Interiority? Or inter-relatedness?
ltl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Awaken21 wrote:
> > Actually Buddhist morality is a personal affair directed inward, to
> > project it on to another person or group of people would be judgment,
> > which is also best avoided.
>
> Actually, if I get it aright, all Buddhist
> teachings are merely a personal affair
> directed inward, to be applied to oneself
> alone, for one's internal awakening, and not
> to be applied to the outside world as such.
>
> Granted, we are humans, and share some
> commonalities with other humans, with
> animals, and with nature out there. But
> Buddhist teachings deal only with our
> internal states, and aim only at purely
> subjective, strictly sentimental states that
> only we experience, even if others can
> guess them through what transpires from
> us to the outside world, as in our
> behaviour. Whether we like it or not, we
> ooze ourselves out at all time, from all
> over.
>
> A few considerations can help in looking
> at the situation.
>
> Firstly, the awakened state is outside of
> thought and language, and to talk about it
> requires thought and language, which
> irremediably prostitutes it beyond
> recognition. And it is shorn of attachment,
> therefore those who are qualified to talk
> about it, namely the awakeneds (among
> whom I do not count myself), if they opt
> to talk about it (which they may well opt
> not to), talk about it in such a way as to
> point to the absence of attachment, and
> one way of doing so is to negate what
> they say immediately after saying it,
> especially seeing that what they say
> misses the target anyway, not in degree
> but in kind. And therefore what they say
> is self-contradictory, and everybody
> knows that in a self-contradictory system
> anything can be said. That part is the
> core of the mindfuck in Buddhism and
> Daoism, by which anything can be said
> and called true Buddhism and Daoism,
> which is something that Japanese Zen
> masters who were nationalist jingoists in
> WW II knew well and exploited all the
> way to justify and validate mass murder
> and other kinds of unspeakable war
> crimes.
>
> Secondly, the awakened state is purely
> subjective, strictly sentimental, has no
> content specific to itself (like the beatific
> vision in theistic religions) and there is
> nothing to pin it down to. If there was
> something that it can be tied down to, it
> would be bondage and not freedom. But
> to charge right in and talk about such a
> purely subjective, strictly sentimental
> state can be quite disorienting. People
> communicate by what is common, and
> such a state is outside of thought and
> language, therefore is not common to
> them and is very hard to communicate
> about unless one resorts to lots of
> roundabouts, like metaphors, metonyms,
> and various contradictions and inanities
> that are aimed at defeating themselves
> (they are not aimed at some truth or
> reality existing from its own side but only
> at breaking the hold of language and
> thought). Language and thought work by
> chunking and bagging, and the only way to
> communicate about such a state is to use
> language and thought to break themselves
> and point to what is outside of them. It is
> to use falsity to teach truth.
>
> Thirdly, given that people understand by
> what is common to them, such a purely
> subjective, strictly sentimental state can
> be broached obliquely, by way of what
> is not it, namely the objective world, and
> the objective world as chunked and
> bagged by language and thought, as it is
> what people find common to them.
> Therefore the awakeneds fall back on the
> conventional world as interpreted by
> conventional boxes, namely language and
> thought, to point to what is outside of
> them and free of them. Thus instead of
> saying that attachment should be dropped
> (which is a purely subjective, strictly
> sentimental approach), they have to
> modulate their message by way of the
> world and say that things are impermanent
> and should not be attached to, because
> attaching to them leads to suffering.
> Strictly speaking, it is impossible to know
> for sure that in the whole universe all things
> are impermanent. But such a tactic is
> resorted to to help people release
> attachment and end their suffering. Instead
> of saying that to build up a self leads to
> suffering (which is a purely subjective,
> strictly sentimental approach), the
> awakeneds have to say that things lack self,
> essence and substance, and attaching to
> them leads to suffering. Strictly speaking, it
> is impossible to know for sure that in the
> whole universe all things lack self, essence
> and substance. But such a tactic is
> resorted to to help people release
> attachment and end their suffering.
>
> It can be argued that in some parts of the
> universe there could be things that are
> permanent and have self, essence and
> substance, but that for us to attach to
> them would still lead to suffering (and they
> can be right in our region, though our
> limited perception misses them entirely, or
> they can get into our perception but our
> limited mindset does not allow for them).
> Again such an approach would be purely
> subjective, strictly sentimental and would
> be hard to understand to people who only
> think by way of the objective world.
>
> The detour by way of the world still comes
> with automatic negation of what has just
> been said (that part is not bypassable in
> the teaching of the awakeneds), and this
> automatic negation lends itself to the
> negation of self, essence and substance, in
> things and not just in us.
>
> Returning to the contradiction that the lack
> of self, essence and substance leads to,
> this weakness has been exploited by the
> opponents of Buddhism, especially the
> opponents of the Middlist school
> (Madhyamaka), reputedly founded by
> Nagarjuna. This school teaches the
> absence of esence (a-svabhava) in all
> things, us included. Its opponents say that
> if all things lack self, essence and substance,
> there should be total randomness. Anything
> can become anything whatsoever. Now we
> observe regularities and expectabilities,
> inside and outside us, and not total
> randomness. The regularities and
> expectabilities are not total, but they are
> there. They bespeak of some constancy.
> The issue is how to interpret such
> constancy, be it relative and not absolute.
> What we think and say does refer to
> something with some pattern of regularity
> and expectability, to some degree or other.
> So whether there is self, essence and
> substance or not, we observe some
> modicum of regularities and expectabilities.
> It is not the regularities and expectabilities
> themselves that cause suffering, for if they
> did, then suffering would be inevitable. It is
> our investing them with self, essence and
> substance that causes suffering (the
> "self-stuff invested by us" of the real
> DharmaTroll), and it is our abstaining from
> doing so that frees us from suffering. It is
> our agglutinating them and congealing them
> into certainties and fixities that do us in.
