Re: Salvation (was Re: Paranormal Experience)
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:58:35 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 20, 5:03� pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:28 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Ah, put a sock in it, Tang-banger. No, neither Fu, from many excellent
> >> >posts I've read, nor I, are guilty of 'scientism', which is a label
> >> >used by blind faith believers to ridicule anyone who looks out at the
> >> >world and tests it rather than investing solely in blind faith in a
> >> >religious authority (like the Pope) or in the insane ramblings of
> >> >one's own neurotic ego (like the dogmatic Eternalist Keynes).
> >>
> >> Where have I ever said such a thing?
> >> Your irrelevant slanders just make you look petty and stupid.
> >
> >Only in your eyes, oh Queen of Quackery (yah I found a 'Q').
> >
> >Obviously you don't call yourself an Eternalist, but some folks claim
> >that NonDual Undifferentiated Reality that is "outside of time and
> >space" is that it is an appeal to Eternalism, as eternity is by
> >definition outside of time and changeless.
>
> ??????????
>
> >Oh yeah, I'm one of those folks. Go figure!
>
> No 'uncaused, unconditioned' state like nirvana then.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Actually, 'eternal' to a scientific mind like yours
> means time extended without limit, just as the
> fundy christians see it.
Correct.
> How like them you are.
> Militant, evangelical, warlike, willfully ignorant,
> closed minded, triumphal, arrogant, hateful, and
> merciless. Just a minor difference in dogmas.
Again correct -- and obviously so, on every charge.
> Eternal as 'timelessness' is a philosophical concept
> that makes no provable scientific sense. (Or even
> any logical sense - it's an oxymoron.) Are you going
> all woo woo on us at last? (Or rather still?)
>
> >> Everybody has all the time in the world.
> >
> >I don't. I'm gonna get sick and get old and die. You Eternalists are
> >lucky to have avoided all that.
>
> You won't give up self, birth and death?
> Nothing but samsara for you then.
Just so. How much more clearly can it be put?
> (FWIW, "Who would save his life will lose it,
> but he who loses his life will save it." "The
> first will be last, and the last will be first.")
>
> Now have a cow, your Assholiness.
>
> >> If one were serious he would not deceive.
> >> He would not lie or cheat, or pose or pretend.
> >
> >Oh, come on: I'm a poker player with a fondness for satire and irony.
> >What, I'm supposed respond to take your voodoo and your tin-foil hat
> >with a straight face?
>
> You might have a little respect for buddhism.
> That's not too much to ask is it?
Hi Keynes,
DT is trying to tell you here that he's a troll. He's jerking your
chain, because that's what trolls do. He's dropping a hint, 'cause
you're kind of slow. A small flash of decency on his part.
Like all trolls, he's got a bug in his head that makes him want to
jerk people around who are trying to have substantive discussions.
He prefers pissing people off to learning anything. That's the
reason trolls post to newsgroups.
A troll will gleefully slam you with facts when you're wrong, but
will gleefully slam you with BS when you're not. The object, obviously,
is the slamming. The "winner" is who gets slammed hardest, that's all
that's going on here.
A certain small percentage of the population have this particular
wrench in their skull, but their effect on the general population
is outsized. A great deal of the reason that the world often resembles
a toilet is attributable to them. They are not even necessarily pursuing
wealth or power -- they just enjoy creating chaos and dismay. They're
just stupid that way -- that's their fun.
Respect for buddhism? "Respect" does not compute -- although sometimes
fear may be instilled.
Sad, but believe me, true.
Please awaken to what you're dealing with. You're not playing the same
game as he, except insofar as he hooks you into playing it.
--
hz
Keynes
>
>
>Keynes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:58:35 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
I got that a while back. He's a complete weasel.
But there are people lurking here who might
take his BS for the real thing. So I try to set
the record straight. Who knows? dT might
even find a crumb of decency in his heart
some day.
Appledog
> > wrote:
And when you don't slam me and just make yourself look like a fool,
who wins?
You know, like when you call me AppallingDork?
:-)
> Respect for buddhism? "Respect" does not compute -- although sometimes
> fear may be instilled.
>
> Sad, but believe me, true.
It's obviously - self-evidently true. You have no fucking clue
whatsoever when it comes to buddhism. You sit there in ignorance,
hacking away at keys, without any mind to the eightfold path and the
four noble truths. Like Robert and Tang and N.I.P., you actively avoid
any serious discussion of buddhism. You're pathetic.
> Please awaken to what you're dealing with. You're not playing the same
> game as he, except insofar as he hooks you into playing it.
You see this as a hook because it is your game. You cannot see my
game. That's why you always lose - you don't even know what you're
doing.
Hint: Try asking questions. Don't worry, i'll be patient with you.
-
Bodhidumba
news:4ADFD08D...@gmail.com...
> Hi Keynes,
>
> DT is trying to tell you here that he's a troll. He's jerking your
> chain, because that's what trolls do. He's dropping a hint, 'cause
> you're kind of slow. A small flash of decency on his part.
=====================================
DT had a large flash of decency here a month ago when he posted this (just
in case you missed it when you were computerless and gone from the NG a
while back):
"Of course I don't really believe half the crap I write. I pick a
view and then run with it toward the endzone. I have to wave big red
flags, or else I won't get the bulls to charge." - DharmaTroll, Sept. 23,
2009.
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.buddha.short.fat.guy/msg/b7c4da1bbf714189?hl=en
Certainly something that anyone having a "discussion" with DT should keep in
mind....
- Bodhidumba
Keynes
wrote:
How is a stoplight like an apple?
Appledog
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:31:38 -0700 (PDT), Appledog <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
Oh, that's easy. A bolt of lightning. Just like that.
To spoil the joke by explaining it and overusing the analogy, which is
simultaneously not an analogy, is to say that each one is like the
other in the same way each one, is like a bolt of lightning. My idea
is that an assuming monkey mind would take this to mean they aren't
like each other at all (possibly which is how they are alike), missing
the simple fact that apples come primarily in red, green and yellow.
Of course such an answer is too simple, assuming the role of ultimate
reality, that particular level of course being an absolute illusion.
All to lead us to the inescapable conclusion, that all of what was
said is true, and discovered in the manner of a bolt of lightning
striking - suddenly, powerfully, gone in an instant - an analogy for
everything, human life, insight, enlightenment, and so forth. In
short, One. Everything, including nothing. To continue this discourse
would be several books of essentially "a bolt of lightning".
And that is why I did write just a short amount - this was my koan to
you, my requirement to you, my question to you. You can have my answer
if you ask, but really, if you'd like to treat each other as equals
and communicate, you would probably have done better to just answer my
question in the first place. No one has the right answer, you see, I
was just interested in what you thought. Robert too, but he as well
thought I wanted him to jump through innumerable hoops, and insulted
me for his own similar misunderstanding. Sigh.
