You make you very sad (was Re: Type)
Tang Huyen
Invisible Lurker wrote:
> brightshi...@gmail.com said:
>
> > Invisible Lurker:
>
> >> Don't give him that much credit. He means
> >> to enrage and merely amuses.
>
> > well he doesn't enrage me, but he....makes....me .....very sad....
>
> No Robert, You make you very sad.
Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
anything.
"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain
is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of
it; and this you have the power to revoke at any
moment." - Marcus Aurelius.
“Things of themselves cannot take the least hold of
the soul, nor have any access to her, nor deflect or
move her; but the soul alone deflects and moves
herself, and whatever judgements she deems it right
to form, in conformity with them she fashions for
herself the things that submit themselves to her from
without.” - Marcus Aurelius.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:25Sdnc3Atueaze7V...@supernews.com...
>
> "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain
> is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of
> it; and this you have the power to revoke at any
> moment." - Marcus Aurelius.
Is this why people won't snip junk from their posts? Is this why people keep
cross-posting with the absfg troll group? Isn't self-styled content free
posting merely control and influence in another way?
"...a network which represents our whole universe must also include us as
observers. And this means that there is no way that we can look at the
network from the outside and see the electron as a definite object"
A New Kind of Science, Stephen Wolfram, p 538.
Oh, lawdy. *fingers* I've dwopped a gwoop.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:25Sdnc3Atueaze7V...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
>> brightshi...@gmail.com said:
>>
>> > Invisible Lurker:
>>
>> >> Don't give him that much credit. He means
>> >> to enrage and merely amuses.
>>
>> > well he doesn't enrage me, but he....makes....me .....very sad....
>>
>> No Robert, You make you very sad.
>
> Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
> anything.
hahaha. do you control your sleeping,
your shitting, your parasympathetic
nervous system ? do you control
those shadow dog ghostings from
your genetic heritage who are always
whispering in your subconscious ear
all of their fears and desires ? do you wish
to be a part of the gang wherein the gang
makes decisions for you ? do you threaten
to leave the herd if they don't accept you ?
do you tell the universe that it has to bend
over backwards to fit your little dismal plans ?
please detail for me the length and breadth of
this alleged control that you think everyone has.
Hollywood Lee
>
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> news:25Sdnc3Atueaze7V...@supernews.com...
>> Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
>> anything.
>
> hahaha. do you control your sleeping,
> your shitting, your parasympathetic
> nervous system ? do you control
> those shadow dog ghostings from
> your genetic heritage who are always
> whispering in your subconscious ear
> all of their fears and desires ? do you wish
> to be a part of the gang wherein the gang
> makes decisions for you ? do you threaten
> to leave the herd if they don't accept you ?
> do you tell the universe that it has to bend
> over backwards to fit your little dismal plans ?
> please detail for me the length and breadth of
> this alleged control that you think everyone has.
>
It may be experientially true that (a) we appear to be able to think (or
not think) in various ways and degrees about what appears to us in life,
(b) some ways of thinking seem to give rise, with some regularity or
predictability, to events and further habits of thinking that we can
label as skillful/unskillful, good/bad, etc., and (c) that these ways of
thinking may appear to be within our "control" or subject to choices on
our part.
All of the above can be stated at the level of mere experience and
judged by mere experience, without more. At that level, I would tend to
see a continuum of "control" over my actions and reactions. At one end
of the spectrum are "your sleeping, your shitting, your parasympathetic
nervous system" sorts of events, while at the other end, perhaps, would
be the higher level reactions grounded in thoughts of "I" and "mine"
that seem to be under more control if I engage in calming/insight sorts
of practices. Of course, given a spectrum, I would be hard-pressed to
situate someone's thinking as permanently located and condemned at one
end or the other since it would also seem true that people can learn
enough to move up and down the spectrum of "control." For example, the
process of sleeping and dreaming that seems so automatic and
uncontrolled apparently can be controlled by some people, such that
vivid dreaming states can be produced at will.
Or the above can be hardened up, with edges defined, by removing
qualifiers such as "may" "seem" and "appear" and so on. It can even be
moved from the level of experience and then asserted as ontological
truth or delusion.
Even funnier, it can be used as an excuse for poor behavior. Hilarity
ensued . .
^@%>---*=#
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g5032t$cb3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
but that vague feeling of control comes
under the aspects of that sleeping, shitting
and eating machine wherein decisions of
control remain in the limits of those things
which are not in our control. if we were really
in control we could stop sleeping or eating, but
we can't.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Even funnier, it can be used as an excuse for
> poor behavior. Hilarity ensued . .
Right. Hilarity ensued ... All is well that ends well.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
I just figured out why the universe makes fun out of me. It's insecure.
HIiiiiii-yaaaaah.
There, I just gave it a kung-fu throw to the ground.
Pfff. Not so tough.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Déjà Flu
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> news:l_6dnavaa5vYce7V...@supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Even funnier, it can be used as an excuse for
>>> poor behavior. Hilarity ensued . .
>>
>> Right. Hilarity ensued ... All is well that ends well.
>>
>> Tang Huyen
>
>
> HIiiiiii-yaaaaah.
>
> There, I just gave it a kung-fu throw to the ground.
>
> Pfff. Not so tough.
ROFL!!!
*(sorry - I took the "out" out, bad English)
RaaN
wrote:
> Invisible Lurker wrote:
If I love another and therefore estimate the opinion that person holds
of me as valuable, then if they do not approve of me I cannot then
simply alter my opinion of them in order not to disapprove of myself.
Can my love for another really be said to be a choice? Is it the
result of my intellectually assessing the worth of the person I love?
How much choice do I really have in this matter? My point is that it
is not as simple and clear cut as it seems on first blush. Repression
leads to aberrant behavior and feeling arise spontaneously.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> news:25Sdnc3Atueaze7V...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Invisible Lurker wrote:
>
>
> >> > Invisible Lurker:
>
> >> >> Don't give him that much credit. He means
> >> >> to enrage and merely amuses.
>
> >> > well he doesn't enrage me, but he....makes....me .....very sad....
>
> >> No Robert, You make you very sad.
>
> > Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
> > anything.
>
> hahaha. do you control your sleeping,
> your shitting, your parasympathetic
> nervous system ? do you control
> those shadow dog ghostings from
> your genetic heritage who are always
> whispering in your subconscious ear
> all of their fears and desires ? do you wish
> to be a part of the gang wherein the gang
> makes decisions for you ? do you threaten
> to leave the herd if they don't accept you ?
> do you tell the universe that it has to bend
> over backwards to fit your little dismal plans ?
> please detail for me the length and breadth of
> this alleged control that you think everyone has.
