the suttas and
bibles were written by folks with penises, who dominated the
culture) then that's great. I am glad this is helpful for you.
Finding a metaphor useful to you, however, is not the same as
making a reductionist claim of one religion in terms of another.
There are many aspects where shares a lot with Vedanta and with
Taoism, and other religions. Mixtures of the religions have taken
place in many cultures. Japanese Zen, for instance, has not only
a lot of Taoism mixed in, but Shintoism as well. Tibetan Buddhism
on the other hand, had their local religions mixed in, and the
Himalaya mountains served to isolate the culture, just as the
water isolated Japan, and interesting flavors of Buddhism arose.
Perhaps others can give some good textual references in terms
of how Buddhism goes against the grain of the non-dual systems,
such as non-dual Vedanta. Besides being poly-theistic, Buddhism
tends to be pluralistic as well, though it denies the self-existence
of anything permanence or not dependent on causes outside of itself.
So give it up, Borg-Babe: Buddism will not be assimilated!
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
David Yeung
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> "...even if it is both, it is again no more after you eat the
> donut."
>
> Yes, IT still IS, it's just that you no longer perceive it
> as "donut hole".
Here is a relevant koan from the Zen tradition: "Close your hand, now
you have a fist. Open your hand. Where has the fist gone?" There
really isn't any fist once you've opened your hand. At least from the
Buddhist (Zen) point of view.
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"KSS" <hypl...@otenet.gr> wrote:
DT:
>> This is an artefact of the way you talk, yet has no real referent.
>> Really, single-talk decribes the entire situation, by seeing
>> consciousness as pattern/process, and without positing any
>> additional critter, such as a soul or your mysterious ineffable
>> 'consciousness', which leaves and enters bodies.
>> No such further facts or double-talk are needed.
>> Just clear thinking.
> This is all stolen from Hofstadter's "The Mind's Eye", most probably.
Nope. Try Sidney Shoemaker, Thomas Nagel, Bernard Williams, Peter Unger,
Robert Nozick, Derek Parfit, David Lewis, David Wiggins, Charles Taylor,
Rom Harre, John Perry, Harry Frankfurt, and Roderick Chisholm, among
others I've read. The above pun on "double-talk" referring to a claim
of substance dualism is in fact my very own creation.
> Same trash as before. Instead of facing the paradox, trashing it as
> non existent.
Seeing through a paradox and explaining it in away in which what at
first seemed to be paradoxical but upon closer inspection is seen to
make sense if looked at from a new perspective, is not a matter of
trashing at all, but rather a matter of insight and clear thinking.
> What's really amazing is how everybody stands and listens to these
> things. No protest at all. No sound. Well, it looks like there is
> no need to lock up the audience as a whole, since they are not
> speaking to ya, Dharmeyboy. They're dead silent.
Actually, there is a lot of criticism coming my way from such
"dead silent" people. For example yesterday, some crazy old dog named
Mubul very rudely tried to undermine my reputation by saying to you:
KiSS:
<< BTW, Dharmatroll knows very well all the answers to these
questions, since I've posted it repeatedly both publically
and privately (during the time we were still friends) but
he's playing a game (as always). Ask him to explain. >>
Prof. Mubul (yesterday):
<< My preference would be to read a published book or article
written by an expert in the subject, if you can supply some
references. Although I find Dharmatroll a remarkably clear
and intelligent man, I still find the Usenet a very limited
forum in which to pursue complex issues. >>
Not a 'remarkably clear and intelligent troll', but 'man' as in
meat-head. I can't believe the abuse I am getting around here.
And then some crazy old granny named Evelyn makes me out to be
some goodie-two shoes nice guy that's good for a few laughs:
Evelyn wrote (on Friday):
<< Dear Kathy,
Honey, you haven't lived until you have seen Dharmakaya Trollpa
at his wildest!.... and yes, you can bet he certainly does post
here. He savages everyone from time to time, but never in an
unkind way, unless his very pointed criticisms are met with real
nastiness. He has always been nice to me, perhaps because I have
always been nice to him. He has an incredible wit, is very well
read, is completely uninhibited about what he says to anyone,
and you will probably enjoy his posts as much as I do. I think
if I met him in person I would like him a lot. >>
Never in an unkind way my ass! See all the abuse I get from the bozos
around here? I ain't no sissy! Boddhisattvas run in terror when they
see me comin': that's why they talk to Mahasanti and not to me, 'cause
they know I'd kick their ineffable butts back to the astral plane.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
> As regards Reiki, I've met people whose experience
> tells them that it _works_. So does Dr. Wilhelm Reich's
> orgonomy, and many other condemnable New Age things.
I did not say it does not work; I said that it does not work
due to the reasons it posits, but rather to what is known as
the placebo effect, and that reiki's explanations are false,
through and through. Now which one shall we go for first,
KiSSipoo, reiki or orgonomy? How about radionics?
Let's start with reiki.
There are few forms of New-Age Nonsense more McDonalized and full of
nonsense buzz words and greased more with Theosophist snake oil than
is reiki. It is so full of buzzwords and cliches, in fact, that it is
a paradigm case of the "New Age" movement in California. I will
provide some examples below.
A girlfriend of mine took a course in reiki, and found it had all the
New-Age lingo and talk of energies and auras: in this pseudoscience,
magical energy is transferred from your aura through your hands
into another person's body, resulting in magical healing abilities
of the body and mind...etc., etc., etc.
At the advanced levels (Level 7, I read somewhere) crystals are
used to help focus the 'spiritual energies'. Anyone buy this crap?
As a poster on the Buddhist 'insight@' list recently wrote:
>> What I Do feel is detrimental to the assimilation of Buddhism in
>> "The West" is the tendency to desire to create, for whatever personal
>> reasons, some inane hybrid form of practice that attempts to blend
>> Tibetan, Theravadin, Zen, Ch'an or other forms of Buddhism with
>> Christian Mystic, Native American, Shamanistic, Aboriginal, Celtic,
>> Egyptian, Crystal, Angel ad infinitum forms, and in the process not
>> only making a travesty of Buddhist Practice but creating a climate
>> where the seeker has effectively "numbed" themselves to any assets
>> that may be found upon contact with a truly valuable tradition.
That about sums up my feelings about perennialists as well.
Ok, now some evidence to back up my claims. Below are some snips from
the major reiki sites on the web. Like, book me on the next comet, dude.
<<
To know about Reiki is to bring excitement into your life, knowing
that the power of God flows through the Reiki channel (Master or
practitioner). The channel is merely that -- a channel. Your subject
or situation will either accept, reject or harness the tremendous
energy that Reiki brings once it is invoked. The energy is for
benevolent purposes only. It has its own intelligence.
REI makes reference to universal and KI is life (force) energy. Placed
together, they spell Reiki. Reiki is the wonderful energy that one
experiences when a practitioner or Master lays hands on a person, animal,
situation or thing. Reiki energy is triggered by intent (to transfer the
energy) and also by using certain symbols learned in Second and Third
degree Reiki.
Above all, there should not be unhealthy arguments over Reiki.
Reiki is an energy modality adapted to healing, let it heal an angered
heart! And remember, You do not call Reiki -- Reiki calls you!
>>
Yeah, right. Like, it calls you "gullible loser," that is. And next is
some more reiki crap to be piled higher and deeper: a list of the levels
of reiki. I'll just paste in the Level 1 description. (Kathy is no doubt
up to Level 2 or 3 by now!)
<<
FIRST DEGREE REIKI - In this class that can be termed "introductory into
Reiki", the Reiki student learns the history of Reiki, the attunement to
the Reiki I energy, the basic hand placement positions and is given the
opportunity to practice exchanging Reiki and participates in discussion
and other aspects of the First Degree. At the conclusion of this class,
the new initiate is presented with a certificate in First Degree Reiki.
Bear in mind, that when a Reiki practitioner places his or her hands on
a person for Reiki, the touch is most light. There is no manipulation of
skin or tissue. Reiki is not to be confused with a massage modality.
Reiki is purely spiritual in nature. It is not a religion and one need
not have faith in that it works. It just does. But since Reiki comes from
God, only the subject(s) and God know to what degree they are to receive
his healing energy. Indeed, there are some people who would prefer to
remain ill, on a much deeper level. This is their choice, since God has
given mankind the gift of choice. If they prefer to "rise and take their
bed and walk", then God is always there to facilitate this wonderful
occurance as well. Reiki can also work if the hands are held a few inches
above the body. So contact is not always necessary. Once you have
received First Degree Reiki, it is for life! No one can take from you
the gift that comes from God! Please remember that.
>>
What a load of New-Age eastern-shmeastern crappola, eh? Anybody sold
on this one? Speak up, as Peachie & me are still lookin' for ways to
dupe people when we start our new cult in Maui!
David Yeung
Hi Kathy,
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>
> David Yeung writes:
>
> "You're welcome to post here, but Buddhism really doesn't agree with
> the Vedanta conception of soul."
>
> Maybe the problem/difficulty is really one of semantics.
I would say that it isn't. The Buddha -- or the teachings attributed to
the Buddha, if you like -- clearly state, in no uncertain terms, that
the Upanishadic concept of Atman/Brahman is incorrect. The idea of
there being no permanent, ever-lasting entity (the anatta doctrine) is
more or less one of the three pillars of Buddhism, the other two being
dukkha and anicca (sp?). If the problem were merely one of semantics,
the debates between Hindu and Buddhist philosophers which lasted a
thousand years would have resolved this. As it were, Buddhists (and
hence Buddhism) continues to disagree with the soul-concept. The
Vedanta teachings developed out of the debates between the various
Indian schools of philosophy, and it does make some concession to the
Buddhist view point. In fact, proponents of Advaita/Vedanta were often
accused by their non-Vedantic Hindu (e.g. Vaisnava) opponents of being
"crypto-Buddhists", because they tried to make the difference one of
semantics.
> Maybe
> what the Hindus refer/call the Supreme Self is the same very
> thing as what a Buddhist may call/term "the pure essence of egoless
> voidness--Prajna". What do you think, any possibility of that?
It would really depend on the specific Hindu and the specific Buddhist.
But in general, I would answer "no", if they were representative of the
"traditional/orthodox" position of their respective philosophy.
> Maybe what they call 'soul' is what you might call 'recurring
> patterns' or 'rebirth'?
If that's what they mean, they shouldn't use the word soul ("atman").
> I took my copy of Tsultim Allione's book off the shelf just
> a little while ago: WOMEN OF WISDOM--did you
> ever read it, David?
No, sorry, can't say I have.
> Have you ever done any buddhist meditations on Tara?
Nope. I am much more academically inclined than I am meditative,
unfortunately, so my practice is reading books. :) On the other hand,
when I do do the little meditation that I do :) , I practise a
combination of Theravada and Chinese/Vietnamese/Korean Ch'an/Zen/Pure
Land. I haven't really decided which tradition I like, except that
Vajrayana isn't for me. (Please note that I'm not saying it won't work
for anyone else, as some people who find something not to their taste
think it shouldn't be to anyone else's either!) And I should qualify my
Pure Land practice... it's really Theravada/Zen-influenced in that I
don't believe (literally) in a Buddha living somewhere in the sky called
Amitabha (as probably the majority of folk Chinese Buddhists do).
Oh, I'm getting off topic now, aren't I? :) Nope, no Tara meditations.
> On p. l77 of the book in the chapter "Biography" and the section
> titled "Meeting with Tara" is the following:
>
> "Tara said: "Listen, yogini, your past is cleared from your heart
> but I will explain it to you. The Great Mother is the void state
> of all the dharmas which we call Mother of all Creation.
Tibetan Buddhism uses language very similar to Hinduism. On the other
hand, it is philosophically Buddhist so it still considers as false the
concept of an oversoul. I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist so I can't really
comment on its practices, but historically speaking, because of the
proximity of India to Tibet, Tibetan mythology is heavily influenced by
Indian mythology. But don't assume that it's the same thing just
because it sounds similar, it really is saying something different.
(Evelyn is probably the best person to ask about that tradition here.)
Part of the difficulties of language, right?
> Now I have a great devotion to Divine Mother. I don't see Tara
> as a separate being APART from Divine Mother. Tara is Divine
> Mother. So is Karunamayi. So are many other embodiments
> walking the eart Divine Mother.
Which is why I suggested you try a Hindu or Sufi newsgroup. You won't
find many devotees to the Divine Mother here.
> So why are you trying to tell me that Buddhism is separate and
> apart from these things, when even a Zen Buddhist Priest
> (who is a Roshi) tells me that all streams go into the ocean?
What about monks/nuns who would disagree with you, as I know many
would? I'm sure you can find someone in a position of authority to
agree/disagree with you, no matter what your view is. This is just
reliance on authority. I didn't hear this from the Zen priest (do you
mean monk?) and I have no way of knowing whether you've misinterpreted
him, or if he's just agreeing with you as not to be argumentative (some
people, especially monks, are like that), or if you didn't make yourself
clear to him. And "all streams go into the ocean" might not mean what
you think it means. (Zen people sometimes say the opposite of what they
really mean in order to make a point. :) )
As to "why" I'm telling you that Buddhism is not the same as Vedantic
Hinduism? Because it isn't. It's as simple as that.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
DT:
>>> even if it is both, it is again no more after you eat the donut.
Kathy of Borg:
>> Yes, IT still IS, it's just that you no longer perceive it
>> as "donut hole".
Young David:
> Here is a relevant koan from the Zen tradition: "Close your hand,
> now you have a fist. Open your hand. Where has the fist gone?"
> There really isn't any fist once you've opened your hand.
> At least from the Buddhist (Zen) point of view.
That's pretty much the same kind of example. Is that really an
official koan? I remember reading it in various Alan Watts books.
What is interesting is if you clench your hand into a fist and then
ask is this the same fist as before? Similarly, we tend to talk as
if states or processes or patterns were real things which occupied
a spacio-temporal position. For example, I might say "I had a really
bad headache this afternoon, but it went away, and now it's returned."
The question "where did this headache go in the meantime and from
where did it return?" would only get you strange looks. For most
people, whether they be airheads or enlightened arhats, know that
this is a way of speaking, and that there never was any headache
as an existing thing which went away or came back, but rather that
they experienced a (brain) state of headache-ing, then they did not,
and then they did again. The question of where a supposedly existing
thing called a headache went to is usually called an empty question,
because there is no further fact of the matter; the seeming confusion
is an artefact of language, again in this case due to nominalizing.
But maybe I shouldn't jump from here to the matter of souls or of
consciousness too quickly. Let's stick with headaches. Kathy, do you
agree that there are no existing things as headaches? If you do not,
do you think that headaches can go somewhere and then return and how
do you explain where they go or how they get there and back? If not,
then why do you think souls are different from headaches? (I know at
least that talk about souls tends to give me headaches!) Perhaps if
we deal with the more simple case of headaches, we can hopefully
spare ourselves a few of them!
David Yeung
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>
> Dharmatroll writes:
>
> "The Buddha died 2500 years ago."
>
> Siddhartha dropped his body 2500 years ago--the mindstream of
> enlightenment or Buddhi continues on..
Where'd he drop it? :)
> Well, as I've mentioned over in good ol' AZ, I correspond with
> a Zen Buddhist priest (Richard Kirsten Daiensai, who is a Roshi).
