Re: Hollywood Lee's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo (was Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda'sKoo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
herbzet
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>
> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
> mode of clinging, views as a mode of clinging, precepts & practices as a
> mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
>
> * * *
>
> "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
> their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
> clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
> born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
> Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
> Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
> Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
> as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
> source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
> Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
> has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
> Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
> their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
> ignorance."
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
Very nice and to the point. One naturally wants to ask, what is
the source of ignorance?
Kind of an odd question -- common sense suggests that we're just
born ignorant -- it doesn't "come from" anywhere. Is this addressed
somewhere in the scriptures?
> ----------
>
> and the attainment of Nibbana:
>
> ""Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned
The word "abandonded" seems odd here. It may be a translation issue,
or it may just be figure of speech, but it suggests that igorance is
some "thing" that one has picked up, and can be put down.
Commone sense suggests that it just means that (inborn?) ignorance
is replaced by some knowledge that one picks up somewhere, somehow.
> and true knowledge has arisen in
> a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of
> true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer
> clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer
> clings to a doctrine of self.11 When he does not cling, he is not
> agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He
> understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had
> to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
Okay, great -- so what is this "true knowledge" that "has arisen in
a bhikku"? That would be very handy to know.
Any scripture on this?
--
hz
Hollywood Lee
>
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>>
>> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
Sure, but it isn't the sort of knowledge that comes from the mere
hearing/saying of the words, not an abracadabra moment where all is
revealed. Rather it is like the truth of dieting - we know the word
answer: consume fewer calories than you burn, but until implemented in
the way you live, it might as well be hidden. The truth is the truth of
discernment:
"When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
stress. This is the path to purity. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
What then are the conditions that give rise to discernment? you might
ask. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html
What seems to happen is that these sorts of natural questions keep
looping back to answers grounded in different aspects of the 4 noble
truths, with the Buddha answering 3 of this, 12 of that, and on. All
just different analytical slicings of the truths of suffering and its
cessation.
herbzet
> "When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
> stress. This is the path to purity. "
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
>
> What then are the conditions that give rise to discernment? you might
> ask. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html
>
> What seems to happen is that these sorts of natural questions keep
> looping back to answers grounded in different aspects of the 4 noble
> truths, with the Buddha answering 3 of this, 12 of that, and on. All
> just different analytical slicings of the truths of suffering and its
> cessation.
Thanks, very good!
One more question (that's what they all say, eh?):
Can you say anthing about the distinction (if any) between
discernment and discrimination? In english, they mean almost
the same thing sometimes.
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > What seems to happen is that these sorts of natural questions keep
> > looping back to answers grounded in different aspects of the 4 noble
> > truths, with the Buddha answering 3 of this, 12 of that, and on. All
> > just different analytical slicings of the truths of suffering and its
> > cessation.
>
> Thanks, very good!
>
> One more question (that's what they all say, eh?):
>
> Can you say anthing about the distinction (if any) between
> discernment and discrimination? In english, they mean almost
> the same thing sometimes.
>
> --
> hz
The meaning of discernment is of finding a single (or group of)
answers or results, while discrimination is merely the separation of
things by their characteristics (and does not imply a negative
attitude regardless of terms being used such as racial
discrimination).
One problem is that these are all translations from source materials
and the actual meanings may be quite different from the intended
meanings. I don't think it's much useful to ponder words versus words
in this area.
-
Hollywood Lee
>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
>> stress. This is the path to purity. "
>>
>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
>>
>> What then are the conditions that give rise to discernment? you might
>> ask. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html
>>
>> What seems to happen is that these sorts of natural questions keep
>> looping back to answers grounded in different aspects of the 4 noble
>> truths, with the Buddha answering 3 of this, 12 of that, and on. All
>> just different analytical slicings of the truths of suffering and its
>> cessation.
>
> Thanks, very good!
>
> One more question (that's what they all say, eh?):
>
> Can you say anthing about the distinction (if any) between
> discernment and discrimination? In english, they mean almost
> the same thing sometimes.
Just off the top of my head, I think the word discrimination often has a
more negative tone in some people's minds, suggesting forbidden dualisms
or reactivity, whereas discernment has more a sense of reflection and
clear thinking about it for me. Not sure how/if there is any such
distinction made in the Buddhist context.
herbzet
Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2009 9:43 PM, herbzet wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >
> >> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
> >>
> >> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
> >> mode of clinging, views as a mode of clinging, precepts& practices as a
> >> mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
> >> their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
> >> clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
> >> born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
> >> Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
> >> Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
> >> Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
> >> as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
> >> source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
> >> Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
> >> has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
> >> Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
> >> their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
> >> ignorance."
> >>
> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
[...]
> >> ""Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in
> >> a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of
> >> true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer
> >> clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer
> >> clings to a doctrine of self.11 When he does not cling, he is not
> >> agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He
> >> understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had
> >> to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"
> >>
> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
> >
> > Okay, great -- so what is this "true knowledge" that "has arisen in
> > a bhikku"? That would be very handy to know.
> >
> > Any scripture on this?
>
> Sure, but it isn't the sort of knowledge that comes from the mere
> hearing/saying of the words, not an abracadabra moment where all is
> revealed. Rather it is like the truth of dieting - we know the word
> answer: consume fewer calories than you burn, but until implemented in
> the way you live, it might as well be hidden. The truth is the truth of
> discernment:
>
> "When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
> stress. This is the path to purity. "
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
1) Forgot to mention: I am particularly enchanted with
"...'All phenomena are not-self'..." !
2) I noticed that "phenomena" are not mentioned in the list "these four kinds
of clinging have craving as their source, ... Craving has feeling as its
source ... Feeling has contact as its source... etc., which doesn't bother
me.
3) Then I noticed that "fabrications" are not mentioned in the list either,
I had first taken them to be what *was* mentioned, "formations', which
bothers me slightly. Are 'fabrications' the same as "formations"?
If they don't mean the same, then there's no connection from the
list-scripture
to the discernment-scripture, at least not to casual inspection.
4) But that doesn't mean I'm not particularly enchanted with
"...'All phenomena are not-self'..."
!!!
--
hz
Hollywood Lee
>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
>> stress. This is the path to purity. "
>>
>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
>
> 1) Forgot to mention: I am particularly enchanted with
>
> "...'All phenomena are not-self'..." !
>
> 2) I noticed that "phenomena" are not mentioned in the list "these four kinds
> of clinging have craving as their source, ... Craving has feeling as its
> source ... Feeling has contact as its source... etc., which doesn't bother
> me.
>
> 3) Then I noticed that "fabrications" are not mentioned in the list either,
> I had first taken them to be what *was* mentioned, "formations', which
> bothers me slightly. Are 'fabrications' the same as "formations"?
>
> If they don't mean the same, then there's no connection from the
> list-scripture
> to the discernment-scripture, at least not to casual inspection.
>
> 4) But that doesn't mean I'm not particularly enchanted with
>
> "...'All phenomena are not-self'..."
I think the underlying word is "sankhara" translated variously as
fabrications, formations, or mental fashionings. See a nice essay at
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html#fashionings
herbzet
> >> "When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
> >> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> >> with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
> >> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> >> discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
> >> stress. This is the path to purity. "
> >>
> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277
> >
> > 1) Forgot to mention: I am particularly enchanted with
> >
> > "...'All phenomena are not-self'..." !
> >
> > 2) I noticed that "phenomena" are not mentioned in the list "these four kinds
> > of clinging have craving as their source, ... Craving has feeling as its
> > source ... Feeling has contact as its source... etc., which doesn't bother
> > me.
> >
> > 3) Then I noticed that "fabrications" are not mentioned in the list either,
> > I had first taken them to be what *was* mentioned, "formations', which
> > bothers me slightly. Are 'fabrications' the same as "formations"?
> >
> > If they don't mean the same, then there's no connection from the
> > list-scripture
> > to the discernment-scripture, at least not to casual inspection.
> >
> > 4) But that doesn't mean I'm not particularly enchanted with
> >
> > "...'All phenomena are not-self'..."
>
> I think the underlying word is "sankhara" translated variously as
> fabrications, formations, or mental fashionings. See a nice essay at
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html#fashionings
Yes, thank you. The wiki page on "sankhara" is also good, with links
to related stuff.
Related to this: On the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidy%C4%81_(Buddhism)
the word "advidya" (Sanscrit) or avijja(Pali) is given as both meaning
"ignorance" and as "delusion". As ignorance, it is at the bottom of the
chain of dependent origination, as in your list-scripture (as I have been
calling it).
As delusion, it is one of the three defilements, or poisons: greed, hatred,
and advijja, delusion.
I guess discernment is the antidote to advijja, whether in the form of
ignorance or delusion.
However, it is odd that ignorance would seem not to have a cause, as being
inborn,
whereas we would expect that delusion has its origin in something -- probably,
ultimately, in ignorance ...
--
hz
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> herbzet:
>
> > 4) But that doesn't mean I'm not particularly enchanted with
> >
> > "...'All phenomena are not-self'..."
>
> I think the underlying word is "sankhara" translated variously as
> fabrications, formations, or mental fashionings. See a nice essay at
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html#fashionings
No. All compositions (samskara-s, or compounded
things) are impermanent, all compositions
(samskara-s, or compounded things) are suffering,
all quality-thing-events (dharma-s, in the most
general sense, including Nirvana) are devoid of self,
Nirvana is peaceful.
In Buddhism, the first two marks, impermanence
and suffering, concern only the mental
compositions, which are the fourth aggregate
(which includes the volitions). The world, our
body, etc. are impermanent, not in themselves,
but only as they impact us, especially our
expectation, which include our mentation. If we
don't expect, they impact us much less, though
there is our body which is largely independent
of our wishes and desires.
I agree with the late Ceylonese scholar K. N.
Jayatilleke, �Some Problems of Translation and
Interpretation (I),� University of Ceylon Review,
VIII (1949), 218, that sankhara originally means
�aspects of will conscious and unconscious,�
but that the moralising monks after the Buddha�s
death expand the meaning to all �compounded
things,� like in the famous expression �all
compounded things are impermanent� (sabbe sankhara
anicca) which is one of the three or four summaries
of the Law (dharmoddesa). Jayatilleke (ibid., 222)
says that except for that summary, �there isn�t a
single instance in the Canon of the word being used
of a material object or objects compounded of
elements.� If his reasoning is correct, then the
Buddha is even more �mentalist� than is commonly
supposed: sankhara means only composition of mind,
not naturally compounded thing. (It is quite a
shame that Jayatilleke�s article has not received
anywhere near the attention it deserves).
The compositions (sa.nkhaara, the fourth aggregate)
are impermanent and suffering. All thing-events
(dhamma, including Nirvana) are devoid of self.
The three marks (lak.sa.na, lakkha.na), the three
or four seals (dharma-mudraa), the four summaries
of the Law (dharmoddaana) are listed at Lamotte,
Vimalakirti, 165, n. 51.
1. "All the compositions are impermanent" (Sanskrit
anityaa.h sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe
sa.nkhaaraa aniccaa).
2. "All the compositions are suffering" (Sanskrit
du.hkhaa.h sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe
sa.nkhaaraa dukkhaa).
3. "All the thing-events are no-self" (Sanskrit
anaatmaanaa.h sarva-dharmaa.h, Pali sabbe dhammaa
anattaa). <Notice the switch from the compositions
to thing-events>
4. "Nirvana is peaceful" (nirvaa.na.m 'saantam,
'saanta.m nirvaa.nam, both in Sanskrit) is the
third or fourth, depending on sources (not in Pali).
<It happens in this life>
The Chinese Conjoined Agama (Samyukta-Agama) has
four: all compositions are impermanent, all
compositions are suffering, all thing-events are
without self, Nirvana is peaceful. 66b14,
66c7 and 66c21.
Most Great Vehiclistic sources have the four. The
Tibetans tend to follow All-Exists,
Root-All-Exists, and Great Vehiclistic sources,
and therefore mention four.
That said, Nirvana, which is peaceful and happy,
is not the unconditioned, but the *umcomposed*,
the state in which all compositions (including
the volitions) are quiesced whilst one still is
fully aware of what happens. The Buddha defines
it as the calming of all the compositions
(sabba-sankhara-samatho). When all the
compositions are quiesced, no more suffering
occurs and happiness and joy occur, and that state
is Nibbana. Even it is devoid of self.
Thus the person experiencing Nirvana is just like
us, still lives in the same world as we do, but
just does not compose the compositions (including
the volitions).
He has not changed the world -- has not escaped
into another world which would be
unconditioned -- but has simply calmed himself
down all the way, and quiesced his compositions
(including the volitions).
Punnie said in "Re: ScriptureAuthor: What is Soul?
(in one sentence, no quote)", 2002-07-19:
<<Without cause and condition, again this applies
only to nibbana, although the recursiveness of this
expression starts to get into dodgy ground.>>
Later in the same post, he added: <<Nibbana is not
an aspect of anything, nor is there any
"hypostasis" to be found anywhere in Buddhism.>>
To Punnie, nibbana is outside of causes and
conditions, and is not an aspect of anything.
