Dao = true-suchness nature = true-appearance Prajna
Fireball
The Sixth Patriarch's Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra
whole-length(english)
http://baike.foyuan.net/doc-view-70155.html
Chapter 2: Prajna
The following day, at the invitation of Magistrate Wei韦, the Master took
his seat and said to the great assembly, "All of you purify your minds and
think about Maha Prajna Paramita."
He then said, "Good Knowing Advisors, the wisdom of Bodhi and Prajna is
originally possessed by worldly people themselves. It is only because their
minds are confused that they are unable to enlighten themselves and must
rely on a great Good Knowing Advisor who can lead them to see their
Buddha-nature. You should know that the Buddha-nature of stupid and wise
people is basically not different. It is only because confusion and
enlightenment are different that some are stupid and some are wise. I will
now explain for you the Maha Prajna Paramita Dharma in order that each of
you may become wise. Pay careful attention, and I will explain it to you.
"Good Knowing Advisors, worldly people recite 'Prajna' with their mouths all
day long and yet do not recognize the Prajna of their self-nature. Just as
talking about food will not make you full, so, too, if you only speak of
emptiness you will not see your own nature in ten thousand ages. In the end
you will not have obtained any benefit.
"Good Knowing Advisors, Maha Prajna Paramita is a Sanskrit word which means
'great wisdom which has arrived at the other shore.' It must be practiced in
the mind, and not just recited in words. When the mouth recites and the mind
does not practice, it is like an illusion, a transformation, dew drops, or
lightning. However, when the mouth recites and the mind practices, then mind
and mouth are in mutual accord. One's own original nature is Buddha; apart
from the nature there is no other Buddha."
"What is meant by Maha? Maha means 'great.' The capacity of the mind is vast
and great like empty space, and has no boundaries. It is not square or
round, great or small. Neither is it blue, yellow, red or white. It is not
above or below, or long or short. It is without anger, without joy, without
right, without wrong, without good, without evil, and it has no head or
tail.
"All Buddha-lands are ultimately the same as empty space. The wonderful
nature of worldly people is originally empty, and there is not a single
dharma which can be obtained. The true emptiness of the self-nature is also
like this.
"Good Knowing Advisors, do not listen to my explanation of emptiness and
then become attached to emptiness. The most important thing is to avoid
becoming attached to emptiness. If you sit still with an empty mind you will
become attached to undifferentiated emptiness"
"Good Knowing Advisors, the emptiness of the universe is able to contain the
forms and shapes of the ten thousand things: the sun, moon, and stars; the
mountains, rivers, and the great earth; the fountains, springs, streams,
torrents, grasses, trees, thickets, and forests; good and bad people, good
and bad dharmas, the heavens and the hells, all the great seas, Sumeru and
all mountains - all are contained within emptiness. The emptiness of the
nature of worldly men is also like this.
"Good Knowing Advisors, the ability of one's own nature to contain the ten
thousand dharmas is what is meant by 'great.' The myriad dharmas are within
the nature of all people. If you regard all people, the bad as well as the
good, without grasping or rejecting, without producing a defiling
attachment, your mind will be like empty space. Therefore it is said to be
'great,' 'Maha.'"
"Good Knowing Advisors, the mouth of the confused person speaks, but the
mind of the wise person practices. There are deluded men who sit still with
empty minds, vainly thinking of nothing and declaring that to be something
great. One should not speak with these people because of their deviant
views.
"Good Knowing Advisors, the capacity of the mind is vast and great,
encompassing the Dharma realm. Its function is to understand clearly and
distinctly. Its correct function is to know all. All is one; one is all.
Coming and going freely, the mind's substance is unobstructed. That is
Prajna."
"Good Knowing Advisors, all Prajna wisdom is produced from one's own nature;
it does not enter from the outside. Using the intellect correctly is called
the natural function of one's true nature. One truth is all truth. The mind
has the capacity for great things, and is not meant for practicing petty
ways. Do not talk about emptiness with your mouth all day and in your mind
fail to cultivate the conduct that you talk of. That would be like a common
person calling himself the king of a country, which cannot be. People like
that are not my disciples."
"Good Knowing Advisors, what is meant by 'Prajna?' Prajna in our language
means wisdom. Everywhere and at all times, in thought after thought, remain
undeluded and practice wisdom constantly; that is Prajna conduct. Prajna is
cut off by a single deluded thought. By one wise thought, Prajna is
produced. Worldly men, deluded and confused, do not see Prajna. They speak
of it with their mouths, but their minds are always deluded. They constantly
say of themselves, 'I cultivate Prajna!' and though they continually speak
of emptiness, they are unaware of true emptiness. Prajna, without form or
mark, is just the wisdom mind. If thus explained, just this is Prajna
wisdom."
"What is meant by Paramita? It is a Sanskrit word which in our language
means 'arrived at the other shore,' and is explained as 'apart from
production and extinction.' When one is attached to states of being,
production and extinction arise like waves on water. That is what is meant
by 'this shore.' To be apart from states of being, with no production or
extinction, is to be like freely flowing water. That is what is meant by
'the other shore.' Therefore it is called 'Paramita'.
"Good Knowing Advisors, deluded people recite with their mouths, but while
they recite they live in falsehood and in error. When there is practice in
every thought, that is the true nature. You should understand this dharma,
which is the Prajna dharma; and cultivate this conduct, which is the Prajna
conduct. Not to cultivate is to be a common person, but in a single thought
of cultivation, you are equal to the Buddhas."
"Good Knowing Advisors, common people are Buddhas and affliction is Bodhi.
Past thoughts deluded are the thoughts of a common person. Future thoughts
enlightened are the thoughts of a Buddha. Past thoughts attached to states
of being are afflictions, and future thoughts separate from states of being
are Bodhi."
"Good Knowing Advisors, Maha Prajna Paramita is the most honored, the most
supreme, the foremost. It does not stay; it does not come or go. All Buddhas
of the three periods of time emerge from it. You should use great wisdom to
destroy affliction, defilement, and the five skandhic heaps. With such
cultivation as that you will certainly realize the Buddha Way, transforming
the three poisons into morality, concentration, and wisdom.
"Good Knowing Advisors, my Dharma-door produces 84,000 wisdoms from the one
Prajna. Why? Because worldly people have 84,000 kinds of defilement. In the
absence of defilement, wisdom is always present, since it is not separate
from the self-nature.
"Understand that this dharma is just no-thought, no-remembrance,
non-attachment, and the non-production of falsehood and error. Use your own
true-suchness nature, and, by means of wisdom, contemplate and, illuminate
all dharmas without grasping or rejecting them. That is to see one's own
nature and realize the Buddha Way.
"Good Knowing Advisors, if you wish to enter the extremely deep Dharma realm
and the Prajna samadhi, you must cultivate the practice of Prajna. Hold and
recite The Diamond Prajna Sutra and that way you will see your own nature."
"You should know that the merit and virtue of this Sutra is immeasurable,
unbounded, and indescribable, as the Sutra text itself clearly states.
"This Dharma-door is the Superior Vehicle, taught for people of great wisdom
and superior faculties. When people of limited faculties and wisdom hear it,
their minds give rise to doubt.