What kind of correspondence? It would help if you could provide the
context in which things were said/written.
> "Daiensai...with your minds brush paint the glory and the power
> of God's will."
I can't make sense out of this without some context. Whenever Buddhism
spread into another country/cultural context, it always used the
language of that culture to communicate the dharma. For instance, the
Burmese believed in 36 spirits or "nat"s who ruled the world. When the
monks took Buddhism into Burma, they taught that Buddha was the 37th and
supreme nat. Now, you could look at the texts and say, "Hey, look,
there's these Buddhist monks who wrote about the nats, so it must be a
Buddhist belief that the nats must really exist!" Of course, a person
who said this would be wrong. Most folk Burmese Buddhists might have
this belief, or not care either way, but I'd bet the more serious
Burmese Buddhists would say it's just a teaching tool, a skillful means
or "upaya" for introducing the Buddha/Buddhism to the Burmese people.
When Buddhism was imported into China, it used the Taoistic/traditional
Chinese religious terms. For instance, Chinese Buddhists sometimes use
the word "Ti'en" which means "God" (also means "sky", depends on how you
use it... and yes, capital G God, small g god is "shen" in Chinese).
When Chinese Buddhists make a vow (for a religious vow they'd take
refuge in the Three Jewels, but for a secular vow, i.e. not to lie
before a court of law), they'd usually say something to the effect of
swearing before "Ti'en", i.e. "I swear before God/the Heavens". This
might imply to an outsider that Chinese Buddhists believed in God or in
some kind of heavenly court where liars were punished (as was the
ancient Chinese belief), but again, that conclusion would be wrong.
It's just a matter of Buddhism adapting to the local mythological
imagery.
> Hmmmm..interesting, this mention of God, eh, by a Roshi?
Without context I cannot judge what the statement means. It may just be
the Roshi adapting his language to suit a Western/Judeo-Christian
audience. You seem to be judging Buddhism by Christian standards. If a
Christian priest, for example, were to go to Asia, he would not use
Buddhist or Taoist language, but would impose clear theistic beliefs
onto his statements. This isn't the case with Buddhism. As I've
demonstrated above, Buddhist teachers have always tended to speak in the
language of their audience (the Buddha himself did so). Talk of "God"
by a Buddhist teacher no more implies theism in Buddhism than talk of
"Ti'en" implies a belief in a Heavenly Court with a Divine Judge by
Chinese Buddhists.
> Daiensai spends 6 months out of every year living in Japan,
> painting and creating. He has spoken to me about the gods/goddesses
> of Japan (such as Kwan Yin, etc)--I think he referred to them
> as "Kami Sama" (if my memory serves me correctly).
Yes, but what did he say about the gods/goddesses of Japan? Did he just
give you information about them, i.e. this god gives blessings during
harvest, this goddess brings rain, etc.? If so that doesn't imply he
believes in their existence, I could tell you about the gods/goddesses
of ancient China and stuff they were supposed to have done, but I don't
believe that they actually, physically exist/existed.
> In a write up of a little brochure he sent me, it says:
>
> "All of Kirsten-Daiensai's paintings result through and from an
> ecsatic trancelike state of meditation through which the unconscious,
> intuitive, spontaneous element flows with the heart, mind and
> spirit energy."
>
> Hmmmmm..there's that word "spirit", again, Dharmatroll.
This is the adaptation of Zen language to Japanese culture. In
pre-Buddhist Japan, it was believed that nature was infused with
spiritual energy, and when Buddhism reached Japan, in order to teach the
common people to revere the Buddhist monks, it was taught that the monks
could "channel" this energy into their practices, i.e. caligraphy for
example. Even when Chinese Buddhist monks talk about Chinese
caligraphy, they use words like "heavy with chi" to mean that a brush
stroke was particularly forceful. It's only a metaphor, and not to be
taken literally, although the difference between metaphor and literal
meaning is less clear in Chinese than in English.
> Did you
> notice in my other post the mention of "sprit" in regard to the psychic
> that had inside her "another mind that came from Swyamdbud"?
In the English language, the word "spirit" has different meanings. The
way the word "spirit" was used in the above quote by the Roshi is
clearly in the sense of "vibrancy". You're using the word "spirit" in
the sense of "permanent ethereal entity residing in a physical body".
They are really different words, so I can't see why you think the Roshi
is agreeing with you.
> Here's another one from the Levine book (from the chapter: "The Womb
> of Origination") BLESSING POWER OF THE BUDDHAS:
>
Is Levine reporting on Tibetan beliefs, or is he stating a fact? For
example,
"There is a Heavenly Court which mirrors the earthly Imperial Court. On
the Heavenly Throne is Wong-Ti, the Lord of Heaven. The earthly Emporer
is none other than the Son of the Heavenly Emporer and rules by His
Imperial Mandate, the Mandate of Heaven."
Here I am reporting on Chinese beliefs. Does this mean that there's an
actual Heaven, with an actual deity named Wong-Ti, and that the human
Chinese emporer is really the Son of God? No, of course not. And
nobody better take this out of context to claim that I believe any such
thing, or that any such thing is true.
> Hmmmmm..there's mention of gods and demons. What do you know,
> Trollster!!
If Dharmatroll has posted somewhere that Buddhism doesn't have gods and
demons, then I must have missed it. Buddhism does in fact have gods and
demons, but they are quite irrevelant. Buddhism is non-theistic in
outlook, but polytheistic mythologically. There may or may not be
gods/goddesses, but it's not the goal of Buddhism to worship them,
become them, meld with them, what have you.
> Another quote from Levine book: "Because he wished to find a teaching
> which, when applied, would be effective immediately, Padma (meaning
> Padmasambhava) went to what is described as the highest Buddha heaven to
> receive teachings of the Great Perfection of Dzogchen from the primordial
> Buddha. The highest Buddha heaven is not a place, however, but a state
> of mind, 'the "universal expanse" that cannot be somewhere else because
> it's everywhere.' Similarly, the primordial Buddha was not someone
> giving him something, but a facet of the awakened mind. So the
> teaching was spontaneously revealed to Padmasambhava through the power
> of his awakened buddha mind.
See? In Buddhism the gods/heavens, etc. are taken symbolically. Of
course there are different levels of interpretation, but the point is
that these stories were composed to teach a lesson, not to state actual
facts.
The Ruuts
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7g1rg9
>Since you are rather fond
>of Tibeten Buddhism, may I suggest Kalu Rinpoche, as he tries to
>make connections and metaphors that would appeal to your sense of
>a Cosmic Self. One of the most contraversial things Kalu said,
>which is rejected by traditional Buddhists yet is a really cool
>quote which I think you will enjoy, is:
>
><< You live in illusion and the appearance of things.
> There is a reality, but you do not know this.
> When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing.
> And, being nothing, you are everything.
> That is all.
Hi DT,
Thanks for this quote. I had part of it, but not the complete one. Could
you tell me please where you found this?
Thanks much,
Evelyn
The Ruuts
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7g1vp8$gk2
>
>Not a 'remarkably clear and intelligent troll', but 'man' as in
>meat-head. I can't believe the abuse I am getting around here.
>And then some crazy old granny named Evelyn makes me out to be
>some goodie-two shoes nice guy that's good for a few laughs:
>
>Evelyn wrote (on Friday):
>
><< Dear Kathy,
> Honey, you haven't lived until you have seen Dharmakaya Trollpa
> at his wildest!.... and yes, you can bet he certainly does post
> here. He savages everyone from time to time, but never in an
> unkind way, unless his very pointed criticisms are met with real
> nastiness. He has always been nice to me, perhaps because I have
> always been nice to him. He has an incredible wit, is very well
> read, is completely uninhibited about what he says to anyone,
> and you will probably enjoy his posts as much as I do. I think
> if I met him in person I would like him a lot. >>
>
>Never in an unkind way my ass! See all the abuse I get from the bozos
>around here? I ain't no sissy! Boddhisattvas run in terror when they
>see me comin': that's why they talk to Mahasanti and not to me, 'cause
>they know I'd kick their ineffable butts back to the astral plane.
>
>--Dharmakaya Trollpa
O fierce and vicious Dharmatroll.......;-)
Granny
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I have respectfully mentioned before, the fact that Kathy's particular
belief system is more of a smorgasbord of various traditions not really
essentially Buddhist."
And when Buddha lived, did he call himself a Buddhist, Evelyn?
It is always interesting to me about people who are critical towards
me regarding my own spiritual journey. As far as my "belief system"
being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"--I will tell you
this: I am interested in people and what makes them
"tick" (to use Dharmatroll's words). Would you say, Evelyn, that
Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy?
Someone (I forget now who) suggested I quote suttas. If I felt
led or inspired to read them, maybe I would, but right now, I don't.
I am quoting from books I felt led/drawn to, and I love reading
about Buddha and Padmasambhava, etc. There is something that seems
very dry/intellectual about some of these buddhist conversations,
etc. (there were plenty of them over in AZ, btw--quite boring).
I consider myself a truth seeker. I am also interested as to
why Buddhists are so intent on saying that their way (or religion/
philosophy?) is so different. I guess I can understand if you
say you don't believe in a Creator God or Omniscient/Supreme Being, but
tell me, do you do visualizations/meditations focussed on Tara?
Someone else said something about being "absorbed into the
dharmadatu". What does this mean to you? Where does the "dead"
Siddhartha go, or what exactly is this "absorption" process
Evelyn--how long have you been a practicing buddhism, and who is
your teacher, if I might ask? Do you have a rinpoche that you
see and talk to/with regularly?
It is always interesting that I am willing to talk to all types
of people with differing beliefs, but how quickly they wish to
exclude me if I don't see things exactly in the same way as they
do. I wonder why this is?
Evelyn: "Prhaps this insistence on providing buddhists what
buddhism actually teaches is the cause of some of her past difficulties on
other newsgroups?"
I am not sure exactly what buddhism "teaches". I am not sure either
what Buddha taught. I do know that he never wrote down any of his
teachings, just like Jesus never did. The people who wrote down
the teachings were followers of Buddha or Jesus, meaning there was
always room for something to have been interpreted wrongly or
misunderstood, etc.
As far as my past difficulties, well if you are speaking of alt.zen,
I don't think you would like being called derogatory names continually
by several of the people. I do wish to try to understand some things,
and like interacting with people, but do not feel ready to run out
and have a living rinpoche as my friend did (I rather introduced
her to the buddhis circuit, she went and took a rinpoche for a teacher and
then after that she began to cool down after many years of quite
a deep and special friendship. I got the distinct feeling that she
now preferred her sangha and didn't have much interest in associating
with me.
Why is it that buddhists at times seem so exclusive? Is this just
my imagination, Evelyn, or do you see some truth to this?
Evelyn: "I don't know...I do know that in the past we had some
extensive discussions on anger and her belief that it is justified
sometimes."
Have you ever read Ngakpa Chogyam's book RAINBOW OF LIBERATED ENERGY,
Evelyn?
I understand that when anger is transmuted, according to Tibetan
Buddhism, it becomes mirror wisdom. It is like a starting point,
a raw type of energy, or something like this.
Whether anger is "justified sometimes" I am not sure of. I certainly
have experienced my share of anger and work to continue to control it,
(and sometimes I fail miserably--do you, ever?)I also suspect that
sometimes repressed anger can do much damageto people who do not come to
terms honestly with their own issues.
By the way, Evenlyn, on your post about the Hasidic Jews..do you
have any idea WHY the women shave their heads when they marry? I
have never heard this.
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"Kathy, do you agree that there are no existing things as
headaches?"
Dharmatroll: I don't plan on responding to any more of your
questions or posts after seeing the immensely derogatory post
you made in relation to one of my teachers. I would have *never* done
something like this to one of your teachers that you respected.
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"Could you tell me please where you found it!" (in reference to
a quote by Kalu Rinpoche ("....when you understand this, you will
see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything.)
Evelyn: this quote is very much like one I have on a bookmark
which I got years ago from the Theosophical Society here in my
state (also where I went for years giving Therapeutic Touch to
people)--it reads as follows:
"To be all things,
Be willing to be nothing."
--Too-Teh-King
Incidentally, it has been one of my favorites.
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I didn't hear this from the Zen priest (do you mean monk?)"
He is a Zen Buddhist priest and he told me (when I asked him)
that he is a Roshi.
What I believe he said to me was that all streams go into the
ocean (or all rivers--I don't remember exactly which). His
name is Richard Kirsten Daiensai and you may contact him at
the Kirsten Gallery in Seattle, WA. If you wish his address
please state this and I will give you his address.
I do not believe he was saying this just to be polite. He also
told me that there *are* false roshis...false prophets. You
can obtain a lot of information about him by writing to him
at the art gallery. A lot will be explained about his satori/art
and the Zen Masters who he studied under if you request he
send you some of the older brochures/flyers that were published
by him/the galleries, a few years back.
I had posted about my friendship with
him in alt.zen and even there he received derision, similar
to the derision and insults that Dharmatroll issued (totally
uncalled for) against a living saint. I found Dharmatroll's words and
post extremely offensive.
Kathy
--
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
>> make connections and metaphors that would appeal to your sense of
>> a Cosmic Self. One of the most contraversial things Kalu said,
>> which is rejected by traditional Buddhists yet is a really cool
>> quote which I think you will enjoy, is:
>>
>> << You live in illusion and the appearance of things.
>> There is a reality, but you do not know this.
>> When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing.
>> And, being nothing, you are everything.
>> That is all. >>
> Hi DT,
>
> Thanks for this quote. I had part of it, but not the complete one.
> Could you tell me please where you found this?
>
> Thanks much,
> Evelyn
I got it off some poster on the wall at the Insight Meditation Society
in Barre, MA while doing walking meditation, actually.
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"What kind of correspondence?"
Letters in the U.S. mail.
David: "What does he say about the gods/goddesses of Japan?"
As I remember: that they exist.
If you wish to ask him yourself, why not call him? Here is
the gallery address and phone. Ask for Daiensai. Tell him
you have questions about what he said to me on the phone
about "all streams go into the ocean", etc.
The Kirsten Gallery
5320 Roosevelt Way NE
Seattle, WA 98l05
Phone 206-522-20ll
When you call him, be sure you tell that Kathy from Illinois suggested
you call him and ask him the questions you have posed to me on
the internet.
Here is an excerpt from one of his wonderful brochures:
It starts off saying "The Kirsten Gallery presents...a new collection of
Zen prints by Richard Kirsten Daiensai, and titled, "My Way":
MY WAY
Each year, every year, since l958, I am on a voyage of discovery, of
total transcendence...A pilgrimage into all areas of Japan...A flowing
into the Zen and Shinto consciousness...Embracing that "energy" that
is vibrating and pulsating, emanating eastern heart, mind and spirit.
"It is 'My Way' of opening the doors to the timeless mystical energies.
Through meditation and contemplation, through trance states and no mind
(mushin), one first "senses" and then "knows" the emanations of light
and the "divine forces"--The mind-heart sees in all universes--The mystic
essence, cosmic heart, cosmic brain, cosmic soul--All these forces
communicating within The Realm of the Senses.
The intuitive happenings, that some people call "chance," I call
"preordained." To engulf, imbue, embrace and merge into the creative
drama of creativity with "No Thought," sets the enlightened person free
from the bondage of doctrine.