"But monks when one has understood the impermanence
of form, its change, fading away, and cessation,
and when one sees as it really is with correct
wisdom thus: 'In the past and also now all form is
impermanent, suffering, and subject to change,'
then sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
despair are abandoned.
With their abandonment, one does not become
agitated. Being unagitated, one dwells happily. A
monk who dwells happily is said to be
blown-out/quenched/cooled-down with regard to that
aspect (tad-a.nga-nibbuto)." SN, III, 43 (22, 43),
Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses, 883.
Anga means part, Latin angulus: angle, corner, so
tad-a.nga-nibbuto means
blown-out/quenched/cooled-down with regard to that
part/angle/aspect/respect/side, and nibbana is
nothing other than our very same world, but
perceived in abandonement, in letting go, without
overlay of baskets and cages that normally (in
delusion) would lead one to be agitated, such as
permanence and essence, especially essence as
condensed in the self.
Whatever one abandons, one perceives it without
agitation, one is blown-out/quenched/cooled-down
with regard to that aspect.
Notice that such a process happens entirely in
*our* world. No other world is involved, even less
an ideal world that would be "unconditioned" and
with essence. The only thing that has changed is
the way one takes the world, whether in agitation
or in calm, in suffering or in happiness. And any
suffering (at least mental suffering) is
self-inflicted.
For such a person, the world is perfectly all right.
Or at least, it doesn't bother him. He is at peace
with it.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
>>>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
>>>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
I think this becomes somewhat circular, though not necessarily in a bad
way. The cause or condition for ignorance is as follows:
"And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the
cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of
ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of
dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the
way leading to the cessation of dukkha � this is called ignorance. With
the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the
cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way
leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path;
that is, right view... right concentration."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66
Hollywood Lee
> Interpretation (I),� University of Ceylon Review,
> VIII (1949), 218, that sankhara originally means
> but that the moralising monks after the Buddha�s
> death expand the meaning to all �compounded
> things,� like in the famous expression �all
> compounded things are impermanent� (sabbe sankhara
> anicca) which is one of the three or four summaries
> of the Law (dharmoddesa). Jayatilleke (ibid., 222)
> single instance in the Canon of the word being used
> of a material object or objects compounded of
> Buddha is even more �mentalist� than is commonly
> supposed: sankhara means only composition of mind,
> not naturally compounded thing. (It is quite a
Thanks. I was going to post an earlier version of this (as you've noted
this point on various occasions) but couldn't find it in google news.
Nicely said and sorry to herb if i gave the impression that I was
talking about anything other than mental compositions.
zenworm
wrote:
without mental fermentation
unattached to psychological time
Gratitude
this Moment
ZN
DharmaTroll
You are in complete agreement with the Trollpa on this one.
Great to see you back to posting Buddhist stuff. Awesome.
On Oct 23, 7:26 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
This is a crucial point, I think. Excellent!
> the state in which all compositions (including
> the volitions) are quiesced whilst one still is
> fully aware of what happens.
Now the practical question that comes up for me here is that in
everyday life, an arahant is in a restaurant. He orders food. He is
serene and has no craving, but he chooses from the menu, and has the
intention to eat the meal. What I want is more of an explanation and
definition of 'quieting the compositions' such that the arahant is
able to choose an entree he likes, and use his mental capacities to do
that, without any craving or baggage coming up. Is that what you mean
when you say that "all compositions (including the volitions) are
quiesced whilst one still is fully aware of what happens", then that
makes a lot of sense to me.
> The Buddha defines
> it as the calming of all the compositions
> (sabba-sankhara-samatho). When all the
> compositions are quiesced, no more suffering
> occurs and happiness and joy occur, and that state
> is Nibbana. Even it is devoid of self.
In the Sutta Pitaka, concentration (samatha) is mentioned in terms of
the "internal serenity of mind" (ajjhattaṃ ceto-samathassa) and your
"calming of the compositions" (sabba-saṅkhāra-samatho). The Buddha
states in various places that samatha developed in tandem with insight
(vipassana) leads to nibbana. And the internal stilling of thought
(ajjhattaṃ cetosamatha) is achieved through the steadying
(saṇṭhapeti), composing (sannisādeti), unification (ekodi) and
concentration (samādahāti) of the mind.
Tang, could you compare and contrast these three terms (samatha,
ajjhattaṃ ceto-samathassa, sabba-saṅkhāra-samatho), as I see these
three and the differences are probably important here.
For instance, in the Tatiya-samādhi Sutta (Third Concentration
Discourse), a monk who has not yet "attained the internal serenity
of mind" (lābhī ajjhattaṃ ceto-samathassa) asks what to do to attain
this: "He should approach an individual who has attained attained the
internal serenity of mind and ask him, 'How should the mind be
steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be
unified? How should it be concentrated?' The latter will answer in
line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied
in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The
mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in
this way.' Then eventually the former will become one who has attained
attained the internal serenity of mind."
Having practiced lots of Vipassana, teachers in this school tend to
stress that nibbana is achieved with the combination of serenity and
insight, that both these factors are necessary and jointly sufficient
for achieving nibbana. Here's an example from the Kala Sutta "Time
Discourse":
Cattārome bhikkhave kālā. Katame cattāro?
Kālena dhammasavaṇaṃ,
kālena dhammasākacchā,
kālena samatho, kālena vipassanā.
Ime kho bhikkhave cattāro kālāti.
"Monks, there are four times. What four?
Time for hearing the Dhamma,
Time for talking about Dhamma,
Time for serenity, time for insight.
These, monks, are the four times.
And then the following sutta, the Dutiya-Kāla Sutta ("Time Discourse
II") states that these four times lead to the destruction of mental
taints (anupubbena āsavānaṃ khayaṃ).
And in the Yuganaddha Sutta ("In Tandem Discourse"), Ananda reported
that people attain arahantship using serenity and insight in one of
three ways:
a) develop serenity and then insight (samatha-pubbangamam vipassanam)
b) develop insight and then serenity (vipassana-pubbangamam samatham)
c) they develop serenity and insight in tandem (samatha-vipassanam
yuganaddham).
In fact, insight is usually stressed more than serenity, but that may
simply be the current trend in American Buddhism.
> Thus the person experiencing Nirvana is just like
> us, still lives in the same world as we do, but
> just does not compose the compositions (including
> the volitions).
>
> He has not changed the world -- has not escaped
> into another world which would be
> unconditioned -- but has simply calmed himself
> down all the way, and quiesced his compositions
> (including the volitions).
Wonderfully stated! This again is exactly the Trollpa's view, which
I've been arguing for in various posts over the past weeks.
>
> Punnie said in "Re: ScriptureAuthor: What is Soul?
> (in one sentence, no quote)", 2002-07-19:
>
> <<Without cause and condition, again this applies
> only to nibbana, although the recursiveness of this
> expression starts to get into dodgy ground.>>
>
> Later in the same post, he added: <<Nibbana is not
> an aspect of anything, nor is there any
> "hypostasis" to be found anywhere in Buddhism.>>
>
> To Punnie, nibbana is outside of causes and
> conditions, and is not an aspect of anything.
>
> "But monks when one has understood the impermanence
> of form, its change, fading away, and cessation,
> and when one sees as it really is with correct
> wisdom thus: 'In the past and also now all form is
> impermanent, suffering, and subject to change,'
> then sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
> despair are abandoned.
> With their abandonment, one does not become
> agitated. Being unagitated, one dwells happily. A
> monk who dwells happily is said to beblown-out/quenched/cooled-down with regard to that
> aspect (tad-a.nga-nibbuto)." SN, III, 43 (22, 43),
> Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses, 883.
>
> Anga means part, Latin angulus: angle, corner, so
> tad-a.nga-nibbuto meansblown-out/quenched/cooled-down with regard to that
> part/angle/aspect/respect/side, and nibbana is
> nothing other than our very same world, but
> perceived in abandonement, in letting go, without
> overlay of baskets and cages that normally (in
> delusion) would lead one to be agitated, such as
> permanence and essence, especially essence as
> condensed in the self.
>
> Whatever one abandons, one perceives it without
> agitation, one isblown-out/quenched/cooled-down
> with regard to that aspect.
>
> Notice that such a process happens entirely in
> *our* world. No other world is involved, even less
> an ideal world that would be "unconditioned" and
> with essence.
Exactly! In Trollpa terms, "no woo-woo added".
> The only thing that has changed is
> the way one takes the world, whether in agitation
> or in calm, in suffering or in happiness. And any
> suffering (at least mental suffering) is
> self-inflicted.
Right!
>
> For such a person, the world is perfectly all right.
> Or at least, it doesn't bother him. He is at peace
> with it.
>
> Tang Huyen
He can be at peace with it, but still want to work to make it better.
That's a crucial point. I had a conversation this week with a
practicing Buddhist who is also a strong political activist. She can't
even have conversations with people who oppose her view without
getting angry and red in the face. Yet she considers her anger to be a
measure of her compassion and her wanting to improve the world. My
reply was to screw politics and work on her practice and attachment
and investigate her anger and stop attributing it outside herself. And
that only when she is a hell of a lot more serene and doesn't get
angry and starts to see the world as perfectly alright and she doesn't
have a stake in her position, will she then most effectively be able
to work to make things better. "You can act and vote and so forth
without having to be pissed off," I said. "No, I can't," she replied.
Anyway, that's where we left it, and she said let's discuss it more
next time we hang out together.
--DharmaTroll
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just
gargle."
-Robert Newton Anthony
Keynes
wrote:
>
>Having practiced lots of Vipassana, teachers in this school tend to
>stress that nibbana is achieved with the combination of serenity and
>insight, that both these factors are necessary and jointly sufficient
>for achieving nibbana. Here's an example from the Kala Sutta "Time
>Discourse":
What is this 'insight'? Why don't the teachers just say what
it is in plain language, so one doesn't have to find it for
himself? Surely this insight is something that can be told
and described. Why don't they just print it on a big balloon
and fly it around the world so that everyone who looks up
will have that mysterious insight and be awakened right away?
Are they peddling some kind of woo woo? Looks mighty
suspicious. If they can't say it in words, pictures, math, or
music, or mime it at least, what have they got?
Ask the cat behind the sofa?
DharmaTroll
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:08:17 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Having practiced lots of Vipassana, teachers in this school tend to
> >stress that nibbana is achieved with the combination of serenity and
> >insight, that both these factors are necessary and jointly sufficient
> >for achieving nibbana. Here's an example from the Kala Sutta "Time
> >Discourse":
>
> What is this 'insight'? Why don't the teachers just say what
> it is in plain language, so one doesn't have to find it for
> himself? Surely this insight is something that can be told
> and described. Why don't they just print it on a big balloon
Sorry, nutter dude, but there isn't an 'insight' for you to print on
your big balloon. Rather than the Keynes' practice of "deny the
existence of the world, and then make shit up about Transcendental
NonDual Undifferentiated Fairy Dust," vipassana, or insight
meditation, is about being here, in the body, in the world, paying
attention. As opposed to your 'mindless' posts, 'insight' meditation
is the practice of 'mindfulness': that is, it focuses on the deep
interconnection between mind and body, which can be experienced
directly by disciplined attention to the physical sensations that form
the life of the body, and that continuously interconnect and condition
the life of the mind. You wouldn't like it, Keynes, because it's
scientific -- that is, it's based on observation and paying close
attention to what is, rather than on clinging to dogma and
metaphysical speculation, so a gas-bag like yourself is probably
better off sticking with your hot-air balloon.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 1:53 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:08:17 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Having practiced lots of Vipassana, teachers in this school tend to
>> >stress that nibbana is achieved with the combination of serenity and
>> >insight, that both these factors are necessary and jointly sufficient
>> >for achieving nibbana. Here's an example from the Kala Sutta "Time
>> >Discourse":
>>
>> What is this 'insight'? Why don't the teachers just say what
>> it is in plain language, so one doesn't have to find it for
>> himself? Surely this insight is something that can be told
>> and described. Why don't they just print it on a big balloon
>
>Sorry, nutter dude, but there isn't an 'insight' for you to print on
>your big balloon. Rather than the Keynes' practice of "deny the
>existence of the world, and then make shit up about Transcendental
>NonDual Undifferentiated Fairy Dust,"
Have you told your psychiatrist about this obsession?
(He might put you in his next book, "Almonds and Coconuts".)
>vipassana, or insight
>meditation, is about being here, in the body, in the world, paying
>attention.
Are you paying attention?
Hard to believe that you know what you're
saying or doing. Drifting and dreaming.
Making an ass of yourself.
>As opposed to your 'mindless' posts, 'insight' meditation
>is the practice of 'mindfulness': that is, it focuses on the deep
>interconnection between mind and body, which can be experienced
>directly by disciplined attention
Then why don't you have any discipline?
Why aren't you paying attention?
Why aren't you mindful?
>to the physical sensations that form the life of the body, and that
>continuously interconnect and condition the life of the mind.
That's not insight. That's exercise.