Isn't Tang actually T'ang of Vulcan?
--
RaaN
RaaN
> "Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g5032t$cb3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > ^@%>---*=# wrote:
>
There is no necessity without desire. Can we desire not? Sure we
can. We can commit suicide... or at least play dead (or zombie)
--
RaaN
Evelyn
wrote:
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
ABSFG is not a "troll group" Charles. They are the bodhisattva
group :-)
Evelyn
Evelyn
>
> news:g5032t$cb3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ^@%>---*=# wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi L.
Of course we can't conrol those things, but there ARE things we can
control. Why not work on that, and do our best to learn not to make
things worse than they really are, by amplifying, ratcheting things
up, stirring the shit, panicking, or by complicating our lives with
pointless cravings and regrets? Those are things we really can work
with. It is one of the most valuable lessons in life and in buddhism,
I think.
Evelyn
(who is finally learning how to work with google)
:-)
Charles E Hardwidge
news:ac50e05b-a867-4552...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> ABSFG is not a "troll group" Charles. They are the bodhisattva
> group :-)
Just calling it as I see it.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
^@%>---*=#
Hi L.
can a monkey control his flying habits?
what we appear to be in control over
is itself controlled by the factors of what
appears to be our compositional nature.
even when it appears we are in control
we are simply cautioned to specific avenues
of endeavour by the limitations of what we
think is controllable in the first place.
Hollywood Lee
> can a monkey control his flying habits?
> what we appear to be in control over
> is itself controlled by the factors of what
> appears to be our compositional nature.
> even when it appears we are in control
> we are simply cautioned to specific avenues
> of endeavour by the limitations of what we
> think is controllable in the first place.
I don't think anyone is using the word "control" in such a way as to
suggest that they are not subject to "factors of what appears to be our
compositional nature."
Furhter, you and Tang seem stuck in some weird absolutist boxes with
respect to control, with him apparently suggesting that people can only
be (forever) in one of two camps - either in control or not of their
mental processes. You appear to want to argue that we have no control
of mental or physical processes by using the word control in a way that
others are not..
In any event, seems to me that at the level of experience people
generally float somewhere in between these hard-edged categories,
whether mental or physical, with opportunities for choice and action
always present.
^@%>---*=#
i'm not saying that you don't have choice but
choice is not necessarily control. you can
choose to have steaks over burgers for
lunch but that choice is determined by
a factor that you're not in control of,
mainly the fact that you have to eat,
and there are no controlling factors
over that 'choice'.
Hollywood Lee
Sure. Just search and replace control with choice.
KittyP
"^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_oGdnZxw6OeYI-nV...@earthlink.com...
Well said. We make choices all over the place - we will probably continue to
remain unhappy and/or dissatisfied until the day we understand that we are
not in control of things like circumstances, other people, or a grizzly bear
on the path. IMO
Kitty
^@%>---*=#
without asterisked requalifications ?
^@%>---*=#
"RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76d99f77-8b43-45fe...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
maybe he had an ear-ectomy
^@%>---*=#
that's the president's job
Hollywood Lee
If it makes ya happy.
^@%>---*=#
"KittyP" <kitty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bU8dk.37$Uc...@newsfe05.lga...
i'd let the grizzly have the
whole path
halfawake
Did the stars move? They didn't for me.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Evelyn
wrote:
> "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You need to clean your glasses, dear. :-)
Evelyn
Evelyn
Well stated both of you....Lee and Lee. I am coming into this thread
late, having posted what I did much earlier. I agree that control is
pretty much an illusion for the ordinary average individual, but it
isn't that we have no control either, especially those who have done
some practice. Even among those, there are things we are able to
work with a bit and there are things that raw emotion can rip through
our illusion of control even in spite of our best efforts.
We should all be humble about it, knowing that we have an "achilles
heel" so to speak. Tang talks so tough much of the time, and from my
own experience in life, those who talk tough have the tenderest hearts
of all. Those yell loudest, so that no one can see their own fear.
Life ain't for sissies and there are horrible realities like life,
death, sickness, fear, and all sorts of other boogie men out there.
I don't call Tang on it, because I have been there myself.
No reason not to work on oneself in the hopes of gaining some balance
and perspective and even if it is only the illusion of control, it is
better than the alternative.
Best,
Evelyn
Evelyn
> "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_oGdnZxw6OeYI-nV...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. One of the greatest bits of pop wisdom ever to come
up......"Shit happens..."
Evelyn
Hollywood Lee
Hi Ev. Yeah, for me, it's the little steps - the glimpses of what can
be, when viewed calmly - that make a Buddhist practice useful. Nothing
earth shattering, no inter-dimensional woo-woo, just peeks of
possibilities.
^@%>---*=#
Best,
Evelyn
but many disciplines and philosophies recommend
exasctly the opposite of control which is surrender.
in many instances it is better to surrender to the flow
of creation than to try to make it parallel with 'our
plans'.
Hollywood Lee
> but many disciplines and philosophies recommend
> exasctly the opposite of control which is surrender.
> in many instances it is better to surrender to the flow
> of creation than to try to make it parallel with 'our
> plans'.
>
It isn't clear to me that choice (S+R control function in operation) and
surrender are in opposition. They may be complimentary aspects of a
practice that both chooses skillful actions and intentions while
surrendering to the flow.
^@%>---*=#
in some lights surrender and choice can be oppositional
while in other lights they may just be an absence of each other
up to the point where surrender can indeed be seen as an act
of passive aggressive control.
Hollywood Lee
And paste can be seen as a snack by a hungry 3rd grader. But other
options seem to exist if you so choose.
Evelyn
> "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, sometimes surrender works out well and others it doesn't.
Don't you think you can have your spiritual "cake" and eat it too?
you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..... you
know the rest.
:-)
Evelyn
Evelyn
Yes. I should have read your post first before I replied. You said
it better.
Evelyn
Evelyn
> "Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Where is that little devil Stumper or Oxtail these days? He'd
usually be chiming in with "case by case" ...... and I'd agree with
him.
Evelyn
Fully Half Baked
Depends what you mean by surrender. What does it mean to you? Try to
control your thoughts and what happens? What Tang is talking about is
what is usually put around by society. I don't know why he's saying
that. Buddhism to me turns everything on it's head and gives up the
illusion of control. Nothing is controlled it's let go of. If you
react then is the way to deal with that to try and control it? To me
you allow it to be there and give up the idea that you can do anything
about it. That way you make yourself transparent to it (in a sense).
