Re: the drool continues [ was Re: $100 Essay Reminder
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> what qualifies you to judge someone
> else's knowledge of that which is
> prior to knowledge ?
If somebody claims knowledge of that which is
prior to knowledge, or some such, and then
blows up all over on account of mere words on
the screen, such claims are worth diddly squat,
and such a person only drools in public.
Tang Huyen
Ali
Relax, have a cigar, listen to some chamber music. Eventually all of
us drool or shit our pants in public. Or both. It's not such a big
deal.
jfe...@googlemail.com
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:UdOdnY5mzNF94b7V...@supernews.com...
is that your entry in his essay contest ?
dt
Only drools in public? You'd think if they drooled in public, they'd
drool at home, too...
DT
Awaken21
>
> >"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
>
> >> what qualifies you to judge someone
> >> else's knowledge of that which is
> >> prior to knowledge ?
>
> >If somebody claims knowledge of that which is
> >prior to knowledge, or some such, and then
> >blows up all over on account of mere words on
> >the screen, such claims are worth diddly squat,
> >and such a person only drools in public.
>
> >Tang Huyen
>
> Relax, have a cigar, listen to some chamber music. Eventually all of
> us drool or shit our pants in public. Or both. It's not such a big
> deal.
Nor indicative of a generalized state of advancement or not. We don't
advance on all fronts equally so our public face may not be indicative
of anything whatsoever.
small tortoiseshell
wrote:
> "^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> > what qualifies you to judge someone
> > else's knowledge of that which is
> > prior to knowledge ?
>
The Pebble
The pebble
is a perfect creature
equal to itself
mindful of its limits
filled exactly
with a pebbly meaning
with a secret which does not remind one of anything
does not frighten anything away does not arouse desire
its ardour and coldness
are just and full of dignity
I feel a heavy remorse
when I hold it in my hand
and its noble body
is permeated by false warmth
Pebbles cannot be tamed
to the end they will look at us
with a calm and very clear eye
Zbigniew Herbert
>
> Tang Huyen
small tortoiseshell
wrote:
>
> If somebody claims knowledge of that which is
> prior to knowledge, or some such, and then
> blows up all over on account of mere words on
> the screen, such claims are worth diddly squat,
> and such a person only drools in public.
Disgusted with everything alive I withdrew into the stone
world: here I thought, liberated, I would observe from above,
but
without pride, those
things
entangled in chaos. With the eyes of a stone, myself
a stone among stones, and like them sensitive,
pulsating to the turning of the sun. Retreating into
the depth of
myself, stone,
motionless, silent; growing cold; present through a waning
of presence - in
the cold
attractions of the moon. Like sand diminishing in
an hourglass,
evenly,
Ceaselessly, uniformly, grain by grain. thus I shall be sub-
mitted
only to the rhythms of day and night. But-
no dance in them, no whirling, no frenzy: only
monastic rule and
silence.
They do not become, they are. Nothing else. Nothing
else, I thought,
loathing
all which becomes.
Alexander Wat
>
>
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#" wrote:
> "Bill Pfeifer"
>
> > ^@%>---*=#:
>
> >> "Renli"
>
> >>> Hi all, just giving notice that there are now exactly
> >>> 26 and a half hours (from time of this posting) to
> >>> submit your essays. If anyone would like to enter
> >>> the contest it's ok just post your essays here or email
> >>> me, although I'd appreciate you announcing your
> >>> intention to submit ahead of time!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, and good luck!
>
> >> go play in traffic
>
> > way harsh, dude
>
> gracias
We ought to be kind to people who play
nice and little, but with people who play
biggies, anything should be fine. Physical
threats are illegal, but anything else in
mere words on the screen is fine, so long
as it is kept onboard. The people who
indulge in massive verbal violence will
break themselves, from their own side.
That is deed (karman) and result of deed,
in closed circle.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:lt-dnc7IncsHxKjV...@supernews.com...
we keep getting these guys like renli one at a time.
quite curious actually that we never get more than
one at any given time. i'd actually like to see a renli,
a lawson english, a peter olcott, a jonathan jennings
all in here at the same time. i'm not comparing the
levels of intelligence but the similarity in hard-headedness
which doesn't seem to correlate with the level of intellect.
Renli
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
I was planning to ditch you guys after midnight tonight, but if you
like I'll hang a round a little longer and see what I can do.
It's interesting, after all - how on one hand it is said that everyone
is enlightened, there is nothing to do, etc. but when someone actually
comes along who realizes this, or who really lives it or does it, he
gets attacked. Even speaking about it in an authoritative sense is
sometimes frowned upon.
It's almost as if we're a bunch of scaredy-cats, writing volumes and
volumes on swimming while avoiding taking a dive at all costs.
Oh well. One thing I'll note, is that there's a big difference between
getting hit by your teacher because you're dozing off, and having some
random guy off the street wander into your temple and tell you that
your life is garbage and he wishes you were dead. Hell, it wouldn't
even be so bad if it wasn't for the wishing dead part. But what can
you do, after all, if it wasn't for laughter, it wouldn't be the way.
-
^@%>---*=#
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb96bdd7-5b8f-4b44...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
what else would you like to whine about ?
Keynes
wrote:
There are marks and signs of genuine realization.
One of them is not to talk much. Another is not
to come on as superior and above the rest.
Another is to be 'insane'.
Sure, everyone is there already (in a way).
But not everyone is there already (in a way).
And no one is there already (Way).
Renli
>
> what else would you like to whine about ?
>
Since you asked, the fact that you and others (but you being the most
interesting example) seem to reply by making stuff up and not actually
responding to what I write. For example, you said I was whining - I
don't recall whining. It was more like burning a stick of incense.
Keynes is another great example - I once asked him what miracle he
would require in order to consider what I was saying, and he just
ignored the question, begged me not to make him cry, and asked me for
a list of answers to koans.
I'm also a little perturbed about how you seem to be projecting
hypocrisy - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you hold
others to a standard you don't hold yourself, while at the same time
insinuating you do indeed hold it. For example, you have asked me why
I thought I was qualified to judge others - when I wasn't intending to
do such a thing at all. Then, although by comparison I might never
have judged you, you have issued several judgements at me. All of them
intentionally scathing. IOW you clearly haven't thought your own
position through carefully (enlightened or not, intellectual or not).
Oh, I know tang might say they are merely words, and it is how you
take them - but that isn't really true: for example you could say as
keynes once did, that everything coming out of my mouth is garbage.
And I'd agree. But it is also possible to go an extra step, which you
have done, for example by giving me a *command* to go play in traffic.
(Wonder: What do you think I am doing here, anyways? ;-)) And so, I
have my conclusions, right or wrong - I am not really looking for an
answer :) Really, I'm not trying to change any one of you. Really. And
that does set me apart from a whole host of people.
So when I think about it - hmm, would I want to whine? I don't know.
Maybe I wouldn't really whine about it. I already know you - well,
people like you - I know the face you're trying to present anyways. It
is just what you wanted it to be. Since you asked. It's just that me,
personally, I find it quite useless from an opportunity cost
perspective. That's why I pretty much will never respond to what you
write. Not because I hate you or anything. It's maybe even dangerous -
every time I reply to your posts I feel something strange changing.
Funny thing that - I'm the one that feels it, and you're the one that
tells me what it is.
I'm sure there'd be something more I could say about this situation
but it would probably ruin the joke :-)
hanging out till we get another happy camper on here or something, as
you wish.
-
Renli
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
Who taught you this?
Isn't the entire point of genuine realization that you are completely
invisible?
I mean shit - just think of all the stuff you could do if you were
completely invisible. It's a multiple choice question, you all know
what I mean:
a) go into the girl's bathroom
b) rob a bank
c) be a spy
d) fight crime
> One of them is not to talk much.
Top 10 posters this month include you and ^@%>---*=# in the top three,
followed closely by RaaN, dharmatroll, tang, evelyn... I'm not on the
list. In fact fancy that, I've posted less messages to this newsgroup
in my entire life than the lowest on that list posted in the last 3
weeks.
> Another is not to come on as superior and above the rest.
Just because I'm a fully enlightened being, doesn't mean you need to
take offense, dude. I've already told you it isn't about me, anyways.
Don't force the issue, you might learn something ;-)
> Another is to be 'insane'.
No comment.
> Sure, everyone is there already (in a way).
> But not everyone is there already (in a way).
> And no one is there already (Way).
I think it's pretty obvious I am not a bhodisattva, I've said as much
in precisely the same words here. But pound for pound, you kind of
have to figure.. Oh! Look at the time! It's march. Time for the sixth
anniversary of cup 'o tea's classic alt.zen post:
-----
I'm serious. I mean the folks on alt.thrash.metallica show more
maturity than the denizens, the sleazy slimeballs fancying themselves
buddhists who inhabit this group. It's one big chest thumping session.
There is more edification to be had watching sunset beach or glamour
than following 90% of the threads here. You'd be better off reading
alt.cute.puppies.
And on top of that you've got the jokes:
Joke #1: people who think Buddhism is all about paradoxes. They say
silly stuff like 'practice is about not practicing' etc etc ad nauseum
thinking that makes them seem mahayanist and profound. Pah! You do the
work, you get the results, period. Those anti-intellectual paradoxes
were invented for the sake of extremely knowledgeable practitioners,
who were very advanced, who were ALMOST THERE. And believe me, that
ain't you. You need to do the work from step #1, which is generosity.
Hand out bananas on the street and make yourself a doormat for about
400 years and then maybe you can move on to step two.
Joke #2: people who try to show they're enlightened by avoiding 'self
referencing'. This means they thump their chests without using the
word 'I'. 'Ook. there is great enlightenment happening here... woo
hoo'. Gimme a friggin break. This Happy Camper fellow, for all his
prolix, self referencing, group therapy babbling is a BREATH OF FRESH
AIR compared to the craps and turds regularly laid on this carpet by
the regulars. Happy Camper is at step two. Most of you self styled
Buddhist Space cadets would need about 4000 lifetimes of profound vow
to reach the level of HC. Why? Because he asks questions. But you are
so deluded as to think you have the answers.
I can tell you misfit scuzzballs right now that _I_ am more
enlightened, _I_ am more compassionate and _I_ am MORE HUMBLE than any
mother's friggin son of you (with the exception of any ordained sangha
members who might be here and who I am NOT referring to with this
post).
