Re: The Sucking Cure

Immortalist

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 11:53:40 PM4/21/06

to

Immortalist wrote:
> We know that shamans everywhere have a bag of Wizard-of-Oz tricks that
> they use to impress their clients.
>
> Siberian shamans held seances inside a darkened tent whose corners were
> attached by long thongs hidden under the rugs to the shamans' feet.
> With the arrival of a guardian spirit, the shamans had only to wiggle
> their toes to make the tent shake violently. The spirits would then
> speak in a high-pitched voice, which appeared to float about near the
> top of the tent, for Siberian shamans were accomplished ventriloquists.
>
>
> Other acts of deception were practiced in relation to the belief,
> widely held in preindustrial societies, that disease is caused by
> malevolent objects that sorcerers insert into people's bodies. Shamans,
> with the assistance of their spirit helpers, tried to remove these
> objects, usually by sucking them out with their mouths pressed against
> the patient's skin. In North and South America, shamans prepare for the
> removal of the offending objects by getting intoxicated on huge whiffs
> of tobacco smoke that they exhale over their patient. Huffing, puffing,
> and sucking with all their might, the practitioner finally falls back
> and triumphantly spits or vomits forth a sliver of bone, a thorn, or a
> dead spider, which he or she knows was never in the patient's body.
>
> Michael Harner, a modern exponent of shamanic practice, insists that
> there is nothing fraudulent about the sucking cure. Shamans put the
> offending object in their mouths because its presence helps to withdraw
> the spiritual counterpart of such objects that are, in fact, inside the
> patient's body and causing the illness. And so by spitting or vomiting
> up the intrusive object, the shamans are merely displaying a material
> symbol of the spirit-world reality. Perhaps. But I prefer a slightly
> different interpretation;
>
> Modern medical theory holds that ill
> persons who intensely believe that
> they are going to get better have
> stronger immunological reactions
> and a greater chance of recovering
> than those who think their
> condition is hopeless.
>
> Both shamans and patients undoubtedly believe that intrusive objects
> cause illness. But to obtain the therapeutic benefit of such beliefs,
> the patient has to be convinced that the shaman has successfully
> removed the objects. Cultural selection, therefore, favored the use of
> deception and sleight of hand in producing the evidence needed for
> achieving a therapeutic effect, although from the shaman's point of
> view the real business of curing involved the removal of intangible
> spirit-world objects.
>
> OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/

...It is the soul that wanders off when we sleep, that lies in the
shadows, and that peers back at us from the surface of the pond. Most
of all, the soul explains the mystery of death: a lifeless body is a
body permanently deprived of its soul.

Incidentally, there is nothing in the concept of soul per se that
constrains us to believe each person has only one. The ancient
Egyptians had two, and so do many West African societies in which both
patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors determine an individual's
identity. TheJivaro of Ecuador have three souls. The first soul-the
mekas-gives life to the body. The second soul-the arutam-has to be
captured through a drug-induced visionary experience at a sacred
waterfall. It confers bravery and immunity in battle to the possessor.
The third soul-the musiak-forms inside the head of a dying warrior and
attempts to avenge his death. The Dahomey say that women have three
souls, men have four. Both sexes have an ancestor soul, a personal
soul, and a mawn soul. The ancestor soul gives protection during life,
the personal soul is accountable for what people do with their lives,
the mawn soul is a bit of the creator god, Mawn, that supplies divine
guidance. The exclusively male fourth soul guides men to positions of
leadership in their households and lineages. But the record for plural
souls seems to belong to the Fang of Gabon. They have seven: a soul
inside the brain, a heart soul, a name soul, a life force soul, a body
soul, a shadow soul, and a ghost soul.

Why do Westerners have only one soul? I cannot answer that. Perhaps the
question is unanswerable. I accept the possibility that many details of
religious beliefs and practices may arise from historically specific
events and individual choices made only once and only in one culture
and that have no discernible cost-benefit advantages or disadvantages.
While a belief in souls does conform to the general principles of
cultural selection, belief in one rather than two or more souls may not
be comprehensible in terms of such principles. But let us not be too
eager to declare any puzzling feature of human life forever beyond the
pale of practical reason. For has it not been our experience that more
research often leads to answers that were once thought unattainable?

OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/

dee

unread,

Apr 23, 2006, 8:33:08 AM4/23/06

to

I think (completely folklore here) the soul you are talking about is
the invisible counterpart of the physical body which is focused on a
limited range which give rinse to seeming separate parts like a
flower, a human, a tree, etc. - and concurrently there is the universal
one which is the sum of all those seeming separate parts which knows
all because it is all.

_cl...@operamail.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2006, 3:55:35 PM4/23/06

to

"And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An
essential is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it
did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain
must be equally far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it
grieve? Whatever possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling,
unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase
bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What
such an Existent is, it is unchangeably."

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 23, 2006, 9:18:27 PM4/23/06

to

_cloud wrote:

> "And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An
> essential is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it
> did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain
> must be equally far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it
> grieve? Whatever possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling,
> unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase
> bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What
> such an Existent is, it is unchangeably."

Can you tell me who you're quoting?

brian mitchell

_cl...@operamail.com

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 1:48:56 AM4/24/06

to

Plotin.

>
>
> brian mitchell

_cl...@operamail.com

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 1:50:37 AM4/24/06

to

its from the enneads

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/plotinus

>
>
> brian mitchell

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 24, 2006, 9:36:04 PM4/24/06

to

_cloud wrote:

> its from the enneads

> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/plotinus

Thanks.
It's very absolute. Somewhat cold. To be free is to be touched by nothing?

brian mitchell

dee

unread,

Apr 25, 2006, 8:20:30 AM4/25/06

to

Sometimes I get mixed up as to what is 'nothing', e.g. believe it is
something when it's nothing.

_cl...@operamail.com

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 2:49:24 AM4/26/06

to

brian mitchell wrote:
> _cloud wrote:
>
> > brian mitchell wrote:
> > > _cloud wrote:

> > > > "And how could the Buddha Nature lend itself to any admixture? An

> > > > essential is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it
> > > > did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain
> > > > must be equally far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it

> > > > grieve? Whatever possesses Existence (Buddha Nature) is supremely free, dwelling,

> > > > unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase
> > > > bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What

> > > > such an Existent (Buddha Nature) is, it is unchangeably."

> > >
> > > Can you tell me who you're quoting?

Ammonius Saccas possibly. Plotins teacher, born in Alexandria aprox.
250? years after the Buddha.

