Disparaging the source while ignoring the content
Bill
>x-no-archive: yes
>grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote in message
><6u0ta3$q...@hercules.ntsource.com>...
>|David Oller writes on Sept. l9, l998:
>|
>|"I noted clearly that two of Sam's claims were deception. Intended
>|to make someone believe he had authority he didn't have by the clever
>|use of words "received dharma transmission", etc.
><Snip more Sufi Propoganda>
>|The book IN THE GARDEN is a compilation of words by Sam as well
>|as the Lama Foundation. Not ALL WORDS that were posted (such
>|as the years of what happened) were written BY SAM! In looking over
>|the "preface" of the book I note the following:
>|So you see, David, "IF" there is some information that just "MAY"
>|be incorrect, please note that it may NOT have been Sam himself who
>|wrote it (your accusation that he is a "fraud"). Tell me what
>|is YOUR definition of what it means when someone is "recognized
>|in the Zen tradition"? Is there ANY possibility that YOUR definition/
>|interpretation of this may DIFFER from someone else's definition?
>Then the reporting of him is a fraud. Claiming to have "Dharma Transmission" is
>an obvious ploy to legitimize Sam in the Zen tradition as a Zen Teacher, and
>therefore authoritatively speaking about what Zen Buddhism represents. In
>reality it turns out to be little more than "name dropping."
>Case in point, it fooled you to the point that you came arrogantly throwing the
>citations in my face with an obvious "Gotcha" you dumbass, David! It took me
>five minutes to check the facts but in the mean-time it sucked many people into
>the delusion and false representation. Two people even responded positively
>before I had a chance to illuminate the deception. The claims had just enough
>truth to be really damaging.
In the portion of the article that Kathy posted which I quoted, I
appreciated the content of what was said, neither agreeing or
disagreeing with it. I don't give a rat's ass *who* wrote it,
the content speaks for itself. Rather than disparaging the source,
why not discuss whether the content itself is deceptive.
Robic...@halcyon.com (Bill) wrote:
>Thank you for posting this, Kathy. I read and meditated upon it
>for a long time. Thanks for the card too.
>grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>>Here's a little more, for those interested, again from "In the Garden:
>>Samuel Lewis":
>>From p. l58:
>>"It was during his travels in Asia (in l956 and l96l) that Sam
>>received the recognition and fianl training he required to teach
>>in the West. His Buddhist realization was confirmed by Nyogen
>>Senzaki (who wrote _Zen Flesh, Zen Bones_) whom Murshid (meaning
>>Sufi Sam) referred to as "old fatso." A step-by-step description
>>of the perfection of the Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhist paths, it is
>>a map and an introduction to the _Mahamudra_."
>>Selections, from "The Doctrine of No-Doctrine":
>>2
>>Not by shadow is light known but
>> by its substance,
>>Not by reflection is color known but
>> by its essence,
>>Not by impression is mind known but
>> by its Buddha nature,
>>Not by words is Truth known but by its Being.
>>There is no word that was lost.
>>Every word is lost, every philosophy is false,
>>Yet from Suchness comes every word
>> and every teaching:
>>This is the doctrine of No-Doctrine
>>Which brings Peace to heart and mind. (p. l60)
>> l3
>> FIRM MIND
>>The second stage of the second adventure is
>> not to be considered
>>Separate from the first stage of the
>> second adventure.
>>Know this stage to be the Right Resolution
>> of the Firm Mind:
>>It transcends discrimination and thought,
>>It discriminates truly,
>>It thinks truly.
>>What is it that thinks?
>>This is the Buddha-mind, free from the
>> distinctions and differences of man.
>>The clear lamp brightens the hall of the temple,
>>Flowers decorate the altar. (p. l66)
>> l9
>> SAMADHI
>>This is the eighth stage of the glorious
>> Second Adventure.
>>It is not to be considered apart from all other
>> stages of the Second Adventure;
>>It is not to be considered apart from any stage
>> of the First Adventure.
>>This is Right Concentration.
>>What is Samadhi?
>>Definition defines, segregates, distinguishes;
>>Samadhi integrates, unites, amalgamates.
>>The coal mine is not a light house,
>>Nor is the clod a lantern,
>>Definition of Samadhi is not Samadhi,
>>Description of Samadhi is not Samadhi
>>Words are no more. (p. l68)
>> 26
>> NIRVANA
>>The sun casts shadows and the earth emits light,
>>The worm is the teacher, the Sramana
>> is the scholar.
>>Babies discipline their grandfathers,
>>And handkerchiefs are used for laughter;
>>With closed eyes is toil accomplished,
>>And in the daylight is great sloth.
>>Until Nirvana is surrendered, Nirvana
>> is not gained.
>>This is called the eighth stage of the Third
>> Most Glorious Adventure;
>>So is It called,
>>But until there is no calling, It is not. (p. l7l)
>> 27
>> PERFECTION
>>Thus do I hear:
>>The Tathagata is not absent from the earth,
>>The Tathagata is not absent from the minds of men,
>>Neither from the Paradise of Sukhavati
>>Nor from the paradises above or below,
>>Nor from the hearts of sentient beings--
>>From none is the Perfect One absent.
>>Neither is the Tathagata missing in Hell,
>>Nor is his presence wanting in Avichi;
>>From no point of time nor area of space is
>> the Enlightened One gone.
>>Neither from conception nor deception
>> is he missing.
>>What is Nirvana?
>>Restraint from definition, restraint
>> from dissimulation,
>>Freedom from distinction, unshackled by ties
>> of limitation,
>>This is but the accompaniment to the Song of Peace,
>>A song not sung in words but by the
>> Breath of Compassion,
>>Breathing joy and mercy,
>>One is what one becomes
>>And there are not two. (p. l72)
>>
>> SUFIZEN
>> And now the determination to do for Sufism what Philip Kapleau (in
>>_The Three Pillars of Zen_) has done for Zen. Indeed I visited the
>>Zendo of Roshi Taisan in New York and was amazed with the types there,
>>all seemingly young people who have had satori or even moksha. So
>>one is very careful not to insist that his way is "the only way."
>> _November 27 l970 (p. 237)
>>The great Zen teacher, Sokei-An Sasaki, showed this person ways
>>of having the cosmic picture, with a warning that both the picture
>>and the person seeing it would be filled with terror. The whole
>>history of the world from l93l to l946 was unfolded.
>> (Commentary on Mental Purification) (p. 244)
>> ****************************************************
>> Excerpted from: "In the Garden: Murshid Sam"
>>Kathy
>>--
>> "I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old;
>> I seek the things they sought." --Basho
>Mangalam (blessings)
Ardie Von Störenfried
> The proximity to broad based and liberal interpretation of Atman is the deepest
> and most firmly rooted delusion of all. It's the glue that binds one's feet to
> the raft after all course views of Atman are gone. No Bill, when you die there
> will be no more Bill, Bill is not coming back in another form. Bill is the idea
> of Bill, and when the worms eat Bill they will be full, and Bill will be gone.
> It's going to be okay because Bill/David is not such a great thing to perpetuate
> anyway--good riddance!
But Davy, did not Lord Buddha proclaim the self and dhamma as refuges?
"Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as island, as those
who have the self as refuge, as those who have no other refuge; as those
who have dhamma as island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those
who have no other refuge." - Mahaparinibbana Sutta
And from our Mahayana POV:
"Good sons! Since the tathaagata is eternal, we describe it as the
self. Since the Dharmakaaya of the tathaagata is boundless and all
pervasive, never comes into being nor passes away, and is endowed with
the eight powers arising from knowledge of the paaramitaa of being
personal, we describe it as the self." --Mahaaparinirvaa.na Suutra
"Those who seek for the Tathaagata should seek for the self. For 'self'
and 'Buddha' are synonymous." --The Prajnaparamita in seven hundred
line
Ardie Von
Dirk Bruere
>
> the Sufi tradition as well. It follows a long (over a year) attempt of Kathy to
> homogenize Zen into a broader, though distorted understanding of what she "knows
> in her heart" to be the truth.
No doubt if she succeeds all the zendos the world over will shut up
shop.
> Lets get something PERFECTLY CLEAR! Many Zen Buddhists are having a difficult
> time cutting the roots with Christian backgrounds, objectified concepts of
> "Oneness/God/Atman/Soul etc." Just what do you think the great struggle of
> Buddhist teaching is? To understand "Oneness/God/Atman" Like it is in Sufi or
You can speak only for yourself David.
> doing anything inappropriate is absurd. It has never been the policy of
> Buddhists to foster delusion. The lack of clarity in this group is mind
> boggling.
And which Buddhists would those be? Are you including dark Buddhists in
this definition, or is it narrowed down to only the ones you approve of?
> the raft after all course views of Atman are gone. No Bill, when you die there
> will be no more Bill, Bill is not coming back in another form. Bill is the idea
Bill will always exist, a fly in the amber of time.
> Yes Kathy, you are going to die and no soul is going to go forth. The worms will
> eat Kathy too, and that may be Kathy's shining accomplishment. Sufi Sam will not
> be waiting for you on the other side, and Mother was ate by the worms a long
> time ago.
>
> Should I be more blunt? Can you show me where Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist
Yes. I think you should be more blunt. Mainly for my amusement.
Gassho
Dirk
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Should I be more blunt? Can you show me where Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist
> teacher has said anything different.
Nagarjuna--
"To him who understands the meaning in the teaching of the Buddha and
grasp the truth of derived name, he has taught that there is "I"; but to
one who does not understand the meaning in the teachings of the Buddha
and does not grasp the truth of the derived name, He has taught, there
is no "I." (T. 1509 253c)
Lankavatara Sutra--
nairaattmyavaadino 'bhaa.syaa bhik.sukarmaa.ni varjaya/
baadhakaa buddhadharmaa.naa.m sadasatpak.sad.r.s.taya.h// [Lanka X:
359-60 (vv. 762-71)]
"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
being and non-Being."
Ardie Von
Slap her down again Dave/ slap her down again/ we don't Kathy talking
about Zen.
JazzZen
> This Red-headed sufi politician has got this group by the balls, with
> using people against one another, playing alliances, bribes, gifts and email
> politics.
> The lack of clarity in this group is mind
> boggling.
Politics can only be played among politicians and red-headed sufis can
only boggle the minds which are not bolted down tightly; so what needs
clarification? The posts in az seem perfectly clear - except mine. I
hardly ever understand those.
Gassho
-John
http://home1.gte.net/sawyerj/index.html
ICQ: 8744633
Eugene Wyatt
> But...did not Lord Buddha proclaim the self...as (a) refuge...?
In the Diamond Sutra, he did not.
Buddha to Subhuti:
"...if a Bodhisattva clings to the false notion of an ego, a personality, a
being and a life, he is not a true Bodhisattva."
Poor Ardent, you are not a "true Bodhisattva" with your "self", according
to the mighty *self slashing* Diamond.
Unfortunately for you, these conflicting statements from the sutras further
discredit any attempt on your part to persuade anyone that what the sutras
have anything of value to say at all. This is unfortunate for all of us
with an interest in the history of Buddhism. Because of these confusions,
one can see why Ch'an was well to understand "transmission outside the
scriptures".
Explain yourself, why do you push your 'sutric' half truths and explain the
reasons behind the manifold contradictions of the sutras. Is it not
true that the Mahayana as well as the Hinayana sutras are in fact
commentaries, remembrances and specious 'mental transmissions' concocted,
in good faith, by monks, hundreds of years after the death of Shakyamuni
to promulgate their particular version of sangha?
If that be the case then your words, those of Evans-Wentz or those of
Billy-Bob Bihiku have the same validity. One would think that more truth
was spoken by Joko Beck because her transmission was outside of these
predjudiced *cooked up commentaries*, that you call gospel, the sutras.
Don't you just love that grandmotherly advice of hers for the dharmic
forlorn.
Be nice, but be thorough. BTW the baby ram lamb, with your name on it, is
just precious. I say "Ardent" to him and he says "Baa".
Eugene
Bill
"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bill wrote:
>|
>|In the portion of the article that Kathy posted which I quoted, I
>|appreciated the content of what was said, neither agreeing or
>|disagreeing with it. I don't give a rat's ass *who* wrote it,
>|the content speaks for itself. Rather than disparaging the source,
>|why not discuss whether the content itself is deceptive.
>Mainly because the "content" of Kathy's post was to show us/me that Sam was a
>true Zen teacher. No matter how it is impacted by "sweet sounding phrases" I've
>already stated quite clearly my position on what I feel Kathy is doing and why
>it is both damaging to the understanding of Buddhism, and how it is damaging to
>the Sufi tradition as well. It follows a long (over a year) attempt of Kathy to
>homogenize Zen into a broader, though distorted understanding of what she "knows
>in her heart" to be the truth.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with the point you make here,
but that's not what I'm talking about. Do you think what she
posted, regardless of who wrote it, is Buddhadharma or not?
>Lets get something PERFECTLY CLEAR! Many Zen Buddhists are having a difficult
>time cutting the roots with Christian backgrounds, objectified concepts of
>"Oneness/God/Atman/Soul etc."
OK, so let's take one of those verses she posted and see if it says
anything about objectified concepts of "Oneness/God/Atman/Soul etc.":
>> SAMADHI
>>This is the eighth stage of the glorious
>> Second Adventure.
>>It is not to be considered apart from all other
>> stages of the Second Adventure;
>>It is not to be considered apart from any stage
>> of the First Adventure.
>>This is Right Concentration.
>>What is Samadhi?
>>Definition defines, segregates, distinguishes;
>>Samadhi integrates, unites, amalgamates.
Now this could be construed as the One Size Fits All view
to which you object. But Buddhadharma is replete with
such phrases. Dogen-zenji said, "Even though it is midnight,
dawn is here; even though dawn comes, it is nighttime."
Night-time and daytime are not different. the same thing
is sometimes called night-time, sometimes called daytime.
They are one thing. - Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Beginners
Mind" pg. 118
Want some more? "In the sutras it is said that sectarianism
is a more severe evil than killing a thousand Buddhas. Why is
this so? The essential purpose of the Buddhas in giving
teachings is to eliminate both mistaken states of mind and the
experience of suffering. To achieve this aim is also the reason
that they have worked to attain enlightenment. The Buddhas' only
motivation is to benefit others, and they fulfill this by teaching.
Therefore, despising any of their teachings is worse than despising
the Buddhas. This is the implication of following one Dharma (1)
tradition while disparaging others. Furthermore, the Buddhas
themselves respect all the traditions of the teachings, so for us
not to do so is to dishonor all the Buddhas." - HHDL Tenzin Gyatso
"The Path to Enlightenment" pg. 50
(1) The glossary defines Dharma as the Doctrine of Buddha, which
incorporates both scriptural and realization traditions.
Also any object of knowledge.
However, to continue with the originally quoted verse allegedly
written by Sufi Sam:
>>The coal mine is not a light house,
>>Nor is the clod a lantern,
>>Definition of Samadhi is not Samadhi,
>>Description of Samadhi is not Samadhi
>>Words are no more. (p. l68)
How this can be construed as "objectifying" is beyond me.
But this is part of the content which you obviously wish
to gloss over and concentrate only on the credibility
of the one who wrote it, in order to maintain the prejudice
that "Sufi's objectify", and that Kathy is trying to make
us believe in a personal everlasting substantial self or soul
against our wishes.
>Just what do you think the great struggle of
>Buddhist teaching is? To understand "Oneness/God/Atman"\
>Like it is in Sufi or Hindu?
>So Kathy comes here in direct conflict to what we Buddhists are trying to
>achieve. This Red-headed sufi politician has got this group by the balls, with
>using people against one another, playing alliances, bribes, gifts and email
>politics.
Hey, if you send me a card, I'll thank you too. :-)
>Now quit fucking around! Kathy has her Opinions but to make it look like by
>defending the Buddhist Doctrine of Anatman in a Zen Buddhist newsgroup I am
>doing anything inappropriate is absurd. It has never been the policy of
>Buddhists to foster delusion. The lack of clarity in this group is mind
>boggling.
Your clarity is this groups lack of clarity? What are you contributing to
this groups clarity?
>The proximity to broad based and liberal interpretation of Atman is the deepest
>and most firmly rooted delusion of all. It's the glue that binds one's feet to
>the raft after all course views of Atman are gone. No Bill, when you die there
>will be no more Bill, Bill is not coming back in another form. Bill is the idea
>of Bill, and when the worms eat Bill they will be full, and Bill will be gone.
The Bill that posted yesterday is already gone. The Bill that is typing
this now will be gone in the next instant. There is no such thing as a
fixed and permanent entity called Bill. It's no big deal. When I have
crab for dinner, the crabs become Bill. When the worms eat my rotting
corpse, the worms will become Bill.
>Yes Kathy, you are going to die and no soul is going to go forth. The worms will
>eat Kathy too, and that may be Kathy's shining accomplishment. Sufi Sam will not
>be waiting for you on the other side, and Mother was ate by the worms a long
>time ago.
Yes, the following verse which she originally posted agrees:
>> NIRVANA
>>The sun casts shadows and the earth emits light,
>>The worm is the teacher, the Sramana is the scholar.