If a person is untrue to their own being, they have failed to realize
their own life's meaning and the meaning of their existence."
--Daiensai
Here is another quote from another of the brochures, from an article
"Voyager" by Kirsten-Daiensai:
"Knowledge, you can grasp from a book, but the essence, sight, feel,
taste, sound and spirit of anything can only be understood and realized
by involvement in the total experience; as Experience, which is the
Master Teacher of All. These experiences revealed that to understand
the soul of anything, one must become one with that thing, harmonize
one's consciousness with it and reach the mental attitude which brings
wisdom without intellectual deliberation. This being true, then the
subjective and objective are one and the same, connecting the individual
with cosmic forces.
During the past thirty years I have spent time in India, and half of
every year in Japan living, studying, and painting in the remote
countryside of Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu and Hokkaido, and the village
of Utoro on the Shiretoko peninsula. I have also lived with the
Chikabumi Ainu in Hokkaido. I studied and worked many years in the
Zuisenji Temple in Kamakura. Also in Otsu, Kyoto, Nara, Chichibu and
Koya San -- everywhere in close contact with farmers, fishermen, temple
and shrine priests and the artists and craftsmen. All these varied
experiences of personal contact, of long meditations, resulted in an
awareness of "The Forces" that give birth to all things. "Verily even
plants and trees, rocks and stones, all shall enter into Nirvana."
Twenty-two years ago I was ordained a Zen Buddhist priest, with a new
name, Daiensai Kuden Bon Seki Donjin, "Daiensai" being my gago (artist
name). This new name and preisthood came to me through Buddha by Oshita
Toyomichi Roshi, Master of the Zuisenji Temple in Kamakura. Through all
these years I was his only disciple while he observed my studies, my
meditations and my paintings, which were the reflections of The Forces
working through me in my meditative trance states. The image projected
was that of "Satori," and I was ordained on the Autumn day of October
26th, l967.
The ordination came as a surprise to me as I had never sought it, or even
thought of it in all those years. I was, as always, merely walking
"the path" seeking the Tao...It happened smoothly and naturally as if
it had always meant to be.
As Zen is the keynote to Oriental culture it was only natural that I
merged into those experiences, as the inner spiritual experience, I also
related it to Christian Mysticism, Shinto, Tao, Yoga, and even other
forms of Buddhism such as Shigendo and Shingo. After five years of
I-Ching study I became the first American licensed "I-Ching" fortune
teller in Japan because the I-Ching is related to Zen.
The late Dr. Daisetz Suzuki himself said, "If you love the East, and
desire to understand the East, you must understand Zen." How does one
look into Zen? Only personal, complete, direct and profound experience
with Zen Mind will bring one to the threshold of Zen.
Personal experience is everything in Zen. There are many translations
for the Japanese word "Satori," such as Self realization, Enlightenment,
creative insight, opening of the mind's eye, transcendence of
consciousness, Universal Consciousness, and becoming "One" with
"The Forces." Anyone who reaches "Satori" realizes that there is
Satori beyond Satori beyond Satori. Although it is a milestone,
"Satori" is not an end in itself, for the path goes beyond to complete
the Circle.
In the Spirituality of the All...the Christian Sage, the Zen Master,
or Confucius, walk hand in hand on this same path, taking things
as they are.
I accept the way of Zen because it is on the path, and because it revealed
to me The Forces of the Universe and everyday life -- for they are one
with the Kokoro (heart, mind and spirit) and I say to those Forces
daily: "Arigatai! Arigatai!" (Respoectful thanks to the Gods.) I must
now at this moment understand the love, beauty, and spirituality of my
life and if I do not, I will not understand the value of any life at any
moment, for eternity is the absolute present now."
(This was not the entire article, but only an excerpt, by the way).
I have corresponded with Daiensai over a number of years and feel
that if you do decide to contact him, David, you will benefit
greatly. One of my favorite art cards Daiensai has done is
titled: "The Healer" (O-Binzuru) and the caption under the artwork
is:
"For Believers/Faith/is/the Healer."
Daiensai has sent me many beautiful gifts through the years and
says he feels a close connection to/with me, although I have
never met him in person this lifetime.
Kathy
--
The Ruuts
You wrote a lot in this post, so I will have to do my best to cover it all!
I said;
>"I have respectfully mentioned before, the fact that Kathy's particular
>belief system is more of a smorgasbord of various traditions not really
>essentially Buddhist."
>
>And when Buddha lived, did he call himself a Buddhist, Evelyn?
Most likely not. But in using that as an analogy, are you in the process
of creating a new religion or philosophy too, thus have not yet named it?
Only a few have done this successfully you know....
>It is always interesting to me about people who are critical towards
>me regarding my own spiritual journey. As far as my "belief system"
>being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"--I will tell you
>this: I am interested in people and what makes them
>"tick" (to use Dharmatroll's words). Would you say, Evelyn, that
>Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy?
That has been an ongoing subject in this newsgroup for a while. For my own
part I feel it is both. I feel that it cannot be simply and only a
philosophy without the reverence and spirituality of a religion, for it to
really BE buddhism. But then, who the heck am I anyway?. There are those
who believe it is totally and only a philosophy and will argue long with you
on the subject.
As for my criticque of your path, you seem to have missed the 'respectful'
part. I think that if one takes a smidgen of this, and a bit of that, and
a taste of the other, one does not retain the full quality of any of them,
but creates something new, a mixture, a hodgepodge of whatever seems
convenient or particularly expedient for the individual, and usually one
loses something in the process. I am not saying you have to do anything
my way, or that you can't do your hodgepodge thing all you want. Not at
all. I am respectfully disagreeing with the efficacy of that path as
neither this nor that.
>Someone (I forget now who) suggested I quote suttas. If I felt
>led or inspired to read them, maybe I would, but right now, I don't.
>I am quoting from books I felt led/drawn to, and I love reading
>about Buddha and Padmasambhava, etc. There is something that seems
>very dry/intellectual about some of these buddhist conversations,
>etc. (there were plenty of them over in AZ, btw--quite boring).
Well we have had a poster for quite some time who just left actually, who
posted lots about Kant, and Hegel and all sorts of Western philosophers.
It was interesting but we are here to discuss buddhism, and it is the name
of the newsgroup. Now once in a while some off topic stuff can lend some
interest, but it is not really fair to change the subject matter with lots
of off topic stuff. One appears to be selling something or pushing some
ideas on people or something like that. It is just not a good idea.
>I consider myself a truth seeker. I am also interested as to
>why Buddhists are so intent on saying that their way (or religion/
>philosophy?) is so different. I guess I can understand if you
>say you don't believe in a Creator God or Omniscient/Supreme Being, but
>tell me, do you do visualizations/meditations focussed on Tara?
>Someone else said something about being "absorbed into the
>dharmadatu". What does this mean to you? Where does the "dead"
>Siddhartha go, or what exactly is this "absorption" process
Well I would like to try and explain all that, but honestly the newsgroups
are not quite the place to do it, I would be typing for a year and end up
writing a book! It is my honest suggestion that you could study the list
of the top buddhist books that was compiled by a young woman who polled all
the buddhist newsgroups for votes on our favorites. The list crosses many
traditions and is a very good overview. I will post it at the end of this
post, and you can take it and find out exactly what it is you are asking,
and I think you will discover yourself immeasurably enriched by the process.
Those things will all be dealt with, and I think you will like what you read
too!
>Evelyn--how long have you been a practicing buddhism, and who is
>your teacher, if I might ask? Do you have a rinpoche that you
>see and talk to/with regularly?
I will be 58 years old in September, and the last 18 years I have been a
practicing Tibetan Buddhist of the Karma Kagyu variety. My teacher is
Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche of Karma Triyana Dharmachakra in Woodstock, NY. He
is a wonderful man, and the most incredible teacher. He is beyond what I
could ever have imagined as the best teacher, so I am more than happy with
that situation. I don't live too far away, so I am able to attend
teachings there from time to time. I was formerly the director of a small
Karma Thegsum Choling for several years, which is one of the smaller
satellite centers from KTD, as there are all over the world. Check out
http://www.kagyu.org
>It is always interesting that I am willing to talk to all types
>of people with differing beliefs, but how quickly they wish to
>exclude me if I don't see things exactly in the same way as they
>do. I wonder why this is?
It is very simple. There are newsgroups that are designed for the
interchange of interfaith kinds of ideas and there are newsgroups which are
not. If you go to a group called talk.religion.buddhism you are bound to
discover that the people there are primarily interested in talking about
buddhism in its various schools and traditions, but not say to comparing it
to vedanta or to Xtianity or whatever. There are plenty of things I
believe that may not be on topic here, and I don't bring them up, because I
am usually a somewhat polite woman, and would prefer not to offend.
Furthermore, I am extremely interested in buddhism and learning more about
it. That is why I post here. If I decided to take an interest in another
philosophy, I would go to that newsgroup to discuss it.
>Evelyn: "Prhaps this insistence on providing buddhists what
>buddhism actually teaches is the cause of some of her past difficulties on
>other newsgroups?"
>
>I am not sure exactly what buddhism "teaches". I am not sure either
>what Buddha taught. I do know that he never wrote down any of his
>teachings, just like Jesus never did. The people who wrote down
>the teachings were followers of Buddha or Jesus, meaning there was
>always room for something to have been interpreted wrongly or
>misunderstood, etc.
Ah but therein lies the biggest problem of all. Many people misunderstand
by thinking that because of this, that they can 'intuit' all these
previously unwritten teachings and fill in the blanks with words from here
and there, and make up their own kind of buddhism. Actually that is not a
good idea, and real buddhism as we know it today, does indeed give us enough
of what buddha himself actually taught that we have some basics to go on
that are pretty safely known to be what he did teach. The differences from
there forward go toward the various techniques of developing ones mind. So
we may be in agreement about the WHAT but differ sometimes about the HOW.
>As far as my past difficulties, well if you are speaking of alt.zen,
>I don't think you would like being called derogatory names continually
>by several of the people.
It happens here all of the time. I get called 'warm and fuzzy' and 'new
age' and all sorts of stuff because I believe in two things. First that I
am nice to everyone who comes here to honestly learn about buddhism, and
secondly that buddhist teachers should be respected on a buddhist
newsgroup, even if it is not your teacher, and that insults and name calling
don't really lend anything towards human understanding, so I pretty much
stay out of the worst scraps. So what. They show their ignorance when
they do that, and frankly, if I respond in kind, it just makes the whole
thing worse. So I just say "Oh Well...." and leave it at that.
I do wish to try to understand some things,
>and like interacting with people, but do not feel ready to run out
>and have a living rinpoche as my friend did (I rather introduced
>her to the buddhis circuit, she went and took a rinpoche for a teacher and
>then after that she began to cool down after many years of quite
>a deep and special friendship. I got the distinct feeling that she
>now preferred her sangha and didn't have much interest in associating
>with me.
I can understand that happening. Things change, people change, their
interests change and they change their friends when they change their
interests to reflect their new interests. Nothing personal..... she just
moved on. You are clinging to something there, Kathy..... let it go.
>Why is it that buddhists at times seem so exclusive? Is this just
>my imagination, Evelyn, or do you see some truth to this?
We are not exclusive to those who take the trouble to know what we are
discussing here. We are discussing buddhism. If you know a bit about it,
and want to learn more, everyone will be very very kind and stumble over
themselves to help you to do that. But if you come around selling them any
thing other than buddhism, you are going to make waves and people will
listen politely to a quote or two, then they will start skipping your posts
and you will discover yourself on one side of the fence and they on the
other. So it is not that we are exclusive, but that ones agenda for coming
here may generate either attraction or revulsion......and the appropriate
responses to those.
At the last time I downloaded them there were over 50,000
newsgroups.....certainly a variety of topics would fit your interests very
well. I don't go to the Christian newsgroups and preach buddhism there, it
would be bad netiquette, and I would surely get into a fight. If I
complained about that fight I would consider myself a hypocrite with bad
netiquette.
>Evelyn: "I don't know...I do know that in the past we had some
>extensive discussions on anger and her belief that it is justified
>sometimes."
>
>Have you ever read Ngakpa Chogyam's book RAINBOW OF LIBERATED ENERGY,
>Evelyn?
I have read a huge number of books, and have heard quite a lot of teachers.
That particular title, NO. But not averse to doing so if I run across it.
>I understand that when anger is transmuted, according to Tibetan
>Buddhism, it becomes mirror wisdom. It is like a starting point,
>a raw type of energy, or something like this.
Since this brief quote is out of context, I cannot comment any more on it,
but yes........it could be.
>Whether anger is "justified sometimes" I am not sure of. I certainly
>have experienced my share of anger and work to continue to control it,
>(and sometimes I fail miserably--do you, ever?)I also suspect that
>sometimes repressed anger can do much damageto people who do not come to
>terms honestly with their own issues.
My teacher has a unique way of working with anger, he does not repress it he
neutralizes it. He helps us to work with it in such a way that it becomes
the catalyst for lovingkindness and compassion to develop and it is no
longer anger.
>By the way, Evenlyn, on your post about the Hasidic Jews..do you
>have any idea WHY the women shave their heads when they marry? I
>have never heard this.
Well when I worked for a hasidic man, I asked him this, (and other
incredibly nervy questions!) and he told me that they are very careful
about their biological history, their pedigrees, and that this was to make
their wives unattractive to other men. I replied "but wouldn't that make
her unattractive to YOU as well?" (no answer) Then I asked another nervy
question, "How can your God want you to shave off your own hair that he
supposedly gave YOU, and wear instead a wig of someone ELSES hair that he
gave THEM!? (again no answer).
They live the most strictly ritualized lives you can ever imagine. Women
are educated only minimally, and are married off to someone their family
picks for them. Usually a first cousin or something. The men and the
women party separately, eat separately and even only dance with each other.
Ah well...... now this is off topic here, and I am imposing subject matter
that does not belong here on this group.
It is really very sad that such ignorance exists today. I feel sorry for
them. They are stuck in medieval times, living in ghettoes of their own
making. Mostly I feel sorry for the girl children. They have an awful
existence.
Regards,
Evelyn
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
I made no derogatory comments to you, and you can make whatever comments
about my teachers you wish. And of course you wouldn't want to rattle my
ego if you were afraid I might do the same in return. Futhermore, you
haven't responded to my questions; you have only repeated superficial
bumper stickers over and over. Now you're throwing the same tantrums you
have thrown over in alt.zen. But if you don't want to deal with my
criticisms, that's fine.
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> If you wish to ask him yourself, why not call him?
> Here is the gallery address and phone. Ask for Daiensai.
> Here is an excerpt from one of his wonderful brochures:
>
> ...Embracing that "energy" that is vibrating and pulsating,
> emanating eastern heart, mind and spirit.
> "It is 'My Way' of opening the doors to the timeless mystical energies.
It's bad enough that anyone says such a crock of shit, but to claim to
be a Buddhist Priest? That is ridiculous. This kind of nonsense about
mystical energies is found in tons of Californian books that start with
"The Tao of" or "The Zen of". However, I've never seen any Zen master
or teacher use New-Age crystal terminology before. What nonsense.
> through trance states and no mind (mushin), one first "senses" and then
> "knows" the emanations of light and the "divine forces"
This garbage is not Zen and it is unfortunate that someone wants to
peddle reiki and crystal channelling, quote gobs of Theosophical writing,
demand that Buddhism is really Vedanta with different terms, and then
pass this stuff off and call it Zen.