Anyways.. good luck
-
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
Right. And from a troll point of view, that's a weakness on your part.
It's a provocation you will rise to.
The trick is (and you're pretty good at it) to just make the correction
without getting hooked into an ugly debate, which is what the troll is
here for.
> Who knows? dT might
> even find a crumb of decency in his heart
> some day.
He's not as bad as some.
--
hz
herbzet
Yeah, I did miss that. Thanx.
Kind of a peculiar modus operandi. And I think the metaphor is a little
sanitized --
instead of "wave big red flags" I'd have written something like "spit in
people's
faces" or "poke the bulls in the ass with a sharp stick".
--
hz
halfawake
> On Oct 22, 11:25 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Keynes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:58:35 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
I have serious discussions about Buddhism all the time, just not with
you, because all you want to do is play games about how great you are.
>>Please awaken to what you're dealing with. You're not playing the same
>>game as he, except insofar as he hooks you into playing it.
>
>
> You see this as a hook because it is your game. You cannot see my
> game. That's why you always lose - you don't even know what you're
> doing.
>
> Hint: Try asking questions. Don't worry, i'll be patient with you.
you see what your "serious discussion" consists of? Acknowledging you
as the "source of knowledge." That's not a discussion. Your bloated
ego is starting to stink.
Robert
zenworm
give a crumb of decency without expectation?
fearless
trusting
now
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
zenworm
> Keynes wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > >Keynes wrote:
>
are you judging content or methodology or results?
Appledog
>
> > It's obviously - self-evidently true. You have no fucking clue
> > whatsoever when it comes to buddhism. You sit there in ignorance,
> > hacking away at keys, without any mind to the eightfold path and the
> > four noble truths. Like Robert and Tang and N.I.P., you actively avoid
> > any serious discussion of buddhism. You're pathetic.
>
> I have serious discussions about Buddhism all the time, just not with
> you, because all you want to do is play games about how great you are.
Stop lying - you yourself said we had a good exchange the other day.
> >>Please awaken to what you're dealing with. You're not playing the same
> >>game as he, except insofar as he hooks you into playing it.
>
> > You see this as a hook because it is your game. You cannot see my
> > game. That's why you always lose - you don't even know what you're
> > doing.
>
> > Hint: Try asking questions. Don't worry, i'll be patient with you.
>
> you see what your "serious discussion" consists of? Acknowledging you
> as the "source of knowledge." That's not a discussion. Your bloated
> ego is starting to stink.
If you can't accept that someone else knows more than you do, and as a
result you feel you need to insult them, that would seem to be how you
think and act - certainly not myself.
-
halfawake
> On Nov 1, 1:37 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's obviously - self-evidently true. You have no fucking clue
>>>whatsoever when it comes to buddhism. You sit there in ignorance,
>>>hacking away at keys, without any mind to the eightfold path and the
>>>four noble truths. Like Robert and Tang and N.I.P., you actively avoid
>>>any serious discussion of buddhism. You're pathetic.
>>
>>I have serious discussions about Buddhism all the time, just not with
>>you, because all you want to do is play games about how great you are.
>
>
> Stop lying - you yourself said we had a good exchange the other day.
I recall that and acknowledged it at the time, but then you went back to
being a jerk, in my view. And collaborating with Hardwidge on being
part of the superior club - gag me!
>
>
>>>>Please awaken to what you're dealing with. You're not playing the same
>>>>game as he, except insofar as he hooks you into playing it.
>>
>>>You see this as a hook because it is your game. You cannot see my
>>>game. That's why you always lose - you don't even know what you're
>>>doing.
>>
>>>Hint: Try asking questions. Don't worry, i'll be patient with you.
>>
>>you see what your "serious discussion" consists of? Acknowledging you
>>as the "source of knowledge." That's not a discussion. Your bloated
>>ego is starting to stink.
>
>
> If you can't accept that someone else knows more than you do,
prove it.
Appledog
>
> >>I have serious discussions about Buddhism all the time, just not with
> >>you, because all you want to do is play games about how great you are.
>
> > Stop lying - you yourself said we had a good exchange the other day.
>
> I recall that and acknowledged it at the time,
Ok, then why did you lie in your message then?
> but then you went back to being a jerk, in my view.
That's fine. You are also a jerk, and quite often, in my view. But I
don't mention it very often.
> And collaborating with Hardwidge on being part of the superior club - gag me!
If Hardwidge can manage it, I'm sure you would have no trouble. Stop
selling yourself short.
> > If you can't accept that someone else knows more than you do,
>
> prove it.
Sure, ask me something only an enlightened zen master would know.
Until then...
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> halfawake wrote:
Oh, I don't think that will be necessary. I think we've
already had irrefutable demonstrations of your understanding;
for example:
Mondo of Master Appledog
zenworm: Why are you here?
Master Appledog: Because I am not a tomato.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy.zen/msg/cc936d4b71eabb99
news:b16ae249-70e7-4545...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
--
hz
zenworm
in your desire to project inanity onto Appledog
you have erroneously selected an example
of a sublime Masterful response.
That question was inane and open to gross
philosophising and subjective pontificating
(intentionally so) both endeavours were
effortlessly not engaged by Appledog and his
response was egoless and spontaneous and
pointed to the pointlessness of the mental
fermentation that the question posed would
raise if taken seriously, and yet this was a serious
and genuine answer that cut directly to the chase
without any egoic self promoting extraneousness
whatsoever.
in short... Simple. Profound. Masterful.
not only did you miss this
you have egoicly grasped it as 'evidence'
(superiority addiction agenda?)
Appledog
You continue to bemuse by screaming "I don't understand!!! I don't
understand!!!" and I continue to underestimate your ability to keep on
producing.
*applause*! You earned it!
-
^@%>---*=#**
"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6eb72e51-6b9a-4683...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Sure, ask me something only an enlightened zen master would know.
what style of payoff juice does the vainglorious,
narcissistic core of your ego give you when you
unsuccessfully pretend to be enlightened?
oops, guess you don't know the answer to that
otherwise you might not bow down and beg your
ego to make you its slave like that.
nevermind.
DharmaTroll
>
> > --
> > hz
>
> in your desire to project inanity onto Appledog
> you have erroneously selected an example
> of a sublime Masterful response.
> That question was inane and open to gross
> philosophising and subjective pontificating
> (intentionally so) both endeavours were
> effortlessly not engaged by Appledog and his
> response was egoless and spontaneous and
> pointed to the pointlessness of the mental
> fermentation that the question posed would
> raise if taken seriously, and yet this was a serious
> and genuine answer that cut directly to the chase
> without any egoic self promoting extraneousness
> whatsoever.
> in short... Simple. Profound. Masterful.
>
> not only did you miss this
> you have egoicly grasped it as 'evidence'
> (superiority addiction agenda?)