Tang Huyen
Fully Half Baked wrote:
> Depends what you mean by surrender. What does it mean to you? Try to
> control your thoughts and what happens? What Tang is talking about is
> what is usually put around by society. I don't know why he's saying
> that. Buddhism to me turns everything on it's head and gives up the
> illusion of control. Nothing is controlled it's let go of. If you
> react then is the way to deal with that to try and control it? To me
> you allow it to be there and give up the idea that you can do anything
> about it. That way you make yourself transparent to it (in a sense).
Act from strength, not from weakness, from
abundance, not from indigence, from
generosity and magnanimity, not from
niggardliness and parsimony, from
transparence, not from opacity, from
airiness and fluffiness, not from hardness
and rigidity, from humour, irony, and levity,
not from anger, bitterness and agitation,
from absence of place, not from any place.
This last pair can be enigmatic, what it
means is that you do not take any place,
stand on any platform, stop at any position,
but float free, and thus nobody can locate
you. The spotted whale gets the harpoon,
and if you cannot be placed, situated,
pinned down, nobody can attack you, or at
most if anybody attacks you, he or she
attacks air and his or her attack will blow
back to harm him or her, in closed circle.
In such absence of place, you serve as mere
mirror, and what people say about you is
pure projection, without anything to back it
up from your side.
Going back to the Buddha, he teaches the
absence of thought, the absence of volition,
the absence of doing (a-manyamana,
an-abhi-samcetana, an-abhi-samskara), not
because he is bad at thought, volition, doing,
and rejects them to minimise to himself his poor
handling of them, but because he is good at
them and finds them to be wanting. He lives
the home life, with wife and kid, (and even a
harem, though this is probably false), and
leaves it, because he finds it wanting. He
spends six years in extreme penance, and
leaves it, because he finds it wanting. Thus
when he rejects self-indulgence as well as
self-torture, he speaks from experience, and
furthermore he speaks from abundance, not
from indigence, as he knows that thay lack,
and he offers something that exceeds them in
return (as in: return on investment), namely
Nirvana, which is the absence of thought, the
absence of volition, the absence of doing.
Going back to the discussion at hand, when
one has been able to control oneself as as to
pull oneself into a single piece, then one can
surrender, in one fell swoop (which is the trick
in public case meditation). If one is scattered
and broken up, one cannot pull oneself
together, therefore one can surrender even less.
When one is already on top of things, one can
then let them go, but if one is bounced around
by them, one is at their mercy and is not in any
position to let go of them. One can well
approach one extreme by the other extreme,
e. g., one can well approach effortlessness by
way of effortfulness (which is the trick
in public case meditation), though it is true
also that one can approach one extreme
directly, e. g., one can approach effortlessness
by way of effortlessness, as in gentle,
effortless silent contemplation, where one
directly effaces oneself in favour of the world,
and lets the world act one in one's stead. But
again, this ability to efface oneself to let the
world act one presupposes that one can pull
oneself together into a single piece so that one
can then afford to get over oneself, leave
oneself empty and let the world take over and
act one, the way an empty chair can be
occupied.
In brief, surrender presupposes control, in which
one is in full control of oneself, and from that
position of strength, one can afford to let it all
go and surrender (let one's self go and surrender).
The emphasis (the leverage) is on the "all",
because if one can pull oneself together, one can
swing it and let it all go, but if one is scattered
and broken up, one is in disunity and disunion,
and can scarcely afford to let it go. Of course
one can train gradually by letting go of one thing
at a time, but such a course helps one pull oneself
together behind the scenes, so that at length one
can then gather oneself up into a ball and let it
slide off by its own weight.Externalities, such as
public cases or sitting only, scarcely matter and
are there mostly to protect the innocent. Behind
the scenes the cultivator pulls himself together
into a ball so that he can drop himself, and that
part is invariant. He grabs control of himself so
that he can drop it all and surrender. That is the
dialectics of mental culture. Somewhat sinewy
and anfractuous, but reality is supposed to be so.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is too difficult to speak of these things in generalities.
Somehow when doing that, one always ends up missing the mark. Better
to speak of specifics. We can't stop getting sick and suffering from
disease or dying. Better to acquiesce that those things are always
with us.
But we can stop torturing ourselves with the kind of thoughts that
proliferate the negative thinking about them, at least enough to get
by. So we are both "right" in that surrender is often the right
thing to do, but that there is some control we have, of the kind of
suffering we do to ourselves.
I always say that control is an illusion, so in that I agree with
you. Tang would seem to put forth that he can control everything,
and calls to test others, and calls others to test him. I think he
is both right and wrong about that. You can't argue with a virus or
a bad ticker, and you certainly can't control it. But you can
control getting yourself upset over some person arguing with you on a
newsgroup. Can we agree on that specifically?
After all, one can always cease posting or reading here, or
unsubscribe, or even killfile the offending party. But it would be
best if one could just relax, realize that "it takes all kinds" and
let it be (which might be seen as a sort of surrender) and just be OK
with it.
Evelyn
Shiva
> Act from strength, not from weakness, from
> abundance, not from indigence, from
> generosity and magnanimity, not from
> niggardliness and parsimony, from
> transparence, not from opacity, from
> airiness and fluffiness, not from hardness
> and rigidity, from humour, irony, and levity,
> not from anger, bitterness and agitation,
> from absence of place, not from any place.
>
> <snip a doodle dandy>
Good stuff, Tang. But as is your wont, you start writing a sweet little
sonata and before we know it we have a full blown Wagner opera on our hands.
But that is ok, Wagner is good too..
Fully Half Baked
wrote:
One is not in full control of oneself before surrender. You maybe be
trying to control and putting allot of energy into that but the only
way that is useful is to show you that it's fruitless and you give up
(surrender).
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:xfmdnVtVzuwKbOjV...@supernews.com...
> In brief,
bwahahahahahahahahaha
Evelyn
wrote:
Yes, and acting from a place of strength is still coming from a
position. Yesterday my teacher taught on this very thing. Even
absence of something can still be taken as a position. Not quite
sure I got exactly what he was speaking of, because the discussion
then went into a more esoteric angle, but he was teaching on a text
from Gampopa. I know that is probably someone you are not familiar
with, Tang, but you would have found the message one you were indeed
familiar with.
He gave four standpoints, and if I wasn't in such a hurry right now to
get back up the mountain I would share them. As I said, I think you
would find it familiar ground if not familiar with the names.....
Evelyn
Keynes
Interesting. Say more, Evelyn.
(And also tell what happened to your socks.)
From one point of view we have control or ought to,
and need to cultivate it for practical benefits. We begin
by paying attention in order to discover what we are
actually thinking and doing, and what karma follows.
But ultimately, who controls the controller?