> Again the cause of suffering is purely
> subjective, strictly sentimental, so is the
> solution to suffering, and so is the state
> that it leads to, Nirvana (and, by the way,
> so is faring-on, Samsara). The detour by
> way of the objective world is mere
> smokescreen, to protect the innocent.
>
> Suffering and the ending of suffering have
> scarcely anything to do with the world. We
> cannot change the world but can only
> change ourselves. It is not the matter (of the
> world) that matters in suffering and the
> ending of suffering, it is only the manner in
> which we deal with it. The objective world,
> whether there is or not any permanent thing
> in it, whether or not anything in it has self,
> essence and substance, is so to speak
> neutral with regard to suffering and the
> ending of suffering. It is agnostic with
> regard to suffering and the ending of
> suffering. It doesn't know suffering and the
> ending of suffering and doesn't allocate
> between them. It merely offers a place for
> us to perpetrate suffering on ourselves, or
> not. Suffering and the ending of suffering
> are what we do to ourselves, and the world
> is a mere bystander. There is nothing
> objective that forces us to cause suffering
> to ourselves and inflict suffering on
> ourselves. Again, if there was something
> objective that forced us to cause suffering
> to ourselves and inflict suffering on
> ourselves, we should be stuck. It is only our
> choice, one way or the other. It is up to us.
> That is our margin of freedom. And it is as
> big as the universe. Nothing limits it, other
> than us.
>
> Tang Huyen
Before get into the goal of buddhism, a more general question is
religion. What is the commonality among all relgions? What is
underlying all suffering?
In the wewt, power is the root of all evil. Money is economic power.
The common phrase in the west is Lord Aton's "Power tends to corrupt;
absolute power corrupt absolutely." And of course, the westtern
conception is wrong. The Chinese or eastern approach is
"relationship." Combing east and west, the underlying cause of all
surffering is "power relationship."
First, "power relationship" is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. Every
relationship we have is a power relationship in which we coerce or we
are coerced. Interpersonally, intrapersonally and with nature.
Sceond, "power relationship" is what we learnt from the beginning. It
does not take long for a baby to discover that everytime she cries,
her mom will pick her up or feed her or otherwise attending to her
needs.
Thrid, "power relationship" brings suffering because we are often
coerced to do something that we don't want to do. Of course, we learn
to turn the table around. For example, fire is to be feared until we
learnt to control fire. The ability to use fire then because a
hallmark of humanness. However, there are always more things/desires
that can coerce us.
Buddhism is an attempt to escape from this ubiquitous "power
relatioship," especially the intra-personal relationship because the
self and his desires. Detachment means not to be coerced by one's
desires or one's vision of a certain tuture and its associated
suffering. Awakening in this sense means one is with eternity without
suffering.
Tang Huyen
"ltl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
It is often said that traditional society consists of "we"
whereas modern, especially modern Western society,
consists of individuals. In the USA individualism runs
rampant, so much so that people are trapped in their
own bubbles, so that people so to speak carry their
own prison around. Chinese society is composed of
liaisons, connexions or relationships (guan-xi, lian-xi),
regardless of political system. In that sense Chinese
society is still pre-modern. (By the way, Communism
has destroyed religions in China almost entirely, but
the family system inherited from Confucianism is
still intact).
That said, in Buddhism, there is a funny contradiction.
On one hand, Buddhist theory emphasises relations,
mutual relations that go on indefinitely, especially in
causality, and yet in practice the sage is independent
and self-sufficient. Relations are to loosen up one's
sense of individuality, and awakening is to free oneself
of all identifications, especially to one's self, as one no
longer creates a self for one to carry around. Freedom
is freedom from norms and standards, especially the
biggest and baddest of them, the norms and standards
of one's self, the norms and standards that constitute
one's self. In freedom one has dropped norms and
standards, and is free to roam untrammelled, though of
course one is still bound by physical and social laws.
Tang Huyen
Dave K
wrote:
> It is often said that traditional society consists of "we"
Yes, I've heard it said that buddhist teachings on interdependence
tend to be met with puzzlement by folks in the east, who perhaps have
no need for it. The early teachings seem to view dependence on others
as somewhat of a necessary burden. These days interdepence is taught
more as an ideal to aspire too, or something that needs to be seen as
it is - since it is an unavoidable fact. But it's viewed in a
positive light rather than as a burden.
Oddly Thich Nhat Hahn is the biggest non-western proponent of
interdepdence. He was exiled from vietnam. (They recently let him
back in) Maybe his perspective arose as he attempted to deal with his
own isolation? I don't mean this as a psychological analysis, but it
would seem to explain his popularity in the U.S.
-DaveK
Déjà Flu
> Yes, I've heard it said that buddhist teachings on interdependence
> tend to be met with puzzlement by folks in the east, who perhaps have
> no need for it. The early teachings seem to view dependence on others
> as somewhat of a necessary burden. These days interdepence is taught
> more as an ideal to aspire too, or something that needs to be seen as
> it is - since it is an unavoidable fact. But it's viewed in a
> positive light rather than as a burden.
>
> Oddly Thich Nhat Hahn is the biggest non-western proponent of
> interdepdence. He was exiled from vietnam. (They recently let him
> back in) Maybe his perspective arose as he attempted to deal with his
> own isolation? I don't mean this as a psychological analysis, but it
> would seem to explain his popularity in the U.S.
well, well...
You seem to have gotten a bit more preachy, young man.
How's Help Desk practice? From catching up on my reading,
you still don't seem to have gotten the hang of it
(unless you have and you're Reminiscing About The Good
Ol' Days ;)
ex搏le
n.
1.
a. Enforced removal from one's native country.
b. Self-imposed absence from one's country.
2. The condition or a period of living away from one's native country.
3. One who lives away from one's native country, whether because of
expulsion or voluntary absence.
I really should go through the OED with a big fat black Sharpie
and see how much I can reduce its volume...