>
> > its from the enneads
>
> > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/plotinus
>
> Thanks.
> It's very absolute. Somewhat cold.

"The All, as being an integral, cannot fall short of itself;
it must ever have fulfilled its own totality, ever reached to its
own equivalence; as far as the sum of entities extends, there this is;
for this is the All. "

this warmer?

extracting from A Visit to Sky-Mother Mountain in a Dream

"
Dark were the clouds, heavy with rain
Waters boiled into misty spray,
Lightening flashed, thunder roared
Peaks tottered, boulders crashed,
And the stone gate of a great cavern
Yawned open,
Below me, a bottomless void of blue ´

-Li Bai

To be free is to be touched by nothing?

if the touched is the same as that which touches (as possibly indicated
above)
there is nothing to be free from and freedom is had already?

.
>
>
> brian mitchell

dee

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 3:33:34 AM4/26/06

to

It's how I understand it so far, yet by the way I feel right now, I
don't think I believe in it :(

small tortoiseshell

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 4:38:18 AM4/26/06

to

"I pulled my harpoon out of my dirty red bandanna,
I was playing soft while bobby sang the blues.
Windshield wipers slapping time, I was holding bobby's hand in mine,
We sang every song that driver knew.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing don't mean nothing honey if it ain't free, now now.
And feeling good was easy, lord, when he sang the blues,
You know feeling good was good enough for me,
Good enough for me and my bobby mcgee."

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 9:30:53 PM4/26/06

to

_cloud wrote:

> brian mitchell wrote:
> > _cloud wrote:
> >
> > > brian mitchell wrote:
> > > > _cloud wrote:

> > > > > "And how could the Buddha Nature lend itself to any admixture? An
> > > > > essential is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it
> > > > > did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain
> > > > > must be equally far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it
> > > > > grieve? Whatever possesses Existence (Buddha Nature) is
> > > > > supremely free, dwelling,
> > > > > unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase
> > > > > bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What
> > > > > such an Existent (Buddha Nature) is, it is unchangeably."

> Ammonius Saccas possibly. Plotins teacher, born in Alexandria aprox.

> 250? years after the Buddha.

It makes a difference when you exchange "Buddha nature" for "soul",
since 'soul' usually means something more individual that Buddha nature
(I think). As I read the Plotinus extract the first time I was mentally
substituting "All" for "Soul", as that seemed to be what was being
spoken about.

> > It's very absolute. Somewhat cold.

> "The All, as being an integral, cannot fall short of itself;
> it must ever have fulfilled its own totality, ever reached to its
> own equivalence; as far as the sum of entities extends, there this is;
> for this is the All. "

> this warmer?

In Plotinus' description there seemed to be no room for enjoyment,
delight, adoration, excitement, anything like that. My current
heart-throb is Hafiz, the Sufi poet, who is all warmth without
sacrificing any of the sharpness of Zen.

> extracting from A Visit to Sky-Mother Mountain in a Dream

> "
> Dark were the clouds, heavy with rain
> Waters boiled into misty spray,
> Lightening flashed, thunder roared
> Peaks tottered, boulders crashed,
> And the stone gate of a great cavern
> Yawned open,
> Below me, a bottomless void of blue ´

:-) Quite melodramatic, but I like it better than the normal "something
happened here but we're too polite to speak about it" gatha.

> To be free is to be touched by nothing?

> if the touched is the same as that which touches (as possibly indicated
> above)
> there is nothing to be free from and freedom is had already?

Yes, but do we have to be so dour about it?

brian mitchell

> ..
> >
> >
> > brian mitchell

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 9:46:26 PM4/26/06

to

brian mitchell wrote:
> _cloud wrote:
>
>> brian mitchell wrote:
>>> _cloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> brian mitchell wrote:
>>>>> _cloud wrote:
>
>>>>>> "And how could the Buddha Nature lend itself to any admixture? An
>>>>>> essential is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it
>>>>>> did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain
>>>>>> must be equally far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it
>>>>>> grieve? Whatever possesses Existence (Buddha Nature) is
>>>>>> supremely free, dwelling,
>>>>>> unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase
>>>>>> bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What
>>>>>> such an Existent (Buddha Nature) is, it is unchangeably."
>
>> Ammonius Saccas possibly. Plotins teacher, born in Alexandria aprox.
>> 250? years after the Buddha.
>
> It makes a difference when you exchange "Buddha nature" for "soul",
> since 'soul' usually means something more individual that Buddha nature
> (I think). As I read the Plotinus extract the first time I was mentally
> substituting "All" for "Soul", as that seemed to be what was being
> spoken about.

Yeah. I think it becomes problematic to rip these terms out of context
and then try to compare them - especially since many who use the idea of
Buddha Nature use it for salvational, experiential purposes only, and
they aren't intending to make any reified or ontological claims about
the concept.

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 26, 2006, 11:44:19 PM4/26/06

to

Hollywood Lee wrote:

> brian mitchell wrote:

> > It makes a difference when you exchange "Buddha nature" for "soul"...

> Yeah. I think it becomes problematic to rip these terms out of context
> and then try to compare them - especially since many who use the idea of
> Buddha Nature use it for salvational, experiential purposes only, and
> they aren't intending to make any reified or ontological claims about
> the concept.

That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I'm one of those that has
a great curiosity about to what extent, if at all, the different
expressions of mystical experience from different cultures and times can
be turned until they line up. I find it difficult to accept the idea
that the very same animal following very much the same sorts of path is
not going to discover very much the same thing. I'm particularly
intrigued by those who discover Something --God, Love, etc-- as opposed
to those who discover Nothing --cessation, emptiness, etc. It would seem
to me monstrously arrogant to dismiss --for example-- a
Something-discoverer like Therea of Avila, or Rumi, as being deluded, or
only getting part way. So I am very prone to engage in useless
speculation as to how these might reconcile. I don't watch TV so I
reckon I'm allowed some other indulgences instead :-)

brian mitchell

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:08:55 AM4/27/06

to

brian mitchell wrote:

Lee seems to be talking about the modern interpretation.
I tend to think so myself in rare occasions I bother about such
things.
But, Buddha-nature was definitely understood as something real.
Go to the Sutras and see for yourself; and let us know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

--
~Stumper

Advaita Bob

Are you a kind person?