By what means is a person able to be independent
of conditions? How might the controller control his
own control? And so we approach the paradox of
doing and not doing. It may all boil down to an
intuition and change of mind that sets one free.
But there is no way to 'do' it. It's essence is not-doing.
KittyP
There seems to be a difference in connotations of control perhaps? In my
opinion you're right in that we can't control what is happening in a lot of
circumstances - only affect it somewhat sometimes. Cultivating self control
in things like what he eat to stay healthy, exercise, paying attention to
the moment for us unenlightened, etc. etc.- are all possible for most. But
when it comes to someone saying something that we don't like - control isn't
needed or even comes into play regarding getting upset if we aren't attached
to our wanting to be right, heard, or whatever our personal issues might be.
In that light Tang and others are right in that there isn't the sublime calm
of letting go of that stuff with some of the people who get tormented. On
the other hand I guess I will never understand why anyone would want to test
that in another person to begin with.
Kitty
Fully Half Baked
No. But it takes looking at reality and stopping thinking about how it
'should' be. You can't pick and choose what thoughts and feelings you
can control and those you can't.
Evelyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Keynes,
The teaching this morning was totally awesome. It is still from the
same text of Gampopas, and there is just too much to try and cover
here. I need to type and consolidate and try to edit my notes into
something more coherent and digest all what he said before I try and
explain it to others.
My socks? Well that was a clever little addition I used to stick
into my real email addy so that it would foil spammers. It worked
well. But Time Warner dumped all the newsgroups, and referred me to
some paying newsgroup service, which I didn't want to do. So now I
am using gmail instead, and reading and posting from google as well,
so no munging of my address is necessary. Google has great spam
filters.
Evelyn
Evelyn
(snipped)
>
> There seems to be a difference in connotations of control perhaps?
Yes, I think so.
In my
> opinion you're right in that we can't control what is happening in a lot of
> circumstances - only affect it somewhat sometimes.
My teacher expounded on how we need to guard our selves from being
harmful to others like we guard our eyes. Few are that diligent
about it.
Cultivating self control
> in things like what he eat to stay healthy, exercise, paying attention to
> the moment for us unenlightened, etc. etc.- are all possible for most. But
> when it comes to someone saying something that we don't like - control isn't
> needed or even comes into play regarding getting upset if we aren't attached
> to our wanting to be right, heard, or whatever our personal issues might be.
Yes, exactly. But it is probably wise enough to learn to curtail
that knee jerk retort now and again. I have found that a lot of the
teachings are like that. You may not be able to be perfect, but if
you can once in a while let something pass, you are usually better off
for it. At least that is how it is for me. I regret the things I
have said more often than I have regretted the things I didn't say.
> In that light Tang and others are right in that there isn't the sublime calm
> of letting go of that stuff with some of the people who get tormented. On
> the other hand I guess I will never understand why anyone would want to test
> that in another person to begin with.
Kitty, Tang has been on this particular tangent for a long time. I
am assuming that he will continue to be on it for a long time yet to
come. I ignore it most of the time, and that is what most of the
longtime posters here do. He just loves it when someone starts with
him about it. I don't do it, because I don't think it is to his or
my benefit. It is true that I also can't imagine what he gets out of
it, other than some belief of being above those he claims to test.
But as long as he needs to do it, I will let him be with it.
Evelyn
Evelyn
Sure you can. If some emotion causes you stress and pain, and you
are able to recognize that fact, and it is something you do to
yourself, you allow the feeling to arise, feel it, recognize it as a
source of your pain, and let it fall away, just the way you do to
thoughts and situations that arise in meditation. The longer you do
it the better you get at it.
Some emotions are stronger and more compelling than others, and we
LIKE very much to replay them over and over in our heads. So all
you need to do is STOP playing them over and over in your head. Let
them go. The main problem you realize, is attachment. We are
attached to being right, to having things our way. Just STOP that,
and the pain will cease. I don't say this is easy, btw.
Attachment to self, things, even to dharmas, is still attachment. If
you are attached you will experience pain. It really is that simple.
Evelyn
Fully Half Baked
Yes simple but not neccesarily easy. Actualy you're agreeing with me
but I'm not sure you realise it. Allowing thoughts and feelings to be
there and seeing them is not the same as controlling them. It's the
opposite, you're just seeing it and not 'doing' anything with it.
KittyP
(snipped)
Yes, I think so.
>Evelyn
Evelyn-
In my case I actually only wanted to understand why people did the test
thing. I've been given some answers and that's enough for me even though it
doesn't make a lot of sense. A wonderful day to you.
Kitty
Tang Huyen
KittyP wrote:
> Evelyn-
> In my case I actually only wanted to understand why
> people did the test thing. I've been given some
> answers and that's enough for me even though it
> doesn't make a lot of sense. A wonderful day to you.
>
> Kitty
The test thing brings people out in the open and makes
them bring out things in themselves that they would
otherwise want to keep hidden.
Jen ("^@%>---*=#") wrote:
<<my daughter lives in new orleans
where voodoo and witchcraft thrive.
down there most understand that none
of that has any power over you unless
you allow it. the same holds true for
the identification and conditioning you
allow to your temporarily inherited
human agenda. trouble is, the human
agenda identification will get you into
much deeper trouble than any voodoo
ever could.>>
The test thing brings out the fact that some people
who normally proclaim strict physicalism actually
harbour deep and lasting fear of their God, meaning
the God that they carry in their head, probably from
their catechism training from their strict nuns back
in their childhood, a long time ago ("the human
agenda identification"). This God is purely subjective,
strictly sentimental, and is not the objective God out
there of the real Church (if he exists), as such people
have physically left the Chuch a long time ago.
It brings out the fact that though such physicalists
proclaim that the truth of things is to be found in
their rock-bottom physicality, such physicalists are
still subject to (still subject themselves to) voo-doo of
the flimsiest kind, namely mere words on the screen,
with nothing physical to back them up ("my
daughter lives in new orleans where voodoo and
witchcraft thrive. down there most understand that
none of that has any power over you unless you
allow it").
Of course all such voo-doo transactions onboard
are wholly free and wholly voluntary, as in this
medium on mere words on the screen, no coercion
is possible, and there is the automatic protection
of asynchronicity (at a minimum, what you don't see
is what you don't get).
Tang Huyen
Evelyn
wrote:
Hmmm.... about the voodoo stuff;
As a matter of fact, Hal Hesse once helped out a friend of mine who
had been in fear of some sort of black puja's or tibetan curses put
upon her, for blowing the whistle on an unscrupulous and crooked
lama.
Hal advised the person that if she didn't believe in the curses they
had no effect on her, but he did it in such a wonderful way, that it
even convinced the person, who happened to be very entrenched in the
kind of mindset that would allow such things to have an actual
effect.