Thich Nhat Hahn was not 1.a'd, which is, to me, the only
acceptable definition of the word. He is a 1.b "exile" which
simply means he left. I suspect he really *loves* the fact
that he's always called an "exile" (implying 1.a) by his fans,
just as the Deli Llama does (who is also a 1.b). It has the
great emotional baggage of 1.a, with all the implications of a
leader who awaits return to his rightful place in his native
community. What a word, eh?
His poetry readers also call him a "Zen Master" (you gotta
wonder why Tang doesn't go after that one!), when he's
about as much a "Zen Master" as a housebroken puppy. He's
popular in the USA for all the same reasons that the rest
of the oriental (and newage) crew are:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/2-religions-that-their-parents-dont-belong-to/
Other than that he's a self-promoting coward and generally
useless, I don't have much more against him other than his poetry
which may read more fluently in Vietnamese than English.
It converts the obviousness of everyday life (take a 900 mile drive
on I95 and you'll *really* find out about "interdependence") into
the cloying stickiness of emotional appeals to People Who Drink
Lattes In Borders (Barnes and Noble is too Corporate).
Virtually every scientist I know understands "interdependence"
better than virtually every "buddhist" I know. They just don't
use political words to make themselves Zen Masters about it.
Having said all that, the one thing that *really* yanks my
underoos is people who simply MUST idolize somebody
(with or without Their Words Of Wisdom ) instead of taking on
the daunting task of becoming their OWN authority unto themselves.
Is that, like, too much fuckin' responsibility or something?
Or is that just what I mistakenly think of as "buddhism"?
oxtail
>
> Having said all that, the one thing that *really* yanks my
> underoos is people who simply MUST idolize somebody
> (with or without Their Words Of Wisdom ) instead of taking on
> the daunting task of becoming their OWN authority unto themselves.
> Is that, like, too much fuckin' responsibility or something?
> Or is that just what I mistakenly think of as "buddhism"?
Good point.
But after thinking about it for a second
and realizing what might happen to such pompous asses,
I respectfully have to ask:
Is that what happened to you?
--
oxtail
Déjà Flu
n o
be more respectful toward your elders.
they might be chinese or something.
p
s
(try not to think - it's apparently bad for your composition.)
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/winter.php
ltl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I will distinguish between the atemporal or timeless self and the self
at time t1,t2,t3... and etc. Similarly, one cannot drop the atemporal
norms and standards. But should drop the temporal norms and standards
or the self's relationshipt with these standards and norms. To be more
specific, I would say standars and norms are only standards and norms
because they have power relationships with the self. What can be
dropped are by default limited by time. We cannot drop anytime which
is timeless. Limited by time also mean non-optimal.
One of Zeno's paradox goes like this: If we take snapshots of an arrow
in flight at any time t, the arrow will have an exact position. So it
is not moving at time t. If the arrow in flight is not moving at t, it
cannot be moving at time t-1 or t+1. Hence an arrow in flgiht is an
illlusion.
The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>
> Tang Huyen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave K
So what do you do with all this philosophy?
-DaveK
ltl...@hotmail.com
Think hard to live hard.
>
> -DaveK- Hide quoted text -
Raymond
>The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? Is the
dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
yet?
Tang Huyen
Dave K wrote:
> "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com>:
>
> > I will distinguish between the atemporal or timeless self and the self
> > at time t1,t2,t3... and etc. Similarly, one cannot drop the atemporal
> > norms and standards. But should drop the temporal norms and standards
> > or the self's relationshipt with these standards and norms. To be more
> > specific, I would say standars and norms are only standards and norms
> > because they have power relationships with the self. What can be
> > dropped are by default limited by time. We cannot drop anytime which
> > is timeless. Limited by time also mean non-optimal.
> >
> > One of Zeno's paradox goes like this: If we take snapshots of an arrow
> > in flight at any time t, the arrow will have an exact position. So it
> > is not moving at time t. If the arrow in flight is not moving at t, it
> > cannot be moving at time t-1 or t+1. Hence an arrow in flgiht is an
> > illlusion.
> >
> > The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
> > is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>
> So what do you do with all this philosophy?
Your query has received a reply from the original
poster, but I'll jump in and add my opinion
(everybody has an opinion, like everybody has an
a**hole).
Zeno's theory objectively has a hole, in that in each
instant the arrow still moves, even if only
infinitesimally. But his insight applies subjectively,
in that in each instant we are free if we take it (the
instant) alone, without past and future, without
liaison, connection and relation. I am alluding to the
theory of the atomic instant, as propounded by
Epicurus and the Buddhist school called Sautrantika.
In Buddhism it is called the mere instant
(ksana-matra), which is only the instant and nothing
more. It is the instant in its baldness, shorn of all
associations, temporal or causal or otherwise,
without reference to anything outside of itself. This
is the reverse to the usual Buddhist theory of
universal connectedness, also called
interdependence (in idiomatic English, mutual
influence), as here every connection is disregarded
and the instant is taken as an absolute, in and of
itself, a self-standing snapshot of the universe
(actually, of the mind) that has no precedent and
subsequent.
This is found in Hui-neng, who talks of freedom in
each instant (nian-nian jie-tuo), and indeed in
serenity and grace, there is a tremendous sense of
relatedness, and yet at the same time a tremendous
sense of self-sufficiency, so that, according to the
former, the universe is a thorougly connected whole,
but according to the latter the universe is a block
universe frozen in perfection from all eternity. This
is an experience to be experienced a posteriori, not a
concept to be analysed a priori. The saturation of
such an experience, the richness of it, the
overflowing abundance of it oozing out from all over,
are such that it can tolerate any kind of intellectual
views afterwards, even conflicting views, but in itself
it has to be experienced to be known as a unit (sorry
for all the pleonasms).
As I keep saying, liberation is purely subjective,
strictly sentimental, and has no objective counterpart,
nothing that it can be tied down to. In Buddhism,
there is a funny contradiction. On one hand, Buddhist
theory emphasises relations, mutual relations that go
on indefinitely, especially in causality, and on the
other in practice the sage is independent and
self-sufficient. There is another funny contradiction,
in that there is universal connectedness, and there is
the atomic instant, where all connection is disregarded.