So get back to your gang rape of the latest poor sod who happened to
wander in here with a genuine personality and an inkling as to what
steps might need to be taken to get somewhere on the path hardly any
of you actually care about.
Sincerely,
-
^@%>---*=#
are you done whining now ?
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 22, 11:17 pm, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> what else would you like to whine about ?
>>
>
>Since you asked, the fact that you and others (but you being the most
>interesting example) seem to reply by making stuff up and not actually
>responding to what I write. For example, you said I was whining - I
>don't recall whining. It was more like burning a stick of incense.
>Keynes is another great example - I once asked him what miracle he
>would require in order to consider what I was saying, and he just
How about the miracle of transcending your own ego?
Water into wine I don't need. Got water in the tap,
and wine in the store. Miracles. Humbug!
>ignored the question, begged me not to make him cry, and asked me for
>a list of answers to koans.
>
Didn't you say that all the koans are frauds, and that
masters pass on rote answers to them to their successors?
(Making them frauds too.) Them's fightin' words, son.
>I'm also a little perturbed about how you seem to be projecting
>hypocrisy - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you hold
>others to a standard you don't hold yourself, while at the same time
>insinuating you do indeed hold it. For example, you have asked me why
>I thought I was qualified to judge others - when I wasn't intending to
>do such a thing at all.
What do you think you're doing right now?
And you do it All the Time.
>Then, although by comparison I might never
>have judged you, you have issued several judgements at me. All of them
>intentionally scathing. IOW you clearly haven't thought your own
>position through carefully (enlightened or not, intellectual or not).
>
>Oh, I know tang might say they are merely words, and it is how you
>take them - but that isn't really true: for example you could say as
>keynes once did, that everything coming out of my mouth is garbage.
Words from any source at all are not to be relied on!
(And I didn't say YOUR mouth. You drew that
conclusion all by yourself.)
>And I'd agree. But it is also possible to go an extra step, which you
>have done, for example by giving me a *command* to go play in traffic.
>(Wonder: What do you think I am doing here, anyways? ;-)) And so, I
>have my conclusions, right or wrong - I am not really looking for an
>answer :) Really, I'm not trying to change any one of you. Really. And
>that does set me apart from a whole host of people.
>
>So when I think about it - hmm, would I want to whine? I don't know.
>Maybe I wouldn't really whine about it. I already know you - well,
>people like you - I know the face you're trying to present anyways. It
>is just what you wanted it to be. Since you asked. It's just that me,
>personally, I find it quite useless from an opportunity cost
>perspective. That's why I pretty much will never respond to what you
>write. Not because I hate you or anything. It's maybe even dangerous -
>every time I reply to your posts I feel something strange changing.
>Funny thing that - I'm the one that feels it, and you're the one that
>tells me what it is.
>
>I'm sure there'd be something more I could say about this situation
>but it would probably ruin the joke :-)
>
>hanging out till we get another happy camper on here or something, as
>you wish.
>-
Look at what you write. It's all rambling ego.
"I've been insulted. I've been misunderstood.
I have been attacked for nothing because I'm
perfectly innocent in every way."
Son, you are not enlightened, not awakened,
not different from any deluded soul. This you
must understand or there is no help for you.
You made a claim. You were tested and failed.
Is that everybody else's fault? It seems that rather
than learning from all this, you're just going to go
away as ignorant and self-righteous as you came in.
Look after yourself.
Renli
> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Out of curiosity, why do you ask?
-
^@%>---*=#
why do you need to know why ?
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 22, 11:49 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Damn, them buddhists are All Alike!
RaaN
>
> Sincerely,
> -
I hereby approve this message LOL
--
RaaN
Renli
>
> How about the miracle of transcending your own ego?
I'll see what I can do, but my schedule is full till next week.
> >ignored the question, begged me not to make him cry, and asked me for
> >a list of answers to koans.
>
> Didn't you say that all the koans are frauds, and that
> masters pass on rote answers to them to their successors?
> (Making them frauds too.) Them's fightin' words, son.
No, I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. You might have gotten
the wrong idea.
> >I'm also a little perturbed about how you seem to be projecting
> >hypocrisy - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you hold
> >others to a standard you don't hold yourself, while at the same time
> >insinuating you do indeed hold it. For example, you have asked me why
> >I thought I was qualified to judge others - when I wasn't intending to
> >do such a thing at all.
>
> What do you think you're doing right now?
Speculating.
> And you do it All the Time.
I agree.
> >Then, although by comparison I might never
> >have judged you, you have issued several judgements at me. All of them
> >intentionally scathing. IOW you clearly haven't thought your own
> >position through carefully (enlightened or not, intellectual or not).
>
> >Oh, I know tang might say they are merely words, and it is how you
> >take them - but that isn't really true: for example you could say as
> >keynes once did, that everything coming out of my mouth is garbage.
>
> Words from any source at all are not to be relied on!
> (And I didn't say YOUR mouth. You drew that
> conclusion all by yourself.)
Remember when you asked me if I was the True son of God and I said no?
And then you mocked me when I suggested a little humility was in
order? It was right before you said "You made a claim. And obviously
can't support it."
Well, I offered to support it and you declined the offer. You say "You
are a deluded egomaniac with a superiority complex.". I say "It isn't
about me."
And yes, you did say it was MY mouth because WORDS came from my mouth.
Everything out of the mouth is garbage, hence, everything out og my
mouth is garbage. Careful keynes - when you rewrite the rules of
communication without telling people, *everyone loses*.
Just look what happened to ^@%>---*=#.
-
p.s.
> Look at what you write. It's all rambling ego.
He asked.
> "I've been insulted. I've been misunderstood.
> I have been attacked for nothing because I'm
> perfectly innocent in every way."
Even if I didn't exist it would be true that people have attacked
their perception of myself. That isn't rambling ego, friend ;-)
> Son, you are not enlightened, not awakened,
> not different from any deluded soul. This you
> must understand or there is no help for you.
I don't need HELP, Keynes. Help is the LAST thing I need.
> You made a claim. You were tested and failed.
I find that very funny :)
> Is that everybody else's fault? It seems that rather
> than learning from all this, you're just going to go
> away as ignorant and self-righteous as you came in.
>
> Look after yourself.
No one tested me Keynes. The people here who even know what that means
didn't see a point.
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 12:33 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> How about the miracle of transcending your own ego?
>
>I'll see what I can do, but my schedule is full till next week.
>
It isn't about me or you or anybody or anything.
I just go around preening to show my ass.
Some might be offended. That's just because
they're little people who can't understand my
magnificence. (Which is even greater since
nothing exists. Well, maybe my ass.)
>> >ignored the question, begged me not to make him cry, and asked me for
>> >a list of answers to koans.
>>
>> Didn't you say that all the koans are frauds, and that
>> masters pass on rote answers to them to their successors?
>> (Making them frauds too.) Them's fightin' words, son.
>
>No, I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. You might have gotten
>the wrong idea.
>
You posted a link to a site which made that claim.
You also said you wished to design a koan for Robert.
Koans are never designed. They fall out of the sky.
>> >I'm also a little perturbed about how you seem to be projecting
>> >hypocrisy - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you hold
>> >others to a standard you don't hold yourself, while at the same time
>> >insinuating you do indeed hold it. For example, you have asked me why
>> >I thought I was qualified to judge others - when I wasn't intending to
>> >do such a thing at all.
>>
>> What do you think you're doing right now?
>
>Speculating.
>
>> And you do it All the Time.
>
>I agree.
>
>> >Then, although by comparison I might never
>> >have judged you, you have issued several judgements at me. All of them
>> >intentionally scathing. IOW you clearly haven't thought your own
>> >position through carefully (enlightened or not, intellectual or not).
>>
>> >Oh, I know tang might say they are merely words, and it is how you
>> >take them - but that isn't really true: for example you could say as
>> >keynes once did, that everything coming out of my mouth is garbage.
>>
>> Words from any source at all are not to be relied on!
>> (And I didn't say YOUR mouth. You drew that
>> conclusion all by yourself.)
>
>Remember when you asked me if I was the True son of God and I said no?
>And then you mocked me when I suggested a little humility was in
>order? It was right before you said "You made a claim. And obviously
>can't support it."
>
You offered to perform a miracle.
What's up with that?
>Well, I offered to support it and you declined the offer. You say "You
>are a deluded egomaniac with a superiority complex.". I say "It isn't
>about me."
>
Everything you say is about you.
>And yes, you did say it was MY mouth because WORDS came from my mouth.
>Everything out of the mouth is garbage, hence, everything out og my
>mouth is garbage. Careful keynes - when you rewrite the rules of
>communication without telling people, *everyone loses*.
>
Loser. It -IS- all about you after all isn't it?
>Just look what happened to ^@%>---*=#.
>
>-
>
>p.s.
>
>> Look at what you write. It's all rambling ego.
>
>He asked.
>
I'd tell you what's really happening here,
but you just wouldn't understand. If only
there were some way I could walk and talk
like a monkey or a dog, I might communicate
with you, but it's hopeless. You just don't get
it. Can't get it. It's not your fault that you're
not as lofty and advanced as I am.
Have a yum yum. That's a good little monkey.
>> "I've been insulted. I've been misunderstood.
>> I have been attacked for nothing because I'm
>> perfectly innocent in every way."
>
>Even if I didn't exist it would be true that people have attacked
>their perception of myself. That isn't rambling ego, friend ;-)
>
You are not you. Even better than Tang-Fluff.
All of the posturing and bullshit isn't about you.
It's just about how we see a bullshitter who isn't you.
Is it your brother then?
>> Son, you are not enlightened, not awakened,
>> not different from any deluded soul. This you
>> must understand or there is no help for you.
>
>I don't need HELP, Keynes. Help is the LAST thing I need.
>
>> You made a claim. You were tested and failed.
>
>I find that very funny :)
>
You're pretty funny fer sure.
>> Is that everybody else's fault? It seems that rather
>> than learning from all this, you're just going to go
>> away as ignorant and self-righteous as you came in.
>>
>> Look after yourself.
>
>No one tested me Keynes. The people here who even know what that means
>didn't see a point.
>
There you go again, off into the secret mysteries of space.
How I envy your greatness. Please, show me a miracle!