> The mystic essence, cosmic heart, cosmic brain, cosmic soul--
Hello -- this is a Buddhist list, talk.religion.buddhism -- this is not
alt.newage.crystal.chanelling.ufo. So far, Kathy, you have done little
more than the Scientology guy we had last month telling everyone about
his 'suppression' story.
Not only is this not traditional Zen, but it is as far removed from it
as it gets. Zen gets rid of a lot of the terms and beliefs and baggage,
and maybe goes too far this way. But this Californian crystal zen stuff
heaps on more crap and paints so many legs on the snake that it becomes
indistinguishable from a centipede!
> Universal Consciousness, and becoming "One" with "The Forces."
You would make master Yoda spin in his grave!!!
Jackie
>I can't make sense out of this without some context. Whenever Buddhism
>spread into another country/cultural context, it always used the
>language of that culture to communicate the dharma. For instance, the
>Burmese believed in 36 spirits or "nat"s who ruled the world. When the
>monks took Buddhism into Burma, they taught that Buddha was the 37th and
>supreme nat. Now, you could look at the texts and say, "Hey, look,
>there's these Buddhist monks who wrote about the nats, so it must be a
>Buddhist belief that the nats must really exist!" Of course, a person
>who said this would be wrong. Most folk Burmese Buddhists might have
>this belief, or not care either way, but I'd bet the more serious
>Burmese Buddhists would say it's just a teaching tool, a skillful means
>or "upaya" for introducing the Buddha/Buddhism to the Burmese people.
I like this idea that Buddhism spread into different cultures,
languages and societies like an amoeba, creeping along, coming across
a different culture, a pebble on the path, forming around it, adapting
and continuing on it's journey. Now *that* would be wonderful. Really
wise. Most impressive. The quality setting Buddhism head and shoulders
above other 'religions'/philosophies which famously do not adapt, but
rather, impose external rule. The more I think about this model the
more appealing it is: Buddhism, the adaptable amoeba.
Do you think this is really true?
>When Buddhism was imported into China, it used the Taoistic/traditional
>Chinese religious terms. For instance, Chinese Buddhists sometimes use
>the word "Ti'en" which means "God" (also means "sky", depends on how you
>use it... and yes, capital G God, small g god is "shen" in Chinese).
>When Chinese Buddhists make a vow (for a religious vow they'd take
>refuge in the Three Jewels, but for a secular vow, i.e. not to lie
>before a court of law), they'd usually say something to the effect of
>swearing before "Ti'en", i.e. "I swear before God/the Heavens". This
>might imply to an outsider that Chinese Buddhists believed in God or in
>some kind of heavenly court where liars were punished (as was the
>ancient Chinese belief), but again, that conclusion would be wrong.
>It's just a matter of Buddhism adapting to the local mythological
>imagery.
Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas. (Did they survive the
generation after the Communists established the 'Great Leap Forward'
in the fifties? Another discussion perhaps.) The Chinese believe(d) in
many many types of Gods didn't they? There was a God for everything...
the kitchen, good luck, prosperity, food... etc. For Buddhism to meld
successfully into Chinese culture it would have to take these things
on board, right?
>Yes, but what did he say about the gods/goddesses of Japan? Did he just
>give you information about them, i.e. this god gives blessings during
>harvest, this goddess brings rain, etc.? If so that doesn't imply he
>believes in their existence, I could tell you about the gods/goddesses
>of ancient China and stuff they were supposed to have done, but I don't
>believe that they actually, physically exist/existed.
There are some beautiful stories about the Gods and Goddesses of China
aren't there?
>Even when Chinese Buddhist monks talk about Chinese
>caligraphy, they use words like "heavy with chi" to mean that a brush
>stroke was particularly forceful. It's only a metaphor, and not to be
>taken literally, although the difference between metaphor and literal
>meaning is less clear in Chinese than in English.
The Chinese characters are fascinating. If I've got it right, one
character can mean a whole sentence or phrase? Ignorant question
alert: Do you have Chinese keyboards at all? (Geez - that would be
complicated.)
>"There is a Heavenly Court which mirrors the earthly Imperial Court. On
>the Heavenly Throne is Wong-Ti, the Lord of Heaven. The earthly Emporer
>is none other than the Son of the Heavenly Emporer and rules by His
>Imperial Mandate, the Mandate of Heaven."
>Here I am reporting on Chinese beliefs. Does this mean that there's an
>actual Heaven, with an actual deity named Wong-Ti, and that the human
>Chinese emporer is really the Son of God? No, of course not.
It's all a matter of individual perspective, culture and society isn't
it? However, going back only a hundred years or so, people in China
lived their lives strictly to the traditions, superstitions and
(oftentimes) pure crazy beliefs. They deeply effected everyone's
lives, these "stories". I'm sure you got plenty of people who believed
in them literally.
>See? In Buddhism the gods/heavens, etc. are taken symbolically. Of
>course there are different levels of interpretation, but the point is
>that these stories were composed to teach a lesson, not to state actual
>facts.
This would be the wisest point of view, I think.
Jackie.
Thiele Everett
: Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
: Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas? I mean, are they so
much stranger than Buddhist, or Christian, or Consumerist/Nihilist
ideas? When I read Confucius he always strikes me as a very
agreeable, pleasant and reasonable person -- hardly strange at
all. What do you think?
--Rett
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I think that if one takes a smidgeon of this, and a bit of that, and
a taste of the other, one does not attain the full quality of any
of them, but creates something new, a mixture, a hodgepodge of whatever
seems convenient or particularly expedient for the individual and
usually one loses something in the process."
Maybe so, for some. But I *do* have a regular and steady spiritual
practice in *addition* to having a love for trying to learn about
other people's spiritual practices.
Evelyn: "...that insults and name calling don't really lend anything
towards human understanding..."
I could not agree with you more on the above.
Thank you for sharing some information regarding your teacher. I
assume you have a buddhist/spiritual name, would that be correct?
Is this personal/private, or are you willing to share it on the
net and tell me what it means?
Also, I have a question about the "empowerments". What do they
mean? Do they somehow "allow" one to receive or venture into
the absorption of power of the particular deity they are visualizing,
etc? Could you explain briefly how you see this, or how you
feel it works?
Also, this thing about "rebirth" being taught in Buddhism, but
not reincarnation. So when a lama is "recognized" from a previous
incarnation, is that to say that it is his "mindstream" that is
recognized, rather than a particular personality? Is that it?
Have you read the book: "REINCARNATION, The Spanish boy whose destiny
was to be a Tibetan lama" by Vicki Mackenzie? This was another book
that I found particularly fascinating (in addition to BLESSING POWER
OF THE BUDDHAS).
Here is a quote from p. 21:
"I saw my chance of tackling Lama about the God issue one afternoon
when we were all enjoying a picnic lunch on the lawns outside. He
let me struggle through the tortured intricacies of my question, beamed,
and abruptly turned the question back on me. "What do _you_ think God is?
Is He an old man in the sky?, he asked. 'Well, no. Of course not. He is
a principle, a creative force, a law of love,' I feebly replied,
realizing with embarrassment what woolly notions I actually had about God.
Lama looked me straight in the eye: 'God is Mind, Buddha is Mind -
both are totally open omniscient Mind. They are the same thing' he said."
Kathy
--
Jigme Dorje
Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
Rett>Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas? I mean, are they so much
stranger than Buddhist, or Christian, or Consumerist/Nihilist ideas? When I
read Confucius he always strikes me as a very
agreeable, pleasant and reasonable person -- hardly strange at all. What do
you think?
Jigme>Personally, I am a great admirer of the Confucion influence on East
Asian culture. But it is indeed strange insofar as Confucious was a social
architect for which there is probably no actual equivalent in Western
culture. He defined the roles of interaction in society so as to limit much
of the social friction.
Thanks largely to Confucism, crime rates are fairly low and Women can walk
fairly safely alone at night in hugh cities like Seoul and Tokyo (of course,
I am all for whatever puts more women on the streets at night). Another
benefit of Confucism is that there is a potential mate for everyone, no
matter how physically unattractive they may be, so lonliness, that pervasive
Western malidy, is kept at bay. In general, greater care and respect is
shown for the elderly as well. I am very much in favor of a system such as
this in which one gives up a little of his self interests in the interest of
the family and community.
On the negative side, people have to watch their own behavior a lot more
closely and be so hgeedful of familial responsibilities that it can result
in a great deal of stress.
Also, historically, neoconfucions in Korea have proven potent political
enemies of Buddhism.
-Jigme
(Son Myungjae)
C Webster
(Snip of long post wherein DT 'trashes' Reiki ..the practice of which I know zip.)
> Speak up, as Peachie & me are still lookin' for ways to
> dupe people when we start our new cult in Maui!
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
>
Hi DT ,
So ...are you circulating a 'mission statement' ?
Where can I sign up ? :-)
Christine
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <7g2mme$1...@hercules.ntsource.com>,
> grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> >
> > Dharmatroll: I don't plan on responding to any more of your
> > questions or posts after seeing the immensely derogatory post
> > you made in relation to one of my teachers. I would have *never* done
> > something like this to one of your teachers that you respected.
> >
> > Kathy
>
> I made no derogatory comments to you, and you can make whatever comments
> about my teachers you wish.
Hi Dharmatroll,
I understand that you're trying to make people take a critical view of
their own beliefs, but you know, sometimes you do go a little too far
with the language... I believe that you're just being playful, but over
the net it's sometimes hard to see if someone's just kidding around, or
being mean, you know? You did call Kathy's teacher a grandmother or
whatever. That really wasn't very nice, and I can see how she might
take offense, even though you might not have been serious. It might be
more helpful if you toned down the language a bit, otherwise even if you
have a valid point to make, people might not even read what you wrote.
Cheers.
--
David Yeung
David Yeung
Thiele Everett wrote:
>
> Jackie (jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
> : Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
Actually, the case can be made for just about any culture. If you go to
"Christian" Europe, most of the folks there engage in practices that
American fundamentalist Christians would call superstition and
idolatry. No culture is really any more superstitious than any other,
as long as you don't compare the best of one culture versus the worst of
another... which is quite an easy trap to fall into.
> Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas?
One really has to differentiate between the teachings of Confucius and
"Confucianist" teachings. It's true in the case of any
religion/philosophy, often many things are added to the core beliefs.
In the case of Confucius, there's that awful "foot-binding" business,
which the Teacher himself never advocated. Basically for about a
thousand years in China, women had to have their feet bound when they
were little girls, so that as adults their feet would be as small as
possible. No one really knows how/why the custom started, though of
course there are folk stories about it. Really terrible/painful to have
been a woman in ancient China.
> I mean, are they so
> much stranger than Buddhist, or Christian, or Consumerist/Nihilist
> ideas? When I read Confucius he always strikes me as a very
> agreeable, pleasant and reasonable person -- hardly strange at
> all. What do you think?
Yes, Confucius is quite reasonable and modern. His disciples, or rather
the group of people who took his name upon themselves, are sometimes an
entirely different story!
>
> --Rett
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
"The Ruuts" <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Well we have had a poster for quite some time who just left
> actually, who posted lots about Kant, and Hegel and all sorts
> of Western philosophers.
Tang? Where are you? Well, in Tang's absence, I'll post double-time
and fill in for him, Evelyn. Especially with Mubul so busy as well.
We can't let snake-oil peddling theosophists overrun the newsgroups!
But no Kant today, boys and girls: today we have a special surprise
for you: Spinoza. But in the spirit of Tang, first some arrogant
mentation and wisecracks.
Our new list Flower-Child, Kathy, explains:
>> It is always interesting to me about people who are critical towards
>> me regarding my own spiritual journey. As far as my "belief system"
>> being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"
I have been taking the battle to New-Agers on these lists lately,
especially people who talk of vibrations, energies, ghosts, God,
or claim that the universe is a product of mind or consciousness.
Well, this is obviously not the Buddha's Buddhism! It is not the
Buddha's Buddhism, nor is it Tang's Tangism, nor Jane's Jainism,
nor Judi's Judaism, nor Chrissy's Christianity, nor even is it
Aggie's Agnosticism. It is Brahmanism, and theosophical quackery!
As Evelyn astutely points out (Ok -- Tang would not say *that*!):
> I think that if one takes a smidgen of this, and a bit of that,
> and a taste of the other, one does not retain the full quality
> of any of them, but creates something new, a mixture, a hodgepodge
> of whatever seems convenient or particularly expedient for the
> individual, and usually one loses something in the process.
Exactly! It gets all ground up into Kathy's New-Age crystal blender,
into a bleached, comic-book McOneness. One loses almost *everything*.
Ms. Flower-Power responds:
>> I consider myself a truth seeker. I am also interested as to
>> why Buddhists are so intent on saying that their way (or
>> religion/philosophy?) is different.
In other words: "I can't see why Buddhists don't agree that they are
all just saying the same thing as we crystal-wielding channelers are
in California with "All is One" and "God is Love" on the bumpers of
our cars, and that all Buddhism is simply the same thing as what I
believe except they use those silly pali and sanskrit words which
really mean exactly the same thing we reiki-astrologer-channelers
mean when we say 'God' and 'soul', and I even heard some guy who
says his is a Zen priest use the words 'God' and 'energies' so that
means I must be right and Buddhists who disagree are all dummies."
Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
As if she really can't figure out "why Buddhists are so intent on
saying that their way is different" and not reducible to Brahminism!
This is utter crap! (How am I doing so far? Dr. Tang would be proud.)
So I would like to say a little about the way Buddhism and various
forms of pantheism relate, because so many people find valuable
comments like Kalu's, that seeing you are nothing, you realize you
are everything. This doesn't have to imply any supernateralism, with
ghosts and astral planes, nor does it imply anti-realism, that the
physical universe could not (or did not) exist without or before
there was any consciousness or observers. Many Buddhists are very
pantheistic in thoughts, and this is often expressed as "I am God"
or "All is God", though I prefer Alan Watts' "It" to a theistic term.
Can Kalu Rinpoche's claim be reconciled with Buddhism, and with an
immanent God (as opposed to a transcendent creator-God)? Perhaps it
can. Interestingly, the best case for this comes not from some guru
who claims to be One with the Divine, or claims to be the mother of
flower-child devotees, but from the Western philosopher Spinoza.
You will have to do without long unintelligible quotes this time,
and just deal with some comments in plain English about what Spinoza
was all about. (Sorry, but this is the best I can do in Dr. Tang's
absense.)
Spinoza makes the distinction which philosophers traditionally
make between things which are caused by other things, and things
which don't require any external cause, that is, which are not
contingent. Things in this latter category he calls substances,
and claims that they necessarily exist. Second, Spinoza adopted
Aristotle's view of knowledge, which was that to know something
is to understand its causes.
Then Spinoza demonstrates, as I recall, that a substance, which
by definition is not contingent and so is its own cause, can't
be divided, nor can any other substance exist which is a different
substance from the first one. This leads him to claim that only
one substance exists, and everything is it. He then concludes that
everything, therefore, is God. Now interestingly enough, this
relates very much to the Buddhist core claim of Dependent Origination,
which is that there are no self-existent things: that is, nothing
is it's own cause nor is indivisible. This, btw, is the strongest
claim one can make that I know of to connect Buddhism to pantheism.