"Why is that? Take for example the rain which the heavenly dragons shower on
Jambudvipa. Cities and villages drift about in the flood like thorns and
leaves. But if the rain falls on the great sea, its waters neither increase
nor decrease.
"If people of the Great Vehicle, the Most Superior Vehicle, hear The Diamond
Sutra, their minds open up, awaken, and understand. They then know that
their original nature itself possesses the wisdom of Prajna. Because they
themselves use this wisdom constantly to contemplate and illuminate, they do
not rely on written words.
"Take for example the rain water. It does not come from the sky. The truth
is that the dragons cause it to fall in order that all living beings, all
plants and trees, all those with feeling and those without feeling may
receive its moisture. In a hundred streams it flows into the great sea and
there unites in one substance. The wisdom of the Prajna of the original
nature of living beings acts the same way."
"Good Knowing Advisors, when people of limited faculties hear this Sudden
Teaching, they are like the plants and trees with shallow roots which,
washed away by the great rain, are unable to grow. But at the same time, the
Prajna wisdom which people of limited faculties possess is fundamentally no
different from the Prajna that men of great wisdom possess.
"Hearing this Dharma, why do they not become enlightened? It is because the
obstacle of their deviant views is a formidable one and the root of their
afflictions is deep. It is like when thick clouds cover the sun: if the wind
does not blow, the sunlight will not be visible.
Prajna wisdom is itself neither great nor small. Living beings differ
because their own minds are either confused or enlightened. Those of
confused mind look outwardly to cultivate in search of the Buddha. Not
having awakened to their self-nature yet, they have small roots.
"When you become enlightened to the Sudden Teaching, you do not grasp onto
the cultivation of external things. When your own mind constantly gives rise
to right views, afflictions and defilement can never stain you. That is what
is meant by seeing your own nature."
"Good Knowing Advisors, the ability to cultivate the conduct of not dwelling
inwardly or outwardly, of coming and going freely, of casting away the
grasping mind, and of unobstructed penetration, is basically no different
from The Prajna Sutra."
"Good Knowing Advisors, all Sutras and writings of the Great and Small
Vehicles, the twelve divisions of Sutras, have been devised because of
people and established because of the nature of wisdom. If there were no
people the ten thousand dharmas would not exist. Therefore you should know
that all dharmas are originally postulated because of people, and all Sutras
are spoken for their sakes."
"Some people are deluded and some are wise; the deluded are small people and
the wise are great people. The deluded question the wise and the wise teach
Dharma to the deluded. When the deluded people suddenly awaken and
understand, their minds open to enlightenment and they are no longer
different from the wise.
"Good Knowing Advisors, unenlightened, the Buddha is a living being. At the
time of a single enlightened thought, the living being is a Buddha.
"Therefore you should know that the ten thousand dharmas exist totally
within your own mind. Why don't you, from within your own mind, suddenly see
the true suchness of your original nature?
"The Bodhisattva-shila Sutra《菩萨戒经》says, 'Our fundamental self-nature
is clear and pure.' If we recognize our own mind and see the nature, we
shall all perfect the Buddha Way. The Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra《净名经》says,
'Just then, suddenly regain your original mind.'"
"Good Knowing Advisors, when I was with the High Master Jen, I was
enlightened as soon as I heard his Words, and suddenly saw the true suchness
of my own original nature. That is why I am spreading this method of
teaching which leads students of the Way to become enlightened suddenly to
Bodhi as each contemplates his own mind and sees his own original nature."
"If you are unable to enlighten yourself, you must seek out a great Good
Knowing Advisor, one who understands the Dharma of the Most Superior Vehicle
and who will direct you to the right road.
"Such a Good Knowing Advisor possesses great karmic conditions, which is to
say that he will transform you and guide you and lead you to see your
nature. It is because of the Good Knowing Advisor that all wholesome Dharmas
can arise. All the Buddhas of the three periods of time, and the twelve
divisions of Sutra texts as well, exist within the nature of people,
originally complete within them. If you are unable to enlighten yourself,
you should seek out the instruction of a Good Knowing Advisor who will lead
you to see your nature."
"If you are one who enlightens himself, you need not seek a teacher outside.
If you insist that it is necessary to seek a Good Knowing Advisor in the
hope of obtaining liberation, you are mistaken. Why? Within your own mind
there is self-enlightenment which is a Knowing Advisor.
"But if you give rise to deviant confusion, false thoughts, and perversions,
although a Good Knowing Advisor external to you instructs you, he cannot
save you."
"If you give rise to genuine Prajna contemplation and illumination, in the
space of an instant all false thoughts are extinguished. If you recognize
your self-nature, in a single moment of enlightenment you will arrive at the
stage of a Buddha."
"Good Knowing Advisor, when you contemplate and illuminate with the wisdom
which brightly penetrates within and without, you recognize your original
mind.
"The recognition of your original mind is the original liberation. The
attainment of liberation is the Prajna Samadhi, is no-thought."
"What is meant by 'no-thought?' No-thought means to view all dharmas with a
mind undefiled by attachment. The function pervades all places but is
nowhere attached. Merely purify your original mind and cause the six
consciousnesses to go out the six gates, to be undefiled and unmixed among
the six objects, to come and go freely and to penetrate without obstruction.
That is the Prajna Samadhi and freedom and liberation, and it is called the
practice of no-thought."
"Not thinking of the hundred things and constantly causing your thought to
be cut off is called Dharma-bondage法缚and is an extremist view."
"Good Knowing Advisors, one who awakens to the no-thought dharma completely
penetrates the ten thousand dharmas; one who awakens to the no-thought
dharma sees all Buddha realms; one who awakens to the no-thought dharma
arrives at the Buddha position."
"Good Knowing Advisors, those of future generations who obtain my Dharma
should take up this Sudden Teaching Dharma door and with those of like views
and like practice they should vow to receive and uphold it as if serving the
Buddhas. To the end of their lives they should not retreat, and they will
certainly enter the holy position. In this way it should be transmitted from
generation to generation. It is silently transmitted. Do not hide away the
orthodox Dharma and do not transmit it to those of different views and
different practice who believe in other teachings, since it will harm them
and ultimately be of no benefit."
"I fear that deluded people may misunderstand and slander this Dharma-door法门, and will cut off their nature which possesses the seed of Buddhahood for
hundreds of ages and thousands of lifetimes.
"Good Knowing Advisors, I have a verse of no-mark which you should all
recite. Those at home and those who have left home should cultivate
according to it. If you do not cultivate it, memorizing it will be of no
use. Listen to my verse:
With speech and mind both understood,
Like the sun whose place is in space,
Just spread the 'seeing-the-nature way'
Appear in the world to destroy false doctrines.
Dharma is neither sudden nor gradual,
Delusion and awakening are slow and quick
But deluded people cannot comprehend
This Dharma-door of seeing-the-nature.
Although it is said in ten thousand ways,
United, the principles return to one;
In the dark dwelling of defilements,
Always produce the sunlight of wisdom.
The deviant comes and affliction arrives,
The right comes and affliction goes.
The false and true both cast aside,
In clear purity the state of no residue is attained.