Aren't you supposed to watch and let it all come and go
without discrimination or discursive reporting?
That's training, but it's not insight.
If it was insight (as you define it) then it could be
told about logically and scientifically. But there's no
one who has ever told anybody else what 'experience' is.
'Insight' is just code for woo woo.
If it wasn't, then it could be clearly explained,
and no one would have to do it for himself.
(Makes me smile at all your books of the
'greatest thinkers'. You collect them so you
don't ever have to do any thinking yourself.)
>You wouldn't like it, Keynes, because it's
>scientific -- that is, it's based on observation and paying close
>attention to what is, rather than on clinging to dogma and
>metaphysical speculation, so a gas-bag like yourself is probably
>better off sticking with your hot-air balloon.
>
How many folks have read that, and thought that, and tried that,
and came up unawakened? (Besides yourself.) I don't think you've
defined insight. Nobody has, come to that. It's deep woo woo territory.
Pragmatic, scientific woo woo though. LOL
"I won't hear or see anything that I don't want to.
Pull that on me and I'll go ape shit and run off at the mouth.
I can't control myself so I pretend that I don't want to.
Besides there's nothing to learn that I don't already know."
--- Drama Troll, King of the Klingons
herbzet
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > herbzet:
> >
> > > 4) But that doesn't mean I'm not particularly enchanted with
> > >
> > > "...'All phenomena are not-self'..."
> >
> > I think the underlying word is "sankhara" translated variously as
> > fabrications, formations, or mental fashionings. See a nice essay at
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html#fashionings
>
> No.
I'm pretty sure HL was responding to my previous question about
whether "formations" are different from "fabrications".
> All compositions (samskara-s, or compounded
> things) are impermanent, all compositions
> (samskara-s, or compounded things) are suffering,
> all quality-thing-events (dharma-s, in the most
> general sense, including Nirvana) are devoid of self,
> Nirvana is peaceful.
Nice elucidation in any case, though I think it's
sort of a misfire.
(I don't disagree, but wonder who would take "sankhara"
as meaning something other than mental formations
or fabrications?)
In a slightly different direction:
In the Wiki article on sankhara, it points out that
"sankhara" has two meanings:
"The word means 'that which has been put together' and
'that which puts together'. In the first (passive) sense,
saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but
specifically to all mental "dispositions". These are called
'volitional formations' because they are formed as a result
of volition. In the second (active) sense of the word,
saṅkhāra refers to that faculty of the mind/brain
apparatus (sankhara-khandha) that puts together those
formations."
If this is is so, then it seems that some care in
taking note of context is called for -- unless,
scripturally, one usage is always distinguished
by the suffix "-khanda".
(I wonder what "conditioned" means here in "conditioned
phenomena"; but see further below.)
The Wiki article also contains an interesting interpretation
of some scripture:
"Tradition relates that after the Buddha's complete enlightenment
he uttered the following words (English and Pali):
'Seeking but not finding the housebuilder,
I have traveled through the round of countless births.
How painful is birth over and over again.
Oh housebuilder! You have now been caught!
You shall not build a house again.
Your rafters have been broken. Your ridgepole demolished.
The unconditioned consciousness has been attained.
And every kind of craving has been destroyed.'
(Dhammapāda, verses 153,154)
Aneka jāti samsāraṃ sandha vissam anibhissam
Gahakaraka gavesanto dukkhajāti punappunam
Gahakaraka ditthosi puna geham nakahasi
Sabba te phasuka bagga gahakutam visamkhatam
Visamkhāragatam cittam tanhanam khayamajjhaga.
"The 'housebuilder' to which the Buddha refers is just this
mental faculty of sankhāra-khandha whose products, the
volitional formations, are conditioned[!] by ignorance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankhara
> The compositions (sa.nkhaara, the fourth aggregate)
> are impermanent and suffering. All thing-events
> (dhamma, including Nirvana) are devoid of self.
>
> The three marks (lak.sa.na, lakkha.na), the three
> or four seals (dharma-mudraa), the four summaries
> of the Law (dharmoddaana) are listed at Lamotte,
> Vimalakirti, 165, n. 51.
>
> 1. "All the compositions are impermanent" (Sanskrit
> anityaa.h sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe
> sa.nkhaaraa aniccaa).
>
> 2. "All the compositions are suffering" (Sanskrit
> du.hkhaa.h sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe
> sa.nkhaaraa dukkhaa).
>
> 3. "All the thing-events are no-self" (Sanskrit
> anaatmaanaa.h sarva-dharmaa.h, Pali sabbe dhammaa
> anattaa). <Notice the switch from the compositions
> to thing-events>
Ok!
> 4. "Nirvana is peaceful" (nirvaa.na.m 'saantam,
> 'saanta.m nirvaa.nam, both in Sanskrit) is the
> third or fourth, depending on sources (not in Pali).
> <It happens in this life>
>
> The Chinese Conjoined Agama (Samyukta-Agama) has
> four: all compositions are impermanent, all
> compositions are suffering, all thing-events are
> without self, Nirvana is peaceful. 66b14,
> 66c7 and 66c21.
>
> Most Great Vehiclistic sources have the four. The
> Tibetans tend to follow All-Exists,
> Root-All-Exists, and Great Vehiclistic sources,
> and therefore mention four.
>
> That said, Nirvana, which is peaceful and happy,
> is not the unconditioned,
What does "unconditioned" mean? Like they say
about Chinese food, after an hour I forget
what it's supposed to mean.
I have a lingering impresssion that it means
something that I would call "limited" -- you
take some raw reality, or raw percept of reality,
and make something graspable out of it by limiting
it in its in-itself fullness or suchness.
Or something like that.
But anyway, what does "unconditioned" mean here?
> but the *umcomposed*,
> the state in which all compositions (including
> the volitions) are quiesced whilst one still is
> fully aware of what happens. The Buddha defines
> it as the calming of all the compositions
> (sabba-sankhara-samatho). When all the
> compositions are quiesced, no more suffering
> occurs and happiness and joy occur, and that state
> is Nibbana. Even it is devoid of self.
>
> Thus the person experiencing Nirvana is just like
> us, still lives in the same world as we do, but
> just does not compose the compositions (including
> the volitions).
One wonders -- Are the volitions compositions, or
are they what does the composing? (Or ... third
choice?)
--
hz
herbzet
I think I forgot to say: Thanks!
--
hz
herbzet
> >>>> "When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
> >>>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> >>>> with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
> >>>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> >>>> discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
Right. I didn't intend to suggest that there was anything logically
suspect going on. I think it is reasonable to guess at this point
that we can make a case for ignorance being the root cause of all
the bad stuff (including delusion), with discernment being the cure.
(It still strikes me as a little odd that the word "avijja" would
be used for both "ignorance" and "delusion". They don't otherwise
seem to be at a loss for words in ancient Pali!)
> The cause or condition for ignorance is as follows:
>
> "And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the
> cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of
> ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of
> dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the
> way leading to the cessation of dukkha � this is called ignorance. With
> the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the
> cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way
> leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path;
> that is, right view... right concentration."
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66
Ok, good.
A new (for me) piece of imagery for the word "dukkha" that I like:
"In classic Sanskrit, the term duḥkha was often compared to a large
potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not
turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukha, which brought
to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
Although the derivation given there of "dukka" (from "dus-kha" or "dus-stha")
is not obviously related to the derivation for "sukha", we have:
"According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of "sukha" is
"said to be su ["good"] + kha ["aperture"] and to mean originally
'having a good axle-hole'..." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda
"sukha" denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
--
hz
herbzet
> > Jayatilleke, �Some Problems of Translation and
> > Interpretation (I),� University of Ceylon Review,
> > VIII (1949), 218, that sankhara originally means
> > �aspects of will conscious and unconscious,�
> > but that the moralising monks after the Buddha�s
> > death expand the meaning to all �compounded
> > things,� like in the famous expression �all
> > compounded things are impermanent� (sabbe sankhara
> > anicca) which is one of the three or four summaries
> > of the Law (dharmoddesa). Jayatilleke (ibid., 222)
> > says that except for that summary, �there isn�t a
> > single instance in the Canon of the word being used
> > of a material object or objects compounded of
> > elements.� If his reasoning is correct, then the
> > Buddha is even more �mentalist� than is commonly
> > supposed: sankhara means only composition of mind,
> > not naturally compounded thing. (It is quite a
> > shame that Jayatilleke�s article has not received
No problem ... it didn't occur to me to take it in any other way
than mental formations/fabrications.
--
hz
Hollywood Lee
>>>>>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
>>>>>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
>> the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the
>> cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way
>> leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path;
>> that is, right view... right concentration."
>>
>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66
>
> Ok, good.
>
> A new (for me) piece of imagery for the word "dukkha" that I like:
>
> potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not
> turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukha, which brought
> to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
>
> Although the derivation given there of "dukka" (from "dus-kha" or "dus-stha")
> is not obviously related to the derivation for "sukha", we have:
>
> "According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of "sukha" is
> "said to be su ["good"] + kha ["aperture"] and to mean originally
> 'having a good axle-hole'..." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda
> "sukha" denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots)."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
So when someone tells me that I'm a real axle-hole, that's a good thing?
At least I think that's what they said.
zenworm
> >>>>>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> >>>>>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> >> the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the
> >> cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way
> >> leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path;
> >> that is, right view... right concentration."
>
> >>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66
>
> > Ok, good.
>
> > A new (for me) piece of imagery for the word "dukkha" that I like:
>
> > "In classic Sanskrit, the term duḥkha was often compared to a large
> > potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not
> > turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukha, which brought
> > to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
>
> > Although the derivation given there of "dukka" (from "dus-kha" or "dus-stha")
> > is not obviously related to the derivation for "sukha", we have:
>
> > "According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of "sukha" is
> > "said to be su ["good"] + kha ["aperture"] and to mean originally
> > 'having a good axle-hole'..." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda
> > "sukha" denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots)."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
>
> So when someone tells me that I'm a real axle-hole, that's a good thing?
> At least I think that's what they said.
emptiness makes it useful
ZN ;D
herbzet
> >>>>>> "When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' � you
> >>>>>> grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see
> >>>>>> with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' � you grow
> >>>>>> disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with
> >>>>>> discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' � you grow disenchanted with
> >> way leading to the cessation of dukkha � this is called ignorance. With
> >> the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the
> >> cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way
> >> leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path;
> >> that is, right view... right concentration."
> >>
> >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66
> >
> > Ok, good.
> >
> > A new (for me) piece of imagery for the word "dukkha" that I like:
> >
> > "In classic Sanskrit, the term duḥkha was often compared to a large
> > potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not
> > turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukha, which brought
> > to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
> >
> > Although the derivation given there of "dukka" (from "dus-kha" or "dus-stha")
> > is not obviously related to the derivation for "sukha", we have:
> >
> > "According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of "sukha" is
> > "said to be su ["good"] + kha ["aperture"] and to mean originally
> > 'having a good axle-hole'..." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda
> > "sukha" denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots)."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
>
> So when someone tells me that I'm a real axle-hole, that's a good thing?
> At least I think that's what they said.
How did I know we'd end up here?
Note to self: anticipate and score low humor points for self.
--
hz
halfawake
probably something boring, like seeing directly into the nature of all
dhammas as anicca, anatta and dukkha.
scriptures everywhere, and they're free, as Tang likes to say.
Robert
- - - - - - -
herbzet
> herbzet writes:
> > Okay, great -- so what is this "true knowledge" that "has arisen in
> > a bhikku"? That would be very handy to know.
> >
> > Any scripture on this?
> >
> > --
> > hz
>
> probably something boring, like seeing directly into the nature of all
> dhammas as anicca, anatta and dukkha.
>
> scriptures everywhere, and they're free, as Tang likes to say.
I think I've mentioned before that I'm somewhat allergic to reading
stuff on buddhism/zen. Half a dozen books ought to be plenty
for anybody.
Here's a picture of the Pali Canon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tipitaka1.jpg
I'm so not in the mood to read all that, and try to figure out what
these ancient monks were gibbering about in their peculiar language,
trying to iron out all the apparent internal contradictions, etc., etc.
And then on to the commentaries, I suppose, and then
start up with the Mahayana texts ...
Better to let Lee do the heavy lifting.
--
hz
halfawake
just read the surangama sutra and tell me what you think, okay?
herbzet
> just read the surangama sutra and tell me what you think, okay?
Well, Robert, I gave it a shot. I started at
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp
After some preliminary discussion of the mind and of seeing,
in which it is determined that the mind is not inside the
body, nor outside the body, nor concealed in the organ of
seeing, nor in the middle between inside and outside, etc.
Then the World Honored One says this:
�The reason those who cultivate cannot accomplish unsurpassed Bodhi,
but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
they want. 1:231
�What are the two? Ananda, the first is the root of beginningless birth
and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
1:234
�The second is the primal pure substance of the beginningless Bodhi
Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
to be lost. 1:239
Great -- the two fudamental roots. And as far as I know, that's the
last time they're mentioned in the sutra.