It is the one I used when I was a pantheist for many years!
Descartes' mistake, says Spinoza, was to posit both infinite
substances (e.g., the mind) and finite substances (e.g., the body).
Descartes claims that there can only be one totally independent
infinite substance: God. Spinoza agrees, and then claims that there
can't be other substances, either other infinite *or* finite ones,
so that there is only God.
Spinoza thus erases Descartes body/mind dualism by claiming that
they are necessarily the same thing. For when reality, or God,
(Spinoza's version) is seen from the point of view of its
attribute of *extention*, it becomes body; and when it is seen
from the point of view of its attribute of *thought*, it then
becomes mind. These are each, for Spinoza, *modes* of that one,
eternal substance, as is everything. So to answer your question,
the Universe is *not* an 'aspect' of God, in the sense of being a
part of a God who also stood outside of it, as does the Christian
God. Rather, the universe is a *mode* of God, which isn't a subset,
but simply a particular mode of being which that infinite reality
is doing. Particular things, for Spinoza, are simply transitory
states of the eternal substance.
Really, Spinoza is not only a pantheist, but the first existentialist,
as Sartre's "existence precedes essence" is to be found in Spinoza
long before Sartre popularises the idea. And Spinoza rejects the
Christian idea that God has purposes and goals and all the sin and
redemption stuff that go with the teleological view of God having a
'plan' for humanity or the universe (which Buddhism also rejects);
instead, Spinoza claims that everything that happens does so out of
absolute necessity (something like the claims of the antropic priciple).
Spinoza's God is not independent of the universe, nor does it make
moral choices about what to create, as does the Christian God. To the
problem of evil, which is the problem which Buddhists seem to have the
most in terms of a God, Spinoza's answer to why God creates evil is:
Because He *Could*. That is, "God" for Spinoza is equated with Nature.
There is no *outside* transcendent divine Self pulling the strings.
In fact, the idea of karma, which doesn't have a conscious judge
punishing one, but rather is a stable law of nature, fits right in
with Spinoza's 'God'. I remember being disappointed when I heard
that Einstein, such a brilliant physicist and mystic, talked about
God so much, but then I was overjoyed upon reading how he strongly
rejected the Christian God or any conscious god, but was talking
about Spinoza's 'God'. What a relief!
I will end this lecture with another insightful remark from Evelyn,
who has invited the entire class over for tea and cookies after school:
> We are not exclusive to those who take the trouble to know what
> we are discussing here. We are discussing buddhism. If you know
> a bit about it, and want to learn more, everyone will be very very
> kind and stumble over themselves to help you to do that. But if
> you come around selling them any thing other than buddhism, you are
> going to make waves and people will listen politely to a quote or
> two, then they will start skipping your posts...
The Ruuts
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote in message
<7g4f6k$3...@hercules.ntsource.com>...
>Evelyn writes:
>
>"I think that if one takes a smidgeon of this, and a bit of that, and
>a taste of the other, one does not attain the full quality of any
>of them, but creates something new, a mixture, a hodgepodge of whatever
>seems convenient or particularly expedient for the individual and
>usually one loses something in the process."
Kathy replies;
>Maybe so, for some. But I *do* have a regular and steady spiritual
>practice in *addition* to having a love for trying to learn about
>other people's spiritual practices.
That is good....
Kathy asks;
>Thank you for sharing some information regarding your teacher. I
>assume you have a buddhist/spiritual name, would that be correct?
>Is this personal/private, or are you willing to share it on the
>net and tell me what it means?
I am a Tibetan Buddhist, of the Karma Kagyu tradition. When we take
refuge, in the three jewels, the Buddha (representing not only the
historical buddha, but all the teachers) The Dharma (representing the
teachings) and the Sangha (meaning not just those in robes, but all other
buddhists too) We are given a dharma name. Mine is Karma Dorje Chokyi,
which was translated as "Indestructible dharmic joy" I have mentioned it
several times before. I took refuge in early 1982.
Kathy also inquires;
>Also, I have a question about the "empowerments". What do they
>mean? Do they somehow "allow" one to receive or venture into
>the absorption of power of the particular deity they are visualizing,
>etc? Could you explain briefly how you see this, or how you
>feel it works?
An empowerment is sort of an initiation, but it is also a permission to do
the practice, and a good way to make sure you have some understanding of
what the practice entails and how to do it. Empowerment is sort of what
you make it actually. I have seen people at empowerments for whom it was
nothing more than just a sort of a fortuitous place to be at the moment, and
others for whom it was a deeply moving, long awaited experience, enabling
them to do a certain practice for which they may have special affinity.
Kathy also asks;
>Also, this thing about "rebirth" being taught in Buddhism, but
>not reincarnation. So when a lama is "recognized" from a previous
>incarnation, is that to say that it is his "mindstream" that is
>recognized, rather than a particular personality? Is that it?
If you ask buddhists you will get as many different interpretations as there
are people to ask. Some believe in a very literal reincarnation, some as a
mindstream as you describe above, some as mere karmic energy which seeks
expression, and some do not believe in it at all in any form. All are
"allowed" since what you believe or do not believe is a matter of personal
experience. Eventually all concepts about who and what you are disappear.
Including who and what you were.
>Have you read the book: "REINCARNATION, The Spanish boy whose destiny
>was to be a Tibetan lama" by Vicki Mackenzie?
(nice quote snipped)
Actually not, but it sounds like something I would very much like to read if
I get the time! I am currently trying to find the time to read "In the
Words of my Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche.
Regards,
Evelyn
Dirk Bruere
> instead, Spinoza claims that everything that happens does so out of
> absolute necessity (something like the claims of the antropic priciple).
You mean 'nothing like the Anthropic Principle'? :-)
> Spinoza's God is not independent of the universe, nor does it make
> moral choices about what to create, as does the Christian God. To the
Moral choices are inherent in the universe and in its future. So, if we
are positing Pantheism, God embraces morality.
Gassho
Dirk
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> Hi Dharmatroll,
>
> I understand that you're trying to make people take a critical
> view of their own beliefs, but you know, sometimes you do go a
> little too far with the language... I believe that you're just
> being playful, but over the net it's sometimes hard to see if
> someone's just kidding around, or being mean, you know?
Yeah, I know David. But I like to play hard, and have lots of fun.
> You did call Kathy's teacher a grandmother or whatever.
> That really wasn't very nice,
Actually, it was Evelyn I called a granny. I said much worse things
about Kathy's guru-ette after she said that the teacher signed her
name as Kathy's mother!
> and I can see how she might take offense, even though you might
> not have been serious. It might be more helpful if you toned down
> the language a bit,
Yeah, you're right, but when I'm havin' fun, I can get carried away,
and I think of something that's really shocking, and then I figure,
"that'll be a good comeback to all the 'vibration' and 'energies'
babble'. I really took some harsh potshots at Valdiss, our
resident Scientologist, but I probably should be nicer to girls.
I figure, if someone preaches nonsense on and on, they deserve abuse.
In this case, she was repeating the same crap over and over without
either listening to others nor explaining any reasoning or evidence
for her endless string of mystical mumbo-jumbo assertions.
> otherwise even if you have a valid point to make, people might
> not even read what you wrote.
Yeah, I know. As usual, Mubul is on target again, eh?!
Mubul wrote:
<<
From what I have seen of Dharmatroll's writings, he is sometimes
(but not consistently) a sterling example of the standards set by
Dharmakirti. He is persistent in asking questions about whether
people have arrived at the best possible interpretations of their
experiences. When people think they have seen a ghost, for example,
what is the best explanation, given what we now know of the natural
world, of what they have experienced? When people think they are
remembering past lives, what is the best explanation, given what we
now know of the mechanisms of memory, to explain these experiences?
Dharmatroll has the courage to suggest that the naive and
superficial answer is not always the best. Unfortunately, he has
not yet cultivated a level of courtesy and social grace that matches
his courage to inquire into areas that others are afraid to examine
with open minds.
>>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> David Yeung
Btw, David, you comments were the most interesting and informative
of anyone's in this thread, and I was impressed with your response:
David wrote:
<<
Whenever Buddhism spread into another country/cultural context,
it always used the language of that culture to communicate the
dharma. For instance, the Burmese believed in 36 spirits or
"nat"s who ruled the world. When the monks took Buddhism into
Burma, they taught that Buddha was the 37th and supreme nat.
Now, you could look at the texts and say, "Hey, look, there's
these Buddhist monks who wrote about the nats, so it must be a
Buddhist belief that the nats must really exist!" Of course,
a person who said this would be wrong. Most folk Burmese
Buddhists might have this belief, or not care either way, but
I'd bet the more serious Burmese Buddhists would say it's just
a teaching tool, a skillful means or "upaya" for introducing
the Buddha/Buddhism to the Burmese people.
When Buddhism was imported into China, it used the Taoistic/
traditional Chinese religious terms. For instance, Chinese
Buddhists sometimes use the word "Ti'en" which means "God"
(also means "sky", depends on how you use it... and yes,
capital G God, small g god is "shen" in Chinese). When Chinese
Buddhists make a vow (for a religious vow they'd take refuge in
the Three Jewels, but for a secular vow, i.e. not to lie before
a court of law), they'd usually say something to the effect of
swearing before "Ti'en", i.e. "I swear before God/the Heavens".
This might imply to an outsider that Chinese Buddhists believed
in God or in some kind of heavenly court where liars were
punished (as was the ancient Chinese belief), but again, that
conclusion would be wrong. It's just a matter of Buddhism
adapting to the local mythological imagery.
>>
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Jackie
>: Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
>: Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
>Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas? I mean, are they so
>much stranger than Buddhist, or Christian, or Consumerist/Nihilist
>ideas? When I read Confucius he always strikes me as a very
>agreeable, pleasant and reasonable person -- hardly strange at
>all. What do you think?
Hi Rett,
I really don't know very much about this, but what little I have heard
is not too good. From the mouth of a Chinese historian, didn't
Confucius imply that everyone should look down on someone else, and
that women were at the very bottom of the heap to be looked down on by
everyone?
Jackie.
Jackie
>>Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
>>Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
>Actually, the case can be made for just about any culture. If you go to
>"Christian" Europe, most of the folks there engage in practices that
>American fundamentalist Christians would call superstition and
>idolatry. No culture is really any more superstitious than any other,
>as long as you don't compare the best of one culture versus the worst of
>another... which is quite an easy trap to fall into.
dormant (in the minds of the readers.)
It is perfectly true that superstition resides in almost any culture.
But this is not the debate. We are talking about Chinese culture in
particular. No-one is comparing anything with anything. There is no
better or worse.
A lesson for everyone: just read the words.
People seem to have such problems with this basic, basic issue.
Reading words without the baggage of preconceptions, judgements and
fore thoughts. In zen terms you would say read with your vast
uncomplicated mind. Is it possible that we can discuss the various
aspect of China and Confucius - good, bad and middle - without leaping
to defensive positions and supposing there is a comparison? I think we
can do it! :-)
>>Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas?
>One really has to differentiate between the teachings of Confucius and
>"Confucianist" teachings. It's true in the case of any
>religion/philosophy, often many things are added to the core beliefs.
>In the case of Confucius, there's that awful "foot-binding" business,
>which the Teacher himself never advocated. Basically for about a
>thousand years in China, women had to have their feet bound when they
>were little girls, so that as adults their feet would be as small as
>possible. No one really knows how/why the custom started, though of
>course there are folk stories about it. Really terrible/painful to have
>been a woman in ancient China.
Yes, it was a fashion at the time. The more deformed the foot, the
more attractive you were deemed to be. It meant that you would be good
wife potential. You certainly couldn't walk very far without great
pain. The metatarsals would all be broken, nails would grow into the
sole. It was complete agony. Mothers felt compelled to carry this out
at a young age so that when their daughters were older they would have
an advantage. Men found the bound feet of a woman very attractive. The
poor mothers would listen to their daughter scream and begging her to
stop, but they would have to carry on since when the girl grew up she
would blame her mother for not binding them. This took place in
ancient times right up until about the nineteen twenties (is that
right?) I am pretty sure this cruelty stopped before the civil war -
just around the time the warlords were breaking up, and not because of
the communists (they didn't get a firm grip until the mid to late
forties, yes?)
Jackie.
Buddha
--
"These Romans are crazy!" - Vitalstatistix, chief of the pesky Gauls.
Evelyn:
>> We are not exclusive to those who take the trouble to know what
>> we are discussing here. We are discussing buddhism. If you know
>> a bit about it, and want to learn more, everyone will be very very
>> kind and stumble over themselves to help you to do that. But if
>> you come around selling them any thing other than buddhism, you are
>> going to make waves and people will listen politely to a quote or
>> two, then they will start skipping your posts...
>
Oh? Many people seem to argue it down to a level of personal insults and
obscene language. These buddhist groups aren't as fair as Evelyn would
have us believe. It is a measure of our state of practise, an indication
that we
should sit more and longer.
margaret
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
>Our new list Flower-Child, Kathy, explains:
>
>>> being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"
The troll proclaimed :
> It is Brahmanism, and theosophical quackery!
What on earth does "a smorgasbord of various tradition" have to do with
Brahmansim and Theosophy? You may not personally agree with those
traditions, but they are both perfectly coherent and consistent within their
own parameters.
>Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
&
snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
choose to believe.
>So I would like to say a little about the way Buddhism and various
>forms of pantheism relate, because so many people find valuable
>comments like Kalu's, that seeing you are nothing, you realize you
>are everything. This doesn't have to imply that the
>physical universe could not (or did not) exist without or before
>there was any consciousness or observers. Many Buddhists are very
>pantheistic in thoughts, and this is often expressed as "I am God"
>or "All is God", though I prefer Alan Watts' "It" to a theistic term.
>
>Can Kalu Rinpoche's claim be reconciled with Buddhism, and with an
>immanent God (as opposed to a transcendent creator-God)?
Now this is where his Tanginess has the upper hand, Troll : He quotes
directly from source (albeit interminably LOL) citing chapter and verse,
which makes it a hell of a lot easier to ascertain whether or not you as the
reader have correctly understood (or correctly totally failed to understand)
the passage. I'll show you what I mean.
You said : "Spinoza makes the distinction between things which are caused by
other things, and things which don't require any external cause. Things in
this latter category he calls substances, and claims that they necessarily
exist."
If he did, then that is a fairly stunning claim. 1stly because he jumps to
the supposition of the existence of such "substances" without any back up or
proof, for instance why "necessarily"?
>Then Spinoza demonstrates, as I recall
As you *recall*? Come on!
that a substance, which by definition is not contingent and so is its own
cause, can't
>be divided, nor can any other substance exist which is a different
>substance from the first one.
How could he possibly "demonstrate" that?! 1st he has to assume that such a
thing as a non-contingent substance exists. How can he then go along and
assert that it can't be divided, if he hasn't yet satisfactorily proved its
existence?!! Come on, Troll, you're disappointing me. To speak in your
language, its as though I said "the Reiki symbols are brilliant for healing,
and therefore I use this squiggly shaped one for liver problems". Give me a
sensible quote from poor old Spinoza to show that he was not as flakey as
you make him out and I will pound my favourite time travelling crystal into
talcum powder.
"This leads him to claim that only one substance exists, and everything is
it. He then concludes that everything, therefore, is God."
