Is a belief in an ego with free will sometimes desirable?
DharmaTroll
said:
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground
whatsoever for supposing it is true."
-Bertrand Russell
The Frontal Cortex has an interesting piece on how giving people
information suggesting that neuroscience undermines our everyday
concept of free will can alter our ethical behavior. The post
discusses two experiments where participants had been given
information suggesting that free will was an illusion - one passage
taken from Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis that argues
against the everyday concept of free will on the basis of
neurobiology.
The free will argument is related to the self debate: the idea of free
will is associated with the idea of a separate self or soul which is
an uncaused cause and can freely choose. Both Buddhism and
neuroscience deny such a self, but interestingly, people who are led
to question that they are an independent ego/soul with free will start
to exhibit immoral behavior, such as cheating on a test. Is the
illusion of being an independent ego with free will a good thing in
normal practical life, then, which keeps people from behaving
irresponsibly?
I also wonder if in the experiments, determinism was conflated with
fatalism, so that people were led to accept the incoherent view of
fatalism (which leads people to not wear seatbelts or exercise, since
they believe they are helpless without genuine free will).
--DharmaTroll
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/12/free_will_and_ethics_1.php
Free Will and Ethics
Posted on: December 17, 2009 12:13 PM, by Jonah Lehrer
Earlier this week, I wondered if all of our new knowledge about the
brain, which is too often presented in a lazy causal fashion - if x
lights up, then we do y - might undermine our sense of self and self-
control. I've since riffled through the literature and found some
interesting and suggestive answers.
The first study was done by Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The
experiment itself was simple: a group of undergraduates was given two
excerpts from Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis. The first
excerpt espoused a fiercely deterministic and reductionist view of the
brain:
<<You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions,
your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more
than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their
associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.>>
The second excerpt discussed consciousness but didn't mention free
will. After reading these passages, the students were quizzed about
their free-will beliefs, and given a seemingly unrelated activity that
involved arithmetic problems. Here is Schooler describing the setup:
<<Participants were told that there was a glitch in the software
program [that administered the test] and that after the problem was
presented, they needed to press the space bar in order to prevent the
computer from inadvertently giving them the answer before they had
solved it themselves. Furthermore, participants were told that
although the experimenter would not know whether they had pressed the
space bar, they should try to solve the problems honestly on their
own. In short, a failure to press the space bar enabled them to get
the answer without solving it themselves, in effect, to cheat.>>
Clever, no? It turned out that students who had read the anti-free
will quote were significantly more likely to cheat on the mental
arithmetic test; their exposure to some basic scientific spin - your
soul is a piece of meat - led to an increase in amorality. Of course,
this is a relatively mild ethical lapse - as Schooler notes, "None of
the participants exposed to the anti-free will message assaulted the
experimenter or ran off with the payment kitty" - but it still
demonstrates that even seemingly banal materialist concepts can alter
our ethical behavior.
Another study, led by Roy Baumeister and colleagues, looked at how a
"disbelief in free will" could increase aggression and reduce
prosocial behavior. One group of students was told to read statements
that were supposed to induce a feeling of determinism, such as:
"'Ultimately, we are biological computers - designed by evolution,
built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.'" The
second group, in contrast, was given sentences designed to bolster a
belief in free will: "I am able to override the genetic and
environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior." A third
group - the controls - were given neutral statements.
The students were then given hypothetical scenarios in which they
quizzed about their willingness to help others, such as giving money
to a homeless person. You can probably guess the punchline: students
who had read the anti-free will sentiments reported being
significantly less likely to help out in. No differences were found on
either helpfulness or belief in free will between the control and pro-
free will participants, suggesting that our pre-existing views are
generally pro-free will.
The second Baumeister experiment left the hypotheticals behind. The
subjects were assessed for their belief in free will and then told
about a fellow student whose parents had been killed in a car
accident. This student was going to have to drop out of school unless
she could find someone to help her out financially. The students were
then given the opportunity to help her out. Sure enough, disbelief in
free will was associated with a reduced willingness to help.
Lastly, students were given the opportunity to add varying amount of
hot sauce to food that would be eaten by a student who didn't like
spicy food. Not surprisingly, those who read the anti-free will
statements added more hot sauce.
At the very least, free will is a useful illusion, leading us to be
more prosocial and ethical. Because even if we are just "a vast
assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules," we're a vast
assembly that feels like so much more. William James, as usual, said
it best: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."
Keynes
wrote:
I'd like to know the size of the samples and the presumptions
of the experimenter prior to the experiment. That said, it's been
my personal experience that cause and effect 'scientific' logical
reductionism is demoralizing and dehumanizing. It's a hellish
dead end for those who truly believe in it and rely on it.
The Buddha recommended against it, as did Lao Tzu, and Jesus
of Nazareth.(Among many others. Even the author of the Eden
parable.) The road of (dualistic) reason leads straight to suffering.
AdvocatusDiablo
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:904121a4-4581-4c2d...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Charles E Hardwidge
news:3i3ri5die5k0hcd1e...@4ax.com...
> The Buddha recommended against it, as did Lao Tzu, and Jesus
> of Nazareth.(Among many others. Even the author of the Eden
> parable.) The road of (dualistic) reason leads straight to suffering.
Arty farty self-indulgence is an equal and opposite disaster. Ditto die hard
communism and libertarianism. Ditto always talking about the fucking brain
or cross-posting like a whore.
What, seriously, is the point of aping a materials scientist or car show
host when you can't even drive? I'd like to see all the pseudo-intellectuals
and thrill seekers in here answer that.
The photography group is way, way ahead of you people because at least
people take pictures. Heck, one of the more anal posters (a German) even
introduced Picasso to a discussion. Picasso FFS.
http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/pablo_picasso.htm
Learn to draw before you get clever.
FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Wompom
news:904121a4-4581-4c2d...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I find it very useful to sometimes believe that free will DOES exist, and
sometimes to believe that it DOES NOT exists...
Seems to cover most eventualities in everyday living :-)
Beerlet Dhiblang
Right.
That's hardly what I'd consider a valid metric of free will. There's a
point where either reductionism or measurement are meaningless.
/l
Hollywood Lee
> At the very least, free will is a useful illusion, leading us to be
> more prosocial and ethical. Because even if we are just "a vast
> assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules," we're a vast
> assembly that feels like so much more. William James, as usual, said
> it best: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."
Ideas can be evaluated or assessed by all sorts of different metrics,
depending on what you want to measure.
Using the usefulness scale as above, there are all sorts of thingies I
don't know with certainty, but nonetheless find it useful to act as if
they are true. Your cat behind the couch concept can be one such idea.
My speeding truck or gravity can be another. These are examples of
seeming regularities that have meaning from a physicalist and scientific
viewpoint.