The friend didn't listen to me when I told her the same thing, but
when Hal, a complete stranger to her, said it, somehow it had effect.
As for the rest of your post Tang, all I can say is that this test
stuff rules you and has ruled you for too long. Crashes, flipping
people, whatever, it is all for naught.
People who believe themselves to be something and express such, may
not fully believe it in their gut just yet, but they may be in a part
of a process. I am all for simply saying "OK" and letting their self-
deception pass, because they alone have to live with themselves, and
they alone know deep down that their expressed ideas are somewhat
fraudulent. Let 'em be. Let them work it out for themselves.
Unmasking or testing or exposing them is a waste of time.
I know you like to play with these kinds of ideas ...... to be the
'right fighter' who unmasks the bad guys. But it is all for
naught. You are apparently the only one who cares about it, and it
is your trip.
Other than the testing stuff, the talk of crashes and such, you have
written some extremely good stuff lately, and I get a lot out of
reading your posts, as well as Jen's and Hollywood's and Keynes, and
Dharmatroll and almost everyone here. I don't care who is a fraud or
who crashes or who believes in what deep down. Everyone is on the
path. Some at the beginning, some in the middle and some further
on. It's a personal thing. One does not cause the tender plant to
grow by pulling it up by the roots. Gently..... very gently
providing the nurturing environment will do the trick better.
Now I am off to see my teacher speaking again, this time he will be
teaching on a famous buddhist woman, Machig Lapdron who developed the
Chod practice. Now THAT alone should send you into a tizzy, cause I
know how you feel about this kind of thing. But I do enjoy it,
especially hearing about her, the realizations she had and the
circumstances of her life and practice. I like hearing about
buddhist women who fought through their cultural conditioning and
gained great spiritual realizations in a world that was slanted
against them.
Best Regards,
Evelyn
^@%>---*=#
what gets blurred is when the awe of god
becomes a fear of god.
^@%>---*=#
Best Regards,
Evelyn
kriya yoga says to be happy that you are
on the path, period. even though it may be
arduous and it may seem impossible. also,
buddha said how extremely fortunate it is
to be born human and have the opportunity
to become awakened.
halfawake
hey! fully half baked...... hmn....why does that sound familiar.
- thoroughly half-raw
------------------------------
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Evelyn
> "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, my teacher says that too. He's getting quite elderly now, but
he is still super sharp. I am very fortunate to have found the
dharma in my life and even more fortunate to see it up close and for
real in a real master. I can't begin to tell you how amazing he is.
Evelyn
Evelyn
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah but you know that the Judeo Xtian god wants to be feared. Even in
our common language we say "god fearing" meaning an upright good
person. Anyone brought up christian knows it is supposed to be a
good thing. Anyone who is a buddhist says bah humbug.
:-) :-) :-)
Evelyn
halfawake
Hm...does he ever travel and give talks? Have you mentioned his name
before? I would be interested in seeing him if he ever gives a public
talk or anything like that. Probably couldn't come to your area that
easily though, so wonder if he ever tours.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Richard Corfield
>
> Yes, my teacher says that too. He's getting quite elderly now, but
> he is still super sharp. I am very fortunate to have found the
> dharma in my life and even more fortunate to see it up close and for
> real in a real master. I can't begin to tell you how amazing he is.
A local group of Zen Buddhists had their Lama up to visit. Unfortunately
I missed it, but I wonder if next time it would be good to meet such a
teacher even of a type of Buddhism I didn't feel suited so well.
- Richard
Déjà Flu
...
Just out of curiosity, who are you talking about?
Shiva mistook one of your attacks on me as relating
to my prior Catholicism, but I've never been a catholic,
nor raised as one. I simply guessed that you were, by
putting two and two together, and I was right. It looks
here like you're working on some sort of catholic
apologetics for your own dualist dilemma, in the usual
manner. Who, other than you, gives a rat's ass about
your or anyone's imaginary "god(s)"?
Shiva doesn't like us to argue, but I'll have to call
you to task on this one. By this time you surely know
that I take "buddhism" to be nothing more than applied
science and "gods" to be primordial nonsense. That's
through direct personal experience, not books or "teachers".
How many years is it now that so many people have called
you on your obsessions and you've remained stuck in dogma
and appeals to authority, well-interpreted though they are?
My dear, *you* are the one who takes it all literally and
applies it literally. Worse, you don't simply apply it
to yourself, but to all others - you literally take yourself
literally! If that's not worth a laugh, what is?
You've lived your whole life in your own imagination,
entirely contrary to "buddhism" but perfectly fitting with
the general population of the world and the universe of dogma.
You can barely interact with people. You refuse your own
humanity in favor of your imagination. Am I wrong?
That you can paraphrase stuff into "buddhist" philosophy makes
no difference. I'll grant you a point, though - if you refuse
to use your nice shiny new rational mind, you'll indeed be open
to anything. As for the results of that, imagine babies driving
cars, grown-ups trying to cure cancer by prayer, and complacent
acceptance of the processes that lead to the current middle-east
wars that are killing thousands every month.
The unreal Catholics are after PZ for defending a UCF student for
taking a cracker out of a church. It's a complicated story:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fight_back_against_bill_donohu.php
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
So in one sense, this is hilarious and in another, it's sad.
After all, it's just about a fukkin' cracker...
It's almost a 'buddhist' argument.
BTW, my interpretation of Musashi's "open on all sides"
is nothing more than Great Doubt and Great Determination,
not some empty-headed acceptance of whatever's on television.
That includes using my brain to the fullest extent possible.
The Bobby McFerrin bit is the easy part.
Fully Half Baked
I'm not sure what you mean...
halfawake
oh, okay...........
robert
= = = = = = = = = =
norbu....@gmail.com
>
> > ABSFG is not a "troll group" Charles. They are the bodhisattva
> > group :-)
>
> Just calling it as I see it.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
ABSFG has long been the non-sectarian non-formal group of buddha-
dharma usenet...
Most posts there are sort-of sarcastic and/or humorous, and they will
likely
whomp me for tying to describe the newsgroup cuz it's much more than
that....
any of the best post on buddha-dharma usenet come from ABSFG....
perhaps we might say that it is an iconoclastic x-factor - but such
namby-
pamby yuk would probably warrant rude rejoinder...
ABSFG also produces "dross", from some points of view...
dross and meaningfulness are prolly both taken lightly there...
the light quips tend to bear the heaviest insights....