At verse 2:70 the Buddha says:
�You should listen attentively, for I am now going to show you the
place of no returning."
Shortly thereafter at 2:80 we have
Ananda said, �I recognize that the seeing-nature does not return
to anything, but how can I come to know that it is my true nature?�
Then comes a long discussion about the seeing nature. By 3.5 the
discussion has reached this:
�Ananda, consider this example: when a person who has pure clear
eyes looks at clear, bright emptiness, he sees nothing but clear
emptiness, and he is quite certain that nothing exists within it. 3:5
�If, for no apparent reason, the person does not move his eyes, the
staring will cause fatigue, and then of his own accord, he will see
strange flowers in space and other unreal appearances that are wild
and disordered. 3:6
�You should know that it is the same with the skandha of form. 3:7
�Ananda, the strange flowers come neither from emptiness nor from the
eyes. 3:7
�The reason for this, Ananda, is that if the flowers were to come from
emptiness, they would return to emptiness. If there is a coming out
and a going in, the space would not be empty. If emptiness were not
empty, then it could not contain the appearance of the arisal and
extinction of the flowers, just as Ananda�s body cannot contain
another Ananda. 3:7
�If the flowers were to come from the eyes, they would return to the
eyes. 3:8
�If the nature of the flowers were to come from the eyes, it would be
endowed with the faculty of seeing. If it could see, then when it
left the eyes it would become flowers in space, and when it returned
it should see the eyes. If it did not see, then when it left the eyes
it would obscure emptiness, and when it returned, it would obscure the
eyes. 3:9
�Moreover, when you see the flowers, your eyes should not be obscured.
So why is it that the eyes are said to be �pure and bright� when they
see clear emptiness? 3:9
�Therefore, you should know that the skandha of form is empty and false,
because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence nor
is spontaneous in nature. 3:10
At this point, my own eyes have started in on some serious glazing-over,
and I'm done with sutra reading.
What do I think of the sutra? It has passages that move in clear logical
sequence to a conclusion, interspersed with strange twists in inexplicable
directions.
One constantly wants to ask certain question, but the text, like any
text, is not interactive: it doesn't respond to questions, or requests
for clarifications or sharpening definitions. It just grinds inexorably
down its meandering path.
I'll let you guys do the endless reading and puzzling over, even though
you already know what needs to be done.
Hm, what would you do if you were stuck on a desert island, with no
sutras, no commentaries, no teachers?
--
hz
Julian
> but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
> to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
> or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
> not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
> their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
> creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
> there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
> they want. 1:231
>
> and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
> and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
> 1:234
>
> Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
> bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
> to be lost. 1:239
>
> Great -- the two fudamental roots. And as far as I know, that's the
> last time they're mentioned in the sutra.
>
> At verse 2:70 the Buddha says:
>
> place of no returning."
>
> Shortly thereafter at 2:80 we have
>
> to anything, but how can I come to know that it is my true nature?�
>
> Then comes a long discussion about the seeing nature. By 3.5 the
> discussion has reached this:
>
> eyes looks at clear, bright emptiness, he sees nothing but clear
> emptiness, and he is quite certain that nothing exists within it. 3:5
>
> staring will cause fatigue, and then of his own accord, he will see
> strange flowers in space and other unreal appearances that are wild
> and disordered. 3:6
>
>
> �Ananda, the strange flowers come neither from emptiness nor from the
> eyes. 3:7
>
> �The reason for this, Ananda, is that if the flowers were to come from
> emptiness, they would return to emptiness. If there is a coming out
> and a going in, the space would not be empty. If emptiness were not
> empty, then it could not contain the appearance of the arisal and
> another Ananda. 3:7
>
> �If the flowers were to come from the eyes, they would return to the
> eyes. 3:8
>
> �If the nature of the flowers were to come from the eyes, it would be
> endowed with the faculty of seeing. If it could see, then when it
> left the eyes it would become flowers in space, and when it returned
> it should see the eyes. If it did not see, then when it left the eyes
> it would obscure emptiness, and when it returned, it would obscure the
> eyes. 3:9
>
> So why is it that the eyes are said to be �pure and bright� when they
> see clear emptiness? 3:9
>
> because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence nor
> is spontaneous in nature. 3:10
>
> At this point, my own eyes have started in on some serious glazing-over,
> and I'm done with sutra reading.
>
> What do I think of the sutra? It has passages that move in clear logical
> sequence to a conclusion, interspersed with strange twists in inexplicable
> directions.
>
> One constantly wants to ask certain question, but the text, like any
> text, is not interactive: it doesn't respond to questions, or requests
> for clarifications or sharpening definitions. It just grinds inexorably
> down its meandering path.
>
> I'll let you guys do the endless reading and puzzling over, even though
> you already know what needs to be done.
>
> Hm, what would you do if you were stuck on a desert island, with no
> sutras, no commentaries, no teachers?
Would there be any Mangoes?
herbzet
> > �The reason those who cultivate cannot accomplish unsurpassed Bodhi,
> > but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
> > to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
> > or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
> > not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
> > their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
> > creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
> > there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
> > they want. 1:231
> >
> > �What are the two? Ananda, the first is the root of beginningless birth
> > and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
> > and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
> > 1:234
> >
> > �The second is the primal pure substance of the beginningless Bodhi
> > Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
> > bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
> > to be lost. 1:239
> >
> > Great -- the two fudamental roots. And as far as I know, that's the
> > last time they're mentioned in the sutra.
> >
> > At verse 2:70 the Buddha says:
> >
> > �You should listen attentively, for I am now going to show you the
> > place of no returning."
> >
> > Shortly thereafter at 2:80 we have
> >
> > Ananda said, �I recognize that the seeing-nature does not return
> > to anything, but how can I come to know that it is my true nature?�
> >
> > Then comes a long discussion about the seeing nature. By 3.5 the
> > discussion has reached this:
> >
> > �Ananda, consider this example: when a person who has pure clear
> > eyes looks at clear, bright emptiness, he sees nothing but clear
> > emptiness, and he is quite certain that nothing exists within it. 3:5
> >
> > �If, for no apparent reason, the person does not move his eyes, the
> > staring will cause fatigue, and then of his own accord, he will see
> > strange flowers in space and other unreal appearances that are wild
> > and disordered. 3:6
> >
> > �You should know that it is the same with the skandha of form. 3:7
> >
> > �Ananda, the strange flowers come neither from emptiness nor from the
> > eyes. 3:7
> >
> > �The reason for this, Ananda, is that if the flowers were to come from
> > emptiness, they would return to emptiness. If there is a coming out
> > and a going in, the space would not be empty. If emptiness were not
> > empty, then it could not contain the appearance of the arisal and
> > extinction of the flowers, just as Ananda�s body cannot contain
> > another Ananda. 3:7
> >
> > �If the flowers were to come from the eyes, they would return to the
> > eyes. 3:8
> >
> > �If the nature of the flowers were to come from the eyes, it would be
> > endowed with the faculty of seeing. If it could see, then when it
> > left the eyes it would become flowers in space, and when it returned
> > it should see the eyes. If it did not see, then when it left the eyes
> > it would obscure emptiness, and when it returned, it would obscure the
> > eyes. 3:9
> >
> > �Moreover, when you see the flowers, your eyes should not be obscured.
> > So why is it that the eyes are said to be �pure and bright� when they
> > see clear emptiness? 3:9
> >
> > �Therefore, you should know that the skandha of form is empty and false,
> > because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence nor
> > is spontaneous in nature. 3:10
> >
> > At this point, my own eyes have started in on some serious glazing-over,
> > and I'm done with sutra reading.
> >
> > What do I think of the sutra? It has passages that move in clear logical
> > sequence to a conclusion, interspersed with strange twists in inexplicable
> > directions.
> >
> > One constantly wants to ask certain question, but the text, like any
> > text, is not interactive: it doesn't respond to questions, or requests
> > for clarifications or sharpening definitions. It just grinds inexorably
> > down its meandering path.
> >
> > I'll let you guys do the endless reading and puzzling over, even though
> > you already know what needs to be done.
> >
> > Hm, what would you do if you were stuck on a desert island, with no
> > sutras, no commentaries, no teachers?
>
> Would there be any Mangoes?
Sure, all you want.
--
hz
Julian
>>> but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
>>> to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
>>> or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
>>> not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
>>> their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
>>> creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
>>> there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
>>> they want. 1:231
>>>
>>> and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
>>> and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
>>> 1:234
>>>
>>> Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
>>> bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
>>> to be lost. 1:239
>>>
>>> Great -- the two fudamental roots. And as far as I know, that's the
>>> last time they're mentioned in the sutra.
>>>
>>> At verse 2:70 the Buddha says:
>>>
>>> place of no returning."
>>>
>>> Shortly thereafter at 2:80 we have
>>>
>>> to anything, but how can I come to know that it is my true nature?�
>>>
>>> Then comes a long discussion about the seeing nature. By 3.5 the
>>> discussion has reached this:
>>>
>>> eyes looks at clear, bright emptiness, he sees nothing but clear
>>> emptiness, and he is quite certain that nothing exists within it. 3:5
>>>
>>> staring will cause fatigue, and then of his own accord, he will see
>>> strange flowers in space and other unreal appearances that are wild
>>> and disordered. 3:6
>>>
>>>
>>> �Ananda, the strange flowers come neither from emptiness nor from the
>>> eyes. 3:7
>>>
>>> �The reason for this, Ananda, is that if the flowers were to come from
>>> emptiness, they would return to emptiness. If there is a coming out
>>> and a going in, the space would not be empty. If emptiness were not
>>> empty, then it could not contain the appearance of the arisal and
>>> another Ananda. 3:7
>>>
>>> �If the flowers were to come from the eyes, they would return to the
>>> eyes. 3:8
>>>
>>> �If the nature of the flowers were to come from the eyes, it would be
>>> endowed with the faculty of seeing. If it could see, then when it
>>> left the eyes it would become flowers in space, and when it returned
>>> it should see the eyes. If it did not see, then when it left the eyes
>>> it would obscure emptiness, and when it returned, it would obscure the
>>> eyes. 3:9
>>>
>>> So why is it that the eyes are said to be �pure and bright� when they
>>> see clear emptiness? 3:9
>>>
>>> because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence nor
>>> is spontaneous in nature. 3:10
>>>
>>> At this point, my own eyes have started in on some serious glazing-over,
>>> and I'm done with sutra reading.
>>>
>>> What do I think of the sutra? It has passages that move in clear logical
>>> sequence to a conclusion, interspersed with strange twists in inexplicable
>>> directions.
>>>
>>> One constantly wants to ask certain question, but the text, like any
>>> text, is not interactive: it doesn't respond to questions, or requests
>>> for clarifications or sharpening definitions. It just grinds inexorably
>>> down its meandering path.
>>>
>>> I'll let you guys do the endless reading and puzzling over, even though
>>> you already know what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> Hm, what would you do if you were stuck on a desert island, with no
>>> sutras, no commentaries, no teachers?
>> Would there be any Mangoes?
>
> Sure, all you want.
OK... I'd make a pie for Holly.
halfawake
> �The reason those who cultivate cannot accomplish unsurpassed Bodhi,
> but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
> to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
> or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
> not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
> their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
> creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
> there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
> they want. 1:231
>
> �What are the two? Ananda, the first is the root of beginningless birth
> and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
> and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
> 1:234
>
> �The second is the primal pure substance of the beginningless Bodhi
> Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
> bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
> to be lost. 1:239
>
> Great -- the two fudamental roots. And as far as I know, that's the
> last time they're mentioned in the sutra.
>
> At verse 2:70 the Buddha says:
>
> �You should listen attentively, for I am now going to show you the
> place of no returning."
>
> Shortly thereafter at 2:80 we have
>
> Ananda said, �I recognize that the seeing-nature does not return
> to anything, but how can I come to know that it is my true nature?�
>
> Then comes a long discussion about the seeing nature. By 3.5 the
> discussion has reached this:
>
> �Ananda, consider this example: when a person who has pure clear
> eyes looks at clear, bright emptiness, he sees nothing but clear
> emptiness, and he is quite certain that nothing exists within it. 3:5
>
> �If, for no apparent reason, the person does not move his eyes, the
> staring will cause fatigue, and then of his own accord, he will see
> strange flowers in space and other unreal appearances that are wild
> and disordered. 3:6
>
> �You should know that it is the same with the skandha of form. 3:7
>
> �Ananda, the strange flowers come neither from emptiness nor from the
> eyes. 3:7
>
> �The reason for this, Ananda, is that if the flowers were to come from
> emptiness, they would return to emptiness. If there is a coming out
> and a going in, the space would not be empty. If emptiness were not
> empty, then it could not contain the appearance of the arisal and
> extinction of the flowers, just as Ananda�s body cannot contain
> another Ananda. 3:7
>
> �If the flowers were to come from the eyes, they would return to the
> eyes. 3:8
>
> �If the nature of the flowers were to come from the eyes, it would be
> endowed with the faculty of seeing. If it could see, then when it
> left the eyes it would become flowers in space, and when it returned
> it should see the eyes. If it did not see, then when it left the eyes
> it would obscure emptiness, and when it returned, it would obscure the
> eyes. 3:9
>
> �Moreover, when you see the flowers, your eyes should not be obscured.