Fix my roof.
Renli
>
> >I'll see what I can do, but my schedule is full till next week.
>
> It isn't about me or you or anybody or anything.
> I just go around preening to show my ass.
You said it!
> You offered to perform a miracle.
> What's up with that?
Since you asked - I was wondering what it would take for you to stop
making stuff up about me, for example that I was trying to design a
koan for Robert. What I said was very simple and very easy to
understand. I answered his question as best as was possible. If you
really see ego in what I did.. hmm, it may be cause what I did was a
mirror.
> >Well, I offered to support it and you declined the offer. You say "You
> >are a deluded egomaniac with a superiority complex.". I say "It isn't
> >about me."
>
> Everything you say is about you.
I disagree.
> >And yes, you did say it was MY mouth because WORDS came from my mouth.
> >Everything out of the mouth is garbage, hence, everything out og my
> >mouth is garbage. Careful keynes - when you rewrite the rules of
> >communication without telling people, *everyone loses*.
>
> Loser. It -IS- all about you after all isn't it?
Except when it's about you calling people a loser because they noticed
you changing the rules on them ;-)
> >> Look at what you write. It's all rambling ego.
>
> >He asked.
>
> I'd tell you what's really happening here,
> but you just wouldn't understand.
Hahaha - this is all according to script, Keynes! I saw this before -
this week, in fact!
> If only
> there were some way I could walk and talk
> like a monkey or a dog, I might communicate
> with you, but it's hopeless. You just don't get
> it. Can't get it. It's not your fault that you're
> not as lofty and advanced as I am.
You said it!
> Have a yum yum. That's a good little monkey.
Do you offer the yum yum to fufill my true nature, or do you offer it
as a way to impose a nature on me that is not my own? You said it..
> >> "I've been insulted. I've been misunderstood.
> >> I have been attacked for nothing because I'm
> >> perfectly innocent in every way."
>
> >Even if I didn't exist it would be true that people have attacked
> >their perception of myself. That isn't rambling ego, friend ;-)
>
> You are not you.
Of course I'm not. How could I be, you told me who I was, so did a
number of others here.
> Even better than Tang-Fluff.
> All of the posturing and bullshit isn't about you.
> It's just about how we see a bullshitter who isn't you.
> Is it your brother then?
Yes. After all, I already told you I'm not a bhodisattva. What do you
think that really means?
> >No one tested me Keynes. The people here who even know what that means
> >didn't see a point.
>
> There you go again, off into the secret mysteries of space.
> How I envy your greatness. Please, show me a miracle!
> Fix my roof.
What's wrong with it?
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 1:46 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll see what I can do, but my schedule is full till next week.
>>
>> It isn't about me or you or anybody or anything.
>> I just go around preening to show my ass.
>
>You said it!
>
There is no me or you or anything.
Everything is everything and I am the proof.
Why do you not understand me?
It's all so plain and clear.
I wish I could tell you, but you don't exist
and neither do I. All the wise people know
that, but there are no wise people here.
Everybody is mean to me, but there is no me
or no everybody. Are you as mixed up as I am?
You could be. You could be. No you couldn't,
because you don't exist.
>> You offered to perform a miracle.
>> What's up with that?
>
>Since you asked - I was wondering what it would take for you to stop
>making stuff up about me,
We don't need to do that. You do it yourself.
>for example that I was trying to design a
>koan for Robert.
It's all on record you know.
>What I said was very simple and very easy to
>understand. I answered his question as best as was possible. If you
>really see ego in what I did.. hmm, it may be cause what I did was a
>mirror.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
>
>> >Well, I offered to support it and you declined the offer. You say "You
>> >are a deluded egomaniac with a superiority complex.". I say "It isn't
>> >about me."
>>
>> Everything you say is about you.
>
>I disagree.
>
You certainly do.
>> >And yes, you did say it was MY mouth because WORDS came from my mouth.
>> >Everything out of the mouth is garbage, hence, everything out og my
>> >mouth is garbage. Careful keynes - when you rewrite the rules of
>> >communication without telling people, *everyone loses*.
>>
>> Loser. It -IS- all about you after all isn't it?
>
>Except when it's about you calling people a loser because they noticed
>you changing the rules on them ;-)
>
"Everything that falls out of the mouth is garbage."
You picked up the garbage and chewed it up.
I warned you not to. But you're much wiser than I.
(And you need no help at all.)
>> >> Look at what you write. It's all rambling ego.
>>
>> >He asked.
>>
>> I'd tell you what's really happening here,
>> but you just wouldn't understand.
>
>Hahaha - this is all according to script, Keynes! I saw this before -
>this week, in fact!
>
It's a paraphrase of your first few posts.
I didn't think you'd recognize it.
And it seems that you don't.
>> If only
>> there were some way I could walk and talk
>> like a monkey or a dog, I might communicate
>> with you, but it's hopeless. You just don't get
>> it. Can't get it. It's not your fault that you're
>> not as lofty and advanced as I am.
>
>You said it!
>
>> Have a yum yum. That's a good little monkey.
>
>Do you offer the yum yum to fufill my true nature, or do you offer it
>as a way to impose a nature on me that is not my own? You said it..
>
Sometimes a yum yum is just a yum yum.
>> >> "I've been insulted. I've been misunderstood.
>> >> I have been attacked for nothing because I'm
>> >> perfectly innocent in every way."
>>
>> >Even if I didn't exist it would be true that people have attacked
>> >their perception of myself. That isn't rambling ego, friend ;-)
>>
>> You are not you.
>
>Of course I'm not. How could I be, you told me who I was, so did a
>number of others here.
>
>> Even better than Tang-Fluff.
>> All of the posturing and bullshit isn't about you.
>> It's just about how we see a bullshitter who isn't you.
>> Is it your brother then?
>
>Yes. After all, I already told you I'm not a bhodisattva. What do you
>think that really means?
>
You're a mariachi?
>> >No one tested me Keynes. The people here who even know what that means
>> >didn't see a point.
>>
>> There you go again, off into the secret mysteries of space.
>> How I envy your greatness. Please, show me a miracle!
>> Fix my roof.
>
>What's wrong with it?
>
It leaks.
Or it would if roofs really existed.
Renli
>
> >You said it!
>
> There is no me or you or anything.
> Everything is everything and I am the proof.
> Why do you not understand me?
Because I don't need to. See: "there is no me... and I am the proof".
Brilliant, Keynes.
If I needed to understand that, I would have to be really fucked up to
begin with - and as we all know, everyone, everywhere - even rocks and
trees, are fully enlightened beings.
> It's all so plain and clear.
> I wish I could tell you, but you don't exist
> and neither do I. All the wise people know
> that, but there are no wise people here.
> Everybody is mean to me, but there is no me
> or no everybody. Are you as mixed up as I am?
> You could be. You could be. No you couldn't,
> because you don't exist.
What do we know? Maybe I don't exist to you, but whatever your
perception of me is, it exists to you.
Oh, but you don't exist? Who clicked on the mouse then? :)
The problem, Keynes, is that there is dust in the here and now. If you
can accept that, we can make progress. But the longer you keep going
on about how we don't exist the more I can't help but to wonder who it
was who typed that message I'm reading.
> >> You offered to perform a miracle.
> >> What's up with that?
>
> >Since you asked - I was wondering what it would take for you to stop
> >making stuff up about me,
>
> We don't need to do that. You do it yourself.
You would know, being qualified to judge.
After all, what does that imply - you judging me - it means, de facto,
that YOU have made all the claims you've assumed I've made - since
otherwise you would be unqualified to judge me!
So either you're blisteringly stupid, which is ruled out by the fact
you're here, or you are using me as a pinata - which means you're
blindfolded. Well, I won't presume to tell you what to do - after all
if I told you to take off the blindfold and you saw what you did, you
might commit suicide. As I said, I'm not here to change you.
> >for example that I was trying to design a
> >koan for Robert.
>
> It's all on record you know.
Did I say I was giving him a koan? :)
> >What I said was very simple and very easy to
> >understand. I answered his question as best as was possible. If you
> >really see ego in what I did.. hmm, it may be cause what I did was a
> >mirror.
>
> "I know you are, but what am I?"
Exactly. And I, Keynes, am a fully enlightened being.
I don't need to ask you what you are.
Because you already know.
Now, what are you going to *do* about it? I'm not a mind reader.
That's why I ask.
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 2:17 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >You said it!
>>
>> There is no me or you or anything.
>> Everything is everything and I am the proof.
>> Why do you not understand me?
>
>Because I don't need to. See: "there is no me... and I am the proof".
>Brilliant, Keynes.
>
>If I needed to understand that, I would have to be really fucked up to
>begin with - and as we all know, everyone, everywhere - even rocks and
>trees, are fully enlightened beings.
>
A fully enlightened hindu was ecstatic on the path.
He heard a shout from a mahout sitting on the head
of a fast approaching elephant,"Get out of the way!
Get out of the way!" The enlightened hindu though
"Brahma is in me. Brahma is in all things. I cannot
be harmed or impeded. I am one with the All."
Then the elephant swept him head over heels off
of the trail and into a pig wallow. His guru was
wandering by, and the hindu complained,"How
could this happen? I am One with Brahma!"
The guru said, "Then why did you not listen to
Brahma sitting on the head of Brahma?"
>> It's all so plain and clear.
>> I wish I could tell you, but you don't exist
>> and neither do I. All the wise people know
>> that, but there are no wise people here.
>> Everybody is mean to me, but there is no me
>> or no everybody. Are you as mixed up as I am?
>> You could be. You could be. No you couldn't,
>> because you don't exist.
>
>What do we know? Maybe I don't exist to you, but whatever your
>perception of me is, it exists to you.
>
>Oh, but you don't exist? Who clicked on the mouse then? :)
>
There is no clicking of mice.
They go "skweek skweek".
>The problem, Keynes, is that there is dust in the here and now. If you
>can accept that, we can make progress. But the longer you keep going
>on about how we don't exist the more I can't help but to wonder who it
>was who typed that message I'm reading.
>
Existence or non-existence?
Who wants to know?
>> >> You offered to perform a miracle.
>> >> What's up with that?
>>
>> >Since you asked - I was wondering what it would take for you to stop
>> >making stuff up about me,
>>
>> We don't need to do that. You do it yourself.
>
>You would know, being qualified to judge.
>
A rose by any other name is a loon.
>After all, what does that imply - you judging me - it means, de facto,
>that YOU have made all the claims you've assumed I've made - since
>otherwise you would be unqualified to judge me!
>
Can you bite your own butt?
I'll bet you can. Show me.
>So either you're blisteringly stupid, which is ruled out by the fact
>you're here, or you are using me as a pinata - which means you're
>blindfolded. Well, I won't presume to tell you what to do - after all
>if I told you to take off the blindfold and you saw what you did, you
>might commit suicide. As I said, I'm not here to change you.
>
>> >for example that I was trying to design a
>> >koan for Robert.
>>
>> It's all on record you know.
>
>Did I say I was giving him a koan? :)
>
You said you were trying to cobble one
up especially for him. And that's mighty
nice of you. Do you also knit?
>> >What I said was very simple and very easy to
>> >understand. I answered his question as best as was possible. If you
>> >really see ego in what I did.. hmm, it may be cause what I did was a
>> >mirror.
>>
>> "I know you are, but what am I?"
>
>Exactly. And I, Keynes, am a fully enlightened being.
>
Beings and enlightenment do not go together.
HTH
>I don't need to ask you what you are.
>
>Because you already know.
>
>Now, what are you going to *do* about it? I'm not a mind reader.
>That's why I ask.
>
I never do anything about anything.
Except Dance!
"I met a girl from Poland,
she was living then in France.
I expected to get good loving,
But all she does is Dance, Dance,
All she does is Dance."
Tang Huyen
Renli wrote:
> No one tested me Keynes. The people here who
> even know what that means didn't see a point.
Actually your critics get you to defend yourself,
over some posts. Even if you keep your cool,
you haven't got the idea of not putting up
resistance, of not defending yourself against
mere words on the screen.
Previously you wrote: <<Well in that case I
apologize for being too enlightened to care>>.
A few hours ago you wrote: <<after all, if it
wasn't for laughter, it wouldn't be the way.>>
You could have laughed your teeth out at
Keynes and Jen (^@%>---*=#), but you
justified and validated yourself. You have
failed your own proclamations. They offered
you a chance to confirm your claim, but you
busted it.
Tang Huyen
Bill Pfeifer
>
> There are marks and signs of genuine realization.
> One of them is not to talk much. Another is not
> to come on as superior and above the rest.
> Another is to be 'insane'.
Hey, I could do that last one real well.
Does that mean I'm one-third enlightened?
Bill Pfeifer
>
> I was planning to ditch you guys after midnight tonight, but if you
> like I'll hang a round a little longer and see what I can do.
>
> It's interesting, after all - how on one hand it is said that everyone
> is enlightened, there is nothing to do, etc. but when someone actually
> comes along who realizes this, or who really lives it or does it, he
> gets attacked. Even speaking about it in an authoritative sense is
> sometimes frowned upon.
Wait, wait.......
Are you claiming to be fully enlightened?
Déjà Flu
>
> Renli wrote:
>
>> No one tested me Keynes. The people here who
>> even know what that means didn't see a point.
>
> Actually your critics get you to defend yourself,
> over some posts. Even if you keep your cool,
> you haven't got the idea of not putting up
> resistance, of not defending yourself against
> mere words on the screen.
Things you say are "yourself"? Whooo!
Who woulda knowed?
> Previously you wrote: <<Well in that case I
> apologize for being too enlightened to care>>.
>
> A few hours ago you wrote: <<after all, if it
> wasn't for laughter, it wouldn't be the way.>>
>
> You could have laughed your teeth out at
> Keynes and Jen (^@%>---*=#), but you
> justified and validated yourself. You have
> failed your own proclamations. They offered
> you a chance to confirm your claim, but you
> busted it.
Isn't that pretty much your standard reply to anyone
who tries to communicate, dear? You claim that your
"standards" are "buddhist" standards, and apply them
to everyone, judging left and right in defiance of
those same "standards". You're a frikkin' mess as far
as "buddhism" is concerned and claim authority the
same way that Ev and Keynes do. What a sham. Oh... maybe
that was "shame"...
Please make this up to me. I'm the love of your life.
The focus of your dreams (Sphere is fading), and I
really can't let you continue with this kind of thing
anymore. So...
I'm going to sneak into your bathroom and steal that
magic bar of soap.
Bwahahahahahahahaaa!
Hya, Renli!
pfffffttthhhh!
Bill The Cat
Keynes
My brain excretes also.
May I recommend a good abrasive shampoo?
Déjà Flu
...
> My brain excretes...
...
obviously.
^@%>---*=#
"Bill Pfeifer" <billp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jtKdnUvENrvKcKjV...@comcast.com...
> Renli wrote:
>>
>> I was planning to ditch you guys after midnight tonight, but if you
>> like I'll hang a round a little longer and see what I can do.
>>
>> It's interesting, after all - how on one hand it is said that everyone
>> is enlightened, there is nothing to do, etc. but when someone actually
>> comes along who realizes this, or who really lives it or does it, he
>> gets attacked. Even speaking about it in an authoritative sense is
>> sometimes frowned upon.
>
> Wait, wait.......
> Are you claiming to be fully enlightened?
can't you tell by the glow
in his eyes ?
^@%>---*=#
> And I, Keynes, am a fully enlightened being.
how do you know that you're full of it ?
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:vpOdnTSkfdGodqjV...@supernews.com...
the more level headed ones like olcott
who claim enlightenment can make a
better case for themselves by their
very calm positionality which never
seemed to waver in peter's case.
others, like jonathan jennings, made
no claims of any type of awakening
or enlightenment, at least not that i
can recall, and if i remeber right
jonathan called buddha a phony or
a fraud or something like that, but
this is indeed the smart move since
with no claims made then no subsequent
reptilian defensive posturings need arise
such as the massive dose of such that
we're getting from renli and of course
our resident dharmamaze.
Renli
>
> >> >for example that I was trying to design a
> >> >koan for Robert.
>
> >> It's all on record you know.
>
> >Did I say I was giving him a koan? :)
>
> You said you were trying to cobble one
> up especially for him.
Well now, Keynes - that's just a lie.
> And that's mighty
> nice of you. Do you also knit?
I suppose it would be, but Keynes - it's a lie.
And yes, it makes me sad to see you resort to this :(
-
Renli
wrote:
> mere words on the screen.
I care far more about people at the other end of the wire than to
minimize their thoughts, feelings, and emotions like that.
> Previously you wrote: <<Well in that case I
> apologize for being too enlightened to care>>.
>
> A few hours ago you wrote: <<after all, if it
> wasn't for laughter, it wouldn't be the way.>>
But you didn't ask me, you took something out of context.
After all, it's your paradox - i'm either too enlightened to care, or
I'm not enlightened. Who said you couldn't care when you're
enlightened? This is defending myself? Or education?
Well I guess that depends if you think you're attacking me. To each
his own. Keep in mind, this sort of thing does not last forever. I've
been given a temporary extension but I'm not sure it was worth it. And
after that, I'm gone :)
> You could have laughed your teeth out at
> Keynes and Jen (^@%>---*=#), but you
> justified and validated yourself. You have
> failed your own proclamations. They offered
> you a chance to confirm your claim, but you
> busted it.
That isn't really how things work around here, Tang.
-
Renli
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
Everything you say is a claim. For instance above you claimed that
peter never wavered in his personality, which obviously cannot be
true.
> made then no subsequent
> reptilian defensive posturings need arise
> such as the massive dose of such that
> we're getting from renli and of course
> our resident dharmamaze.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a claim. To claim
otherwise is proof of that.
We haven't yet reached the center of this problem, Tang. Look:
On May 23, 8:12 am, Déjà Flu <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually your critics get you to defend yourself,
> > over some posts. Even if you keep your cool,
> > you haven't got the idea of not putting up
> > resistance, of not defending yourself against
> > mere words on the screen.
>
> Things you say are "yourself"? Whooo!
> Who woulda knowed?
You see? We can play this sort of game all day, and there's no end to
it.
But if they are really, really, really words on a screen, then how do
you know my words aren't enlightened?
So I really think there's something more interesting that we could
talk about or that you could ask me.
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 12:44 pm, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Besides "I am fully enlightened" and
"No one can understand me", what have
you got to say? That stuff is just "Me me me".
Can you say something that might do good for anyone?
What have you got to offer besides self-admiration?
^@%>---*=#
>Everything you say is a claim.
delving your dithered psyche in some
amateur new age pop psychology ?
never fear, even the kids in the cheap
seats are still snoring.
> For instance above you claimed that
>peter never wavered in his personality, which obviously cannot be
>true.
it's not what i said.
i said he never waivered in
his positionality. big difference,
except to someone like you
who reads what isn't there.
>There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a claim.
but your problem is not backing up
your claims which makes them lies.
>But if they are really, really, really words on a screen, then how do
>you know my words aren't enlightened?
words can't be enlightened.
only lightbulbs can.
so tell me, just how much attention does
your puerile ranting deserve anyway ?
Renli
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
I've already played all these games with you. How many games, many.
For instance:
1. Of course I'm fully enlightened. Aren't you?
2. I didn't say no one could understand me. I said my words are easy
to understand and people like you make stuff up and take it the wrong
way *on purpose*.
3. I'm not going to tell you what I have to say because the last time
I said that you took it to be a reinforcement of what you predicated
the question on, and it wasn't.
4. Yes I can say something that might do good for anyone. But that's
different from you telling me to fix your roof.
5. See #4.
Remember - when robert asked me who I was, remember - who answered the
question for me :-)
-
Renli
>
> > For instance above you claimed that
> >peter never wavered in his personality, which obviously cannot be
> >true.
>
> it's not what i said.
> i said he never waivered in
> his positionality. big difference,
> except to someone like you
> who reads what isn't there.
Positionality, personality, march, may, whatever. So you ARE paying
attention. Okay, good. Maybe this means you even care.
> >There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a claim.
>
> but your problem is not backing up
> your claims which makes them lies.
This isn't true at all - if I make a claim such as I am male, it isn't
a lie just because I haven't backed it up.
> >But if they are really, really, really words on a screen, then how do
> >you know my words aren't enlightened?
>
> words can't be enlightened.
> only lightbulbs can.
If you turn off the lights can you read what I wrote? Of course you
can. But that's just appearances. So many word games :/
> so tell me, just how much attention does
> your puerile ranting deserve anyway ?
None at all.
Unfortunately, this doesn't say anything about how much attention you
should be paying to my non-puerile ranting.
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 1:36 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Umm. By reading them?
>> >So I really think there's something more interesting that we could
>> >talk about or that you could ask me.
>>
What are you doing?
(Thought I'd ask a tough one first.)
>> >-
>>
>> Besides "I am fully enlightened" and
>> "No one can understand me", what have
>> you got to say? That stuff is just "Me me me".
>>
>> Can you say something that might do good for anyone?
>> What have you got to offer besides self-admiration?
>
>I've already played all these games with you. How many games, many.
>For instance:
>
>1. Of course I'm fully enlightened. Aren't you?
Why certainly.
>2. I didn't say no one could understand me. I said my words are easy
>to understand and people like you make stuff up and take it the wrong
>way *on purpose*.
Can't be. I'm fully enlightened remember?
I'm a bodisatva with three bags full.
Light shoots off my forehead on a sunny day.
I can walk on the water if there's no way around
and it's not real deep.
Heed my words -
"You, my son, are a turkey. Where are the eggs?"
>3. I'm not going to tell you what I have to say because the last time
>I said that you took it to be a reinforcement of what you predicated
>the question on, and it wasn't.
You haven't said a word. (And not in the good zen way.)
>4. Yes I can say something that might do good for anyone.
Say it then.
I demand a miracle from you or you'll be kicked
out of the 'Everybody's Enlightened Club'.
(Or at least go sit in the back with Raan and Dubya.)
>But that's different from you telling me to fix your roof.
It wasn't a command. Just a suggestion.
However, if it's not too much trouble...
>5. See #4.
>
Is this the famous DMV runaround?
>Remember - when robert asked me who I was, remember - who answered the
>question for me :-)
Then you ARE Jesus.
Well, burn my bush!
I've been waiting to meet you.
I'm Moses. Wanna see my snake?
(Apologies to all the innocent koo koos.
You know who you are.)
Renli
>
> >> >So I really think there's something more interesting that we could
> >> >talk about or that you could ask me.
>
> What are you doing?
> (Thought I'd ask a tough one first.)
I'm preparing.
> >I've already played all these games with you. How many games, many.
> >For instance:
>
> >Remember - when robert asked me who I was, remember - who answered the
> >question for me :-)
>
> Then you ARE Jesus.
No, I'm not. But you said I was.
If someone wants me to say something that might do good for anyone
then I will require that they listen to it and do it. And I don't know
if you're ready to do that, so I ask questions and answer them. What -
did you think you could chide me into revealing the secrets of the
universe over *usenet*? Are you on drugs?
-
Keynes
wrote:
>On May 23, 2:13 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >So I really think there's something more interesting that we could
>> >> >talk about or that you could ask me.
>>
>> What are you doing?
>> (Thought I'd ask a tough one first.)
>
>I'm preparing.
>
>> >I've already played all these games with you. How many games, many.
>> >For instance:
>>
>> >Remember - when robert asked me who I was, remember - who answered the
>> >question for me :-)
>>
>> Then you ARE Jesus.
>
>No, I'm not. But you said I was.
>
Sanhedrin? What say you?
I wash my hands of the blood of this
self-righteous man. And of the fried chicken too.
>If someone wants me to say something that might do good for anyone
>then I will require that they listen to it and do it.
I wait with bait on my breath.
>And I don't know if you're ready to do that, so I ask questions and
I've been ready for virtually minutes to hear it and do it.
I hope it doesn't involve dynamite.
>answer them. What - did you think you could chide me into revealing
>the secrets of the universe over *usenet*? Are you on drugs?
>
No. Have you got some?
I wouldn't reveal the secrets of the universe over the net either.
They're good for a book or two, and maybe a movie series.
Just throwing out suggestions to see if they levitate.
"Enlightenment Attacks!"
"Keynes and Renli in the Quest for Fire."
"Aliens Are *Not* Among Us. (They Got Disgusted and Left.)"
"The Pyramids' Awful Secrets. (They Built Them Upside Down.)"
"God Is Watching You (Because There's Nothing on TV.)"
"Left Behind, While The Righteous Squirt Naked Up To Heaven."
"The Awful Truth About Everything (You Don't Want To Know)."
"Armageddon Is Just A Ten Letter Word.-- Killer Scrabble."
"I Am God And You Are God And Three Potato Four."
"St Peter's List Of The Better Restaurants In Heaven."
"I Was A Teenage Evangelist, And I Still Am."
"Fatuous Platitudes To Amaze Your Friends."
"Hello God? Why Can't You Do Anything Right?"
"Burglary For Fun And Profit."
Renli
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
I like number 2, #3 was pretty funny too :)
-
liaM
> - when robert asked me who I was, remember - who answered the
> question for me :-)
>
It was Ned, wasn't it ;)
Tang Huyen
Renli wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > You could have laughed your teeth out at
> > Keynes and Jen (^@%>---*=#), but you
> > justified and validated yourself. You have
> > failed your own proclamations. They offered
> > you a chance to confirm your claim, but you
> > busted it.
>
> That isn't really how things work around here, Tang.
If you want to impress people here, this is
what you should do.
Speak from strength, not from weakness,
from abundance, not from indigence, from
generosity and magnitude, not from
niggardiness and parsimony, from
transparence, not from opacity, from
airiness and fluffiness, not from hardness
and rigidity, from humour, irony, and levity,
not from anger, bitterness and agitation,
from absence of place, not from any place.
This last pair can be enigmatic, what it
means is that you do not take any place,
stand on any platform, stop at any position,
but float free, and thus nobody can locate
you. The spotted whale gets the harpoon,
and if you cannot be placed, situated,
pinned down, nobody can attack you, or at
most if anybody attacks you, he or she
attacks air and his or her attack will blow
back to harm him or her, in closed circle.
In such absence of place, you serve as mere
mirror, and what people say about you is
pure projection, without anything to back it
up from your side.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
> On May 23, 1:42 pm, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For instance above you claimed that
>> >peter never wavered in his personality, which obviously cannot be
>> >true.
>>
>> it's not what i said.
>> i said he never waivered in
>> his positionality. big difference,
>> except to someone like you
>> who reads what isn't there.
>
> Positionality, personality, march, may, whatever. So you ARE paying
> attention. Okay, good. Maybe this means you even care.
don't bet the farm
>> >There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a claim.
>>
>> but your problem is not backing up
>> your claims which makes them lies.
>
> This isn't true at all - if I make a claim such as I am male, it isn't
> a lie just because I haven't backed it up.
then what would you call unsubstatiated
claims other than outright lies ? wait, i know,
used car dealer bait and switch techniques.
same as lies.
>> >But if they are really, really, really words on a screen, then how do
>> >you know my words aren't enlightened?
>>
>> words can't be enlightened.
>> only lightbulbs can.
>
> If you turn off the lights can you read what I wrote? Of course you
> can. But that's just appearances. So many word games :/
that's all you've got.
lies and word games.
>> so tell me, just how much attention does
>> your puerile ranting deserve anyway ?
>
> None at all.
exactly
> Unfortunately, this doesn't say anything about how much attention you
> should be paying to my non-puerile ranting.
game over sparkles.
Renli
>
> then what would you call unsubstatiated
> claims other than outright lies ?
unsubstantiated claims. Why make things complex.
> wait, i know,
> used car dealer bait and switch techniques.
> same as lies.
Talking about unsubstantiated claims... :-)
> > Unfortunately, this doesn't say anything about how much attention you
> > should be paying to my non-puerile ranting.
>
> game over sparkles.
Well played.
-
RaaN
1 No one is enlightened who has not realized everyone is deluded
including themselves.
2 Few people tend to understand what I say and many misconstrue my
intent.
3 I will continue to say what I mean regardless
4 What I say may help another fix their roof or failing that at least
to indicate how they are damaging it
5 There is no fifth thing ;)
--
RaaN
Ali
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Renli <oliver....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>Besides "I am fully enlightened" and
>"No one can understand me", what have
>you got to say? That stuff is just "Me me me".
>
>Can you say something that might do good for anyone?
>What have you got to offer besides self-admiration?
>
haha. Don't knock self-admiration. Could 100 million cat be wrong?
Ali
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Renli <oliver....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Besides "I am fully enlightened" and
Keynes, lay off the guy already. Haven't you realized he's attained
the exalted and rarified state of "Utterly and Totally Useless
SoLight-Speed-Sudden You'll Miss It if You Blink Enlightenment, but
There It Fucking Is"?
He can't help it, can't be blamed for it, , so what is, is.
Hell, Don James may have had a bit of it too.
In Tang's words:
It doesn't get any better than that.
possum
"Ali" <lal...@yayaya.com> wrote in message
news:fiae34toe8pbk8ean...@4ax.com...
well i wouldn't argue with them...
>
possum
"RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d83ec79f-1c9d-4de0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
oh the enumerating.
Robert Epstein
why the hell not? why not dispense if freely. I'll tell you what: say
something that might do me good and I will do it unless I believe it to
be harmful. That will have to be my proviso if you want a commitment in
advance. Does that work for you?
Robert
- - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
Thought they were all pretty funny. Keynes at his best.
Noel Friesen
"possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48378225$0$10642$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Isn't that what buddhism is about?
>
>
Renli
> why the hell not? why not dispense if freely.
opportunity cost; I could be helping someone else.
> I'll tell you what: say something that might do me good and I will
> do it unless I believe it to be harmful.
That's the point, if you aren't willing to do something harmful it's
not important to you.
Besides, if you didn't do any harmful things you wouldn't need my
advice anyways.
-
Ron Fuller
>
> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:15de0f70-b425-4551...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 23, 1:42 pm, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > For instance above you claimed that
>>> >peter never wavered in his personality, which obviously cannot be
>>> >true.
>>>
>>> it's not what i said.
>>> i said he never waivered in
>>> his positionality. big difference,
>>> except to someone like you
>>> who reads what isn't there.
>>
>> Positionality, personality, march, may, whatever. So you ARE paying
>> attention. Okay, good. Maybe this means you even care.
>
> don't bet the farm
>
>>> >There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a claim.
>>>
>>> but your problem is not backing up
>>> your claims which makes them lies.
>>
>> This isn't true at all - if I make a claim such as I am male, it isn't
>> a lie just because I haven't backed it up.
>
> then what would you call unsubstatiated
> claims other than outright lies ? wait, i know,
> used car dealer bait and switch techniques.
> same as lies.
>
that you exist is an unsubtantiated claim. i have no
direct knowledge that you are anything but a 'bot, a
faulty turing machine. therefore by your own words you
are a lie. obviously i am delusional, talking to a lie.
it's 8:30 in the morning - time to end the dream and
wake up
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@cainsquestion.org
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
Ron Fuller
> On May 22, 11:49 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Renli
>> <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 22, 10:13 pm, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
>> >> message
>>
>> >>news:lt-dnc7IncsHxKjV...@supernews.com...
>>
>> >> > "^@%>---*=#" wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "Bill Pfeifer"
>>
>> >> >> > ^@%>---*=#:
>>
>> >> >> >> "Renli"
>>
>> >> >> >>> Hi all, just giving notice that there are now exactly
>> >> >> >>> 26 and a half hours (from time of this posting) to
>> >> >> >>> submit your essays. If anyone would like to enter
>> >> >> >>> the contest it's ok just post your essays here or email
>> >> >> >>> me, although I'd appreciate you announcing your
>> >> >> >>> intention to submit ahead of time!
>>
>> >> >> >>> Thanks, and good luck!
>>
>> >> >> >> go play in traffic
>>
>> >> >> > way harsh, dude
>>
>> >> >> gracias
>>
>> >> > We ought to be kind to people who play
>> >> > nice and little, but with people who play
>> >> > biggies, anything should be fine. Physical
>> >> > threats are illegal, but anything else in
>> >> > mere words on the screen is fine, so long
>> >> > as it is kept onboard. The people who
>> >> > indulge in massive verbal violence will
>> >> > break themselves, from their own side.
>> >> > That is deed (karman) and result of deed,
>> >> > in closed circle.
>>
>> >> > Tang Huyen
>>
>> >> we keep getting these guys like renli one at a time.
>> >> quite curious actually that we never get more than
>> >> one at any given time. i'd actually like to see a renli,
>> >> a lawson english, a peter olcott, a jonathan jennings
>> >> all in here at the same time. i'm not comparing the
>> >> levels of intelligence but the similarity in hard-headedness
>> >> which doesn't seem to correlate with the level of intellect.
>>
>> >I was planning to ditch you guys after midnight tonight, but if you
>> >like I'll hang a round a little longer and see what I can do.
>>
>> >It's interesting, after all - how on one hand it is said that
>> >everyone is enlightened, there is nothing to do, etc. but when
>> >someone actually comes along who realizes this, or who really lives
>> >it or does it, he gets attacked. Even speaking about it in an
>> >authoritative sense is sometimes frowned upon.
>>
>> >It's almost as if we're a bunch of scaredy-cats, writing volumes and
>> >volumes on swimming while avoiding taking a dive at all costs.
>>
>> >Oh well. One thing I'll note, is that there's a big difference
>> >between getting hit by your teacher because you're dozing off, and
>> >having some random guy off the street wander into your temple and
>> >tell you that your life is garbage and he wishes you were dead.
>> >Hell, it wouldn't even be so bad if it wasn't for the wishing dead
>> >part. But what can you do, after all, if it wasn't for laughter, it
>> >wouldn't be the way.
>>
>> >-
>>
>> There are marks and signs of genuine realization.
>
> Who taught you this?
>
> Isn't the entire point of genuine realization that you are completely
> invisible?
>
> I mean shit - just think of all the stuff you could do if you were
> completely invisible. It's a multiple choice question, you all know
> what I mean:
>
> a) go into the girl's bathroom
> b) rob a bank
> c) be a spy
> d) fight crime
>
>> One of them is not to talk much.
>
> Top 10 posters this month include you and ^@%>---*=# in the top three,
> followed closely by RaaN, dharmatroll, tang, evelyn... I'm not on the
> list. In fact fancy that, I've posted less messages to this newsgroup
> in my entire life than the lowest on that list posted in the last 3
> weeks.
>
>> Another is not to come on as superior and above the rest.
>
> Just because I'm a fully enlightened being, doesn't mean you need to
> take offense, dude. I've already told you it isn't about me, anyways.
> Don't force the issue, you might learn something ;-)
>
>> Another is to be 'insane'.
>
> No comment.
>
>> Sure, everyone is there already (in a way).
>> But not everyone is there already (in a way).
>> And no one is there already (Way).
>
> I think it's pretty obvious I am not a bhodisattva, I've said as much
> in precisely the same words here. But pound for pound, you kind of
> have to figure.. Oh! Look at the time! It's march. Time for the sixth
> anniversary of cup 'o tea's classic alt.zen post:
>
> -----
> I'm serious. I mean the folks on alt.thrash.metallica show more
> maturity than the denizens, the sleazy slimeballs fancying themselves
> buddhists who inhabit this group. It's one big chest thumping session.
> There is more edification to be had watching sunset beach or glamour
> than following 90% of the threads here. You'd be better off reading
> alt.cute.puppies.
>
> And on top of that you've got the jokes:
>
> Joke #1: people who think Buddhism is all about paradoxes. They say
> silly stuff like 'practice is about not practicing' etc etc ad nauseum
> thinking that makes them seem mahayanist and profound. Pah! You do the
> work, you get the results, period. Those anti-intellectual paradoxes
> were invented for the sake of extremely knowledgeable practitioners,
> who were very advanced, who were ALMOST THERE. And believe me, that
> ain't you. You need to do the work from step #1, which is generosity.
> Hand out bananas on the street and make yourself a doormat for about
> 400 years and then maybe you can move on to step two.
>
> Joke #2: people who try to show they're enlightened by avoiding 'self
> referencing'. This means they thump their chests without using the
> word 'I'. 'Ook. there is great enlightenment happening here... woo
> hoo'. Gimme a friggin break. This Happy Camper fellow, for all his
> prolix, self referencing, group therapy babbling is a BREATH OF FRESH
> AIR compared to the craps and turds regularly laid on this carpet by
> the regulars. Happy Camper is at step two. Most of you self styled
> Buddhist Space cadets would need about 4000 lifetimes of profound vow
> to reach the level of HC. Why? Because he asks questions. But you are
> so deluded as to think you have the answers.
>
> I can tell you misfit scuzzballs right now that _I_ am more
> enlightened, _I_ am more compassionate and _I_ am MORE HUMBLE than any
> mother's friggin son of you . . .
>
spoken with true humility <g>
^@%>---*=#
"Ron Fuller" <rfu...@freeway.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA857B1B73BB...@216.168.3.44...
so you claim
> i have no
> direct knowledge that you are anything but a 'bot,
"mama calls me crazy my baby
says i'm lazy but i'm gonna show
'em all this time."
>tulsa time
> a
> faulty turing machine.
infected by a faulty
unsubstantiated claim
machine
> therefore by your own words you
> are a lie.
nose is longer than
a telephone wire
> obviously i am delusional, talking to a lie.
pants on fire
> it's 8:30 in the morning - time to end the dream and
> wake up
shut up. i just woke up at 8:30am first
time in years. didn't even know that
there was an 8:30 in the morning.
possum
"Noel Friesen" <noel.f...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vVMZj.160235$rd2.152193@pd7urf3no...
>
> "possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:48378225$0$10642$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d83ec79f-1c9d-4de0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 23, 1:43 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
smip
>>>
>>> -
>>
>> 1 No one is enlightened who has not realized everyone is
>> deluded
>> including themselves.
>> 2 Few people tend to understand what I say and many
>> misconstrue my
>> intent.
>> 3 I will continue to say what I mean regardless
>> 4 What I say may help another fix their roof or failing
>> that at least
>> to indicate how they are damaging it
>> 5 There is no fifth thing ;)
>> --
>> RaaN
>>
>> oh the enumerating.
>
> Isn't that what buddhism is about?
there does seem to be a lot of counting involved, which,
generally speaking nearly always entails suffering, so i
guess it's just one of those paradoxical thingies that it
should lead to freedom from counting. : )
Robert Epstein
You appear to be unwilling to take any risks in order to be helpful -
not merely promote yourself as "fully enlightened. It's worthless if
you just play head games and screw around.
Renli
>
> You appear to be unwilling to take any risks in order to be helpful -
> not merely promote yourself as "fully enlightened. It's worthless if
> you just play head games and screw around.
That's one way of looking at it; from your standpoint. It isn't about
taking risks for me, it's about not needing to take a risk. Now that
you are here, or that I am here, or whatever, there's a situation
where risk taking is necessary. *shrug* I *could* but I already have
quite a number of things to do. Let's just say I was looking for a
spring roll and not a meal, will find another restaurant, and call it
a day.
-
GeF
Return to samsara. Do not pass go.
Pay 100 dollars tuition to Robert.
Awaken21
>
> 1 No one is enlightened who has not realized everyone is deluded
> including themselves.
And your experience with enlightenment would be...?
Robert Epstein
Well let's see:
It isn't about taking risks for me,
it's about not needing to take a risk.
This statement is meaningless.
Given that you don't actually seem to have anything to say, enjoy your
new restaurant. Maybe warn the staff before they start bringing out
silverware and water that you only intend to eat the menu.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
Renli
> Renli wrote:
> > On May 25, 8:16 am, Robert Epstein <vze25...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>You appear to be unwilling to take any risks in order to be helpful -
> >>not merely promote yourself as "fully enlightened. It's worthless if
> >>you just play head games and screw around.
>
> > That's one way of looking at it; from your standpoint. It isn't about
> > taking risks for me, it's about not needing to take a risk. Now that
> > you are here, or that I am here, or whatever, there's a situation
> > where risk taking is necessary. *shrug* I *could* but I already have
> > quite a number of things to do. Let's just say I was looking for a
> > spring roll and not a meal, will find another restaurant, and call it
> > a day.
>
> > -
>
> Well let's see:
>
> It isn't about taking risks for me,
> it's about not needing to take a risk.
>
> This statement is meaningless.
Not in light of the previous explanation; that is, the reason why I
won't take such a risk is because of it's opportunity cost. There are
better ways to spend my time in the pursuit of, for example, teaching.
Seriously - why take a risk? If someone isn't going to bite 100% there
is no point. There are no conditions, Robert. I find it quite amusing
you would deign to place conditions on my teaching.
> Given that you don't actually seem to have anything to say, enjoy your
> new restaurant. Maybe warn the staff before they start bringing out
> silverware and water that you only intend to eat the menu.
No, I think it goes a little deeper than that. I declined because of
something you actually did, not something I imagined you doing. On the
other hand, you accused me of eating the menu, which is a delusion on
your part. I think what you have is most commonly known as "sour
grapes syndrome".
-
Robert Epstein
I find you to be the one holding out too many conditions before you are
willing to offer anything. Fine if that's the way you are. But I see
you as a withholder and a tease. Based on your actions of course, and
nothing more.
The idea that you would require 100% willingness to do what you say as a
precondition for offering anything is absurd. It is a formula for being
able to hold out the grapes, then pull them away. Then you can accuse
the other of "sour grapes" and go your merry way. Game-playing all the
way through.
Robert Epstein
And let me add that as a supposedly enlightened being, you are useless
to living beings. You give nothing, but merely promote your own status.
Shame on you. I went as far as to say I would entertain your advice
seriously, that should be enough. But you are of the variety who wants
cultish adherence to you without even proving your status, the kind that
says "jump off a bridge to prove you are a worthy disciple." That kind
of authoritarian arrogance makes me sick. It shows the compassion of a
scorpion.
Renli
I've already told you why this is wrong; you didn't listen to me the
first few times; so it is doubtful you would listen to any other
advice I gave you :) Yet, here it is again, if you care to hear it.
It is not that I am holding out too many conditions before I am
willing to offer anything, it is that I am already offering things,
without condition. Just not to you. For you there is a condition - you
said it yourself - that you wouldn't do it if you felt it was harmful.
There are probably other conditions; for example, you likely wouldn't
take advice you felt was useless or purposeless.
> Fine if that's the way you are. But I see you as a withholder and a tease.
> Based on your actions of course, and nothing more.
Robert, why do you find fault with me? Didn't I answer your question
from before? Didn't I even offer you to come live with me and
experience life as I do? I mean come on, i'm right here, being
relatively straightforward, and you seem not to be getting it very
well. We could go on like this as long as you want - does that mean I
am a tease and a withholder, or that you've placed too many conditions
on your own understanding?
Besides, you haven't asked me any more questions. I could "offer"
whatever I wanted, and it wouldn't mean it was for you, or anyone, you
know - no gurantees. Again, just look at what I'm really trying to
tell you in this message. And you don't seem to want to accept it. So
is it the fault of the teacher or the student? :)
> The idea that you would require 100% willingness to do what you say as a
> precondition for offering anything is absurd. It is a formula for being
> able to hold out the grapes, then pull them away. Then you can accuse
> the other of "sour grapes" and go your merry way. Game-playing all the
> way through.
If that's the way you want to play it, then sure. Why waste my time
trying to sell myself to someone who doesn't really want to learn
anything anyways?
-
Renli
So this is what you see when you look at me? Interesting.
Let me know when you're ready to deal.
-
Robert Epstein
Sorry, but you have twisted it again. I didn't say I didn't want to
learn anything. I said the opposite. I said, tell me something useful
to do to increase my understanding. You did not answer that question,
but said that you would not answer it because I announced a condition.
I was just being honest. You offered to have me come live with you.
That is lovely, but I cannot do it. So if you sincerely want to tell me
something that I should do to increase my understanding, please tell me
something I can do without leaving home. Thanks. If I think it is
"silly" or "useless" or anything along those lines, I will do it anyway,
if I am capable of it. But obviously it is asking a lot for someone to
do something that they consider "harmful" which is why I announced that
condition. If you told me to take too many pills or jump out the window
I would not do it. That is what I meant. So I am asking for advice
towards awakening that does not involve something that is obviously
harmful. I don't think that's asking too much.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
Renli
>
> Sorry, but you have twisted it again. I didn't say I didn't want to
> learn anything. I said the opposite. I said, tell me something useful
> to do to increase my understanding. You did not answer that question,
> but said that you would not answer it because I announced a condition.
Ok, so you want me to tell you something - but not teach you anything?
Why bother to tell you anything if you already know it? Now I am
confused :)
> I was just being honest. You offered to have me come live with you.
> That is lovely, but I cannot do it. So if you sincerely want to tell me
> something that I should do to increase my understanding, please tell me
> something I can do without leaving home. Thanks. If I think it is
> "silly" or "useless" or anything along those lines, I will do it anyway,
> if I am capable of it.
Well let's start with something easy. Do you do zazen?
-
Robert Epstein
You are the one who refused to answer the question, as to what would be
useful for me to do towards awakening, based on your enlightened
knowledge. True, you had a reason for not giving that advice, you did
not like the condition I put on it. Still, you refused. I am
"dealing," but with one specific condition; you are withholding, using
that condition as a reason or excuse. I don't consider that a helpful
position on your part. If you say, you are being helpful, but to
someone else, well, remains to be seen. In any case, it isn't much help
to me, and that is where you, not me, choose to leave it.
So I invite you to give that advice anyway. If you don't, then it is
you who won't "deal," for whatever your chosen reason.
The point is, it remains to be seen whether you have any wisdom, or
whether you are really a teacher. You make claims but don't demonstrate
anything. So it is up to you to put your cards on the table or not. So
far, you seem to be mainly withholding whatever knowledge or teaching
you may have. If you are doing it "somewhere else," well that is
convenient. It neither proves nor disproves anything here.
Robert Epstein
> On May 27, 12:38 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but you have twisted it again. I didn't say I didn't want to
>>learn anything. I said the opposite. I said, tell me something useful
>>to do to increase my understanding. You did not answer that question,
>>but said that you would not answer it because I announced a condition.
>
>
> Ok, so you want me to tell you something - but not teach you anything?
> Why bother to tell you anything if you already know it? Now I am
> confused :)
Didn't say that either, wise guy. Tell = Teach in this case; at least
it is the best one can do over usenet.
It's pretty simple. If someone asked me how to stop thoughts in
meditation, I would say "Don't try to stop thoughts; just look into
their nature and they will do what they are supposed to do by
themselves." Now someone else could come along and disagree with my
advice, but that would be my advice. If that didn't work for them, I
could come up with a bunch of other things that I would think might be
useful and let them try them out. I have sometimes given people ideas
about how to meditate or do other things along those lines, and
sometimes they have been very helpful; sometimes not as much.
But I wouldn't pre-judge whether my advice would be effective enough.
If someone asked sincerely, I would just tell them what I think. And
maybe it would be useful.
One time I was substitute teaching for a yoga teacher when I had only a
couple of years experience myself. A woman came up to me after class
and said "How long did it take you to reach perfection in yoga." I
explained to her that whatever she perceived, I was basically not far
from being a beginner myself. I could have accepted her compliment,
instead I was honest about it. And I added that there is no such thing
as perfection in yoga, it is a process not a result. I think that
saying that to her was useful, maybe she would get into her own
experience of what she was doing instead of looking externally.
Anyway, you, when asked to say something that might be helpful that
reflects your enlightened knowledge, offer nothing. Yes, you offered to
have me come live with you, which is something that I can't do, but you
wouldn't actually say something in the moment and try to be helpful.
Why not?
I see basically two kinds of teachers. One kind is basically just
teaching all the time. They are available, they don't ask for an
up-front commitment or some kind of price that you have to pay to be
worthy. They just offer their understanding and advice. Another kind
is more of the "cult leader" variety. They act better-than-thou and
expect all kinds of obediance and proof that you are worthy before they
will open their precious mouth. The truth about which type you are is
simple: You either offer your truth freely when asked or you don't.
>>I was just being honest. You offered to have me come live with you.
>>That is lovely, but I cannot do it. So if you sincerely want to tell me
>>something that I should do to increase my understanding, please tell me
>>something I can do without leaving home. Thanks. If I think it is
>>"silly" or "useless" or anything along those lines, I will do it anyway,
>>if I am capable of it.
>
>
> Well let's start with something easy. Do you do zazen?
Okay, that is a fair question. Honestly, in the last number of years I
have not been sitting regularly. It has been pretty spotty. It sounds
stupid, but I have been trying to put it into my schedule. I have been
practicing in a couple of adaptive ways on a regular basis however. I
have been practicing mindful attention and sometimes going through the
foundations of mindfulness when running, which I do several times a
week, and been focusing on breathing when doing deep relaxation after
yoga, which I do several times a week on a good week. I also have been
practicing following breath while falling asleep, and practice
mindfulness during daily activity as well. So that is it at the moment,
but still planning to go back to more formal sitting in near future.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Renli
> Renli wrote:
> > On May 27, 12:38 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> It's pretty simple. If someone asked me how to stop thoughts in
> meditation, I would say "Don't try to stop thoughts; just look into
> their nature and they will do what they are supposed to do by
> themselves." Now someone else could come along and disagree with my
> advice, but that would be my advice. If that didn't work for them, I
> could come up with a bunch of other things that I would think might be
> useful and let them try them out. I have sometimes given people ideas
> about how to meditate or do other things along those lines, and
> sometimes they have been very helpful; sometimes not as much.
ok,
> But I wouldn't pre-judge whether my advice would be effective enough.
> If someone asked sincerely, I would just tell them what I think. And
> maybe it would be useful.
I believe I've sincerely answered your question from before. And look
how that turned out...
> One time I was substitute teaching for a yoga teacher when I had only a
> couple of years experience myself. A woman came up to me after class
> and said "How long did it take you to reach perfection in yoga." I
> explained to her that whatever she perceived, I was basically not far
> from being a beginner myself. I could have accepted her compliment,
> instead I was honest about it. And I added that there is no such thing
> as perfection in yoga, it is a process not a result. I think that
> saying that to her was useful, maybe she would get into her own
> experience of what she was doing instead of looking externally.
>
> Anyway, you, when asked to say something that might be helpful that
> reflects your enlightened knowledge, offer nothing. Yes, you offered to
> have me come live with you, which is something that I can't do, but you
> wouldn't actually say something in the moment and try to be helpful.
> Why not?