--
~Stumper

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:35:49 AM4/27/06

to

Or more real than our illusion of the world.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:40:24 AM4/27/06

to

This could be perhaps out of context, but I'll share it none the less.
I've recently read this book called "the laughing buddha of tofukuji"
(I've talked about it before I'm sure), but the zen master (the
laughing buddha) is quoted saying "Just as the Buddha-Nature exists in
my mind, as does God in the mind of a believer". There is no physical
evidence to prove either one of those statements, there is no way to
travel to his mind as a geographical location, nor is there a way to
extract God or Buddha-Nature and examine them. Real would not be a
proper term, atleast I think so, do you know the Buddha-Nature exists,
then it is real to you, does it affect your life in any way? Then it is
real to you.

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:42:20 AM4/27/06

to

> Or more real than our illusion of the world.

Or just as real as the many other words that suggest some sort of
Universal Ontological Truth but really have just bewitched our minds and
perfumed our imaginations.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:45:48 AM4/27/06

to

Well is it plausible that there is infact some Universal Ontological
Truth,That there are many paths to this "salvation" thing?

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:50:36 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

> This could be perhaps out of context, but I'll share it none the less.
> I've recently read this book called "the laughing buddha of tofukuji"
> (I've talked about it before I'm sure), but the zen master (the
> laughing buddha) is quoted saying "Just as the Buddha-Nature exists in
> my mind, as does God in the mind of a believer". There is no physical
> evidence to prove either one of those statements, there is no way to
> travel to his mind as a geographical location, nor is there a way to
> extract God or Buddha-Nature and examine them. Real would not be a
> proper term, atleast I think so, do you know the Buddha-Nature exists,
> then it is real to you, does it affect your life in any way? Then it is
> real to you.
>

William James, in discussing the claims of the mystic, pretty much
agreed with this approach, I think. He wrote "As a matter of
psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic
sort are usually authoritative over those who have them."

The issue that arises on usenet and that James anticipated is, given
that the claims are true to the Mystic (or whomever), is such a person
then justified in claiming that the concept/belief is or must be true
for others. James concluded "mystics have no right to claim that we
ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences, if we are
ourselves outsiders and feel no private call thereto."

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:54:00 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

And ontologically prior to you and your illusions.

--
~Stumper

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:54:43 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:

>> Or just as real as the many other words that suggest some sort of
>> Universal Ontological Truth but really have just bewitched our minds and
>> perfumed our imaginations.
>
> Well is it plausible that there is infact some Universal Ontological
> Truth,That there are many paths to this "salvation" thing?
>

Perhaps. Not sure how you will "prove" these sorts of speculations,
though. And the search may just be a diversion from other, more
skillful endeavors. Or not.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 10:56:08 AM4/27/06

to

Exactly, I can't expect to walk into one of every religious
establishment and leave with a clear understanding and relationship
(relationship as in "it" affects me) with their own personal cosmic
force, whether it be God, Allah, the Buddha-Nature, or a totem pole.
Just as my parents tried, unsuccessfully, to help me experience "God",
I've tried to help them understand the Buddha-Nature and the Dharma.
Neither of us have experienced the other's religion first-hand, because
thats what religion and spirituality are, an experience. You can't just
simply read or think on it for a while, or go to church or a monastery,
its a way of life. All experiences are unique and therefore no two can
be the same.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:00:35 AM4/27/06

to

Ah well we all have our illusions, don't we stumper? Do you live life
illusion-free.

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:06:46 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

Sure.

If you think money is real,
why not Buddha-nature.

Maybe Catholic church was correct
about selling Indulgences.

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:12:10 AM4/27/06

to

I would not object to food.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:13:22 AM4/27/06

to

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't use that as an example.

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:17:00 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

I'm far from enlightenment.

I have my moments,
but mostly just linguistic.

--
~Stumper

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:17:29 AM4/27/06

to

But please don't let me give off the impression that I've been
enlightened, because I haven't.

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:18:33 AM4/27/06

to

Yes, I understand, have you experienced your Buddha-Nature?

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:18:39 AM4/27/06

to

Yes, I understand, have you experienced your Buddha-Nature?

small tortoiseshell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:33:19 AM4/27/06

to

brian mitchell wrote:

>
>
> > To be free is to be touched by nothing?
>
> > if the touched is the same as that which touches
> > there is nothing to be free from and freedom is had already?
>
> Yes, but do we have to be so dour about it?

its Spring, the streets are sprouting Girls,
my dick is enlightened, and i got cool shades.
Whats dour about that?

>
>
> brian mitchell
>
>
>
>
> > ..
> > >
> > >
> > > brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:48:32 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

Don't worry.
Nobody here expects to see an enlightened here.

But, I expect to see someone here enlightened anytime now.

--
~Stumper

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:49:01 AM4/27/06

to

Cameron wrote:

How do you do that?

--
~Stumper

Keynes

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:57:41 AM4/27/06

to

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:50:36 -0600, Hollywood Lee <hollyw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

True enough.
You can send a girl to Vassar but you can't make her think.

The mystic quest has to be individually internally driven.
But somehow many find that drive in themselves sooner or later.
It may arise from the insight of the unsatisfactory nature of life
as they learned it at their mother's knee, a feeling of artificiality
or unreality of the common aims and goals, a search for the
'meaning of life'.. Or possibly by a word or example from
'outside' of one's personal mind.

Some are ready to go and others are not.

A hellfire preacher marched up and down before the
hysterical congregation outlining the eternal torments
of hell. Then he softened his voice and spoke of the
delights of heaven. Then he roared, "Who wants to
go to heaven? Stand up! Stand up!" But one guy
in the back didn't stand up. The preacher stomped
to the back, leaned down and screamed, "Don't YOU
want to go to heaven?" The little guy cowered and
said, "You mean Right Now?"

They say there is a secret teaching. Zen masters accept all
but speak primarily to those ready to hear. It's that whole
'pearls before swine' deal.

Keynes

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:59:55 AM4/27/06

to

If you take a cart and remove the wheels, the body and the axle,
and the harness tree, what is left?

small tortoiseshell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:03:59 PM4/27/06

to

i didnt know what it meant so i consulted the dictionary that came with
the computer. Its a lot of meanings so i picked "severe, stern, or
gloomy" though the perhaps from Latin (via Gaelic) "hard" seemed most
springlike at the moment.
Here are the words:
"relentlessly severe, stern, or gloomy in manner or appearance : a
hard, dour, humorless fanatic. See note at glum(?)(my exclamation mark
as G.L.U.M. easily could be an acronym for an airline or something) .
DERIVATIVES: dourly adverb dourness noun ORIGIN: late Middle English
(originally Scots): probably from Scottish Gaelic dúr 'dull,
obstinate, stupid,' perhaps from Latin durus 'hard.'