>
> ZN :D
> absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Simple. Profound. Masterful. My arse.
I wish here neither to compliment nor insult appledog. However, this
is a great example of how folks project all sorts of nonsense onto
everyone else. Perhaps Tang is guilty of this the most, but this
thread is a great example nonetheless.
First, herbzet makes negative interpretations about appledog's
comment, continuing herbzet's seemingly non-stop insult campaign. And
now zenworm calls the same comment "a profound Masterful response".
While there is something to be said for saying something nice and
complimentary instead of something nasty and demeaning, nonetheless,
both of these are nonsensical interpretations.
As in woo-woo explanations, somehow there is an attraction to positing
all sorts of things, except in this case it isn't whole worlds of
magical ineffability, but all sorts of psychological dispositions.
Somebody asked an insulting question, and appledog gave a nonsense
answer, that he's not a tomato. Yet this is seen to either prove he's
an ignorant dolt or a profound master of some sort. All of that is woo-
woo, in both cases, again just like transcendental or supernatural
claims that I get so much flack for questioning around here.
Indeed, one of the things I like least about Zen is how Zennies read
their own nonsense into short responses, and then explain how they are
so profound (or how they refer to woo-woo realms or whatever).
Luckily, Zen also provides the antidote to this kind of excessive and
unnecessary mentation.
Here is my favorite Zen story of all time. In fact, if you throw out
all the Zen dogma, especially the capital letter terms that Zennies
hurl, and just pay attention to a few stories like this, you will know
Zen better than the Zennies, I strongly suspect. At least the part
that matters.
Here goes:
http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=26
Trading Dialogue For Lodging
Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who
live there, any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is
defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were
dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was
stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them
to a debate about the sublime teaching. The elder brother, tired that
day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go
and request the dialogue in silence," he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother
and said: "Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."
"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.
"Well," explained the traveler, "first I held up one finger,
representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers,
signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers,
representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the
harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face,
indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and
so I have no right to remain here." With this, the traveler left.
"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder
brother.
"I understand you won the debate."
"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."
"Tell me the subject of the debate," asked the elder one.
"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by
insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I
thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers,
congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held
up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes.
So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended
it!"
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> > --DharmaTroll
> Dharma Troll wrote:
>
> "While there is something to be said for saying something
> nice and complimentary instead of something nasty and
> demeaning, "
>
No, had I stopped there I would l have given standard advice from your
grandmother, and while it's good advice, I had a deeper point to make.
Must you babble "ego" when I say something intelligent? Sigh.
Anyway...
> "nonetheless, both of these are nonsensical interpretations."
>
> now you are going way out there into egotistical woo woo land
> postulating your interpretation as correct
No, I was postulating your praise of appledog as projection, and
suggesting that you were mindreading in all sorts of interpretations.
And that the other guy who was insulting appledog was also mindreading
in all sorts of interpretations. I was pointing out that while on the
content level, the "only say nice things" platitude might be used, on
a deeper letter, both posters' positive and negative mindreading was
without evidential support and was likely ego-projection, if you like
that term.
> that the exchange was between zenworm and Appledog
> and zenworm simply shared what zenworm got from the
> exchange.
No. Zenworm did not simply share what zenworm got from the exchange,
but went on with an interesting elaborate interpretation.
Now perhaps that interpretation might be helpful to you. No problem.
But I found it useful to compare that harmless interpretation of the
words "I'm not a tomato" and giving it all the poetic spin with the
way posters here have taken the Buddha's words in suttas and given
them poetic spin and came up with all sorts of things.
> lower and lower you sink postulating your "My Divine Grace'
> interpretations even to the point of belittling a shared insight
> which you admit is founded in loving kindness -
Are you playing dumb here, or didn't you understand the analogy I was
explaining to you. And as for "shared insight which you admit is
founded in loving kindness" -- I admit no such thing, and don't see
any evidence for that. No shared insight -- I was talking about you
projecting a huge story on top of one sarcastic comment.
> "While there is something to be said for saying something
> nice and complimentary instead of something nasty and
> demeaning, "
That has nothing to do with lovingkindness. In some ways, it can be
destructive. I much prefer, say, a lover who comes out and states her
anger and asks "WTF do you mean by that?" rather than one that is kind
and nice. That may sound crazy, but sooner or later the kind and nice
ones start slamming doors and pouting. And that's much more annoying
to deal with. So being nice isn't a good indicator of loving-kindness
by any means.
> and with the same breath lower yourself into postulational
> attempts to devalue insight.
Not at all. You're reading more into it again. Rather, I suggested no
interpreting at all, rather than your weaving the profound wisdom
story and the other guy weaving the ignorant dolt story. And I had a
point to my discussing not adding either the positive nor the negative
spin. That's why I bundled your story with the insulting guy's story.
> Since you feel it necessary and quite entitled to use, what you
> admit is a sharing of a positive insight, as a soapbox to postulate
> your nonsense projecting agenda;
Actually, it is my non-projecting agenda. I'm suggesting not
projecting at all. That is, I don't think the content matters much --
just because it's a love and flowers projection doesn't make it any
less of a projection.
> zenworm after watching you Dharma Troll slander ^@%>---*=#**
No, I made a mistake and a reasonable mistake.
That poster usually insults and babbles nonsense, and I thought he or
she was playing a cruel trick on Robert, and was pointing that out to
Robert. When he posted the attribution to Robert from the book, then I
admitted that I made a mistake and jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Now worm, are you actually going to go with the argument "Trollpa, you
are infallible and make mistakes once in a while, and therefore I'm
not going to listen to any of your reasoning about anything"? I have
to be infallible for you to take me seriously? Sorry dude, but that's
way too high an expectation. DharmaTroll makes mistakes all the time.
The point is that he corrects them as soon as he catches them.
> it is fitting to use his words to respond to your egotistical
> and self righteous nonsense postulating attack.
All this babble of "egoistic" and "self righteous" and "attack"!
You're projecting again, zenworm, but not love and flowers this time.
Indeed you're making my point: that if you project, even if you
project lots of love and flowers, you'll also probably project your
shadow side, and you'll accuse others of being "egoistic" and "self
rigtheous" and of attacking you.
Again, I wonder if you wouldn't be better off projecting neither your
love & flowers nor your shadowy "egoistic" and "self righteous" stuff?
Which was my original point, and which wasn't about you, but about the
woo-woo posters to whom I was making an analogy.
> uh.. to simplify for thick Troll skulls
>
> ^@%>---*=#** has you pegged
>
> ^@%>---*=#** wrote to Dharma Troll:
> "never quite saw someone so deep in
> the dire grips of a desperate need to
> be right addiction. you must enjoy the
> payoff juice of that narcissistic core of
By "pegged" you mean ^@%>---*=#** and zenworm share the same shadow-
projections of their egos and then reinforce each others disowning of
the projection and reifying the projection into a judgment about
others. It's similar to the way I hear people reinforce each others
fears about gay people and reify their fears and projections into a
shared bigotry.