> So why is it that the eyes are said to be �pure and bright� when they
> see clear emptiness? 3:9
>
> �Therefore, you should know that the skandha of form is empty and false,
> because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence nor
> is spontaneous in nature. 3:10
>
> At this point, my own eyes have started in on some serious glazing-over,
> and I'm done with sutra reading.
>
> What do I think of the sutra? It has passages that move in clear logical
> sequence to a conclusion, interspersed with strange twists in inexplicable
> directions.
>
> One constantly wants to ask certain question, but the text, like any
> text, is not interactive: it doesn't respond to questions, or requests
> for clarifications or sharpening definitions. It just grinds inexorably
> down its meandering path.
>
> I'll let you guys do the endless reading and puzzling over, even though
> you already know what needs to be done.
>
> Hm, what would you do if you were stuck on a desert island, with no
> sutras, no commentaries, no teachers?
>
> --
> hz
Oh, I'd have enough meditation to do to last the rest of my lifetime.
And I'd have some fun and eat a coconut too.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
zenworm
avoid the quicksand
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
zenworm
<snip>
consider:
"a locked box with the key inside"
if this is not obvious, consider:
"a locked 'second root' with the 'first root' inside"
'locked'
as in no way to get out of
there is no way to get 'out' of Totality to 'unlock [it]'
'inside'
as in already home
there is no need to try* to get out in order to get in
it is already done
nothing left to do
*try - endless seeking for what already is.
Recognition of the impossibility of 'getting out'
surrenders to the Truth of 'what is' which includes
the understanding that all tools of entry are absolutely
useless because you can not get 'outside' to use them
to get 'inside'. The outside and inside are already one.
This is why many of the 'enlightening beings' laugh a lot.
Imagine the whole struggle for 'enlightenment' an
absolute futility from the get go. Absurdity.
Seems 'enlightenment' is nothing more than a grieving
for the futile endeavors people confuse themselves for
until they come through the grieving process to
unconditional acceptance. And delusion is nothing
more than this sense of identity with futile endeavours
keeping itself going by coming up with 'new' futile
endeavours.
ROFLMAO!
'you here now'
no ownership
no suffering
just this amazing whatever it is unfolding right now
<*sigh*>
home at last
LOL! (no one ever left) ;D
one word-
'already'
if any of [this] makes any sense to anyone
please feel free to 'chirp in' with anything
Allen Barker
> On Nov 6, 11:58 am, herbzet<herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> halfawake wrote:
>>> herbzet wrote:
>> but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
>> to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
>> or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
>> not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
>> their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
>> creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
>> there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
>> they want. 1:231
>>
>> and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
>> and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
>> 1:234
>>
At this point, it's far too late for just one word...
>
>
> if any of [this] makes any sense to anyone
> please feel free to 'chirp in' with anything
There is a famous saying/koan:
The lamp-boy searches for light.
I can't recall or find the reference and the attribution
right now, though.
zenworm
wrote:
> >> but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
> >> to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
> >> or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
> >> not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
> >> their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
> >> creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
> >> there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
> >> they want. 1:231
>
> >> and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
> >> and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
> >> 1:234
>
<blowing out the candle...>
where does the flame go?
Allen Barker
You tell me: you created it, and you claim to have blown it
out.
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> zenworm:
>
> > <blowing out the candle...>
> > where does the flame go?
>
> You tell me: you created it, and
> you claim to have blown it out.
Eh? Are you talking about faring-on
(samsara) and blowing-out (nirvana)?
Tang Huyen
zenworm
what is not here
is not anywhere
(already)
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> There is a famous saying/koan:
>
> The lamp-boy searches for light.
>
> I can't recall or find the reference and the
> attribution right now, though.
On these boards, there is the old saw about
telling students to meditate without thinking
about an elephant.
So, on one hand, the lamp-boy searches for
light. On the other, the former Christians who
revolt against Christianity (I am not talking of
those who are at peace with themselves and
who do not revolt against Christianity)
frantically try to not perceive their Christianity
even as they hotly and perpetually fight against
it. It is like a black hole that sucks their time
and energy, for nothing, even after forty or
fifty years or more of their revolting against it.
They are railroaded by it to adopt its exact
mirror image (physicalist atheism, more
specifically anti-Christian physicalism, and not
just any generic atheism) as their religion -- as
their ersatz religion -- and they use that to fight
it, not noticing that Christianity has dictated
such a choice to them (and therefore it is not a
choice).
It all happens as if Christianity was an elephant
in the room, and they tried their best year after
year, decade after decade, to ignore it and its
presence, even as it excercised its massive,
almost monolithic influence over them. They
carry it in their head, and load it up with energy,
the better to have a chance to fight it all the
harder, in an internal war. And Christianity has
seen to it ahead of time that if they were to revolt
against it, they would end up just that way and
no other way. It has worked its effect on them
in making them realist and literalist, and perhaps
way more than realist and literalist, just so that
if they were to revolt against it, they would not
have the option of going fluffy on language and
thought, according to the famous "Vanity of
vanities" bit of Jewish wisdom. That part is
totally and completely forbidden. They can well
think that God (meaning the Christian God) does
not exist, but Christianity has seen to it that they
obey its claims of exclusivity, so that they still
think after all these years and decades that the
label "God" is owned exclusively by the Christian
God, whom they presumably take not to exist.
Thus the paradox: what they take to not exist,
namely the Christian God, is yet taken by them to
be the exclusive owner of the title "God", and
they still obey Christianity in denying said title
to anybody and anything else, like the Stoic God.
They may have spent a goodly amount of time
getting to know other religions, like Buddhism,
and some of them have had a goodly amount of
exposure to them face to face, and not just from
books and articles, and have lived in Buddhist
countries for years and decades, or have adopted
Buddhism and practiced it in Buddhist temples
for years and decades. But all that exposure and
training have failed to teach them peace with
themselves and reconciliation with themselves, so
that they command no detachment and equability
to let Christianity go. On the contrary, it looms
large in their lives, as their nemesis (that they
carry in their head, for free), and overwhelms
any effort on their part to break free of it. If
anything, they do not want to break free of it,
because meaning comes to them only in fighting
it, in a perpetual body combat, and they are
deadly afraid of letting it go, in which case they
would no longer have an enemy to fight against.
They have to define themselves as being against
it, and that is their identity -- a negative identity,
for sure, but it's the only thing that they can
conjure up. without it, they would just collapse
into inanity and nihility.
Such an existential choice comes ahead of mental
culture and sets the tone to it. They do not want
freedom, and they do not want to use mental
culture to attain to freedom, but rather want to
hang on to the spook of their former religion to
fight it to death.
If they were to relax and be serene, they could
simply let their former religion wither away in its
inanity, instead of loading energy on it to make it
stronger. If they were to learn non-resistance and
apply it to their former religion, they could simply
not put up resistance to it and thereby let it slip off
like water off a duck's back. If they were to
practice detachment and equability, they could use
them to obtain detachment and equability in front
of their former religion. If they were to develop
the Four Divine Abodes (friendliness, compassion,
sympathetic joy, equability), they could grow a big
mind, an unlimited mind, fill it up with goodness,
and let their former God drown in such an ocean
of goodness, and he'd know his place and leave
(and leave them alone). But they don't want any
such parting of ways, and rather prefer to hang on
to their former religion (that they carry in their
head) just to have an anemy to fight against, in
closed circle.
It is a misery that they know, and they prefer it to
the bliss that they don't know. (Something that they
don't know -- how can they know it, if they don't
know it? It's the "locked box with the key inside"
syndrome. Existential choices can be blindingly
simple).
Oh! Vanity of vanities!
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
>
> They may have spent a goodly amount of time
> getting to know other religions, like Buddhism,
> and some of them have had a goodly amount of
> exposure to them face to face, and not just from
> books and articles, and have lived in Buddhist
> countries for years and decades, or have adopted
> Buddhism and practiced it in Buddhist temples
> for years and decades. But all that exposure and
> training have failed to teach them peace with
> themselves and reconciliation with themselves, so
> that they command no detachment and equability
> to let Christianity go. On the contrary, it looms
> large in their lives, as their nemesis (that they
> carry in their head, for free), and overwhelms
> any effort on their part to break free of it.
Lived in Buddhist countries for years and decades?
Why, Tang, you must be speaking of Jigme!
You've been insulting Fu and me and even Lee, but it's always back to
your arch-nemesis Jigme again isn't it? Amazing that everybody that
threatens you intellectually shows up in your eyes as an obsessed
'Christian'. Looks to me like you are seeing evil Christianity
everywhere, Tang, and in every poster that gets you all worked up and
agitated. It's starting to look like you're the common denominator
here, Tang, and that you have more of an obsession with Christianity
even than any of us who had the unpleasant experience of being raised
in its stench. What happened, Tang, did missionaries try to convert
you at the orphanage in Vietnam? And what is it with "goodly"? That's
not a word!
Well, I'll let you get back to your chunking and bagging.
--DharmaTroll
"If you can't say anything good about someone, sit right here by me."
-Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> Lived in Buddhist countries for years and decades?
>
> Why, Tang, you must be speaking of Jigme!
>
> You've been insulting Fu and me and even Lee, but it's always back to
> your arch-nemesis Jigme again isn't it? Amazing that everybody that
> threatens you intellectually shows up in your eyes as an obsessed
> 'Christian'. Looks to me like you are seeing evil Christianity
> everywhere, Tang, and in every poster that gets you all worked up and
> agitated. It's starting to look like you're the common denominator
> here, Tang, and that you have more of an obsession with Christianity
> even than any of us who had the unpleasant experience of being raised
> in its stench. What happened, Tang, did missionaries try to convert
> you at the orphanage in Vietnam? And what is it with "goodly"? That's
> not a word!
>
> Well, I'll let you get back to your chunking and bagging.
<<And what is it with "goodly"? That's not a word!>>
You are either closed-minded and cocksure, or
slipping and delusional (in the clinical sense), or
both. In this day and age, with Internet rage, you
have'nt even to look up a dictionary, but just plug
the word into a search engine like Google or Bing
and it will do the work for you. Yes, "goodly" is
a word, and the major dictionaries have it. And
it is an old word, too, not one that has just been
invented. And you appear to be an Internet
expert!
Which reminds me. On 10 Jun 2009, Wilson
wrote in "Re: THE 93 HANG-UPS OF
BUDDHISM":
<<You anti-religionists may never learn. There's
a real benefit to following religion, and that benefit
is not imaginary. At least not any more imaginary
than "Objective Reality", which in fact would be
better called consensus reality.>>
Fu jumped in:
<<Got a link to the study?>>
And Daryl (Love) had to intervene:
<<Come on Wilson, you know the reply to that,
just as I taught you and just as Dar taught me...>>
Fu could have plugged a few words into Google
(Bing was not good yet, then), and found out,
but a hard-core, fundie anti-religious (actually,
anti-Christian) like him was either closed-minded
and cocksure, or slipping and delusional (in the
clinical sense), or both.
I plugged a few words into Bing or Google:
religious happier
and got a bunch of links. I leave it for you people
to repeat the procedure, but here are some quotes:
<<The happiness gap between religious and
secular people is not because of money or other
personal characteristics. Imagine two people who
are identical in every important way--income,
education, age, sex, family status, race and
political views. The only difference is that the first
person is religious; the second is secular. The
religious person will still be 21 percentage points
more likely than the secular person to say that he
or she is very happy.>>
<<Researchers accidentally discovered that people
with religious beliefs tend to be more content in
life while studying an unrelated topic. While not
the original objective, the recent European study
found that religious people are better able to cope
with shocks such as losing a loved one or getting
laid off of a job.
Professor Andrew Clark, from the Paris School of
Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes,
from the European Centre for Social Welfare
Policy and Research, analyzed the a variety of
factors among Catholic and Protestant Christians
and found that life satisfaction seems to be higher
among the religious population. The authors
concluded that religion in general, might act as a
"buffer" that protects people from life's
disappointments.
"We originally started the research to work out
why some European countries had more generous
unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis
suggested that religious people suffered less
psychological harm from unemployment than the
non-religious,� noted Professor Clark. "They had
higher levels of life satisfaction".
Data from thousands of European households
revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.
Professor Clark suspects that a variety of aspects are
at play, and that perhaps a �religious upbringing�
could be responsible for the effect, rather than any
particular religious beliefs.
The researchers say they found that the religious
crowd tended to experience more �current day
rewards�, rather than storing them up for the future.
Previous studies have also found strong correlations
between religion and happiness. The idea that religion
may offer substantial psychological benefits in life, is
in sharp contrast with another common viewpoint that
religion is repressive and has a negative influence on
human development.