Evelyn
All good descriptions, but I liked my description better :-)
Ev
Evelyn
<Richard.Corfi...@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:
I have been very fortunate in my life, having been exposed to some
superb Zen teachers as well. The more I have studied, the more I
realize that it is the same dharma, the same truth, but the methods
differ and the externals differ. Bottom line is that it is the same
dharma sharing all the same basics. Anyone who has really studied
dharma knows this. Those who see differences as anything major, are
mixing up irrelevancies in it.
Do look into it next time you have a chance. You will only be
enriched by the opportunity.
Evelyn
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> what gets blurred is when the awe of god
> becomes a fear of god.
However we want to be rational and objective,
there remains some (probably ineradicable)
part of irrational fear in us, and the more we try
to be rational and objective (as in physicalism)
to combat it, the more it comes back to haunt us.
If we but calm down and be serene, it leaves
us alone, and may well be pacified for good, at
least so long as we remain serene, but if we try
to fight it overtly, it gains substance from our
very volition to fight it (it so to speak eats up our
volition to fight against it and thrives on it).
"Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven."
That is how negative elements live. Buddhist
practice in general is to create a space for
tolerance, to expand heaven, so that the negative
elements get swamped by the positive elements
and therefore get neutralised by them. One does
not directly address the negative elements,
because to do so would merely strengthen them
(Beecham said never to look at the brass section
as that would only make it play louder), but
merely sweetens up the deal for positive
elements, e. g., by providing them an environment
that fosters their growth, which makes the
negative elements look more and more pale and
malnourished in comparison.
"If a man throws a grain of salt into a little cup of
water, the water in that cup would become salty
and undrinkable owing to that grain of salt. But if
a man were to throw a similar grain of salt into
the river Ganges, because of the great mass of
water therein, it would not become salty and
undrinkable". Kalupahana, Causality, 131,
referring to AN, I, 250 (III, 90). See also GS, I,
228.
Those people who are subject to a severe theistic
inculcation during their childhood often choose to
revolt overtly against what they are taught, which
only fortifies it, and probably makes the awe of
God become a fear of God, as their God (the one
that they carry in their head) comes back for
revenge, in direct proportion to their revolt against
him. They can instead patiently cultivate
mindfulness, detachment, equanimity to gracefully
disengage from it, without addressing it directly. By
cultivating a vast space of tolerance and flexibility,
they indirectly make their childhood catechisms,
etc. look paltry, small-minded, out of place,
ridiculous (they drown it out by generosity and
magnanimity), and gradually they can release them
effortlessly. That is how God can be gotten rid of,
namely by abundance and munificence.
In Buddhism, the first rule is, do not resist, but
expand your mind, so that what you would want to
go away gets lost in the expanse of your mind, falls
off and does not dwell. Ultimately, the spaciousness
of your mind becomes pure openness, pure
transparence, pure invitation, with no regard to the
content that occurs in it. If Nirvana comes, fine, if
Samsara comes, fine, if God comes, fine, if the Devil
comes, fine, they are all treated equally, in
detachment and equanimity, balance and perspective,
measure and proportion, in humour, irony, levity, like
a butterfly floating hither and thither in the golden
breeze of Autumn (the simile applies to both the
subject side and the object side).
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Déjà Flu wrote:
On one hand, you say: <<Who, other than you,
gives a rat's ass about your or anyone's imaginary
"god(s)"?>>. On the other, you take <<"gods" to
be primordial nonsense>>. If you don't give a rat's
ass about "god(s)", why do you take them to be
"primordial nonsense"? Why do you keep fighting
them year after year?
But enough of such nonsense. You argue matter,
but your manner shows you up. You are angry,
bitter, agitated. You are a gramps, in your late
sixties, and at your age you should be calm, wise,
dignified. You have spent half a century faking
"full enlightenment", and now you're wasted. It
has done you no good, quite the contrary. Time to
calm down, relax and be serene, dear. Radiate
some peace and content.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
once again, in a roundabout way, you speak
of surrender. in india there is a mantra; om
nama shivaya which basically asks lord shiva
to bring the very thing you fear face to face
with you so you can see that there is absolutely
nothing to fear. in kriya yoga, and other practices,
it is said that if one is in direct communion with
god, then god must grant what one asks for.
the fear then is seen as simply a fear of the unknown,
a fear of not being able to deal with unforseen
circumstances and having no confidence in your
own ability to hit the ground running as need may
dictate.
Hollywood Lee
Bwahahaha.
Fully Half Baked
wrote:
All this is just personal bickering between you and Fu. You're both as
bad as eachother although you see yourself as the enlightened one and
he's fucked up. He sees it differently. He sees your fuckedupness more
clearly than you do. The problem with both of you is that you're not
accepting eachother just as you are with all your faults.
Richard Corfield
>>
>> A local group of Zen Buddhists had their Lama up to visit. Unfortunately
>> I missed it, but I wonder if next time it would be good to meet such a
>> teacher even of a type of Buddhism I didn't feel suited so well.
>>
>> - Richard
>
> I have been very fortunate in my life, having been exposed to some
> superb Zen teachers as well. The more I have studied, the more I
> realize that it is the same dharma, the same truth, but the methods
> differ and the externals differ. Bottom line is that it is the same
> dharma sharing all the same basics. Anyone who has really studied
> dharma knows this. Those who see differences as anything major, are
> mixing up irrelevancies in it.
>
> Do look into it next time you have a chance. You will only be
> enriched by the opportunity.
The differences are things like literal belief in a certain understanding
of reincarnation, the thread of the hungry ghost not as just metaphor
for how you'll be if you behave like that but a literal threat that you
will actually become a hungry ghost and the same idea I've seen in other
religious people that we need such threats of after-death punishment to
keep us in line.
I'd prefer not to commit to such beliefs, otherwise I may as well commit
to heaven/hell and at least fit in with my family. Otherwise the Dharma
does seem the same and there seems lots of valuable stuff there.
- Richard
jerry
>
>
> "^@%>---*=#" wrote:
>
>> what gets blurred is when the awe of god
>> becomes a fear of god.
>
> However we want to be rational and objective,
> there remains some (probably ineradicable)
> part of irrational fear in us, and the more we try
> to be rational and objective (as in physicalism)
> to combat it, the more it comes back to haunt us.
> If we but calm down and be serene, it leaves
> us alone, and may well be pacified for good, at
> least so long as we remain serene, but if we try
> to fight it overtly, it gains substance from our
> very volition to fight it (it so to speak eats up our
> volition to fight against it and thrives on it).