Free will steps out a bit further, yet its utility has always seemed
obvious from my perspective, even apart from the fascinating
implications of the studies you cite. Much like the idea of karma, free
will has a regulating freedom about it, where seeming choice focuses
responsibility in a way that reflection and resulting actions/thoughts
seems linked. Ontologically true? Who knows, who cares, I suppose?
Others find more fantastical ideas useful, whether a God or a Flying
Spaghetti Monster.
Trying to prove one set of ideas true and another false seems like a tar
pit of differential values, metrics, and definitions. But then, where
would usenet be without such, eh?
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> Right.
>
> That's hardly what I'd consider a valid metric of
> free will. There's a point where either reductionism
> or measurement are meaningless.
It is well-known that the Buddha "reduces"
all that we know and experience to the five
aggregates. It can be further said that of the
five, the first, form, is actually not known
and experienced by us, but only inferred,
and inferred from the second aggregate,
feeling. From feeling (sensation), he thinks
backward to what causes it, and puts form
there. But the scheme of the five aggregates,
just like all explaining schemes that he
thinks up, is merely a means to an end and
not the end itself, and the end is to quiesce
all thought to enter peace and serenity.
The stem much used by the Buddha, man-
"to think, to mentate", is often taken by the
translators into Chinese as the stem maa-
"to measure, to calculate, to compute", and
the Buddha's consecrated expression (used
pejoratively), "to think the self, to mentate
the self", is translated into Chinese as "to
calculate the self". Hegel, Encyclopaedia of
Philosophical Sciences, I, The Science of
Logic, third edition of 1830, �103, Addition,
in an ironical mood: �to rid oneself of
computing as well as of thinking itself
altogether [sich sowohl des Rechnens als
auch des Denkens selbst g�nzlich zu
entschlagen].� Which happens to be the end
(Zweck) of the Buddha�s Buddhism!
The end of Buddhism is to end thinking, at
least temporarily, to induce peace and serenity,
and this is non-doing, as thinking is doing.
Freedom is where thinking has stopped and
does not proceed. All thinking and all
computing have stopped there. Mystics say
that the ultimate (God, awakening, the Law
[Dharma], the Way [Dao], etc.) is unthinkable
and uncircumscribable, meaning that one
cannot wrap one's mind around it, and to give
up all effort at wrapping one's mind around it
(and around anything at all) is one way of
bringing it about. This giving up also gives up
volition, as volition is doing -- one wants to do
something about something. And giving up
thinking and willing, one merely contemplates
dumbly, without asking anything. It is then
that grace washes one away.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:i5mdnZMgutu5prPW...@supernews.com...
>
> The end of Buddhism is to end thinking, at
> least temporarily, to induce peace and serenity,
> and this is non-doing, as thinking is doing.
That's as much bullshit as anything I've read from Christianity or Islam. In
fact, it's the same irony free hysteria both are prone to at the extremes.
You fucked up. Check again.
You might as well say the goal of Buddhism is to stop the parts of an engine
turning and just feel the torque, maaaan. If you want to switch the engine
off that badly just put a bullet between your eyes. Job done.
liaM
> in an ironical mood: �to rid oneself of
> computing as well as of thinking itself
> altogether [sich sowohl des Rechnens als
> entschlagen].� Which happens to be the end
> (Zweck) of the Buddha�s Buddhism!
>
> The end of Buddhism is to end thinking, at
> least temporarily, to induce peace and serenity,
> and this is non-doing, as thinking is doing.
> Freedom is where thinking has stopped and
> does not proceed. All thinking and all
> computing have stopped there. Mystics say
> that the ultimate (God, awakening, the Law
> [Dharma], the Way [Dao], etc.) is unthinkable
> and uncircumscribable, meaning that one
> cannot wrap one's mind around it, and to give
> up all effort at wrapping one's mind around it
> (and around anything at all) is one way of
> bringing it about. This giving up also gives up
> volition, as volition is doing -- one wants to do
> something about something. And giving up
> thinking and willing, one merely contemplates
> dumbly, without asking anything. It is then
> that grace washes one away.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
The goal of buddhism is to end existential suffering for one or for all
The buddhism of the goal is a hangar for wishful thoughts
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > It is well-known that the Buddha "reduces"
> > all that we know and experience to the five
> > aggregates. It can be further said that of the
> > five, the first, form, is actually not known
> > and experienced by us, but only inferred,
> > and inferred from the second aggregate,
> > feeling. From feeling (sensation), he thinks
> > backward to what causes it, and puts form
> > there. But the scheme of the five aggregates,
> > just like all explaining schemes that he
> > thinks up, is merely a means to an end and
> > not the end itself, and the end is to quiesce
> > all thought to enter peace and serenity.
> >
> > The stem much used by the Buddha, man-
> > "to think, to mentate", is often taken by the
> > translators into Chinese as the stem maa-
> > "to measure, to calculate, to compute", and
> > the Buddha's consecrated expression (used
> > pejoratively), "to think the self, to mentate
> > the self", is translated into Chinese as "to
> > calculate the self". Hegel, Encyclopaedia of
> > Philosophical Sciences, I, The Science of
> > Logic, third edition of 1830, �103, Addition,
> > in an ironical mood: �to rid oneself of
> > computing as well as of thinking itself
> > altogether [sich sowohl des Rechnens als
> > auch des Denkens selbst g�nzlich zu
> > entschlagen].� Which happens to be the end
> > (Zweck) of the Buddha�s Buddhism!
> >
> > The end of Buddhism is to end thinking, at
> > least temporarily, to induce peace and serenity,
> > and this is non-doing, as thinking is doing.
> > Freedom is where thinking has stopped and
> > does not proceed. All thinking and all
> > computing have stopped there. Mystics say
> > that the ultimate (God, awakening, the Law
> > [Dharma], the Way [Dao], etc.) is unthinkable
> > and uncircumscribable, meaning that one
> > cannot wrap one's mind around it, and to give
> > up all effort at wrapping one's mind around it
> > (and around anything at all) is one way of
> > bringing it about. This giving up also gives up
> > volition, as volition is doing -- one wants to do
> > something about something. And giving up
> > thinking and willing, one merely contemplates
> > dumbly, without asking anything. It is then
> > that grace washes one away.
>
> The goal of buddhism is to end existential
> suffering for one or for all
>
> The buddhism of the goal is a hangar for
> wishful thoughts
Heh, I was mimicking the certainty and
exclusivity that you showed, and even the
content, namely to wipe the hangar of
thought (wishful or not) clean.
<<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
If you were told something else, then it wasn't
zazen.>>
It should have been obvious, shouldn't it?