Bodhi is the original self-nature;
Giving rise to a thought is wrong;
The pure mind is within the false:
Only the right is without the three obstructions.
If people in the world practice the Way,
They are not hindered by anything.
By constantly seeing their own transgressions,
They are in accord with the Way.
Each kind of form has its own way
Without hindering one another;
Leaving the Way to seek another way
To the end of life is not to see the Way.
A frantic passage through a life,
Will bring regret when it comes to its end.
Should you wish for a vision of the true Way,
Right practice is the Way.
If you don't have a mind for the Way,
You walk in darkness blind to the Way;
If you truly walk the Way,
You are blind to the faults of the world.
If you attend to others' faults,
Your fault-finding itself is wrong;
Others' faults I do not treat as wrong;
My faults are my own transgressions.
Simply cast out the mind that finds fault,
Once cast away, troubles are gone;
When hate and love don't block the mind,
Stretch out both legs and then lie down.
If you hope and intend to transform others,
You must perfect expedient means.
Don't cause them to have doubts, and then
Their self-nature will appear.
The Buddhadharma is here in the world;
Enlightenment is not apart from the world.
To search for Bodhi apart from the world
Is like looking for a hare with horns.
Right views are transcendental;
Deviant views are all mundane.
Deviant and right completely destroyed:
The Bodhi nature appears spontaneously.
This verse is the Sudden Teaching,
Also called the great Dharma boat.
Hear in confusion, pass through ages,
In an instant's space, enlightenment."
The Master said further, "In the Ta Fan Temple大梵寺I have just now spoken
the Sudden Teaching, making the universal vow that all living beings of the
Dharma-realm will see their nature and realize Buddhahood as they hear these
words."
Then among Magistrate Wei and the officials, Taoists and lay-people who
heard what the Master said, there were none who did not awaken. Together
they made obeisance and exclaimed with delight, "Good indeed! Who would have
thought that in Ling-Narm a Buddha would appear in the world?"
=======================================================
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Fireball
there is only one noumenon.
although,there are many other names such as self-nature,
Own-nature,baddha-nature,original nature,inherent nature,true-appearance
Prajna,true-suchness nature,Tao,Dao etc.....
"Fireball" <fire...@nirvana.com> 写入消息新闻:hnlgbh$14t$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
{:-])))
>noumenon.
>
>
>there is only one noumenon.
An assertion!
I'm not familiar with the term.
Hang on a moment, while it gets googly defined.
Begin quote:
< " the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself,
not as it is known through perception
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The noumenon
(from Greek ..., present participle of "I think, I mean"; ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and those whom he
influenced, a thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or
perception by the human mind; a thing-in-itself, postulated by
practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle
unknowable and unexperienceable
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noumenon
noumenal - Of or pertaining to the noumenon or the realm of things as
they are in themselves
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noumenal
came into its modern usage through Immanuel Kant. The etymology of the
word derives from the Greek nooъmenon (thought-of) and ultimately
reflects ...
wikipedia.7val.com/wiki/Noumenon
in Kant, the ultimate reality, or “Thing-in-Itself,” which can be
conceived by thought, but cannot be perceived in experience.
www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
End quote<
Modern thought, afaik, discounts such a view.
There is no pure objectivity. Reality is subject\object.
Things in themselves simply don't exist.
>although,there are many other names such as self-nature,
>Own-nature,baddha-nature,original nature,inherent nature,true-appearance
>Prajna,true-suchness nature,Tao,Dao etc.....
I kinda doubt that Dao=Self
nor many of the other things mentioned,
nor that those things are, "the Noumenon" per se
in terms of isms of Tao or Dao or Way.
A system, New Age perhaps, may create such a term.
Not sure exactly why though.
Such a Doctrine might indeed be a Doctrine
but it might not be a once and for all final Daoist Doctrine.
Could be. Might be if one wants it to be. Not for others tho.
>"Fireball" <fire...@nirvana.com> РґИлПыПўРВОЕ:hnlgbh$14t$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>> The Sixth Patriarch's Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra
>> [... snip ...]
I didn't read any of what was below.
-cheers!
tttt
noumenon
1). An object that can be intuited only by the intellect and not perceived
by the senses
2). An object independent of intellectual intuition of it or of sensuous
perception of it.Also called thing-in-itself
3).In the philosophy of Kant, an object, such as the soul, that cannot be
known through perception, although its existence can be demonstrated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
your self-nature like a drop of water of Mississippi
my self-nature like a drop water of The Yellow river
they carry their own message.
when they flow into sea, they are one--the sea .
so, find our self-nature ,follow it, flow into sea,
the whole universe and ourself is one .
this kind of feeling is beyond language.
"{:-])))" <glyph...@neti.net>
Fireball
kind of wonderful 'Being'or 'existence.'
emptiness can produce ten-thousand things. this produce theory is called
"arising of conditions" or "dependent arising"
"{:-])))" <glyph...@neti.net>
tttt
"{:-])))" <glyph...@neti.net>
we can call it "XXX" or "YYY"
there is no different, no big deal. it is only a sign.
if only you know what I mean is Ok. there is not a word can define it.
Markhor
the buddha is named "Vairocana Buddha"
but, we know there are countless buddhas. each buddha represent one or some
great signification of the Vairocana Buddha
the countless buddhas are the avatar/embodiment/incarnation of the Vairocana
Buddha.
To the end these all are the woderful fuction of the "XXX" or "YYY".
the "XXX" or "YYY" is embracive and immanent and omnipotent.
"tttt" <Buddhism_R...@Adherent.com> 写入消息新闻:hnmv9v$71l$1...@www.shinco.com...
noname
>Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>
>>noumenon.
>>
>>
>>there is only one noumenon.
>
>An assertion!
>
>I'm not familiar with the term.
>Hang on a moment, while it gets googly defined.
It might have to do with the fee-nominal.
--
no ad
noname
>my english dictionary defined it
>
>noumenon
>
>1). An object that can be intuited only by the intellect and not perceived
>by the senses
Something known only to intellect...
>2). An object independent of intellectual intuition of it or of sensuous
>perception of it.Also called thing-in-itself
...and something unknowable to the intellect?
Sorry, that does not compute.
>3).In the philosophy of Kant, an object, such as the soul, that cannot be
>known through perception, although its existence can be demonstrated.
How is the existence of the soul demonstrated?
--
no ad
{:-])))
Maybe, except that I think I know, feel,
and intuit intellectually as well as experientially
what it is you're saying. And you used language
and evoked that type of feeling with language.
While perhaps uncommon, goblet words can
at times lead beyond time within language.
>--------------------------
1) To lose my drop of self in a metaphorical ocean
might find me, in a sense, beyond my senses. It is one
thing but might not be the only noumenon thing.
To know such objects only by the intellect, could be
as simple as one, two, three, or zero. I don't sense an
abstract zero by my senses, nor an abstract one.
My self-nature might be such an abstract too, or many.
Does an abstract exist as a thing in itself. Hmm.
2) Independent of intellectual intuition, I'm not sure if
any such objects exist. How could I know or conceptualize
such an object. The ocean, in itself, I can imagine that.
Does it exist without my intuition of it, maybe so. Yet,
if it does, I wouldn't know it. I'd call it a presumption.