^^^^
>>Babies discipline their grandfathers,
>>And handkerchiefs are used for laughter;
>>With closed eyes is toil accomplished,
>>And in the daylight is great sloth.
>>Until Nirvana is surrendered, Nirvana is not gained.
>>This is called the eighth stage of the Third
>> Most Glorious Adventure;
>>So is It called,
>>But until there is no calling, It is not. (p. l7l)
>Should I be more blunt? Can you show me where Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist
>teacher has said anything different. You like the truth in the words:
>"Here a Bodhisattva, who courses in perfect wisdom, does not review the
>subjective-objective emptiness in the subjective emptiness, nor the subjective
>in the subjective in the objective, nor the subjective-objective in the
>objective, nor the objective in the subjective, nor the emptiness of emptiness
>in the subjective emptiness, and so on for all the kinds of emptiness. It is
>thus that a Bodhisattva, who courses in perfect wisdom, enters into the ripening
>of Bodhisattvas." I won't bother to give a citation since the words themselves
>are perfectly clear--if you have an eye to see it. If not, get your ass to a
>good Zazen or Vipassana teacher, and sit under the tree until you wake the fuck
>up.
I fail to see any contradiction in what was quoted by Kathy, and what you
quoted by Nagarjuna. Please, clearly show me where the difference lies.
How does the following verse contradict Nagarjuna?
>>Thus do I hear:
>>The Tathagata is not absent from the earth,
>>The Tathagata is not absent from the minds of men,
>>Neither from the Paradise of Sukhavati
>>Nor from the paradises above or below,
>>Nor from the hearts of sentient beings--
>>From none is the Perfect One absent.
>>Neither is the Tathagata missing in Hell,
>>Nor is his presence wanting in Avichi;
>>From no point of time nor area of space is
>> the Enlightened One gone.
>>Neither from conception nor deception
>> is he missing.
>>What is Nirvana?
>>Restraint from definition, restraint
>> from dissimulation,
>>Freedom from distinction, unshackled by ties
>> of limitation,
>>This is but the accompaniment to the Song of Peace,
>>A song not sung in words but by the
>> Breath of Compassion,
>>Breathing joy and mercy,
>>One is what one becomes
>>And there are not two. (p. l72)
Yes, I agree that Kathy continues to quote teachings that objectify
God/Atman/Soul etc. I don't think it's appropiate in a newsgroup
titled alt.zen, but the name of the group hasn't stopped anyone
from proselytizing, and Kathy is not the only one. But what was
quoted in the verses which I thanked her for is Buddhadharma
without a doubt.
Here is a suggestion, David, take it or leave it: Instead of trying
to contradict Kathy, and prove her wrong about what she writes, why
not post more of the writings of Nagarjuna, Asanga, Milarepa, Shantideva,
Dogen, Baso, etc. that clearly expound Anatman. Let the readers of
alt.zen read that instead of giving your attention to discrediting
proponants of an objectified God/Atman/Soul. Here, let me give you
an example:
If your ears see,
And eyes hear,
Not a doube you'll cherish
How naturally the rain drips
From the eaves!
The spring is come, softly blows the wind,
The peaches and apricots are in full bloom.
The dews are thick in autummal nights,
The leaves fall from the paulowina tree.
The flowers, the maple leaves in autumn,
And the wintery snows covering the fields all white,
How beautiful they are each in its way!
I fear my attachments still did not go beyond the sensations,
(for I know now what reality is).
Inside the sacred fence before which I bow
There must be a pond filled with clear water;
As my mind-moon becomes bright
I see its shadow reflected in the water.
Whereever and whenever the mind is found attached to anything.
Make haste to detach yourself from it.
When you tarry for any length of time
It will turn again into your old home town.
- Baso
Abandon all the arts
You have learned
In swordsmanship
And in one gulp
Drink up all the waters of the West River
I thought all the time
I was learning how to win;
But I realize now:
To win is no more,
No less, than to lose.
In the well not dug,
In the water not filling it,
A shadow is reflected;
And a man with no form, no shadow,
Is drinking water from the well.
A man with no form, no shadow,
Turns into a rice powder
When he pounds rice.
- From "Collected works on Swordmanship" - Bujutsu Sosho
lawrence day
>
> David Oller writes:
>
> "No, Kathy, no spirit going forth either."
>
> Well now won't you be surprised when you find yours going forth.
> Maybe we can continue the argument over there on the other side.
>
> Have you not had at all, David, experiences of deceased relatives
> making their presence of love known to you?
>
> Kathy
>
> --
> "I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old;
> I seek the things they sought." --Basho
Plop!
'scuse the in-budding, but this seems a fascinating thread.
Regarding good-byes from loved ones: Yes definitely.
The night my mentor died I shed mysterious tears on a page I've kept.
At the time, I didn't know why..
And at his funeral his friends all described equally bizarre events as
he said goodbye in mysterious ways.
Self/no self~~a thousand arguments~~but the tears on the page are real!
--lawrence
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Buddha to Subhuti:
>
> "...if a Bodhisattva clings to the false notion of an ego, a personality, a
> being and a life, he is not a true Bodhisattva."
>
> Poor Ardent, you are not a "true Bodhisattva" with your "self", according
> to the mighty *self slashing* Diamond.
Poor dumb cluck, Eugene, can't get it through his thick American head
that the Buddha wishes us not to cling to "signifiers" (sa.mj~naa) of
the *self*—at least that is the way it reads in Sanskrit.
Now, let me bring some light to your brain, Eugene.
A "false notion" of the self is just that, false. A false notion of the
Tathagata is just that, false. A false notion of the divine Ardie is
just that, false.
"Those who seek for the Tathaagata should seek for the self. For *self*
Ardie Von Störenfried
>
> David Oller writes:
>
> "No, Kathy, no spirit going forth either."
>
> Well now won't you be surprised when you find yours going forth.
> Maybe we can continue the argument over there on the other side.
>
> Have you not had at all, David, experiences of deceased relatives
> making their presence of love known to you?
>
> Kathy
Kathy!! Hush. Don't speak of "deceased relatives" on this forum as a
way of suggesting that Lord Buddha acknowledged beings in a heavenly
world which indirectly would militate against Bunker Dave's non-self
hypothesis. Bunker Dave will get real pissed at you. His eyes will
bludge out.
However Lord Buddha did acknowledge deceased relatives. In the
Tiroku.d.da Sutta in the Nikaayas the Buddha said:
//Those who are compassionate towards their deceased relatives give, on
occasion, as alms (to holy men) pure, palatable and suitable solid and
liquid food, saying, "My the merit thus acquired be for the comfort and
happiness of our deceased relatives"...receive the fruits of the deed.//
BTW, we all know that Davy is going to the hells when he croaks.
"Only a few creatures who have died as men are reborn as men, but far
more creatures who died as men, come back to existence in Hell, among
animals, or in the realm of the shades" [A.i.36].
Ardie Von
Bill
>x-no-archive: yes
>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>Bill, I'm not going to respond to your questions because everytime I do it
>triggers an attack/analysis on the part of Kathy and serves up more confusion
>from Ardent & Mark. Not to mention creating hard feelings from the various
>Unitarians of this newsgroup. And that's putting it nicely.
Gotcha, so what are we going to discuss in alt.zen? Hmmm, it's a nice
day today. I think I'll go sailing.
>To paraphrase Musfaad: It's just words anyway so what's the point? Points of
>Buddhism and Zen are meaningless so I can't imagine what difference it makes
>what I say and indeed why I should bother to say anything at all. Instead I'll
>ask you a question: Why did the old masters call it the Great Death?
Because no-mind, no-self is just that.
"In fields of observation, chance favors only the mind
that is prepared." - Louis Pasteur
Ardie Von Störenfried
> You have demons of fear within your own
> being that you are wrestling with, but rather than admit this,
> it is easier to say that I am some sort of wicked person that
> should get out of this NG.
Dave wants to scourge you Kathy. He wants to bring you before his
hooded council of academic inquisitors who, one by one, will deconstruct
your belief in holiness and spirit.
Then after you have been shamefully brow beaten by the friars of
nihilism it will be time for the rack.
Putting your now disrobed naked body on the rack, illuminated only by
torch light, Dave's sexually aroused perverts with fully erect penises
beneath their robes will begin their torture of you. Yes, all the abuse
their fathers gave them will find release in your erotic death. Dave,
more than any hooded inquisitor, will find the greatest release in your
cries of agony as he has suffered at the hands of this father the
greatest castration of any male on this forum.
But, hold it. This will not likely happen. Knight Ardie, with is
Prussian Mystical Knights, riding to the music of Richard Wagner, will
rescue you from these inquisitors. Hacking their penises off and
feeding their testicles to our bull mastiff dogs, we will revenge the
scorn they have heaped upon you!!
Sir Ardie
Don James
--
For a good time,
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/zen/zenhome.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Eugene Wyatt
> Eugene wrote:
>
>
> > Buddha to Subhuti:
> >
> > "...if a Bodhisattva clings to the false notion of an ego, a personality, a
> > being and a life, he is not a true Bodhisattva."
> >
> > Poor Ardent, you are not a "true Bodhisattva" with your "self", according
> > to the mighty *self slashing* Diamond.
Lets go from Han Shan's to another translation,Price's.
Buddha to Subhuti:
"It is because no Bodhisattva who is a real Bodhisattva cherishes the idea
of an ego entity. a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
Sorry Ardent, you don't make the Bodhisattva cut here either. Now lets look
at Conze's translation.
Buddha to Subhuti:
"If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a being should take place, he could not
be called a 'Bodhi-being". 'And why?' He is not to be called a Bodhi-being
in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place. or the notion
of a living soul or of a person."
You fail here, too. You simple devil.
> Poor dumb cluck, Eugene, can't get it through his thick American head
> that the Buddha wishes us not to cling to "signifiers" (sa.mj~naa) of
> the *self*—at least that is the way it reads in Sanskrit.
No, that is the way it *can be read* in the Han Shan translation because of
someone's rather careless use of "false" as it qualifies "notion". You
apply semiotics to the sutra; yes it can be read semioticly, but there is
so much more to this enigmatic Prajnaparamita sutra than your narrow
'structuralist' view of it. You pretend to mysticism and when it's before
your eyes, you blind yourself to it for reasons so common they bore me.
Eugene
Bill
>"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>>Bill, I'm not going to respond to your questions because everytime I do it
>>triggers an attack/analysis on the part of Kathy and serves up more confusion
>>from Ardent & Mark. Not to mention creating hard feelings from the various
>>Unitarians of this newsgroup. And that's putting it nicely.
>Gotcha, so what are we going to discuss in alt.zen? Hmmm, it's a nice
>day today. I think I'll go sailing.
>>To paraphrase Musfaad: It's just words anyway so what's the point? Points of
>>Buddhism and Zen are meaningless so I can't imagine what difference it makes
>>what I say and indeed why I should bother to say anything at all. Instead I'll
>>ask you a question: Why did the old masters call it the Great Death?
>Because no-mind, no-self is just that.
Thank you David, for enlightening me. <gassho>
Mr. Minkfoot
}BTW, we all know that Davy is going to the hells when he croaks.
I don't think "we all know" that, Ardent.
Bill
>x-no-archive: yes
>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>Bill wrote in message <6u39ed$3va$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>|"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>|
>|>x-no-archive: yes
>|
>|>http://www.kaihan.com
>|
>|>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>|>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>|>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>|
>|
>|>Bill, I'm not going to respond to your questions because everytime I do it
>|>triggers an attack/analysis on the part of Kathy and serves up more confusion
>|>from Ardent & Mark. Not to mention creating hard feelings from the various
>|>Unitarians of this newsgroup. And that's putting it nicely.
>|
>|Gotcha, so what are we going to discuss in alt.zen? Hmmm, it's a nice
>|day today. I think I'll go sailing.
>Have fun.
>|>To paraphrase Musfaad: It's just words anyway so what's the point? Points of
>|>Buddhism and Zen are meaningless so I can't imagine what difference it makes
>|>what I say and indeed why I should bother to say anything at all. Instead I'll
>|>ask you a question: Why did the old masters call it the Great Death?
>|
>|Because no-mind, no-self is just that.
>First, in order to have any discussion on alt.zen I've put Kathy, Mark, Dirk,
>and Ardent in my killfile. And I've decided not only to ignore what they say,
>but also to ignore how their words effect others. Also, I will ignore any posts
>that are responses to their posts for the time being. I don't think this will
>work put I'm going to try it and see. So if you want to continue this discussion
>I will respond to you and others where I'm not required to deal with reading
>material from the above mentioned. I know this appears closed minded--please
>consider it my failure and not theirs--I simply become too distracted dealing
>with their material. This monkey is putting his hands over his eyes. There is
>also a time management function to this endeavor.
>Now in response to your answer:
>Yes, but why "Great?"
Any answer I give will most certainly be inadaquate, but to respectfully
answer, because it is empty, unclouded like the clear sky, a readiness
towards openess, unprejudiced and unconditioned - even uncreated.
>Does _Great Death_ imply merely being less egocentric?
No, that is egocentric.
>, more centered around
>equanimity, oneness, universal soul etc.?
No, that is egocentric.
>Nirvana implys "Extinction" Where is
>the foundation for Universal Spirit in that?
It's one's face before one is born.
>Why did Lin-chi object to "Oneness"
>as an expression? Why "Not Two?"
Because if oneness is an idea taken to be real
in a positive sense, it is not oneness.
Ones eye cannot see itself directly, so oneness
cannot be asserted.
Therefore, "not two" simply negates, and one is clear.
Nowhere is there a mirror upon which dust alights.
Dirk Bruere
>
> as dave oller states, the Dalai Lama said that buddhism does not belief
> in the concept of soul. what, however, is it that incarnates as the
> Dalai Lama lifetime, after lifetime? what are the lamas finding when
> they search for the newly reborn Dalai Lama?
I think the problem lies with assumptions (different ones) as to what a
'soul' actually is.
> seemingly "share" their brains. however, i do not actally believe that
> these constitute "past lifetimes" --- and as i cannot figure out what
> interpretaion and/or meaning to give them, i basically consider them to
> be neurological events.
Everything is a neurological event. Don't you mean that it is a
phenomena that either cannot be verified in consensus reality, or can be
falsified?
As for 'past lives', I've traced 7 of 'my own', back to Minoan Crete.
However, I don't view them as past lives either. And I wouldn't even if
there was factual evidence for their 'reality' in existing historical
records.
Gassho
Dirk
Lee Dillion
>
> as dave oller states, the Dalai Lama said that buddhism does not belief
> in the concept of soul. what, however, is it that incarnates as the
> Dalai Lama lifetime, after lifetime? what are the lamas finding when
> they search for the newly reborn Dalai Lama?
You raise a very interesting question that I struggle to understand.
The following are the Dalai Lama's own words on the concept of a soul in
an exchange with Dr. Peter Michel:
"PM: So non-self does not mean there is no individual, is that correct?
The self as you interpret it is something static, as in
Advaita-Vedanta." You merge into Brahman, so that the atman becomes
Brahman, and only Brahman exists. You disagree with that, don't you?
DL: When we refute the soul, or atman, theory, we are refuting, the
theory of a substantial, independent person. There is no independent
self that exists substantially, from its own side. However, the self,
or person, does exist dependent on the psychophysical aggregates. This
applies to all beings, from the level of ordinary sentient beings up to
Buddha. This self, which is designated by the psychophysical
aggregates, is of course an individual, as it can only exist in relation
to its aggregates. There is no all-pervasive or universal person
separate from them. Anatman, or non-self, is in fact a quality, a
characteristic, of each individual person. There is no universal
non-self that exists separate from individual persons. Anatman is the
mere negation of a self that is supposed to exist in such a way,
substantially and independently of the psychophysical aggregates.
PM: Does the independent self dissolve itself? In Advaita-Vedanta the
self ceases to exist. Atman becomes Brahman and in the end there is
only Brahman.
DL: No, this is not what is meant. We are not talking about the end of
something, or a process in which the self gradually dissolves. Non-self
is simply a natural aspect of the way in which every person exists.
PM: During a teaching in Bodhgaya, you said: "But the basic, ultimate,
innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning,
and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach
Buddhahood, telltale consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing.
Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example,
the Buddha Sliakyamuni's " consciousness and the Buddha Kasliyapa's 15
consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of
consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood. " Does
that mean that the evolution of consciousness never comes to an end? Is
there a cosmic Buddha?
DL: There is no such cosmic consciousness into which you merge."
Based on the above, perhaps they would look for the dependently arisen
self, that in Tibetan Geluk scholarship, can have temporal and spatial
extensions (i.e exist accross time).
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
dr...@ecity.net
1.news.gte.net>,
saw...@gte.net wrote:
> David Oller wrote:
> > This Red-headed sufi politician has got this group by the balls, with
> > using people against one another, playing alliances, bribes, gifts and email
> > politics.
> > boggling.