Tang Huyen
liaM
>
>
> liaM wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>>> It is well-known that the Buddha "reduces"
>>> all that we know and experience to the five
>>> aggregates. It can be further said that of the
>>> five, the first, form, is actually not known
>>> and experienced by us, but only inferred,
>>> and inferred from the second aggregate,
>>> feeling. From feeling (sensation), he thinks
>>> backward to what causes it, and puts form
>>> there. But the scheme of the five aggregates,
>>> just like all explaining schemes that he
>>> thinks up, is merely a means to an end and
>>> not the end itself, and the end is to quiesce
>>> all thought to enter peace and serenity.
>>>
>>> The stem much used by the Buddha, man-
>>> "to think, to mentate", is often taken by the
>>> translators into Chinese as the stem maa-
>>> "to measure, to calculate, to compute", and
>>> the Buddha's consecrated expression (used
>>> pejoratively), "to think the self, to mentate
>>> the self", is translated into Chinese as "to
>>> calculate the self". Hegel, Encyclopaedia of
>>> Philosophical Sciences, I, The Science of
>>> in an ironical mood: �to rid oneself of
>>> computing as well as of thinking itself
>>> altogether [sich sowohl des Rechnens als
>>> (Zweck) of the Buddha�s Buddhism!
If so, you've placed a shoehorn and a bowler hat
for me to use for the soup you are serving me.
There is a vast difference between "emptying your
mind" and "ending thinking"
And the difference is in the tasting of it.
What can I tell you who have never succeeded at
emptying your mind ;) ??
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4b2f8764$0$17506$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> If so, you've placed a shoehorn and a bowler hat
> for me to use for the soup you are serving me.
> There is a vast difference between "emptying your
> mind" and "ending thinking"
>
> And the difference is in the tasting of it.
> What can I tell you who have never succeeded at
> emptying your mind ;) ??
Tang's garble and that pseudo-philosophical bollocks isn't needed. It just
complicates things for a cheap thrill. But, where's the value in these
groups eternal flamewars and posturing? None that I can see.
This stuff is as useful and relevant to most people who live in the real
world as politician's policy gold plating and focus groups. One supposes
this status quo is maintained for power, status, and wealth reasons.
Who gives a stuff for 10,000 word essays and smug "cleverness". It just
drives out variety and divides people. What about gardening, laying a
carpet, or driving a car? Something useful. Something *DO*able.
Lee
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:IUOXm.17583$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Kitty P" <pain...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:zwOXm.103660$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
>>
>> Have you ever read about the Jungian shadow by any chance?
>
> Yes, and I strongly suspect you're trolling. Again.
suspicion does indeed seem
to be your fueling agenda
Lee
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
sordid and lackluster doingness
and usefulness addictions duly noted.
what else ya got sweetnumbs?
Charles E Hardwidge
news:-6mdnV9GX6u6X7LW...@earthlink.com...
Evidence and history, and neither are on your side.
Respect the follow-ups. They're set for a reason.
Title reset and FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee
mind is never really empty. even when
word thoughts, impressions and subtle
intuitive meanderings subside there is still
the infinite [woo-woo] potential of imagination,
ever there and ever ready for dispositioning.
herbzet
Tang Huyen wrote:
> <<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
> If you were told something else, then it wasn't
> zazen.>>
Well regardless, I *wasn't* told this; that is, I
*was* told something else.
But this is looking better and better -- credit where
credit is due.
--
hz
Allen Barker
>
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>> <<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
>> If you were told something else, then it wasn't
>> zazen.>>
>
> Well regardless, I *wasn't* told this; that is, I
> *was* told something else.
What were you told?
> But this is looking better and better -- credit where
> credit is due.
It's really all just means, skillful or not. How
could there be a "goal" to zazen in the absolute sense?
If anything the goal would be satori, but that, too,
is just another discrimination. (Now we can
argue intellectually about whether emptying the mind
equals awakening. ;-)
If it helps a person to tell him or her that the goal
of zazen is emptying the mind then a roshi might tell
him or her that. That same roshi might tell another
person a different thing (or that same person a
different thing at a different time).
Either way, one goal of the roshi is to encourage the
person to shut up and sit his or her butt down on the
meditation cushion. ;-)
liaM
> If it helps a person to tell him or her that the goal
> of zazen is emptying the mind then a roshi might tell
> him or her that. That same roshi might tell another
> person a different thing (or that same person a
> different thing at a different time).
>
> Either way, one goal of the roshi is to encourage the
> person to shut up and sit his or her butt down on the
> meditation cushion. ;-)
>
Welcome to the Dojo from hell..
liaM
Empty in the sense of "bereft of intentionality".
The mind is inactive, there is nothing to cause it do anything.
Allen Barker
Mind is Buddha.
-- Baso
No mind, no Buddha.
-- Baso
http://wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/ZenMasterIn.html
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> If so, you've placed a shoehorn and a bowler hat
> for me to use for the soup you are serving me.
> There is a vast difference between "emptying your
> mind" and "ending thinking"
>
> And the difference is in the tasting of it.
> What can I tell you who have never succeeded at
> emptying your mind ;) ??
Right. I have never succeeded at emptying
my mind. I can live with it. Hey, it feels like
home.
Whether there is a vast difference between
"emptying your mind" and "ending thinking"
ot not, if you can relax and be serene, it
matters not at all. Such vast difference, if it
exists, gets drowned in your relaxation and
serenity.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> Somewhat in the Tangbanger's defense this present moment (always this,
> you see...) is the end point of dharmic practice, by meditation or
> otherwise. The meditative method of pranayana often helps in the
> pursuit of quiescence (cessation of discursive thought) which when
> handled frequent becomes conducive to that end. Among other things it
> provides for a reflective, mindful framework, a sort of metaexperience
> framework, a way to experience experience, so to speak.
>
> So Tang's "end thinking" bit isn't really off, it's just shorthand for
> the not so effortless practice of mindfulness. Mindfulness is not
> about thinking but working in observer mind.
>
> The way I understand it, in the Buddhist framework observer mind is
> like a deconstructed view of consciousness, where experience is imbued
> in coarising phenomena, that conscious experience is just more
> phenomena no better than phenomena in the world. I view it as more
> than Stoicism, it's akin to an existential cosmology, an atheist
> universalism with an element of personal salvation thrown in (the
> religious part of Buddhism). It's with this nontheistic cosmology that
> Buddhism puts the intrinsic phenomena of Mind as another phenomena
> continguous with extrinsic phenomena, allowing for an apognosis and
> freedom from the egoic defense of self, alleviating egoic threat
> assessment, axiety, stress and suffering.
>
> Of course, being a lousy Buddhist I'm no authority on the topic, but
> that's the best I can do.
Just look and don't judge. That is mindfulness.
By the way, "continguous" has no second "n".
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
> Well, I think we could benefit from refraining from stock phrases like
> the "end of thinking."
>
> Buddhism is more about changing the way one experiences life
> (experience) so it can be enjoyed in a less cluttered and happy way.
> Those brief periods of non-mentating, non-discursive experience that
> can be attained during meditation (and various meditative states) are
> instructive to that end but by no means should be construed, in and of
> themselves, to be the end goal of Buddhism.
