Measuring stick (was Re: Thomas Edison)
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> liaM:
>
> >jordytheother:
>
> >> jordytheother:
>
> >>> Thomas Edison was pretty much a fool, an idiot
> >>> and a moron and an insufferable asshole; but, he
> >>> is acclaimed in history because he is the first one
> >>> [t]o establish the true modern "research and
> >>> development, think-tank", by bringing together
> >>> hundreds of scientists and engineers in his facility
> >>> at Menlo Park.
>
> >> ... and, was the really the "great inventor" that
> >> everyone says he was? no, -- he was just a
> >> money-grubber and a lucky tinker.
>
> >jealous!
>
> He enlightened millions!
Was he then a member of those whom Jigme calls "the
rarified few", on whom he expanded on as follows:
<<The zen masters find that there is no object about
which to speak. They become dumb idiots. There is no
further interest in arguing, debating,analyzing or puzzling.
They are far too simple, still having knowledge but no
compelling use for it. The acquisition of mental objects
or any objects of desire is no longer relevent.
Sometimes, when they speak, they even say ridiculous
things. Logic can't contain them; they've outlived the
need for it. They can still use it, but just spend more
time outside its narrow confines, unconstricted by its
rigid circular process.
Why all this talk about zen masters all of a sudden? I
don't know. Am I daring to compare myself to them?
I guess so, or else what good are they anyway? If they
become useless or, worse, disparingingly superior, let's
toss them out on their gaudy ears. All I "know" is that,
underneath the sanctimonious trappings, there is a real,
simple human being who is himself on a ride, and just
too dumb to build a philosophy, religion or order. So
he sits there like a couch potato letting everyone else
have the glory - watching the human drama and all the
contention over nothing. Watching people fighting over
an imaginary authority or an imagined identification
with an imagined entity called a race, a nation or a
movement. Children playing roles.All of us.
That's about it -nothing more to babble about, no real
point to my babble. If I have expressed an opinion or
two, I denounce and retract them all. They would only
have arisen conditionally and would already have
dissolved anyway.>>
The salient part is:
<<Why all this talk about zen masters all of a sudden? I
don't know. Am I daring to compare myself to them?
I guess so, or else what good are they anyway? If they
become useless or, worse, disparingingly superior, let's
toss them out on their gaudy ears.>>
Jigme compared himself to the Chan/Zen masters of old,
and followed through with: <<Am I daring to compare
myself to them? I guess so, or else what good are they
anyway?>>
So, he implied that the Chan/Zen masters of old would be
no good if he did not compare himself with them. They
were good only insofar as he compared himself with them.
Jigme takes himself to be the measuring stick, by which
the Chan/Zen masters of old could be declared good or
bad.
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott
Or one could view the exact same words entailing an opposite meaning,
The zen masters of old are the measuring stick by which we ourselves
measure our own realization.
In other words presuming the superiority in reverse. I know that I will
probably never equal the Buddha.
Son of man
But then again, Jesus did say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father in heaven is perfect."
Peter Olcott
Not really, {perfect} is yet another bad translation to English.
Son of man
I don't believe anything *in reality* is perfect. But I do believe in
"perfect enough" :)
Peter Olcott
The Greek word (teleios) that is incorrectly translated to {perfect}
has nothing to do with flawlessness.
Son of man
Can you give us your own contextual translation of teleios?
Son of man
Can you give us your own contextual translation of teleios?
Son of man
I just looked it up. It means "complete" in some sense, or "fully
mature". I guess "fully mature" fits in as a good description for "The
Father".
zenworm
wrote:
"The mind sees what it is conditioned to see,
adding contradiction and contention.
The mind that observes its agenda
enters the portal of awareness."
- Jigme Dorje
^~
Son of man
Enlightenment : having realized one's full potential.
I wouldn't call it complete though. "Completeness" is all-inclusive,
and not something to be experienced independently by any individual.
Lee Rudolph
>Lee Rudolph wrote:
...
>> He enlightened millions!
>
>Was he then a member of those whom Jigme calls "the
>rarified few"
DE FOREST TO AID
AGAINST ZEPPELINS
_______
Will Place His Electric De-
tector at the Service of
the Allies.
________
A MICROPHONE DEVICE
________
It Is Expected to Record Airship
Propellers' Vibrations and Dis-
close Their Location.
...
The audion, which has played an im-
portant role in wire telephony, wireless
telephony, and telegraphy, is based
upon the sensitiveness to the most mi-
nute electric impulse of the rarefied air
in an incandescent bulb when it is heat-
ed.
Lee Rudolph (another of the rarified few)
Lee Rudolph
>"The mind sees what it is conditioned to see,
>adding contradiction and contention.
>The mind that observes its agenda
>enters the portal of awareness."
> - Jigme Dorje
Yet without the lubrication of compassion,
even the portal of awareness may suffer.
Lee Rudolph
Son of man
Not "may", but "will".
Compassion is the binding-substance or the bonding-glue of
"Completeness".
Lee Rudolph
Bonding-glue? Ouch.
By the way, did you ever hear about the newlyweds who confused
the jar of vaseline and the jar of putty?
Their windowpanes fell out.
Lee Rudolph (must have been Mr. and Mrs. Owsley)
SG
wrote:
That Jigme! He can't even flip a US quarter (a fair one, at that)
'heads' 25 times consecutively!
SG
SG
Who are you?
SG
Peter Olcott
How do Buddhists say it, the collection of aggregates?
I am my personality + my memory + my conditioning.
SG
Realizing one's full potential is enlightenment? This 'one' simply
needs
to be dropped.
SG
Son of man
It's not ever dropped. It's expanded beyond any thought-formation and
merged into formlessness without boundaries.
MN 72 "Freed from the classification of form, the Tathagata is deep,
boundless, difficult to fathom like the sea."
In another sutta, he explains that the monks who attain the deathless
are like drops of water falling into the ocean, merging into the
property of unbinding.
>
> SG
zenworm
in the debauchery of Moment
there is gratitude for everything
compassion arises with
enough is enough
(pass the Tar and Fluff)
^~
zenworm
they were stuck on each other?
(bad "caulking")
^~
SG
Now, why would a collection of aggregates ever
equal the Buddha? Does a box of cloth and some wood
ever equal the Buddha?
SG
SG
What is it when it has only reached a third of its potential?
What is it when it has only reached half of its potential?
What is it when it has reached 99.99% of its potential?
And where are you [0% ---------------- 100%] ?
SG
Jigme Dorje
No, but I'm pretty good with a Canadian one.
Son of man
There isn't any percentage of unbinding. Unbinding is a complete
transformation, still not to be confused with annhilation. However I
guess you can put a percentage of how far along a person is on the
path that leads to unbinding.
>
> And where are you [0% ---------------- 100%] ?
>
> SG
Me? Relative to all the time I've been on the path or trying to find
the path and [supposedly] not only in this lifetime? I'd say this time
around, I might as well already consider myself to be fully
enlightened (with regards to what's of ultimate importantance to me
anyway)
Son of man
And certainly not fully enlightened in regards to proof-reading :)
Jigme Dorje
To the ego that perishes in the moment, a measuring stick may prove an
invaluable concept, a device that can and will be used to push the
moment always beyond reach.
If you take the measuring stick to be real, how could it be anything
but ludicrous and audacious to compare yourself to a Buddha? It
couldn't be otherwise.
But if you see that there is nothing to measure, you do not take up
any stick. Comparison becomes sameness, contention, harmony,
difference, commonality.
The measuring stick would tell you that a speck of dirt could never
equal a lotus. That is what it is for, so how could it do otherwise?
Without it, there is no essential distinction.
SG
I'm not even going to argue because I enjoyed your sense of humor :)
SG
SG
Notices will be sent to the Sangha for this coming
week-end's measuring stick burning behind the old temple on 5th.
SG
Jigme Dorje
Lol!
zenworm
> On Dec 4, 7:17 pm, Son of man <sonofm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
Those are great examples of being in the Moment
and recognition of already present perfection.
Concepts being carried are dropped in favor of
simply enjoying what is offered in This Moment.
(both 'Son of mans' answer and 'SGs' reply)
gratitude _/|\_
^~
Jigme Dorje
May I quote that?
zenworm
Absolutely!
with all your heart
LOL!
"I have faith in the perfection of the moment,
that things are as they are,
and there are no shoulds in suchness."
- Jigme Dorje
When 'practice' is organic it becomes so natural
for Awareness to see Awareness seeing Awareness.
In this flowing movement of the appearances of form
there is no superiority in the equanimity of Awareness.
When Buddha awoke he said something about
everything awakening with him, that everything is
Awakening. (paraphrased)
When looking around and recognizing 'extraordinary
being' in everything around us, the deepest gratitude
arises for the privilege of exploring the unfolding
Moment. ("grateful for everything" re: Oxtail)
It is profoundly humbling to realize this reverence for
the 'Divine Essence' dancing in the appearances of
form all around, includes us.
Parlor tricks like "smashing your own hand and taking
no damage" (from a different thread) pale in comparison
to holding someone else's hand in their hour of need.
This connection at he point of contact of the senses
opens ego to an experiencing of more than itself.
Through This Moment flows limitless compassion
of unknowable undiminishable source.
Being kind with *yourself* is a natural expression
of the fearlessness of ego surrendered context.
The incredible opportunity of This Moment.
Life = Love = Bliss = Now
gratitude _/|\_
Useful?
^~
Jigme Dorje
Very.
Son of man
I'm bringing marshmellows!
>
> SG
Son of man
When I witness much of the arguing going on here, it's like you all
agree that the Buddha is the best baker who makes the finest cake, and
now you're all at war trying to make the best icing. I say don't stop
and keep trying. I love a good icing on a good cake too.
DT
I remember a poem, out of a book that my father kept in the back of his
sock drawer.
Pity poor Ned and poor Nelly,
Now they walk belly to belly.
For they, in their haste,
Used library paste,
Instead of petroleum jelly.
DT
Stephane Guenette
Tang Huyen
Son of man wrote:
> SG:
>
> > Realizing one's full potential is enlightenment? This 'one' simply
> > needs to be dropped.
>
> It's not ever dropped. It's expanded beyond any thought-formation
> and merged into formlessness without boundaries.
>
> MN 72 "Freed from the classification of form, the Tathagata is
> deep, boundless, difficult to fathom like the sea."
>
> In another sutta, he explains that the monks who attain the
> deathless are like drops of water falling into the ocean, merging
> into the property of unbinding.
The idea of a drop of water merging into the ocean (as the
metaphor for the ultimate experience or whatever) is
Hinduist, not Buddhist.
An academic who has received Tibetan scholastic Gelukpa
training, Anne C. Klein, "Mental Concentration and the
Unconditioned: A Buddhist Case for Unmediated
Experience," in Robert E. Buswell and Robert Gimello, eds.,
Paths to Liberation: The Marga and its Transformations in
Buddhist Thought, 269-308 repeatedly talks in quotation
marks about "Dge-lugs-pa descriptions of mind and
emptiness as like 'fresh water poured into fresh water,'" 297,
"the powerful nondualistic experience of mind and emptiness
as like 'water poured into water,'" 283, and Cristina Anna
Scherrer-Schaub, Yuktisastikavrtti, 106, n. 11 gives the
original from Katha-Upanisad, IV, 15 (a Hinduist text): "As
pure water when poured into water remains the same, so
remains, Gautama, the soul of the sage who knows
(yathodakam suddhe suddham asiktam tadrg eva bhavati,
evam muner vijanata atma bhavati Gautama)."
The idea of a wave realising that it is the ocean has been
put forth on these boards often. One version is:
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the
wave realises it is water."
This is along the line of the little self merging into the Big Self
as in Hinduism, rather than the doing away with any self at all
as in Buddhism. It is an enlargement of the locus of
identification, but is still identification, not the dropping of all
identification, as in Buddhist awakening.
The problem is in identification, with and against. If you think
that you ARE the ocean, you already give rise to the thought
"you", "ocean", and the thought of identifying the two, the
"observer" and the "observed". That is already throwing quite
a few monkey wrenches into the smooth flow of what
happens.
Drop all such thought, drop all thought, especially the thought
of "you", of a self, of an "I", and there is no problem left.
In Buddhism, wisdom is purely purgative, in that desire and
therefore mentation and the self are done away with, but there
is no identification with anything or merging into anything. In
the first sutta of MN, the Buddha condemns unity or oneness
(ekatta), multiplicity (nanatta) and the all (sabba).
In Buddhism the five aggregates are the basis on which deludeds
(us) build up a false sense of self (though there is no true self at
all). The Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 164a18-19: "Now on the
basis of the five aggregates there arises the word ‘living being’
(Candrakirti, Prasannapada, 578: pañca skandhan upadaya
prajñapyamanah pudgalo). The unwise follow speech to chase
realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
something as follows.
“‘The self, the self (aatmaa aatmeti),’ monks, [thinks] the foolish
common person who follows speech (prajñaptim anupatito).
But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
(sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
nirudhyante).” MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
“If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
self, self in form, form in self.” SA, 45, 11b.
“The foolish common person sees form [and the other
aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te).” SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III,
96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
SN, IV, 402 (44, 11), SA, 959, 245a: “by whatever cause or
condition for making known (paññapanaya) [the Tathagata after
death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
(sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
what could one, who would make him known, make him known
(kena nam paññapayamano paññapeyya) as having form, as
without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
notion nor without notion?”
MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
“that form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes
known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
paññapayamano paññapeyya), that form has been got rid of by
the Tathagata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a
palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to
grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form
(rupa-sankha-vimutto) is the Tathagata, he is deep (gambhiro),
not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the
great ocean (dup-pariyogaho seyyatha pi maha-samuddo).” For
this last clause the SA has at 226b14-15 (quoted in
Yogacara-bhumi, T, 30, 1579, 577b25-26): “deep (gambhira),
great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya),
unreckonable (samkhyam nopaiti), blown-out (nirvrta).”
The converse is articulated by Maha-Kasyapa to Sariputra: “To
say that the Tathagata exists after death [and the other three
positions], that is gone-to-form (Pali rupa-gatam etam, SN, IV,
385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathagata,
his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated
(Skt. su-vimukta-citta). ‘He exists after death’ does not apply
(Pali na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the
Tathagata, his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is
well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject
to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant:
a-prameyam a-sankhyeyam nirvrtam).” SA, 905, 226b.
In fact, it is not the case that only the Tathagata before and after
death is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
blown-out, but it is also the case that the world and we are
equally deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
blown-out. It is only our thought-up that makes us believe
otherwise.
We want to wrap our mind around reality and make reality
intelligible to us. We are successful, to some extent, but never
to the full. That part is the regimen of survival. In the regimen
of grace, we give up all attempts to fit reality into our baskets
and cages, surrender all our norms and standards, and do
nothing, and this doing nothing will usher in grace, which is
vastly more fulfilling than survival.
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott
That is why I chose the third alternative of the non duality of subject
and object:
(1) No object only subject.
(2) No subject only object.
(30 No subject or object, only sensory perception.
> Drop all such thought, drop all thought, especially the thought
> of "you", of a self, of an "I", and there is no problem left.
>
> In Buddhism, wisdom is purely purgative, in that desire and
> therefore mentation and the self are done away with, but there
> is no identification with anything or merging into anything. In
> the first sutta of MN, the Buddha condemns unity or oneness
> (ekatta), multiplicity (nanatta) and the all (sabba).
>
References for ekatta please. Never heard this before. I looked up the
sutta of MN and still don't understand.
Awaken21
wrote:
> basis of the five aggregates there arises the word �living being�
> (Candrakirti, Prasannapada, 578: pa�ca skandhan upadaya
> praj�apyamanah pudgalo). The unwise follow speech to chase
> realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> something as follows.
>
> common person who follows speech (praj�aptim anupatito).
> But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> �If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
>
> �The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> condition for making known (pa��apanaya) [the Tathagata after
> death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
>
> MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
> the Tathagata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a
> palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to
> grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form
> (rupa-sankha-vimutto) is the Tathagata, he is deep (gambhiro),
> not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the
> this last clause the SA has at 226b14-15 (quoted in
> great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya),
>
> The converse is articulated by Maha-Kasyapa to Sariputra: �To
> say that the Tathagata exists after death [and the other three
> positions], that is gone-to-form (Pali rupa-gatam etam, SN, IV,
> 385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathagata,
> his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated
> (Pali na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the
> Tathagata, his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is
> well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject
> to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant:
>
> In fact, it is not the case that only the Tathagata before and after
> death is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> blown-out, but it is also the case that the world and we are
> equally deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> blown-out. It is only our thought-up that makes us believe
> otherwise.
>
> We want to wrap our mind around reality and make reality
> intelligible to us. We are successful, to some extent, but never
> to the full. That part is the regimen of survival. In the regimen
> of grace, we give up all attempts to fit reality into our baskets
> and cages, surrender all our norms and standards, and do
> nothing, and this doing nothing will usher in grace, which is
> vastly more fulfilling than survival.
>
> Tang Huyen
Interesting thoughts.
I wonder, is it doing nothing or doing nothing unskillful? Doing
nothing that creates the Karma of discontent?
Can we do nothing? Even if I just sit here trying to nothing at some
point I'll do something before my conscious mind has registered it
happened. When given it's own my body apparently has a mind of it's
own. I've learned to depend on it, but that's another discussion...
I also wonder... it's hard to be filled with grace when you suffer
from long term starvation. So without the survival instinct say... to
eat, is grace even possible?
Is it possible our survival instinct serves grace?
Jigme Dorje
metaphor for the ultimate experience or whatever) is
merging into the Big Self as in Hinduism, rather than the doing away
with any self at all as in Buddhism. It is an enlargement of the locus
of identification, but is still identification, not the dropping of
all
identification, as in Buddhist awakening."
Thank you, well said.
It is an "enlarged identification" when descriptive of a conceptual
perspective, and consistent with the mechanism of collective ego. The
baggage of the concept of a larger self has not yet been dropped, and
the mind is spinning experience into conceptual packaging, still
seeking to attach, identify.
It might also be a description of what it is like to transcend the
perspective of self, pursuant to the dropping of identification with
it. Words are tricky,and because this can never be adequately
described, any attempts to describe necessarily fall short, so it is
important not to attach to the words themselves. Attempts to use words
as exact mappings to truths leads one into tenacious identifcation
with form.
gbb
> I also wonder... it's hard to be filled with grace when you suffer
> from long term starvation. So without the survival instinct say... to
> eat, is grace even possible?
My teacher says that the first two steps in Buddhist practice are to
have food and shelter...and then you can start with the other stuff.
--
gbb
Lord GaGa
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:lcKdnSjwYqMEomPR...@supernews.com...
> basis of the five aggregates there arises the word 'living being'
> prajńapyamanah pudgalo). The unwise follow speech to chase
> realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> something as follows.
>
> "'The self, the self (aatmaa aatmeti),' monks, [thinks] the foolish
> But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> nirudhyante)." MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> "If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
> self, self in form, form in self." SA, 45, 11b.
>
> "The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te)." SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III,
> 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> SN, IV, 402 (44, 11), SA, 959, 245a: "by whatever cause or
> death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
> notion nor without notion?"
>
> MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> "that form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes
> known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
i've told you before that hinduism uses
the small self to big self only as a stepping
stone to a no self platform. some seekers
can't do away with self all in one concept.
ask ramana maharshi or nisargadatta maharaj
if there is a self.
Lord GaGa
"gbb" <myn...@example.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00003d3...@braser.com...
food and shelter but no clothing?
i brake for naked buddhists !
small tortoiseshell
in the sense that it pulls us away from getting completely lost in
mental constructions, it would seem so...
Awaken21
i brake for naked!
--
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."
- G. K. Chesterton
Appledog
My how you are hindered.
-
Appledog
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> > basis of the five aggregates there arises the word 'living being'
> > realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> > aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> > untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> > But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> > the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> > something as follows.
>
> > "'The self, the self (aatmaa aatmeti),' monks, [thinks] the foolish
> > But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> > aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> > suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> > utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> > niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> > (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> > nirudhyante)." MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> > Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> > "If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> > the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> > form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
> > self, self in form, form in self." SA, 45, 11b.
>
> > "The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> > aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> > saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> > samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te)." SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III,
> > 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> > SN, IV, 402 (44, 11), SA, 959, 245a: "by whatever cause or
> > death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> > without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> > cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> > (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> > what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> > without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
> > notion nor without notion?"
>
> > MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> > "that form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes
> > known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
Why not just ask yourself?
Or, for that matter, lord Hanuman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=JNNWgaQn4x0).
-
zenworm
wrote:
> basis of the five aggregates there arises the word �living being�
> (Candrakirti, Prasannapada, 578: pa�ca skandhan upadaya
> realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> something as follows.
>
> common person who follows speech (praj�aptim anupatito).
> But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> �If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
>
> aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> condition for making known (pa��apanaya) [the Tathagata after
> death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
>
> MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
> the Tathagata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a
> palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to
> grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form
> (rupa-sankha-vimutto) is the Tathagata, he is deep (gambhiro),
> not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the
> this last clause the SA has at 226b14-15 (quoted in
> great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya),
>
> The converse is articulated by Maha-Kasyapa to Sariputra: �To
> say that the Tathagata exists after death [and the other three
> positions], that is gone-to-form (Pali rupa-gatam etam, SN, IV,
> 385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathagata,
> his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated
> (Pali na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the
> Tathagata, his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is
> well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject
> to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant:
>
> In fact, it is not the case that only the Tathagata before and after
> death is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> blown-out, but it is also the case that the world and we are
> equally deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> blown-out. It is only our thought-up that makes us believe
> otherwise.
>
> We want to wrap our mind around reality and make reality
> intelligible to us. We are successful, to some extent, but never
> to the full. That part is the regimen of survival. In the regimen
> of grace, we give up all attempts to fit reality into our baskets
> and cages, surrender all our norms and standards, and do
> nothing, and this doing nothing will usher in grace, which is
> vastly more fulfilling than survival.
>
> Tang Huyen
Bliss
^~
zenworm
no mud, no lotus
^~
zenworm
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> > basis of the five aggregates there arises the word 'living being'
> > realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> > aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> > untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> > But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> > the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> > something as follows.
>
> > "'The self, the self (aatmaa aatmeti),' monks, [thinks] the foolish
> > But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> > aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> > suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> > utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> > niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> > (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> > nirudhyante)." MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> > Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> > "If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> > the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> > form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
> > self, self in form, form in self." SA, 45, 11b.
>
> > "The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> > aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> > saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> > samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te)." SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III,
> > 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> > SN, IV, 402 (44, 11), SA, 959, 245a: "by whatever cause or
> > death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> > without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> > cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> > (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> > what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> > without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
> > notion nor without notion?"
>
> > MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> > "that form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes
> > known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
ground zero
^~
Lord GaGa
"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6f0f255-9ad0-4df2...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
well fuck it then, from now
on i'll just run em over
SG
I like the heading 'no merging, just no mentation', to dispel any
notions
of the 'drop of water/ocean' metaphore, but is there really a place of
'no mentation',
or is it only 'no identification with mentation'? I guess there would
have to
be, as humans and certain animals (forms with the ability to mentate)
aren't the only existing/non-existing forms? In the case that there is
a
'place' (for lack of a better term) of no mentation, how could there
be
any mentation anywhere at any time?
SG
Lord GaGa
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:14dbaacf-5895-4f74...@w2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > basis of the five aggregates there arises the word 'living being'
> > praj�apyamanah pudgalo). The unwise follow speech to chase
> > realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> > aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> > untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> > But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> > the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> > something as follows.
>
> > "'The self, the self (aatmaa aatmeti),' monks, [thinks] the foolish
> > But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> > aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> > suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> > utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> > niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> > (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> > nirudhyante)." MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> > Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> > "If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> > the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> > form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
> > self, self in form, form in self." SA, 45, 11b.
>
> > "The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> > aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> > saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> > samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te)." SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III,
> > 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> > SN, IV, 402 (44, 11), SA, 959, 245a: "by whatever cause or
> > death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> > without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> > cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> > (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> > what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> > without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
> > notion nor without notion?"
>
> > MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> > "that form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes
> > known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
ground zero
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
when hinduism and budhism both
lead to the same goal, does it matter
which one you used as long as you
arrive?
Lee Rudolph
>"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e6f0f255-9ad0-4df2...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 8, 1:34 am, "Lord GaGa" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
...
>> food and shelter but no clothing?
>> i brake for naked buddhists !
>
>>My how you are hindered.
>
>well fuck it then, from now
>on i'll just run em over
I believe Hollywood Lee has a used pickup truck for sale,
cheap.
Lee Rudolph
niunian
<sono...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 10:07?am, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 4:06?am, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 5, 1:02?am, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 5, 12:48?am, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 5, 12:10?am, SG <sguen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 4, 7:17?pm, Son of man <sonofm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > <snip>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Or one could view the exact same words entailing an opposite meaning,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> The zen masters of old are the measuring stick by which we ourselves
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> measure our own realization.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In other words presuming the superiority in reverse. I know that I will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> probably never equal the Buddha.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> But then again, Jesus did say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Father in heaven is perfect."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Not really, {perfect} is yet another bad translation to English.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe anything *in reality* is perfect. But I do believe in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "perfect enough" :)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Greek word (teleios) ?that is incorrectly translated to {perfect}
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has nothing to do with flawlessness.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you give us your own contextual translation of teleios?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I just looked it up. It means "complete" in some sense, or "fully
>> > > > > > > > > > > > mature". I guess "fully mature" fits in as a good description for "The
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Father".
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment : having realized one's full potential.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't call it complete though. "Completeness" is all-inclusive,
>> > > > > > > > > > > and not something to be experienced independently by any individual.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Realizing one's full potential is enlightenment? This 'one' simply
>> > > > > > > > > > needs
>> > > > > > > > > > to be dropped.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > It's not ever dropped. It's expanded beyond any thought-formation and
>> > > > > > > > > merged into formlessness without boundaries.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > MN 72 ?"Freed from the classification of form, the Tathagata is deep,
>> > > > gratitude ? ? _/|\_
>>
>> > > > ^~
>>
>> > > Ah, recognition of already present perfection.
>>
>> > > May I quote that?
>>
>> > Absolutely!
>> > with all your heart
>>
>> > LOL!
>>
>> > "I have faith in the perfection of the moment,
>> > that things are as they are,
>> > and there are no shoulds in suchness."
>> > ?- Jigme Dorje
>>
>> > When 'practice' is organic it becomes so natural
>> > for Awareness to see Awareness seeing Awareness.
>> > In this flowing movement of the appearances of form
>> > there is no superiority in the equanimity of Awareness.
>> > When Buddha awoke he said something about
>> > everything awakening with him, that everything is
>> > Awakening. (paraphrased)
>> > When looking around and recognizing 'extraordinary
>> > being' in everything around us, the deepest gratitude
>> > arises for the privilege of exploring the unfolding
>> > Moment. ("grateful for everything" ?re: Oxtail)
>> > It is profoundly humbling to realize this reverence for
>> > the 'Divine Essence' dancing in the appearances of
>> > form all around, includes us.
>>
>> > Parlor tricks like "smashing your own hand and taking
>> > no damage" (from a different thread) pale in comparison
>> > to holding someone else's hand in their hour of need.
>> > This connection at he point of contact of the senses
>> > opens ego to an experiencing of more than itself.
>> > Through This Moment flows limitless compassion
>> > of unknowable undiminishable source.
>>
>> > Being kind with *yourself* is a natural expression
>> > of the fearlessness of ego surrendered context.
>> > The incredible opportunity of This Moment.
>> > Life = Love = Bliss = Now
>>
>> > gratitude ? ? _/|\_
>>
>> > Useful?
>>
>> > ^~
>>
>> Very.
>
>When I witness much of the arguing going on here, it's like you all
>agree that the Buddha is the best baker who makes the finest cake, and
>now you're all at war trying to make the best icing. I say don't stop
>and keep trying. I love a good icing on a good cake too.
The problem is many are like dogs using their urine to do the job. Not
to mention it's a cake over two thousand years old. What you call
icing may very well be mold instead.
Lord GaGa
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:idnre0$ges$1...@reader1.panix.com...
is that the truck with the mystery
maniac driver that's setting
philosophy standards ?
Lee Rudolph
The driver is not (as far as I know) for sale with the truck.
But I suppose you could make an offer.
Lee Rudolph
Lord GaGa
i wasn't looking to buy the driver
just curious how he could set
standards of philosophy by merely
mowing down innocent bystanders
with his truck
Peter Olcott
All nihilists share this same view.
zenworm
> "Lee Rudolph" <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote in message> >>"Lee Rudolph" <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote in message> >>>>"Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:e6f0f255-9ad0-4df2...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>On Dec 8, 1:34 am, "Lord GaGa" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>> food and shelter but no clothing?
> >>>>> i brake for naked buddhists !
>
> >>>>>My how you are hindered.
>
> >>>>well fuck it then, from now
> >>>>on i'll just run em over
>
> >>> I believe Hollywood Lee has a used pickup truck for sale,
> >>> cheap.
>
> >>> Lee Rudolph
>
> >>is that the truck with the mystery
> >>maniac driver that's setting
> >>philosophy standards ?
>
> > The driver is not (as far as I know) for sale with the truck.
> > But I suppose you could make an offer.
>
> > Lee Rudolph
>
> i wasn't looking to buy the driver
> just curious how he could set
> standards of philosophy by merely
> mowing down innocent bystanders
> with his truck
evilution
^~
halfawake
Most excellent Tang - thanks for the reminder of the sharp difference
between the image of Hindu liberation and that of the Buddha. Whereas
the Hindu sage wakes up to the spiritual vastness of the ocean of the
Universe, it cannot be said what the Buddha wakes up to.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
Jigme Dorje
> > basis of the five aggregates there arises the word �living being�
> > (Candrakirti, Prasannapada, 578: pa�ca skandhan upadaya
> > realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> > aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> > untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> > But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> > the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> > something as follows.
>
> > common person who follows speech (praj�aptim anupatito).
> > But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> > aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> > suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> > utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> > niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> > (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> > Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> > �If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> > the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> > form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
>
> > aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> > saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> > 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> > condition for making known (pa��apanaya) [the Tathagata after
> > death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> > without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> > cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> > (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> > what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> > without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
>
> > MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> > known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
> > the Tathagata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a
> > palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to
> > grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form
> > (rupa-sankha-vimutto) is the Tathagata, he is deep (gambhiro),
> > not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the
> > this last clause the SA has at 226b14-15 (quoted in
> > great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya),
>
> > The converse is articulated by Maha-Kasyapa to Sariputra: �To
> > say that the Tathagata exists after death [and the other three
> > positions], that is gone-to-form (Pali rupa-gatam etam, SN, IV,
> > 385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathagata,
> > his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated
> > (Pali na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the
> > Tathagata, his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is
> > well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject
> > to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant:
>
> > In fact, it is not the case that only the Tathagata before and after
> > death is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> > blown-out, but it is also the case that the world and we are
> > equally deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> > blown-out. It is only our thought-up that makes us believe
> > otherwise.
>
> > We want to wrap our mind around reality and make reality
> > intelligible to us. We are successful, to some extent, but never
> > to the full. That part is the regimen of survival. In the regimen
> > of grace, we give up all attempts to fit reality into our baskets
> > and cages, surrender all our norms and standards, and do
> > nothing, and this doing nothing will usher in grace, which is
> > vastly more fulfilling than survival.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> Most excellent Tang - thanks for the reminder of the sharp difference
> between the image of Hindu liberation and that of the Buddha. Whereas
> the Hindu sage wakes up to the spiritual vastness of the ocean of the
> Universe, it cannot be said what the Buddha wakes up to.
>
> Robert
>
> - - - - - - - - -
Lol. But if people spent as much time cultivating it as they do
conceptualizing and arguing about it, wouldn't that be a swift kick in
the ass?
Lord GaGa
"Peter Olcott" <NoS...@OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message
news:x5SdnatOqZ8fSmLR...@giganews.com...
so do overgeneralizationalists
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
not at all
Approaches/'paths' are as plentiful as
'seekers' who approach.
The 'destination' is always the same:
NOW
^~
Jigme Dorje
: )
Tang Huyen
halfawake wrote:
> Most excellent Tang - thanks for the reminder of the
> sharp difference between the image of Hindu liberation
> and that of the Buddha. Whereas the Hindu sage
> wakes up to the spiritual vastness of the ocean of the
> Universe, it cannot be said what the Buddha wakes
> up to.
As I have said before, awakening in Buddhism has
no specific content, but is purely ad hoc and
opportunistic. Contrariwise, if it had some content
specific to it (like the beatific vision in Christianity), it
would be tied down to it, bound to it and not free. It
is pure openness, mere flexibility, raw opportunity,
Instead of being occupied with some content
specific to it, it is empty and available, and it is this
emptiness and availability that leave it open to any ad
hoc content, just like that.
At antipodes with it is resistance, which blocks either
some specific content or all content. This blocking
consumes enormous energy. Awakening on the
contrary leaves itself open, consumes the least energy
possible in resisting any content, and devotes most
energy to just plain quiet observation, often called
mindfulness, which results in calm, peace, serenity,
felicity, grace.
Due to such openness and availability, the
uniqueness and particularity of the sensitive
apparatus of each person is brought to the fore,
because there are no universals (the mentational
paramaters) to force him into, and he is as unique
and particular as he can be, absent the mentational
parameters that are implicated in the self and that
would fit him into universals. His uniqueness and
particularity will blossom forth untrammelled.
The experience of the awakeneds is not filtered
through universals, like categories and concepts,
norms and standards, structures and frameworks (all
of which consist in resistance). It will be totally
unique to them, totally individualistic, totally ad hoc,
because not fitted into the same straitjackets, namely
categories and concepts, norms and standards,
structures and frameworks (generally, into universals).
Two of them, standing right next to each other and
looking at the same scene, will experience it in totally
different ways, because neither will cut up that
wholesome experience and label the parts as "tree",
"cat", "cloud", "freedom", "slavery", etc. Almost
literally, they have *nothing to share*, with each
other and with others, except the freedom,
spontaneity and normlessness. The public cases are
records of such sharings of freedom, spontaneity
and normlessness. On any given case or situation,
two acknowledged masters would differ in their
judgment, very frequently, and almost inevitably.
Otherwise they would be clerks and not masters.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen wrote:
> The salient part is:
>
> <<Why all this talk about zen masters all of a sudden? I
> don't know. Am I daring to compare myself to them?
> I guess so, or else what good are they anyway? If they
> become useless or, worse, disparingingly superior, let's
> toss them out on their gaudy ears.>>
>
> Jigme compared himself to the Chan/Zen masters of old,
> and followed through with: <<Am I daring to compare
> myself to them? I guess so, or else what good are they
> anyway?>>
>
> So, he implied that the Chan/Zen masters of old would be
> no good if he did not compare himself with them. They
> were good only insofar as he compared himself with them.
>
> Jigme takes himself to be the measuring stick, by which
> the Chan/Zen masters of old could be declared good or
> bad.
Sorry for the self-follow, but this topic is fascinating to
me.
I have already quoted Jigme's reply to Peter:
<<The words you read are not imprecise. It is your
expectations that are askew. No, my practice is not out
in left field but out of your ballpark and beyond the
framework of words and meanings that you cling so
tenaciously to. It is also interesting that you would waste
so much time proliferating theories about others when
you are not yet awakened. It's a common error.>>
Peter disagreed with Jigme because "you [Peter] are
not yet awakened", with the clear implication that, in
contrast, Jigme is awakened. And as to what Peter
commits, "It's a common error", meaning common to
those who "are not yet awakened".
More recently, Jigme plays the aggrieved, self-righteous
victim to my attacks:
<<My words speak to some who have a common
experience in practice, or so I have been told, but they
confuse others who may not share the frame of
reference.>>
Jigme implies that those who agree with him "have a
common experience in practice, or so I have been told,
but they [Jigme's words] confuse others [those who
disagree with him] who may not share the frame of
reference", meaning that only the awakened people
("the rarified few") like him understand him and agree
with him, and those who disagree with him
automatically "are not yet awakened" or some such.
In the above three instances, Jigme takes himself to be
the reference, against which others are measured and
found good or bad, awakened or unawakened.
It is not the case that he takes something abstract,
impersonal out there to be the reference, like a law, a
principle or a pattern/meme, against which everybody
(including him) is measured, but it is the case that he
takes himself as the reference, concretely, in person,
against which others (not him) are measured and
found good or bad, awakened or unawakened.
Not long after the Buddha's death, a brahman,
Vassakaara, asked Ananda (I reproduce Miss I. B.
Horner's translation, MLS, III, 60, corresponding to
MN, III, 10 [108], with the last part modified to be
literal):
"When you were asked: 'But as you are thus without
support, good Ananda, what is the cause of your unity?',
you said: 'We, brahman, are not without a support; we
have a support (sa-ppa.tisara.naa), brahman. Dhamma
is the support (dhamma-pa.tisara.naa).' Good Ananda,
what meaning is to be ascribed to what has been said?"
"There is, brahman, a rule of training laid down, an
Obligation appointed for monks by that Lord who
knows and sees, perfected one, fully Self-Awakened
One. On every Observance Day we who live
depending on the same field and village each and all
gather together on the same day, and when we have
gathered together we inquire what has happened to
each one. If a monk has committed an offence, a
transgression, since this Code of Rules is recited, it is
according to the Law, according to the Instruction, that
we have him act; it is not the venerables surely that
have us act, but rather *it is the Law that acts us*."
Tasmi.m ce bhaańńamaane hoti bhikkhussa aapatti hoti
viitikkamo, ta.m maya.m yathaadhamma.m
yathaasattha.m kaaremaati. Na kira no bhavanto
kaarenti; dhammo no kaaretiti.
The verb in question is kaareti "cause to act, cause to
be done", which is causative of karoti "act, do", from
which the word kamma (Sanskrit karma) "deed" is
derived.
Above, where in the Pali, Ananda says only: "Dhamma
is the support (dhamma-pa.tisara.naa)", in Chinese,
Ananda says: "We do not rely on the person (pudgala)
but we rely on the Law (dharma)." MA, 145,
654b23-24. This is the source of the four reliances
(pa.tisara.na), which Horner translates "support".
Thus the Law acts the monks, who follow the Law
(Dharma) and not any person (pudgala). In the
statement by Ananda:
"If a monk has committed an offence, a transgression,
since this Code of Rules is recited, it is according to
the Law, according to the Instruction, that we have him
act; it is not the venerables surely that have us act, but
rather *it is the Law that acts us*"
the "venerables" refer to the other monks.
The word "allegiance" means etymologically "The
relation of a liege lord; lordship" (OED).
The Chinese in mainland China are slowly learning to
move away from allegiance to some people in power
towards the following of abstract rules and regulations,
decoupled from the people who hold power, like
democracy and the ... rule of law.
The antithesis is between the salvation by following
abstract patterns (dharma) on one side and concrete
substances (the dead saints, the live teachers =
pudgala-s) which bestow holiness by osmosis, as it
were.
Commenting on some words in the New Testament,
Augustine says: “The Lord himself has declared: ‘I am
the way, the truth, and life’ (John 14, 6: Ego sum via et
veritas et vita). Thus if the Son is truth, what is the
Father, if not what truth (veritas) says itself: ‘the one
who has sent me is truthful’? The Son is truth, the
Father is truthful (Filius veritas, Pater verax). I ask
myself which of those affirmations is greater, but find
them equal. Because the Father is truthful thanks to
truth, not because he participates in it, but because he
engenders it entirely (sed quam totam genuit)....
Because all man is a liar when his soul does not
participate in truth; if all man is a liar, that is because no
one is truthful of himself. But the Father is truthful, he is
truthful of himself, because he has engendered truth.
The truthfulness of a man who has seen truth (percepit
veritatem) and that of God who has engendered it
(genuit veritatem) are two different things. God is
truthful, not by participating in it, but by generating it
(sed generando veritatem).”
In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, 39, 7-8, PL, 35,
1685-1686, CCSL, 36, 349: Ait enim apertissime ipse
Dominus: Ego sum via et veritas et vita. Ergo si Filius
veritas, Pater quid, nisi quod ait ipsa veritas: Qui me
misit, verax est? Filius veritas, Pater verax. Quid plus
sit quaero, sed aequalitatem invenio. Verax enim
Pater non ab ea veritate verax est cuius partem cepit,
sed quam totam genuit.... Cuius particeps si non fuerit
anima, omnis homo mendax; si omnis homo mendax,
nullus homo de suo verax. Pater autem verax, de suo
est verax, quia genuit veritatem. Aliud est, verax est
homo iste, quia jam percepit veritatem; aliud est,
verax Deus, quia genuit veritatem.
Augustine here describes the bestowal of truth by a
substance, God the Father: "Because the Father is
truthful thanks to truth, not because he participates in it,
but because he engenders it entirely (sed quam totam
genuit).... Because all man is a liar when his soul does
not participate in truth; if all man is a liar, that is because
no one is truthful of himself. But the Father is truthful,
he is truthful of himself, because he has engendered truth.
The truthfulness of a man who has seen truth (percepit
veritatem) and that of God who has engendered it
(genuit veritatem) are two different things. God is
truthful, not by participating in it, but by generating it
(sed generando veritatem)." Truth is not any abstract
pattern that one follows, but God is the very substance
of truth, and he gives it to those who worship him.
Buddhism on the contrary says that if you follow
abstract patterns, like the Law (dharma), you obtain
liberation by your own efforts, with the teacher perhaps
teaching you the Law and helping you practicing it, but
playing no role other than teaching it to you and helping
you bringing it to life in your life.
To those who are into philosophy of language, the
antithesis is between metaphor, which relies on similarity
of form (the ship of state, a car worming its way through
the woods), and metonym, which leans on propinquity,
physical proximity (the White House for American
governmental power). The former takes abstract thinking
to abstract the similarity in forms, the latter is easier as it
simply transfers by raw physical proximity.
Jigme is clearly in the camp of substance, with *himself*
as substance which grants its quality (good, awakened) to
those instances (including Zen/Chan masters of old) that
then participate in the quality, namely, good or awakened.
The quality inheres in the substance, Jigme, and radiates
from the substance to instances that share in it, as if by
osmosis. This mode of substance-based thinking is
un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist, to the core.
Furthermore, Jigme follows the anti-Buddhist mode of
thinking based on essence and manifestation, essence
manifesting its attributes. Even weirder is his taking
Buddhist emptiness to be its exact *contrary*, essence,
and "what is real, enduring, existent from its own side".
Buddhist emptiness is exactly defined as the absence of
essence, the lack of "what is real, enduring, existent from
its own side". So Jigme turns Buddhist emptiness *upside
down* to mask his Tolle-ish and Hinduist thinking.
<<What is real, enduring, existent from its own side can
be found on[l]y in emptiness, although it manifests as
form (emptiness is none other than form; form is none
other than emptiness.)>>
When he first returned to these boards in early July, five
months ago, he kept saying that emptiness manifests
itself as form, and I pointed out his error, in that in
Buddhism, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, but
emptiness does not manifest itself as form (iow,
emptiness is not soemthing different from form that
manifests itself as form). So Jigme (reluctantly) absorbed
my objection into his thinking, but still kept his line of
anti-Buddhist thought, namely that emptiness manifests
itself as form, and he simply puts the two sayings next to
each other, within the same sentence, as in the last quote
above.
<<When we instead allow awareness to filter in, our
actions are motivated by acceptance, love, compassion
and joy, and result in creativity and fortune. These are
the characteristics of *emptiness* that *manifest*
through our actions when we bring our complete
awareness to the moment.>>
His attachment to essence is not inferred by me, but
actually stated by him:
<<Why, nothing at all. There is no meaning to it at all
really. Sarte put his finger on it when he wrote that
*essence* precedes experience. Dwell between
thoughts, drop all mental proliferations, and be in the
now.>>
I pointed out that Jigme attributed to Sartre (Jigme
misspelt the name) the *contrary* of what Sartre said:
<<Sartre says that existence precedes essence, and
Lévi-Strauss says that essence precedes existence.
(Neither says anything about experience in that
context).>>
In summary, Jigme thinks along two main lines of
un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist thinking. He thinks along
the lines of substance and attributes, with himself as the
substance, oozing out the attributes (good, awakened)
to its beneficiaries. He also thinks along the line of
essence and manifestation, with the essence (emptiness!)
manifesting itself as the world of forms -- the world that
we know.
There is nothing in Jigme that is Buddhist. His stuff is
Tolle-ish and Hinduist, and even then he *cannot* live
up to it! He fails his own self-stated ideology!
Tang Huyen
Peter Olcott
>
>
> halfawake wrote:
>
>> Most excellent Tang - thanks for the reminder of the
>> sharp difference between the image of Hindu liberation
>> and that of the Buddha. Whereas the Hindu sage
>> wakes up to the spiritual vastness of the ocean of the
>> Universe, it cannot be said what the Buddha wakes
>> up to.
>
> As I have said before, awakening in Buddhism has
> no specific content, but is purely ad hoc and
> opportunistic. Contrariwise, if it had some content
> specific to it (like the beatific vision in Christianity), it
> would be tied down to it, bound to it and not free. It
> is pure openness, mere flexibility, raw opportunity,
> Instead of being occupied with some content
> specific to it, it is empty and available, and it is this
> emptiness and availability that leave it open to any ad
> hoc content, just like that.
There is a paradox here. I am pretty sure that one can not possibly
experience this degree of freedom unless they also know that this degree
of freedom is not merely a psychological state, but, also becomes
physically manifest actuality.
If they don't know that this degree of freedom also becomes physically
manifest actuality they won't be able to sufficiently trust that this
degree of letting go will not harm them, and thus be able to let go
enough to complete the process.
If they do know that this degree of freedom will become physically
manifest actuality, then this itself forms a degree of specific content.
Perhaps the nature of this specific content is not binding, but,
unbinding. Maybe there is no binding aspect to it. Knowing that freedom
is unlimited (even by the laws of nature) may be the only instance of
unbinding content available.
I finally see now why there is a resistance to conceptualization in Zen.
Conceptual categories are binding thus restricting freedom.
The Christian "do not judge, lest ye be judged" may be saying this same
time.
Peter Olcott
Yes this is Sunyata. When you add "from its own side" it would seem to
be much more clear to "others".
> So Jigme turns Buddhist emptiness *upside
> down* to mask his Tolle-ish and Hinduist thinking.
>
> <<What is real, enduring, existent from its own side can
> be found on[l]y in emptiness, although it manifests as
> form (emptiness is none other than form; form is none
> other than emptiness.)>>
>
> When he first returned to these boards in early July, five
> months ago, he kept saying that emptiness manifests
> itself as form, and I pointed out his error, in that in
> Buddhism, form is emptiness and emptiness is form,
I could never quite get this. Is it like a movie "front" where form is
the fake building that has no contents because the whole building is
only one foot thick?
Let's try this:
(1) Form is outward appearance.
(2) Sunyata is the lack of anything inside (or behind) this outward
appearance.
The subtle distinction between these two would seem to indicate that
they are not really one-and-the-same thing that the Heart sutra proclaims.
Jigme Dorje
wrote:
> the way, the truth, and life� (John 14, 6: Ego sum via et
> veritas et vita). Thus if the Son is truth, what is the
> who has sent me is truthful�? The Son is truth, the
> Father is truthful (Filius veritas, Pater verax). I ask
> myself which of those affirmations is greater, but find
> them equal. Because the Father is truthful thanks to
> truth, not because he participates in it, but because he
> engenders it entirely (sed quam totam genuit)....
> Because all man is a liar when his soul does not
> participate in truth; if all man is a liar, that is because no
> one is truthful of himself. But the Father is truthful, he is
> truthful of himself, because he has engendered truth.
> The truthfulness of a man who has seen truth (percepit
> veritatem) and that of God who has engendered it
> (genuit veritatem) are two different things. God is
> truthful, not by participating in it, but by generating it
> (Neither says anything about experience in that
> context).>>
>
> In summary, Jigme thinks along two main lines of
> un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist thinking. He thinks along
> the lines of substance and attributes, with himself as the
> substance, oozing out the attributes (good, awakened)
> to its beneficiaries. He also thinks along the line of
> essence and manifestation, with the essence (emptiness!)
> manifesting itself as the world of forms -- the world that
> we know.
>
> There is nothing in Jigme that is Buddhist. His stuff is
> Tolle-ish and Hinduist, and even then he *cannot* live
> up to it! He fails his own self-stated ideology!
>
> Tang Huyen
Thank you, Tang.
You may be attempting to draw me into a debate, but I am sorry to
disappoint you in that I don't really see an argument. I have no
representations to make, and I don't presume to opine or speculate
about metaphysical or ontological matters, but use words in a purely
evocative sense to describe something ineffible about practice and
experience. Accept or reject, as you see fit.
I recognize that all of these conceptual distinctions are of primary
importance to you, and I certainly honor that and it's not my
intention to contradict or argue with whatever distinctions you see
fit to make. If you want to believe that I am in the camp of substance
when I talk about something real, enduring etc, although it is not my
intention to promote any such ideas of essentialism or some form of
essence, that's ok. Take them in whatever sense best suits your
purpose, and feel free to do with them what you like. Have a field
day!
zenworm
yes
^~
SG
"Jigme Dorje" <jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:629ff7e2-36d3-4656...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > basis of the five aggregates there arises the word �living being�
> > (Candrakirti, Prasannapada, 578: pa�ca skandhan upadaya
> > realities." The self is a composition, a part of the fourth
> > aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and
> > untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.
>
> > But to those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of
> > the self, the Buddha refers back to the five aggregates and says
> > something as follows.
>
> > foolish
> > common person who follows speech (praj�aptim anupatito).
> > But there is no self and what belongs to self there (na caatraasty
> > aatmaa naatmiiya.m vaa). This suffering, arising, arises, this
> > suffering, ceasing, ceases (du.hkham ida.m bhik.saaava.h
> > utpadyamaanam utpadyate, duhkha.m ida.m niruddhyamaana.m
> > niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease
> > (sa.mskaraa utpadyamaanaa utpadyante, nirudhyamaanaa
> > Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
>
> > �If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in relation to
> > the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses and brahmans see
> > form [and the other aggregates] as the self, form as different from
>
> > �The foolish common person sees form [and the other
> > aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa kho pana
> > saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa saa
> > 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
>
> > condition for making known (pa��apanaya) [the Tathagata after
> > death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as
> > without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such
> > cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder
> > (sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam aparisesam nirujjheyya), by
> > what could one, who would make him known, make him known
> > without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with
>
> > MN, I, 487-488 (72), SN, IV, 376-379 (44, 1), SA, 905, 226b:
> > known the Tathagata can make him known (tathagatam
> > the Tathagata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a
> > palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to
> > grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form
> > (rupa-sankha-vimutto) is the Tathagata, he is deep (gambhiro),
> > not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the
> > this last clause the SA has at 226b14-15 (quoted in
> > great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya),
>
> > The converse is articulated by Maha-Kasyapa to Sariputra: �To
> > say that the Tathagata exists after death [and the other three
> > positions], that is gone-to-form (Pali rupa-gatam etam, SN, IV,
> > 385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathagata,
> > his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated
> > (Pali na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the
> > Tathagata, his form (rupa) is ceased (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is
> > well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject
> > to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant:
>
> > In fact, it is not the case that only the Tathagata before and after
> > death is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> > blown-out, but it is also the case that the world and we are
> > equally deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable,
> > blown-out. It is only our thought-up that makes us believe
> > otherwise.
>
> > We want to wrap our mind around reality and make reality
> > intelligible to us. We are successful, to some extent, but never
> > to the full. That part is the regimen of survival. In the regimen
> > of grace, we give up all attempts to fit reality into our baskets
> > and cages, surrender all our norms and standards, and do
> > nothing, and this doing nothing will usher in grace, which is
> > vastly more fulfilling than survival.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> Most excellent Tang - thanks for the reminder of the sharp difference
> between the image of Hindu liberation and that of the Buddha. Whereas
> the Hindu sage wakes up to the spiritual vastness of the ocean of the
> Universe, it cannot be said what the Buddha wakes up to.
>
> Robert
>
> - - - - - - - - -
Lol. But if people spent as much time cultivating it as they do
conceptualizing and arguing about it, wouldn't that be a swift kick in
the ass?
- - - - - - - - - -
Ass/No-Ass
zenworm
> "Jigme Dorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Do not ask your ass whether it is your ass to give,
rather find the (w)hole around which you would find it,
and give of it without question.
^~
Stephane Guenette
The (w)hole is around the ass? I had it all
ass-backwards then.. hehe
SG
zenworm
ROFLMAO!
the (w)hole a (w)hole overflowing
(so many ways to read a cats 'one eyed wink')
^~
Tang Huyen
zenworm wrote:
> "Lord GaGa":
>
> > when hinduism and budhism both
> > lead to the same goal, does it matter
> > which one you used as long as you
> > arrive?
>
> not at all
>
> Approaches/'paths' are as plentiful as
> 'seekers' who approach.
>
> The 'destination' is always the same:
>
> NOW
In spirituality, opposites can be both true.
The emphasis on here and now is common,
but Eckhart advocates getting *away from*
here and now. So here and now is not the
common destination. Getting away from the
here and now is also quite valid, so long as
no mentation is involved.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular
>
>
> zenworm wrote:
>
>> "Lord GaGa":
>>
>> > when hinduism and budhism both
>> > lead to the same goal, does it matter
>> > which one you used as long as you
>> > arrive?
>>
>> not at all
>>
>> Approaches/'paths' are as plentiful as
>> 'seekers' who approach.
>>
>> The 'destination' is always the same:
>>
>> NOW
>
> In spirituality, opposites can be both true.
> The emphasis on here and now is common,
> but Eckhart advocates getting *away from*
> here and now.
Which Eckhart are you referring to?
I'm not familiar enough with Meister Eckhart, but if you mean Eckhart Tolle,
him advocating getting *away from* here and now is news to me.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> Tang:
>
> > In spirituality, opposites can be both true.
> > The emphasis on here and now is common,
> > but Eckhart advocates getting *away from*
> > here and now.
>
> Which Eckhart are you referring to?
> I'm not familiar enough with Meister Eckhart, but
> if you mean Eckhart Tolle, him advocating getting
> *away from* here and now is news to me.
When I talk about Eckhart, I mean Meister
Eckhart. Tolle is trash to me.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular
I found him useful. He's not a Buddhist, but he did help me.
Jigme Dorje
Yes, me too.
Hollywood Lee
says...
My yoga wife just loves his stuff. I choose to just love her.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> Tang:
>
> > When I talk about Eckhart, I mean Meister
> > Eckhart. Tolle is trash to me.
>
> I found him useful. He's not a Buddhist, but
> he did help me.
You wrote that you liked him. Fu either stole
the phrase "Just being, empty" from him or
sold it to him (the latter seems unlikely). At
any rate Fu never practiced it (which was not
the fault of Tolle). Jigme borrows from Tolle
wholesale, but gives him credit, and never
practices anything, of him or of any other
teaching (Jigme's thought seems like a mix of
Hinduism and Tolle, with no Buddhism,
except that Jigme takes Buddhist terminology
and turns it upside down, like emptiness).
Again, Jigme's failure to practice Tolle's
teaching is not the fault of Tolle.
But Tolle and Jigme are very much alike, all
proportions being kept, in that both are
realist and literalist, both take words and
concepts in dead seriousness, both reify like
mad, and exacerbate the difference among
concepts to confirm their own realism and
literalism, in that to both, a play of concepts is
quite real, as real as a play of things, perhaps
much more. From such a mindset, I have
trouble giving Tolle any credit in spiritual
attainment. It seems that he talks well.
Tang Huyen
zenworm
> In article <idrtta$eb...@news.eternal-september.org>, nob...@invalid.com
trickle down or,
ahem... tickle down
as the case may be.
^~
zenworm
wrote:
Do you have a quote for context?
perhaps a link to his works which advocate
"getting *away from* here and now"?
^~
halfawake
>
> "Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e6f0f255-9ad0-4df2...@p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 8, 1:34 am, "Lord GaGa" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> "gbb" <myn...@example.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:VA.00003d3...@braser.com...
>>
>> > Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>> >> I also wonder... it's hard to be filled with grace when you suffer
>> >> from long term starvation. So without the survival instinct say... to
>> >> eat, is grace even possible?
>>
>> > My teacher says that the first two steps in Buddhist practice are to
>> > have food and shelter...and then you can start with the other stuff.
>>
>> > --
>> > gbb
>>
>> food and shelter but no clothing?
>> i brake for naked buddhists !
>
>
>> My how you are hindered.
>
>
> well fuck it then, from now
> on i'll just run em over
>
>
be careful - they splat. roll up windows.
Jigme Dorje
> Lord GaGa wrote:
>
> > "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As naked folks tend to do.
Lord GaGa
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:idscj7$i7i$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
it's okay.
splat is emptiness
and emptiness is splat
niunian
wrote:
>On Dec 9, 6:37?pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
Time as a mere perception of the mind is itself an Illusion. Here and
now, or past, or future, are only different perceptions of time. They
are all illusional by definition. It is a shame for all you idiots to
fail to understand such simple concept.
Jigme Dorje
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:02:16 -0800 (PST), zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com>
The things we don't understand could fill a huge book.
niunian
<jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
But you still show no understanding even after it has been shown to
you right in front of your face. Why?
zenworm
wrote:
This:
"the birth of the Word in the ground of the mind
must accomplish itself in an instant,
in "the eternal now""
does not seem to support your assertion.
Meister Eckhart (if these words are accurate)
seems to be well aware of the value
of attention to "the eternal now".
Is there an anthology of his sermons available in
English? (particularly the "heretical" ones)
Have you translated some of his work
that you might care to share Tang?
There seems an affinity with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart
Schurmann’s several clarifications included, to name
of few: (1) on the question of "Time" and Eckhart’s
view (claimed as parallel to Buddhism in reducing
awakening to instantaneity) that the birth of the Word
in the ground of the mind must accomplish itself in
an instant, in "the eternal now", that in fact Eckhart in
this respect is rooted directly in the catechisis of the
Fathers of the Church rather than merely derived
from Buddhism;[13] (2) on the question of "Isness"
and Suzuki’s contention that the "Christian
experiences are not after all different from those of
the Buddhist; terminology is all that divides us," that
in Eckhart "the Godhead’s istigkeit [translated as
"isness" by Suzuki] is a negation of all quiddities; it
says that God, rather than non-being, is at the heart
of all things" thereby demonstrating with Eckhart's
theocentrism that "the istigkeit of the Godhead and
the isness of a thing then refer to two opposite
experiences in Meister Eckhart and Suzuki: in the
former, to God, and in the latter, to `our ordinary
state of the mind'" and Buddhism's attempts to think
"pure nothingness";[14] and (3) on the question of
"Emptiness" and Eckhart’s view (claimed as parallel
to Buddhist emphasis "on the emptiness of all
'composite things'") that only a perfectly released
person, devoid of all, comprehends, "seizes," God,
that the Buddhist "emptiness" seems to concern
man’s relation to things while Eckhart’s concern is
with what is "at the end of the road opened by
detachment [which is] the mind espouses the very
movement of the divine dehiscence; it does what the
Godhead does: it lets all things be; not only must
God also abandon all of his own—names and
attributes if he is to reach into the ground of the
mind (this is already a step beyond the recognition
of the emptiness of all composite things), but God’s
essential being - releasement - becomes the being
of a released man."[15]
^~
zenworm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SQTFIAZKU&feature=related
^~
niunian
wrote:
Do you have something of your own, so that we know you are not as
empty as the rest of the universe?
zenworm
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:45:41 -0800 (PST), zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com>
no
^~
niunian
wrote:
So a self confessed shameless retard?
Peter Olcott
DT Suzuki quoted him in his book the ZEN doctrine of no mind.
Nobody in Particular
You make such a big thing out of "shameless". By the way you use it, i
guess that's a bad thing in your culture. In our culture it's defined as
"impervious to disgrace." There's nothing negative to that. You might as
well call someone "right handed" or "average height".