It is said that in Buddhism different schools proclaim
different theories, and even different practices, so that
the relativity of such theories and practices is intimated,
ever so obliquely. It is said that Avalokiteshvara has a
thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand arms, a
thousand hands, each hand holding a different weapon,
so that he (in China, he is a she, Guan-Yin) can help
people with different aptitudes. It takes all kinds. This
is openness, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity *in act*.
Buddhism is itself an embodiment of such an attitude,
and would fail if it did not have room for such diversity.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
"Raymond" <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote in message
news:abho14h7dpg02fbil...@4ax.com...
now you sound like castenada
ltl...@hotmail.com
1.The self we can know is always time limited. It is like a snapshot
of an arrow in flight. It is never the true self because the
dynamicism of an arrow in flight or the real self cannot be captured.
Why our mind cannot function like a camcorder? One explanation is too
many junks inside.
2. Whether we do anything or not, we are always dropping the self at
time t.Let us call it self(t). But as soon as we drop self t, we are
picking up self(t+1). So, one's awareness of dropping the self is also
an illusion.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<81bafdca-8561-437c...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> The self we can know is always time limited.
If you are discussing Buddhism, you are way off. There is no self at all.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keynes
Continuity, cause and effect, and karma are rational
interpretations of so-called events in time. But they
must depend on unreliable memory and unknowing
imagination-expectatons - all in the present. Where
else is there to go for anything? Without rationalizing
the changes of time, where are the connections?
The mind makes time out of nothing, and always
in the present.
^@%>---*=#
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:itvo14h2jkcl4snms...@4ax.com...
rational ? does it really appear
to you that anyone is rational ?
have you driven the freeway
lately ?
> But they
> must depend on unreliable memory and unknowing
> imagination-expectatons - all in the present.
imagination and expectations are not
only present moment motivated they
also rely on past memory for formulation
and negotiation and future expectation
for the same.
> Where
> else is there to go for anything?
"oh the sights we'll show you."
>pinhead from 'hellraiser'
> Without rationalizing
> the changes of time, where are the connections?
there are synaptic firings which
correlate the electromagnetic and
chemical cinematics that allow us
the fantasy that we are rational.
> The mind makes time out of nothing, and always
> in the present.
there is no present to our psyches.
by the time that one ten thousandth
of a second passes that is needed
to cognize the present moment, it
too has passed.
ltl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
You are talking Hui-neng's sudden realization. It is the instant
between self at time t, or self(t) and self(t+1). It is the hole of
Zeno's paradox. There is a sense of tremendous inter-relatedness
because the power aspect of all relationships disappear or becoming
not important during this moment. We are not seeing things according
to norms and standards but as they are.
>
> As I keep saying, liberation is purely subjective,
> strictly sentimental, and has no objective counterpart,
> nothing that it can be tied down to.
Subjective experience is stil grounded in objective mind/brain state.
In this sense, they do have objective counterpart.
> In Buddhism,
> there is a funny contradiction. On one hand, Buddhist
> theory emphasises relations, mutual relations that go
> on indefinitely, especially in causality, and on the
> other in practice the sage is independent and
> self-sufficient. There is another funny contradiction,
> in that there is universal connectedness, and there is
> the atomic instant, where all connection is disregarded.
The wests see power. The Easts see relatedness. During the atomic
instant, the power separates from the relatedness.
>
> It is said that in Buddhism different schools proclaim
> different theories, and even different practices, so that
> the relativity of such theories and practices is intimated,
> ever so obliquely. It is said that Avalokiteshvara has a
> thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand arms, a
> thousand hands, each hand holding a different weapon,
> so that he (in China, he is a she, Guan-Yin) can help
> people with different aptitudes. It takes all kinds. This
> is openness, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity *in act*.
> Buddhism is itself an embodiment of such an attitude,
> and would fail if it did not have room for such diversity.
>
Keynes
Lost in time and space?
Raymond
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 7:01?am, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:43:25 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>
>> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? ?Is the
>> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
>> yet?
>
>1.The self we can know is always time limited. It is like a snapshot
>of an arrow in flight. It is never the true self because the
>dynamicism of an arrow in flight or the real self cannot be captured.
>Why our mind cannot function like a camcorder? One explanation is too
>many junks inside.
>
>2. Whether we do anything or not, we are always dropping the self at
>time t.Let us call it self(t). But as soon as we drop self t, we are
>picking up self(t+1). So, one's awareness of dropping the self is also
>an illusion.
I agree everything the mind can think of is an illusion, but that does
not mean there is no reality which the mind can not think of. To claim
the self is an illusion is a good start, but to claim Buddhism is all
about no self is a fucking idiot. Buddhism is about the Buddha mind
which is the crown Jewel of this universe, and it is real and true
more than everything else.
^@%>---*=#
danger will robinson, danger !
RaaN
It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory and
awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual awakening so
the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a dream.
One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking dream.
So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
--
RaaN
RaaN
Time is no more an illusion than space. And yet here you reify mind
and present as some absolute reality. Perhaps it is just your own
memories and expectations that are unreliable. The eternal now moment
is not the same as the present instant but includes it dynamically.
Why you grip so tightly and desperately to your ill-conceived view
that time does not exist should be a matter of real concern to you
especially when by your own admission the result is completely
irrational.
--
RaaN
Robert Epstein
Does the dreamer just wake up from the dream, or does he also wake up
from thinking he is the dreamer of that dream?
Hmn....I seem to be paraphrasing Chuang-Tzu's butterfly story.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:33:10 +0800, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <81bafdca-8561-437c...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>>The self we can know is always time limited.
>
>
> If you are discussing Buddhism, you are way off. There is no self at all.
>
Well it's fun to see that we are all now talking about Buddhist
philosophy. Much more fruitful a collaboration than the other
conversation. Thank you!
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
No-self is the bridge to buddha-mind.
Raymond
wrote:
Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
cares?