You've probably learned by now that by reinforcing and reifying each
others projections and insults, the lot of you half-pint posters still
aren't a match for My Divine Grace, any more than a stack of duckpins
in formation is any match for a bowling ball. One good post from me
still sends you all flying into the gutter.
> now lets be completely honest...
Try being partially honest first.
> the real reason for postulating all that belief in
> nonsensical interpretations boils down to one
> simple fact... it is understandable...
> it may be hard for you to admit...
>
> you're jealous
I thought you were going to be honest, instead of projecting even
more. More mindreading that only gives away what it is that you won't
just come out and say.
> For all your education and all the spiritual work
So you want to call me jealous and then go for the old "you may be
richer, smarter, and sexier than me but you're still not worth shit"
tactic? Can't you do better than that, worm?
It looks like you're the farmer again who collects the chicken shit
and leaves behind the eggs. Now put aside your petty jealousy or
whatever your deal is and again, think about what would happen if you
didn't do all this projecting and labeling and psychoanalyzing of me
or anyone else. For every appledog you project your idealized stuff
onto, there will be someone else you dump all your shadow-stuff onto.
I'm simply suggesting deeply inquiring into the whole process, instead
of just justifying your projections and stories.
Speaking of stories, the biggest egg you left behind when you were
collecting the chicken shit was the story I quoted that so
appropriately fits here. Whether you are the traveler (as in your
story about appledog) or the one-eyed monk (as in your story about
Trollpa), try taking a look into the nature of stories and story-
telling. That is all that My Divine Grace is suggesting. And what
better way to do that than with a story. Again, this may be my
favorite Zen story of all time.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
what a pile of crap
consider all of it withdrawn
the zen story was good
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ff704089-af97-4239...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>> zenworm after watching you Dharma Troll slander ^@%>---*=#**
>No, I made a mistake and a reasonable mistake.
so you can be wrong as long as a
reasonable excuse is formulated?
that's how children operate.
>That poster usually insults and babbles nonsense,
what you consider babbling is simply your
refusal to look at your own overblown prickly
ego. all i do is hold up a mirror. you simply refuse
to look and then go on the attack.
> uh.. to simplify for thick Troll skulls
>
> ^@%>---*=#** has you pegged
>
> ^@%>---*=#** wrote to Dharma Troll:
> "never quite saw someone so deep in
> the dire grips of a desperate need to
> be right addiction. you must enjoy the
> payoff juice of that narcissistic core of
>By "pegged" you mean ^@%>---*=#** and zenworm share the same shadow-
>projections of their egos and then reinforce each others disowning of
>the projection and reifying the projection into a judgment about
>others.
great mirror work. if only you would
realize that you're speaking to yourself
about yourself.
>You've probably learned by now that by reinforcing and reifying each
>others projections and insults, the lot of you half-pint posters still
>aren't a match for My Divine Grace, any more than a stack of duckpins
>in formation is any match for a bowling ball. One good post from me
>still sends you all flying into the gutter.
grand and magnificient superiority addiction
bolstered by that vainglorious aggrandizement
of that narcissistic core of your ego. why you
bow down to that ego so willfully and beg it to
make you its slave is beyond me.
do understand that by doing so you are operating
under the shadow of three basic addictions, safety,
approval and control, or even admixtural combinations
of all three. these are lack agendas and when you dwell
specific to lack consciousness that's what you get is
nothing but lack.
my how you suffer.
Appledog
fwiw zenworm was right in the same thought.
-
Appledog
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nevermind? Oh ok, cuz I was about to give an answer to your question.
Good luck!
-
^@%>---*=#**
On Nov 5, 6:13 am, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6eb72e51-6b9a-4683...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Sure, ask me something only an enlightened zen master would know.
>
> what style of payoff juice does the vainglorious,
> narcissistic core of your ego give you when you
> unsuccessfully pretend to be enlightened?
>
> oops, guess you don't know the answer to that
> otherwise you might not bow down and beg your
> ego to make you its slave like that.
>
> nevermind.
>Nevermind?
yes it's a simple word with an
even simpler meaning but i guess
it gets lost in the shuffle with
someone of your advanced
enlightenment.
> Oh ok, cuz I was about to give an answer to your question.
you mean you were about to weasel
yet another puerile nonsense bullshit
response.
>Good luck!
luck has nothing to do with it.
but if you still feel you can answer the
question without it being soaked in
bullshit, tell us why you think it is
important for you to pretend to
be enlightened?
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ff704089-af97-4239...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> zenworm after watching you Dharma Troll slander ^@%>---*=#**
> >No, I made a mistake and a reasonable mistake.
>
> so you can be wrong as long as a
> reasonable excuse is formulated?
> that's how children operate.
No, I didn't claim a necessary causal condition. I can be wrong
without any reasonable excuse, and often am. I'm just saying that in
this case, since you're one of the jeering flaming rugrats, my first
guess was that you were playing a rude joke.
> >That poster usually insults and babbles nonsense,
>
> what you consider babbling is simply your
> refusal to look at your own overblown prickly
No, hurling insults and then saying "blah blah blah it's your ego" is
your game, as opposed to the intelligent posters who post thoughtful
interesting replies.
You are, however, blessed, when the great Trollpa takes the time to
stop and swat flies like yourself, eh?
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Was right in the thought that you were a brilliant Zen master with
your comment? Yeah, and I'm the King of France, dude. Heh.
--DharmaTroll
^@%>---*=#**
>No, I didn't claim a necessary causal condition. I can be wrong
>without any reasonable excuse, and often am. I'm just saying that in
>this case, since you're one of the jeering flaming rugrats,
projection appreciated
> my first
>guess was that you were playing a rude joke.
when you get past the guessing
stage let me know.
>No, hurling insults
like you just did? pot kettle black, brody.
> and then saying "blah blah blah it's your ego" is
>your game, as opposed to the intelligent posters who post thoughtful
>interesting replies.
like your continuous contradictory
pot kettle black syndrome?
>You are, however, blessed, when the great Trollpa takes the time to
>stop and swat flies like yourself, eh?
ongoing lackluster superiority addiction
duly noted. what else ya got ?
zenworm
LOUIE!!!
Appledog
>
> you mean you were about to weasel
> yet another puerile nonsense bullshit
> response.
No, but it's clear you will just read whatever you want into what I
say, so I'll let it slide.
> >Good luck!
>
> luck has nothing to do with it.
With what? I can't follow your twisted reading-into addiction on this
one. Care to explain? Or not? Anyways.
> but if
If addiction noted.
> you still feel you can answer the
> question without it being soaked in
> bullshit, tell us why you think it is
> important for you to pretend to
> be enlightened?