But, you are also being used by those same
tactics! You can only be used if you let
yourself. I assure you that most people here
can figure out with their hearts. And if not, so
what? I clearly remembered the other
morning, when I first started on my journey,
that I thought, "It is all One." I included all
religions in this "One." That was the best
way I could grasp the enormity of the ideas I
was discovering. Now I laugh at the memory
of that! Kathy has made it very clear that she
has her ideas and they are valid. For _ her _
they are, for you they are not. In her
personal discoveries, she has come to other
conclusions than you in the grand scheme of
things. I really don't think that she is actively
trying to subvert. You can't save everyone
from another's designs. You just can't. I
guess, because I work in a large workplace, I
see this sort of thing all too often and
recognize that there are just going to be
people that dislike you no matter what you
do. In those cases, forebearance with a
strong measure of avoidance seems to be
_most_ appropriate!
;-)
Diane R.
>
> Politics can only be played among politicians and red-headed sufis can
> only boggle the minds which are not bolted down tightly; so what needs
> clarification? The posts in az seem perfectly clear - except mine. I
> hardly ever understand those.
> Gassho
> -John
> http://home1.gte.net/sawyerj/index.html
> ICQ: 8744633
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
>
> Lee Dillion quotes the Dalai Lama on Sept. 20, l998:
>
> "Anatman, or non-self, is in fact a quality, a characteristic, of each
> individual person."
>
> this!!!!
I am glad you liked the quote. Please see my reply to a post by Sufi
Musfaad for further statements by the Dalai Lama on universal
consciousness (which he notes Buddhism completely refutes).
Take care.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Daryl
grail...@xnetsource.comm writes...
>David Oller writes on Sept. l9, l998:
>
>
>The worms will eat the body cage of that which the spirit
>of Kathy used for awhile on this plane. The worms will not
>be eating that which I AM.
They will if they are Zen worms.
--
Da-ryl - to email me, remove the dashes
"a faith that does not perpetually expose itself to the
possibility of unfaith is no faith but merely a convenience"
--Heidegger
Ardie Von Störenfried
> No, that is the way it *can be read* in the Han Shan translation because of
> someone's rather careless use of "false" as it qualifies "notion". You
> apply semiotics to the sutra; yes it can be read semioticly, but there is
> so much more to this enigmatic Prajnaparamita sutra than your narrow
> 'structuralist' view of it. You pretend to mysticism and when it's before
> your eyes, you blind yourself to it for reasons so common they bore me.
>
> Eugene
Try Schleiermacher's "divinatory hermeneutics".
Ardie Von
Ali Hassan
describe the Great Death of the ego, as egos. What a hoot.
Ali
Ardie Von Störenfried wrote in message <360535...@idt.net>...
>grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>
>Kathy!! Hush. Don't speak of "deceased
>
>BTW, we all know that Davy is going to the hells when he croaks.
>
JazzZen
>
> Not the point! She can dump her garbage here. I would be remiss in letting it
> pass for food.
The garbage of one is a feast for others.
Mr. Minkfoot
<dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}Bill wrote in message <6u3jbk$7mc$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
}|"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}|>Bill wrote in message <6u39ed$3va$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
}|>|"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Anyway, they alternate]:
}|>Why did Lin-chi object to "Oneness"
}|>as an expression? Why "Not Two?"
}
}|Because if oneness is an idea taken to be real
}in a positive sense, it is not oneness.
}
}|Ones eye cannot see itself directly, so oneness
}|cannot be asserted.
}
}|Therefore, "not two" simply negates, and one is clear.
}|Nowhere is there a mirror upon which dust alights.
}
}
}No, Bill, I found nothing in your responses inadequate, misleading, or unclear.
}
}It is just that simple!
}
}But, since it is that clear, simple, and obvious--why do we need Buddhism and
}why do we need to practice Dhyana, Zazen, Meditation?
Habit.
Steven Lightfoot
>Robic...@halcyon.com (Bill) wrote:
>
>>"David Oller" <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>
>>>http://www.kaihan.com
>
>>>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>>>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>>>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>
>
>>>Bill, I'm not going to respond to your questions because everytime I do it
>>>triggers an attack/analysis on the part of Kathy and serves up more confusion
>>>from Ardent & Mark. Not to mention creating hard feelings from the various
>>>Unitarians of this newsgroup. And that's putting it nicely.
>
>>Gotcha, so what are we going to discuss in alt.zen? Hmmm, it's a nice
>>day today. I think I'll go sailing.
>
>>>To paraphrase Musfaad: It's just words anyway so what's the point? Points of
>>>Buddhism and Zen are meaningless so I can't imagine what difference it makes
>>>what I say and indeed why I should bother to say anything at all. Instead I'll
>>>ask you a question: Why did the old masters call it the Great Death?
>
>>Because no-mind, no-self is just that.
>
>
>Thank you David, for enlightening me. <gassho>
>
Steven:
Here open the gates of heaven. :-)
Steven Lightfoot
<dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>http://www.kaihan.com
>
>"The wind has fallen; blossoms are scattered on the ground.
>Birds sing, and the mountains grow dark. This is the wonderful
>power of Buddhism." --Ryokan
>
>Lee Dillion wrote in message <36055687...@micron.net>...
Steven:
With Mind there is identification on some level, with No-Mind, there
is no existant entity which needs to self reference. The whole idea
of a self which exists to itsel, from it's own side, is denied by the
DL. That's why enlightenment is so wonderful, there is no need to
absolutize anyone, thereby destroying everyone else.
>|
>|PM: During a teaching in Bodhgaya, you said: "But the basic, ultimate,
>|innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning,
>|and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach
>|Buddhahood, telltale consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing.
Steven:
Yes, but *not* all-knowing of anything objective, so as to separate
itself from itself and give rise to a causal self, causing itself to
give rise to itself. There is *that* and then there appears to be a
*me*. To embrace both without contradiction, nor trying to bridge
the gap between them, is to stay in the middle, being aware of both
simultaneously. This is confidence of each moment, never being out
of sync. In this way, God becomes a confused idiot, or whatever I
am at any given moment, and it doesn't bother him because he is also
supremely *me*, with no self referrent. :-)
>|Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example,
>|the Buddha Sliakyamuni's " consciousness and the Buddha Kasliyapa's 15
>|consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of
>|consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood. " Does
>|that mean that the evolution of consciousness never comes to an end? Is
>|there a cosmic Buddha?
>|
>|DL: There is no such cosmic consciousness into which you merge."
Steven:
Nothing is static and no cosmic consciousness exists from its own
side. You are already merged into all that can be merged, it is
just for you to know it as already being *what is*.
>|
>|Based on the above, perhaps they would look for the dependently arisen
>|self, that in Tibetan Geluk scholarship, can have temporal and spatial
>|extensions (i.e exist accross time).
>|--
>|Lee Dillion
>|dill...@micron.net
>
>Excellent post Lee! Thank you very much.
>
>David
>
Steven:
Yeah, get down with your bad self. :-)
>
Steven Lightfoot
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>Radha...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> as dave oller states, the Dalai Lama said that buddhism does not belief
>> in the concept of soul. what, however, is it that incarnates as the
>> Dalai Lama lifetime, after lifetime? what are the lamas finding when
>> they search for the newly reborn Dalai Lama?
>
>I think the problem lies with assumptions (different ones) as to what a
>'soul' actually is.
Steven:
Only intellectually.
Steven Lightfoot
>Lee Dillion quotes the Dalai Lama on Sept. 20, l998:
>
>"Anatman, or non-self, is in fact a quality, a characteristic, of each
>individual person."
>
>Lee, I think I love you. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for posting
>this!!!!
Steven:
Yes, and without you, the notion of a self referrent God doesn't
stand. Why does that make you so happy Kathy?
>Again, we see how *different* people can interpret things *differently*,
>depending on what they think or believe they have heard. From what
>you have posted here, Lee, it seems to me that all of David Oller's
>yammerings away about how Buddha taught Anatman may really be more
>about David's "understandings/interpretations" of what he *thinks*
>the Dalai Lama and/or Buddha taught (or perhaps David understands
>at the level that David is at, and others will understand at
>the levels they are at.)
Steven:
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy. You do not seem to grasp that they are both
saying the same thing. Only in your mind does either Atman or
Anatman exist. Get rid of mind, the container, and all concepts and
all self referrent notions of reality, whatever you want to call it,
are gone. Nothing is self referrent and when you cease to be self
referrent, you will also be enlightened. Nothing relates to you
personally because you are everything and the only reason you remain
small and self-full is ignorance. Ignorance turns everything into
self referrent beings, God's, and misunderstood Buddha's. Nothing
refers to itself except through ignorance.
It has been widely known that many
>spiritual teachers speak to/at the level that the disciple/devotee
>is at, and not necessarily across-the-board in black and white/written
>in stone language!
Steven:
One million words are not enough and one is too many. Zen doesn't
speak, it relates. You don't relate, you speak. That's the
difference between you and Zen. You can speak of yourself as a Zen
person but you can't *not exist* for even one instant so how can you
even say the word. If you could *not exist* for even one instant,
then there would be no God, no Jesus, no religion, no Buddhism, and no
Dalai Lama, or other Great Spiritual Guru's, and no you to believe in
any of them as self referrent beings, or to have any self reference
yourself. Zen calls that the Don't Know mind, that doesn't know
itself except through another.
>
>When Radharanee asked her question about soul, I thought about
>the Dzambala Deities (statues) I have in my home that have been
>blessed by the mindstream of Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo (lady lama and
>recognized as a "primordial wisdom dakini whose prayers and
>aspirations were instrumental in establishing the first Palyul
>monastery." (descriptive folder). She is pictured on p. l42 of
>"A Garland of Immortal Wish-fulfilling Trees" by Ven. Tsering
>Lama Jampal Zangpo (translated by Sangye Khandro) (Snow Lions
>Publications).
Steven:
To have the view that these methods of practice are the end of
practice, would be less than truthful. Someday there will come an
end to practice, an end to believing in the show of an entity that
self references, be it spiritual or not, go on.
It was interesting to me that the people of this
>monastery did not ask me if I was "buddhist" or if I have first
>read Krishnamurti, or if I knew that much about Buddhism.
Steven:
You take an idea and go into glee over it because you feel you have
been made right. You do not yet understand that you cannot
possibly ever be right because you are not a separate isolated self
referrent self apart from an as yet uncircumscribed whole, which is
also not self referrent cause it ain't finished yet.
They
>responded from my request which came from my heart, and I was
>given several deities (of which some have been given to others)
>that were blessed with the mindstream of Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo.
Steven:
You are exactly where you should be, why do you find fault with those
that are at a different place in their growth and development as if
you are right and they wrong. Everything you think of as *you* are
mere conditions, and tomorrow they will change and you will have to
ask the questions all over again, "Who the hell am I, really?" To
rejoice in temporary victories is fine, but don't get so carried away
that you start slamming others who you now believe you've ousted from
their own castles of spiritual practice.
>I also obtained from the monastery a statue of Padmasambhava
>which also was blessed by Her. I feel a deep affinity to/with
>Padmasambhava. The name of the monastery is Kunzang Palyul Choling
>and they are located in Poolesville, Maryland.
Steven:
I'm sure everyone is happy that you feel such affinity for those
folks. Many millions of other people do also, leaving you *not
alone* in your admiration.
>
>Here is a section from "A Garland of Immortal Wish-fulfilling Trees"
>
>"In Palyul monastery, the perfectly pure doctrine
> Is propagated, (like the) realm of Kachod,
> Where all the manifestations of Buddha arise.
> Whosever has a karmic connection,
> Including the sangha, is guided on the path to liberation.
>May this great dharma center remain forever in this world.
Steven:
Do you know what the Perfectly Pure Doctrine is?
>
>
>
> May I, in all my lifetimes, be protected
> By the illuminating great wisdom light of compassion
> Of the primordial sun,
> and by actualizing the clear light
> Pure-awareness-emptiness nature of mind,
> May I possess the potential to serve the Buddha's Doctrine."
Steven:
Do you know what the Buddha's Doctrine is?
>
>
>And to more address Radharanee about soul and the incarnation of
>lamas, etc, if you have not already, you might wish to check this
>book out, it was very fascinating to/for me:
Steven:
I find you fascinating Kathy, you read like a book yourself. I
wonder if you've read it yet?
>
>"Reincarnation: The Spanish boy whose destiny was to be a Tibetan
>lama" by Vicki Mackenzie (Time Books International, New Delhi,
>published by Time Books International, 25-A, Khan Market, New
>Delhi-ll0003 (no ISBN is listed in this book). Here are a few
>quotes, Radharanee, which may address your question:
>
>"My feeling is that a reincarnated lama is only his enlightened
>energy, not his personality. Osel is not Lama Yeshe come back,
>it's Lama Yeshe's energy in a new form." (p l24)
Steven:
The disciple takes on the energy of the master, his character at the
primordial level, and add something to it, making it even better.
Todays masters are better by far than yesterday's masters. Of
course, one without a living master to personally guide them, will not
buy that line of reasoning. David Oller's Master is far greater than
the Buddha, as far as David is concerned.
>
>"He (Lama Yeshe) once said, 'I would have hated it if my teacher
>had told me "drink this", "eat this". I prefer to use my own
>intelligence, my own intuition, make my own decisions. Similarly,
>you should all make your own lives, trusting your own Buddha-nature.
>Of course listen to advice, but ultimately, trust your own
>intelligence."
Steven:
David and I follow that fellow as best we can, of that I am certain.
Of course, we won't look like anything you've read about in the books
that *sell* Buddhism to the masses and leave out all the intricacies
of relationships between real people. That's because we are real
people, doing our damnest to share the great blessings we've found.
Most people wouldn't know a blessing if it fell out of the sky on
their fucking head. They'd probably check their wallet as if the
blessing was there to rip them off. We have become, as a people,
that which we despise in others. :-)
>
>"With my own fiercely independent nature it was the only stand I could
>ever agree with.
Steven:
And through all of that, you still have a strong self referrent self
you like so much you can't possible let go of it. How many of you are
there between us Kathy?
Later, reading _The Way of the White Clouds_, by
>Lama Govinda, I got a truer picture of the real function of a
>guru: 'A guru is far more than a teacher in the ordinary sense. A
>teacher gives knowledge but a guru gives himself. The real teachings
>of a guru are not his words but what remains unspoken, because it
>goes beyond the power of human speech. The guru is an _inspirer_,
>in the truest sense of this word, i.e., one who infuses us with his
>own living spirit." (p. 24-25)
Steven:
Zen doesn't have that notion. A Zen Master may inspire you by
example, or kick you into line when you get to big for your britches,
but he doesn't give you anything you don't already have that he does.
>
>
>"But, I wanted to know, were Lama Yeshe and Lama Osel exactly
>one and the same person? Surely there were some differences that
>could be attributed to genetic material, different parents, and
>an already radically different lifestyle to the one Lama Yeshe had
>experienced. Lama Zopa closed his eyes and thought. Eventually
>he looked at me kindly and gave me his explanation: "The beautiful
>rose plant that we see today is but a continuation of yesterday's
>plant.
Steven:
The beautiful mankind we see today is merely a continuation of
Mankind. In that sense, there has never been anyone who stood apart
from Mankind, as if they weren't Mankind itself. That's why
spiritual teachings are no respector of persons, who think they are
more than just merely Mankind itself, and have no self referencing
self, outside of interacting with others. You ask why I respond to
everyone, I do it because everyone exists and if I read what they have
to say, I respond to let them know they are real to me.
Similarly, Lama Osel's holy mind is a continuation of
>Lama Yeshe's holy mind.'
Steven:
Zen admits no Holy mind, no this mind more holy than another, which
doesn't mean that a Zennist cannot *feel* the difference, because of
his ignorance, between a bum and the Buddha.
He became more profound, delving deeper
>into the Buddhist explanation. 'You see, the consciousness associated
>with that particular body which was named by the Abbot in Tibet, Lama
>Yeshe--that same mental continuum associated with a western body
>born in Spain now bears the merely imputed label, Osel. It is
>the same continuity. For the West to understand reincarnation it
>is necessary to begin to understand mind. But the insubstantial,
>non-physical is difficult to understand,' he stated matter-of-
>factly.
Steven:
The Mind contains all substantial and insubstantial notions. Beyond
that, in No-Mind, they are all risen above together, in one instant.
>
>We were back with that old question 'Who am I?' Are we our 'label',
>that name given to a group of physical and mental attributes, that
>according to the Buddhists is never permanent anyway, but constantly
>in a state of flux? Are we more, or less? The answers I knew could
>only come from meditation--using the mind to explore the mind.
Steven:
That is the trap. That is not meditation. When mind explores, by
that very act, it creates everything within mind, none of which needed
to have been created in the first place. Use No-Mind and don't
explore mind.
To set
>out that journey into inner space must surely by the greatest
>adventure left to man. If I understood him correctly today's
>rose plant, although it bore the same essence as yesterday's rose,
>would have its own characteristics. Osel both was, and was not,
>Lama Yeshe. The source was the same but the manifestation was
>different." (p. l45-l46).