:-)
Tang Huyen
Raymond wrote:
> RaaN:
>
> >Raymond:
>
> >> "ltl...@hotmail.com":
>
> >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
> >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>
> >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? Is the
> >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
> >> yet?
>
> >It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory and
> >awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual awakening so
> >the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a dream.
> >One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking dream.
> >So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
>
> Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
> cares?
>
> :-)
On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free. It
is the default, inalienable state, which we could
not drive away if we wanted to.
Even so, why bother, especially about
distinguishing between awakening and delusion
or whatever? Better just relax and be serene.
Actually, such a blasé attitude would be
perfectly at home with the Buddha-nature,
wouldn't it? The Buddha-nature would be
inherent to it, like built-in, wouldn't it? They
would fit each other like hand and glove,
wouldn't they?
Tang Huyen
Raymond
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
>
>Raymond wrote:
>
>> RaaN:
>>
>> >Raymond:
>>
>> >> "ltl...@hotmail.com":
>>
>> >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>> >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>
>> >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? Is the
>> >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
>> >> yet?
>>
>> >It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory and
>> >awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual awakening so
>> >the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a dream.
>> >One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking dream.
>> >So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
>>
>> Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
>> cares?
>>
>> :-)
>
>On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
>awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
>is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free.
No, it's never free. It's priceless.
Tang Huyen
Raymond wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> >On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
> >awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
> >is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free.
>
> No, it's never free. It's priceless.
Why haggle about its price?
Better just relax and be serene.
Tang Huyen
Raymond
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
>
>Raymond wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>> >On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
>> >awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
>> >is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free.
>>
>> No, it's never free. It's priceless.
>
>Why haggle about its price?
Because people are cheap in this day and age.
fred kepler
The local guru has dropped the price to a nickel a six-pack.
RaaN
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:16:19 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
One has to come down. :P
--
RaaN
Raymond
wrote:
>On May 4, 5:52 am, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
Oh, no. The Devil Lama loves to ride his human livestock who is
intelligent enough to understand his wishes completely and obediently.
He can not come down. To get him coming down, all western Buddhists
would have committed suicide in protesting such inhuman outrageous
never before in human history great injustice and mistreatment of the
former slave owner.
Well, I want them all dead anyway. So it actually fits with my best
wishes exactly...
Do I hear people say genocide?
Yep, that is exactly what I want.
Awaken21
Seeing it is, feeling it is, hearing it is. OTOH discussing, thinking,
debating it isn't.
Awaken21
wrote:
> Raymond wrote:
> > RaaN:
>
> > >Raymond:
>
> > >> "ltl...@hotmail.com":
>
> > >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
> > >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>
> > >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? Is the
> > >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
> > >> yet?
>
> > >It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory and
> > >awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual awakening so
> > >the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a dream.
> > >One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking dream.
> > >So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
>
> > Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
> > cares?
>
> > :-)
>
> On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
> awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
> is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free. It
> is the default, inalienable state, which we could
> not drive away if we wanted to.
But we can cover it up until we are no longer able to recognize it,
touch it, hear it's voice. That's why the Buddha taught cultivation
because...
>
> Even so, why bother, especially about
> distinguishing between awakening and delusion
> or whatever? Better just relax and be serene.
> Actually, such a blasé attitude would be
> perfectly at home with the Buddha-nature,
> wouldn't it? The Buddha-nature would be
> inherent to it, like built-in, wouldn't it? They
> would fit each other like hand and glove,
> wouldn't they?
...just relaxing and being serene in the face of everything that we
added and piled up over our Buddha nature takes cultivation, a peeling
away of the mistaken habits we've built up over it in ignorance. If it
was easy or simple to relax and be serene in the face of our enemies,
in the face of hateful people, in the face of circumstances that push
the limits of credulity, then the Buddha could have stayed meditating
under his tree and never uttered a word.
ltl...@hotmail.com
The self, or Buddha-ness, is there all along but it is a self outside
of time. Outside of time means outside of causation. It is also
outside the control of all power relationships. Hence freedom.
Robert Epstein
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 07:26:13 -0400, Tang Huyen
> <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Raymond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tang Huyen:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
>>>>awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
>>>>is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free.
>>>
>>>No, it's never free. It's priceless.
>>
>>Why haggle about its price?
>
>
> Because people are cheap in this day and age.
What would you like them to do?
Is it just a question of being worthy,
or something necessary in order to understand what is being offered?
Robert Epstein
well, we always have that problem....
the discursive mind is a very busy woodchuck, mine included.....
robert
Raymond
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 6:56?am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
>wrote:
>> Raymond wrote:
>> > RaaN:
>>
>> > >Raymond:
>>
>> > >> "ltl...@hotmail.com":
>>
>> > >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>> > >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>
>> > >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? ?Is the
>> > >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
>> > >> yet?
>>
>> > >It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory and
>> > >awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual awakening so
>> > >the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a dream.
>> > >One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking dream.
>> > >So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
>>
>> > Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
>> > cares?
>>
>> > :-)
>>
>> On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
>> awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
>> is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free. It
>> is the default, inalienable state, which we could
>> not drive away if we wanted to.
>
>
>But we can cover it up until we are no longer able to recognize it,
>touch it, hear it's voice. That's why the Buddha taught cultivation
>because...
Pure bullshit. The reason you think you can cover it up is because you
never really had it in the first place. What makes you think you are
so powerful that you can deny Christ? It is only because you are the
son of the Devil who will never call Christ your true father.
Raymond
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 12:10?pm, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@hotmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 3, 7:01?am, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:43:25 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> >> <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>> >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>
>> >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself? ?Is the
>> >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer waken up
>> >> yet?
>>
>> >1.The self we can know is always time limited. It is like a snapshot
>> >of an arrow in flight. It is never the true self because the
>> >dynamicism of an arrow in flight or the real self cannot be captured.
>> >Why our mind cannot function like a camcorder? One explanation is too
>> >many junks inside.