Its the Latin touch that does it btw. Spring up north can be fierce.

Julian

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:08:35 PM4/27/06

to

Grim.

--
http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

.....................................................................................
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:23:56 PM4/27/06

to

Well, I'm not sure thinking has a whole lot to do with beliefs,
especially religious beliefs, as Hume would seem to argue.

> The mystic quest has to be individually internally driven.
> But somehow many find that drive in themselves sooner or later.
> It may arise from the insight of the unsatisfactory nature of life
> as they learned it at their mother's knee, a feeling of artificiality
> or unreality of the common aims and goals, a search for the
> 'meaning of life'.. Or possibly by a word or example from
> 'outside' of one's personal mind.

Yeah, I think that dissatisfaction with hard reason and the attraction
of poetry, art, those words and ideas that speak to the passions, may be
influential.

> Some are ready to go and others are not.
>
> A hellfire preacher marched up and down before the
> hysterical congregation outlining the eternal torments
> of hell. Then he softened his voice and spoke of the
> delights of heaven. Then he roared, "Who wants to
> go to heaven? Stand up! Stand up!" But one guy
> in the back didn't stand up. The preacher stomped
> to the back, leaned down and screamed, "Don't YOU
> want to go to heaven?" The little guy cowered and
> said, "You mean Right Now?"

LOL.

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:24:48 PM4/27/06

to

Keynes wrote:

> If you take a cart and remove the wheels, the body and the axle,
> and the harness tree, what is left?

Some dumbass messin with my ride.

small tortoiseshell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 12:20:24 PM4/27/06

to

German origin...

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 1:04:46 PM4/27/06

to

>> --
>> ~Stumper
>
> Or more real than our illusion of the world.

Or more real than an illusion of popcorn, or any illusion for that matter.

And good cookies taste much better than bad cookies.

Advaita Bob

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 1:08:02 PM4/27/06

to

> This could be perhaps out of context, but I'll share it none the less.
> I've recently read this book called "the laughing buddha of tofukuji"
> (I've talked about it before I'm sure), but the zen master (the
> laughing buddha) is quoted saying "Just as the Buddha-Nature exists in
> my mind, as does God in the mind of a believer".

Yes. And they exist it through our adhesion and therefore they are more
important and somehow more real than anything else, because anything
else will be seen and experienced through that filter.

> There is no physical
> evidence to prove either one of those statements, there is no way to
> travel to his mind as a geographical location, nor is there a way to
> extract God or Buddha-Nature and examine them. Real would not be a
> proper term, atleast I think so, do you know the Buddha-Nature exists,
> then it is real to you, does it affect your life in any way? Then it is
> real to you.

Yes.

small tortoiseshell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 1:11:44 PM4/27/06

to

No. Grim(m). i felt grim when you said it ( more or less feel all
words) so i looked it up to see if the feeling fitted dictionary and it
did but it comes from Germany Grimm. hmmm. seems i conveniently forgot
about the dutch.:"Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch
grim and German grimm.". ok, so its dutch and german. I think its
because of the Brothers Grimm i picked the germans.

Advaita Bob

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 1:12:02 PM4/27/06

to

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 2:15:48 PM4/27/06

to

I don't know. That seems very real now, but once there will it be and
feel real? Will it be more real then than now?

Advaita Bob

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 2:16:28 PM4/27/06

to

You can get arrested for that.

Advaita Bob

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 2:17:15 PM4/27/06

to

"A twinkle in the eye of my father" as the Marseillais say.

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 3:37:29 PM4/27/06

to

Advaita Bob wrote:

Who would be there to care about it?

--
~Stumper

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 3:38:14 PM4/27/06

to

Advaita Bob wrote:

So you believe in the power of money.
Is it as real as your Buddha-nature?

--
~Stumper

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 4:02:31 PM4/27/06

to

Advaita Bob wrote:

There you are.
Where is my money?

--
~Stumper

runlikeana...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 4:19:35 PM4/27/06

to

In your wallet.

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 4:51:17 PM4/27/06

to

"small tortoiseshell" wrote:

> brian mitchell wrote:

> > > To be free is to be touched by nothing?
> >
> > > if the touched is the same as that which touches
> > > there is nothing to be free from and freedom is had already?
> >
> > Yes, but do we have to be so dour about it?

> its Spring, the streets are sprouting Girls,
> my dick is enlightened, and i got cool shades.
> Whats dour about that?

But is your dick also singing? That's the crucial issue.

brian mitchell

> >
> >
> > brian mitchell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > brian mitchell

Cameron

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 5:15:40 PM4/27/06

to

I'd say it would be more of "what" it is singing, not if it is singing.

Evelyn Ruut

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 6:56:49 PM4/27/06

to

"Cameron" <runlikeana...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146150527....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure, but everyone on here signs on from google groups right?
> Why are there advertisements for a "Buddha-Machine" or "Buddha
> Ringtones"

Hi Cameron, I don't. I connect via the mail server from my ISP using
Outlook Express.

--

Best Regards,

Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 7:22:22 PM4/27/06

to

stumper wrote:

> brian mitchell wrote:

> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >
> >> brian mitchell wrote:
> >
> >>> It makes a difference when you exchange "Buddha nature" for "soul"...
> >
> >> Yeah. I think it becomes problematic to rip these terms out of context
> >> and then try to compare them - especially since many who use the idea of
> >> Buddha Nature use it for salvational, experiential purposes only, and
> >> they aren't intending to make any reified or ontological claims about
> >> the concept.
> >

> Lee seems to be talking about the modern interpretation.
> I tend to think so myself in rare occasions I bother about such
> things.
> But, Buddha-nature was definitely understood as something real.
> Go to the Sutras and see for yourself; and let us know.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

According to this article, Buddha dhatu is a principle; the principle
that all beings have the (self-)potential to become enlightened. As
such, its reality can't be proven until all beings have indeed become
enlightened, so it has to remain a matter of faith.

Reading between the lines of the article, this looks like one of those
concepts that just grew and grew. Beginning as a statement of universal
buddha-potential, it then became the basic pure *nature* of beings, then
the basic pure nature of *everything*. All that may be true, but even
then it doesn't become SO until experienced/realized, which is what I
took Lee to be saying.