Steven:
The source was the same, the manifestation was the same, only
ignorance sees differently. The appearance was tdifferent, pointing
to the other side of the coin, leaving us with the same and different,
simultaneously, depending upon which side we are looking at. Going
beyond intellectuality, we can look at the edge of the coin and see
neither distinction of Mind. A room filled with darkness changes
when the light goes on yet the room has not changed, likewise, if the
rose that we see today is not the same as the rose we saw 10 years
ago, and yet one exists to view today, then Rosehood doesn't depend
upon any particular rose of the pasts self reference. Inotherwords,
if the fellow in the past self referenced himself, that hindered, not
helped, him from becomming as great as Fellowhood could have become in
the future. Self referencing is always ignorance manifesting.
>Also, Radharanee, I believe Murshid (H I Khan) had said in a lecture
>to his mureeds that it is not the soul that reincarnates, but rather a
>"series" of personalities...each picking up where the other left off.
Steven:
Each with its own ignorance if they are in any way self referencial.
The reason you like great men is because they don't self reference,
they reference you as if you are themselves.
>
>And to finish, one last quote from the same book, this one about
>the "selfless heart":
>
>"And then on top of that came the teachings on Compassion, the touchstone
>of Mahayana Buddhism which maintains that true liberation isn't
>possible unless you have a selfless heart. Long, long lessons teaching
>not just that we _must_ love all sentient beings throughout all
>universes, but _how_ to love them." (p. l3)
Steven:
That is our life, we have to love our enemies Kathy, yes, that means
you have to practice loving me as I have to practice loving you, or
else we create enemies. Enemies can only exist if we self reference,
retarding us from that Selfless Heart we are talking about.
>
>
>Namaste,
> Karmapa Chenno,
>
>Kathy
Steven:
With Love and Kindness as befits our true stature.
> "I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old;
> I seek the things they sought." --Basho
Steven:
The sought to turn life into a constant meditation of what we are
doing moment by moment, for starters, that is. And look how far
we've come, all of us getting past that first step so quickly that we
can now be totally awake ever second of every day.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>David to Bill wrote:
>
>> The proximity to broad based and liberal interpretation of Atman is the deepest
>> and most firmly rooted delusion of all. It's the glue that binds one's feet to
>> the raft after all course views of Atman are gone. No Bill, when you die there
>> will be no more Bill, Bill is not coming back in another form. Bill is the idea
>> of Bill, and when the worms eat Bill they will be full, and Bill will be gone.
>> It's going to be okay because Bill/David is not such a great thing to perpetuate
>> anyway--good riddance!
>
>Ardie:
>But Davy, did not Lord Buddha proclaim the self and dhamma as refuges?
Steven:
You seem to always miss the part where he rose above himself and the
dharma and said that he couldn't possible put down and express in
words that which he had found. When one goes on trying to express
the inexpressible they will eventually say just about everything that
could be said in one way or another. It's seems as it it's that
*another* that gets you Ardie. You've got to go deeper than just
arguing one thing he said against another. Certainly you know
enough about the Sutra's to go whole hog with yourself and reach the
end of this battle of Sutra's so you can move on to the real work of
finding out deeply within your very own self what they *really* point
to. You're not getting any younger Ardie.
>
Ardie:
>"Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as island, as those
>who have the self as refuge, as those who have no other refuge; as those
>who have dhamma as island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those
>who have no other refuge." - Mahaparinibbana Sutta
Steven:
And on and on and on and on goes the energizer Ardie. Still, what
does that have to do with Zen. The great Zen Masters realized that,
you still haven't and you know it. Belief will never be enough for
you.
>
>And from our Mahayana POV:
>
>"Good sons! Since the tathaagata is eternal, we describe it as the
>self. Since the Dharmakaaya of the tathaagata is boundless and all
>pervasive, never comes into being nor passes away, and is endowed with
>the eight powers arising from knowledge of the paaramitaa of being
>personal, we describe it as the self." --Mahaaparinirvaa.na Suutra
Steven:
Yes, we describe it as the self but in actuality, it cannot be know
through hearing the description of it except as you want to experience
it directly. Even Jesus said, "Now I speak in parables yet there
will come a day when you will see directly." Same for you Ardie,
there will come a day when you will stop needing to rely on scriptures
and words and descriptions and you will become Buddahood directly.
Ardie:
>"Those who seek for the Tathaagata should seek for the self. For 'self'
>and 'Buddha' are synonymous." --The Prajnaparamita in seven hundred
>line
Steven:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and on and on and on and so forth and so on. Self,
not self, this that and the other. You know nothing for a man who
knows so much.
>
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Ardie Von Still Stupid after all these years.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Eugene wrote:
>
>
>> Buddha to Subhuti:
>>
>> "...if a Bodhisattva clings to the false notion of an ego, a personality, a
>> being and a life, he is not a true Bodhisattva."
>>
>> Poor Ardent, you are not a "true Bodhisattva" with your "self", according
>> to the mighty *self slashing* Diamond.
>
>
>Poor dumb cluck, Eugene, can't get it through his thick American head
>that the Buddha wishes us not to cling to "signifiers" (sa.mj~naa) of
>the *self*—at least that is the way it reads in Sanskrit.
>
>Now, let me bring some light to your brain, Eugene.
>
>A "false notion" of the self is just that, false. A false notion of the
>Tathagata is just that, false. A false notion of the divine Ardie is
>just that, false.
Steven:
And that's the one we're trying to knock you out of Ardie, the false
notion of yourself being somehow sent by the divine. False, false,
false. Your circumstances have brought you here and you're not
getting any closer to freeing yourself from them by trying to bullshit
the troops that you have anything but imputed self referencing when it
comes to Buddhism.
>
>"Those who seek for the Tathaagata should seek for the self. For *self*
>and 'Buddha' are synonymous." --The Prajnaparamita in seven hundred
>line
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Yes, and the self is make up of everything, which makes it
indefinable.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
Steven:
I'd sooner read all about some fictional Master Zenmark. Any other
suggestions on how to get enlightened?
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Bunker Zen Dave to Bill wrote:
>
>> Should I be more blunt? Can you show me where Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist
>> teacher has said anything different.
>
>Nagarjuna--
>
>"To him who understands the meaning in the teaching of the Buddha and
>grasp the truth of derived name, he has taught that there is "I"; but to
>one who does not understand the meaning in the teachings of the Buddha
>and does not grasp the truth of the derived name, He has taught, there
>is no "I." (T. 1509 253c)
Steven:
Nothing to do with Zen. You can dance around Buddhism for the rest
of your life and you won't get close to understanding the essence of
what all of the scriptures, taken as a whole, were pointing towards.
>
>Lankavatara Sutra--
>
>nairaattmyavaadino 'bhaa.syaa bhik.sukarmaa.ni varjaya/
>baadhakaa buddhadharmaa.naa.m sadasatpak.sad.r.s.taya.h// [Lanka X:
>359-60 (vv. 762-71)]
>
>"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
>religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
>offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
>being and non-Being."
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
He treated the monks as if they were retarded and couldn't handle
themselves very well in their thinking minds. He only gave them
doctrines as they were not yet capable of understanding the essential
truths directly.
>
Ardie:
>Slap her down again Dave/ slap her down again/ we don't Kathy talking
>about Zen.
Steven:
You should know by now Ardie that if it jumps up, it will get slapped
down, gender aside. Being a mere net persona I can understand why
you want to become a real live boy here but it ain't going to work.
You and Kathy, no difference. No willing to go all the way with
anything real, being caught up in words and superficial meanings,
bringing no confidence to Mark, forcing him to keep his day joy in
order to stay *safe* in his cowardly shell. Do you like what you
give out to others?
Steven Lightfoot
>David Oller writes:
>
>"No, Kathy, no spirit going forth either."
>
Kathy:
>Well now won't you be surprised when you find yours going forth.
>Maybe we can continue the argument over there on the other side.
Steven:
Postponing realization because of a belief system isn't wise. Here,
there, what difference, if you can't get to there from here right now,
it is not something useful to Zen. Zen is immediate, not depending
upon waiting for another moment to give this moment meaning. It is
spontaneous, not depending upon a lifetime of built up notions about
it to express itself completely and fully.
>
Kathy:
>Have you not had at all, David, experiences of deceased relatives
>making their presence of love known to you?
Steven:
Hell, we can't even get you, a self confessed lover of God, to make
your pesence of love know to us, why should we worry about dead
people? You are far more important than millions of the dead. I'll
bet you didn't know you were so important did you Kathy, one is a
million. :-)
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>grail...@xnetsource.comm wrote:
>>
>> David Oller writes:
>>
>> "No, Kathy, no spirit going forth either."
>>
>> Well now won't you be surprised when you find yours going forth.
>> Maybe we can continue the argument over there on the other side.
>>
>> Have you not had at all, David, experiences of deceased relatives
>> making their presence of love known to you?
>>
>> Kathy
>
>Kathy!! Hush. Don't speak of "deceased relatives" on this forum as a
>way of suggesting that Lord Buddha acknowledged beings in a heavenly
>world which indirectly would militate against Bunker Dave's non-self
>hypothesis. Bunker Dave will get real pissed at you. His eyes will
>bludge out.
Steven:
You true believers are all alike, always hoping for a world beyond
because you read a description of it somewhere. Why wait, why not
wake up now instead?
>
>However Lord Buddha did acknowledge deceased relatives. In the
>Tiroku.d.da Sutta in the Nikaayas the Buddha said:
>
>//Those who are compassionate towards their deceased relatives give, on
>occasion, as alms (to holy men) pure, palatable and suitable solid and
>liquid food, saying, "My the merit thus acquired be for the comfort and
>happiness of our deceased relatives"...receive the fruits of the deed.//
Steven:
Personal preference, not necessary to awakening.
>
Ardie:
>BTW, we all know that Davy is going to the hells when he croaks.
Steven:
Davy is not going to croak, he's just going to become unconditional.
>
Ardie:
>"Only a few creatures who have died as men are reborn as men, but far
>more creatures who died as men, come back to existence in Hell, among
>animals, or in the realm of the shades" [A.i.36].
Steven:
Sales hype to scare the slaggards into treating this life as if it was
important. He saw that Ardie was asleep and not inclined to wake up
without a scare tactic thrown in. The practice of Zen is only for
those who don't need fear in order to desire waking up. I guess
you've got to be desperate in order to follow the Zen way.
>
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Ardie Von is one tired and afraid son-of-a-bitch and only he and I
know that. Still hard, cold, and angry after all these years, and
with no real confidence to live his life yet, except his bullshitting
here.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Witch Kathy to Grand Inquisitor Dave wrote:
>
>> You have demons of fear within your own
>> being that you are wrestling with, but rather than admit this,
>> it is easier to say that I am some sort of wicked person that
>> should get out of this NG.
>
Ardie:
>Dave wants to scourge you Kathy. He wants to bring you before his
>hooded council of academic inquisitors who, one by one, will deconstruct
>your belief in holiness and spirit.
Steven:
David is being honest with you Kathy, as far a Zen is concerned.
Ardie is blowing smoke up your ass to make himself right and David
wrong.
>
Ardie:
>Then after you have been shamefully brow beaten by the friars of
>nihilism it will be time for the rack.
Steven:
We don't believe in nihilism Kathy, Ardie's lying. We also don't
believe in anything else either, so don't let that be taken as a
belief in nihilism's opposite.
>
Ardie:
>Putting your now disrobed naked body on the rack, illuminated only by
>torch light, Dave's sexually aroused perverts with fully erect penises
>beneath their robes will begin their torture of you.
Steven:
Oh Jesus, nothing worse that the imagination of an old man who has
lived his life in sexual unfullfilment and frustration.
Ardie:
Yes, all the abuse
>their fathers gave them will find release in your erotic death.
Steven:
Listen Ardie, I'm not pleased that your father didn't treat you well
but will you please stop blaming him for your conditions, they've come
from far beyond him, from your own reactions to events in your past.
You didn't just arrive here a finished project, you've been a long
time in your making of yourself.
Ardie:
Dave,
>more than any hooded inquisitor, will find the greatest release in your
>cries of agony as he has suffered at the hands of this father the
>greatest castration of any male on this forum.
Steven:
Our scholar turned *B* rated sex novelist. I think you would appeal
to old perverted men more than you appeal to actual practicing
zenninsts Ardie. Maybe you get a young fellow like Mark once in a
while. I'm sure he's off sitting in a corner admiring your guts for
handling heretics (True Zennists) while himself fantasizing about your
physical attributes.
>
Ardie:
>But, hold it. This will not likely happen. Knight Ardie, with is
>Prussian Mystical Knights, riding to the music of Richard Wagner, will
>rescue you from these inquisitors. Hacking their penises off and
>feeding their testicles to our bull mastiff dogs, we will revenge the
>scorn they have heaped upon you!!
Steven:
You've got a mind strangly like the fellow they had on 60 minutes
tonight, Frederick Lenz. Some really strange ideas going around in
that fellows head also. He finally killed himself he was so
misunderstood.
>
>Sir Ardie
Steven:
Now we have Kathy, parading around as a lover of God (and hating
anyone who crosses her), and Ardie, parading around as a knight in
shining armour while being, in fact, a sexually frustrated old man who
covers his shame with the dharma he believes hides him from view on
this earth of ours. What's this world coming to. Maybe they can
hook up together and set the world straight.
Eugene Wyatt
> Eugene wrote:
>
> > No, that is the way it *can be read* in the Han Shan translation because of
> > someone's rather careless use of "false" as it qualifies "notion". You
> > apply semiotics to the sutra; yes it can be read semioticly, but there is
> > so much more to this enigmatic Prajnaparamita sutra than your narrow
> > 'structuralist' view of it. You pretend to mysticism and when it's before
> > your eyes, you blind yourself to it for reasons so common they bore me.
> Try Schleiermacher's "divinatory hermeneutics".
Schleiermacher has quite a few books available at Amazon.com; in which one
can I find "divinatory hermeneutics"?
Eugene
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Schleiermacher has quite a few books available at Amazon.com; in which one
> can I find "divinatory hermeneutics"?
>
> Eugene
"Über Begriff und Einteilung der philoogischen Kritik", in _Hermeneutik
und Kritik_. (I am going from a trans. which covers this particular
hermeneutic.)
BTW, it is a most impressive idea which Schleiermacher has come up
with—one which Zennists need to take a hard look at so that they might
preserve their tradition against the grammatical-psychological
hermeneutic which scholars, mistakenly, apply to Zen—and to Buddhism.
On this track, at least with D.T. Suzuki, he made some headway in this
direction but then, later on, his brain going, he fell into the sewer of
"radical empiricism", which let me add, most Buddhists seem to have
fallen into of late. Philosophically speaking, "empiricism" is for
school boys and it doesn't take much skill to overthrow its basis
insofar as "experience qua experience" is an artifact of unspeakable
nonsense.
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
> as dave oller states, the Dalai Lama said that buddhism does not belief
> in the concept of soul. what, however, is it that incarnates as the
> Dalai Lama lifetime, after lifetime? what are the lamas finding when
> they search for the newly reborn Dalai Lama?
Buddhism it is true does not believe that a soul can be conceptualized
or phenomenalized. But that it does not BELIEVE in a soul is another
matter insofar as all belief amounts to an unproven propostion—and some
Buddhists have yet to PROVE there is no soul. Even more silly, these
same Buddhists insist that because the soul is believed to be physical
by those who believe in a "soul"; and because there are no physical
"marks" to it, it doesn't exist!!
As the soul is understood by modern Buddhists they believe that man is
essentially a vacant, soulless being who is nothing but a collection of
elements which are in turn nothing in themselves. Enlightenment,
therefore, consists only in becoming one with your death by first
drowning all hope in an eternal, deathless world—or a "positive"
absolute which is free from birth and death. The chief practice by
which we accomplish the "drowning" is to sit in zazen and become
"mindless" so the pain of one's finality will become less of a problem
to bear in the coming years as one ages. Finally, when one dies one
goes into the abyss (called the Void). It is nothing but infinite
unknowingness and vacancy.
But lest you think about blowing your brain out before hand with a 45APC
or whiskey, other Buddhist don't belive in such heretical garbage. Just
look at what Lord Buddha said on this subject:
"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
Aride Von
Arnold Vance
Steven Lightfoot <fo...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Our scholar turned *B* rated sex novelist. I think you would appeal
>
>Now we have Kathy, parading around as a lover of God (and hating
>anyone who crosses her), and Ardie, parading around as a knight in
>shining armour while being, in fact, a sexually frustrated old man who
>covers his shame with the dharma he believes hides him from view on
>this earth of ours. What's this world coming to. Maybe they can
>hook up together and set the world straight.
Scary thought. I shouldn't take issue with your grading up there, but
you know me.^
-arn
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Radha...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> as dave oller states, the Dalai Lama said that buddhism does not belief
>> in the concept of soul. what, however, is it that incarnates as the
>> Dalai Lama lifetime, after lifetime? what are the lamas finding when
>> they search for the newly reborn Dalai Lama?
>
Ardie:
>Buddhism it is true does not believe that a soul can be conceptualized
>or phenomenalized. But that it does not BELIEVE in a soul is another
>matter insofar as all belief amounts to an unproven propostion—and some
>Buddhists have yet to PROVE there is no soul. Even more silly, these
>same Buddhists insist that because the soul is believed to be physical
>by those who believe in a "soul"; and because there are no physical
>"marks" to it, it doesn't exist!!
Steven:
The *soul* is either relative to something, or it does not exist.
There can be no stating of an absolute at the same time as speaking of
it in relative terms, rendering any definition of *That which is
absolute* a moot definition having no meaning other than
intellectually. If you don't experience yourself as *The Absolute*,
you don't believe in anything absolute.
>
>As the soul is understood by modern Buddhists they believe that man is
>essentially a vacant, soulless being who is nothing but a collection of
>elements which are in turn nothing in themselves.
Steven:
In Zen, the mind views itself negatively but the heart beats loudly
for others who believe in opposite realities, suffering mental and
emotionally pangs because of this false belief.
Ardie:
Enlightenment,
>therefore, consists only in becoming one with your death by first
>drowning all hope in an eternal, deathless world—or a "positive"
>absolute which is free from birth and death.
Steven:
It is rising above both Nirvana and Samsara and resting in reality
itself, without trying to grasp it with mere definitions.
Ardie:
The chief practice by
>which we accomplish the "drowning" is to sit in zazen and become
>"mindless" so the pain of one's finality will become less of a problem
>to bear in the coming years as one ages.
Steven:
You also believe that the Buddha never really walked the face of the
earth as a real person. There is no accounting for your beliefs.
Ardie:
Finally, when one dies one
>goes into the abyss (called the Void). It is nothing but infinite
>unknowingness and vacancy.
Steven:
And you can't handle having all your sacred cows burnt in the fire of
Real Zen. It is obvious to everyone that you have an overactive
imagination which is fueled by your personal experiences of failure,
both in the sexual sense and the sense of connecting with anyone quite
like yourself in the real buddhist world of today.
>
Ardie:
>But lest you think about blowing your brain out before hand with a 45APC
>or whiskey, other Buddhist don't belive in such heretical garbage. Just
>look at what Lord Buddha said on this subject:
Steven:
You are a mere believer in Buddhism, not a realizer of yourself.
>
Ardie:
>"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
>religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
>offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
>being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
Steven:
Chan, for example, when it first came to China was very much linked to
the Lankavatara Sutra, which belongs to this Third Turning. Yet no
one can accuse Chan of harboring a substantialist view or wrongly
understanding shunyata. Like Tantra and Dzogchen, Chan approaches
shunyata in terms of direct immediate experience rather than by way of
philosophical analysis, as is the case with the Madhyamika school.
From Golden Letters translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds.
Steven:
Scholars simply cannot understand that an Enlightened Zen Master can
speak in terms of negative mind, in order to correct the imbalance in
the mind of people to substantialize *independent being*, and still
show direct positivity to those in their presence. If you take away
the presence of a realized master, you are left with philosophical
wranglings without the benefit of the actual vibrant presence of a
living person and you get lost in argumentations between positive
views and negative views, without any resolution in your heart because
you can't feel the presence no matter what the thinking mind is doing.
Mr. Minkfoot
}As the soul is understood by modern Buddhists they believe that man is
}essentially a vacant, soulless being who is nothing but a collection of
}elements which are in turn nothing in themselves. Enlightenment,
}therefore, consists only in becoming one with your death by first
}drowning all hope in an eternal, deathless world—or a "positive"
}absolute which is free from birth and death. The chief practice by
}which we accomplish the "drowning" is to sit in zazen and become
}"mindless" so the pain of one's finality will become less of a problem
}to bear in the coming years as one ages. Finally, when one dies one
}goes into the abyss (called the Void). It is nothing but infinite
}unknowingness and vacancy.
Thanks for a perfect example of your misrepresentations, Ardent. This
needs absolutely no further comment.
}"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
}religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
}offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
}being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
Others have well pointed out that there is utterly no support for your
view of self here.
---Mr. Minkfoot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.woc.org/public/weasel-trax/hole/
"Ohmygawd! They killed Buddha!"
---Pete Watters, <alt.buddha.short.fat.guy>
Dirk Bruere
anyway.
David Oller wrote:
>
> |You can speak only for yourself David.
>
> Just because you're not clear doesn't change the reality, Dirk. Pick up a
'Reality'?
As for being clear, I'm at least as clear as you, only not so dogmatic.
I don't care what other people think Buddhism is.
> Buddhist dictionary and look up the Doctrine of Anatman. Yes, I'm speaking of
> my views of the Buddhist doctrine. On what basis do you discount them? I
I don't discount your views at all. I just don't agree with them
completely.
> listened quite clearly to the Dalai Lama when he looked Larry King right in the
> face and said "You realize, in Buddhism we don't believe in a soul?" Could it be
> more clear than that. Whether born from eggs. . .
'Soul' - the problem being that we probably define it in different ways.
You define it in a way incompatible with standard Buddhist doctrine
(anatman). I don't, necessarily.
> prajnaparmitavajrachedika sutra. It's just about a fundamental of a basic
> Buddhist principle as you are going to find. Quit thinking with the little head
> Dirk.
Quit thinking with the big head, David.
> |And which Buddhists would those be? Are you including dark Buddhists in
> |this definition, or is it narrowed down to only the ones you approve of?
>
> The fact that you think Dark Zen represents a form of Buddhism is a perfect
> example of insanity.
So, not everyone who claims to be a Buddhist is one. Not everyone who
interprets and tries to live according to Buddhist principles is a
Buddhist. Only those who follow the definition and teachings you agree
with can call themselves Buddhist? A bit sectarian, don't you think?
Reminds me of another religion closer to home.
> |Bill will always exist, a fly in the amber of time.
>
> Try the sufis and hindus. Why punish your self with a religion for grownups? I
> laid it on the table, and you poor dear, you can't handle it.
Since you have killfiled me, I think we'll let everyone else be the
judge of who can't 'handle it'.
> |Yes. I think you should be more blunt. Mainly for my amusement.
>
> Okay. No, Kathy, no spirit going forth either.
>
That's not very blunt. I was hoping for something a bit more... 'you're
dead meat bitch, and nothing's going to rise from the grave'. I guess if
you want a good job done, you have to do it yourself.
You disappoint me David.
Gassho
Dirk
Phipps
>
> If you don't experience yourself as *The Absolute*,
> you don't believe in anything absolute.
How do you make that out? A large chunk of humanity manages to believe
in absolutes, without defining themselves as "The Absolute." Yours was a
nonsequitur.
Now, if you were to merely to berate Ardie on a specific point, and
leave out Aggrandisement spilling over into some putative Law: that
would be another matter.
Dirk Bruere
>
> fallen into of late. Philosophically speaking, "empiricism" is for
> school boys and it doesn't take much skill to overthrow its basis
> insofar as "experience qua experience" is an artifact of unspeakable
> nonsense.
Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
See 'New Age' for references.
Gassho
Dirk
Mark Vetanen
Mr. Minkfoot wrote in message ...
>Others have well pointed out that there is utterly no support for your
>view of self here.
>
> ---Mr. Minkfoot
>
Support:
Ardie Von Störenfried
[snip]
> The statements of no-self within these schools is quite clear and consistant.
> There are two major doctrines in Mahayana Buddhism: "Anatman" and "Shunyata" Zen
> is definetly of the Mahayana School. Both of these principles are illustrated in
> "Pratitya Samutpada" and clearly observable to each persons own mind. These
> doctrines are also clearly illustrated in Nagarjuna's Eight negations which is
> also primary Mahayana Buddhism.
From the Sutra Bodhidharma transmitted to Hui-k'o:
"Those who deny the Self (aatman) are the opponents of the Buddhist
teachings...." ---Lankavatara Sutra
Nagarjuna said:
"To him who understands the meaning in the teaching of the Buddha and
grasp the truth of derived name, he has taught that there is "I"; but to
one who does not understand the meaning in the teachings of the Buddha
and does not grasp the truth of the derived name, He has taught, there
is no "I." (T. 1509 253c)
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
"Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
Ardie Von
Mr. Minkfoot
<zen...@teleport.com> wrote:
Mark, if the view of non-self is condemned as being of those who have
embraced the dual views of being and non-being, how does the view of self
not fall under the same condemnation? Your view is not supported by this
quote, but equally condemned.
The author of the sutra was having some fun here. Here's some more fun:
Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One:
Why is it that the
ignorant are given up to discrimination and the wise are
not?
The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant
cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along
these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and
fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it;
they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances
and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling there is a
reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and
folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on
they become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are
henceforth unable to free themselves from the round of birth
and death. Because of the folly they do not understand that
all things are like maya, like the reflection of the moon
in water, that there is no self-substance to be imagined as
an ego-soul and its belongings, and that all their
definitive ideas rise from their false discriminations of
what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself. They do
not realize that things have nothing to do with qualified
and qualifying, nor with the course of birth, abiding and
destruction, and instead they assert that they are born of
a creator, of time, of atoms, of some celestial spirit. It
is because the ignorant are given up to discrimination that
they move along with the stream of appearances, but it is
not so with the wise.
Mr. Minkfoot
It can be verified, though it cannot be "tested." You haven't verified it,
Ardent? Could be a fantasy!
Mr. Minkfoot
<dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}Because there are many people here who have never cultivated even
Shamatha and c
}ertainly have spent very little time with Vipassana or zazen, in addition
to, no
}doubt, no serious consideration to Pratitya Samutpada, we have stupid arguments
}here on the concept of soul in Buddhism. This is not a matter to which any
}knowlegeable Buddhist is unclear on, or would bother to debate each other
about.
}You may note the very fine posts from Lee regarding the Dalai Lama
interview, or
}maybe drop in over at TRB and let some of the boys and girls there clarify the
}matter. Even one who hasn't settled Pratitya Samutpada in his/her meditation
}should be clear at least in regard to the doctrine.
True. In zazen, one directly sees impermanence.
However, there *is* something that can be perceived as unchanging, but
that is Nothing at all!
}Why is this so important? You start teaching the concept of soul in
Buddhism and
}you don't have any Buddhism to teach. You just reverted to Vedanta. It's not a
}matter of belief nearly as much as it is a matter of being a teaching system or
}device (upaya) which applied from this perspective acts upon the individual
}consciousness in such a manner as to make the matter clear! Right or wrong in
}terms of belief or ultimate truth isn't even salient. You just took the hammer
}away from the carpenter! This is something that is so strikingly obvious
that it
}is beyond my comprehension that anyone who has read more than four verses of
}Buddhist texts could miss it.
}
}Anyone who is knowlegeable and well read on this matter who disagrees is in my
}opinion on a mission to harm the teaching of Buddhism by appealling to the
}perspective, fears, and prejudices of people who are frankly: Afraid to Die!
}They may not think they are afraid to die, or they may think they are not
afraid
}to die because they will end up, in some form or another, someplace else; but
}the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow survive and is not
}impermanent is deeply engrained in their consciousness. As long as that is the
}case they simply cannot achieve enlightenment. Period!
The fear of the abyss is something to overcome. Jump into it without
support! Like many childish fears, reasons for it evaporate when it is
faced.
}It is the mission of every Buddhist to do whatever they can to dispel this
}fantasy in themselves and to demonstrate this to others. It is called the
}Bodhisattva vows.
Odd that people who came out of the abyss should be afraid to go back into
it. Treating it as if it were the greatest evil presupposes that they
understand it, themselves, reality, existence, and the world. But I am not
prescribing suicide, of course -- wasting this great opportunity to
understand is a real shame.
Nothing gets incarnated. Get it? Nothing gets incarnated. The flesh is
just another interpretation. So what happens at death? You can find out by
dying while alive, and finding "life everlasting." Candy, yes, but find
out why it's given.
spher...@my-dejanews.com
arde...@idt.net wrote:
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> > Ardie Von Störenfried wrote:
> > >
> > > fallen into of late. Philosophically speaking, "empiricism" is for
> > > school boys and it doesn't take much skill to overthrow its basis
> > > insofar as "experience qua experience" is an artifact of unspeakable
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
> > See 'New Age' for references.
> >
>
> "Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
> like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>
>
If empirical testing is of no value then how is it that modern science
is slowly converging on the Dhamma despite its' practitioners deepest
desires?
Are we not told not to accept something simply because we are told it
is true, but only when we have tested it and found it to be so?
Sphere.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
spher...@my-dejanews.com
arde...@idt.net wrote:
...
> From the Sutra Bodhidharma transmitted to Hui-k'o:
>
> "Those who deny the Self (aatman) are the opponents of the Buddhist
> teachings...." ---Lankavatara Sutra
>
> Nagarjuna said:
>
> "To him who understands the meaning in the teaching of the Buddha and
> grasp the truth of derived name, he has taught that there is "I"; but to
> one who does not understand the meaning in the teachings of the Buddha
> and does not grasp the truth of the derived name, He has taught, there
> is no "I." (T. 1509 253c)
>
> Ardie Von
>
One who spouts the Scripture but does not see their meaning is doomed
to the cycles of birth and death.
Just look to modern science for the answer. If you say there is an
"I" then modern science would say -- "Wrong!", for we are nothing
but a collection of collections. If you say there is no "I" then
modern science would say -- "Wrong!", for we are a collection of
collections.
Eugene Wyatt
David:
> Anyone who is knowlegeable and well read on this matter who disagrees is in my
> opinion on a mission to harm the teaching of Buddhism by appealling to the
> perspective, fears, and prejudices of people who are frankly: Afraid to Die!
> They may not think they are afraid to die, or they may think they are not afraid
> to die because they will end up, in some form or another, someplace else; but
> the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow survive and is not
> impermanent is deeply engrained in their consciousness. As long as that is the
> case they simply cannot achieve enlightenment. Period!
Some people would be happier (beat their wives less, etc.) with a six pac
of Coke instead of your version of 'enlightenment' for them. Let them die
and *not* find out that they didn't go to heaven (death as the direct
experience of emptiness for them) if that is your belief. The
"enlightenment" that you talk about is bullshit because it is something.
Emulate the Buddha's silence here. Crusade with a smile. Look at you
photograph in the alt.zen gallery; who would want to have the beliefs that
that scowling person has; you are a poor external emissary for your cause
and your words match your appearance.
David:
> It is the mission of every Buddhist to do whatever they can to dispel this
> fantasy in themselves and to demonstrate this to others. It is called the
> Bodhisattva vows.
Oh, do you feel your doing your all, within the hermetic confines of
alt.zen. to satisfy your Boddhisattva vow. Go outside, away from your
computer, do something (nothing) for somebody besides yourself with your
energy, stop stuffing your self and jacking off.
But Fortunately for us, David is attached to being a Buddhist; the worst
error a Buddhist can make. A lesson in Prajna for all from this accidental
Boddhisattva. We learn from the mistakes he continues to make and be
unaware of. Bless his sentient heart as he says to us, without knowing it,
"After you."
Eugene
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Anyone who is knowlegeable and well read on this matter who disagrees is in my
> opinion on a mission to harm the teaching of Buddhism by appealling to the
> perspective, fears, and prejudices of people who are frankly: Afraid to Die!
> They may not think they are afraid to die, or they may think they are not afraid
> to die because they will end up, in some form or another, someplace else; but
> the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow survive and is not
> impermanent is deeply engrained in their consciousness. As long as that is the
> case they simply cannot achieve enlightenment. Period!
Let's us get a few things clear. To even hint that beings after they
die do not go to rebirth is heresy. A proper Buddhis CANNOT deny
transmigration.
In many places the Buddha speaks of life after death and the
continuation of self. Even a frog became a god, transmigrating from
froghood to godhood!!
The Buddha said the following in the Samyutta Nikaya XV.14-19:--
"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
beginning
comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings
hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating &
wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the
past
is not easy to find...A being who has not been your father...your
brother...your sister...your son...your daughter at one time in the past
is
not easy to find.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you
thus
experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
>
> In article <huGN1.8992$K02.4...@news.teleport.com>, "Mark Vetanen"
> <zen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> }Mr. Minkfoot wrote in message ...
> }>Others have well pointed out that there is utterly no support for your
> }>view of self here.
> }>
> }> ---Mr. Minkfoot
> }>
> }
> }Support:
> }"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
> }religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
> }offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
> }being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
>
> Mark, if the view of non-self is condemned as being of those who have
> embraced the dual views of being and non-being, how does the view of self
> not fall under the same condemnation? Your view is not supported by this
> quote, but equally condemned.
The quote Mark submitted was spoken by the Buddha—not Mark.
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
> The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant
> cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along
> these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and
> fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it;
> they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances
> and cling to the agreeable.
The Tathagata is the self.
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
>
> In article <360772...@idt.net>,
> arde...@idt.net wrote:
> > Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > >
> > > Ardie Von Störenfried wrote:
> > > >
> > > > fallen into of late. Philosophically speaking, "empiricism" is for
> > > > school boys and it doesn't take much skill to overthrow its basis
> > > > insofar as "experience qua experience" is an artifact of unspeakable
> > > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
> > > See 'New Age' for references.
> > >
> >
> > "Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
> > like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
> >
> > Ardie Von
> >
>
> If empirical testing is of no value then how is it that modern science
> is slowly converging on the Dhamma despite its' practitioners deepest
> desires?
"Verification" rests upon a logical fallacy (vide post to Minkey on this
thread). As such, modern science is not advancing at all. Plopping
down an hypothesis then finding an event which corresponds to it doesn't
prove the hypothesis in as much as different hypotheses might account
for the same event. E.g., the hypothesis that the frequency of rats
coming out of garbage cans indicates that garbage cans are generating
rats is one such hypothesis. Obviously, rats are created by sex—not by
garbage cans. Another one. The brain creates thoughts because it shows
signs of electrical activity. Again this is absurd. The heart using an
EKG machines demonstrates electrical activity too. Does this mean it
thinks? It is the same with a car battery.
> Are we not told not to accept something simply because we are told it
> is true, but only when we have tested it and found it to be so?
There are different kinds of tests. The test for wisdom involves a
spiritual test, not one based on physics.
Here is what Lord Buddha said:
"Herein, monks, some foolish men master Dhamma: the Discourses in
prose, in prose and verse, the Expostions, the Verses, the Uplifting
Verses, the 'As it was Saids,' the Birth Stories, the Wonder, the
Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the
advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at the goal for the sake
of which they mastered Dhamma." --(M.i.133)
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
> }"Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
> }like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>
> It can be verified, though it cannot be "tested." You haven't verified it,
> Ardent? Could be a fantasy!
Your idea of "verification" has some serious flaws O wonder rodent. The
concept of verification which has its roots in the philosophy of John
Stuart Mill, otherwise known as the "experimental method, emphasizes a
procedure which to a large extent depends on a logical fallacy!!
The logical form is:
a implies b
b is true
Ergo, a is true.
This might be illustrated as follows:
If David's bung hole is red he was buggered.
David has a red bung hole says the doctor.
Ergo, David was buggered.
The fallacy is easy to spot. Different causes may produce the same
effect, and different theories may have the same implications. Stated
another way, David's bung hole could be red because of prolonged zazen
or because of other reasons involving Lightfoot's butt kissing.
Applying this now to your "pop" Zen, the hypothesis that Zen masters who
wear robes and show you a transmission documents are Buddhas, is on the
face of it logically absurd. Buddhahood does not arise because of the
presence of robes and a Nippon diploma from Buddha Tech.
Ardie Von Störenfried
Lee Dillion
>
> David Oller writes to Dirk Bruere on Sept. 22, l998:
>
> "...but the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow
> survive and is not impermanent is deeply ingrained in their
> consicousness."
>
> This is an assumption on your part, that people think/believe this
> way. Actually, it was quite a few years back when I rather felt
> relief to believe/understand/know that the "personality" of Kathy would
> NOT surive after Kathy's demise.
>
> As far as you saying that the Dalai Lama has spoken about it,
> I see that what Lee posted does NOT seem to contradict anything
> that I understand or feel to be so, but then again, it was pretty
> complicated discussing (and maybe I didn't quite get right what
> he was saying, especially in Lee's 2nd followup post).
I am glad you enjoyed the quotes from the Dalai Lama. Here is another
quote from an academic source (Sallie King)discussing Buddha Nature as
understood from the the Buddha Nature Treatise (Chinese: Fo Hsing
Lun).
The following quote summarizes King's understanding of the text:
"The subject of the entire BNT is the concept of Buddha nature. We
shall begin with a summary of the concept of Buddha nature as presented
in the BNT in its own terminology. With that in place, we shall
proceed to probe this material from the perspective of cross-cultural
philosophy.
The author begins defensively with three points intended to ward off
incorrect interpretations of his views. It is incorrect to say
either that Buddha nature exists or does not exist. though it is
correct to say that Buddha nature aboriginally exists (pen yu), as
long as this is understood as an affirmation of each person's ability
to realize Buddhahood and not as a kind of existence which can stand
in contrast to nonexistence. Buddha nature is not an own-nature; an
own-nature cannot be found where a phenomenon, such as a person,
is in process. The idea of an own-nature is therefore to be
discredited and thoroughly distinguished from the notion of Buddha
Nature. Emptiness is not merely a matter of negation; supreme
truth does not merely negate worldly truth. The contents of emptiness or
supreme truth cannot be so limited as to be exhausted by functioning
in a destructive manner; there must also be a positive revelation in
emptiness. Therefore, since emptiness is not exclusively negative, it
need not conflict with a Buddha nature which, though not an
own-nature, is affirmed as existing aboriginally."
Because Buddha nature is often misunderstood and too often reified or
substantialized, King later states the following:
"In other words, the person is the Buddha nature as manifest in
particular actions and only as manifest in those actions.
Thus, history and individuality, which were lacking in the deluded
existential mode, enter the constitution of the person now, in the
enlightened existential mode. The particular behaviors, mannerisms,
and even the personality of the person now possess reality and
value. Moreover, the actions of the person now possess complete
autonomy and freedom. What the person does (physically,
psychologically) has no relation to the world of karma and kle`sa,
but is entirely a spontaneous manifestation of the always free Buddha
nature. The person, then, is really and fully a person at this stage,
after "conversion" and upon entry into the enlightened existential mode.
We must emphasize this remarkable point: "conversion" and
enlightened behavior not only do not rob a person of
individuality, but in fact constitute its very possibility for the
first time. Compare this with the classic position of the Hindu
Upani.sads, in which, upon enlightenment, the person
loses whatever individuality he or she had by merging into the
Oneness of Brahman-AAtman, "as when rivers flowing towards the ocean
find there final peace, their name and form disappear, and people
speak only of the ocean."(14) The position of Buddha nature thought is
the precise converse of this. Buddhist practice constitutes the
possibility for discovering and actualizing individuality for the
first time. One becomes a person upon enlightenment. One gains
freedom. The history which one constructs with one's particular actions
is a real thing."
Note that King, like the "unenlightened" Dalai Lama, unequivocally
rejects the universal oneness of the Brahman-aatman. I hope this
clarifies why I express concern when you suggest that your Sufi path and
the Zen or
Buddhist path leads to the same universal place. For all I know, they
may, but it is not what the various Buddhist traditions teach. If you
are interested in discussing the differences in the teachings, rather
than gloss them over, I would be interested in that discussion - not as
an attempt convince or to convert since I am extremely new to Buddhist
thought, but as an attempt to understand why the two traditions have
approached these issues from very, very different viewpoints.
If you are interested in King's article, I can give you an internet
location.
Take care
--
Lee Dillion
spher...@my-dejanews.com
The usual translation of "Tathagata" is "thus gone." It humored
Sidahartha to be called the thus gone one.
Mr. Minkfoot
}Minkey wrote:
[Thanks for the credit, but it was actually the author of the Lankavatara]
}> The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant
}> cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along
}> these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and
}> fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it;
}> they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances
}> and cling to the agreeable.
}Ardie Von:
}The Tathagata is the self.
Ma:
"No Mind, No Buddha!"
Mr. Minkfoot
Try not to be stupid, Ardent.
"Herein, monks, some foolish men master Dhamma: the Discourses in
prose, in prose and verse, the Expostions, the Verses, the Uplifting
Verses, the 'As it was Saids,' the Birth Stories, the Wonder, the
Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the
advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at the goal for the sake
of which they mastered Dhamma." --(M.i.133)
This entirely agrees with me. However, the question remains: Is this
intuitive widom, or something else?
Steven Lightfoot
<zen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Mr. Minkfoot wrote in message ...
>>Others have well pointed out that there is utterly no support for your
>>view of self here.
>>
>> ---Mr. Minkfoot
>>
>
>Support:
>"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
>religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
>offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
>being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
Steven:
If you consider the Lanka the whole of the Holy Canon, you will be
left with only part of the picture, the one denying actual historical
existence. From this you might even conclude that you never existed
and that would be a grave error from the point of view of the whole
being the whole truth, not just the part you want to believe based
upon a piece of text isolated and set aside as *the most valuable*.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Mr. Minkfoot wrote:
>>
>> In article <huGN1.8992$K02.4...@news.teleport.com>, "Mark Vetanen"
>> <zen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>> }Mr. Minkfoot wrote in message ...
>> }>Others have well pointed out that there is utterly no support for your
>> }>view of self here.
>> }>
>> }> ---Mr. Minkfoot
>> }>
>> }
>> }Support:
>> }"Those who propound the doctrine of non-self are to be shunned in the
>> }religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are
>> }offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of
>> }being and non-Being." --Lankavatara Sutra
>>
>> Mark, if the view of non-self is condemned as being of those who have
>> embraced the dual views of being and non-being, how does the view of self
>> not fall under the same condemnation? Your view is not supported by this
>> quote, but equally condemned.
>
>The quote Mark submitted was spoken by the Buddha—not Mark.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Yes, and that's what's wrong with you guys. When you're backs are to
the wall you merely pick out your favority quotes and dissappear
behind them. You interpret your ass off until you get caught with
your minds down and then you hide behind the Buddha's words, which you
take out of context to suit *your* purposes, which are not in line
with the spirit of the Buddha's teachings at all. You've got the
letter but it's lifeless in your hands.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Minkey wrote:
>
>> The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant
>> cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along
>> these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and
>> fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it;
>> they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances
>> and cling to the agreeable.
>
>The Tathagata is the self.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
No, it is only *called* the self. Re-read the Buddha. He was even
better at parsing words than Clinton, and that's hard to beat.
Steven Lightfoot
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
David:
>> The fact that you think Dark Zen represents a form of Buddhism is a perfect
>> example of insanity.
>
Dirk:
>So, not everyone who claims to be a Buddhist is one. Not everyone who
>interprets and tries to live according to Buddhist principles is a
>Buddhist. Only those who follow the definition and teachings you agree
>with can call themselves Buddhist? A bit sectarian, don't you think?
>Reminds me of another religion closer to home.
Steven:
Why call yourself Dirk? Because you have unique qualities.
Why not call everything everything else. Not enough time in each
day to get through merely naming everything. If words don't mean
things, why use them at all? Make yourself at home.
>
>> |Bill will always exist, a fly in the amber of time.
>>
>> Try the sufis and hindus. Why punish your self with a religion for grownups? I
>> laid it on the table, and you poor dear, you can't handle it.
>You disappoint me David.
>
>Gassho
>Dirk
Steven:
Only if you don't go all the way with both yourself and David can you
ultimately be disappointed. Don't let a little killfile stop you.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>
>> Ardie Von Störenfried wrote:
>> >
>> > fallen into of late. Philosophically speaking, "empiricism" is for
>> > school boys and it doesn't take much skill to overthrow its basis
>> > insofar as "experience qua experience" is an artifact of unspeakable
>> > nonsense.
>>
>> Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
>> See 'New Age' for references.
>>
>
>"Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
>like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
It also cannot be known, per se, as it never came into existence, as
did nothing else as well. But for all intent and purposes, we can
talk about that which never existed as if it has an existence.
Language is a wonderful thing but I don't think it was meant to solve
these kinds of problems, just show us its limitations.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Minkey wrote:
>
>> }"Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
>> }like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>>
>> It can be verified, though it cannot be "tested." You haven't verified it,
>> Ardent? Could be a fantasy!
>
>Your idea of "verification" has some serious flaws O wonder rodent. The
>concept of verification which has its roots in the philosophy of John
>Stuart Mill, otherwise known as the "experimental method, emphasizes a
>procedure which to a large extent depends on a logical fallacy!!
>
>The logical form is:
>
>a implies b
>b is true
>Ergo, a is true.
>
>This might be illustrated as follows:
>
>If David's bung hole is red he was buggered.
>David has a red bung hole says the doctor.
>Ergo, David was buggered.
Steven:
Get your nose out of people's bungholes Ardie. Jesus, you're posts
are more embarrasing that Clinton's escapades. He calls himself
Presendential and you call yourself Buddhistical. There's no
accounting for delusions of granduer, yet even so, I think he's closer
to the truth.
>
>The fallacy is easy to spot. Different causes may produce the same
>effect, and different theories may have the same implications. Stated
>another way, David's bung hole could be red because of prolonged zazen
>or because of other reasons involving Lightfoot's butt kissing.
>
>Applying this now to your "pop" Zen, the hypothesis that Zen masters who
>wear robes and show you a transmission documents are Buddhas, is on the
>face of it logically absurd.
Steven:
Not if it actually works, they get to quit their day jobs, and someone
becomes interested in practice.
Buddhahood does not arise because of the
>presence of robes and a Nippon diploma from Buddha Tech.
Steven:
No, the robes and diploma arise because of the need for Upaya.
The only reason to be a Buddhist is for other people, not solely for
one's self, as defined by a separate isolated illusion in its own name
for its own sake.
>
>Ardie Von Störenfried
Steven:
And hung out to dry. :-)
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>spher...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Are we not told not to accept something simply because we are told it
>> is true, but only when we have tested it and found it to be so?
>
Ardie:
>There are different kinds of tests. The test for wisdom involves a
>spiritual test, not one based on physics.
Steven:
Buddhism can be a belief system or a science of mind, depending upon
the propensities of the person studying or practicing it. To the
believer, a test of your faith is the test they use to know they
passed and no one can take that away from them. To the scientist,
the test is on the side of Buddhism, not themselves and Buddhism
either passes or it does not. Sceptics are not believers, by nature.
>
Arde:
>Here is what Lord Buddha said:
Steven:
A believer will tell you that you had better believe it because Lord
Buddha (whom they worship as a God with the final word) is said to
have said it. A sceptic will laugh at such a suggestion.
>
Ardie:
>"Herein, monks, some foolish men master Dhamma: the Discourses in
>prose, in prose and verse, the Expostions, the Verses, the Uplifting
>Verses, the 'As it was Saids,' the Birth Stories, the Wonder, the
>Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
>of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
>untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
>Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the
>advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at the goal for the sake
>of which they mastered Dhamma." --(M.i.133)
Steven:
That's how many have seen you over the years Ardie. You always go
back to the written word, without the spirit to bring it forth anew
from within yourself, without leaning on it so heavily that you don't
get as far from it as even one inch, before you run out of wisdom.
>
>Ardie Von
Ardie Von Believer. No problem, mind you, it's just not the limits
of what the Buddha taught. Maybe there are only a few special people
who can believe without question and maybe you're one of them and
perhaps you are looking for others like yourself, of which there is
said to be few. With the majority of the rest of we Buddhists,
you're beating your head against a wall and are quite useless for all
your ranting and raving, as I'm sure you know. But it does serve to
deepen your belief in your belief system, if not engender hatred and
distain for those unlike you.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>David Oller wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The statements of no-self within these schools is quite clear and consistant.
>> There are two major doctrines in Mahayana Buddhism: "Anatman" and "Shunyata" Zen
>> is definetly of the Mahayana School. Both of these principles are illustrated in
>> "Pratitya Samutpada" and clearly observable to each persons own mind. These
>> doctrines are also clearly illustrated in Nagarjuna's Eight negations which is
>> also primary Mahayana Buddhism.
>
>From the Sutra Bodhidharma transmitted to Hui-k'o:
>
>"Those who deny the Self (aatman) are the opponents of the Buddhist
>teachings...." ---Lankavatara Sutra
>
>Nagarjuna said:
>
>"To him who understands the meaning in the teaching of the Buddha and
>grasp the truth of derived name, he has taught that there is "I"; but to
>one who does not understand the meaning in the teachings of the Buddha
>and does not grasp the truth of the derived name, He has taught, there
>is no "I." (T. 1509 253c)
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
When one has found the absolute in the non-absolute, all teachings are
useless, reality itself is enough, and that without grasping at the
straws of someone else's teachings. Of that Great Zen masters are
made. No slight on you Ardie, it is not as easy as making up a fake
Net Personal and naming him Master Zenmark, and dreaming of LOL all
the way to the bank. Failing that, hunkering down and getting angry
is not an unusual reaction. Before I woke up, the moment before, I
was tremendously angry and everyone who had ever told me there was
such a thing as Enlightenment but was unable to *give it to me*.
Inotherwords, I was fed up to the limit of my endurance. You've got
to keep going until you are fed up to the limit of your endurance
also, or so it seems. We are not really all that different. David
and I can accept and appreciate one another now because we went to the
limit of our endurance with each other, not because we agreed on one
single point of doctrine (although I learned much along the way) but
because we simply had nothing left to give each other, except
acknowledgement for being who we are. Before you even pick up a
book on Buddhism, you should accept that each person is unique and
unequalled in the anals, so to speak, of existence. Without that
there can be no compassionate wisdom nor Upaya.
spher...@my-dejanews.com
> > If empirical testing is of no value then how is it that modern science
> > is slowly converging on the Dhamma despite its' practitioners deepest
> > desires?
>
> "Verification" rests upon a logical fallacy (vide post to Minkey on this
> thread). As such, modern science is not advancing at all. Plopping
> down an hypothesis then finding an event which corresponds to it doesn't
> prove the hypothesis in as much as different hypotheses might account
> for the same event. E.g., the hypothesis that the frequency of rats
> coming out of garbage cans indicates that garbage cans are generating
> rats is one such hypothesis. Obviously, rats are created by sex—not by
> garbage cans. Another one. The brain creates thoughts because it shows
> signs of electrical activity. Again this is absurd. The heart using an
> EKG machines demonstrates electrical activity too. Does this mean it
> thinks? It is the same with a car battery.
Methinks you are talking about Scientism, and rather obsolete
Scientism at that, not modern science -- nor even fairly old
science.
Within science interdetermination is finally catching on. Witness
Memetics, Chaos theory, Ecology, etc.
> > Are we not told not to accept something simply because we are told it
> > is true, but only when we have tested it and found it to be so?
>
> There are different kinds of tests. The test for wisdom involves a
> spiritual test, not one based on physics.
>
> Here is what Lord Buddha said:
>
> "Herein, monks, some foolish men master Dhamma: the Discourses in
> prose, in prose and verse, the Expostions, the Verses, the Uplifting
> Verses, the 'As it was Saids,' the Birth Stories, the Wonder, the
> Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
> of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
> untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
> Dhamma simply for the advantage of reproaching others and for the
> advantage of gossiping, and they do not arrive at the goal for the sake
> of which they mastered Dhamma." --(M.i.133)
>
> Ardie Von
I've no interest in old words -- particularly not in old words
stuck into someone's mouth after they're no longer available
for clarification. We have no real knowledge of what Siddhartha
said, and in this regard can at best speculate based upon
consistencies and inconsistencies in the reports.
Steven Lightfoot
>David Oller writes...
>
>David:
>> Anyone who is knowlegeable and well read on this matter who disagrees is in my
>> opinion on a mission to harm the teaching of Buddhism by appealling to the
>> perspective, fears, and prejudices of people who are frankly: Afraid to Die!
>
>> They may not think they are afraid to die, or they may think they are not afraid
>> to die because they will end up, in some form or another, someplace else; but
>> the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow survive and is not
>> impermanent is deeply engrained in their consciousness. As long as that is the
>> case they simply cannot achieve enlightenment. Period!
>
>E:
>Some people would be happier (beat their wives less, etc.) with a six pac
>of Coke instead of your version of 'enlightenment' for them. Let them die
>and *not* find out that they didn't go to heaven (death as the direct
>experience of emptiness for them) if that is your belief. The
>"enlightenment" that you talk about is bullshit because it is something.
Steven:
It's ain't nothing!! It ain't *nothing*!! It ain't *no-thing*!!
It's ain't because the mind ain't and the mind's contents are
everything. You got yourself Nirvana, Buddha, Samsara, Evil, Love,
Hate, etc. etc. when you've got a mind. Few can do without so better
not to confuse people with trying to make everything gray and
non-descript in order to not have to recognize anything as itself.
You are you and I am me. If you want to get around that you've got
to go straight out of mind.
>
>Emulate the Buddha's silence here. Crusade with a smile. Look at you
>photograph in the alt.zen gallery; who would want to have the beliefs that
>that scowling person has; you are a poor external emissary for your cause
>and your words match your appearance.
>
>David:
>> It is the mission of every Buddhist to do whatever they can to dispel this
>> fantasy in themselves and to demonstrate this to others. It is called the
>> Bodhisattva vows.
>
>Oh, do you feel your doing your all, within the hermetic confines of
>alt.zen. to satisfy your Boddhisattva vow. Go outside, away from your
>computer, do something (nothing) for somebody besides yourself with your
>energy, stop stuffing your self and jacking off.
Steven:
We've all got to start somewhere. Where are your beginnings and how
well do you know anyone else's beginnings, middles, and ends?
>
>E:
>But Fortunately for us, David is attached to being a Buddhist; the worst
>error a Buddhist can make.
Steven:
I think that David has chosen Buddhism, as a general reference, to
speak of things unspeakable. If someone chooses a path and walks it,
are you saying that it would be better to take five different kinds of
aspirins to cure their headache? If someone finds the one aspiring
that takes away the pain, would they be wrong for challanging those
that say that the only way is to *not know* which aspirin you are
talking because they are all merely generic aspirins afterall?
E:
A lesson in Prajna for all from this accidental
>Boddhisattva.
Steven:
And accidental boddhisattva waiting to happen? :-)
E:
We learn from the mistakes he continues to make and be
>unaware of. Bless his sentient heart as he says to us, without knowing it,
>"After you."
Steven:
Fantasy, my man, pure fantasy. You're confused. You might as well
be talking shit. :-)
Eugene Wyatt
> Let's us get a few things clear. To even hint that beings after they
> die do not go to rebirth is heresy. A proper Buddhis CANNOT deny
> transmigration.
> In many places the Buddha speaks of life after death and the
> continuation of self. Even a frog became a god, transmigrating from
> froghood to godhood!!
Not only does Ardent speak of a 'self' but now he speaks of a "continuation
of self". Yes, Ardent is self wrong as usual. He makes such an excellent
frog; we should hope he stays that way until the configuration of dependant
origination, that we know as Ardent, folds and he croaks.
Eugene
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>David Oller wrote:
>
>> Anyone who is knowlegeable and well read on this matter who disagrees is in my
>> opinion on a mission to harm the teaching of Buddhism by appealling to the
>> perspective, fears, and prejudices of people who are frankly: Afraid to Die!
>> They may not think they are afraid to die, or they may think they are not afraid
>> to die because they will end up, in some form or another, someplace else; but
>> the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow survive and is not
>> impermanent is deeply engrained in their consciousness. As long as that is the
>> case they simply cannot achieve enlightenment. Period!
>
Ardie:
>Let's us get a few things clear. To even hint that beings after they
>die do not go to rebirth is heresy. A proper Buddhis CANNOT deny
>transmigration.
Steven:
And the old bung hole buddhist is now worried about proper?
Ardie, that's why you'll never make a good Zen Buddhist, a Zen Master
can deny anything he wishes if he sees a reason for it that might
benefit one such as yourself who is stuck in a wrong interpretation or
even stuck not having had the whole teachings of the Holy Canon hit
them like a bolt of lightening, illucidating the truth in one magical
moment. For somone who speaks of *mysticism* you sure are stuck
pretty close to the spiritless word's others have spoken. You sound
more like a blind believer.
>
Ardie:
>In many places the Buddha speaks of life after death and the
>continuation of self. Even a frog became a god, transmigrating from
>froghood to godhood!!
Steven:
Such beliefs, before actuality for anyone in particular, are
unnecessary to the sceptics to which Buddhism appeals in the main.
Especially in the West we've had enough of being asked to blindly
believe that which is not in evidence to us directly. Thus, Zen is
appealing to many because it does not *overemphasize* theoretical
belief.
>
Ardie:
>The Buddha said the following in the Samyutta Nikaya XV.14-19:--
>
>"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
>beginning
>comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings
>hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating &
>wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the
>past
>is not easy to find...A being who has not been your father...your
>brother...your sister...your son...your daughter at one time in the past
>is
>not easy to find.
Steven:
And many Great Zen masters have said that one instant of true
realization is worth more than all the words in the Holy Canon
multiplied 10 times 1000. Some have memorized every word of the
almost numberless volumns of Buddha's 84,000 teachings and *then*
realized the truth in an instant of complete and total liberation from
all ignorance having to do with concepts and ideal being held in a
Mind, which they found did not even exist as such. When they
realized that even that was their creation, they were exhaulted that
such effortful studying, trying to find something in a word, was now
useless effort and that they could then simply be natural for the
first time in their lives. You've got a lot of memorizing to do old
man, and hardly the time to do it left. That's why you are here and
we're given the task of trying to help you through your jungle of
quotes and bits and pieces of buddhist writings. Who wants to die
an unlistened to Scholar.
>
Ardie:
>"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
>beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and
>fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you
>thus
>experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
>cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
>enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
Steven:
In a flash, Zen releases one from the fear of being what one actually
is and what one need not change in order to *be better* or more of
something different that they are. It's called Spontaneous Self
Liberation and it is the relative part of the great awakening, to
which you are still asleep.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Ardie Von needs thousands of more lifetimes. A slow path you've
chosen indeed.
Steven Lightfoot
>David Oller writes to Dirk Bruere on Sept. 22, l998:
>
>"...but the idea that their "personality" is going to somehow
>survive and is not impermanent is deeply ingrained in their
>consicousness."
>
Kathy:
>This is an assumption on your part, that people think/believe this
>way. Actually, it was quite a few years back when I rather felt
>relief to believe/understand/know that the "personality" of Kathy would
>NOT surive after Kathy's demise.
Steven:
It's not doing too well even as we speak. :-) Just kidding, just
kidding.
>
Kathy:
>As far as you saying that the Dalai Lama has spoken about it,
>I see that what Lee posted does NOT seem to contradict anything
>that I understand or feel to be so, but then again, it was pretty
>complicated discussing (and maybe I didn't quite get right what
>he was saying, especially in Lele's 2nd followup post). But then
>again, the Dalai Lama has said he is not enlightened.
Steven:
Yes, but only because there is no such thing once the mind is seen
through in its entirety, for even one instant of acceptance of *what
is*.
>
Kathy:
>Karunamayi, when asked during darshan to describe the enlightenment
>state (don't remember exactly how it was put to Her), replied:
>"there are no words to describe this".
Steven:
You can't describe that which does not exist, as an entity or an final
experience, or that which has not yet been born. We can call it *the
unborn* but we can't say that we have captured that which is not born
by so doing. The only reason it feels like anything at all is
because of the lack of pain and suffering, which had become habitual
to us. If this happens while you are still in the body, then all
pain and suffering are immediately transmutted into loving compassion
and an embrace of both heaven and hell, as far as humans live in them.
Nothing changes except your perception of what use it has. Relatively
speaking, everything must be useful. If it's not useful, it's not
relative, it doesn't relate.
>
Kathy:
>So although I must admit to obviously not "arriving", I am still
>working.
Steven:
Whether you have arrived or not is not important at the point after
you arrive, we're all the same, as noted by HHDL.
Kathy:
I remember in the book which contained some of Her
>teachings, Her saying something to the effect that it is the devotee's
>work/job to raise the energy to the brow center, and after that,
>from that point on, She would (or the teacher/guru) would assist/help.
Steven:
Then you are saying that you haven't raised your energy to the brow
center yet? Why not, sounds easy enough? What's stopping you from
receiving such a blessing?
Kathy:
>for it to to go the _____________ (forget term/word...I think that
>word for or meaning the crown shakra--it's an Indian word). Now I
>realize that I don't qualify to be in your "zen lingo" here
>(according to you, David), but I am a traveler on the path, a seeker of
>truth, and I most defnitely have my sadhana (spiritual practice).
Steven:
How do you feel if I say I don't qualify to be in your *Stupid
Karunamayi lingo*?
Kathy:
>I have also been initiated into dhyana and probably
>go to those states of "no mind" in my meditations that Lightfoot
>tried to insinuate that this is something entirely beyond me
>(ignorantly so, I might add).
Steven:
I think that you have a false notion of No-Mind. No-Mind is where no
one can go because nothing has ever been born there, gone there, or
returned from there. No-Mind is simply what is here and has always
been, without regard to any particular passing view of it. It's all
there is, really. The you that you think has been there, if there
is not here, was an illuson.
Kathy:
How can one possibly use the
>mind to understand the mind, right?
Steven:
You can certainly use the mind to understand mind, you just can't use
it to *understand* No-Mind. Mind contains Nirvana and Samsara, so
both are the product of Mind, not the reality of No-Mind. All of the
teachings have not yet been born, all of the practices have not yet
been taught, and all of the people that think they are this or that,
enlightened or unenlightened, have not yet come into existence, so to
speak. What more can be said?
Kathy:
Steve, you just don't have a
>clue about me, although your big ego *presumes* you do!
Steven:
In No-Mind, there is nothing know.
>
Kathy:
>As far as David saying that he has killfiled me and Dirk and Ardent
>and Mark, I *knew* that he was just having his little temper tantrum
>over there, trying to sound important.
Steven:
You say that noone can know you but you rant and rave about how your
power to know everyone else is so sharp and keen. Do you notice
that? In one sentence you claim powers beyond anyone else's, unless
they speak of you in glowing terms, that is. If someone says you are
full of shit, they do not know you. If they say you are the most
wonderful person in the world, they have you pegged and are quite
brilliant. You'll never get from here to here that way Kathy.
Kathy:
David, I noticed how
>you wrote in about your "time restraints" and I just kind of felt
>that when you had time, you would indeed go back and read those
>posts that you had "killfiled" :-) Admit to your curiosity, David,
>and the fact that you undoubtedly read EVERY SINGLE ONE of my posts,
>and some more than once.
Steven:
If you need the fantasy, why not just believe it and be done with it?
Why try to convince yourself publically. Some women *know* that men
who say they do not love them, really do. Many men have the same
problem, but I think you women are more prone to it.
>
Kathy:
>I think this is partly because you simply like attention from me,
>David.
Steven:
It seems like for a person whose personality is going to dissappear at
death, you are pretty busy being attached to yours while alive. It
may come as a shock to you if you don't stop self reflecting soon,
you're not getting any younger you know. :-)
Kathy:
But I also think it has something to do with your need
>to be right/correct. After all, it is your journey, and we are
>to test all spirits, right? Or should that be, don't accept anything
>on face value or just because someone else says it is so. As
>Shivabalayogi has said: have your own direct experience in meditation.
Steven:
And make everything a meditation. Have drinking meditations, sex
meditations, eating meditations, bathing meditations, and yes, even
meditation meditations. In other words, no matter what you are
doing, be fully present. No big deal unless you try to do it.
Ardie has no hope because he doesn't even know he's got a body on this
earth to pay attention to so he's all lost in his head and shit.
Lee Dillion
>
> hello, Lee Dillion.
>
> where did you find this interview between the Dalai Lama and Dr. Peter
> Michel? i'd like to get a transcript of the entire interview, or buy
> the book it is contained in. thank you very much for posting it.
>
> Radharanee
Its a slim book entitled "The Buddha Nature : Death and Eternal Soul in
Buddhism"
that can be located at Amazon.com. Click the following link for more
info:
http://www.amazon.com
then search for Buddha nature. It should show up on the search.
--
Lee Dillion
Dirk Bruere
>
> I'm not talking about my views. I'm talking about standard and clear doctrines
> of Buddhism. Speaking in a very formal sense of the major schools of Buddhism
> represented by establishments we all know as Buddhist. This may seem very rigid
So, is the essence of the argument that those who are not of the major
schools, and disagree with their opinion of what the Buddha meant, are
not entitled to call themselves Buddhists?
On the subject of self...
Consider a flower. What is it? Where within it do we look for it's
essence?
We look and see only petals.
We look deeper and see biochemicals.
We look deeper and see simple atoms.
We look deeper and see fermions and bosons.
We look deeper and see the quantum fluctuations.
We look deeper and see....
But where is the flower in all this?
If you think the answer is 'nowhere', you are mistaken.
All it means is that it cannot be found inwards.
The discounting of emergent phenomena, and their reduction to 'nothing
but...' is the hallmark of mindless mechanism not even supported by
science any longer.
Gassho
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > > Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
> > > > See 'New Age' for references.
> > > >
> > >
> > > like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>
>
> Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
> of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
> untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
And you don't call that empirical testing?
Gassho
Dirk
Ardie Von Störenfried
> In article <3607D0...@idt.net>, arde...@idt.net wrote:
[...]
> Try not to be stupid, Ardent.
>
That was your rebut? If anyone looks stupid, it is certainly you.
Where are your arguments in favor of "verification". Can't understand
philosophy?
Yes, as anyone can see, you certainly represent mindless, "pop" Zen.
Ardie Von
webm...@sylnet.com
author, title or subject... Good Luck!
In article <5933-360...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Radha...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> hello, Lee Dillion.
>
> where did you find this interview between the Dalai Lama and Dr. Peter
> Michel? i'd like to get a transcript of the entire interview, or buy
> the book it is contained in. thank you very much for posting it.
>
> Radharanee
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Methinks you are talking about Scientism, and rather obsolete
> Scientism at that, not modern science -- nor even fairly old
> science.
>
> Within science interdetermination is finally catching on. Witness
> Memetics, Chaos theory, Ecology, etc.
Methinks you are talking about "pop" science with facny names for
unproven hypotheses. Just feel lucky I don't make you look real dumb on
this forum. I am begin easy with you, can't you tell? And, btw, what
does science have to do with Buddhism? Buddhism doesn't deal with
magnitude or physical space and time, let alone dip into physics. Go to
Mr. Wizard's forum if you want to talk pop science.
Ardie Von
Ardie Von Störenfried
No. I know the precise philosophical definition of "empirical", not to
mention its place in epistemology. Let me remind you that "empiricism"
is antithetical to "rationalism" (i.e., reason). Buddhism easily falls
into the category of rationalism. Under the heading of "rationalism"
the Buddha, you might say, was a "teleological idealist" as was
Bodhidharma.
Briefly, the standpoint of teleological idealism comprehends that mind
is the basis of all reality; that there is an active correspondence of
mind and reality, but that experience, including empirical
determinations, are subordinate to mind as it constitutes not only the
basis of interpretation but equally of the basis of certitude. In the
example of the Buddha, he had awakened to mind’s absolute power that in
fact it was the preexistent cause of all things; at that coming to
reealize itself, it was also absolute truth and certitude.
Ardie Von
Dirk Bruere
>
> this forum. I am begin easy with you, can't you tell? And, btw, what
> does science have to do with Buddhism? Buddhism doesn't deal with
> magnitude or physical space and time, let alone dip into physics. Go to
> Mr. Wizard's forum if you want to talk pop science.
>
must begin to point to mind.
Gassho
Dirk
Eugene Wyatt
> E:
> >A lesson in Prajna for all from this accidental
> >Boddhisattva.
>
> Steven:
> And accidental boddhisattva waiting to happen? :-)
>
> E:
> We learn from the mistakes he continues to make and be
> >unaware of. Bless his sentient heart as he says to us, without knowing it,
> >"After you."
>
> Steven:
> Fantasy, my man, pure fantasy. You're confused. You might as well
> be talking shit. :-)
Fantasy yes, but impure at best. I'm always confused with a 'shit talking
grin' on my face. :>%
You mean you didn't like David as the "Accidental Bodhisattva"? I was
hoping the imagery would encourage him to greater excesses for the benefit
of those fortunate enough to know him. We learn from the successes and from
the failures of those around us and I think we're making great strides
here, Steven. Don't you feel he is ushering you forward in your practice;
he is for me.
I hope that I can do the same for somebody someday. Maybe there is someone
out there right now whom I help, unbeknownst to me. I hope so, but don't
want to know about it either.
Don't you think we should thank Ardent for being the nincompoop he is.
I do. Thank you, Ardent.
Ardent is our fool, he sacrifices himself for our Greater Wisdom. This is
not his intention and it is doubtful he knows that he does this for us.
His merit is unmeasurable and incalculable to the degree he is unintending
and ignorant of this charity, of this self sacrifice he commits for us. He
is an example of how the feeble and malicious can be Bodhisattvic. Every
body is a Bodhisattva, all in different ways. It is our job to see, not to
change, change to what.
It will be a sad day for all of us if Ardent listens to reason.
Eugene
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
> > > of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
> > > untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
> >
> > And you don't call that empirical testing?
> Briefly, the standpoint of teleological idealism comprehends that mind
> is the basis of all reality; that there is an active correspondence of
> mind and reality, but that experience, including empirical
> determinations, are subordinate to mind as it constitutes not only the
> basis of interpretation but equally of the basis of certitude. In the
> example of the Buddha, he had awakened to mind’s absolute power that in
> fact it was the preexistent cause of all things; at that coming to
> reealize itself, it was also absolute truth and certitude.
So, if there is no empirical testing for fantasy, and the mind creates
all reality, it doesn't matter because fantasy and reality are equally
(un)real?
Don't you distinguish degrees of reality?
Gassho
Dirk
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>sphere wrote:
>
>> Methinks you are talking about Scientism, and rather obsolete
>> Scientism at that, not modern science -- nor even fairly old
>> science.
>>
>> Within science interdetermination is finally catching on. Witness
>> Memetics, Chaos theory, Ecology, etc.
>
>
>Methinks you are talking about "pop" science with facny names for
>unproven hypotheses. Just feel lucky I don't make you look real dumb on
>this forum. I am begin easy with you, can't you tell? And, btw, what
>does science have to do with Buddhism?
Steven:
Buddhism is both a religion, for those who are given to the sentiment
of belief, and a science of mind and its workings, for those given to
scepticism.
Ardie:
Buddhism doesn't deal with
>magnitude or physical space and time, let alone dip into physics. Go to
>Mr. Wizard's forum if you want to talk pop science.
Steven:
Buddhism deals with everything contained within mind, and all those
things are contained and created by mind. Don't seel Buddhism
short, it is not merely another ism, it goes far beyond just being a
mere belief system. Just because that is not your propensity, don't
think that the Buddha wasn't a mental scientist as well as a spiritual
stalwart jack.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
Ardie Von still trying.
Steven Lightfoot
<arde...@idt.net> wrote:
>Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>
>> Ardie Von Störenfried wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
>> > > > > See 'New Age' for references.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
>> > > > like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>> >
>> > Here is what Lord Buddha said:
>> >
>> > Miscellanies. These , having mastered Dhamma, do not test the meaning
>> > of these things by intuitive wisdom; and these thing whose meaning is
>> > untested by intuitive wisdom do not become clear; they master this
>>
>> And you don't call that empirical testing?
>>
>
>No. I know the precise philosophical definition of "empirical", not to
>mention its place in epistemology.
Steven:
Because of the differences in people, Zen came along as a study of
mind, directly, leaving the realm of epistemology and entering into
the ontological sphere, and I'm not going in circles.
Ardie:
Let me remind you that "empiricism"
>is antithetical to "rationalism" (i.e., reason). Buddhism easily falls
>into the category of rationalism. Under the heading of "rationalism"
>the Buddha, you might say, was a "teleological idealist" as was
>Bodhidharma.
Steven:
Give the poor buddha a break, he was everything or nothing but he was
the complete package and cannot be owned by anyone and be torn into
little pieces devoid of the essential nature of everything the mind
holds, and even No-mind before mind was born.
>
Ardie:
>Briefly, the standpoint of teleological idealism comprehends that mind
>is the basis of all reality; that there is an active correspondence of
>mind and reality, but that experience, including empirical
>determinations, are subordinate to mind as it constitutes not only the
>basis of interpretation but equally of the basis of certitude. In the
>example of the Buddha, he had awakened to mind’s absolute power that in
>fact it was the preexistent cause of all things;
Steven:
It is the creater of all things, but before mind, we have no-mind, as
many Zen masters have pointed out. This is not a matter of
philosophical wranglings, like Clinton is doing with his wordsmithing
to save his ass, excep to you Ardie, who is constantly on the hot
seat, needing to explain more than a Zen Master ever would consent to
explaining. You mere Scholars are your own worst enemies.
at that coming to
>reealize itself, it was also absolute truth and certitude.
>
>Ardie Von
Steven:
When the Mind goes, there is no need for certitude, there is
naturalness in every situation, before, during, and after.
Ardie Von Störenfried
> Not only does Ardent speak of a 'self' but now he speaks of a "continuation
> of self". Yes, Ardent is self wrong as usual. He makes such an excellent
> frog; we should hope he stays that way until the configuration of dependant
> origination, that we know as Ardent, folds and he croaks.
As you know Eugene I don't say it unless I can back it up with quotes
from the Buddhist canon. Don't believe the cud-chewing lies of American
anti-sutric Zennists who are pushing annihilationism (spiritual
suicide).
No Chinese Grandmaster would dare think of deprecating transmigration.
Only American Nippon based orders of Zen would dare commit such
heresy. Do you think, in your right mind, that Tripitaka Gradnmaster
Hsuan Hua, who is in parinirvana, would dare speak against
transmigration as these insane Zennists do? Or would Grandmaster Lu?
Lord Buddha says:--
"Just as a silkworm makes a cocoon in which to wrap itself and then
leaves the cocoon behind, so consciousness produces a body to envelop
itself and then leaves that body to undergo other karmic results in a
new body." -- Mahaaratnakuu.ta Sutra
Ardie Von
Steven Lightfoot
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>David Oller wrote:
>>
>> I'm not talking about my views. I'm talking about standard and clear doctrines
>> of Buddhism. Speaking in a very formal sense of the major schools of Buddhism
>> represented by establishments we all know as Buddhist. This may seem very rigid
>
>So, is the essence of the argument that those who are not of the major
>schools, and disagree with their opinion of what the Buddha meant, are
>not entitled to call themselves Buddhists?
Steven:
So, is the essence of the argument that those who think the Buddha
meant anything they believe he meant, are mainstream Buddhists?
Do we have to define the word *is* here as well? If you want to
study your very own mind and find out what is in there, why do you
need to believe that the Buddha meant anything at all. Only if you
want to make Buddhism into another ism, instead of going where it is
pointing directly for yourself, do you need to quibble over *what the
Buddha meant* in the words he chose to use.
>
>On the subject of self...
>
>Consider a flower. What is it? Where within it do we look for it's
>essence?
>We look and see only petals.
>We look deeper and see biochemicals.
>We look deeper and see simple atoms.
>We look deeper and see fermions and bosons.
>We look deeper and see the quantum fluctuations.
>We look deeper and see....
>
>But where is the flower in all this?
>If you think the answer is 'nowhere', you are mistaken.
Steven:
If you think the answer is *anywhere* or *everywhere* you are mistaken
as well. So, where is the flower in all this, without using a word to
describe the place. Where does the darkness go when the light is
turned on? Marvel at the truth that cannot be thought about, that
darkness is not an existant thing that comes from anywhere or goes
anywhere is quite amazing in itself. And don't tell me that I just
said it can't be thouht about and then thought about it. There is no
final truth. You can add yours as well and in the next moment
contradict it, or in the same moment if you're really free. No
confusion in freedom.
>All it means is that it cannot be found inwards.
>The discounting of emergent phenomena, and their reduction to 'nothing
>but...' is the hallmark of mindless mechanism not even supported by
>science any longer.
>
>Gassho
>Dirk
Steven:
What does it all mean? I want to know the meaning of this!! If
you say there is no meaning, how can I go on living??? :-)
Ardie Von Störenfried
> But where is the flower in all this?
> If you think the answer is 'nowhere', you are mistaken.
> All it means is that it cannot be found inwards.
> The discounting of emergent phenomena, and their reduction to 'nothing
> but...' is the hallmark of mindless mechanism not even supported by
> science any longer.
It is also called biological materialism as when the human brain is
equated with that of a sea slug, the only difference being the number of
dendrites. This is also the very same thinking which was responsible
for the murder of six million Jews.
Ardie Von
Mark Vetanen
Ardie Von Störenfried wrote in message <3607CA...@idt.net>...
>The Buddha said the following in the Samyutta Nikaya XV.14-19:--
>
>"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
>beginning
>comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings
>hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating &
>wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the
>past
>is not easy to find...A being who has not been your father...your
>brother...your sister...your son...your daughter at one time in the past
>is
>not easy to find.
>
>"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
>beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and
>fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you
>thus
>experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
>cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
>enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
>
I would not be a bit surprised that the pain of transmigration is to much
for some beings, and the denial is a low level psychological block, or
barrier of this pain.
Mark Vetanen
Steven Lightfoot
>Steven Lightfoot writes...
>
>
>> E:
>> >A lesson in Prajna for all from this accidental
>> >Boddhisattva.
>>
>> Steven:
>> And accidental boddhisattva waiting to happen? :-)
>>
>> E:
>> We learn from the mistakes he continues to make and be
>> >unaware of. Bless his sentient heart as he says to us, without knowing it,
>> >"After you."
>>
>> Steven:
>> Fantasy, my man, pure fantasy. You're confused. You might as well
>> be talking shit. :-)
>
E:
>Fantasy yes, but impure at best. I'm always confused with a 'shit talking
>grin' on my face. :>%
Steven:
I expect everyone to know that is how we are but some find that
insulting to their intelligence. I question that. :-)
E:
>You mean you didn't like David as the "Accidental Bodhisattva"? I was
>hoping the imagery would encourage him to greater excesses for the benefit
>of those fortunate enough to know him.
Steven:
He can't get excess enough for me. I've gone to the excess limit
with him and he's not capable of being anything but himself, so if
it's excess you want, it will still be David being David, having
nothing to do with a conception of excess.
E:
We learn from the successes and from
>the failures of those around us and I think we're making great strides
>here, Steven. Don't you feel he is ushering you forward in your practice;
>he is for me.
Steven:
There is no one here that hasn't, and doesn't still, keep my feet
getting more and more solid on the ground. For someone who comes in
with both feet on the ground, they are given levitation lessons.
>
E:
>I hope that I can do the same for somebody someday. Maybe there is someone
>out there right now whom I help, unbeknownst to me. I hope so, but don't
>want to know about it either.
Steven:
You have helped me beyond my capacity to state. I have learned so
much that I am almost full of learning simply because you have posted
here. :-)
>
E:
>Don't you think we should thank Ardent for being the nincompoop he is.
Steven:
I'm working on him from his point of view, and he is certain to find
the meaning of the Holy Canon in one fell swoop and we'll see him
break free from the written word and begin to create his own
expression of himself, leaving the Buddha in the dust, and make the
Buddha proud.
>
E:
>I do. Thank you, Ardent.
Steven:
I thank alt.zen. Fuck Ardie. :-) Alt.zen is no respector of
persons.
>
E:
>Ardent is our fool, he sacrifices himself for our Greater Wisdom. This is
>not his intention and it is doubtful he knows that he does this for us.
Steven:
He's old now and he thinks that because he can look up stuff in
Buddhism like one would a dictionary, that he knows the whole of it.
E:
>His merit is unmeasurable and incalculable to the degree he is unintending
>and ignorant of this charity, of this self sacrifice he commits for us. He
>is an example of how the feeble and malicious can be Bodhisattvic. Every
>body is a Bodhisattva, all in different ways. It is our job to see, not to
>change, change to what.
Steven:
When one sees the inestimable value of everyone alive, all life, no
need to single anyone out. I just single out David to annoy his
detractors. I'm really greatful to alt.zen for housing its inmates
in such a large playing field.
>
>It will be a sad day for all of us if Ardent listens to reason.
>
>Eugene
Steven:
It will be a happy day for me if Ardie finds his freedom and begins to
let loose the bonds of mind and truly come to see the beauty of
*nothing is holy*.
>
Ardie Von Störenfried
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> http://www.darkzen.com
>
> Dirk Bruere <"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> <6u900r$c...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
> |David Oller wrote:
[...]
>
> Why don't you take the Pratitya Samutpada and show me an error in it.
>
> David
How about 12?
Owing to it arises the link of (1) ignorance, (2) good or bad impulses
from past lives, (3) reincarnative consciousness, (4) naamaruupa/the
four immaterial skandha, (5) the six sense organs, (6) sensory contact,
(7) sensation, (8) want, (9) mental fixation, (10) becoming, (11)
reincarnation causes, (12) old age and death.
Ardie Von
Eugene Wyatt
> Eugene wrote:
>
> > Not only does Ardent speak of a 'self' but now he speaks of a "continuation
> > of self". Yes, Ardent is self wrong as usual. He makes such an excellent
> > frog; we should hope he stays that way until the configuration of dependant
> > origination, that we know as Ardent, folds and he croaks.
>
>
> As you know Eugene I don't say it unless I can back it up with quotes
> from the Buddhist canon.
I am still waiting for your explanation of the contradiction of the
Buddha's quotations that one finds in this canon. One would think the
Buddha to be a pathological liar who can't tell the same story twice or one
can look upon the Buddha as no more than a dummy on the arm of the various
'sanghas', just like Charlie McCarthy on the arm of Edgar Bergen. A dummy
being manipulated with people pulling at him, "He's mine"..."No, he's
mine." finally ripping the arms off the poor bastard all in the name of
'enlightenment'. You fools.
Confront this problem for me, this should be an easy for a 'mystic' like
yourself. I test you.
> Don't believe the cud-chewing lies of American
> anti-sutric Zennists who are pushing annihilationism (spiritual
> suicide).
The Buddha's silence is the Middle way, silence is the answer to you on
this kind of question which only fools debate. It is not 'yes' or 'no',
'believe' or 'not believe', it is *other* and only silence points to it.
Now shush Ardent, be wise and read your Nagao.
It makes no difference to me at all in this life whether there was or will
be another.
> Lord Buddha says:--
Rather the Buddha is reputed to have said:
>
> "Just as a silkworm makes a cocoon in which to wrap itself and then
> leaves the cocoon behind, so consciousness produces a body to envelop
> itself and then leaves that body to undergo other karmic results in a
> new body." -- Mahaaratnakuu.ta Sutra
Eugene
Dirk Bruere
>
> > Without empirical testing phantasy proliferates.
> > See 'New Age' for references.
> >
>
> "Empirical testing" is limited to empirical things. The superessential,
> like the Dharmakaya, is not an empirical artifact. It cannot be tested.
>
Falseness is falsifiable.
gassho
Dirk
Arnold Vance
David Oller <dol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>invalidates Buddhism, but there are others who can speak better on that. I don't
>care what science proves or disproves. The reality is clearly observable within
>one's own mind and thoroughly proven when science hadn't yet "discovered" or
>considered gravity. Science is an inferior system to Dhyana/Prajna. While
>science continues to invalidate itself it has never invalidated Buddhism.
I know I'm being picky, but science neither validates nor invalidates itself.
When a part is found that doesn't fit certain demands, it becomes heavily
questioned. Mostly, the questionable part still works, though not as well
according to more stringent requirements. So, Newtonian stuff is still fine,
just not for very high speeds, etc. Also, it isn't the project of science to
validate or invalidate Buddhism. And it's incomparable, imo.
I agree science is unnecessary to most reality observable by mind.
However, Mind includes many ways of seeing, science being one. It is an
interesting endeavor, and not discountable.
-arn
Ardie Von Störenfried
> I reject your argument by authority and demand that you stand upon
> your own understanding. If you cannot state your position except
> by reference to the words of others then please stop pontificating
> as it is clear that you do not understand that of which you speak.
My position is the very source of all positions...what's yours?
Ardie Von