Oh, it's not important at all. Did you want me to answer your original
question now, or are you content with the answer that I gave to your
materially different question above?
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
> > ... tell us why you think it is
> > important for you to pretend to
> > be enlightened?
>
> Oh, it's not important at all.
So why do you do it?
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> Did you want me to answer your original
> question now [...] ?
Well, for the record, here's the exact question:
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> ... I continue to underestimate your ability to keep on
> producing.
>
> *applause*! You earned it!
It's nothing, really.
As long as you continue to post, you'll continue to emit gems.
--
hz
^@%>---*=#**
On Nov 6, 5:56 am, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> you mean you were about to weasel
> yet another puerile nonsense bullshit
> response.
>No,
well there's always a first time
for everything, i will give you
that
>but it's clear
you wouldn't know "clear" if it ripped
off your face and went screaming into
the night with it.
>you will just read whatever you want into what I
>say,
probably a share better than if i would
read whatever you want into it but then
you'd need to reciprocate in kind
and we'd be right back to me reading
what i want into it anyway.
>so I'll let it slide.
sliding does seem to be
your strong suit.
> >Good luck!
>
> luck has nothing to do with it.
>With what?
with anything. pure spontaneity in
that pristine state is not lucky but
it is lucky to have arrived there.
> I can't follow your twisted reading
maybe i could slow it down a few thousand
notches for you slower types ?
>-into addiction on this
>one. Care to explain?
to your need for explanations addiction?
how much of a security/safety addiction
does that spawn for you?
> Or not? Anyways.
yep you're good at anyways addictions too.
so you've got an explanation and an anyways
addiction monkey on your back. my how you
suffer.
> but if
>If addiction noted.
noted addiction noted.
> you still feel you can answer the
> question without it being soaked in
> bullshit, tell us why you think it is
> important for you to pretend to
> be enlightened?
>Oh, it's not important at all.
that's what i've been saying all along.
nothing is important. get with the program
would ya ?
> Did you want me to answer your original
>question now,
no but do it in 3 nano seconds
from right...............now !!!
>or are you content
almost. death should cement that in
pretty good though.
> with the answer that I gave to your
>materially different question above?
if all you can do is babble what the
hell is the point of you posting anyway?
oh, yeah i forgot, you post to try to pretend
to be enlightened so maybe people will
like you. that's really stupid.
Lee Rudolph
We can set aside the presuppositions of the question posed
by ^@%>---*=#** and yourself--that Appledog is *pretending*
to enlightenment, and that he thinks it is *important*--and
still have a question the answer to which could be of great
interest (to me, and perhaps to you and ^@%>---*=#**): to
what end(s) would anyone (Appledog or not, "enlightened" or
not) assert "enlightenment"?
Lee Rudolph
^@%>---*=#**
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hd16mk$6j1$2...@reader1.panix.com...
cuz somebody said there'd be free cookies
Appledog
Huh? What are you on about? You haven't yet proven that I have done
anything. Are you pretending that I am guilty until proven innocent?
Well you might as well pretend the sky is pink until you look outside,
then. Go ahead, unless you are so sure of yourself in your knowledge
of the pink sky that you have not the need nor the time in your busy
routine to check.
-
Appledog
That's a much better question. I wasn't aware there was a
presupposition on herbzet's part until his latest post in this thread.
I'm disappointed he would let himself slip up like that. Poor guy,
wish there was something I could do to really help him.
-
Appledog
>
> > but if
> >If addiction noted.
>
> noted addiction noted.
the below in reference to the above;
> > you still feel you can answer the
> > question without it being soaked in
> > bullshit, tell us why you think it is
> > important for you to pretend to
> > be enlightened?
> >Oh, it's not important at all.
>
> that's what i've been saying all along.
> nothing is important. get with the program
> would ya ?
I disagree.
> if all you can do is babble what the
> hell is the point of you posting anyway?
"Good work! Keep trying."
-Appledog
> oh, yeah i forgot, you post to try to pretend
> to be enlightened so maybe people will
> like you. that's really stupid.
Oh, I think it's quite obvious I don't give a fuck if you (or anyone
here) likes me or not.
-
herbzet
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> herbzet writes:
> >Appledog wrote:
> >> ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
> >
> >> > ... tell us why you think it is
> >> > important for you to pretend to
> >> > be enlightened?
> >>
> >> Oh, it's not important at all.
> >
> >So why do you do it?
>
> We can set aside the presuppositions of the question posed
> by ^@%>---*=#** and yourself--that Appledog is *pretending*
> to enlightenment, and that he thinks it is *important*
Excuse me?
Appledog says oh, _it's_ not important at all.
So I ask, so why do you do _it_?
I assume my pronoun has the same reference as Appledog's pronoun.
Is there some reason not to?
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
>
> > > > ... tell us why you think it is
> > > > important for you to pretend to
> > > > be enlightened?
> >
> > > Oh, it's not important at all.
> >
> > So why do you do it?
>
> Huh? What are you on about? You haven't yet proven that I have done
> anything. Are you pretending that I am guilty until proven innocent?
*You* said it wasn't important. I didn't say that, you did.
> Well you might as well pretend the sky is pink until you look outside,
> then. Go ahead, unless you are so sure of yourself in your knowledge
> of the pink sky that you have not the need nor the time in your busy
> routine to check.
The sky is not a tomato.
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
I dropped an "s" during editing; that should have been "questions".
As you see above, ^@%>---*=#**'s question is the one with "important"
in it.
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
>The sky is not a tomato.
Hey, in the future, would you mind using some SPOILER SPACE, dammit?
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
So what am I presupposing that Appledog is not presupposing?
--
hz
herbzet
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> herbzet writes:
>
> >The sky is not a tomato.
>
> Hey, in the future, would you mind using some SPOILER SPACE, dammit?
Sorry, dude.
Is my face pink!
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
In ^@%>---*=#**'s question, what is presupposed is that Appledog is
"pretend[s] to be enlightened": the question is, why does Appledog
"think it is important" to do that which is presupposed.
Appledog's reply, "Oh, it's not important at all" accepts the same
presupposition (perhaps ironically), while denying that he "think[s]
it is important"?
You're also accepting the same presupposition. I don't know what I
wrote to make you think that you are presupposing anything that Appledog
isn't. ... Ah; perhaps it was because I wrote "the presupposition of
the question[s] posed by ^@%>---*=#** and yourself". I wrote that
because I was leading up to a *question* of my own. Appledog's
discourse makes the presupposition but isn't in the form of a question.
I have committed ... rhedherringtoric.
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
Another non-denial denial.
They really should have put a stake in his heart.
--
hz
herbzet
or perhaps carelessly
> while denying that he "think[s] it is important"?
^
Are you asking a question? ^
Certainly, if Appledog did not intend to accept the
presuppostion, or was being ironical in accepting it,
he had/has ample opportunity to correct any misunderstanding,
if he so wishes to clarify.