>
(opinion only not to be taken seriously)
to attempt to be serene is to attempt to be your idea of serene and you will
not get to the depths of serenity. You will only be successful at jumping on
the serene, not serene dualistic roller coaster. In this respect you would
be better off treating serenity as you discuss in your next paragraph by
seeing serene and not serene equally and coming to peace with both from a
middle perspective
Calm down to be serene, in that calming down causes serenity to arise, then
you have real serenity and not your idea of it. Serenity is the result of an
effective practice with calming down being its preresiquist. To calm down
enough to realise any degree of serenty, you must first face your fears and
render them ineffective at disturbing your calm. Then you can begin to get
to the depths of serenty :o)
Evelyn
<Richard.Corfi...@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are no laws saying you MUST believe in any of those things, or
that you may not either. I belong to the Kagyus and I have serious
doubts about many of the things some Kagyus believe in. But I am OK
with where I am "at" and just keep my silence when others get into
that literal stuff. I get enough real dharma out of my connection,
anhd try to keep an open mind and heart. For me it is enough.
Evelyn
Evelyn
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
My teacher is talking today about Chod. This is a practice where you
give yourself to your worst karma and fears in the form of visualized
demons.... for them to devour you. No escaping that at all.
Evelyn
Evelyn
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's doing the best he can with what he has at the time. It's all
anyone can do.
Evelyn
Evelyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly!
Evelyn
^@%>---*=#
Evelyn
in zen it is said that all fear is delusion but
rather than run the risk of semantics as to
the blurring lines bewteen unrealistic fears and
common sense living, i remember a cd i had
where they had you imagine dying in different
ways like drowning or being buried alive and
to be able to let go of the reactive mind fear
that arises was supposed to help quell any
subconscious fears of death which may be
the genesis of all fear anyway even those things
that may appear to be common sense livings
agendas.
Richard Corfield
>> of reincarnation, the thread of the hungry ghost not as just metaphor
>> for how you'll be if you behave like that but a literal threat that you
>> will actually become a hungry ghost and the same idea I've seen in other
>> religious people that we need such threats of after-death punishment to
>> keep us in line.
>>
>> I'd prefer not to commit to such beliefs, otherwise I may as well commit
>> to heaven/hell and at least fit in with my family. Otherwise the Dharma
>> does seem the same and there seems lots of valuable stuff there.
>>
>
> that you may not either. I belong to the Kagyus and I have serious
> doubts about many of the things some Kagyus believe in. But I am OK
> with where I am "at" and just keep my silence when others get into
> that literal stuff. I get enough real dharma out of my connection,
> anhd try to keep an open mind and heart. For me it is enough.
They sound wise thoughts, especially given the world we live in.
Thanks
- Richard
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> once again, in a roundabout way, you speak
> of surrender. in india there is a mantra; om
> nama shivaya which basically asks lord shiva
> to bring the very thing you fear face to face
> with you so you can see that there is absolutely
> nothing to fear. in kriya yoga, and other practices,
> it is said that if one is in direct communion with
> god, then god must grant what one asks for.
> the fear then is seen as simply a fear of the unknown,
> a fear of not being able to deal with unforseen
> circumstances and having no confidence in your
> own ability to hit the ground running as need may
> dictate.
Instead of running away from or even blocking
what it is that one fears (and which often one
doesn't even know, and this excludes death,
because everybody has some experience with
death, from relatives and friends, or merely
reading the newspapers or watching TV), one
has to open oneself up all the way, to everything
that can occur to one, including what is often
called the occult. To rule anything out ahead of
time (the way physicalists rule out anything not
having to do with matter) would be foolish,
because one has no way of knowing whether
one's framework has eliminated a priori some
things that can indeed happen. In mental culture
one would be wise to open up to everything
that may occur or not occur, without stipulating
ahead of time what it is that one will be open to
or not open to, and that choicelessness may well
be the quickest and easiest path to transcendence.
The people who are fragile or loose upstairs
should not try it, but people who are stable and
who trust themselves can go ahead and hold a
dumb, trusting, prayerful attitude to what they
don't know and open up to it, in faith that such
openness will being them to whatever their best
is, though they may not know it yet (and even if
they have heard or read of something to be
expected, like suchness or thusness [tathata],
such second-hand or tenth-hand knowledge
would still not be the real thing, and would inhibit
it rather than help it). Awakening is not a content,
has no specific content, but rather is just total
openness, transparence, invitation, so that what
happens can happen from its own side, without
obstruction from us.
You wrote:
<<my daughter lives in new orleans
where voodoo and witchcraft thrive.
down there most understand that none
of that has any power over you unless
you allow it. the same holds true for
the identification and conditioning you
allow to your temporarily inherited
human agenda. trouble is, the human
agenda identification will get you into
much deeper trouble than any voodoo
ever could.>>
Awakening is much like susceptibility to voo-doo,
in that one has to allow it, and in so doing, one
gives up all identification, especially as to what is
possible and not possible. What it is that one
opens up to, one doesn't know, but that is where
the excitement lies. One simply opens up, that's all.
Tang Huyen
Fully Half Spooked
> "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What happened to 'ordinary mind?'
halfawake
You were most succinct, that is for sure, and you were clear too. That
is all good.
On the other hand, I enjoyed Norbu trying to define the group. It is
endearing, and also adds to absfg's reputation as eclectically difficult
to define.
Even though you did it quite well.
Robert
halfawake
cool.
robert
Johm Smith
to save tax payers money because it was cheaper than hiring gladiators. See
Foutin on the Web.
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:25Sdnc3Atueaze7V...@supernews.com...
>
>
> Invisible Lurker wrote:
>
>> brightshi...@gmail.com said:
>>
>> > Invisible Lurker:
>>
>> >> Don't give him that much credit. He means
>> >> to enrage and merely amuses.
>>
>> > well he doesn't enrage me, but he....makes....me .....very sad....
>>
>> No Robert, You make you very sad.
>
> Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
> anything.
>
> "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain
> is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of
> it; and this you have the power to revoke at any
> moment." - Marcus Aurelius.
>
> "Things of themselves cannot take the least hold of
> the soul, nor have any access to her, nor deflect or
> move her; but the soul alone deflects and moves
> herself, and whatever judgements she deems it right
> to form, in conformity with them she fashions for
> herself the things that submit themselves to her from
> without." - Marcus Aurelius.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
>
>
norbu....@gmail.com
i liked your description better too. but bodhisattvas come in all
flavours...
moderated group style, apz style, trbt stange quarks, and so on.
ABSFG folks do have a a sense of dross and light both being the
parade...
- n.
anyhoo, thought i'd but in for no reason with this :
truth hurts:
an honest song:
david sylvian composer/vocals/keys
robert fripp midi guitar controlled synths
trey gunn touch-bass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Q7N6QLYxc
my nom for best song ever, exposure class...