3) I was not aware that existence of souls were demonstrated.
I'm not sure how the mocean or asea can be demonstrated. If a thing
can be demonstrated, then it would be known through perception.
In any case, I do think I get your message
and can relate to what you're saying.
-Thanks!
{:-])))
>our self-nature is emptiness. but this emptiness is not nothingness,it is a
>kind of wonderful 'Being'or 'existence.'
The hub of a wheel, or the hollow of a bowl,
can be said to exist and have Being. It's an emptiness
which is usefulness in and of itself. The nothingness of it
depends on what surrounds and encompasses it.
It may strike one as wonderful, I agree.
Sometimes the magic works. Awareness of a sunrise
can appear beautiful. At a sea-shore, waves break
along coasting lines of sensational reason.
>emptiness can produce ten-thousand things. this produce theory is called
>"arising of conditions" or "dependent arising"
I've heard from Dao arises one.
And I've read how with-name and wu-ming are
two sides of a coin, so to speak. A door-
way leading xuan.
My self-nature may be Wu.
Yet I call myself {:-]))) for lack
of a better characterization.
Within and behind the characters, the {
and the : or the - ] or ))) is an emptiness,
a blank, many blanks, the same while being
somehow other than the screen on which
they appear and disappear.
As blank screens, our self-natures might be
said to be identical, until words are written.
Deleting a message, the characters return
to perhaps an even more profound status
which could be a mocean or nocean.
Particular words, composed of particle-like
letters, pixels on a screen, little dots dashing,
flickering for a spell, wave their flags and lag
and hop about. Probably it's their nature.
- notion motion
{:-])))
>we can call it "XXX" or "YYY"
Does it know your every thought?
Did it intend to create the world?
>there is no different, no big deal. it is only a sign.
>if only you know what I mean is Ok. there is not a word can define it.
I think I know what you mean
but I'm not sure that God, Self, Dao et al
necessarily mean the same thing.
To think that I am YHWH is a big deal.
To think I am Krishna might be a little less so.
Some think that they are Dao. I don't.
I can relate to being the Universe.
If you want to say they're all the same,
that's okay with me. I think I know what you mean.
Exactly what "it" is, might be fun to explore.
-cheers!
{:-])))
>Buddha is the avatar/embodiment/incarnation of the "XXX" or "YYY".
>the buddha is named "Vairocana Buddha"
I'm pretty sure I'm not that.
Not today, at any rate.
Can't say as I've heard of that name.
Not until now.
Maybe I'm it.
Kinda doubt it tho.
Guess I could google it.
There's a saying however,
how, "ming ke ming, fei chang ming"
and it may or may not be applicable, depending.
>but, we know there are countless buddhas. each buddha represent one or some
>great signification of the Vairocana Buddha
I may well indeed be Buddha or\of some sort
or/of another sort. Lots of meanings might be.
Dog might be Buddha. Or mu. Or wu.
>the countless buddhas are the avatar/embodiment/incarnation of the Vairocana
>Buddha.
If Krishna indeed is the Self
which said Self incarnates as all beings
and is Being itself, then, by virtue of that,
everyone is Krishna. Most have forgotten
or never experienced or learned that definition.
If Buddha was an incarnation of Krishna,
or Vishnu, or some other avatar of Self,
and if that means the same thing, then it's
cool, as far as I'm interested.
I still don't equate that with Dao.
>To the end these all are the woderful fuction of the "XXX" or "YYY".
>the "XXX" or "YYY" is embracive and immanent and omnipotent.
I don't consider Dao to be omnipotent at all.
It's in all things, but is not any of the things it's in.
So it's omnipresent, in a way. It is not omniscient.
In that sense it lacks two of the three attributes of God.
I, myself, hesitate to lay claim to any of the three omni-deals.
As the Universe, maybe in some sense. Kinda stretches me out tho.
- ymmv
{:-])))
Greek might be spelt phi.
No annual howEver.
Cud be irratio.
Totally golden, as far as lions go, mean-while.
I've heard of the Chin shih-tzu chang.
Not sure if Dao is quite in the same b'all-p'ark.
Is wan-wu, or the ten-k things,
the stuff of which Dao is? Or vice-versa?
Does Dao=Energy?
Or is it something else,
partially or entirely or completely?
-hmmm
noname
>noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>noumenon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>>>
>>>An assertion!
>>>
>>>I'm not familiar with the term.
>>>Hang on a moment, while it gets googly defined.
>>
>>It might have to do with the fee-nominal.
>
>Greek might be spelt phi.
>No annual howEver.
>Cud be irratio.
>
>Totally golden, as far as lions go, mean-while.
>
>I've heard of the Chin shih-tzu chang.
>Not sure if Dao is quite in the same b'all-p'ark.
>
>Is wan-wu, or the ten-k things,
>the stuff of which Dao is? Or vice-versa?
Didn't you point out a while back that manifestations are
manifestations-of? I'd agree that they are. In fact it seems
essential that they be.
>Does Dao=Energy?
Is the method the work?
--
no ad
{:-])))
> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>>I've heard of the Chin shih-tzu chang.
>>Not sure if Dao is quite in the same b'all-p'ark.
>>
>>Is wan-wu, or the ten-k things,
>>the stuff of which Dao is? Or vice-versa?
>
>Didn't you point out a while back that manifestations are
>manifestations-of? I'd agree that they are. In fact it seems
>essential that they be.
If everything is a manifestation of God,
that might be different from God being everything.
Everything might be Buddha, or Krishna, or Prajna,
or Prana, or Prakriti, or Consciousness, or something else.
>>Does Dao=Energy?
>
>Is the method the work?
I guess it's a quibble.
Energy might become conscious
if it happens to be in the form of a conscious being.
Energy might intend to form itself into people,
planets, stars, rocks, and everything.
I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
Dao doesn't will the world into being.
Dao isn't God. Not usually.
But if someone wants to say they're the same
then that's what is said.
Dao=Krishna.
-hmm
noname
>noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>
>>>I've heard of the Chin shih-tzu chang.
>>>Not sure if Dao is quite in the same b'all-p'ark.
>>>
>>>Is wan-wu, or the ten-k things,
>>>the stuff of which Dao is? Or vice-versa?
>>
>>Didn't you point out a while back that manifestations are
>>manifestations-of? I'd agree that they are. In fact it seems
>>essential that they be.
>
>If everything is a manifestation of God,
>that might be different from God being everything.
I'm not exactly sure how deity got into the discussion, but yes, I
think those would be very different.
>Everything might be Buddha, or Krishna, or Prajna,
>or Prana, or Prakriti, or Consciousness, or something else.
I guess that depends on how much of "everything" you choose to lump
together. If you attempt to put mystery and manifestation into a
single group things could become more conceptually difficult.
>>>Does Dao=Energy?
>>
>>Is the method the work?
>
>I guess it's a quibble.
That might depend on whether you're in charge of methodology or
digging; digging makes me sweat, if that's a quibble to you maybe I
should pass you the shovel.
>Energy might become conscious
>if it happens to be in the form of a conscious being.
>Energy might intend to form itself into people,
>planets, stars, rocks, and everything.
You lost me somewhere on the outer limits of the astral plane just to
the left of the crystal pyramids.
>I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
I don't think it does either, nor do I think that a water hose
intentionally directs the water that flows through it.
>Dao doesn't will the world into being.
>Dao isn't God. Not usually.
If you wanted to say that Tao is like a set of instructions for how
things happen that God left running in the cosmic game computer while
He went out for more beer, I'd be hard pressed to find something in
that to argue with except for the anthropomorphization. If you wanted
to say that Tao is the essence of God's will, I'd probably take the
same view, that anthropomorphizing might be a silly thing we do
because it's easier to think about, but that the bottom line isn't all
that different.
>But if someone wants to say they're the same
>then that's what is said.
>
>Dao=Krishna.
>
>-hmm
I dunno from Krishna. There's Buddhism and there's Hinduism and they
are not the same. I'm a dumb American, I don't know which foreign god
is a relative of which other one, who's a cousin or an uncle, how many
arms each has, who eats who, that whole pantheon just makes me shrug
and turn on the TV. It may be a metaphor that precisely and exactly
describes quantum physics at the lowest level and if that's the case
I'm gonna miss our on the whole deal in favor of Gilligan's Island
reruns.
--
no ad
tttt
[quote]:
The Sixth Patriarch's Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra
Chapter 7: Opportunities and Conditions
_____"Fa Ta recited loudly until he came to the "Analogies Chapter???." The
Master said, "Stop! This Sutra fundamentally is based on the principles
underlying the causes and conditions of the Buddha's appearance in the
world. None of the analogies spoken go beyond that. What are the causes and
conditions? The Sutra says, 'All Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in
the world for the causes and conditions of the One Important Matter.' The
One Important Matter is the knowledge and vision of the Buddha."......
==========================================
Sorry! i haven't gotten the knowledge and vision of the Buddha yet.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>>If everything is a manifestation of God,
>>that might be different from God being everything.
>
>I'm not exactly sure how deity got into the discussion, but yes, I
>think those would be very different.
If I read the orginal proposition\assertion correctly,
the idea was that there's only one noumenon.
>>Everything might be Buddha, or Krishna, or Prajna,
>>or Prana, or Prakriti, or Consciousness, or something else.
>
>I guess that depends on how much of "everything" you choose to lump
>together. If you attempt to put mystery and manifestation into a
>single group things could become more conceptually difficult.
My take on the gambit is that Mystery
would be the same as what others call God, Dao,
Buddha, Krishna. Kinda like the blind men trying to
describe an elephant.
>>>>Does Dao=Energy?
>>>
>>>Is the method the work?
>>
>>I guess it's a quibble.
>
>That might depend on whether you're in charge of methodology or
>digging; digging makes me sweat, if that's a quibble to you maybe I
>should pass you the shovel.
Craig used to talk about digging
and how just by observing something
it's not possible to determine other things.
People see what they see.
Maybe they see what is, presuming things are.
Assuming things are, and people see aspects of what is,
to make the move from there to all things being caused by
or emerging from some one and only one noumenon is
a giant leap. I'm not quite sure how to prove it.
Could be the Elephant, or maybe it's a zoo
wherein your reality and mine differ.
Your Mystery Elephant
might be my Rhino and another's Hippo.
They all have big heads and thick legs
and could appear to be the same thing
when seen thru a foggy mystical haze.
Upon closer examination, they are not
actually the same critters pooping out
the various manifestations people see,
smell, and get lost in some ocean of.
>>Energy might become conscious
>>if it happens to be in the form of a conscious being.
>>Energy might intend to form itself into people,
>>planets, stars, rocks, and everything.
>
>You lost me somewhere on the outer limits of the astral plane just to
>the left of the crystal pyramids.
Does the Mystery intend to Create the Manifestation?
God kinda sorta mostly does exactly that.
Does the Manifestation consist of Mystery?
Self or Krishna is that of which all things are.
Each individual is actually Krishna or Self,
the one and only Cosmic Self. I think that is
a different sort of reality than the YHWH trip.
Could be the same though.
Modern science attributes reality to just forms
of Energy. It's blind, deaf and mute. And yet it
somehow learns to see, hear and talk. Energy,
as in the Big Bang, has no intent to burn bright
and turn hydrogen into stardust into you and me.
>>I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
>
>I don't think it does either, nor do I think that a water hose
>intentionally directs the water that flows through it.
Assuming there is one and only one Water Hose,
that kinda sounds like a modern Energy metaphor.
You might be the Water Hose. But are you God?
Are you the Cosmic Self playing games in the Water?
>>Dao doesn't will the world into being.
>>Dao isn't God. Not usually.
>
>If you wanted to say that Tao is like a set of instructions for how
>things happen that God left running in the cosmic game computer while
>He went out for more beer, I'd be hard pressed to find something in
>that to argue with except for the anthropomorphization. If you wanted
>to say that Tao is the essence of God's will, I'd probably take the
>same view, that anthropomorphizing might be a silly thing we do
>because it's easier to think about, but that the bottom line isn't all
>that different.
There might be a difference
between anthropomorphizing what is
and that what is, is actually a Conscious Self,
beyond spacetime, The Creator, who fully intends
to fashion a universe for the glory of it, who becomes
a savior from time to time, and you and me too.
Maybe more than one difference.
>>But if someone wants to say they're the same
>>then that's what is said.
>>
>>Dao=Krishna.
>>
>>-hmm
>
>I dunno from Krishna. There's Buddhism and there's Hinduism and they
>are not the same. I'm a dumb American, I don't know which foreign god
>is a relative of which other one, who's a cousin or an uncle, how many
>arms each has, who eats who, that whole pantheon just makes me shrug
>and turn on the TV.
I didn't think you had TV!
> It may be a metaphor that precisely and exactly
>describes quantum physics at the lowest level and if that's the case
>I'm gonna miss our on the whole deal in favor of Gilligan's Island
>reruns.
I think there's a new movie in the making.
Or maybe that was just a passing thought.
{:-])))
I guess in Fa Ta's recital, Arjuna would be
not quite the same as Krishna.
Buddha would differ, I guess, from Purusha.
I'm not sure if any of them = Dao.
Maybe in some ways.
-elephino
noname
>noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>
>>>If everything is a manifestation of God,
>>>that might be different from God being everything.
>>
>>I'm not exactly sure how deity got into the discussion, but yes, I
>>think those would be very different.
>
>If I read the orginal proposition\assertion correctly,
>the idea was that there's only one noumenon.
I'm not convinced that "noumenon" is even a useful word, since the
first definition offered says it has to be deduced by intellect and
the second definition offered says it's invisible to intellect.
I don't know, it's a Mystery after all, maybe it goes back a million
levels and there sits God at the keyboard playin' with his organ,
maybe it's a unilevel Mystery, it ain't knowable, by definition.
>God kinda sorta mostly does exactly that.
>
>Does the Manifestation consist of Mystery?
Nothing mysterious in the manifestation, it's all been manifest
according to the mystery. Check back in a planck-second for updates.
>Self or Krishna is that of which all things are.
>Each individual is actually Krishna or Self,
>the one and only Cosmic Self. I think that is
>a different sort of reality than the YHWH trip.
>Could be the same though.
>
>Modern science attributes reality to just forms
>of Energy. It's blind, deaf and mute. And yet it
>somehow learns to see, hear and talk. Energy,
>as in the Big Bang, has no intent to burn bright
>and turn hydrogen into stardust into you and me.
>
>>>I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
>>
>>I don't think it does either, nor do I think that a water hose
>>intentionally directs the water that flows through it.
>
>Assuming there is one and only one Water Hose,
>that kinda sounds like a modern Energy metaphor.
>You might be the Water Hose. But are you God?
>Are you the Cosmic Self playing games in the Water?
I don't see it that way because I do my damndest not to
anthromorphize. And yeah, of course I'm God, if you're dumb enough to
ask that's the only answer you'll ever get from me, now send all your
virgins over here right now! <g>
>>>Dao doesn't will the world into being.
>>>Dao isn't God. Not usually.
>>
>>If you wanted to say that Tao is like a set of instructions for how
>>things happen that God left running in the cosmic game computer while
>>He went out for more beer, I'd be hard pressed to find something in
>>that to argue with except for the anthropomorphization. If you wanted
>>to say that Tao is the essence of God's will, I'd probably take the
>>same view, that anthropomorphizing might be a silly thing we do
>>because it's easier to think about, but that the bottom line isn't all
>>that different.
>
>There might be a difference
>between anthropomorphizing what is
>and that what is, is actually a Conscious Self,
>beyond spacetime, The Creator, who fully intends
>to fashion a universe for the glory of it, who becomes
>a savior from time to time, and you and me too.
>
>Maybe more than one difference.
I don't know if there's a sentient God or not but for all I can tell
everything works out fine how the hellever they are.
>>>But if someone wants to say they're the same
>>>then that's what is said.
>>>
>>>Dao=Krishna.
>>>
>>>-hmm
>>
>>I dunno from Krishna. There's Buddhism and there's Hinduism and they
>>are not the same. I'm a dumb American, I don't know which foreign god
>>is a relative of which other one, who's a cousin or an uncle, how many
>>arms each has, who eats who, that whole pantheon just makes me shrug
>>and turn on the TV.
>
>I didn't think you had TV!
I don't, it's a metaphor. Substitute "take a nap" or "scratch my ass"
as you prefer.
>> It may be a metaphor that precisely and exactly
>>describes quantum physics at the lowest level and if that's the case
>>I'm gonna miss our on the whole deal in favor of Gilligan's Island
>>reruns.
>
>I think there's a new movie in the making.
>Or maybe that was just a passing thought.
Those folks are screwing up bigtime, there are still worse than
Gilligan's Island that haven't been remade yet. Green Acres, anybody?
--
no ad
{:-])))
> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>
>I'm not convinced that "noumenon" is even a useful word, since the
>first definition offered says it has to be deduced by intellect and
>the second definition offered says it's invisible to intellect.
Well, it might be your Mystery, in some fashion.
Intellect can take the brain to the edge of reason
but can't make the quantum leap beyond itself.
>> ...
>>>>Energy might become conscious
>>>>if it happens to be in the form of a conscious being.
>>>>Energy might intend to form itself into people,
>>>>planets, stars, rocks, and everything.
>>>
>>>You lost me somewhere on the outer limits of the astral plane just to
>>>the left of the crystal pyramids.
>>
>>Does the Mystery intend to Create the Manifestation?
>
>I don't know, it's a Mystery after all, maybe it goes back a million
>levels and there sits God at the keyboard playin' with his organ,
>maybe it's a unilevel Mystery, it ain't knowable, by definition.
Could there be more than one?
>>>>I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
>>>
>>>I don't think it does either, nor do I think that a water hose
>>>intentionally directs the water that flows through it.
>>
>>Assuming there is one and only one Water Hose,
>>that kinda sounds like a modern Energy metaphor.
>>You might be the Water Hose. But are you God?
>>Are you the Cosmic Self playing games in the Water?
>
>I don't see it that way because I do my damndest not to
>anthromorphize. And yeah, of course I'm God, if you're dumb enough to
>ask that's the only answer you'll ever get from me, now send all your
>virgins over here right now! <g>
Can you be one with the Mystery?
Are you it, at some deep level or in some way?
Can your self be dissolved in it like a drop of water,
returning to undifferentiable unity, in an ocean or a notion?
>>>>Dao doesn't will the world into being.
>>>>Dao isn't God. Not usually.
>>>
>>>If you wanted to say that Tao is like a set of instructions for how
>>>things happen that God left running in the cosmic game computer while
>>>He went out for more beer, I'd be hard pressed to find something in
>>>that to argue with except for the anthropomorphization. If you wanted
>>>to say that Tao is the essence of God's will, I'd probably take the
>>>same view, that anthropomorphizing might be a silly thing we do
>>>because it's easier to think about, but that the bottom line isn't all
>>>that different.
>>
>>There might be a difference
>>between anthropomorphizing what is
>>and that what is, is actually a Conscious Self,
>>beyond spacetime, The Creator, who fully intends
>>to fashion a universe for the glory of it, who becomes
>>a savior from time to time, and you and me too.
>>
>>Maybe more than one difference.
>
>I don't know if there's a sentient God or not
So then, there'd be no way to know or tell
if there's one essential basic noumenon or Mystery
or if there's more than one.
> but for all I can tell
>everything works out fine how the hellever they are.
Sounds dandy.
> Green Acres, anybody?
Can Green exist without Blue?
It's possible to state there is only one Green.
Maybe there's truth in that.
Kermit may agree.
noname
>noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>>> noname <nos...@noway.nowhow> wrote:
>>>>>> {:-]))) <glyph...@neti.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>>> ...
>>
>>I'm not convinced that "noumenon" is even a useful word, since the
>>first definition offered says it has to be deduced by intellect and
>>the second definition offered says it's invisible to intellect.
>
>Well, it might be your Mystery, in some fashion.
>Intellect can take the brain to the edge of reason
>but can't make the quantum leap beyond itself.
Dunno, the word seems to have contradictory definitions so I'm not
sure what it means.
>>> ...
>>>>>Energy might become conscious
>>>>>if it happens to be in the form of a conscious being.
>>>>>Energy might intend to form itself into people,
>>>>>planets, stars, rocks, and everything.
>>>>
>>>>You lost me somewhere on the outer limits of the astral plane just to
>>>>the left of the crystal pyramids.
>>>
>>>Does the Mystery intend to Create the Manifestation?
>>
>>I don't know, it's a Mystery after all, maybe it goes back a million
>>levels and there sits God at the keyboard playin' with his organ,
>>maybe it's a unilevel Mystery, it ain't knowable, by definition.
>
>Could there be more than one?
Why should that be any more knowable than the Mystery itself? Should
two unknowables be differentiable somehow?
>>>>>I don't think Dao intends to do anything.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it does either, nor do I think that a water hose
>>>>intentionally directs the water that flows through it.
>>>
>>>Assuming there is one and only one Water Hose,
>>>that kinda sounds like a modern Energy metaphor.
>>>You might be the Water Hose. But are you God?
>>>Are you the Cosmic Self playing games in the Water?
>>
>>I don't see it that way because I do my damndest not to
>>anthromorphize. And yeah, of course I'm God, if you're dumb enough to
>>ask that's the only answer you'll ever get from me, now send all your
>>virgins over here right now! <g>
>
>Can you be one with the Mystery?
I think you can be one with your essential-nature. I'm convinced that
most of your essential-nature resides in Mystery. How commutative the
situation might be is unknown.
>Are you it, at some deep level or in some way?
>Can your self be dissolved in it like a drop of water,
>returning to undifferentiable unity, in an ocean or a notion?
Geez, are you stoned again?
>>>>>Dao doesn't will the world into being.
>>>>>Dao isn't God. Not usually.
>>>>
>>>>If you wanted to say that Tao is like a set of instructions for how
>>>>things happen that God left running in the cosmic game computer while
>>>>He went out for more beer, I'd be hard pressed to find something in
>>>>that to argue with except for the anthropomorphization. If you wanted
>>>>to say that Tao is the essence of God's will, I'd probably take the
>>>>same view, that anthropomorphizing might be a silly thing we do
>>>>because it's easier to think about, but that the bottom line isn't all
>>>>that different.
>>>
>>>There might be a difference
>>>between anthropomorphizing what is
>>>and that what is, is actually a Conscious Self,
>>>beyond spacetime, The Creator, who fully intends
>>>to fashion a universe for the glory of it, who becomes
>>>a savior from time to time, and you and me too.
>>>
>>>Maybe more than one difference.
>>
>>I don't know if there's a sentient God or not
>
>So then, there'd be no way to know or tell
>if there's one essential basic noumenon or Mystery
>or if there's more than one.
Since "noumenon" seems to be undefined, there's a shitload of things
you can't even reasonably guess at.
>> but for all I can tell
>>everything works out fine how the hellever they are.
>
>Sounds dandy.
>
>> Green Acres, anybody?
>
>Can Green exist without Blue?
>
>It's possible to state there is only one Green.
>Maybe there's truth in that.
>Kermit may agree.
Stoned again, apparently. I mention the "Green Acres" TV show as
being worse than "Gilligan's Island" and you're off on some shit that
makes no sense whatsoever.
--
no ad
{:-])))
>>>>>>>>>> Fireball <fire...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>there is only one noumenon.
>> ...
>>Intellect can take the brain to the edge of reason
>>but can't make the quantum leap beyond itself.
>
>Dunno, the word seems to have contradictory definitions so I'm not
>sure what it means.
I think I know what Fireball meant.
>>Could there be more than one?
>
>Why should that be any more knowable than the Mystery itself? Should
>two unknowables be differentiable somehow?
Maybe if they're continuous functions.
A problem may occur with they or it being undifferentiable.
With undifferentiated unity, there may be more than one type.
Perhaps there are many noumenons
which intersect at Earth in spacetimes.
The shared or consensus reality, the
intersection of Dao, God, Buddha, Self, Energy,
and a bunch of other sets or groups, might not entail
a particular Union or Noumenon per se. Maybe.
To find out may necessitate proving
the existence of God, Self, etc.. Finding the edges,
along with the overlaps, if any could be found.
>>Can you be one with the Mystery?
>
>I think you can be one with your essential-nature. I'm convinced that
>most of your essential-nature resides in Mystery. How commutative the
>situation might be is unknown.
>
>
>>Are you it, at some deep level or in some way?
>>Can your self be dissolved in it like a drop of water,
>>returning to undifferentiable unity, in an ocean or a notion?
>
>Geez, are you stoned again?
I'm permanently fucked up.
Can't tell if it was the drugs taken
or if I would have been this way without them.
Mystical unity or identification with all that is,
is my impression of what Fireball asserts as being.
Ontologically, it's been said that there is no Being
but there are beings. Similarly, there's no such Thing,
no real thing called Existence for one to be one with.
People exist. Things are. Existence as a whole is a myth.
Yet some folks get into a state where it feels like
and can be thought to be a Oneness with Everything.
It's Way Cool. An altered state for sure. And perhaps
there is one and only one Everything or a That
from which everything arises and returns,
and folks like to speak of it.
Call it: Mystery, Moment, Dao, Buddha, Whatever.
Folks go on and on about It. They tag It, and you're it.
Paradoxically, to speak of It
tends to suggest one has not experienced It.
For in the experience of It, there is no need to
share anything about the deal. There are no
"others" to deal any cards to. It sorta erases
Itself out of the equation at many levels.
Fun trip, to be certain. Right.
Cancel infinities. What is one left with?
>>>I don't know if there's a sentient God or not
>>
>>So then, there'd be no way to know or tell
>>if there's one essential basic noumenon or Mystery
>>or if there's more than one.
>
>Since "noumenon" seems to be undefined, there's a shitload of things
>you can't even reasonably guess at.
Dividing by nothing,
one may end up with an emptiness,
or most anything, and everything.
Does one and only one Zero exist?
As a point of origin, maybe yes, or no.
Dividing by it is defined as undefined.
>>It's possible to state there is only one Green.
>>Maybe there's truth in that.
>>Kermit may agree.
>
>Stoned again, apparently. I mention the "Green Acres" TV show as
>being worse than "Gilligan's Island" and you're off on some shit that
>makes no sense whatsoever.
Hey, it isn't easy being the one and only One,
at times. Green, blue, Self, other, etc.. Then again,
perhaps it is only natural, for a frog, or a bird.
-cheers!
The Yo Yo
wrote:
And the talkative reach their wits end....
They die without answering their discovered questions, their minds
sealed with seals of partial explanations and descriptions.
What do they get from it? Why does curiosity need to be fed?
Why would you walk the dog every day when there is no dog?
You can wonder about the dog, but that still doesn't mean there is an
actual neccessity for there to be a dog, let alone one that needs such
exercise!
It seems redundant to me that I should think of something that has no
birth. So what would it look like if it were born? I'm no conceiver of
such thoughts. If George Clooney married Elton John, what would their
children look like?
I'll stick with the big unaswerable question like why there is a why
to everything. So far, I've only amused myself with the fact that why
has its "own slant within itself"
Thats where I like to be.
The whole thread started with the Only-Way-to-Go...Buddha nature!
Ah yes, there are those that tell you that desire is the source of all
your troubles, so they then suggest that you desire to become an
Arhat, a Boddhisattva, a Whatchamacallit.... Siddhartha is spinning in
his Nirvana!
The poor son-of-a-bitch went and got himself idolized posthumously!
See what people will do Gautama? You thought they would only listen
and absorb, but they desired to be like you!
I do see some Chan themes in the Taoists texts...
Lao's chapter one indicates impermanence, but its trivial chicken and
egg stuff to me.
Did Lao influence Siddhartha's views?
Did Lao hear of Siddhartha's views?
I can see with clarity what Iam able to see.
I can also see with clarity what I cannot see.
What have I missed?
{:-])))
>And the talkative reach their wits end....
And then begin again.
>They die without answering their discovered questions, their minds
>sealed with seals of partial explanations and descriptions.
Such can be a facet of any quest-
ion that goes off on a charge.
>What do they get from it?
For me, there is a joy of writing
similar to what I imagine a songbird gets
out of when dawn brings light to the morning.
>Why does curiosity need to be fed?
Puzzles, for me, are fun to work.
The work is play. At root, some say
there is lila, the cosmic play which emerges
from maya, skillful crafting of the great dream
drama based upon being, consciousness and bliss,
sat, chit, ananda. Such can be in a mixing of systems.
>Why would you walk the dog every day when there is no dog?
Invisible dogs on a leash
are often seen without being seen
at the beach, on a side-walk.
Here's one that isn't even is.
http://www.magic.org/store/product_info.php?products_id=2543
>You can wonder about the dog, but that still doesn't mean there is an
>actual neccessity for there to be a dog, let alone one that needs such
>exercise!
True.
Necessity is a contingent proposition.
To invoke need is to make an assertion.
>It seems redundant to me that I should think of something that has no
>birth. So what would it look like if it were born?
In the TTC, Lao Tzu is said to have said
he didn't know whose child Tao is.
Yet he knows a this by that.
Tao is in the doing,
without doing.
>I'm no conceiver of
>such thoughts. If George Clooney married Elton John, what would their
>children look like?
However they'd want them to.
Or however they happened to be.
Depending on if they adopted
or created their own, intentionally or
unintentionally, as the case may be.
>I'll stick with the big unaswerable question like why there is a why
>to everything. So far, I've only amused myself with the fact that why
>has its "own slant within itself"
>
>Thats where I like to be.
To me, to ask why can be a fun quest.
There can be answers to why there is a why
to everything. One answer can be that there is
a why be-cause things are carved and can be carved
from anything to everything, as a whole and in
particular fashions.
Another answer is that it
can be an addiction to ask why, to carve,
to seek out "causes" as if they, akin to the
invisible dog that doesn't exist, actually exist.
Probably plenty of other answers exist as well.
>The whole thread started with the Only-Way-to-Go...Buddha nature!
>Ah yes, there are those that tell you that desire is the source of all
>your troubles, so they then suggest that you desire to become an
>Arhat, a Boddhisattva, a Whatchamacallit.... Siddhartha is spinning in
>his Nirvana!
>The poor son-of-a-bitch went and got himself idolized posthumously!
>See what people will do Gautama? You thought they would only listen
>and absorb, but they desired to be like you!
>
>I do see some Chan themes in the Taoists texts...
Probably cuz Chan grew out of Taoist texts.
>Lao's chapter one indicates impermanence, but its trivial chicken and
>egg stuff to me.
I like Zz's gnarly tree and honkless goose laugh.
>Did Lao influence Siddhartha's views?
>Did Lao hear of Siddhartha's views?
The silk road was around back then, maybe.
Lao-tzu, as a librarian, may have archived much,
if he even existed. I don't know if scholar's have
traced influences between the cultures.
That would be a fun quest for me,
to investigate if so and how much.
>I can see with clarity what Iam able to see.
Lucky you.
>I can also see with clarity what I cannot see.
Then you are wise.
>What have I missed?
In the way you phrased it,
I'd say you missed the qualification
or caveat that you can see with clarity
what you can see with clarity.
It is not clear to me whether there is
an understood invisible, "with clarity" pre-
positional phrase on the ends of what you wrote.
I can clearly see lots of fuzzy shit at times
and sometimes can't be sure if I really see
or only think I see butter flies and wings
emerging from toasters on the run.
If I look at things one way, clearly
I think I know what you mean. And yet,
when I look at things another way, clearly
or maybe not very clearly, it might or can be
a little muddy around the edges.
This just in:
Mach one turtle soup breaksound barrier.
ernobe
universal ontological impressions exist except in the imagination.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdu'l-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
{:-])))
> {:-]))) mused how round a bout:
>> I'm permanently fucked up.
>> Can't tell if it was the drugs taken
>> or if I would have been this way without them.
Based on experimental, and anecdotal, evidence,
probably the latter, er ladder, possibly Jake's.
>> Mystical unity or identification with all that is,
>> is my impression of what Fireball asserts as being.
Yeah, well, we know how that goes.
>> Ontologically, it's been said that there is no Being
>> but there are beings. Similarly, there's no such Thing,
>> no real thing called Existence for one to be one with.
>> People exist. Things are. Existence as a whole is a myth.
Fung wrote the book.
Others, at least one, didn't approve.
Being, he, Ichin, said, a "Western" style deal.
Not of the ancient tradition. Maybe a point taken.
>> Yet some folks get into a state where it feels like
>> and can be thought to be a Oneness with Everything.
Yes. How many Ones can there be?
>> It's Way Cool. An altered state for sure. And perhaps
>> there is one and only one Everything or a That
>> from which everything arises and returns,
>> and folks like to speak of it.
Obviously.
>> Call it: Mystery, Moment, Dao, Buddha, Whatever.
>> Folks go on and on about It. They tag It, and you're it.
Aye of yams.
>> Paradoxically, to speak of It
>> tends to suggest one has not experienced It.
Those that know. Some laugh.
Many scoff. A few growl. Tis gnarly.
>> For in the experience of It, there is no need to
>> share anything about the deal. There are no
>> "others" to deal any cards to. It sorta erases
>> Itself out of the equation at many levels.
>>
>> Fun trip, to be certain. Right.
>> Cancel infinities. What is one left with?
>>
>Individually, we can speak of our ontological impressions, but no
>universal ontological impressions exist except in the imagination.
If the Universe could imagine
would it imagine or image its'elvi as you
and eyes and seas?
- reflectingings
Papyrus
wrote:
As the character's voice on Firesign Theatre's album said, "Who am
us?" "I think we're all bozos on this bus" said another'n.
Welcome to the mystery, will you be staying long? Most people don't,
they get bored and restless with being free to do sweet fuck-all, all
day long and amuse themselves in this phantasmagoria that has so many
fuckin' questions with no answers. Okay, it is so. Now the mystery is
over for me, so I don't need to know sweet fuck-all about conceptual
living at all, I'll just feel it, rather than fuckin' anal-ize it.
I wonder what we'll look like when we turn to shit said the food.
You just have to realize that things change, even you with your
thinking. Sometimes feeling isn't involved very much by some in their
daily constitutions, as I tend to mourn the passing of my turds or
turdettes, depending on the sacrificial manna that I 'et fo' suppa'.
I don't even know who the fucking "I" in me is yet. Some people yap
about it as though it didn't really exist, so I think, "Okay, I'll
take it from where it came from, nobody". Then I think, "Wait a sec,
how can there be a nobody, without their once being a fuckin'
somebody?" To the back of the line I go.Then I think, "This fuckin'
thinkin' shit, sure fucks me up" and then I say "Oh fuck, there I go
again, I'm still thinkin' about thinkin' about it...."
What's the point of thinking about that which should really be felt?
Tis better to feel a full belly than to keep thinking about one.
Stay hungry and it won't bother you much after awhile - even hunger
can't last. The body can feel itself, feed itself of itself, over a
period of time and it will satisfy itself - it doesn't need me
thinking about it.
A good pet will own its master. The lousy ones are in the doghouse.