If that's so, then by his own definition he was saying that nothing is
dependent upon anything else : "things which don't require any external
cause....he calls substances". How that could possibly mean that
"everything, therefore, is God" is completely beyond me.
"Now interestingly enough, this relates very much to the Buddhist core claim
of Dependent Origination, which is that there are no self-existent things:
that is, nothing is it's own cause nor is indivisible. "
Maybe it's me, maybe this *isn't* a glaring contradiction - I'm perfectly
open to that possibility.... But as far as I can see, "Things which don't
require any external cause....he calls substances...only one substance
exists, and everything is it" is about as far removed from the Buddhist
concept of interdependence as it can be.
From this point on I gave up trying to struggling with your train of
thought - a shame as some very interesting musings...
"Spinoza claims that everything that happens does so out of
>absolute necessity (something like the claims of the antropic priciple)."
What about compassion? Often compassion utterly contradicts necessity - for
example the priest in Rome during the 2nd World War who offered his life in
exchange for that of a Jew due to be killed in the massacre of the Fosse
Ardeatine. For him, absolute necessity would have dictated he keep his
life, not offer it up to be cut short.
Go on, Dharmapala, go and get your Spinoza book and quote us "straight up".
I'm sure you must have missed some crucial para's here & there.
XXXM
David Oller
margaret <marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7g5eml$lkm$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
| >Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
| Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
| interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
| & snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
This indicates diplomatic skill and tolerance far beyond the capacity of those
in India, or their modern counterparts. Although not quite 2500 years. Hinduism
arose much later than that, and did arise in opposition to Buddhism and was
sucessful in eradicating Buddhism from India.
| Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
| choose to believe.
Amen! You are right, they only cared about cramming their own beliefs down
Buddhists throats. Again, it was the Hindus, the Brahmins really had nothing to
do with it. May have had their own writings diluted and perverted, though.
David
David Yeung
margaret wrote:
>
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >
> >Our new list Flower-Child, Kathy, explains:
> >
> >>> . As far as my "belief system"
> >>> being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"
>
> The troll proclaimed :
>
> > It is Brahmanism, and theosophical quackery!
>
> What on earth does "a smorgasbord of various tradition" have to do with
> Brahmansim and Theosophy? You may not personally agree with those
> traditions, but they are both perfectly coherent and consistent within their
> own parameters.
I don't think Dharmatroll is citing his own beliefs so much as doing a
parody of Tang Huyen. You know how Tang calls everything that isn't
Buddhism "Brahmanism"? :)
> >Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
>
> Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
> interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
> &
> snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
> Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
> choose to believe.
Actually in this case Dharmatroll is right. Why else would the Buddha
have been assimilated into the Hindu pantheon as an incarnation of
Vishnu? The brahmins couldn't get the Buddhists to agree with them, so
they basically said, "Look, the Buddha is really Vishnu in disguise, He
(God) knew that you wouldn't believe in Him so He took a form that would
trick you stupid atheists into worshipping Him. So you're really
worshipping an inferior version of our God. So there. Nyah nyah."
(Well, okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic. :) But Dharmatroll has a case
here.)
> Now this is where his Tanginess has the upper hand, Troll :
Yeah, Troll, QUOTE from the sources dammit! Chapter and verse, lock
stock and barrel!
--
David Yeung
David Yeung
David Yeung wrote:
>
> margaret wrote:
> > >Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
> >
> > Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
> > interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
> > &
> > snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
> > Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
> > choose to believe.
>
Just did a quick search, and here is some evidence:
< http://www.haribol.org/issue23/jgsbhs02.htm >
Notice how the writer (a Hindu) calls Buddhism (or his straw-man
misreprentation of Buddhism) "Fake Buddhism", while labelling as the
"Real Buddhism" what is essentially Hinduism? Brahmins/Brahminists
have, in fact, been trying to dismiss Buddhism as the same thing as
every other religion ever since Buddhism became a threat to Brahminism.
(e.g. "Gautama the Buddha is really just another name for God.")
--
David Yeung
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
First, Dirk you write:
DT:
>> Spinoza's God is not independent of the universe, nor does it make
>> moral choices about what to create, as does the Christian God.
Dirk:
> Moral choices are inherent in the universe and in its future.
> So, if we are positing Pantheism, God embraces morality.
No, this is clearly mistaken, as the "God" of Spinoza lacks any
individual thinking consciousness, and Spinoza specifically denies
that there is anything teleological about the universe. That is,
Spinoza is a "naturalist", and not an "artificialist", as are most
contemporary theists.
For example, in the preface of his _Ethics_, Spinoza specifically
states that:
<< Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and
infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same
necessity as that whereby it exists....Therefore, as he does not
exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the
sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is
neither origin nor end. >>
Furthermore, what Spinoza denotes as God would shock most of today's
theists, who think of a caring, loving parent in the sky:
<< God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of
pleasure or pain... Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17]>>
and
<< He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.
[V.19]>>
Got it, Dirk? Better luck next time. Next.
And margaret <marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
The troll proclaimed:
>> It is Brahmanism, and theosophical quackery!
M:
> What on earth does "a smorgasbord of various tradition" have
> to do with Brahmanism and Theosophy?
Brahmanism was an inside joke about Tang. Theosophy is just a
smorgasbord of quackery and nonsense all strewn together.
> You may not personally agree with those traditions, but they
> are both perfectly coherent and consistent within their own
> parameters.
The parameters that anything goes, that you find in horror flicks?
>> Brahminists have been trying to do this to Buddhism for 2500 years!
> Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism?
Again, I have no idea what 'Brahminist' actually is. That was a joke
directed toward the Tangster. Tang accuses anyone in a different
sect than his of being a Brahminist, you see. Heh heh heh
> I am getting interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning
> Buddhists to the ground & snarling "Admit that your religion is the
> same as ours! Admit it!!"
Precisely!
> Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about
> what Buddhists choose to believe.
On the contrary, Theosophists and Brahminists have tried to hijack
Buddhism for centuries. They tend to wear dark ski masks.
> Now this is where his Tanginess has the upper hand, Troll:
> He quotes directly from source (albeit interminably LOL)
> citing chapter and verse, which makes it a hell of a lot
> easier to ascertain whether or not you as the reader have
> correctly understood (or correctly totally failed to understand)
Actually, Tang tends to randomly quote passages. Well, not quite
random: he looks for the most confusing paragraph he can find, and
then hopes that everyone will be confused by it yet think that he
understands it's deep meaning. That's how he gets the upper hand!
> You said : "Spinoza makes the distinction between things which are
> caused by other things, and things which don't require any
> external cause. Things in this latter category he calls substances,
> and claims that they necessarily exist."
Yes, that is correct.
> If he did, then that is a fairly stunning claim. 1stly because he
> jumps to the supposition of the existence of such "substances"
> without any back up or proof, for instance why "necessarily"?
It's based on how he was defining substance.
>> Then Spinoza demonstrates, as I recall
> As you *recall*? Come on!
Ok, where are we going? You're place, I hope! I haven't read
Spinoza in ten years. Do you think I'm recalling wrongly?
This is the wonderful thing about the internet: I can just say
whatever comes to my mind; if I am wrong about Spinoza, one of
the more learned scholars will correct me, so I can just go off
and babble and say he said whatever I think he said. That's what
most people do around here, except they haven't studied this
stuff and they just make up shit. I'm not going to waste the
time to check out if my memories from reading Spinoza is right;
I'm not writing a book, and if I'm muddled, some professor or
scholar will come out of the woodwork and set me straight, and
then I'll learn something new. Either way, I win.
>> that a substance, which by definition is not contingent and
>> so is its own cause, can't be divided, nor can any other
>> substance exist which is a different substance from the first one.
> How could he possibly "demonstrate" that?!
Deductively. It followed from the way he defined substances.
> 1st he has to assume that such a thing as a non-contingent
> substance exists. How can he then go along and assert that
> it can't be divided, if he hasn't yet satisfactorily proved
> its existence?!!
He assumed that this was the case.
> Come on, Troll, you're disappointing me.
No, Spinoza is disappointing you. It's his crap, not mine.
> To speak in your language, its as though I said "the Reiki
> symbols are brilliant for healing, and therefore I use this
> squiggly shaped one for liver problems". Give me a sensible
> quote from poor old Spinoza to show that he was not as flakey
> as you make him out
But he *is* that flaky. He was makin' shit up, of course. And he
was wrong. That ain't the point. Spinoza reasoned very well, and
his creative ideas were well thought out, and totally awesome.
They have nothing to do with reality, and are as false as reiki
or astrology. Same with Leibniz and his monadology, of which I am
also find. But these philosophers thought very hard, and reading
their bullshit is a wonderful exercise. I can't just quote a
sentence or two to do Spinoza justice. He's worth reading.
Whereas if you read some Theosophy or New-Age crap like reiki,
you won't find anything like the quality of thinking, and instead,
you'll find lots of buzzwords and babble and an assortment of
nonsense. Spinoza on the other hand comes together like a classic
novel, and his elegance and genius shows through. That's why I
enjoyed reading him. Also, knowing what was going on at the time,
especially with the other modern philosophers such as Descartes,
Hume, Leibniz, and Kant, and seeing how Spinoza is moving in various
directions is quite fascinating, if you are a history buff. For
example, his connection to Bruno's pantheism is rather interesting.
> I will pound my favourite time travelling crystal into talcum powder.
Don't do that: maybe we could take a trip together with it to meet
these fellows like Spinoza; then you'll see how philosophy is really
done by the biggies. Btw, Spinoza was a rationalist, not an empiricist,
and you may not have a feel for how rationalists went about reasoning.
Do you? I'd be happy to go into the difference in some detail for you.
> "This leads him to claim that only one substance exists, and
> everything is it. He then concludes that everything, therefore, is God."
Yep.
> If that's so, then by his own definition he was saying that nothing
> is dependent upon anything else: "things which don't require any
> external cause....he calls substances". How that could possibly
> mean that "everything, therefore, is God" is completely beyond me.
Elementary, my dear Margaret. Because things are dependent on other
things, they cannot be separate substances. He demonstrated (again
deductively, that what followed from his starting assumptions is)
that there can at most be only one substance, as more than one kind
of substance would always lead to a contradiction. So there was only
one substance. Then he used Descartes' earlier reasoning that only
God had the properties that Spinoza claimed a substance had, so he
concluded that everything was God. The differences we perceived were
really "modes" of being of that substance for Spinoza. For example:
<< Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes
of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in
a fixed and definite manner. [i.25.] >>
(Of course, this is all bloody nonsense: yet do you say constantly
to your chums, "they're all acting" when you visit the cinema? If so,
you wouldn't be a very fun date, now would you, Margaret dear?)
> "Now interestingly enough, this relates very much to the Buddhist
> core claim of Dependent Origination, which is that there are no
> self-existent things: that is, nothing is it's own cause nor is
> indivisible. "
>
> Maybe it's me, maybe this *isn't* a glaring contradiction -
> I'm perfectly open to that possibility.... But as far as I can see,
> "Things which don't require any external cause....he calls substances
> ...only one substance exists, and everything is it" is about as far
> removed from the Buddhist concept of interdependence as it can be.
No, you are muddled. See, it would be a glaring contradiction if there
were many differing substances. But he is saying that the only case
where something is its own cause is in the case of the universe as a
whole. In that sense, there is no contradiction. For example, from
his _Ethics_:
<< God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the
universe. [I.14]>>
<< Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be
conceived. [I.15]>>
<< God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no
substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17]>>
You missed the real contradiction, however. Buddhists are not holists,
and the term "the universe as a whole" has no referent in Buddhism,
as there is no universe, just a collection. Nothing as a whole, nor
anything greater than the sum of its parts. It's those nasty Brahminists
who want to add and extra twist to the mixture and call it big "Self".
> From this point on I gave up trying to struggling with your train
> of thought - a shame as some very interesting musings...
Don't give up! You're doing well and you're questioning things, and
that's the right first step. You're pretty bright for a girl. Are all
girls in England that bright? Most of the ones around here are idiots.
> "Spinoza claims that everything that happens does so out of absolute
> necessity (something like the claims of the anthropic priciple)."
>
> What about compassion? Often compassion utterly contradicts necessity
I don't follow you at all. So compassion does not necessarily have to
exist. Or does it? I don't even know what you mean by compassion here.
> - for example the priest in Rome during the 2nd World War who offered
> his life in exchange for that of a Jew due to be killed in the
> massacre of the Fosse Ardeatine. For him, absolute necessity would
> have dictated he keep his life, not offer it up to be cut short.
Not at all. What does not being a total egoist have to do with any
kind of necessity? His action is only a function of his values.
For example, many people would die for someone they admired. If I had
a choice between my life or my favorite sci-fi writer's, I'd choose
for Joe to live, not me. What does that have to do with compassion?
Rather, he would more likely continue with projects and values which
are important to me. Why would you associate narrow self-interest,
on the other hand, with necessity? That doesn't make sense at all.
In fact, the priest in your example could easily have been acting
*purely* out of narrow self-interest. He could have believed in an
afterlife, and that by this small investment, he would get a return
in heaven with interest, and end up with a big palace next to Mayor
Jesus in the city of Heaven, right? If he held such beliefs, then
his actions were purely in narrow self-interest, and really he was
just playing a chess gambit or making a shrewd investment.
Now you see how your example doesn't work, and how your terms like
compassion and necessity you arbitrarily relate, and how even your
example which you choose to be a paradigm case of compassion can be
shown to easily be a case of the most egoistic narrow self-interest?
Well, I can take any crystal-channeler or Theosophical snake-oil
peddler apart just as easily. But not the great thinkers such as
Spinoza. He may be wrong, but his ideas are well thought out and he
was thorough.
Btw, I recommend Descartes, if you want to read a wonderful and
clear thinker. Descartes is brilliant, and uses experiential examples
and makes great insights. He is a joy to read. Unfortunately, he gets
a really bad rap these days by people who know little of philosophy.
> Go on, Dharmapala, go and get your Spinoza book and quote us
> "straight up". I'm sure you must have missed some crucial para's
> here & there.
If you want, you may quote me the paragraphs in Spinoza you don't
understand and I'll do my best to explain them, Margaret. But I don't
know offhand what you are looking for. Tang probably has a ton of
Spinoza quotes all in queue and ready to dazzle people with, so if
we can get him to jump in, perhaps he will oblige you, but unless you
have some quote in mind, I don't know what exactly of his you wish me
to find for you. Also, the only book of his I own is his _Ethics_, I
am sad to confess. You can find a lot of Spinoza's stuff on-line,
however, and I have quoted him several times from the following site:
< http://www.erols.com/jyselman/#TTP >
If you rummage through that site, Margaret dear, and find a passage
you don't understand or think is relevant, I'll try to make sense of
it for you. (That's more than Tang has ever done!) Any more questions?
The Ruuts
dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7g5cob$kcp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <37260E11...@cyberdude.com>,
> ye...@cyberdude.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Dharmatroll,
>>
>> I understand that you're trying to make people take a critical
>> view of their own beliefs, but you know, sometimes you do go a
>> little too far with the language... I believe that you're just
>> being playful, but over the net it's sometimes hard to see if
>> someone's just kidding around, or being mean, you know?
>
>Yeah, I know David. But I like to play hard, and have lots of fun.