He has not, so far, availed himself of that opportunity,
but has chosen instead to respond otherwise, as pointed
out in my just-previous-to-this-post.
> You're also accepting the same presupposition. I don't know what I
> wrote to make you think that you are presupposing anything that Appledog
> isn't. ...
I think we're ok now.
> Ah; perhaps it was because I wrote "the presupposition of
> the question[s] posed by ^@%>---*=#** and yourself". I wrote that
> because I was leading up to a *question* of my own. Appledog's
> discourse makes the presupposition but isn't in the form of a question.
>
> I have committed ... rhedherringtoric.
It's all good.
--
hz
herbzet
or perhaps carelessly
> while denying that he "think[s] it is important"?
^
Are you asking a question? ^
Certainly, if Appledog did not intend to accept the
presuppostion, or was being ironical in accepting it,
he had/has ample opportunity to correct any misunderstanding,
if he so wishes to clarify.
He has not, so far, availed himself of that opportunity,
but has chosen instead to respond otherwise, as pointed
out in my just-previous-to-this-post.
> You're also accepting the same presupposition. I don't know what I
> wrote to make you think that you are presupposing anything that Appledog
> isn't. ...
I think we're ok now.
> Ah; perhaps it was because I wrote "the presupposition of
> the question[s] posed by ^@%>---*=#** and yourself". I wrote that
> because I was leading up to a *question* of my own. Appledog's
> discourse makes the presupposition but isn't in the form of a question.
>
> I have committed ... rhedherringtoric.
It's all good.
--
hz
^@%>---*=#**
On Nov 6, 7:59 pm, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > but if
> >If addiction noted.
>
> noted addiction noted.
>the below in reference to the above;
as above so below? are you
plagiarizing now ?
> > you still feel you can answer the
> > question without it being soaked in
> > bullshit, tell us why you think it is
> > important for you to pretend to
> > be enlightened?
> >Oh, it's not important at all.
>
> that's what i've been saying all along.
> nothing is important. get with the program
> would ya ?
>I disagree.
if you had any intelligentsia i might
take this statement seriously. however,
your ken is about as lackluster as it
gets so i'll just take this as another
deluded attempt by your discreative
psyche to garner more trolling points
to stroke the shiny prickly head of your
nervous ego.
> if all you can do is babble what the
> hell is the point of you posting anyway?
>Oh, I think it's quite obvious I don't give a fuck if you (or anyone
>here) likes me or not.
oteh bahwheeet
Lee Rudolph
>"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8b810d79-1721-4439...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 6, 7:59 pm, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > but if
>> >If addiction noted.
>>
>> noted addiction noted.
>
>>the below in reference to the above;
>
>as above so below? are you
>plagiarizing now ?
Sheesh. Are you euphemizing now? "Do the curtains
match the rugs?"--just come right out and *ask*.
Lee Rudolph
^@%>---*=#**
don't ask, don't tell.
[gustatus simulis pullus]
Appledog
Hmm? You mean you really don't know what a presupposition is? :)
ok, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition
HTH
-
Appledog
>
> Appledog's reply, "Oh, it's not important at all" accepts the same
> presupposition (perhaps ironically), while denying that he "think[s]
> it is important"?
No, it does not accept the presupposition. Herbzet's question is why I
think it is important to do something; whether or not I think it is
important does not confirm or deny that I have actually done any such
thing.
-
Appledog
I would have clarified if it was neccessary to do so - in this case
you and he seem to believe that the affirmation that something is not
important means that I have also affirmed I have actually done that
thing. That is, of course, ridiculous. There's also the separate issue
that someone who thinks so carelessly would probably read all sorts of
other crap into a clarification. You certainly fit the profile. Oh
well, I clarified it to Lee, go read my response to him.
-
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > Appledog wrote:
> > > > ^@%>---*=#** wrote:
>
> > > > > ... tell us why you think it is
> > > > > important for you to pretend to
> > > > > be enlightened?
>
> > > > Oh, it's not important at all.
>
> > > So why do you do it?
>
> > Huh? What are you on about? You haven't yet proven that I have done
> > anything. Are you pretending that I am guilty until proven innocent?
>
> *You* said it wasn't important. I didn't say that, you did.
Bingo. You simply said I did it. Which is a lie.
> > Well you might as well pretend the sky is pink until you look outside,
> > then. Go ahead, unless you are so sure of yourself in your knowledge
> > of the pink sky that you have not the need nor the time in your busy
> > routine to check.
>
> The sky is not a tomato.
You're just parroting the sutras now.
-
Appledog
So if it's a non-denial, why do you keep insisting it is a denial?
This is you speaking, not me. Maybe you should just stop? You're
beginning to look stupid.
-
Appledog
>
> as above so below? are you
> plagiarizing now ?
Only if you are presupposing a direction to the arrow of time, which
would ironically single you out as the loser of this non-competitive
discussion, considering the context that we're all here in alt.zen. If
you're up to it, by all means be my guest.
> > > you still feel you can answer the
> > > question without it being soaked in
> > > bullshit, tell us why you think it is
> > > important for you to pretend to
> > > be enlightened?
> > >Oh, it's not important at all.
>
> > that's what i've been saying all along.
> > nothing is important. get with the program
> > would ya ?
> >I disagree.
>
> if you had any intelligentsia i might
> take this statement seriously.
So in other words, you are letting your preconceptions of me interfere
with your judgement.
Classic unenlightened syndrome. Would you like some help?
-
^@%>---*=#**
On Nov 7, 4:51 am, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> as above so below? are you
>> plagiarizing now ?
>Only if you are presupposing
how about an assumption of your
presupposition-ness that i am only
presupposing?
> a direction to the arrow of time,
now you're getting all new-agey on me?
>which
>would ironically single you out as the loser of this non-competitive
discussion,
only in your lackluster post trans-orbital
leukotomized ignorance.
>considering the context that we're all here in alt.zen.
zen has no context mr. enlightened
zen master.
> If
>you're up to it, by all means be my guest.
that superiority addiction strangles you like
the good albatross that it is.
>> if you had any intelligentsia i might
>> take this statement seriously.
>So in other words,
what other words? are you making up your own
language now like you make up your phony rules of
discussion so that your superiority addiction is stroked
by what you consider to be a comfort zone safety
addiction satisfaction negotiation agenda maneuvering
startegy ?
> you are letting your preconceptions of me interfere
>with your judgement.
my preconception of you most certainly
interferes with my judgement, in fact, it
formulates the correct and auspicious
judgement by which i see the great phoniness
you display everytime you breathe your idiot
wind blowhardiness.
>Classic unenlightened syndrome.
yes you most certainly are unenlightened.
> Would you like some help?
help from the helpless? what's the point?
herbzet
LOL! Lookit all these posts from you on this trivial matter, that
you could clear up in an instant by clarifying your remarks!