Professor Leslie Francis, from the University of
Warwick believes that the benefit might involve the
increased "purpose of life" experienced by many
believers that may not be as strongly felt among
nonbelievers.
"These findings are consistent with other studies
which suggest that religion does have a positive
effect, although there are other views which say that
religion can lead to self-doubt, and failure, and thereby
have a negative effect,� said Francis. "The belief that
religion damages people is still in the minds of many.">>
<<There is now extensive research suggesting that
religious people are happier and less stressed.It is not
clear, however, whether this is because of the social
contact and support that result from religious activities,
the greater likelihood of behaviors related to good
health (such as less substance abuse), indirect forms
of psychological and social activity such as optimism
and volunteering, psychological factors such as
"reason for being," learned coping strategies that
enhance one's ability to deal with stress, or some
combination of these and/or other factors.
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research
Center and the Pew Organization conclude that
spiritually committed people are twice as likely to
report being "very happy" than the least religiously
committed people. An analysis of over 200 social
studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a
lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer
suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction
with sex life and a sense of well-being," and a
review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed
journals concluded that a large majority of them
showed a positive correlation between religious
commitment and higher levels of perceived
well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of
hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.
A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published
between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a
salutary relationship with psychological adjustment,
being related to less psychological distress, more life
satisfaction, and better self-actualization. Finally, a
recent systematic review of 850 research papers on
the topic concluded that "the majority of
well-conducted studies found that higher levels of
religious involvement are positively associated with
indicators of psychological well-being (life
satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher
morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts
and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.">>
So, as Wilson said:
<<You anti-religionists may never learn. There's
a real benefit to following religion, and that benefit
is not imaginary. At least not any more imaginary
than "Objective Reality", which in fact would be
better called consensus reality.>>
Tang Huyen
zenworm
wrote:
if surveys are rejected
is that being subjective or is that maintaining objectivity?
is that being subjectively objective or objectively subjective?
ZN :D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
Hollywood Lee
> <<You anti-religionists may never learn. There's
> a real benefit to following religion, and that benefit
> is not imaginary. At least not any more imaginary
> than "Objective Reality", which in fact would be
> better called consensus reality.>>
As with all of these studies, it is hard to know what is causally
related and what is merely correlated. For example, the happiest
country in the world, Iceland (see
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net),
also has one of the lowest church attendance rates at 4%
(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance)
which would argue against a religious causation (or at least against a
formal religious causation).
What would be interesting to see is not so much how the content of
belief correlates to happiness, but how the manner of thinking
correlates to happiness. Is the dogmatists true believer (of God or no
God) happier than the non-foundationalist or non-dogmatic skeptic?
I'm guessing that the real causal factor will be something else - more
like the strength of the social safety net, combined with educational or
other opportunities, is the better causal determinant.
Keynes
wrote:
For many, religion enlarges perspective and
reduces self concerns. It seems that the less
of self, the greater the happiness. Hence the
attraction of monastic or military life.
Hollywood Lee
Perhaps. On the contrary, it may increase certainty, sense of self
importance, and sense of control. Hence the willingness to impose views
on others by religion or arms.
Ned Ludd
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdun01$cih$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Actually, the happiest of happy Americans are Republicans, social
butterflies, and bigots. (see below)
Ned
-----
From: "Ned" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.zen
Subject: Re: Auras, Chakras & Biofeedback
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:46:14 -0500
"Love" <pho...@address.for.spam> wrote in message
news:7f00a$47fb091a$4038ecbe$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>> Definitely don't take yourself too seriously. I'm always
>> hearing about people having problems with a serious disease.
>> I've never heard anyone suffering from too much levity or an
>> excess of good attitude.
>
> I dunno. I've nearly died laughing on a few occasions.
>
On the subject of happiness, here's a factoid that I came across
recently, but can't track down further than first source I found
it in, which is the New York Review of Books:
"The happiest of happy Americans are Republicans,
social butterflies, and bigots."
You can see it at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21197
So, I guess, if you REALLY want to be happy, you should be all
three - a bigoted, Republican social butterfly.
Ned
-----
Hollywood Lee
I have always doubted self-reporting of happiness, especially by groups
that are supposed to be happy to fit into their own narrative.
For example, there is the internet story (not sure whether true) that
has Utah having the highest incidence of Prozac use/prescriptions.
Don't know if true, but interesting if so, given the religiosity of the
state and its high "happiness" ranking -
http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2009/03/12/utah-happiness-and-mormons/
Go runnin for the shelter of mother's little helper and all.
Julian
Several wives is ample cause for Prozac.
Déjà Flu
And noise-canceling earphones, maybe...?
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
^@%>---*=#**
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdushk$k1g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
then krishna must have ate it like candy
with 6000 wives. when that time of the
month came around i'll bet he went fishing.
Julian
You think he wouldn't have had enough of fish?
^@%>---*=#**
maybe he took up needlepoint
liaM
> Actually, the happiest of happy Americans are Republicans, social
> butterflies, and bigots.
>
>
But aren't they perpetually angry about something ?
possum
> ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
>
> > "Julian" <Julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hdushk$k1g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >>> On 11/17/2009 11:09 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> >>>> Newsgroups: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.zen
> >>>> Subject: Re: Auras, Chakras & Biofeedback
> >>>> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:46:14 -0500
>
> >>>> "Love" <pho...@address.for.spam> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7f00a$47fb091a$4038ecbe$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>>>>> Definitely don't take yourself too seriously. I'm always
> >>>>>> hearing about people having problems with a serious disease.
> >>>>>> I've never heard anyone suffering from too much levity or an
> >>>>>> excess of good attitude.
>
> >>>>> I dunno. I've nearly died laughing on a few occasions.
>
> >>>> On the subject of happiness, here's a factoid that I came across
> >>>> recently, but can't track down further than first source I found
> >>>> it in, which is the New York Review of Books:
>
> >>>> "The happiest of happy Americans are Republicans,
> >>>> social butterflies, and bigots."
>
>
> >>>> So, I guess, if you REALLY want to be happy, you should be all
> >>>> three - a bigoted, Republican social butterfly.
>
> >>>> Ned
> >>>> -----
>
> >>> I have always doubted self-reporting of happiness, especially by
> >>> groups that are supposed to be happy to fit into their own narrative.
>
> >>> For example, there is the internet story (not sure whether true) that
> >>> has Utah having the highest incidence of Prozac use/prescriptions.
>
> >> Several wives is ample cause for Prozac.
>
> > then krishna must have ate it like candy
> > with 6000 wives. when that time of the
> > month came around i'll bet he went fishing.
>
> You think he wouldn't have had enough of fish?
sometimes i think i've wandered into a boys club...
Déjà Flu
And who, past the late 1800's, uses that word in common
language? It has been shortened to "good". But wait up!
Decrying the use of it implies "closed-minded and cocksure,
or slipping and delusional (in the clinical sense)"?
Wow! That's quite an indictment over a frikkin' word.
> Which reminds me.
Well, your mind-made story book would certainly
"remind" you, if not your indexed history log.
> Fu could have plugged a few words into Google
> (Bing was not good yet, then), and found out,
> but a hard-core, fundie anti-religious (actually,
> anti-Christian) like him was either closed-minded
> and cocksure, or slipping and delusional (in the
> clinical sense), or both.
In asking for a specific reference, I'm (like DT)
"closed-minded and cocksure, or slipping and delusional
(in the clinical sense)"? WOW again.
I could simply have read his mind. It would have
had about the same chance as finding which study he
was referring to as choosing a random google hit.
> I plugged a few words into Bing or Google:
And sucked them down as though they were the word
of Gawd, apparently.
Did you read these papers and examine the data and
results before posting the quotes?
Yet other actual studies conclude that the quality
of life in the *least* religious countries is better.
Religion rarely damages the religious - it damages
society and freedom. The mobs of witch-hunters are
probably very happy - it's a form of bonding...
> <<There is now extensive research suggesting that
> religious people are happier and less stressed....>>
Who wrote that piece? A journalist? It reeks of bias.
Why were the "studies" and sources not cited, not to
mention an analysis of the poll questions and populations?
Did you know that 99% of the "studies" of 'home schooling'
reflect positive if not ravenous approval of it? A meta-analysis
of those would undoubtedly conclude that no other method
was as effective and that public schools should be abolished
entirely.
The cyberworld is loaded with half-truths, lies and bad data.
Gurgle is a real danger to innocent omni-believers, such as
yourself, who cannot educate themselves. Most stuff posing
as 'information' there isn't - it's a swirling cloud of crap
and counter-crap and it's quite difficult to tell one from
the other without some critical thinking (the stuff you abhor).
> So, as Wilson said:
>
> <<You anti-religionists may never learn. There's
> a real benefit to following religion, and that benefit
> is not imaginary. At least not any more imaginary
> than "Objective Reality", which in fact would be
> better called consensus reality.>>
That's a double straw-man argument, as you should well know
by now. So why would you borrow it for your own unless you
accept straw men as real? You called Tibetanism, "illusion,
delusion, superstition, self-hypnosis", etc., just a few years
ago. Do you think Keynes-ism or Wilson-ism is any different?
So Wilson claims (according to you, I didn't see it) that,
"there's a real benefit to following religion". Let him do
the research and prove it with real data or do your own
and present your own paper rather than some junk journalism.
Déjà Flu
Don't think so.
The Boy Scouts are exclusively a Christian organization.
Ned Ludd
"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:4b032460$0$979$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>> Actually, the happiest of happy Americans are Republicans, social
>> butterflies, and bigots. Ned
>
> But aren't they perpetually angry about something ?
>
That George III is no longer king?
Ned
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> > Ned:
>
> > Actually, the happiest of happy Americans
> > are Republicans, social butterflies, and bigots.
>
> But aren't they perpetually angry about something ?
The studies on religious people being happier than
their non-religious counterparts do not study the
effect of them on their kids. A few days ago, the
Los Angeles Times had an Op-Ed piece on Palin
by Max Blumenthal, and it says:
<<Take Palin's daughter Bristol and her very public
pregnancy. Bristol's drama caught vividly a culture
of personal crisis that defines so many evangelical
communities. A landmark congressionally funded
study of adolescent behavior, "The National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health," suggests
that the Palin family's situation is not uncommon. It
found that white, evangelical adolescents lose their
virginity, on average, at age 16 -- earlier than any
group except black Protestants. In Lubbock, Texas,
where abstinence education has been mandated
since 1995, the rate of gonorrhea is now double the
national average, while teen pregnancy has spiked to
the highest levels in the state.>>
So religiously strict parents can well inspire rebellion
in their kids, just as religiously strict inculcation can
well inspire rebellion in their young recipients, as we
can witness with Fu and DharmaTroll.
With Fu, such inculcation worked, because it made
him (or at least a part of him) a Christian of good
faith who believes literally in the many claims of
exclusivity of Christianity. Something else, perhaps an
extracurricular activity (or passivity) also made him
(or at least a part of him) into an angry, bitter,
agitated rebel against Christianity, a Christian of bad
faith, already for the past fifty-five years, and probably
for the duration of his life. But whether he is for or
against Christianity, it has grabbed him for good, and
he is stuck with just those two choices, namely being
for or against Christianity. Other options, like being
detached from it and living his life in independence
from it, floating oceanically without regard for it, are
to all appearance not accessible to him. To all
appearance, he has not streamlined such options into
his life, as he is totally devoted to being for or against
Christianity. Each side is totally bigoted against the
other and vows to extinguish the other. A strictly
dualistic choice, as the buzzword goes. Instead of one
hand washing the other, it's more like one side beating
up on the other, back and forth, recursively, perpetually,
in closed circle. Once the impetus has been given, some
sixty years ago, it's an unstoppable machine of perpetual
motion. Which explains why he is perpetually angry
against himself. It's the gift from Christianity to him, the
elephant towering over his life (which he carries in his
head, for free).
Tang Huyen
Déjà Flu
I'm not up to writing it, but I'd sure as hell read a book entitled,
"The World History of Wealth and Power".
DharmaTroll
> On 11/17/2009 5:23 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > <<You anti-religionists may never learn. There's
> > a real benefit to following religion, and that benefit
> > is not imaginary. At least not any more imaginary
> > than "Objective Reality", which in fact would be
> > better called consensus reality.>>
>
> As with all of these studies, it is hard to know what is causally
> related and what is merely correlated. For example, the happiest
> also has one of the lowest church attendance rates at 4%
> (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance)
> which would argue against a religious causation (or at least against a
> formal religious causation).
>
> What would be interesting to see is not so much how the content of
> belief correlates to happiness, but how the manner of thinking
> correlates to happiness. Is the dogmatists true believer (of God or no
> God) happier than the non-foundationalist or non-dogmatic skeptic?
>
> I'm guessing that the real causal factor will be something else - more
> like the strength of the social safety net, combined with educational or
> other opportunities, is the better causal determinant.
There is interesting stuff, Lee. First, as you point out, self-
reporting might tell you more about who is more deluded and in denial,
than who is happier:
> I have always doubted self-reporting of happiness, especially by
> groups that are supposed to be happy to fit into their own narrative.
In fact a lot of stress might come from religious folks having to be
"two-faced" and always outwardly displaying that glazed-eyed smile in
public while feeling depressed on the inside when 'backstage' in
private. Also, lots of religious folks feel that if the aren't always
displaying positive emotions, they aren't selling their religion and
themselves as an exemplar of it, and so aren't going to say "I'm a
Mormon of great faith and know my eternal soul is saved and God loves
me, but my life sucks and I'm miserable and want to die". There would
be a lot of cognitive dissonance in such an admission.
I don't know much about Iceland, but studies about places like
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway time and again suggest that people there
don't have superstitions -- that is, they don't believe in an actually
Santa Claus-like Beastie who creates the world and determines their
faith. But they get baptized, have marriages in church by priests, and
have all the traditions of religion -- the community-forming things
which I think are good things religion has to offer. My Dawkins-loving
atheist friends often tell me that they wish they had a community to
bond with as do their religious friends, and that it's harder to form
a community of friends without the superstitious framework (maybe
they'd be happier living in Denmark, where they'd fit in better, than
in America, where it's harder to meet and trust strangers and where
atheists and agnostics are constantly mistrusted, insulted, and
labeled in pejorative ways).
I was going to post some stuff about the cultures of Denmark, Norway,
and Sweden, and their happiness without religious beliefs, but then I
recalled an interesting op-ed in the NYTimes this past summer that
deals with what I think is the most salient problem in terms of
happiness -- unreasonable expectations. As the psychiatrist Karen
Horney put it, we are under "the tyranny of the 'should'." A lot of
craving, aversion, and delusion are associated with unreasonable
expectations of ourselves and of the world. If Buddhist practice has
made me happier (or it could just be a matter of escaping the hell of
adolescence to some degree), it may be do to my no longer hating
myself as much as I used to for not being what I think I 'should' be
or having what I think I should be entitled to, and instead, just
being present to whatever the world is like this present moment.
(Ever seen the hilarious 'lowered expectations' satire of e-harmony?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNk_j3Z18A
Anyway, the following op-ed from the NYTimes applies to this issue
well, I think. Key point:
<<About once a year, some new study confirms Denmark’s status as a
happiness superpower. Danes receive this news warily, with newspaper
headlines that invariably read: “We’re the happiest lige nu.” Lige nu
is a Danish phrase that means literally “just now” but strongly
connotes a sense of “for the time being but probably not for long.”
Danes, in other words, harbor low expectations about everything,
including their own happiness. Though not an especially religious
people, Danes would make good Buddhists. They live their lives as the
Buddha advised: in the present tense, not grasping at some future
happiness jackpot. Danes seem to know instinctively that expectations
kill happiness, leaving the rest of us unhappy un-Danes to sweat it
out on the “hedonic treadmill.”>>
--DharmaTroll
http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/lowered-expectations/
<<July 19, 2009, 6:00 pm
Lowered Expectations
By ERIC WEINER
Eric Weiner is author of “The Geography of Bliss: One Grump’s Search
for the Happiest Places in the World.”
Mysterious are the ways of human happiness, as anyone who has surveyed
the perplexing, often contradictory research findings can attest. But
one nugget in particular truly boggles: Denmark is the happiest nation
in the world. More than two-thirds of Danes report being “very
satisfied with their lives,” according to the Eurobarometer Survey, a
figure that has held steady for more than 30 years. True, Danes tend
to be healthy, married and active — all contributing factors to
happiness. But why, researchers wondered, are Danes happier than Finns
and Swedes, who share many of these traits, not to mention a similar
culture and climate?
The answer is, in a word, expectations. Danes have low expectations
and so “year after year they are pleasantly surprised to find out that
not everything is rotten in the state of Denmark,” says James W.
Vaupel, a demographer who has investigated Danish bliss.
About once a year, some new study confirms Denmark’s status as a
happiness superpower. Danes receive this news warily, with newspaper
headlines that invariably read: “We’re the happiest lige nu.” Lige nu
is a Danish phrase that means literally “just now” but strongly
connotes a sense of “for the time being but probably not for long.”
Danes, in other words, harbor low expectations about everything,
including their own happiness. Though not an especially religious
people, Danes would make good Buddhists. They live their lives as the
Buddha advised: in the present tense, not grasping at some future
happiness jackpot.
Danes seem to know instinctively that expectations kill happiness,
leaving the rest of us unhappy un-Danes to sweat it out on the
“hedonic treadmill.” That’s what researchers call the tendency to
constantly ratchet up our expectations, a sort of emotional inflation
that devalues today’s accomplishments and robs us of all but the most
fleeting contentment. If a B-plus grade made us happy last semester,
it’ll take an A-minus to register the same satisfaction this semester,
and so on until eventually, inevitably, we fail to reach the next bar
and slip into despair.
The hedonic treadmill insinuates itself into our lives, in ways large
and small. As a budding audiophile, I recently purchased a headphone
amplifier — a tiny black box that attaches to my iPod. Wow, I thought,
this sounds incredible. At least that’s what I thought for about one
week. Then my ears grew accustomed to the enhanced fidelity and craved
something better. Before long, I was back on line, credit card in
hand. Intellectually, I knew that my next audio fix would be just as
fleeting, but I couldn’t resist the seductive pull of the hedonic
treadmill.
Runaway expectations explain a number of otherwise perplexing
findings. One study, by the University of Chicago sociologist Yang
Yang, found that we grow happier as we grow older. Why? Expectations,
I think. Older people tend to have lower aspirations or, to put it in
a more positive way, greater acceptance. Another study, conducted by
the Wharton School economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers,
found that women are less happy today than they were in the 1970s,
despite the great strides they’ve made in the workplace. Again,
expectations are a likely culprit, especially if, as Stevenson and
Wolfers posit, “the women’s movement raised women’s expectations
faster than society was able to meet them.”
Sometimes, we do temper our expectations. That’s one reason why
happiness levels don’t drop precipitously during a recession (though
they do drop). We expect less during tough times. When the economy
recovers, though, so do our expectations.
Yes, happiness is a function of our expectations — or, as it has been
said: “Happiness equals reality minus expectations.” Given that neat
formulation, there are two ways to attack the problem: boost our
reality or lower our expectations. Most of us choose the former. We’d
rather stew in our misery than trim our expectations. Lowering our
sights smacks us as a cop out, un-American. Better a nation of morose
overachievers, we reason, than a land of happy slackers.
Thankfully, we don’t have to choose. As Eastern faiths profess, it is
possible to achieve greatness and happiness at the same time.
Provided, that is, we don’t invest ourselves in that greatness. “Set
thy heart upon thy work but never its reward,” counsels Lord Krishna
in the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu holy text. It’s sound advice, now
backed up by modern science. It’s worth noting, though, that Krishna
never suggested, not for a moment, that such advice is easily
followed.>>
liaM
So that's it.
liaM
Count to ten. Take deep breaths. What fixation there is
is the one gripping you. Take a vow never to talk about Fu, Sphere and
the others.
Talk with them, never more about them.
Déjà Flu
...
> With Fu, such inculcation worked, because it made
> him (or at least a part of him) a Christian of good
> faith who believes literally in the many claims of
> exclusivity of Christianity.
Don't stop at just "Christianity", please. I vow to
piss on religion - no matter what brand name it carries.
Including Buddhism, Xhumism, Islam, Doorslam, Jewish Rye,
Hindu-skindo, or whatever. Apparently, you've not only
*invented* fu-ism, but are an ardent supporter of it,
and for many years. So I piss on that, too.
Déjà Flu
> Count to ten. Take deep breaths. What fixation there is
> is the one gripping you. Take a vow never to talk about Fu, Sphere and
> the others.
>
> Talk with them, never more about them.
Got a lamp (chop)? Give it a rub then. ;)
possum
wrote:
here's another slant - in these lyrics, can't find a link to the
music : )
http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/songs/texts/johnmuir.html
jeez, and i just told DT i wouldn't send him any more links...: )
http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/songs/texts/johnmuir.html
liaM
Samadhi's the word.
herbzet
Yes -- a few are genuinely bitterly angry and unhappy. But my
personal feeling is that most are warmed and uplifted by their
righteous indignation. They enjoy holding the moral position
of injured innocence.
They are happy warriors, gleeful in their rage against their
wicked and undeserving oppressors. They really enjoy their
kulturkampf.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
This is all just purely subjective judgement on my part.
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
>Got a lamp (chop)? Give it a rub then. ;)
I just noticed at the drugstore the other day that Naturalamb condoms
are still on the market (no doubt they're as good at contraception as
ever they were, but no better at prophylaxis, and now challenged by
much smaller and much nastier nasties than in the Good Old Days).
Speaking of lamb rubbers. As it were.
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
Yes, Fu has a point, doesn't he? The only time I've heard the word
'goodly' in my entire life (I've never read it in print) is on TV,
when an oriental person trying to learn English makes grammatical
mistakes, and says "goodly" instead of "well", wrongly applying the
standard rule of adding an 'ly' to an adjective to create its adverb
counterpart. The local Korean simple folks in MASH would use the word
'goodly' that way a lot. That show is probably where I've heard it
used the most, and always in that context. So of course I find it
bizarre went Tang, also an Asian, but one who is well versed in a
dozen languages, uses the term. As usual, Tang, you haven't a clue
where I was coming from, and instead did more projecting of your inner
psyche onto me, more "chunking and bagging" with babble about "You are
either closed-minded and cocksure, or slipping and delusional (in the
clinical sense)."
My, Tang, how easily you crash and blow up in technicolor!
> > Which reminds me.
>
> Well, your mind-made story book would certainly
> "remind" you, if not your indexed history log.
>
> > Fu could have plugged a few words into Google
> > (Bing was not good yet, then), and found out,
> > but a hard-core, fundie anti-religious (actually,
> > anti-Christian) like him was either closed-minded
> > and cocksure, or slipping and delusional (in the
> > clinical sense), or both.
>
> In asking for a specific reference, I'm (like DT)
> "closed-minded and cocksure, or slipping and delusional
> (in the clinical sense)"? WOW again.
Well, you've got to remember that when Tang goes on one of his
Asperger's rants, he's describing his own psyche, and Fu or
Dharmatroll or Sphere or Jigme is just the blank screen onto which
Tang can project his inner fluff. So no wonder he says the same thing
-- it doesn't matter which set of words on the screen Tang is
projecting onto. It's all about Tang.
The benefit, from what I've read, comes from the sense of community,
and not from the blind faith in the transcendental or supernatural.
What's interesting about religion is that it connects us with our
past, our ancestors, and a sense of belonging to a path others have
tread on for thousands of years. One problem is that when religion is
removed without anything to fill that void, it's easy to jump into
fascism or communism, which are non-supernatural belief systems that
are as dangerous and deadly as traditional religions. Or into some
ridiculous psychotherapy cult like Scientology. Or like folks around
here, grasp at some other culture's woo-woo. In some way, being
brainwashed in a traditional religion has some value in terms of
'using up' one's whole allotment of gullibility and so being insulated
from all sorts of other absurdities. For example, people who got to
church every Sunday and are indoctrinated into, say, Catholicism, are
much less likely than those not in a traditional religion to believe
in ghosts, or fear the number 13, or to go to palm reader or
astrologist, or to go to a woo-woo "alternative medicine" quack
instead of getting real medical help for illness and disease. There
have been several studies done on this. By swallowing one big woo-woo
pill, one can be insulated from all the other brands of magic snake
oil. Though you, Fu, as I, will still find that to be a poor
substitute for critical thinking.
--DharmaTroll
"There are more fools than wise men, and even in wise men, more folly
than wisdom."
-Nicholas de Chamfort
Hollywood Lee
> <<July 19, 2009, 6:00 pm
> Lowered Expectations
> By ERIC WEINER
. . .
> Yes, happiness is a function of our expectations � or, as it has been
> said: �Happiness equals reality minus expectations.� Given that neat
> formulation, there are two ways to attack the problem: boost our
> reality or lower our expectations. Most of us choose the former. We�d
> rather stew in our misery than trim our expectations. Lowering our
> sights smacks us as a cop out, un-American. Better a nation of morose
> overachievers, we reason, than a land of happy slackers.>>
Yeah, that's how the "success" ladder is often framed, so that
engagement with family and community isn't enough, we have to actually
change the world to be successful.
^@%>---*=#**
i changed the world but it just
pooped in its diapers once again.
^@%>---*=#**
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hdvldo$f3e$1...@reader1.panix.com...
how true it is i don't know but a doctor
on the radio said that there are microscopic
holes in latex larger than the a.i.d.s. molecule,
thus it can pass right through latex.
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> how true it is i don't know but a doctor
> on the radio said that there are microscopic
> holes in latex larger than the a.i.d.s. molecule,
> thus it can pass right through latex.
Which reminds me. If we open our mind
wide, almost without limit and boundary,
almost the whole world passes through to
it, and whether it completely enters it
without remainder or not is moot, for the
mind would then be as receptive as possible
to anything that reaches it, with the sensitive
apparatus (and consciousness) permitting,
and as far as human consciousness is
concerned, it is the internal stuff that
matters more than the external stuff, and
it is the feeling-tone, the affective tenor,
iow how the mind deals with itself, that
matters vastly more than whatever content
that reaches consciousness. If the
feeling-tone is good (eupatheia), much can
be forgiven, perhaps all is forgiven. In grace
all is grace, in eternity all is eternity ...
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:Sd2dnWeI1NS7c57W...@supernews.com...
you get you a needle eye dremel
and you'll get them camels through
there lickety split.
AdvocatusDiablo
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:Sd2dnWeI1NS7c57W...@supernews.com...
>
>
You're putting the condom on the wrong head.
>
Déjà Flu
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> news:Sd2dnWeI1NS7c57W...@supernews.com...
>>
>> "^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
>>
>>> how true it is i don't know but a doctor
>>> on the radio said that there are microscopic
>>> holes in latex larger than the a.i.d.s. molecule,
>>> thus it can pass right through latex.
You can run a Fast CNC line and repeat shit like
that, Jenski? Sheesh, man... Know what happens when you
pass on junk like this? *Other people* believe it.
It becomes another non-fact in the pile of non-facts
and people just evaluate the size of the piles, not
the truth of them.
>> Which reminds me. If we open our mind
>> wide, almost without limit and boundary,
[tang]...
...We'll be able to believe anything. Is Limitless Woo
the Tang version of Buddhism? I suspect it is.
> You're putting the condom on the wrong head.
No shit.
Not to mention that the AIDS virus is composed of
billions of molecules, can easily pass through the
eye of a needle, and often does, but not a condom.
How many Africans has God killed so far, this decade?
10,000,000?
Of course, in the Middle East (and Fort Hood), he
does it with bullets and bombs instead of viruses.
Praise God!
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Count to ten. Take deep breaths. What
> fixation there is is the one gripping you.
> Take a vow never to talk about Fu, Sphere
> and the others.
>
> Talk with them, never more about them.
Thank you for your kind advice, which
is right on. I am afraid that I shall fail it
for some time, but please keep up with it,
some day with your help I shall wake up.
That is what friends like you are for.
Thank you again.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> you get you a needle eye dremel
> and you'll get them camels through
> there lickety split.
Hahaha, you're spot on. Please keep
up with it and don't slack off, some day
with your help, I'l l pass through the eye
of the needle in spite of myself.
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
Don't worry - Tangette is scared to death of me, too.
;)
Déjà Flu
The Deer Hunter (1978)
liaM
You're welcome.
possum
> On Nov 17, 7:17 pm, Déjà Flu <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > > DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>
smeep>
>
> > And who, past the late 1800's, uses that word in common
> > language? It has been shortened to "good". But wait up!
> > Decrying the use of it implies "closed-minded and cocksure,
> > or slipping and delusional (in the clinical sense)"?
> > Wow! That's quite an indictment over a frikkin' word.
>
> Yes, Fu has a point, doesn't he? The only time I've heard the word
> 'goodly' in my entire life (I've never read it in print) is on TV,
> when an oriental person trying to learn English makes grammatical
> mistakes, and says "goodly" instead of "well", wrongly applying the
> standard rule of adding an 'ly' to an adjective to create its adverb
> counterpart. The local Korean simple folks in MASH would use the word
> 'goodly' that way a lot. That show is probably where I've heard it
> used the most, and always in that context. So of course I find it
> bizarre went Tang, also an Asian, but one who is well versed in a
> dozen languages, uses the term. As usual, Tang, you haven't a clue
> where I was coming from, and instead did more projecting of your inner
> psyche onto me, more "chunking and bagging" with babble about "You are
> either closed-minded and cocksure, or slipping and delusional (in the
> clinical sense)."
you two are bonkers!
DT poked Tang on 'goodly' and said it wasn't a word.
Tang pointed out DT's cretinism for entertaining the idea that Tang
would make such a language error and told him to look it up, and
suddenly fu can't even read, and DT theorizes that Tang is projecting,
babbling, chunking and bagging, ranting, and has aspergers, rather
than stand corrected, and use his Occams razor, to cut the out the
fact that Tang has no way of knowing that DT had in his youth OD'd on
MASH episodes, and that DT had choked when he 'heard' Tang say
'goodly' in a comic 'chinee restaurant' voice, and the 'bizarreness'
arising out of DT's un-PC sense of humour, and his knowledge/belief
that Tang is an erudite Asian.
that was fun : /
possum
wrote:
liaM does good kind advices.
i thank hims too.
possum
Déjà Flu
?
Wot didn't I read right?
Haven't seen "goodly" in common use for decades.
Pretty over-the-top of Tang making such accusations
over a word or a request for a link to a study, don'tcha
think? I mean, "You are either closed-minded and cocksure,
or slipping and delusional (in the clinical sense)" is a bit
much for such simple things, innit? Calm down, eh?
DharmaTroll
Heh. Well, if you're going to call us both bonkers, and you're not
just going to be Tang's stooge, I can accept that. Now I just can't
wait to see what you think of the DharmaTroll-Robbie conversations,
where we can't even agree what the hell we're talking about, much less
what would count as evidence for it. D'oh! For instance:
DT: Is that a personal attack?
RE: God, you are a defensive fucker aren't you? I am talking about
anyone who reduces them; why don't you follow the argument instead of
making it about you? This is the kind of pissy behavior that makes it
annoying to talk about these things. Wanna have a real conversation
or not?
DT: Are you once again going to insult me and call that an argument?
RE: Who cares.
--DharmaTroll
liaM
écrit:
well come.
--
Utilisant le client e-mail révolutionnaire d'Opera :
http://www.opera.com/mail/
norbu_tragri
> On Nov 6, 11:58 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > halfawake wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > halfawake writes:
> > > >>herbzet writes:
>
> > > >>>Okay, great -- so what is this "true knowledge" that "has arisen in
> > > >>>a bhikku"? That would be very handy to know.
>
> > > >>>Any scripture on this?
>
> > > >>>--
> > > >>>hz
>
> > > >>probably something boring, like seeing directly into the nature of all
> > > >>dhammas as anicca, anatta and dukkha.
>
> > > >>scriptures everywhere, and they're free, as Tang likes to say.
>
> > > > I think I've mentioned before that I'm somewhat allergic to reading
> > > > stuff on buddhism/zen. Half a dozen books ought to be plenty
> > > > for anybody.
>
> > > > Here's a picture of the Pali Canon:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tipitaka1.jpg
>
> > > > I'm so not in the mood to read all that, and try to figure out what
> > > > these ancient monks were gibbering about in their peculiar language,
> > > > trying to iron out all the apparent internal contradictions, etc., etc.
>
> > > > And then on to the commentaries, I suppose, and then
> > > > start up with the Mahayana texts ...
>
> > > > Better to let Lee do the heavy lifting.
>
> > > just read the surangama sutra and tell me what you think, okay?
>
> > Well, Robert, I gave it a shot. I started at
>
> >http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp
>
> > After some preliminary discussion of the mind and of seeing,
> > in which it is determined that the mind is not inside the
> > body, nor outside the body, nor concealed in the organ of
> > seeing, nor in the middle between inside and outside, etc.
>
> > Then the World Honored One says this:
>
> > “The reason those who cultivate cannot accomplish unsurpassed Bodhi,
> > but instead reach the level of a Sound-Hearer or of one enlightened
> > to conditions, or become accomplished in outside ways as heaven-dwellers
> > or as demon-kings or as members of the retinue of demons is that they do
> > not know the two fundamental roots and are mistaken and confused in
> > their cultivation. They are like one who cooks sand in the hope of
> > creating savory delicacies. They may pass through as many aeons as
> > there are motes of dust, but in the end they will not obtain what
> > they want. 1:231
>
> > ”What are the two? Ananda, the first is the root of beginningless birth
> > and death, which is the mind that seizes upon conditions and that you
> > and all living beings now make use of, taking it to be the self-nature.
> > 1:234
>
> > ”The second is the primal pure substance of the beginningless Bodhi
> > Nirvana. It is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can
> > bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it
> > to be lost. 1:239
>
> <snip>
>
> consider:
> "a locked box with the key inside"
>
> if this is not obvious, consider:
> "a locked 'second root' with the 'first root' inside"
>
> 'locked'
> as in no way to get out of
> there is no way to get 'out' of Totality to 'unlock [it]'
>
> 'inside'
> as in already home
> there is no need to try* to get out in order to get in
> it is already done
> nothing left to do
> *try - endless seeking for what already is.
> Recognition of the impossibility of 'getting out'
> surrenders to the Truth of 'what is' which includes
> the understanding that all tools of entry are absolutely
> useless because you can not get 'outside' to use them
> to get 'inside'. The outside and inside are already one.
> This is why many of the 'enlightening beings' laugh a lot.
> Imagine the whole struggle for 'enlightenment' an
> absolute futility from the get go. Absurdity.
>
> Seems 'enlightenment' is nothing more than a grieving
> for the futile endeavors people confuse themselves for
> until they come through the grieving process to
> unconditional acceptance. And delusion is nothing
> more than this sense of identity with futile endeavours
> keeping itself going by coming up with 'new' futile
> endeavours.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> 'you here now'
> no ownership
> no suffering
> just this amazing whatever it is unfolding right now
> <*sigh*>
> home at last
> LOL! (no one ever left) ;D
>
> one word-
> 'already'
>
> if any of [this] makes any sense to anyone
> please feel free to 'chirp in' with anything
>
> ZN :D
> absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
The story of Ho Tai...doing this from memory. Ho Tai used to
wander about, it was rumored he was a zen teacher, so folks would
come up to him requesting instruction in zen. Ho Tai would say,
"Give me a penny." They would give him a coin and Ho Tai would walk
away. Ho Tai would use the money to buy toys for children...sort of
an oriental Santa Clause with a pacifist Robin Hood edge...He carried
a bag of his few things, bowls, toys, etc...He's the "fat laughing
buddha" you
see in oriental paintings...
One day a person approached him and asked "What is the practice of
zen?"
Ho Tai dropped his bag on the ground.
The questioner was shocked.
...set down his own baggage...
"...But what is the use of this?..."....why bother he asked, he
asked...
Ho Tai held out his hand, open.
The person put a penny in his palm.
Ho Tai put the penny in the chidren's bag, picked it up, and walked
away.
.
no dogma, not above or below
............
great posts !
thanx :)
- n.
^@%>---*=#**
"D�j� Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:meydndw0BeMq4pnW...@posted.toastnet...
> AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
>> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>> news:Sd2dnWeI1NS7c57W...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
>>>
>>>> how true it is i don't know but a doctor
>>>> on the radio said that there are microscopic
>>>> holes in latex larger than the a.i.d.s. molecule,
>>>> thus it can pass right through latex.
>
> You can run a Fast CNC line and repeat shit like
> that, Jenski? Sheesh, man... Know what happens when you
> pass on junk like this? *Other people* believe it.
> It becomes another non-fact in the pile of non-facts
> and people just evaluate the size of the piles, not
> the truth of them.
if you'll read the first words
i said i was telling people to
take it with a grain of salt,
so to speak.
zenworm
great story!
gratitude
ZN ;D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
possum
> possum wrote:
> > On 18 Nov, 02:44, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
heeheh. of all the obscure words i have seen tang use faultlessly, in
his mastered 37 foreign languages, who'd have thought there would be
such a fuss about 'goodly'? : )
Déjà Flu
> On 19 Nov, 01:18, D�j� Flu <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> possum wrote:
>>> On 18 Nov, 02:44, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
only 37?
dyslexic lil shit in't he?
seems DT didn't take too many yrs
of "required Engrish", either...
any bets on th' next fussy?
I'm for "buddha nature" - that's not been 'round for a bit.
possum
> >> possum wrote:
> >>> On 18 Nov, 02:44, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
that's my favourite, but my guess is dhammapada.
i'm off.
nite nite fuey. : )
possumx
Déjà Flu
>>>> possum wrote:
>>>>> On 18 Nov, 02:44, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Rodents Of Unusual Size, izzit then?
> i'm off.
not's far as I ;)
> nite nite fuey. : )
>
> possumx
'nite luv
halfawake
it can pass right through lambskin, not, I think, latex.
otherwise [duh!] doctors wouldn't use latex gloves.
robert
Lee Rudolph
They'd use gloves made of lamb intestines!
Lee Rudolph (except the pediatricians, who would handle their little charges
with kid gloves, of course)
^@%>---*=#**
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:he7sma$4e6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
you think doctors do things for your benefit?
they'd be out of business if what they did made
you well.
^@%>---*=#**
perverts, but then again,
ain't we all?
Lee Rudolph
I rather suspect that Robert was suggesting that doctors
wear latex gloves for *their* benefit. (They change them,
if they do, for yours.)
Lee Rudolph
^@%>---*=#**
i have no faith in a group
of men in masks who's only
two choices are to cut something
out or to medicate it.