>
>> You did call Kathy's teacher a grandmother or whatever.
>> That really wasn't very nice,
>
>Actually, it was Evelyn I called a granny. I said much worse things
>about Kathy's guru-ette after she said that the teacher signed her
>name as Kathy's mother!
>
>> and I can see how she might take offense, even though you might
>> not have been serious. It might be more helpful if you toned down
>> the language a bit,
Hi David and Dharmatroll,
Lest anyone should think I was offended, I just want to let everyone know
that I AM a grandmother, (although not Kathy's) and no name ever made me
more proud than that one, so I assure you I am not offended at all. I am
the grandmother of 11 year old twin boys, actually ;-) ......
Evelyn
The Ruuts
Buddha wrote in message <92525110...@sarabi.dbis.ns.ca>...
>
>
>--
>"These Romans are crazy!" - Vitalstatistix, chief of the pesky Gauls.
>
>
>Evelyn:
>>> we are discussing here. We are discussing buddhism. If you know
>>> a bit about it, and want to learn more, everyone will be very very
>>> kind and stumble over themselves to help you to do that. But if
>>> you come around selling them any thing other than buddhism, you are
>>> going to make waves and people will listen politely to a quote or
>>> two, then they will start skipping your posts...
>>
>
>
>obscene language. These buddhist groups aren't as fair as Evelyn would
>have us believe. It is a measure of our state of practise, an indication
>that we
>should sit more and longer.
I can agree with that statement. Those who allow what is supposed to be
respectful religious discussion and dharma debate fall to such angry and
obscene levels are just the noisy few. There are many serious and
intelligent and educated individuals who post and read on these boards.
They just go silent when the more raucous ones begin doing their 'thing'.
But they are always there, and those are who I mostly post for.
As to your last statement, about it being "a measure of our state of
practise, an indication that we should sit more and longer" I am in full
agreement. There are many who post here that may not realize it is so very
obvious they do not practice.
Regards,
Evelyn
Thiele Everett
: Jackie:
: >: Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
: >: Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas.
: >Um....what's so strange about Confucian ideas? I mean, are they so
: >much stranger than Buddhist, or Christian, or Consumerist/Nihilist
: >ideas? When I read Confucius he always strikes me as a very
: >agreeable, pleasant and reasonable person -- hardly strange at
: >all. What do you think?
: I really don't know very much about this, but what little I have heard
: is not too good. From the mouth of a Chinese historian, didn't
: Confucius imply that everyone should look down on someone else, and
: that women were at the very bottom of the heap to be looked down on by
: everyone?
That sounds like _every_ ancient culture on Earth. You can find a historian
who can trash any and all religions and teachings. Doesn't Jesus imply
that all Arabs and Jews will go to hell? (And can be slaughtered with
impunity) That was aparantly the position of the Medieval Church, and
popular European culture at that time. Doesn't Buddha compare the vagina
to the fanged mouth of a viper? So Europe and India would seem to be
'deeply riddled' with unsavoury ideas as well.
And yet, reading the records of the Buddha's talks I get the impression of
a very reasonable person. Ditto for Confucius.
Some other respondants brought up the difference between the teacher and
his followers, which seems very apt here. I have only read C.'s _Analects_
which are the records of teaching situations he was involved in, what
he said and did (he taught very much through action), and descriptions
of his conduct. I have to say that I have came across less misogyny there
than in the Buddhist Canon.
C. did speak out in favor of social hierarchy, but I think he is correct
there. If everyone accepts their rank, then society will be more peaceful
and people will have a better chance to find happiness than if everyone
is continually fighting for power and position. Civil war is probably the
worst state of affairs for human beings. Consider the situation for women
in Kosovo right now. They are being raped, tortured, mutilated and killed.
Social stability would be better for them, even if it meant accepting the
low rank of a peasant's wife. Even reform grows best in a stable
environment.
Furthermore, from having only read the _Analects_ it would seem that putting
C.'s ideas into practice would improve the day-to-day position of women.
They are usually the one's saddled with the chores involved in caring for
the elderly, for instance. C. admonishes men to take care of their parents
as well. Wouldn't that reduce the workload for the women who already are
doing that job?
By way of comparison, there are a number of stories in the Pali Canon of
Indian men who waited until their parents died, or at least made sure they
were supported before leaving home to become monks. And Buddha also taught
householders to accept their social station, and perform their duties
both towards superiors and inferiors.
In case you're interested, a very readable translation of the _Analects_
is available at:
http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/fiveclassics.htm
best regards,
--Rett
Thiele Everett
: Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
: interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
: &
: snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
: Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
: choose to believe.
That is simply untrue. In fact, recently a decision was taken in India
to officially regard Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism. They assert that the
two doctrines are fundamentally the same. This has caused some protest
within the Buddhist establishment. I am pretty sure that the debate
has been going on for a long, long time.
--Rett
Don James
m9...@abc.se (Thiele Everett) wrote:
> margaret (marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism? I am getting
> : interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
> : &
> : snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
> : Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
> : choose to believe.
>
> to officially regard Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism. They assert that the
> two doctrines are fundamentally the same. This has caused some protest
> within the Buddhist establishment. I am pretty sure that the debate
> has been going on for a long, long time.
>
> --Rett
>
>
Don: you guys are like the two monks who were arguing whether the wind
was blowing the flag or the flag was being blown by the wind when Hui Neng
told them it was Mind moving both wind and flag. Dharmatroll is a fart in
a box. He's still stuck in the ego/body/intellect unholy trinity.
--
Send me your scans for the photo op at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
bobri...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
> Evelyn writes:
>
> And when Buddha lived, did he call himself a Buddhist, Evelyn?
I don't know the history behind this challenge, but what the Buddha called
himself isn't an issue. The man we call the Buddha left behind a body of
teachings, and those teachings are the foundation of what is called
"Buddhism." "Buddhism" is not a one-size-fits-all thing that covers anything
you want it to cover.
> It is always interesting to me about people who are critical towards
> me regarding my own spiritual journey. As far as my "belief system"
> being "more of a smorgasbord of various tradition"--I will tell you
> this: I am interested in people and what makes them
> "tick" (to use Dharmatroll's words).
That's fine, and you are certainly free to wander any path you choose.
Buddhism doesn't hold a copyright on the truth.
> Would you say, Evelyn, that
> Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy?
Only in the Western mind are religion and philosophy two separate things. Such
categories are fairly meaningless in Eastern thought. However, I practice
Buddhism as my religion.
>
> I consider myself a truth seeker. I am also interested as to
> why Buddhists are so intent on saying that their way (or religion/
> philosophy?) is so different.
The essence of the difference is the teaching of anatta, also called
shunyatta in the Mahayana tradition. This is the teaching of "no-self," that
what we think of as "us" is actually just a collection of transient parts
without intrinsic being. This teaching is at the center of all Buddhist
teaching, and if you don't understand this you won't understand any of it.
A good introduction to this is in the early chapters of the book What the
Buddha Taught by Walpole Rahula. Rahula was a Therevada monk and scholar who
did an exhaustive survey of the earliest and most reasonably authentic texts
from the Tripitaka in order to determine what the man we call the Buddha
actually taught. This book is an excellent non-sectarian source that explains
the foundation teachings common to all Buddhism.
Another work that might give you a glimpse of what "no-self" would be Thich
Nhat Hanh's explication on the Heart Sutra; I can't remember the title right
now.
> I guess I can understand if you
> say you don't believe in a Creator God or Omniscient/Supreme Being, but
> tell me, do you do visualizations/meditations focussed on Tara?
Tara has no intrinsic self; who is she? Who are you? Are you distinct from
each other, or the same?
At a Zen Monastery where I sometimes attend retreats, people sometimes ask
why they should bow to a Buddha statue. The monks point to the wooden Buddha
on the alter and say, "That's you up there. You are only bowing to yourself."
> Someone else said something about being "absorbed into the
> dharmadatu". What does this mean to you? Where does the "dead"
> Siddhartha go, or what exactly is this "absorption" process
People spend many years of meditation and other spiritual practices to
perceive these things. They cannot be grasped with intellect. Don't even try.
> It is always interesting that I am willing to talk to all types
> of people with differing beliefs, but how quickly they wish to
> exclude me if I don't see things exactly in the same way as they
> do. I wonder why this is?
Buddhism isn't about beliefs. All beliefs are dukkha, which means imperfect,
false, transient, impermanent, painful.
>
> Evelyn: "Prhaps this insistence on providing buddhists what
> buddhism actually teaches is the cause of some of her past difficulties on
> other newsgroups?"
>
> I am not sure exactly what buddhism "teaches". I am not sure either
> what Buddha taught.
Then you *really* need to start with the Walpole Rahula book. It isn't really
fair to people who have jobs and kids to raise and dishes to wash to give you
an e-mail correspondence course on Buddhist teaching.
>I do know that he never wrote down any of his
> teachings, just like Jesus never did. The people who wrote down
> the teachings were followers of Buddha or Jesus, meaning there was
> always room for something to have been interpreted wrongly or
> misunderstood, etc.
Yes, but the Buddha founded an order of monks who kept his teachings through a
strict oral tradition.
In loving kindness,
Barbara
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote:
Margaret:
>>> Brahminists have been trying to do *what* to Buddhism?
>>> I am getting interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests
>>> pinning Buddhists to the ground snarling "Admit that your
>>> religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!". Brahmins have
>>> never been in the slightest bit concerned about what
>>> Buddhists choose to believe.
>> That is simply untrue. In fact, recently a decision was taken
>> in India to officially regard Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism.
>> They assert that the two doctrines are fundamentally the same.
>> This has caused some protest within the Buddhist establishment.
>> I am pretty sure that the debate has been going on for a long,
>> long time.
>> --Rett
> Don: you guys are like the two monks who were arguing whether
> the wind was blowing the flag or the flag was being blown by
> the wind when Hui Neng told them it was Mind moving both wind
> and flag. Dharmatroll is a fart in a box. He's still stuck in
> the ego/body/intellect unholy trinity.
I'm afraid Don is the old fart, in this case. Don claims that there
is a soul stuck inside of a body. I cannot be stuck inside of a
body, because I *am* a body, and I am comfortable with being that
body and don't feel so alienated that I have to pretend I am some
ineffable mindstream or soul that 'has' a body.
Secondly, the intellect is a wonderful tool, which can allow one
to get unstuck, or in this case to dissolve the original false
problem, which was based once again on Don's faulty reasoning.
(I say "once again" for emphasis: actually I don't remember what
else Don has ever said, but if I say "once again" it makes him
look even worse, as if he regularly makes such pathetic comments.
It's an old Jedi trick.)
As for "ego", that term refers to particular mental identifications
that are mistakenly reified into what is thought to be an existing
thing going through time. If Don thinks he is a ghost or soul which
has a body, this would be the kind of thing one might call ego.
Though the word is overused, just like 'soul' or 'energy' and could
be used to refer to just about anything, such as Don's arrogance, or
his stupidity, or his repeating Zen stories the real point of which
he has no clue whatsoever. Personally, I avoid the use of such terms.
Don James
m9...@abc.se (Thiele Everett) wrote:
> margaret (marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : interesting pictures here of Brahmin priests pinning Buddhists to the ground
> : &
> : snarling "Admit that your religion is the same as ours! Admit it!!".
> : Brahmins have never been in the slightest bit concerned about what Buddhists
> : choose to believe.
>
> to officially regard Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism. They assert that the
> two doctrines are fundamentally the same. This has caused some protest
> within the Buddhist establishment. I am pretty sure that the debate
> has been going on for a long, long time.
>
> --Rett
>
>
whisperers that enlightened souls are all exactly alike and one and the same.
Shhhh don't tell any Christians or Buddhists about that or there will be big
trouble.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"I don't know the history behind this challenge, but what the
Buddha called himself isn't an issue."
Of course, it's not important what Buddhd called/labeled himself,
but it appears that to some people it *is* important what they
call/label themselves.
Barbara: "Buddha doesn't hold a copyright on truth."
No "ism" does...
Barbara: "Tara has no intrinsic self; who is she?"
You tell me--why do some people feel the necessity to receive
the Tara initiation? Undoubtedly, it has to do with the desire
to do good action as she has exemplifies (according to the legend). What
is your definition of "intrinsic self"?
Barbara: "Who are you"
:-)
Barbara: "Are you distinct from each other, or the same?"
Personality-wise, I (as "Kathy) may be different from others, at eseence,
the same.
Barbara: "That's you up there. You are only bowing to yourself."
I believe Amma (Amma means 'Mother') Anasuya Devi said similarly
many years ago to Her devotees, regarding the "reason" why people
prostrate to a holy being/saint..
Thank you for your suggestion about the book...however I have
already many books on my library shelves, and not much room for
more. I usually will read a book I feel led or inspired to, take
for instance, the recommendation someone made to me to read
"Reborn in the West" by Vicki Mackenzie. I ordered it yesterday
from my local bookstore.
With loving kindness,
Kathy
--
grail...@xnetsource.comm
"People spend many years of meditation and other spiritual practices to
perceive these things that cannot be grasped with intellect."
(Note: I forgot in my last post to address the above, which I will
do now):
That's what I've been saying for a long time on these internet NGs.
Kathy
--
David Yeung
Jackie wrote:
>
> You see, this is where the (tedious) problem with these newsgroups lie
> dormant (in the minds of the readers.)
> It is perfectly true that superstition resides in almost any culture.
> But this is not the debate.
There's a debate? :) Why wasn't I invited???
> We are talking about Chinese culture in
> particular. No-one is comparing anything with anything. There is no
> better or worse.
Then I'd say that your original statement wasn't clear, because if all
cultures have elements of superstition, what sense does it make to say
that such-and-such a culture is superstitious? That wasn't the way I'd
have written your statement, if I'd written such a statement I would've
meant what I thought you meant, but hey, I'm not you now am I? :)
>
> A lesson for everyone: just read the words.
"Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas."
Okay. I agree with you.
But, but: It isn't any more riddled with superstition and
strange ideas than any other culture, including modern Western culture.
e.g. "You'll attract a lot of chicks if you drive this car or smoke
this brand of cigarette, no really, you will." :)
> People seem to have such problems with this basic, basic issue.
> Reading words without the baggage of preconceptions, judgements and
> fore thoughts. In zen terms you would say read with your vast
> uncomplicated mind. Is it possible that we can discuss the various
> aspect of China and Confucius - good, bad and middle - without leaping
> to defensive positions and supposing there is a comparison? I think we
> can do it! :-)
Sure. But it's a bit off-topic here.
> This took place in
> ancient times right up until about the nineteen twenties (is that
> right?)
Yeah, actually I was recently at the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) and
there was a part of an exhibit which was about the foot-binding custom.
Really nasty stuff.
> (Did they survive the
> generation after the Communists established the 'Great Leap Forward'
> in the fifties? Another discussion perhaps.)
The only medicine for superstition is education. Unfortunately,
Communist China isn't particularly kind to scholars. They are the type
to be rebellious, and rebellion, I'm afraid, does not square with
dictatorship.
> I am pretty sure this cruelty stopped before the civil war -
> just around the time the warlords were breaking up, and not because of
> the communists (they didn't get a firm grip until the mid to late
> forties, yes?)
It fell out of fashion. No one knows why, but I think partly it had to
do with contact with the West, because Westerners considered it to be
barbaric. If there's anything Chinese people don't like, it's to be
called "barbaric" by "barbarians". :)
> Jackie.
--
David Yeung
Thiele Everett
: Don: you guys are like the two monks who were arguing whether the wind
: was blowing the flag or the flag was being blown by the wind when Hui Neng
: told them it was Mind moving both wind and flag.
If Hui Neng ever said something that moronic he ought to have been locked
up. But I suspect you are just getting the story wrong.
: Dharmatroll is a fart in
: a box. He's still stuck in the ego/body/intellect unholy trinity.
Does that make you a fart set free to waft?
Oh I get it! That's what was blowing the flag! Now I see what you were
trying to say. It wasn't easy to figure out, though.
--Rett
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote:
> Don: of course, there has been some chatter in darkened doorways by hooded
> whisperers that enlightened souls are all exactly alike and one and the same.
> Shhhh don't tell any Christians or Buddhists about that or there will be big
> trouble.
And don't tell Don that 'enlightened souls' are exactly alike in the same
trivial/profound sense that all donut holes taste alike, or else you may just
spoil his appetite. And Buddhists take their coffee black. No cream or sugar.
piet...@my-dejanews.com
>
> I made no derogatory comments to you, and you can make whatever comments
> about my teachers you wish.
ooh, this *is* interesting!
and which teachers would they be?
i had always presumed, that as the anti-Maitreya, you would echo
Shakyamuni Buddha in paying homage to no teacher.
but if i am incorrect, i would be happy to hear it!
or, are you referring to a university prof.?
:?)
Jackie
>>But this is not the debate.
>There's a debate? :) Why wasn't I invited???
Please...please kindly the debate? :-)
Jackie:
>>We are talking about Chinese culture in
>>particular. No-one is comparing anything with anything. There is no
>>better or worse.
DY
>Then I'd say that your original statement wasn't clear,
Sorry about that.
>because if all
>cultures have elements of superstition, what sense does it make to say
>that such-and-such a culture is superstitious?
Oh, trying to befuddle me with words are you? :-) We talk of China.
All cultures have their superstitions, true, and I mention that China
has them too. Stop being so picky!! ;-)
>That wasn't the way I'd
>have written your statement, if I'd written such a statement I would've
>meant what I thought you meant, but hey, I'm not you now am I? :)
No the last time I looked.
Jackie:
>>"Chinese culture is/was deeply riddled with superstition, theistic
>>Buddhist stories and strange Confucian ideas."
DY
>Okay. I agree with you.
More tea?
>But, but:
Yes, yes?
>It isn't any more riddled with superstition and
>strange ideas than any other culture, including modern Western culture.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that you'd be right.
>e.g. "You'll attract a lot of chicks if you drive this car or smoke
>this brand of cigarette, no really, you will." :)
Cute.
Jackie:
>>People seem to have such problems with this basic, basic issue.
>>Reading words without the baggage of preconceptions, judgements and
>>fore thoughts. In zen terms you would say read with your vast
>>uncomplicated mind. Is it possible that we can discuss the various
>>aspect of China and Confucius - good, bad and middle - without leaping
>>to defensive positions and supposing there is a comparison? I think we
>>can do it! :-)
DT:
>Sure. But it's a bit off-topic here.
Nah! We were discussing (please...join the discussion?) people's minds
and reading words just as they are. Quite relevant.
>Yeah, actually I was recently at the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) and
>there was a part of an exhibit which was about the foot-binding custom.
>Really nasty stuff.
Mmm.
>The only medicine for superstition is education.
Absolutely.
>Unfortunately, Communist China isn't particularly kind to scholars.
>They are the type to be rebellious, and rebellion,
Yes, and they may even start having their own ideas.
>I'm afraid, does not square with dictatorship.
In Mao's time anyone with an education was branded a class enemy. A
Bourgeois Capitalist Roader. Children were actively encouraged to beat
up and torture their teachers. Schooling was stopped for five years so
that pupils could all be red guards, make pilgrimages to see Mao, beat
up people, lie and inform on their neighbours, friends and
relatives... This was the reason why there was no Stazi, KGB or any
kind of secret Police in China then. It wasn't needed. The people
turned on each other. Suicide was common...
I'm sorry - I do go on. Completely irrelevant. But it was so shocking.
(No, David!! Not any more or less shocking than anything ever done in
the West, or worse than any dictator in the Western world! Happy now?)
:-)
>It fell out of fashion. No one knows why, but I think partly it had to
>do with contact with the West, because Westerners considered it to be
>barbaric. If there's anything Chinese people don't like, it's to be
>called "barbaric" by "barbarians". :)
I was not aware that the ending of the tradition of foot-binding was
anything to do with Westerners. I agree that it just fell out of
fashion, but I thought the Chinese got there all by themselves. I
could be wrong! :-)
Jackie.
bobri...@my-dejanews.com
grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>
> Of course, it's not important what Buddha called/labeled himself,
> but it appears that to some people it *is* important what they
> call/label themselves.
Then that's their problem. Don't let it bother you. Concern yourself only with
how you label yourself.
> Barbara: "Tara has no intrinsic self; who is she?"
>
> You tell me--why do some people feel the necessity to receive
> the Tara initiation? Undoubtedly, it has to do with the desire
> to do good action as she has exemplifies (according to the legend).
Tara initiations -- and not all sects of Buddhism do such things, btw -- are,
like all Buddhist practices, a upaya -- "skillful means." All upaya are
practices that enable the realization of bodhi, or enlightenment. I believe
Tara initiations in specific are conducted to cultivate selfless compassion.
>What
> is your definition of "intrinsic self"?<
An individual being that has an independent existence. Ain't no such thing,
the Buddha taught. All 'selfs' are impermanent collections of attributes.
There is no "soul," no intrinsic "self." We are not what we think we are.
>
> Barbara: "Who are you"
>
> :-)
Smile all you like; this is the central question of Buddhism. If you see
clearly who you are, that is enlightenment.
> Barbara: "Are you distinct from each other, or the same?"
>
> Personality-wise, I (as "Kathy) may be different from others, at eseence,
> the same.
You don't understand the question. I am not asking if you resemble Tara in
some way; I am asking if you are a different individual being from Tara, or
the same being.
You are you and I am me. However, the Buddha taught, you are me and I am also
you. At the same time, you are still you and I am still me.
> Barbara: "That's you up there. You are only bowing to yourself."
>
> I believe Amma (Amma means 'Mother') Anasuya Devi said similarly
> many years ago to Her devotees, regarding the "reason" why people
> prostrate to a holy being/saint..
You are the Buddha. You are Tara. You are me. I am you. Where do you find the
self? These are not beliefs. The challenge is not to believe these things, but
to realize them.
> Thank you for your suggestion about the book...however I have
> already many books on my library shelves, and not much room for
> more. I usually will read a book I feel led or inspired to, take
> for instance, the recommendation someone made to me to read
> "Reborn in the West" by Vicki Mackenzie. I ordered it yesterday
> from my local bookstore.
IMO you need to forget about reincarnation and focus on realizing who you are
right now.
In loving kindness,
Barbara
bobri...@my-dejanews.com
Yet all of your messages are about beliefs, concepts, and stuff you've read in
books. Buddhism is not a belief system, and as long as you are attempting to
understand it intellectually, as a belief system, you are going to miss it by
ten thousand miles. The dharma has to be realized with body and mind.
You have been asking people to explain unexplainable things to you. I believe
your questions are sincere, and I sincerely hope you find sincere answers,
but ultimately the answers you seek will not be found in books or in
newsgroups but in yourself, awakened through practice.
I strongly urge that, if you are determined to read about Buddhism, you get a
firm grounding in basic Buddhist teaching, particularly the Four Noble
Truths, which includes teachings on the nature of self and the Five Skandhas
(or Five Conditions, or Five Empty Heaps, or Five Aggregates of Existence).
Without this basic understanding, you will misunderstand everything else you
read about Buddhism.
Christopher Hayden
>A lesson for everyone: just read the words.
>
>People seem to have such problems with this basic, basic issue.
>Reading words without the baggage of preconceptions, judgements and
>fore thoughts. In zen terms you would say read with your vast
>uncomplicated mind. Is it possible that we can discuss the various
>aspect of China and Confucius - good, bad and middle - without leaping
>to defensive positions and supposing there is a comparison? I think we
>can do it! :-)
>
Right on. This is what happens all the time, people bringing up their
own thoughts as arguments to a completely different line of thought. Not
that their thoughts aren't valid or interesting, especially in the right
context, but they interrupt the line of the conversation...
Person A (passenger in car): Look out for that tree!!
Person B (driver of car): Where?
Person A: The one over there, that big oak you're about to run into!
Person C (backseat passenger): That's not a big oak. This one oak we
had in our yard was soooo big....
Person B: Shut up! (grabs steering wheel)
Person C: Well, it was. My great-grandfather planted it, back in....
Don James
m9...@abc.se (Thiele Everett) wrote:
> Don James (dja...@raychem.com) wrote:
>
> : Don: you guys are like the two monks who were arguing whether the wind
> : was blowing the flag or the flag was being blown by the wind when Hui Neng
> : told them it was Mind moving both wind and flag.
>
> If Hui Neng ever said something that moronic he ought to have been locked
> up. But I suspect you are just getting the story wrong.
>
> : Dharmatroll is a fart in
> : a box. He's still stuck in the ego/body/intellect unholy trinity.
>
> Does that make you a fart set free to waft?
Don: hahahah very funny!
>
> Oh I get it! That's what was blowing the flag! Now I see what you were
> trying to say. It wasn't easy to figure out, though.
>
Don: have you considered a career as a professional comedian?
> --Rett
>
>
--
Send me your scans for the photo op at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jackie
wrote:
>Jackie:
>>>But this is not the debate.
>DY
>>There's a debate? :) Why wasn't I invited???
>I beg your pardon. Where are my manners? (Tsk - remiss)
>Please...please kindly the debate? :-)
Why did I delete the word "join"?
Well anyway, you get the general idea. :-|
(Anyone seen my face? I lost it round about here somewhere.)
Miss Typo.
Dirk Bruere
> DT:
> >> Spinoza's God is not independent of the universe, nor does it make
> >> moral choices about what to create, as does the Christian God.
> Dirk:
> > Moral choices are inherent in the universe and in its future.
> > So, if we are positing Pantheism, God embraces morality.
> No, this is clearly mistaken, as the "God" of Spinoza lacks any
> individual thinking consciousness, and Spinoza specifically denies
> that there is anything teleological about the universe. That is,
> Spinoza is a "naturalist", and not an "artificialist", as are most
> contemporary theists.
The context was specifically your assertion of Pantheism. The universe
is shaped by forces derived from moral principles, hence any Pantheistic
God must embrace morality at some level.
> For example, in the preface of his _Ethics_, Spinoza specifically
> states that:
> << Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and
We do. And we are part of Nature. Try again Troll.
Also feel free to continue the reincarnation thread where I left off, or
was it getting too hot for you to handle?
Want me to quote a few of the observations I made that you appear to
have no answer for?
Gassho
Dirk
Mark Vetanen
Mark Vetanen
David Yeung <ye...@cyberdude.com> wrote in message
news:3727DF98...@cyberdude.com...
>
>
> dharm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > It's bad enough that anyone says such a crock of shit, but to claim to
> > be a Buddhist Priest?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question? :)
>
> --
> David Yeung
piet...@my-dejanews.com
> What a load of New-Age eastern-shmeastern crappola, eh? Anybody sold
> on this one? Speak up, as Peachie & me are still lookin' for ways to
> dupe people when we start our new cult in Maui!
reiki is a good'un, i want to be called a 'Reiki Master' after taking
one or two weekend classes in Marin, then get paid 100$ a session for
inducing placebo effects in various NABs suffering from various new age
hysterias.
imho, reiki is a thinly disguised expression of Kundalini aka Holy Spirit,
(according to what i have read of it, having no first hand experience)
and I for one do not doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to knock me on
my ass! so, the Power is there, yes, but 'the Spirit bloweth where it
listeth' or whatever ... no point in gettin' formal about it ... :)
anyway, i wonder if any pathological kundalini cases have arisen over
over-enthusiastic reiki treatments?
check out 'Ambivalent Zen' by Lawarence Shainberg, for an amusing account
of how a teacher can milk his students dry by convincing them they
need regular 'energy' treatments for years and years, according to
his mystically diagnosing their 'aura'.
anyway, 'go in peace, *your* faith has healed you' ....
cheers
dharm...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Dirk:
>>> Moral choices are inherent in the universe and in its future.
>>> So, if we are positing Pantheism, God embraces morality.
>> No, this is clearly mistaken, as the "God" of Spinoza lacks any
>> individual thinking consciousness, and Spinoza specifically denies
>> that there is anything teleological about the universe. That is,
>> Spinoza is a "naturalist", and not an "artificialist", as are most
>> contemporary theists.
>
> The context was specifically your assertion of Pantheism.
> The universe is shaped by forces derived from moral principles,
> hence any Pantheistic God must embrace morality at some level.
No, that is not true at all, Dork. There is no morality embraced by
a choice-making God. Again:
<< Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and
infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same
necessity as that whereby it exists....Therefore, as he does not
exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the
sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is
neither origin nor end. >>
Furthermore, what Spinoza denotes as God would shock most of today's
theists, who think of a caring, loving parent in the sky:
<< God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of
pleasure or pain... Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. [V.17]>>
and
<< He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.
[V.19]>>
Got it, Dirk? Better luck next time. Next.
> We do. And we are part of Nature.
No: we are humans. Humans make choices. Nature as a whole does not.
Our being part of nature does not entail that Nature as a whole
makes moral choices in Spinoza's view. Only we make moral choices.
> Try again Troll.
I can try explaining all I want, but I doubt it will help you.
> Also feel free to continue the reincarnation thread where I left
> off, or was it getting too hot for you to handle?
The Mahasanti line, eh? I went over the reincarnation stuff over and
over, showed you that there is no evidence for it whatsover, and
that was that. What more do you want?
> Want me to quote a few of the observations I made that you appear
> to have no answer for?
I already answered all your crap, Dirk. Now rather than shamelessly
act like Mahasanti and pretend that your claims were not throroughly
refuted, why not just admit you were wrong and talking nonsense?
What is this shit: "But even though you've made mincemeat out of
everything I've said, I have these secret arguments which you can't
deal with, and I'm not telling what they are unless you play with me."
Get a life, Dork. Or talk about something interesting, like your ideas
about the experience of subjective continuity, which is from Epicurus,
and is the most interesting thing you've mentioned, and is something
I've been interested in for years. I have some experiences about that
as well as some material on the subject to share with you in that area,
which you might really enjoy, and I was waiting for you to return to it.
As for this stuff, Spinoza definitely did not believe that Nature (God)
was teleological or was as a whole headed for some goal, even though *we*
tend to organize ourselves around temporal projects. The issue comes up
later in Sartre, about our being staked in future projects, and also in
Heidegger, who talks of our being as being-ahead-of-itself and says some
interesting things in this regard about our being a being-toward-death,
in _Being and Time_. But that's enough for now: I'm starting to get a
bit ahead of myself, eh?
> Gassho
Gah, gah, gahhhh-shooooooo.
--Dharmakaya Troll