>
> This present moment is the goal and it's sitting right here in the
> laps of our silly, worried brains.
If you drill down to the present moment,
simply and purely, there is no thought in
that moment. It sounds like a tautology,
or a circular argument, but do it and you
will see. In Buddhism, it is called the
mere instant (kshana-matra), which is
just the moment and nothing else.
Tang Huyen
liaM
I see you more clearly now, in your naked frailty :
you are an ocean of emotion, are you not ;) !
Hollywood Lee
So it would seem.
zenworm
wrote:
there is a place
where all needs are met
where all gifts are given and received
where structure collapses by virtue of the weight of fluff
where all things are picked up, held, and put down
where everything is accomplished and nothing is done
where all sound is made and silence is heard
where nothing is separate and all things disappear
where eternity laughs and death cries
this is now
Moment
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
halfawake
one may have one's own reasons as well, in addition or opposition to
your own. your attempts to hijack the free choice of the medium smacks
of the usual peremptory obsession.
when you say "respect the followups," you frame the issue with a
presupposition that is prejudicial to anyone who does not share your
framework of concern, yet do not outline the framework to invite
collaboration - a form of elite hierarchicalism, again with you in
charge of an undisclosed agenda announced only as more valuable than any
alternates one might adopt.
at best, cutting one's own group out of the followup would be an
exercise in self-opacity. since the self is already opaque enough to
cause confusion, doing so would be in the direction of wholesale
giving-up. One could argue the relative benefits of letting go to that
degree, but that would make the sub-thread too interesting, most likely,
for you to find it worthwhile. Let's see.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> If you drill down to the present moment,
> simply and purely, there is no thought in
> that moment. It sounds like a tautology,
> or a circular argument, but do it and you
> will see. In Buddhism, it is called the
> mere instant (kshana-matra), which is
> just the moment and nothing else.
Roger Scruton and Clive James said it better, and they just have to say it
once and people get it. No need for garbled 10,000 word essays, trolling
masquerading as "testing", and look at me cross-posting.
On another thread issue of Zen, topicality, and cross-posting, I note, the
responses fall into the category of "they would say that wouldn't they".
It's a classic example of group think.
While one hesitates to use the word "wrong" there's definite cause to
suggest there's an individual and collective case of not getting it. But,
the point's been made and how people respond remains to be seen.
liaM
KWATZ :-))
Tang Huyen
Lee wrote:
> "liaM"
>
> > If so, you've placed a shoehorn and a bowler hat
> > for me to use for the soup you are serving me.
> > There is a vast difference between "emptying your
> > mind" and "ending thinking"
> >
> > And the difference is in the tasting of it.
> > What can I tell you who have never succeeded at
> > emptying your mind ;) ??
>
> mind is never really empty. even when
> word thoughts, impressions and subtle
> intuitive meanderings subside there is still
> the infinite [woo-woo] potential of imagination,
> ever there and ever ready for dispositioning.
The ripples can come and go, how you take
them shows your mettle. If you can quiesce
them all the way, fine, it will feel very calm
and peaceful, but if you are disturbed by them,
iow disturbed by them being there at all, then
you are under their spell. However if they are
there or are not there and don't move you
either way, then they ... don't matter. You can
dispose them to your liking.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> Mind is Buddha.
> -- Baso
>
> No mind, no Buddha.
> -- Baso
>
> http://wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/ZenMasterIn.html
Logically, the two statements jive. If mind
is Buddha, then negating both is a tautology,
and therefore correct.
That said, whether they are logically valid or
not (regardless of content, and regardless
whether the content is valid or not), they are
mere opinions. Other masters say different
things that negate the whole lot of them, in
toto, and again the latter are also mere
opinions, devoid of any reality.
If you are in peace and serenity, such opinions
are worthless and count less than echoes in a
valley, regardless of how famous and prestigious
their authors presumably are. They are all
efforts to slap a hat on (coiffer) what does not
need one. Freedom does not need a hat.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Lee:
>
> > mind is never really empty. even when
> > word thoughts, impressions and subtle
> > intuitive meanderings subside there is still
> > the infinite [woo-woo] potential of imagination,
> > ever there and ever ready for dispositioning.
>
> Empty in the sense of "bereft of intentionality".
> The mind is inactive, there is nothing to cause
> it do anything.
If so, what happens in mind as content
(the ripples) does not matter to mind.
Mind's intentionality does not intention
the content, whether the latter is present
or not, and if it is present, whatever its
tone may be. Non-intentionality means
to plane above it all. (Eckhart talks much
about planing above).
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> I see you more clearly now, in your naked frailty :
> you are an ocean of emotion, are you not ;) !
Whatever you see me as is fine with me.
It seems however that others have starkly
views of me.
Tang Huyen
Wompom
Yes but sometimes these ripples are as high as Tsunami waves, however like
waves they do rise, fall and ofen subside...
(Think, the imperitive to reproduction?)
I "do" love the Surfing analogy...
:-)
Charles E Hardwidge
news:ueednUmv-50rMK3W...@supernews.com...
>
> them shows your mettle. If you can quiesce
> them all the way, fine, it will feel very calm
> and peaceful, but if you are disturbed by them,
> iow disturbed by them being there at all, then
> you are under their spell. However if they are
> there or are not there and don't move you
> either way, then they ... don't matter. You can
> dispose them to your liking.
Well, duh.
The problem with you always *talking* about this (and not in a particularly
interesting, elegant, or readable way) is it just becomes a confusing and
procrastinating mantra. Can't anyone in here talk something they've *done*
and allow the audience to infer the conclusions?
If you never *do* anything you'll never learn much less apply it in a
meaningful way. "Mere words on the screen", here, just scrub around the same
territory and impede growth. The mind requires practicality and, indeed we
do, live in a physical world. This requires *action*.
British politics is cursed with ideologues, sloganised enthusiasm, and
spinelessness. The talkers, salesmen, and cowards would give these
newsgroups a run for their money. They also eschew action to trade in words,
hence, the similarly unedifying spectacle of mediocrity.
Charles E Hardwidge
Comic book guy.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Allen Barker
>
>
> Allen Barker wrote:
>
>> Mind is Buddha.
>> -- Baso
>>
>> No mind, no Buddha.
>> -- Baso
>>
>> http://wisdomportal.com/Enlightenment/ZenMasterIn.html
>
> Logically, the two statements jive. If mind
> is Buddha, then negating both is a tautology,
> and therefore correct.
It is a fun but pointless exercise to interpret
koans as logical propositions.
> That said, whether they are logically valid or
> not (regardless of content, and regardless
> whether the content is valid or not), they are
> mere opinions. Other masters say different
> things that negate the whole lot of them, in
> toto, and again the latter are also mere
> opinions, devoid of any reality.
Rather than being "opinions," the point in the
thread was that Baso was applying skillful means.
In each case Baso was asked "What is Buddha?"
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "Tang Huyen"
>
> >> I see you more clearly now, in your naked frailty :
> >> you are an ocean of emotion, are you not ;) !
>
> > Whatever you see me as is fine with me.
> > It seems however that others have starkly
> > views of me.
>
> Comic book guy.
A word is missing: "It seems however that
others have starkly different views of me."
Sorry.
Tang Huyen
Wompom
news:fcSdnQVlxMzGLK3W...@giganews.com...
Soz always subside...
:D
(Until the next earthquake)
:-(
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> Rather than being "opinions," the point in the
> thread was that Baso was applying skillful means.
> In each case Baso was asked "What is Buddha?"
Buddha is Buddha. Yet another opinion.
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker
Perhaps that is your opinion, and perhaps you
interpret Baso's replies as opinions. But Baso
was making use of his free-working rather than
expressing opinions.
Consider that my opinion if you like. ;-)
Charles E Hardwidge
An apology on the internet? An apology in these newsgroups??? Good grief.
That's a novelty. Next, you'll be telling us you're not a virgin. Perhaps,
like the glimpse of shiny new conker peeping out of its shell, we're on the
verge of seeing a new Tang. Man of action. Soul of the party.
Well, c'mon then. Let's have a look. Give us a twirl.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Allen Barker:
>
> >> Rather than being "opinions," the point in the
> >> thread was that Baso was applying skillful means.
> >> In each case Baso was asked "What is Buddha?"
>
> > Buddha is Buddha. Yet another opinion.
>
> Perhaps that is your opinion, and perhaps you
> interpret Baso's replies as opinions. But Baso
> was making use of his free-working rather than
> expressing opinions.
>
> Consider that my opinion if you like. ;-)
<<Perhaps that is your opinion, and perhaps you
interpret Baso's replies as opinions. But Baso
was making use of his free-working rather than
expressing opinions.>>
So, to you, I interpret Baso, but you have
direct knowledge of what went on in his
mind and therefore what you say of him
is not opinion but truth, right? Direct
transmission from mind to mind, right?
Remember the hats?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>Can't anyone in here talk something they've *done*
>and allow the audience to infer the conclusions?
Yesterday morning I baked a fruitcake, following Jacques Pepin's recipe
for _Cake Anglais_, with modifications. For shortening, I substituted
about a cup of olive oil for the pound of butter called for (I had a
few tablespoons of butter too, and added that); instead of a pound of
sugar (the recipe is, really, for pound cake) I substituted half a pound
of "date sugar", which is really just dates, in coarse powdered form.
I used the full pounds of eggs and flour (mostly spelt, some wheat).
As usual, to bring the whole thing up to full weight, I was generous
with the quantities of "fruit". Besides currants (not, this time, real
black-currants; just tiny raisins) and yellow raisins (sultanas), I
used dried Bing cherries, diced fresh apple (Rhode Island Greening),
zest from an orange and a lemon, and small dice of carrot and butternut
squash. I forgot the prunes, and was out of dried peaches, nectarines,
and pears (peaches and pears are my favorites; apricots are far too
aggressive, and I never use them). Oh, the currants, raisins, and
cherries got a good soaking in rum, first; and the rum went in, too.
Now I'm off for my second slice of this morning, and second cup of
coffee.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> So, to you, I interpret Baso, but you have
> direct knowledge of what went on in his
> mind and therefore what you say of him
> is not opinion but truth, right? Direct
> transmission from mind to mind, right?
Who gives a shit? Just take the fucking stuff as read instead of playing
stupid ass games. You don't need a particle accelerator or a devious
mistress passing on pillow talk to know that if you get hit with a brick
it's going to hurt. Honestly, I haven't seen such a concentration of
dithering windy ladymen as in these newsgroups.
Lee Rudolph
Buddha is Spartacus.
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
Alternatively, a syllable was in excess
(pleonastic?): "It seems however that others
have stark views of me."
Lee Rudolph
Allen Barker
They are koans, not historical facts (whether or not
they actually happened). In interpreting a koan
about Master Baso it is safe to assume that he is
awakened.
Are there only two options, opinion or truth?
liaM
Indeed how do the fishes of this sangha see you.. starkly..
darkly.. sparkly... like the coral reef
anthropomorphically delighted to show its forms and colors
and by force of its intellect, happy for the fishes, cephalopods,
sea spiders, slugs, eels, medusa and sea snorkeling liaMs
to cavort in its folds !
liaM
Shrimps ! crabs ! I could I forget shrimps and crabs !
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
I am not talking about anybody's awakening,
I am talking about how we take the saying of
ancient people. You fit Baso into the box
"awakened", and what he says into the box
"public case", not historical facts, and stop all
discussion there, because apparently it is too
holy. Tunnel vision. Coiffer les anciens.
Tang Huyen
Kitty P
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
There is no way for you to know what people who are talking in these groups
do or not do, especially in terms of right action Charley. I know that many
of us live lives of authenticity and contributions, but with the knowledge
that it carries no more 'specialness' than chopping wood. What I am often
amazed at, however, is that in supposed Zen discussions people talk about
the way everyone else is supposed to think, act, or be. It seems like waste
of time - but it's their time to waste when all is said and done.
Kitty
Keynes
Zen tradition is emphatic about realization.
That is it's whole aim and reason for being.
No dithering allowed. "Get busy", say the
masters, "and don't waste your precious time."
Just words. Will we ever have enough words?
Words about the words about the words.
More and more of them can't ever do the job.
So there are the words to cut off the words,
thoughts to cut off the thoughts, acts to cut
off the action. Offered freely to those who
might accept them.
Casting pearls before swine perhaps.
Or filling the well with snow.
Lee
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:GdCdnWY4BZbKLK3W...@supernews.com...
this is where i get a kick out of people
on here like dramadroll and appledork.
their egos are so overblown that when
they voice an opinion of someone they
actually have lied so deeply to themselves
that they are convinced that their opinion
is fact and much more than just opinion.
the laffs roll on.
zenworm
wrote:
Positing a doer?
ripples quiesce?
ocean is the 'rising and falling' of ripples
the appearances of form
the beginning and ending of ripples?
substanceless
comings and goings?
ocean moves not at all
no gain, no loss
ocean still
imperturbable serenity
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
zenworm
zenworm
Lee Rudolph
>On Dec 22, 8:06=A0am, Allen Barker <allendotelldotbar...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Are there only two options, opinion or truth?
>
>
>only one
>
>Moment
One moment, please.
(Your call may be monitored to assure quality.)
Lee Rudolph
Lee
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hgr528$ooh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
"south of the river you stop and you hold everything."
>dire straits
zenworm
open channel
unlimited bandwidth
Momenting eternity...
what's your number?
-e^(i*pi) ?
ZN ;D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
Allen Barker
You often talk about "awakeneds" and the box
"awakened." Yet Master Baso in a koan cannot
be considered to be awakened? Talk about stopping
discussion.
What is it that I supposedly consider too holy
to discuss?
What discussion did you want from there? They
*are* koans. If you want to discuss and speculate
about the mind of the historical Baso, then go
ahead and discuss the mind of the historical Baso.
I'll probably skip that discussion, however.
liaM
>
>
> liaM wrote:
>
>>
>>> mind is never really empty. even when
>>> word thoughts, impressions and subtle
>>> intuitive meanderings subside there is still
>>> the infinite [woo-woo] potential of imagination,
>>> ever there and ever ready for dispositioning.
>>
>> The mind is inactive, there is nothing to cause
>> it do anything.
>
> If so, what happens in mind as content
> (the ripples) does not matter to mind.
> Mind's intentionality does not intention
> the content, whether the latter is present
> or not, and if it is present, whatever its
> tone may be. Non-intentionality means
> to plane above it all. (Eckhart talks much
> about planing above).
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Content of mind = noemata (thoughts)- the primary feature
of which is intentionality. We do not think, except for a purpose,
even when our thinking is directed to immaterial or imaginary
objects.. such as unicorns, or the object you present in your
discussion : "the ripples that do not matter to mind" (sic)
So let me display another image for your inspiration. Here
is another way to think of Zazen or sitting facing a wall
from Ch'an buddhism. Think of it as achieving a mental state,
whether sitting, standing or riding a bus, such as has hardly
a ripple in its composition.
Déjà Flu
<oopth>
> So let me display another image for your inspiration. Here
> is another way to think of Zazen or sitting facing a wall
> from Ch'an buddhism. Think of it as achieving a mental state,
> whether sitting, standing or riding a bus, such as has hardly
> a ripple in its composition.
Entirely apr�s-ski, liamchop. You should know that.
Julian
Hey! I had some coffee too.
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Content of mind = noemata (thoughts)- the primary feature
> of which is intentionality. We do not think, except for a purpose,
> even when our thinking is directed to immaterial or imaginary
> objects.. such as unicorns, or the object you present in your
> discussion : "the ripples that do not matter to mind" (sic)
>
> So let me display another image for your inspiration. Here
> is another way to think of Zazen or sitting facing a wall
> from Ch'an buddhism. Think of it as achieving a mental state,
> whether sitting, standing or riding a bus, such as has hardly
> a ripple in its composition.
I have no objection to that, and often talk about
non-mentation as the state without thought (and
therefore without ripples). But I do not take it to
be the only end-state in Buddhism and Chan, and
to me if intentionality is dependent on the absence
of content of mind, then it is enslaved to content
of mind (be it to the absence of the content of
mind) and is not free. To me it is free when it
planes above content of mind (the possible ripples),
whether the latter is present or absent. It is then
independent of the content of mind, and therefore
free.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> You often talk about "awakeneds" and the box
> "awakened." Yet Master Baso in a koan cannot
> be considered to be awakened? Talk about stopping
> discussion.
>
> What is it that I supposedly consider too holy
> to discuss?
>
> What discussion did you want from there? They
> *are* koans. If you want to discuss and speculate
> about the mind of the historical Baso, then go
> ahead and discuss the mind of the historical Baso.
> I'll probably skip that discussion, however.
I do not dispute your attribution of awakening
to Baso or your calling such sayings of his
public cases. I only say that your thinking is
fixist and boxist -- too immersed in reverence
of a literalist sort. To me, what he says is mere
opinions, and they can be confirmed and
negated by truckloads of other sayings from
ancient people who are widely considered as
sages, sayings which also are mere opinions.
They are at best like legs added to a painting
of a snake, hats that are slapped on something
that does not need them.
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>Allen Barker wrote:
>
>> You often talk about "awakeneds" and the box
>> "awakened." Yet Master Baso in a koan cannot
>> be considered to be awakened? Talk about stopping
>> discussion.
>>
>> What is it that I supposedly consider too holy
>> to discuss?
>>
>> What discussion did you want from there? They
>> *are* koans. If you want to discuss and speculate
>> about the mind of the historical Baso, then go
>> ahead and discuss the mind of the historical Baso.
>> I'll probably skip that discussion, however.
>
>I do not dispute your attribution of awakening
>to Baso
As I understand Allen's point, he is *not* making
an "attribution of awakening to" any historical
"Baso"; he is (roughly speaking) treating a koan
as a word problem, in which "Master Baso" is playing
a role, much as A., B., and that old favorite M.
play roles in traditional algebra word problems
about people rowing upstream while others open
dams and still others run along the bank.
Allen, do I have that approximately right?
Lee Rudolph
Allen Barker
You call me a literalist, when you want to consider
the sayings of sages as logical assertions to be
confirmed and negated against each other, outside
of their contexts?
You are, of course, free to interpret Baso's sayings,
the Buddha's sayings, etc., as expressing their own
opinions. To me, though, you seem to be missing the
skillful means aspect coming from the free-working of
an awakened person acting in a given context.
If someone posts a post to one of these newsgroups
solely with the intention of getting some reaction out
of someone else, what is that post: truth or the
poster's opinion?
liaM
Butterfly, butterfly. Your mom's pixed you still flapping your
wings on the refrigerator's door and I'm feeling so sad..
Say, old guy. Did I say Zazen was the end-state of zen buddhism ?
And why is it you have not even tried Zazen, are you
not even a tad curious to experience the other face* of Zen ?
Allen Barker
Close enough (though, of course, intellectual answers
do not "solve" these "word problems").
liaM
>
> Close enough (though, of course, intellectual answers
> do not "solve" these "word problems").
>
"Sad, is it not..." (Chuang Tzu)
halfawake
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>
>><<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
>>If you were told something else, then it wasn't
>>zazen.>>
>
>
> Well regardless, I *wasn't* told this; that is, I
> *was* told something else.
>
> But this is looking better and better -- credit where
> credit is due.
>
> --
> hz
unless "emptying the mind" means something other than what I think it
means, me and Hui Neng are against it. Hui Neng remarked that those who
try to get rid of all thoughts have become so stupid that we can no
longer even talk to them. That's a near-quote.
that is not the goal of zazen. Emptying the mind of thought is like
emptying a lake of water from inside a rowboat. Better to realize the
nature of water than try to get rid of it. Then it disappears all by
itself and you realize that it was transparent all along.
Hui Neng says that from thought-moment to thought-moment one should
realize the "essence of mind." Now what does that have to do with
"emptying the mind?" Nothing at all. It's the wrong direction.
**Realization** is what is important, not one's **mental condition.**
And that is my Christmas Gift to you, Herb. At least....well, think
about it. :)
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
> On 12/21/2009 05:53 PM, herbzet wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>> <<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
>>> If you were told something else, then it wasn't
>>> zazen.>>
>>
>>
>> Well regardless, I *wasn't* told this; that is, I
>> *was* told something else.
>
>
> What were you told?
>
>> But this is looking better and better -- credit where
>> credit is due.
>
>
> It's really all just means, skillful or not. How
> could there be a "goal" to zazen in the absolute sense?
> If anything the goal would be satori, but that, too,
> is just another discrimination. (Now we can
> argue intellectually about whether emptying the mind
> equals awakening. ;-)
>
> If it helps a person to tell him or her that the goal
> of zazen is emptying the mind then a roshi might tell
> him or her that. That same roshi might tell another
> person a different thing (or that same person a
> different thing at a different time).
>
> Either way, one goal of the roshi is to encourage the
> person to shut up and sit his or her butt down on the
> meditation cushion. ;-)
Thus silencing the mind of most people, due to location. :)
Robert
halfawake
>
> Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I think we could benefit from refraining from stock phrases like
>>the "end of thinking."
>>
>>Buddhism is more about changing the way one experiences life
>>(experience) so it can be enjoyed in a less cluttered and happy way.
>>Those brief periods of non-mentating, non-discursive experience that
>>can be attained during meditation (and various meditative states) are
>>instructive to that end but by no means should be construed, in and of
>>themselves, to be the end goal of Buddhism.
>>
>>This present moment is the goal and it's sitting right here in the
>>laps of our silly, worried brains.
>
>
> If you drill down to the present moment,
> simply and purely, there is no thought in
> that moment. It sounds like a tautology,
> or a circular argument, but do it and you
> will see. In Buddhism, it is called the
> mere instant (kshana-matra), which is
> just the moment and nothing else.
Well, this is a much more accurate expression of the correct elimination
of thought than "emptying the mind," which I believe is a misguided term
of art. To be in seamless contact between attention and the object of
attention, so that the moment is fully attended to without gap,
eliminates separate thought as there is no cause for it to arise. That
is thought eliminated not by effort but as a side-effect of a higher
state of attentiveness.
Best,
halfawake
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> news:DLCdncnsTsATiK3W...@supernews.com...
>
>>
>> If you drill down to the present moment,
>> simply and purely, there is no thought in
>> that moment. It sounds like a tautology,
>> or a circular argument, but do it and you
>> will see. In Buddhism, it is called the
>> mere instant (kshana-matra), which is
>> just the moment and nothing else.
>
>
> Roger Scruton and Clive James said it better, and they just have to say it
> once and people get it. No need for garbled 10,000 word essays, trolling
> masquerading as "testing", and look at me cross-posting.
>
> On another thread issue of Zen, topicality, and cross-posting, I note, the
> responses fall into the category of "they would say that wouldn't they".
> It's a classic example of group think.
>
> While one hesitates to use the word "wrong" there's definite cause to
> suggest there's an individual and collective case of not getting it.
> But, the point's been made and how people respond remains to be seen.
>
> FU trimmed to alt.zen
>
The following is directed to Herb.
Charles, have another drink and go back to drooling in your sleep.
Herb, looking at Charles' comment above, can you see that it has
absolutely no content whatsoever? It is a critique, but of nothing in
particular, gives no alternatives and is not even clear about the
content it is supposedly dissatisfied with.
A few examples:
"...said it better...say it once and people get it." etc.
No mention of what was said, how it was said better, etc., just raw
assertion.
"...responses fall into a category of..."
no mention of what the responses are, how they qualify for that
category, etc.
again, raw assertion with no content, context or examples.
"...individual and collective case of not getting it..."
no discussion of what there is to get, why or how it is not gotten, etc.
again, assertion with no content to back it up.
finally "...point's been made..."
what point? that the posters have been found wanting in general ways
with no evidence?
great point, as usual!
I will post an exaggerated Charles essay soon to point up this total
lack of ANYTHING in his self-aggrandizing posts. there's no code, cause
there's no "there" there. nothing but raw NPD.
Lee
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgrphq$qbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
wow ! what an amazing coincidence !
signs and wonders, signs and wonders.....
Lee
"Allen Barker" <allendotel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JreYm.1931$8e4...@newsfe03.iad...
o my gawd now you want truth in opinion?
do0od you just wiped out most of uselessnet.
Lee
words were invented by men in order to
get into women's pants. well, they didn't
have pants back then, but you get the idea.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:hgsk65$a00$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>> Roger Scruton and Clive James said it better, and they just have to say
>> it once and people get it. No need for garbled 10,000 word essays,
>> trolling masquerading as "testing", and look at me cross-posting.
>>
>> On another thread issue of Zen, topicality, and cross-posting, I note,
>> the responses fall into the category of "they would say that wouldn't
>> they". It's a classic example of group think.
>>
>> While one hesitates to use the word "wrong" there's definite cause to
>> suggest there's an individual and collective case of not getting it. But,
>> the point's been made and how people respond remains to be seen.
>>
>> FU trimmed to alt.zen
>
> absolutely no content whatsoever? It is a critique, but of nothing in
> particular, gives no alternatives and is not even clear about the content
> it is supposedly dissatisfied with.
It's clear, concise, and well grounded. Fact is, Bob, you don't understand
strategic thinking. Maybe, if you asked questions instead of being such a
tribalistic douche you'd get further.
There's no compelling reason for you to mess with the headers I've set and
it's against convention and incredibly rude not to notify people of changes
in the post. You're not getting any buy in, here.
Another EPIC FAIL for you, Bob.
FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Wompom
Lee Rudolph
>And why is it you have not even tried Zazen, are you
>not even a tad curious to experience the other face* of Zen ?
Either someone has transfixed a small but wingless insect to my
screen, or you've left out a footnote.
Lee Rudolph (OMGz! where's the Third Possibility???)
Lee Rudolph
>that is not the goal of zazen. Emptying the mind of thought is like
>emptying a lake of water from inside a rowboat. Better to realize the
>nature of water than try to get rid of it. Then it disappears all by
>itself and you realize that it was transparent all along.
And you end up stuck in the mud?
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> halfawake:
>
> >that is not the goal of zazen. Emptying the mind
> >of thought is like emptying a lake of water from
> >inside a rowboat. Better to realize the nature of
> >water than try to get rid of it. Then it disappears
> >all by itself and you realize that it was transparent
> >all along.
>
> And you end up stuck in the mud?
By sheer force of mind, beat mud into
water, idiot.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:8aSdnT3lx65-mK_W...@supernews.com...
It's no secret that the narrow and corrupted DNA of these newsgroups doesn't
get much of my attention but this got my attention.
While quality and society are headline priorities, the underlying trends are
practicality and trust.
Choose your think tank and focus group wisely, etcetera.
liaM
Eyes of an eagle. Rocket scientist mind.
Nothing escapes thee, O Mighty Lee !
I deleted a footnote concerning the two best known japanese commentators
of zen for americans :
Daisetz and Shunryu Suzuki,
Daisetz having an intellectual approach that resembles
Tan Huyen's;
Shunryu Suzuki being more my cup of tea..
milk and sugar, please.
Lee Rudolph
Emptying alt.zen of crossposts is like emptying
a think tank of pundits from inside a focus group.
Better to realize the nature of quality than try
to get rid of it. Then it disappears all by itself
and you realize that it was shite all along.
Lee Rudolph
daletx
Well, if you're an old Walt Kelly fan, it could be a trained spider...
DT
Keynes
"Three pounds of flax! Just think of that,
you yankee dogs. It makes no sense. But in
that three pounds of flax are many ounces.
48 or 49, or something like that. Zen is
the great handle-less wok of freedom, like
an iron bowling ball of tremendous weight.
Say 8 or 15 pounds at least."
-- D.T.Suzuki
Appledog
>
> I will post an exaggerated Charles essay soon to point up this total
> lack of ANYTHING in his self-aggrandizing posts. there's no code, cause
> there's no "there" there. nothing but raw NPD.
Sigh. Robert, robert, robert.
You'd probably just screw it up. Look. Just taking the first point you
made re. "said it better", there's a whole context here you're simply
not picking up on. Likely, to keep up with the speed of communication,
your brain is skipping entire ideas by-the-way to try and comprehend
the material. What Charles said makes perfect sense to me. In this
case "it" is the placeholder for what Tang said, which to me is self-
evident. Roger Scruton is an English philosopher who has become
somewhat of an expert critic of 'modern philosophy". Philosophies such
as Tang's return to irrationality and lack of de rigeur masquerading
as stoicism (nothing could be further from stoicism than what Tang
actually does on usenet) have been prime targets of his work, which
anyone who was familiar with Scruton's life work would know.
Clive James OTOH is a widely published genius-level (well, we have the
same IQ, anyways) literary critic in England. Charles here brings him
up, I suspect, because of his masterpiece "Cultural Amnesia". I won't
discuss the intricacies any further. However, it would again be self-
evident precisely what Charles was talking about to anyone actually
familiar with the author in question.
What has happened here, is that what Charles has said went right over
your head, robert. Yes, Charles is a bit of a nutjob, but in the sense
that he should be dumbing it down and he doesn't compromise.
Don't make the embarrassing mistake of assuming you can eclipsed what
he's written. If you don't get it, just ignore him. You'll lead a
happier, and therefore I hope longer life.
FWIW I'd put charles about 150 IQ.
-
Lee Rudolph
A *skooshed* spider! Seven days of rain!!
Lee Rudolph (working from memory, since the cat on my lap is keeping me from
consulting "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years with Pogo", my Kant, Lao-Tse,
and D.T. Suzuki wrapped up in one)
liaM
> Lee Rudolph (working from memory, since the cat on my lap is keeping me from
> consulting "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years with Pogo", my Kant, Lao-Tse,
> and D.T. Suzuki wrapped up in one)
Pogo.. the antidote to british inferiority complex upper crustiness !
Keynes
Doesn't the upper crust have a right to feel inferior?
herbzet
halfawake wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Tang Huyen wrote:
> >
> >><<The goal of zazen is emptying your mind.
> >>If you were told something else, then it wasn't
> >>zazen.>>
> >
> >
> > Well regardless, I *wasn't* told this; that is, I
> > *was* told something else.
> >
> > But this is looking better and better -- credit where
> > credit is due.
>
> unless "emptying the mind" means something other than what I think it
> means, me and Hui Neng are against it. Hui Neng remarked that those who
> try to get rid of all thoughts have become so stupid that we can no
> longer even talk to them. That's a near-quote.
>
> that is not the goal of zazen. Emptying the mind of thought is like
> emptying a lake of water from inside a rowboat. Better to realize the
> nature of water than try to get rid of it. Then it disappears all by
> itself and you realize that it was transparent all along.
>
> Hui Neng says that from thought-moment to thought-moment one should
> realize the "essence of mind." Now what does that have to do with
> "emptying the mind?" Nothing at all. It's the wrong direction.
> **Realization** is what is important, not one's **mental condition.**
Empty your awareness of objects -- have a realization.
> And that is my Christmas Gift to you, Herb. At least....well, think
> about it. :)
Thanx; have a merry.
--
hz
herbzet
Fine by me.
> there's no code, cause
> there's no "there" there. nothing but raw NPD.
Ok. Have a merry whatever.
--
hz
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> Zen tradition is emphatic about realization.
> That is it's whole aim and reason for being.
I bow to you.
:-|
halfawake
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>
>>Can't anyone in here talk something they've *done*
>>and allow the audience to infer the conclusions?
>
>
> Yesterday morning I baked a fruitcake, following Jacques Pepin's recipe
> for _Cake Anglais_, with modifications. For shortening, I substituted
> about a cup of olive oil for the pound of butter called for (I had a
> few tablespoons of butter too, and added that); instead of a pound of
> sugar (the recipe is, really, for pound cake) I substituted half a pound
> of "date sugar", which is really just dates, in coarse powdered form.
> I used the full pounds of eggs and flour (mostly spelt, some wheat).
> As usual, to bring the whole thing up to full weight, I was generous
> with the quantities of "fruit". Besides currants (not, this time, real
> black-currants; just tiny raisins) and yellow raisins (sultanas), I
> used dried Bing cherries, diced fresh apple (Rhode Island Greening),
> zest from an orange and a lemon, and small dice of carrot and butternut
> squash. I forgot the prunes, and was out of dried peaches, nectarines,
> and pears (peaches and pears are my favorites; apricots are far too
> aggressive, and I never use them). Oh, the currants, raisins, and
> cherries got a good soaking in rum, first; and the rum went in, too.
>
> Now I'm off for my second slice of this morning, and second cup of
> coffee.
>
> Lee Rudolph
>
you'd better keep drinking coffee with each slice. sounds a lot like
rum cake to me. <hic> ;) Robert
halfawake
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:
>
>
>
>>Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tang Huyen"
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I see you more clearly now, in your naked frailty :
>>>>>you are an ocean of emotion, are you not ;) !
>>>
>>>>Whatever you see me as is fine with me.
>>>>It seems however that others have starkly
>>>>views of me.
>>>
>>>Comic book guy.
>>
>>A word is missing: "It seems however that
>>others have starkly different views of me."
>>Sorry.
>
>
> Alternatively, a syllable was in excess
> (pleonastic?): "It seems however that others
> have stark views of me."
>
> Lee Rudolph
Ah, economy is the first rule of great writing. Which is why Joseph
Conrad....oh, nevermind, wrong group...
halfawake
awesome task too, what with knickers and bloomers and slips and skirts
and boned bodices with basques, and social conventions and personal
choice - even then!
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -