Re: Right Livelihood
halfawake
> On Oct 21, 2:56 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Appledog wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 19, 12:37 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Appledog wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Oct 16, 12:06 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>I don't think that Hui Neng or other advocates/masters of the sudden
>>>>>>school [Ch'an/zen] said that we lose our capacity for thought in
>>>>>>enlightenment, but the flow of ordinary thought has a/been seen as
>>>>>>non-consequential conceptualization, and b/there is actually a new form
>>>>>>of direct perception that is not dependent on thought; c/ one's
>>>>>>attention is capable of going directly to the capacity for conscious
>>>>>>awareness itself, called the "essence of mind" by Hui Neng, which he
>>>>>>said to be conscious of at every moment. He advocated putting full
>>>>>>awareness on the source of thought in order to realize it directly.
>>>>>>This is quite different than the focus that is returned to in the world
>>>>>>when one sees directly each experience as a direct expression of
>>>>>>enlightened mind and declares that enlightenment is "a pound of flax"
>>>>>>but the two are directly related.
>>
>>>>>You don't understand because you are probably nearly enlightened
>>>>>yourself. You have what I would call a dangerous spirituality. You are
>>>>>advanced enough to know certain things, but you don't REALLY know or
>>>>>understand the real ultimate truth yet. Let me give you an example.
>>>>>Enjo Kosai. Go read up on it, that's your homework. Now, here's the
>>>>>question; you would never do that, would you? But lots of people do.
>>>>>Why? Because! Look! They don't understand!
>>
>>>>>So an enlightened person is highly unlikely to do such a thing. Why,
>>>>>because they understand why it is bad.
>>
>>>>No, I would never do that. Underage - bad. Pay for - bad! But I
>>>>wouldn't mind making a buck with gyaku-enjo-kōsai, as long as the
>>>>customer is over 18. I split 50/50 with my wife.
>>
>>>>Wakari Robert
>>
>>>>= = = = = = = = = =
>>
>>>Hi :) Thanks for the response.
>>
>>>To determine the ultimate reality behind the words you say let me just
>>>ask you one question; do you think your wife would go for this and is
>>>it in accord with the EightFold Path, Right Livelihood? Keep in mind
>>>most discussions of Right Livelihood specifically mention
>>>prostitution, although one could consider the general idea of dealing
>>>in living beings (as a lack of respect for life) or the tendancy to
>>>become involved with organized crime. Not to mention, of course, the
>>>obvious transgression of Right Action, as the body is considered a
>>>natural outgrowth and expression of the mind, at least as far as the
>>>delusion of existence is concerned.
>>
>>>Just curious - after all, if you were lying or not taking this very
>>>seriously I'd be interested in knowing why. From what you've told us
>>>you have spent decades studying this stuff and I do admit I would be
>>>personally curious in rooting out the reason why you haven't been very
>>>successful in applying these concepts to your life yet.
>>
>>>Hoping for a speedy response,
>>
>>>-
>>
>>Well there are two questions at hand:
>>1/ Is it okay for me to joke around about a silly subject, and does
>>that dilute my desire for serious Buddhist understanding. My answer,
>>it's fine, and you take it too seriously.
>>
>>2/ Is it interesting why I haven't broken through further than I have
>>in practicing various Buddhist and other disciplines? Yes. The main
>>reason is a simple lack of consistency.
>>
>>Best,
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = = = = = = =
>
>
> Well, there you have it :)
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> -
you're welcome.
thanks for a nice exchange.
Robert
= = = = = =