I did. You asked for the short version for enlightened people, and you
got it. And now you're acting as if the answer wasn't good enough for
you. You said above that I "offer nothing" and that I (haven't) "say
(said) something in the moment", whatever that is supposed to mean.
This would then be the fourth time I've told you that you simply don't
want to accept what I have to say, so I don't see any point in saying
anything differently until you get what I was on about in the first
place.
> I see basically two kinds of teachers. One kind is basically just
> teaching all the time. They are available, they don't ask for an
> up-front commitment or some kind of price that you have to pay to be
> worthy. They just offer their understanding and advice. Another kind
> is more of the "cult leader" variety. They act better-than-thou and
> expect all kinds of obediance and proof that you are worthy before they
> will open their precious mouth. The truth about which type you are is
> simple: You either offer your truth freely when asked or you don't.
The truth is never so simple. And at any rate your reasoning is flawed
- just because there are two types of teacher does not mean there is
not a third, or that I am one of the ones you happened to mention.
> >>I was just being honest. You offered to have me come live with you.
> >>That is lovely, but I cannot do it. So if you sincerely want to tell me
> >>something that I should do to increase my understanding, please tell me
> >>something I can do without leaving home. Thanks. If I think it is
> >>"silly" or "useless" or anything along those lines, I will do it anyway,
> >>if I am capable of it.
>
> > Well let's start with something easy. Do you do zazen?
>
> Okay, that is a fair question. Honestly, in the last number of years I
> have not been sitting regularly. It has been pretty spotty. It sounds
> stupid, but I have been trying to put it into my schedule.
Robert - I know exactly how you feel. But do I really need to give you
advice? Any advice I give you would just be what you already know... I
mean come on, you want me to tell you to just go do some zazen? Fine,
go do some zazen.
> I have been
> practicing in a couple of adaptive ways on a regular basis however. I
> have been practicing mindful attention and sometimes going through the
> foundations of mindfulness when running, which I do several times a
> week, and been focusing on breathing when doing deep relaxation after
> yoga, which I do several times a week on a good week. I also have been
> practicing following breath while falling asleep, and practice
> mindfulness during daily activity as well. So that is it at the moment,
> but still planning to go back to more formal sitting in near future.
Mmm. Well, let me know how your zazen goes - there are some other
things I could reccomend, but you should probably start with zazen.
-
Renli
>
> So I invite you to give that advice anyway. If you don't, then it is
> you who won't "deal," for whatever your chosen reason.
Let's roll this into the previous thread mentioning zazen.
-
Allen L. Barker
Renli, go do some zazen!
Renli
I don't have time to expain to you why I'm not going to take your
advice because I have some zazen scheduled in 5 minutes and I gotta
go.
-
Robert Epstein
Noooo....that was a totally separate occasion. I accepted that answer,
and acknowledged it. That was quite a while back, and this issue was a
separate thread I think, and definitely a different conversation. You
were having a conversation in which you said that if you were to give
specific advice that you didn't believe others would follow it. And I
jumped in and said I would - give me the advice and unless I consider it
dangerous I would follow it. Then you objected to my having a condition
put on it, and the part of the conversation that had some dispute in it
began. Now you are mixing the two occasions. Let's stick to this one.
You said above that I "offer nothing" and that I (haven't) "say
> (said) something in the moment", whatever that is supposed to mean.
> This would then be the fourth time I've told you that you simply don't
> want to accept what I have to say, so I don't see any point in saying
> anything differently until you get what I was on about in the first
> place.
If you were referencing the "short version of enlightenment" from the
earlier conversation, I was not aware that this is what you were
referring to. Maybe you could repeat that in slightly different words,
just to bring it into the current conversation. Or I will try to find
exactly what you said, which I unfortunately lost track of. I had meant
to read that through some more and give it it's due. I did not take it
for granted.
>
>>I see basically two kinds of teachers. One kind is basically just
>>teaching all the time. They are available, they don't ask for an
>>up-front commitment or some kind of price that you have to pay to be
>>worthy. They just offer their understanding and advice. Another kind
>>is more of the "cult leader" variety. They act better-than-thou and
>>expect all kinds of obediance and proof that you are worthy before they
>>will open their precious mouth. The truth about which type you are is
>>simple: You either offer your truth freely when asked or you don't.
>
>
> The truth is never so simple. And at any rate your reasoning is flawed
> - just because there are two types of teacher does not mean there is
Sure there could be many variations of teachers, you are right. But my
point is merely about whether one comes off as authoritarian or open.
Whatever variations you want to note in that regard are fine with me;
you can get as nuanced and specific as you like. My point is that you
seemed to find various reasons to pull back, double-talk, act like
someone wasn't willing enough or worthy enough, and I consider those
kinds of tactics a big bunch of game-playing and power-play. If you
disagree you can express your view on such manipulations and teases, as
I see them. "Well you're not going to do it anyway." "Well, you're not
willing to do something harmful - if you weren't already doing something
harmful, why would you need help." "Well I'm not helping you, but I'm
helping someone else." "Well, it's not that it's too much of a risk,
it's just that I don't NEED to take that risk." You see what a bunch of
excuse-making and double-talk and manipulative evasion that comes off
as? Can you at least acknowledge that it comes off as evasive and
elusive? See I have not ignored what you say at all. You say a LOT of
that kind of stuff that doesn't give anyone anything, but does string
them along. It is not an unfamiliar tactic.
>
>>>>I was just being honest. You offered to have me come live with you.
>>>>That is lovely, but I cannot do it. So if you sincerely want to tell me
>>>>something that I should do to increase my understanding, please tell me
>>>>something I can do without leaving home. Thanks. If I think it is
>>>>"silly" or "useless" or anything along those lines, I will do it anyway,
>>>>if I am capable of it.
>>
>>>Well let's start with something easy. Do you do zazen?
>>
>>Okay, that is a fair question. Honestly, in the last number of years I
>>have not been sitting regularly. It has been pretty spotty. It sounds
>>stupid, but I have been trying to put it into my schedule.
>
>
> Robert - I know exactly how you feel. But do I really need to give you
> advice? Any advice I give you would just be what you already know... I
> mean come on, you want me to tell you to just go do some zazen? Fine,
> go do some zazen.
Nooo.....there you go again. I did not ask YOU about zazen. You just
asked ME about it. So you must have had a reason. You said you would
not bother to give people here spiritual advice because they wouldn't
take it anyway. I took you up on it and said I would take the advice if
you would give it, basically inviting you to give some advice. My idea
in asking about that, is that if you are indeed a "fully enlightened
being" who is alive at this time, then you might actually have something
unique in the area of living truth to communicate that might help
someone here to become enlightened more quickly or more directly. NOT
asking for simple zazen instruction - which you just set up so you could
shoot it down in your one-man 'I have nothing to say' show. So I invite
you to give a word of living truth that you feel will open up my path,
or give a suggestion that will open up my practice. That is what, as I
described above, I would ask a teacher to do. If you don't want to do
that, you can have any reason not to that you like. As I said, you
either have something to offer or you don't; or have something to offer
but don't want to, or however you want to permit or excuse your choice.
>
>>I have been
>>practicing in a couple of adaptive ways on a regular basis however. I
>>have been practicing mindful attention and sometimes going through the
>>foundations of mindfulness when running, which I do several times a
>>week, and been focusing on breathing when doing deep relaxation after
>>yoga, which I do several times a week on a good week. I also have been
>>practicing following breath while falling asleep, and practice
>>mindfulness during daily activity as well. So that is it at the moment,
>>but still planning to go back to more formal sitting in near future.
>
>
> Mmm. Well, let me know how your zazen goes - there are some other
> things I could reccomend, but you should probably start with zazen.
Okay, if that is your advice for now, I will do that. When I have spent
some time in zazen I will get back to you on that, if you are still
around to be communicated with. That is fine; that is a spur for me to
get back into my practice and that is positive.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
Good enough.
RaaN
--
RaaN
Awaken21
Ahh, the same as meditation, raising children and what the Buddha
taught, I see.
Renli
> > Robert - I know exactly how you feel. But do I really need to give you
> > advice? Any advice I give you would just be what you already know... I
> > mean come on, you want me to tell you to just go do some zazen? Fine,
> > go do some zazen.
>
> Nooo.....there you go again. I did not ask YOU about zazen.
You didn't really ask me anything in particular..
> You just
> asked ME about it. So you must have had a reason. You said you would
> not bother to give people here spiritual advice because they wouldn't
> take it anyway. I took you up on it and said I would take the advice if
> you would give it, basically inviting you to give some advice. My idea
> in asking about that, is that if you are indeed a "fully enlightened
> being" who is alive at this time, then you might actually have something
> unique in the area of living truth to communicate that might help
> someone here to become enlightened more quickly or more directly.
I don't understand why you would think my advice would be unique...
it's not.
> NOT asking for simple zazen instruction
By your own admission you need to do more zazen. I was just trying to
help you along and give you what you wanted.
> which you just set up so you could
> shoot it down in your one-man 'I have nothing to say' show.
Along the lines of asking for random advice, getting it, then saying
you didn't ask for that (specific) advice? Maybe, maybe not..
> So I invite
> you to give a word of living truth that you feel will open up my path,
> or give a suggestion that will open up my practice.
If you're too fat to do zazen, lose some weight.
> > Mmm. Well, let me know how your zazen goes - there are some other
> > things I could reccomend, but you should probably start with zazen.
>
> Okay, if that is your advice for now, I will do that. When I have spent
> some time in zazen I will get back to you on that, if you are still
> around to be communicated with. That is fine; that is a spur for me to
> get back into my practice and that is positive.
Hehe - well, i'll be dropping in from time to time I expect.
-
Robert Epstein
ha ha, well I appreciate that.
could happen if I "sit" too much. :)
>
>>>Mmm. Well, let me know how your zazen goes - there are some other
>>>things I could reccomend, but you should probably start with zazen.
>>
>>Okay, if that is your advice for now, I will do that. When I have spent
>>some time in zazen I will get back to you on that, if you are still
>>around to be communicated with. That is fine; that is a spur for me to
>>get back into my practice and that is positive.
>
>
> Hehe - well, i'll be dropping in from time to time I expect.
Well, good. Now that we've come this far, I wouldn't want to lose track
of you completely.
:)