>>
>> >2. Whether we do anything or not, we are always dropping the self at
>> >time t.Let us call it self(t). ?But as soon as we drop self t, we are
>> >picking up self(t+1). So, one's awareness of dropping the self is also
>> >an illusion.
>>
>> I agree everything the mind can think of is an illusion, but that does
>> not mean there is no reality which the mind can not think of. To claim
>> the self is an illusion is a good start, but to claim Buddhism is all
>> about no self is a fucking idiot. Buddhism is about the Buddha mind
>> which is the crown Jewel of this universe, and it is real and true
>> more than everything else.
>
>The self, or Buddha-ness, is there all along but it is a self outside
>of time. Outside of time means outside of causation. It is also
>outside the control of all power relationships. Hence freedom.
No. I categorically disagree.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Please present your view.
>
>
>
>
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Raymond
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You can never say Buddha nature is either within or without time or
anything else let alone causation. Buddha nature is the wisdom that
will not be fooled by space and time or causality. Remember the famous
Chinese fox zen story?
In addition, Buddha nature is already freedom itself. There is no need
for Buddha nature to be under certain condition to be free from
relationships in order to experience freedom. It is perfection.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Please relate the zen story.
Raymond
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don't we love wikipedia? I just found it there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_fox_koan
Bad translation though. In my opinion, it should be: "Don't be fooled
by cause and effect".
Keynes
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
>
>Dave K wrote:
>
>> "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> > I will distinguish between the atemporal or timeless self and the self
>> > at time t1,t2,t3... and etc. Similarly, one cannot drop the atemporal
>> > norms and standards. But should drop the temporal norms and standards
>> > or the self's relationshipt with these standards and norms. To be more
>> > specific, I would say standars and norms are only standards and norms
>> > because they have power relationships with the self. What can be
>> > dropped are by default limited by time. We cannot drop anytime which
>> > is timeless. Limited by time also mean non-optimal.
>> >
>> > One of Zeno's paradox goes like this: If we take snapshots of an arrow
>> > in flight at any time t, the arrow will have an exact position. So it
>> > is not moving at time t. If the arrow in flight is not moving at t, it
>> > cannot be moving at time t-1 or t+1. Hence an arrow in flgiht is an
>> > illlusion.
>> >
>> > The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
>> > is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>
Very interesting, Tang.
Your knowledge of the sects and schools
is wonderful and good to hear about.
I think the paradox of time is central to buddhism from
the beginning. Clinging is the past, and grasping is the
future. In between lies the self sufficient, causeless state
where there is nothing further to do, the end of faring on.
Time is a paradox that has never been adequately explained.
You say "Zeno's theory objectively has a hole, in that in each
instant the arrow still moves, even if only infinitesimally."
Scientifically speaking, that isn't so. The present is totally
without measurable dimension. By definition nothing can
move except in (presumably) measurable time. The visible
sensible present is a snapshot and not a motion picture.
Yet while the present has no measurable dimension
it neither begins nor ends. While dimensionless it
has infinite extent.
We presume a continuity of moments, but that mechanism
of continuity would have to leap the timeless gap of the
present in some unknowable fashion. If there is any gap
at all in the continuity of time, then the chain would be
irretrievably broken, since in timelessness there is no
difference between an instant and eternity. How could
causation span that dimensionless gap of nothingness?
'Past, present, and future are ungraspable.' Logically and
scientifically there is no access to past or future except
memory and imagination, and that only in the apparent
present where we assume all activity of any sort must
take place. ( Since the past is dead and gone, and the
future yet to be born.) Yet nothing can possibly happen
in the unmoving present. All events Must take place in
the presumably measurable past or future.
(Where we can never go.)
We think we are living in physical time, so-called
real life, and base our thinking on that proposition.
So we have much to do and plenty to worry about.
But what is this 'time'? Clocks know, but we don't.
How many clocks are all around us. We have to look
at them because we ourselves have no real sense of
time. A minute of kissing is much shorter than a
minute of torture, regardless of all the clocks.
The minute, the hour, the day, the month, the year --
all are much of a muchness. It's all just right Now
without distinction.
Where does the time go? Where does it come from?
Nobody knows. Since it is an unfathomable paradox,
why put one's absolute enduring faith in one's
'understanding' of it?
There is no physical access to time. It is never present.
By memory and imagination we only create it in our minds.
Logically, our only access to time is rational calculating
mind. But what happens when one ceases to brood and
to plan and to scheme? No clinging, no grasping. Just This.
Long time? Short time? Meaningless.
Nowhere to go and no time to get there.
Everything has arrived in perfection Now, right on time.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Thank you. I think you are right. "Don't be fooled by cause and
effect" is exactly the point. "Buddhist nature" if looking from the
outside in, it is nothing but another psychological construct. It
reality is one's "experience" with it.
An example. "2+2=4" is an atemporal truth. As long the characters are
understood, two plus two always equal to four. This is arithematic
nature. Now if two persons are arguing wether 2+2 = 4 through a
causation framework, they are trapped. Every arguement on whether two
plus two should be or should not be four is like self(t) or self (t+1)
or self(t+2) ... .
RaaN
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
Yeah but who cares about your delusional wishes but you?
--
RaaN
RaaN
Why are the self proclaimed worshippers of the God of Love so often
filled with such Hate?
--
RaaN
RaaN
And you continue to be ignorant and stubborn time and again.
--
RaaN
Awaken21
>
> >But we can cover it up until we are no longer able to recognize it,
> >touch it, hear it's voice. That's why the Buddha taught cultivation
> >because...
>
> Pure bullshit. The reason you think you can cover it up is because you
> never really had it in the first place. What makes you think you are
> so powerful that you can deny Christ? It is only because you are the
> son of the Devil who will never call Christ your true father.
>
You make a wonderful poster child and I'm not even paying standard
modeling fees. I don't think anyone has ever proven any point I've
made on usenet as well as you have here. Thanks. :)
RaaN
There is no outside from which to look in, and that certainly is not
enlightenment, but in supposing we have a self we already assume a
position of observation from outside and that is a delusion most
everyone suffers from. Numbers are based on the idea of identity and
equivalence as though such things really exist beyond the delusion of
permanence and enduring self.