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 7:22:00 PM4/27/06

to

"Mayura" wrote:
> "brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote

> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > brian mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > > It makes a difference when you exchange "Buddha nature" for "soul"...
> >
> > > Yeah. I think it becomes problematic to rip these terms out of context
> > > and then try to compare them - especially since many who use the idea of
> > > Buddha Nature use it for salvational, experiential purposes only, and
> > > they aren't intending to make any reified or ontological claims about
> > > the concept.
> >

> > That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I'm one of those that has
> > a great curiosity about to what extent, if at all, the different
> > expressions of mystical experience from different cultures and times can
> > be turned until they line up. I find it difficult to accept the idea
> > that the very same animal following very much the same sorts of path is
> > not going to discover very much the same thing. I'm particularly
> > intrigued by those who discover Something --God, Love, etc-- as opposed
> > to those who discover Nothing --cessation, emptiness, etc. It would seem
> > to me monstrously arrogant to dismiss --for example-- a

> > Something-discoverer like Theresa of Avila, or Rumi, as being deluded, or

> > only getting part way. So I am very prone to engage in useless
> > speculation as to how these might reconcile.

> You might enjoy - Mysticism - A study and Anthology - F.C.Happold - pub'd
> Pelican...

Noted, thanks.

> In the case of e.g. the Buddha, Patanjali, Sankara etc., what they
> 'discovered' was the after-the-fact inferences they made with regard to an
> experience...

Are you saying you haven't 'discovered' anything until you know what it
is, or have been able to make it fit with what you know and can explain?

If you walk along a road you've never been along before and encounter
things you've never encountered before, are you not experiencing
discovery? Coming unprepared upon the new?

> (I'd have to see the relevant statements attributed to St.Teresa
> and Rumi to see if the same applied, but it usually does).

There is the common factor that all the above-named mystics felt
compelled to try to describe and define their experience, by way
(presumably) of assisting others to experience the same. I'm not so sure
about inferences, they could be being quite literal, within the confines
of language. When you realize something, that something is
self-apparent. That's what realization means. In mystical terms,
experience and realization are pretty much the same thing, I believe.

> > I don't watch TV...

> !!! When I was maybe ten, my cousin decided it was his duty to relay to his
> mother the fact that I'd said her carafe looked like a urine-specimin flask.
> She said, "How do you know what a specimin flask looks like... you've never
> been in hospital?" By the age of ten, you've seen that many oo-er-missus
> comedy programs where someone has to go behind the screen... unless you have
> no TV... like her... she was always looking bewildered and saying stuff like
> "Who's 'E.T.' and suchlike. If I had kids, they wouldn't be allowed out (or
> even in) to do 'wholesome stuff' until they'd had they'd put in sufficient
> hours in front of the TV.

This younger generation! In my day we made our own entertainment:
bowling hoops and spinning tops and roasting sparrows on our pen nibs
over the study fire.

brian mitchell

stumper

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 7:38:38 PM4/27/06

to

brian mitchell wrote:

I know what Lee is saying and
I like that perspective myself.
But, that's not the traditional one.

> Basic Principles of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra
>
> a) That the Buddha is uncreated, eternal, unchanging,
> immutable, steadfast, fixed (yet able to project
> manifestations of himself in numerous forms and times),
> deathless, totally knowing, omnipresent across time and
> space, as well as being de-coupled from time and space;
>
> b) That there exists an immortal Buddha-Principle
> (Buddha-dhatu) or Buddha-Matrix (Tathagatagarbha) in all
> sentient beings, which functions as the cause of Awakening
> (bodhi) and which only perfect Buddhas can clearly see;
>
> c) That the Buddha-Principle (Buddha-dhatu) or Buddha-Matrix
> (Tathagatagarbha) is the essence (svabhava) or Dharmakaya
> (ultimate level of being) of the Buddha and of all persons
> and creatures, in contrast to the five skandhas (impermanent
> mental / physical constituents of the "mundane ego"); the
> Buddha-dhatu is the "True Self", which inheres in the
> Buddha's deepest being, as well as being truly present in our
> own body-and-mind complex, and into which we should "enter".
> Such "entry" is enabled when we have cleared away the kleshas
> (negative mental, moral and behavioural tendencies) from our
> inner world. The chief kleshas are desire, anger, delusion
> and pride.

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/

BTW
Principles are considered
more real than physical things
in many philosophical systems.

--
~Stumper

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 7:44:45 PM4/27/06

to

That's a a fair way of looking at it. There is an article by Sallie
King, I think, that discusses how the idea of Buddha nature started out
as a purely salvational idea (i.e. an idea that worked for awakening)
and was only later substantialized and reified by some later traditions.

This is from memory, so I could be wrong. I'll look for it later and
post a link if I find it.

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 7:54:42 PM4/27/06

to

"Cameron" wrote:

> brian mitchell wrote:
> > "small tortoiseshell" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Yes, but do we have to be so dour about it?
> >
> > > its Spring, the streets are sprouting Girls,
> > > my dick is enlightened, and i got cool shades.
> > > Whats dour about that?
> >
> > But is your dick also singing? That's the crucial issue.

> I'd say it would be more of "what" it is singing, not if it is singing.

I wondered if it was just going about its instinctive duty with grim,
humourless tumescence. If not, then clearly it would be singing:
"Standing on the corner
watching all the girls go by..."

brian mitchell

Hollywood Lee

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 8:04:44 PM4/27/06

to

Here's the article
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/nlarc/pdf/Pruning the
bodhi tree/Pruning 9.pdf

It's a long URL with spacing breaks that some newsreaders have trouble
with so you may need to copy and paste it into your browser. You can
also try the tinyurl at http://tinyurl.com/qsou6

This article is from the larger "Pruning the Bodhi Tree" which you can
download in its entirety at
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/nlarc/pdf/Pruning%20the%20bodhi%20tree/Pruning%20the%20bodhi%20tree%20contents.pdf

or try http://tinyurl.com/qmc9d

Mayura

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 9:18:17 PM4/27/06

to

"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote

> > In the case of e.g. the Buddha, Patanjali, Sankara etc., what they
> > 'discovered' was the after-the-fact inferences they made with regard to
an
> > experience...
>
> Are you saying you haven't 'discovered' anything until you know what it
> is, or have been able to make it fit with what you know and can explain?

All I've ever 'discovered' is 'experience' - different combinations of the
presence/absence of pictures, sounds, tastes, touches, pleasure, pain,
thoughts, emotions, volitions etc.

> If you walk along a road you've never been along before and encounter
> things you've never encountered before, are you not experiencing
> discovery? Coming unprepared upon the new?

Only new (combinations of the hypothetical 'elements' of) experience.

> > (I'd have to see the relevant statements attributed to St.Teresa
> > and Rumi to see if the same applied, but it usually does).
>
> There is the common factor that all the above-named mystics felt
> compelled to try to describe and define their experience, by way
> (presumably) of assisting others to experience the same. I'm not so sure
> about inferences, they could be being quite literal, within the confines
> of language.

Taking e.g. St.Theresa of Avila - "It is 'explained' in mystical theology...
the soul sometimes leaps up out of itself 'like' a burning fire... What I
want to 'explain' is the 'soul's feeling when it is in this 'divine
union'... O 'my Lord' how good 'You' are! May 'You' be blessed forever...
'heavenly rain'... the 'Lord' takes up this 'small bird'..." It goes on like
this for another couple of pages but she didn't get all this 'from' the
experience any more than the Buddha got that there was no 'self' or that
Patanjali and Shankara got that there was.

> When you realize something, that something is

> self-apparent. That's what realization means...

To me - 'self-apparent' and 'realization' sounds like one has made some kind
of 'equation' like 2+2=4. Or in this case made an 'equation' between
something (inferred or believed or hoped for or expected or whatever) and
the new experience.

> ...In mystical terms,

> experience and realization are pretty much the same thing, I believe.

I regard that as arising through a failure to discriminate between what is
brought 'to' the experience and what is coming 'from' it. If everything was
coming 'from' the experience, these 'realizations would all be convergent.
Patanjali, Shankara, the Buddha etc. would all withdraw the senses and use
samadhi until they attained the apparently non-arising/non-ceasing etc.
experience and they'd all come out of it with a convergent belief about
atta/atman coming 'from' the experience. But they don't. And the trouble is
that because they believe that people only doubt them because they haven't
had the experience which validates all of their beliefs for themselves,
non-one can ever tell them anything (that they can hear) again.

> > > I don't watch TV...
>
> > !!! When I was maybe ten, my cousin decided it was his duty to relay to
his
> > mother the fact that I'd said her carafe looked like a urine-specimin
flask.
> > She said, "How do you know what a specimin flask looks like... you've
never
> > been in hospital?" By the age of ten, you've seen that many oo-er-missus
> > comedy programs where someone has to go behind the screen... unless you
have
> > no TV... like her... she was always looking bewildered and saying stuff
like
> > "Who's 'E.T.' and suchlike. If I had kids, they wouldn't be allowed out
(or
> > even in) to do 'wholesome stuff' until they'd had they'd put in
sufficient
> > hours in front of the TV.
>
> This younger generation! In my day we made our own entertainment:
> bowling hoops and spinning tops and roasting sparrows on our pen nibs
> over the study fire.

:)

Jonathan

Keynes

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:26:57 PM4/27/06

to

How can an 'absence' be experienced?
That's already an admixture of mentation-memory.

>> If you walk along a road you've never been along before and encounter
>> things you've never encountered before, are you not experiencing
>> discovery? Coming unprepared upon the new?
>
>Only new (combinations of the hypothetical 'elements' of) experience.
>
>> > (I'd have to see the relevant statements attributed to St.Teresa
>> > and Rumi to see if the same applied, but it usually does).
>>
>> There is the common factor that all the above-named mystics felt
>> compelled to try to describe and define their experience, by way
>> (presumably) of assisting others to experience the same. I'm not so sure
>> about inferences, they could be being quite literal, within the confines
>> of language.
>
>Taking e.g. St.Theresa of Avila - "It is 'explained' in mystical theology...
>the soul sometimes leaps up out of itself 'like' a burning fire... What I
>want to 'explain' is the 'soul's feeling when it is in this 'divine
>union'... O 'my Lord' how good 'You' are! May 'You' be blessed forever...
>'heavenly rain'... the 'Lord' takes up this 'small bird'..." It goes on like
>this for another couple of pages but she didn't get all this 'from' the
>experience any more than the Buddha got that there was no 'self' or that
>Patanjali and Shankara got that there was.
>

Growing up in a culture of a faith, explanations
generally take the form of previous common categories.
That doesn't mean that the experience itself can be
explained or understood in those very terms.

Whatever one may say about it must be wrong
because it is inclusive of all contradictions. Words
and thoughts are futile at best and misleading
at worst -- both at once.

>> When you realize something, that something is
>> self-apparent. That's what realization means...
>
>To me - 'self-apparent' and 'realization' sounds like one has made some kind
>of 'equation' like 2+2=4. Or in this case made an 'equation' between
>something (inferred or believed or hoped for or expected or whatever) and
>the new experience.
>
>> ...In mystical terms,
>> experience and realization are pretty much the same thing, I believe.
>
>I regard that as arising through a failure to discriminate between what is
>brought 'to' the experience and what is coming 'from' it. If everything was
>coming 'from' the experience, these 'realizations would all be convergent.
>Patanjali, Shankara, the Buddha etc. would all withdraw the senses and use
>samadhi until they attained the apparently non-arising/non-ceasing etc.
>experience and they'd all come out of it with a convergent belief about
>atta/atman coming 'from' the experience. But they don't.

They do, yet they express it differently to
appeal to local prejudices. The Atman
is not actually a Self, except it is the being
of all beings. Yet folks go beyond that and
drag along the assumed properties of their
mistaken idea of a self. Not helpful.

>And the trouble is
>that because they believe that people only doubt them because they haven't
>had the experience which validates all of their beliefs for themselves,
>non-one can ever tell them anything (that they can hear) again.
>

The not-self of the Buddha (or no-self, or non-self) is
expedient means, in that what one considers a self isn't
really a self even by it's own definition.

This is a hard doctrine because everyone is sure they
have being and consider that their self. But all the
individual qualities and powers of the conventional
self don't exist. 'Personal being' exists in all sentient
beings as their irreducible identity. But it isn't really
individual or personal. It has no qualities of it's own
except the quality of conscious 'being' that illuminates
the world.

Nirvana is unconditioned, therefore unlimited by causation,
time or space. (That's even a therevada doctrine.) The
sentience of all sentient beings is their Buddha nature
which is nirvanic nature that supports even the delusion
of samsara.

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 27, 2006, 11:14:02 PM4/27/06

to

stumper wrote:

<snip>

> I know what Lee is saying and
> I like that perspective myself.
> But, that's not the traditional one.

Tradition is endless interment: agree? disagree?

> BTW
> Principles are considered
> more real than physical things
> in many philosophical systems.

I find I can't do anything with that statement. The notion of "more
real" strikes me as meaningless. It could only appear so to some
notional being quite independent of either principle or physicality who
happened to have a reality meter to hand.

How do you gauge the reality of an experience?

brian mitchell

unread,

Apr 28, 2006, 12:36:17 AM4/28/06

to

"Mayura" wrote:

> "brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote
> > "Mayura" wrote:

> > > In the case of e.g. the Buddha, Patanjali, Sankara etc., what they
> > > 'discovered' was the after-the-fact inferences they made with regard to
> an
> > > experience...
> >
> > Are you saying you haven't 'discovered' anything until you know what it
> > is, or have been able to make it fit with what you know and can explain?

> All I've ever 'discovered' is 'experience' - different combinations of the
> presence/absence of pictures, sounds, tastes, touches, pleasure, pain,
> thoughts, emotions, volitions etc.

My "you" was the impersonal empty 'you' but...

What I was trying to ask is whether experience only becomes so when it
is retrospectively organised in relation to prior experience? Is that
what you say? When does mere --or pure-- sensation become an experience
which can be identified as such?

> > If you walk along a road you've never been along before and encounter
> > things you've never encountered before, are you not experiencing
> > discovery? Coming unprepared upon the new?

> Only new (combinations of the hypothetical 'elements' of) experience.

That's OK, isn't it? Experience of the new is likely to be a new
experience. But do you really acknowledge that there is newness? Could
you come across something that you wouldn't even know how to conceive
of, or prefigure in any way?

> > > (I'd have to see the relevant statements attributed to St.Teresa
> > > and Rumi to see if the same applied, but it usually does).
> >
> > There is the common factor that all the above-named mystics felt
> > compelled to try to describe and define their experience, by way
> > (presumably) of assisting others to experience the same. I'm not so sure
> > about inferences, they could be being quite literal, within the confines
> > of language.

> Taking e.g. St.Theresa of Avila - "It is 'explained' in mystical theology...
> the soul sometimes leaps up out of itself 'like' a burning fire... What I
> want to 'explain' is the 'soul's feeling when it is in this 'divine
> union'... O 'my Lord' how good 'You' are! May 'You' be blessed forever...
> 'heavenly rain'... the 'Lord' takes up this 'small bird'..." It goes on like
> this for another couple of pages but she didn't get all this 'from' the
> experience any more than the Buddha got that there was no 'self' or that
> Patanjali and Shankara got that there was.

But you're quoting her from when she was trying to *describe* what she
had experienced after the fact, to fit the experience into verbal boxes.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the experience came out of those
verbal boxes (take-away Rapture?). Or, if it has to follow in her case
because she'd imbibed the whole mystical Christian ethos, it doesn't
necessarily follow in the Buddha's case since his realization was not
due to any existing system of thought. He had already rejected all such
systems (we're told).

> > When you realize something, that something is
> > self-apparent. That's what realization means...

> To me - 'self-apparent' and 'realization' sounds like one has made some kind
> of 'equation' like 2+2=4. Or in this case made an 'equation' between
> something (inferred or believed or hoped for or expected or whatever) and
> the new experience.

You're standing outside the elevator (because you're in the New World)
when the doors open and you see the most beautiful woman you've ever
seen in your life. Because your soul is leaping up out of itself like a
burning flame, you just stand there and the doors close again.

The experience *of* her beauty and the realization *that* she is more
beautiful than any other woman you've seen are indivisible. You don't
have to infer a thing, it's all right before you. Later you might draw
inferences about why she should strike you so forcibly, why beauty
matters, and so on, but they would be informed by the experience and
would have to remain true to the experience.

> > ...In mystical terms,
> > experience and realization are pretty much the same thing, I believe.

> I regard that as arising through a failure to discriminate between what is
> brought 'to' the experience and what is coming 'from' it. If everything was
> coming 'from' the experience, these 'realizations would all be convergent.
> Patanjali, Shankara, the Buddha etc. would all withdraw the senses and use
> samadhi until they attained the apparently non-arising/non-ceasing etc.
> experience and they'd all come out of it with a convergent belief about

> atta/atman coming 'from' the experience. But they don't...

Unless I can find the perfect angle, elevation, perspective and
trajectory from which to view them so that they do :-)

Certainly in this area above all, perhaps, there is baggage brought. And
when you talk about withdrawing the senses and states of samhadi, that's
all so far away from anything I know that I might as well offer an
opinion on multi-dimensional string theory. But I do know that in my own
life things have impinged on my awareness that were completely outside
the range of prior experiences. The awareness didn't seem to need any
experiential or inferential priming in order to be impinged upon. It
seems to do that of its own accord and all the *mental* work follows.

> And the trouble is
> that because they believe that people only doubt them because they haven't
> had the experience which validates all of their beliefs for themselves,
> non-one can ever tell them anything (that they can hear) again.

Perhaps it's really a blessing that none of these crazy mystics can
agree, because if they did there'd be no room for my realization, or
yours. On the other hand, complete descent into subjective anarchy
leaves truth and actuality looking a bit tattered. It's a mess!

brian mitchell

small tortoiseshell

unread,

(Buckingham and the rest of the gathering now produce loopins which
they have secreted about their several persons. They offer them to Moore.)

Moore: In a bunch, in a bunch. (they arrange them in a bunch)
Thank you my friends, and now a good evening to you all.

(He grabs the rope, is hauled into air and disappears out of the window.
There is a bump, a whinny and the sound of galloping hooves.
The guests rush to the window to watch him disappear.)

Grantley: He seeks them here ... he seeks them there ...
he seeks those loopins everywhere.
The murdering blackguard! He's taken all our loopins.

First Lady: (produring one from her garter) Not quite.

(Gasps of delight.)

Buckingham: Oh you tricked him!

Man: We still have one! (they all cheer)

(Cut to a similar montage as before of Moore galloping through forest,
clearings and tiny villages. Song as follows.)

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
Riding through the night.
Soon every loopin in the land
Will be in his mighty hand
He steals them from the rich
And gives them to the poor
Mr Moore, Mr Moore, Mr Moore.

--
http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

.....................................................................................
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Mayura

unread,

Apr 28, 2006, 7:16:03 AM4/28/06

to

"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote
> "Mayura" wrote:
> > "brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote
> > > "Mayura" wrote:
>
> > > > In the case of e.g. the Buddha, Patanjali, Sankara etc., what they
> > > > 'discovered' was the after-the-fact inferences they made with regard
to
> > an
> > > > experience...
> > >
> > > Are you saying you haven't 'discovered' anything until you know what
it
> > > is, or have been able to make it fit with what you know and can
explain?
>
> > All I've ever 'discovered' is 'experience' - different combinations of
the
> > presence/absence of pictures, sounds, tastes, touches, pleasure, pain,
> > thoughts, emotions, volitions etc.
>
> My "you" was the impersonal empty 'you' but...
>
> What I was trying to ask is whether experience only becomes so when it
> is retrospectively organised in relation to prior experience? Is that
> what you say? When does mere --or pure-- sensation become an experience
> which can be identified as such?

(I'm glad the post you responded to turned up somewhere despite not turning
up on my newsreaders's 'trb'.) I don't understand these questions. (It might
just come down to some variation in the way we use the word 'experience'.)

> > > If you walk along a road you've never been along before and encounter
> > > things you've never encountered before, are you not experiencing
> > > discovery? Coming unprepared upon the new?
>
> > Only new (combinations of the hypothetical 'elements' of) experience.
>
> That's OK, isn't it?

If it's wasn't/isn't/won't be, we're pretty much 'screwed' :)

> Experience of the new is likely to be a new
> experience.

This is the kind of thing that tends to make my metaphorical head
metaphorically fall off. I am allergic to 'experience *of*'. To me, there
may be some inferrable 'cat' in some inferrable 'physical world' which is
somehow a trigger to this and that picture, sound, touch, smell, thought
etc. And, to me, the combination might be 'new'. But I'm allergic to what I
see as the slow creep towards 'naive realism' with equating that to
'experience of' the cat or the new or whatever.

> But do you really acknowledge that there is newness?

Unfamiliar combinations of the hypothetical 'elements' - yes.

> Could
> you come across something that you wouldn't even know how to conceive
> of, or prefigure in any way?

I don't understand the question. In principle, there could be some new (to
me) experiential 'elements' e.g. in principle I could survive bodily death
and find that my current experiential colour palette was now only a subset
of the new one. But I can't relate to your 'conceive of'. Supposing the
police have reason to believe that one of their cars and a uniform were
stolen by someone posing as a policeman and they call someone in as a
witness to give a statement. They go in and they run through a sort of
experiential 'cockpit check' like - * - what did you see? hear? smell?
touch? taste? smell? think? feel? will? etc. If they just tell the person to
recount their experiences between x and y o'clock they're going to get stuff
like "I saw the policeman get out of his car and cross the road..." An
amalgam of - * - and a lot of erroneous 'conceiving'.

:) I'm not saying it cam out of the verbal boxes but that there was a
meeting between the new (slim) 'cockpit check' experience and the old (fat)
verbal boxes resulting in this 'amalgam'.

> Or, if it has to follow in her case
> because she'd imbibed the whole mystical Christian ethos, it doesn't
> necessarily follow in the Buddha's case since his realization was not
> due to any existing system of thought. He had already rejected all such
> systems (we're told).

I don't accept this. He was part of a milieu saturated in notions about
dukkha, samsara, kamma, delusion, ignorance, atta/anatta, maya, awakening,
'liberation', meditation as a means of attaining 'liberation'... the whole
nine yards. After attaining the highest state of Samadhi short of his
experience - 'nibbana' - under a previous teacher IIRC he says that this was
not 'liberation'. When he attains the experience ' 'nibbana' - he says this
is 'liberation'.

> > > When you realize something, that something is
> > > self-apparent. That's what realization means...
>
> > To me - 'self-apparent' and 'realization' sounds like one has made some
kind
> > of 'equation' like 2+2=4. Or in this case made an 'equation' between
> > something (inferred or believed or hoped for or expected or whatever)
and
> > the new experience.
>
> You're standing outside the elevator (because you're in the New World)
> when the doors open and you see the most beautiful woman you've ever
> seen in your life. Because your soul is leaping up out of itself like a
> burning flame, you just stand there and the doors close again.
>

> The experience *of* her beauty...

'She' is just a trigger to my own Inward Gorgeousness :) It's not 'her'
'beauty' - it's Me. A dreamed 'woman' could have likewise triggered my own
Inward Gorgeousness and then where would the experience 'of' or
'her'(anything) have been?

> ...and the realization *that* she is more

> beautiful than any other woman you've seen are indivisible.

I never divide the experience 'and' realization (however 'triggered') My
Inward Gorgeousness from themselves ('er sumpin'...)

> You don't
> have to infer a thing, it's all right before you. Later you might draw
> inferences about why she should strike you so forcibly, why beauty
> matters, and so on, but they would be informed by the experience and
> would have to remain true to the experience.

Probably :)

> > > ...In mystical terms,
> > > experience and realization are pretty much the same thing, I believe.
>
> > I regard that as arising through a failure to discriminate between what
is
> > brought 'to' the experience and what is coming 'from' it. If everything
was
> > coming 'from' the experience, these 'realizations would all be
convergent.
> > Patanjali, Shankara, the Buddha etc. would all withdraw the senses and
use
> > samadhi until they attained the apparently non-arising/non-ceasing etc.
> > experience and they'd all come out of it with a convergent belief about
> > atta/atman coming 'from' the experience. But they don't...
>
> Unless I can find the perfect angle, elevation, perspective and
> trajectory from which to view them so that they do :-)

:) You could always get a job in Keynes's philosophy factory.

> Certainly in this area above all, perhaps, there is baggage brought. And

> when you talk about withdrawing the senses and states of samadhi, that's

> all so far away from anything I know that I might as well offer an
> opinion on multi-dimensional string theory. But I do know that in my own
> life things have impinged on my awareness that were completely outside
> the range of prior experiences. The awareness didn't seem to need any
> experiential or inferential priming in order to be impinged upon. It
> seems to do that of its own accord and all the *mental* work follows.

I kind of get your drift (in terms of you 'experience of').

> > And the trouble is
> > that because they believe that people only doubt them because they
haven't
> > had the experience which validates all of their beliefs for themselves,
> > non-one can ever tell them anything (that they can hear) again.
>
> Perhaps it's really a blessing that none of these crazy mystics can
> agree, because if they did there'd be no room for my realization, or
> yours. On the other hand, complete descent into subjective anarchy
> leaves truth and actuality looking a bit tattered. It's a mess!

:) To me, it is the 'divergent' stuff which gets amalgamated with the
'convergent' 'cockpit-check' stuff which 'makes' all of the appearance of
anarchy.

Jonathan

stumper

unread,

Apr 28, 2006, 1:55:57 PM4/28/06

to

Advaita Bob wrote:

Do you believe in the Buddha-nature?

--
~Stumper