You seem very exercised by the matter! Wonder why? :)
You're in over your head. Google "non-denial denial".
--
hz
Appledog
Nahh I think I'll let it slide. Will you be replying yet again in
order to chide me? I can't wait.
-
herbzet
> Nahh I think I'll let it slide. Will you be replying yet again in
> order to chide me? I can't wait.
Wow! Have I mentioned how masterful you are at managing perceptions?
Oops, that's not "chiding" you, is it?
--
hz
Appledog
I guess not - still waiting, then.
-
herbzet
It helps if you hold your breath.
--
hz
Appledog
I already told you to stop lying. I can't help you if you can't help
yourself, herbiedog.
-
SG
> Sure, ask me something only an enlightened zen master would know.
>
> Until then...
>
> -
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
SG
Tang Huyen
SG wrote:
> Appledog:
>
> > Sure, ask me something only an enlightened
> > zen master would know.
> >
> > Until then...
>
> What came first? The chicken or the egg?
Eh?
In order to know what only an awakened
Chan master would know, one has to be
an awakened Chan master, otherwise how
could one know what only an awakened
Chan master would know? One would be
asking totally wrong questions, for which
one would not get even a wrong.answer.
Tang Huyen
oxtail
What makes you think awakening is
about gaining knowledge?
Isn't awakening more like becoming a good person?
--
oxtail
halfawake
No. It's about experiencing things as if there were no one there,
which, by the way, is quite exhilirating. It's like driving in your car
and then having the car taken away, but you keep going without getting hurt.
Robert
= = = = = = =
Déjà Flu
How do you like your eggs?
Over easy, or sunny side up?
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
oxtail
Too difficult to become a good person?
--
oxtail
heron stone
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
> In order to know what only an awakened
> Chan master would know, one has to be
> an awakened Chan master, otherwise how
> could one know what only an awakened
> Chan master would know? One would be
> asking totally wrong questions, for which
> one would not get even a wrong.answer.
>
> Tang Huyen
good response
--
unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded, http://gendo.net
must be obeyed. mailto:her...@gendo.net
zenworm
apprehension?
Tang Huyen
heron stone wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > In order to know what only an awakened
> > Chan master would know, one has to be
> > an awakened Chan master, otherwise how
> > could one know what only an awakened
> > Chan master would know? One would be
> > asking totally wrong questions, for which
> > one would not get even a wrong answer.
>
> good response
Thank you. It is the "locked box with the key
inside" predicament.
Actually, the people who follow some method
of mental culture to strive for whatever are in
the same predicament. They hear about
something good, and not just good but outright
superlative, like awakening or God or whatever
(matter to Fu and DharmaTroll), and charge
ahead in full steam to look for it, with but a faint
idea at best of what it is like. In negative theology
it is explicitly stated that God is unknown and
unknowable (which also applies to Stoicism,
Daoism and Buddhism, as the end is just that,
namely unknown and unknowable, at least
within thought and language, and is to be
experienced directly but outside of thought and
language, therefore the aspirants have no idea of
it until they get out of thought and language, and
their very striving for it is said to keep it out of
reach, so they are always quizzical and
non-plussed, until they actually get out of thought
and language, but to think and talk about "it", they
have to get back into of thought and language, and
"it" can throw them into a dither just thinking and
talking about "it").
Even Fu and DharmaTroll, who proclaim matter
as their God, have no idea what it is like. They
think it, but thinking it is not it (matter). To reach
matter, they presumably have to go material, but
how are they going to do that whilst still burdened
with their mind? Are they going to blow their mind
out to reach matter? And anti-matter, how are they
going to reach it? Dark matter? It gets more and
more like obscurantism at full steam (something
Lee Dillion [Lee Hollywood] is very good at).
Present science knows only about a few percent
of matter in the universe. Are they (Fu and
DharmaTroll) going to become better at it (matter)
than the whole horde of scientists, as a herd? And
if they indeed get to matter, in whatever manner,
will it be through mind, or through matter, or does
God give them a lift (deign to bestow a lift of grace
on them), unasked? Or will the inspiration come
from ... matter? (Remember, Fu believes in
spiritualised matter, as with Gene Roddenberry's
ash falling from the sky but carrying with it Gene's
"godless" quality to stupefy Christians who take
Christ as their saviour, so matter has spirit in it,
deeply and indelibly embedded in it, otherwise it
wouldn't be matter).
<<Actually, it's classic Evangelical dogma: "Without
God, without accepting Jesus, makes all spirituality
into materialism, a willful madness of Godless
Atheists.">> DharmaTroll.
So whether the end is mind or matter, it is quite a
job. Better just relax and be serene. Hey.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"SG" <sgue...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f82fd42b-d2dd-4a3b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
neither. colonel sanders came first.
Appledog
> In article <KYSdnelGlvJFM2XXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdn...@supernews.com>,
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
> > In order to know what only an awakened
> > Chan master would know, one has to be
> > an awakened Chan master, otherwise how
> > could one know what only an awakened
> > Chan master would know? One would be
> > asking totally wrong questions, for which
> > one would not get even a wrong.answer.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> good response
>
> --
> unDO email address
> ___
> Nature, heron stone
> to be commanded, http://gendo.net
Not really; the flaw is that the question might in fact have an
answer, and may in fact be answered correctly. It would be far more
correct to state that without being an enlightened chan (american:
zen) master, one couldn't understand the answer, and would therefore
assume it was wrong and attack the answerer.
-
Appledog
I think the point is that by asking a question, you show yourself to
be unenlightened.
It's a bit of a trick to use, to get you to admit it, but essentially
a truth. Now, please try to better yourself by never speaking ill of a
fellow seeker.
-
Lee Rudolph
>And
>if they indeed get to matter, in whatever manner,
>will it be through mind, or through matter, or does
>God give them a lift (deign to bestow a lift of grace
>on them), unasked? Or will the inspiration come
>from ... matter?
"Split the twig, and there is Jesus", according to
some Gnostic or other (if you've written anything
explicitly about gnosticism, with or without the
capital G, or about _gnosis_, I've missed it);
split the Necco Wafer (TM), and there is a spark.
Spooky, eh?
Lee Rudolph
oxtail
> apprehension?
Compassion.
Too difficult to have courage
to want to be a good person?
--
oxtail
Keynes
wrote:
Sounds like something from the Gospel of Thomas.
(A very zen-looking 'heretical' document.)
Hollywood Lee
> Not really; the flaw is that the question might in fact have an
> answer, and may in fact be answered correctly. It would be far more
> correct to state that without being an enlightened chan (american:
> zen) master, one couldn't understand the answer, and would therefore
> assume it was wrong and attack the answerer.
Then perhaps the logic would suggest that a compassionate master would
remain silent, leading her students by example and not by inherently
misunderstood answers and words.
herbzet
Scrambled.
No, really, over easy.
--
hz
^@%>---*=#**
------------------------------------------------
you mean like you just did?
^@%>---*=#**
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdc35f$7i0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
ramana maharshi often sat in silence
in front of his disciples to transmit
the 'energy of awakening', so to speak.
dakshinamurti was said to have taught
in total silence at all times. the flow of
that energy is said to be impeded
by words, ideas and concepts.
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> ramana maharshi often sat in silence
> in front of his disciples to transmit
> the 'energy of awakening', so to speak.
> dakshinamurti was said to have taught
> in total silence at all times. the flow of
> that energy is said to be impeded
> by words, ideas and concepts.
Does the room physically light up?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Appledog:
Both of you presumably assume that the
answer is with regard to content, something
to know, a piece of knowledge, whereas
what only an awakened Chan master knows
would be (here is my guess, a patched bit
[une pi�ce rapport�e], and it is only a guess,
not a piece of sure, direct knowledge) an
attitude, a way of seeing (an optic), a state
of mind, and not a piece of knowledge. The
student can be led there by a slow, gradual
process of approximation (this
approximation can go by way of opposites,
so that effortlessness can be approximated
by the roundabout of effortfulness,
relaxation can be approximated by the
roundabout of exertion, etc.) and will
eventually (it is to be hoped) experience it
directly for himself, but then it will be
knowledge by experience (which can be
outside of thought and language) and not
some piece of knowledge that can be
boxed and transmitted by, say, books.
During the (possibly long and arduous)
process of approximation, there can be
conversations to point the way, but they
can only point the way, and the student
still has to walk the way, and intellectual
knowledge (the kind that Renli/Appledog
and Fu are pretty good at) is quite useless.
So the type of questions that the student
can ask (that can lead to fruitful practice)
is mostly about practice (sorry about all
the tautologies), which is the actual
process of approximation itself. People
who have never practiced, like
Renli/Appledog and Fu, have no clue
about what is hinted at (the attitude, the
way of seeing [the optic], the state of
mind), and totally fail to fake it in their
behaviour, if they ever tried to fake it.
If anything, the end hinted at is mere
openness, honesty, being true, and not
any piece of knowledge, methinks not
any piece of knowledge about anything
objective out there, and the fakers, like
Renli/Appledog and Fu, are at antipodes
with it. They are uptight, stuck-up, angry,
bitter, rigid, closed-minded, and as far
away from what an awakened Chan state
as humanly possible. Again, that is only
my guess, and not sure, direct
knowledge.
However, during the long and arduous
training, the master can well throw
abrupt and "leading" questions at the
student, to throw the latter off balance and
see how fast and nimble the reactions of
the latter are. Such questions will be
intentionally liable to be "inherently
misunderstood", just to trip the student
up, to lead him to betray his "framed"
mind, which is a cardinal sin in Budhdism.
It is a way of testing the student, to check
how flexible and open the student is, as
the approximation go by way of flexibility
and openness (yes, even if the
approximation goes by way of opposites,
it still goes by way of flexibility and
openness). The rigid and closed-minded
people, like Renli/Appledog and Fu, are
not about to pass any such test, methinks.
They walk in the opposite direction to
Buddhist training.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
>
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Appledog:
>>
>>> Not really; the flaw is that the question might
>>> in fact have an answer, and may in fact be
>>> answered correctly. It would be far more
>>> correct to state that without being an
>>> enlightened chan (american: zen) master, one
>>> couldn't understand the answer, and would
>>> therefore assume it was wrong and attack
>>> the answerer.
>>
>> Then perhaps the logic would suggest that a
>> compassionate master would remain silent,
>> leading her students by example and not by
>> inherently misunderstood answers and words.
>
> Both of you presumably assume that the
> answer is with regard to content, something
> to know, a piece of knowledge,
No. The statement above was merely one possible conclusion arising from
what AD asserted, set forth to help AD follow the logic of his claims.
What you then go on to suggest below regarding openness, but without
your obsessions mixed in, seems obvious, eh?
Déjà Flu
...
> They walk in the opposite direction to
> Buddhist training.
That's a blessing.
Déjà Flu
it's those LED back-lights, do0d!
Déjà Flu
...
> They walk in the opposite direction to
> Buddhist training.
loan me your GPS - I need to meet
jen for a seance in Detroit...
zenworm
whole
ZN
zenworm
who judges "good"?
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
^@%>---*=#**
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:A5udnUC-rcxQlWfX...@supernews.com...
symbolically
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> "Tang Huyen"
>
> > "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >> ramana maharshi often sat in silence
> >> in front of his disciples to transmit
> >> the 'energy of awakening', so to speak.
> >> dakshinamurti was said to have taught
> >> in total silence at all times. the flow of
> >> that energy is said to be impeded
> >> by words, ideas and concepts.
>
> > Does the room physically light up?
>
> symbolically
There must be a lot of frisson, due to
the 'energy of awakening' and the flow
of that energy, with or without contact,
right?
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
the energy comes from within you,
so to speak. when someone with a
greater command of that energy is
in your proximity there can be an
increase in your command of it, but
why seek it from an outside source?
delve deep within and you'll find it,
simply and profoundly.
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> "Tang Huyen"
>
> > "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >> "Tang Huyen"
>
> >> > "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >> >> ramana maharshi often sat in silence
> >> >> in front of his disciples to transmit
> >> >> the 'energy of awakening', so to speak.
> >> >> dakshinamurti was said to have taught
> >> >> in total silence at all times. the flow of
> >> >> that energy is said to be impeded
> >> >> by words, ideas and concepts.
>
> >> > Does the room physically light up?
>
> >> symbolically
>
> > There must be a lot of frisson, due to
> > the 'energy of awakening' and the flow
> > of that energy, with or without contact,
> > right?
>
> the energy comes from within you,
> so to speak. when someone with a
> greater command of that energy is
> in your proximity there can be an
> increase in your command of it, but
> why seek it from an outside source?
> delve deep within and you'll find it,
> simply and profoundly.
Here you are talking of energy (kundalini),
which can be transmitted through air (at
least, within limited distance, like in a room
or in a small open field (though DharmaTroll
denies any such energy), but Buddhist
cultivation cannot be transmitted other than
by the student actually walking the talk from
the teacher, and the talk is explicitly said to
be "look within".
Yet the objectivists like Fu and DharmaTroll
keep insisting that one must look without, to
matter or whatever, that one must adjust to
something external, like matter, and lock into
it. Hell to me. <Frisson>.
Tang Huyen
oxtail
> who judges "good"?
Whoever that wanna be good.
That means she would be willing
to learn to judge well.
--
oxtail
Appledog
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You think calling someone unenlightened is an insult? I feel sorry for
you :)
-
^@%>---*=#**
dramadroll denies that he exists?
he's not that advanced.