- n.
norbu....@gmail.com
wrote:
> Invisible Lurker wrote:
> > brightshiningli...@gmail.com said:
>
> > > Invisible Lurker:
>
> > >> Don't give him that much credit. He means
> > >> to enrage and merely amuses.
>
> > > well he doesn't enrage me, but he....makes....me .....very sad....
>
> > No Robert, You make you very sad.
>
> Right. One is fully in control of how one takes
> anything.
>
> "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain
> is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of
> it; and this you have the power to revoke at any
> moment." - Marcus Aurelius.
>
> “Things of themselves cannot take the least hold of
> the soul, nor have any access to her, nor deflect or
> move her; but the soul alone deflects and moves
> herself, and whatever judgements she deems it right
> to form, in conformity with them she fashions for
> herself the things that submit themselves to her from
> without.” - Marcus Aurelius.
This is little bit is crucial for the path. Following this obvious
nod to how things happen when then notices that ideas about how
evertyhing happens ids also just ideas abouout what happens....
Aurelius was the last skeptic old style greco-roman emporer...
later emps became dogma props....
- n.
>
> Tang Huyen
Julian
I've been kidnapped by this damned thing for the past week...
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/elbow/starlings.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-6iGMomKiI
Julian
> Marcus Aurelius had 50 Christians killed in the arena at Marseilles in order
> to save tax payers money because it was cheaper than hiring gladiators. See
> Foutin on the Web.
Yeah, it was tough work being a Roman Emperor,
drove a lot of them to an early grave.
Tang Huyen
Julian wrote:
> Johm Smith:
>
> > Marcus Aurelius had 50 Christians killed in the arena at Marseilles in order
> > to save tax payers money because it was cheaper than hiring gladiators. See
> > Foutin on the Web.
>
> Yeah, it was tough work being a Roman Emperor,
> drove a lot of them to an early grave.
It is tough work being a biggy and meany on
these boards, drives a lot of them to an early
zombyhood.
Tang Huyen
RaaN
Tang Huyen
RaaN wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Julian:
>
> > > Johm Smith:
>
> > > > Marcus Aurelius had 50 Christians killed in the arena at Marseilles in order
> > > > to save tax payers money because it was cheaper than hiring gladiators. See
> > > > Foutin on the Web.
>
> > > Yeah, it was tough work being a Roman Emperor,
> > > drove a lot of them to an early grave.
>
> > It is tough work being a biggy and meany on
> > these boards, drives a lot of them to an early
> > zombyhood.
>
> Brains
Being a biggy and meany requires brawn,
not brain.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
but how do you determine through your discernment
what gets opened up to what ? consciousness arises
in form due to the combination and harmony/disharmony
that ensues between different admixtural combinations of
the basic elements and thus gives a seemingly individualized
focal point its only viable mode of support and that's the
body/mind complex. to truly open up to awakening, as such,
one needs to discern those avenues of expression that encompass
and constitute those very arenas of negotiation which are both,
at times, a help and a hindrance to opening up intuitively to
that which is prior to body/mind.
halfawake
nice song. my wife and I enjoyed it, and I sent it to my sister-in-law
in Denver, who is a big
Sylvian fan. thanks!
I am a Fripp and Eno fan myself; always nice to hear, and Sylvian is cool.
robert
= = = = = = =
halfawake
yum
RaaN
Tang Huyen
RaaN wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > RaaN:
>
> > > Tang Huyen:
>
> > > > It is tough work being a biggy and meany on
> > > > these boards, drives a lot of them to an early
> > > > zombyhood.
>
> > Being a biggy and meany requires brawn,
> > not brain.
>
> bRaaNs
Is it all right to feed you to the zombies, to revive
them and add soul back to them? It can be quite
appropriate, seeing that many of them are
physicalists who take mind to be brain's work.
"Mind is what my brain does."
Tang Huyen
Richard Corfield
>
> in zen it is said that all fear is delusion but
> rather than run the risk of semantics as to
> the blurring lines bewteen unrealistic fears and
> common sense living, i remember a cd i had
> where they had you imagine dying in different
> ways like drowning or being buried alive and
> to be able to let go of the reactive mind fear
> that arises was supposed to help quell any
> subconscious fears of death which may be
> the genesis of all fear anyway even those things
> that may appear to be common sense livings
> agendas.
>
But what's worse - the being dead or the getting there?
For me that nasty way of dieing was for my body to be slowly (if you
count a few months as slowly) and painfuly taken over by cancer while the
increasing pain killers used debilitated me both physically and mentally,
or more realisitically because of my age and the nature of the cancer
to face stronger and stronger treatment until it killed me or the cancer.
I've been close to people who died of both those causes and came close
to it myself, but at no point was "being dead" scary. The fear was always
the getting there.
Buddhism would seem to offer a way of getting through even that. I've
heard of people of other religion who have also taken that kind of thing
very well in their way. I did the best I could. It was a team thing. Many
people actually do very well in that situation.
- Richard
RaaN
wrote:
Zombies and ghosts, between them both, they lick the platter clean.
--
RaaN
^@%>---*=#
"Richard Corfield" <Richard....@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote in
message news:slrng7kuf3.7jv....@EPIA.littondale.dyndns.org...
relinquishment of survival addictions in whole
or in part can go a long way towards spiritual
understanding and many of us are faced with
decisions to do so in different ways. in some
ways even a debilitating condition like cancer
can have positive effects on someone.
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> "Richard Corfield"
>
> > But what's worse - the being dead or the getting there?
> >
> > For me that nasty way of dieing was for my body to be slowly (if you
> > count a few months as slowly) and painfuly taken over by cancer while the
> > increasing pain killers used debilitated me both physically and mentally,
> > or more realisitically because of my age and the nature of the cancer
> > to face stronger and stronger treatment until it killed me or the cancer.
> >
> > I've been close to people who died of both those causes and came close
> > to it myself, but at no point was "being dead" scary. The fear was always
> > the getting there.
> >
> > Buddhism would seem to offer a way of getting through even that. I've
> > heard of people of other religion who have also taken that kind of thing
> > very well in their way. I did the best I could. It was a team thing. Many
> > people actually do very well in that situation.
>
> relinquishment of survival addictions in whole
> or in part can go a long way towards spiritual
> understanding and many of us are faced with
> decisions to do so in different ways. in some
> ways even a debilitating condition like cancer
> can have positive effects on someone.
The object side can be frightening, going by the
usual consideration, but in Stoicism, Daoism and
Buddhism, the subject side can take it any way
that it wants, and the object side does not impose
itself on the subject side at all. Death in itself does
not impose any unvariant attitude to those who are
about to get it, but it is they who have control over
how they react to it. That is what freedom is all
about.