--
RaaN
ltl...@hotmail.com
There is nothing outside of our Buddha nature. That is, no special DNA
sequence or sequences are needed for a person to reach realization.
Hence we are all born with the root of realization. We only need to
allow it to develop naturally.
> If it
> was easy or simple to relax and be serene in the face of our enemies,
> in the face of hateful people, in the face of circumstances that push
> the limits of credulity, then the Buddha could have stayed meditating
> under his tree and never uttered a word.
Relaxing and being serene in the face of everything is not about easy
or difficult. It is about being reassured. Whatever may be may be.
Raymond
wrote:
Of course there is the outside to look in. That is what everybody does
in zen and Buddhism. Of course we all have a self to live life. That
is how we know happiness and suffering. Is happiness a delusion? No, I
don't think so. Is suffering a delusion? No, I don't think so. As for
numbers, I'm sure everybody has one. Because when the number is up, we
will know it's time to go. Deny it all you want, life goes on.
Raymond
wrote:
>On May 5, 5:06 am, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
Who is the one perceiving the hate? Bring him to me and slaughter him
in front of my face.
Raymond
Raymond
wrote:
>On May 4, 2:12 pm, Raymond <ni...@nizuy.com> wrote:
Obviously you care enough to post a reply.
Bill Pfeifer
Book recommendation:
The Ending of Time
by J. Krishnamurti, David Bohm
Awaken21
Are you asking me to repeat myself? :)
Ever hang out with people who are constantly invoking some ideal like
God or Patriotism or whatever. It's creepy, always rings hollow to me.
Awaken21
Nevertheless it's easier said than done.
Raymond
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
You could be a far better believer than a stupid zen Buddhist. You
know neither Zen nor Buddhism. A simple faith could have saved you a
lot of problems due to your lack of intelligent understanding. You are
a piece of clueless shit.
jfe...@googlemail.com
What's wrong with a piece of clueless shit?
Awaken21
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 15:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>
Aww shucks are you softening up? Is that a Ray of compassion, like
there's hope for me or something? Geez man seeing your tender side is
making me get misty.
possum
<jfe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f281cb67-4bf9-4811...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
clueless shit is bogus.
jfe...@googlemail.com
> <jfez...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Where's the freedom without clueless? What's not bogus?
possum
<jfe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:38cbedbb-6888-4515...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
shit? : )
possum
<jfe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:38cbedbb-6888-4515...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
shit?
possum
"possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48211e06$0$10637$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
that would be just asking for diarhea...
Robert Epstein
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:27:19 -0400, RaaN wrote
> (in article
> <aa895768-77d2-4d32...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
> Oh, what a very good question. Often wondered this myself.
> Maybe it's because when you go to one extreme, blindly, nature requires the
> other extreme to try to balance out.
>
> tara
>
Also, you have to listen to the teacher. How many people who are
attracted to being "righteous" and "saved" actually study the words of
Jesus - not Paul and everyone else - and put them directly into practice.
You know, if Christian spent one whole day trying to "love his enemy"
and "forgive him" however many thousands of times in a row Jesus
advocated, how transformative would that be? I mean, how many
Christians spend their time trying to put those teachings into daily
practice?
Same with Buddhism. Does anyone read the advice of the Buddha and
actually try to take it seriously? If they do, then maybe they are
"Buddhists."
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
Unfortunately Raymond, you are the one who appears to be ignorant and
full of unrestrained gutter emotion.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
Time to break out the bong! :)
Awaken21
LOL. Ahh Robert you are a true gentleman. :)
Robert Epstein
:)
>
Raymond
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
Were you scared shitless?
Are you feeling the slightest safer than you were then?
You are dumb as a door knob as always.
ltl...@hotmail.com
Part of our problems is semantics. In the above example, I use "2+2."
One can say "Two plus two makes four" or "Two plus two equals to
four." "Make" is indicative of a power relationship as in "He makes
me do it." "Equal" is not. So, one easy way to to change our view
from "make", "cause" and etc to "equal." Rather than "X has caused me
trouble." One can say "X is troube." The next is what "makes" trouble
trouble. Again, we have to unmake the "make." After we have unmake all
the make, we can only relax and serene about everything left.
Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever will be will be.
Tang Huyen
"ltl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
> Part of our problems is semantics. In the above example, I use "2+2."
> One can say "Two plus two makes four" or "Two plus two equals to
> four." "Make" is indicative of a power relationship as in "He makes
> me do it." "Equal" is not. So, one easy way to to change our view
> from "make", "cause" and etc to "equal." Rather than "X has caused me
> trouble." One can say "X is troube." The next is what "makes" trouble
> trouble. Again, we have to unmake the "make." After we have unmake all
> the make, we can only relax and serene about everything left.
> Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever will be will be.
<<After we have unmake all the make, we can
only relax and [be] serene about everything left.
Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever
will be will be.>>
Right. Nirvana is defined as the calming of all
compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho), or
as non-doing (an-abhi-sankhara), where the
stem is kr- "to do, to act", as in karman "deed,
act". Such expressions are direct equivalents
to Daoist wu-wei "non-doing".
So after we have unmade all the make, we can
only relax and be serene about everything left.
However if we merely relax and are serene, we
need not even worry about unmaking the
making, undoing the doing, unacting the acting.
Relaxing and being serene would take care of
all that, in one single step, without further ado.
Tang Huyen
norbu....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "ltl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
> > Part of our problems is semantics. In the above example, I use "2+2."
> > One can say "Two plus two makes four" or "Two plus two equals to
> > four." "Make" is indicative of a power relationship as in "He makes
> > me do it." "Equal" is not. So, one easy way to to change our view
> > from "make", "cause" and etc to "equal." Rather than "X has caused me
> > trouble." One can say "X is troube." The next is what "makes" trouble
> > trouble. Again, we have to unmake the "make." After we have unmake all
> > the make, we can only relax and serene about everything left.
> > Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever will be will be.
>
> <<After we have unmake all the make, we can
> only relax and [be] serene about everything left.
> Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever
> will be will be.>>
>
> Right. Nirvana is defined as the calming of all
> compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho), or
> as non-doing (an-abhi-sankhara), where the
> stem is kr- "to do, to act", as in karman "deed,
> act". Such expressions are direct equivalents
> to Daoist wu-wei "non-doing".
Not sure, but i think nibbana is described as
the calming of all compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho),
or as non-doing (an-abhi-sankhara), where the
stem is kr- "to do, to act", as in karman "deed, act".
A description points to an experience whereas a definition
pigeon holes and limits an experience. Nirvana is non-defined
as not-this not-that, described as "bliss" - "free from frustration"
(again an avia-negativa - pardon my bad spelling...)
When the compositions are calmed they do not need to be calmed again,
the letting go is enough, and "calming" does not again apply as some
deffinition
to that (so to speak, no atman implied) which is no longer finite -
remainderless without such an idea.
Just my stinky sense of language...."nirvana" cannot be made a finite
article of a definition...point of the "nir-" thingy...
>
> So after we have unmade all the make, we can
> only relax and be serene about everything left.
> However if we merely relax and are serene, we
> need not even worry about unmaking the
> making, undoing the doing, unacting the acting.
> Relaxing and being serene would take care of
> all that, in one single step, without further ado.
Otherwise, yep. Well said.
Relaxing and being serene would take care of
all that, in one single step, without further ado.
:)
>
> Tang Huyen
ltl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Some people consider craving a creative process. That is, you create
something extraordinary from an ordinary piece of wood or stone. Some
poeple consider it a discovery process. You oberve a piece of wood or
stone to uncover what it could be.
If awakening is like craving as discovery, then some could take a look
at a piece of wood and say "Beautiful tiger!" They do not bother to
carve the piece of wood into the tiger. Some go ahead to carve the
tiger. Some have no inlking on what he could make of hte piece of wood
at the begining. The tiger only emerges during the process.
>
> Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:V6CdnadB_ow-CLzV...@supernews.com...
>
>
> "ltl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
>
>> Part of our problems is semantics. In the above example, I use "2+2."
>> One can say "Two plus two makes four" or "Two plus two equals to
>> four." "Make" is indicative of a power relationship as in "He makes
>> me do it." "Equal" is not. So, one easy way to to change our view
>> from "make", "cause" and etc to "equal." Rather than "X has caused me
>> trouble." One can say "X is troube." The next is what "makes" trouble
>> trouble. Again, we have to unmake the "make." After we have unmake all
>> the make, we can only relax and serene about everything left.
>> Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever will be will be.
>
> <<After we have unmake all the make, we can
> only relax and [be] serene about everything left.
> Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever
> will be will be.>>
>
> Right. Nirvana is defined as the calming of all
> compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho), or
> as non-doing (an-abhi-sankhara), where the
> stem is kr- "to do, to act", as in karman "deed,
> act". Such expressions are direct equivalents
> to Daoist wu-wei "non-doing".
can you do nothing ? can you stop
breathing, thinking, sleeping, eating
or shitting ? can you stop the parasympathetic
nervous system ? it's more like recognition of
that underlying process which itself is doing
nothing rather than 'you' actually doing nothing
and even that recognition is a 'doing', if you will.
^@%>---*=#
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12919c9b-3f4b-40f7...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
discussions about tiger woods belong
in the golf groups
Evelyn Ruut
news:V6CdnadB_ow-CLzV...@supernews.com...
>
>
Couldn't be simpler..... but the simple things are often the hardest.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Keynes
The impression that a self guides action and
behavior is delusion. This can be got rid of
by experience. It can even yield to logic,
but the impression-feeling won't go away
easily that way.
^@%>---*=#
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:cco324dq1thuhn0rb...@4ax.com...
do you have any nines ?
Evelyn Ruut
news:lg9Uj.1396$b%1.239@trndny04...
Robert I am convinced that this is exactly why the tibetan buddhists have so
many little rituals and beliefs, because they are designed to keep you
mindful of these things on a regular basis. Notice the Muslims pray 5
times a day with a regular ritual involved with it. People tend to forget
when things aren't fresh in their minds.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Robert Epstein
That does make sense.
Although some people don't like the idea, as a yogi I find the idea of
prostrations to really exemplify that, both physically and psychically.
Ron Fuller
i could probably stop them but i'm not sure i could start
them afterwards
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@gtlakes.com
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
Evelyn Ruut
Yes. It works, that's why so many religions use these little tricks.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
dt
Yeah, but one of the big tricks is to actually *pay attention* to what
you're doing. How many people can rattle off something like (just as an
example) the Lord's Prayer? But do they actually forgive as they would
like to be forgiven? Do they even think about what they're saying?
DT
Evelyn Ruut
"dt" <dal...@ATnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fvvllt$ben$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Hi Dale,
For some yes, for most, probably not.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Awaken21
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> >news:qhuUj.7826$0L.1337@trnddc07...
>
> >> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>
> >>>news:lg9Uj.1396$b%1.239@trndny04...
>
> >>>> tara wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:27:19 -0400, RaaN wrote
> >>>>> (in article
Of even during the ritual itself. Very important that each repeated
physical movement, the body entire be payed attention to. How many are
actually lost in their own thoughts, etc.?
Evelyn Ruut
"Awaken21" <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01485d03-50c7-4b8c...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Yes, exactly. Any ritual or practice is supposed to be done with complete
mindfulness. Of course as soon as you try to do this, you see how
scattered your thoughts really are.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Robert Epstein
Then it becomes not just ritual but meditation. Not bad!
Evelyn Ruut
"Robert Epstein" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T0QVj.2880$T1.1816@trnddc01...
Everything becomes part of your meditation, actually.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn