Re: Is it real or is it Memorex? (was Re: Perhaps the only crime)

[Tang Huyen]

Lee Rudolph wrote:

> Tang Huyen:

>> To the best of my knowledge, nobody
>> has ever accepted the label
>> "crashed" on these boards.

> I might consider accepting it. What's
> it pay?
>
> Lee Rudolph (of course, for it *really*
> to become accepted, you'll have to make
> people pay for it--but once over that
> hump, the sky will be the limit)

You are too smart, and you don't blow
up on mere words on the screen. That
is pretty much what I say about
Daryl/Love, though he had Korean Chan
(Son) training in Toronto, and you
have never claimed any spiritual
training, not that I know of (if
anything, you probably deny any
effectivity to such training).

At a minimum, I cannot throw at you
the insult, that after years and
decades of spiritual training, you
still can't take mere words on the
screen. (Some people are really bent
out of shape by such an insult, their
spiritual training to the contrary).

Moral: it would take Bill Gates'
fortune, or more, to get the label
"crashed" accepted by you. Though
you may accept it out of generosity
and magnanimity, because it doesn't
do anything to you.

So there: you are crashed, Lee. Yes,
crashed. Beyond any shadow of doubt,
you idiot. My co-conspirator, web
head (dr x), will back up my insult.

Tang Huyen

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 4/28/2012 7:32 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> So there: you are crashed, Lee. Yes,
> crashed. Beyond any shadow of doubt,
> you idiot. My co-conspirator, web
> head (dr x), will back up my insult.

It all comes out in the wash.

[Lee Rudolph]

Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:

>Lee Rudolph wrote:
...

>> I might consider accepting it. What's
>> it pay?

...

>you
>have never claimed any spiritual
>training, not that I know of (if
>anything, you probably deny any
>effectivity to such training).

I have recently come to think (or, maybe
more accurately, I have recently realized
that somewhere along the line I came to
think) that the notion of "causality" is
very over-rated, particularly in the
context of humans (and groups of humans)
and their behavior. Particularly in the
last couple of days--after Ned noted that
something or other I'd written apparently
(at least, apparently to him) precludes
the meaningfulness of karma--I've been
kicking that thought around more vigorously;
now you've given me a hook to hang it on,
dents and all. I don't think I'd say that
I "deny any effectivity to" training
(spiritual or otherwise), but I certainly
have deep doubts that *any* "training"--
even toilet training--can be said to have
"effectivity" in the sense (which may not
be the sense you intend) of "efficient
cause". A friend and colleague of mine
uses the regrettable phrase "systemic-
catalyzed causality"; my impression is
now that "causality" in human affairs
mostly is, insofar as it is at all,
system-catalyzed. Throwing bread on
waters, spaghetti at walls, that kind
of thing. Life as food-fight.

Or, in brief: we all can claim the
same "spiritual training", namely,
being alive (while we are). What
sticks, sticks, unless and until it
drops off.

Br'er Rudolph

[liaM]

I doubt it. Spilt sticky sweet wines based on grapes are hell to clean!

[Hollywoood Lee]

On 4/27/2012 6:36 PM, Lee Rudolph wrote:

> Or, in brief: we all can claim the
> same "spiritual training", namely,
> being alive (while we are). What
> sticks, sticks, unless and until it
> drops off.

A dog can learn to dance, yet still yearns to roll in shit.

[Lee Rudolph]

The smell-world of a dog is incomparably rich, so why not?

Lee Rudolph

[Hollywooodlee]

Ah yes. That musky overtone, with subtle hints of cinnamon, clove, sulphur
and dead squirrel. Why not indeed.

[Tang Huyen]

Hollywooodlee wrote:

> Lee Rudolph:

>> Hollywoood Lee<:

>>> Lee Rudolph:

>>>> Or, in brief: we all can claim the
>>>> same "spiritual training", namely,
>>>> being alive (while we are). What
>>>> sticks, sticks, unless and until it
>>>> drops off.

>>> A dog can learn to dance, yet still
>>> yearns to roll in shit.

>> The smell-world of a dog is incomparably
>> rich, so why not?

> Ah yes. That musky overtone, with subtle
> hints of cinnamon, clove, sulphur
> and dead squirrel. Why not indeed.

In Vietnam, dogs eat human shit.
And humans (at least, some of them)
like to eat dogs. Most German
shepherds sent by the US to fight
the war ended up in people's
tummies.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

My take on this issue is this. The main
problem is this: the path involves a
change of attitude, and the fruit is
such a change of attitude, but all the
technique is a roundabout way to change
the attitude, however the technique has
to be performed with the change of
attitude in view, or somewhere near
there, otherwise the technique will not
lead to the hoped-for end, which is the
change in attitude. Often technique is
taken as an end in itself, and if the
practitioner is good with the technique,
it is assumed (or explicitly stated)
that he or she is successful, tout
court.

The difference can also be stated in
plain English as learning what to do
and learning how to be. In the former,
you go by steps, which are quite
specific, and you know. In the latter,
you absorb some culture, some way of
being. It is like apprenticeship, but
like apprenticeship in family, where
you learn what your ancestors behave,
how they live their lives, and you
live the same way. The Old One (Lao-zi)
does not teach technique but how to
live, how to be. It is not to learn
what to do with the external world, but
how to cope with the internal world.
To read Daisetz T. Suzuki is to read
an encyclopedia of know-how, what to do
with realities, which is completely off
the mark.

Here, there is a confusion of training
in know-how (like in engineering) and
training for a change in attitude.
Training in know-how is straightforward,
in that you learn the know-how, and by
learning the know-how, you learn the
trade. But training for a change of
attitude is entirely different, in that
the "from" attitude and the "to"
attitude are both hard to pin down, and
the path from the former to the latter
is even harder to pin down, even more
so to execute. Training in technique is
training in know-how, not a training
for a change in attitude, and success
in technique does not necessarily
translate into success in change in
attitude.

Not to go too far in the change of
attitude, but the ground-level
training can involve something as
simple as the patience (or constance,
Latin constantia) to take mere words
on the screen. Very few people on
these boards can take mere words on
the screen, regardless how long they
have been in spiritual training,
thirty or forty years or whatever.
But if they cannot take mere words on
the screen, their training has been
a failure, regardless of externalities.
They would have better spent their
time flying kites in parks.

Instead of fancy technique, like in
meditation, the students might be
taught directly in the change of
attitude, for example, just to relax
and be serene, to take it easy, to
open themselves up to the moment.
But such an approach would be
laughed off as trivial or naïve or
whatever. Yet the training is par
excellence to lead back to an
attitude that to normal people would
*be* trivial or naïve -- paying
attention to what happens without the
mediation of artifice (human customs,
personal habits, etc.). It is not in
what to do but *how to experience*,
afresh in every moment. Buddhism is
an existential teaching par
excellence.

Some specific gains in the path can
also be directly pointed out, for
example, the change from realism and
literalism to the absence of them.
But again, such a change is hard to
pin down, especially if the teacher
is realist and literalist, as such
a person would have trouble knowing
that he or she is realist and
literalist, A whole culture can well
resist such a change, for example
the Japanese society, which scarcely
allows for the examination of its
societal norms and standards. Thus
its norms and standards have to be
taken (and accepted) literally and
not questioned (this is called
conformism). If so, the abandonment
of realism and literalism is not
fostered, and even actively
inhibited or repressed. The
glorification of technique can go
well with such a societal view,
because then everybody can focus on
technique, to the detriment of the
consideration of attitudes.

The codification of technique, for
example the classification of
public cases and of the "correct"
answers to them, into lower and
higher classes, are signs of
rigidification, which runs counter
to the fluidity and ambiguity that
would be desirable for the ending of
suffering. Formalisation,
codification, turning the path
into a training in manners (bowing
and scraping), etc. are signs of
decadence, and they are all rife in
Japanese Zen.

Tang Huyen

[i2i]

"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:AumdnbdUja1bmAHS...@supernews.com...

dog gone it

[Lee Rudolph]

Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:

...

>Here, there is a confusion of training
>in know-how (like in engineering) and
>training for a change in attitude.

...

This gives me a hook whereon to hang a
response to something Ned wrote a few
days ago. (I intended to respond
immediately but got distracted and soon
forgot my intention.)

NL> "Learning brings knowledge." Well, this is axiomatic, is it not?
NL> If you learn and remember things, this contributes to your base of
NL> knowledge. (Unless I'm mistaken - and I'm not going to consult a
NL> dictionary on this one - but my understanding of the word 'knowledge'
NL> is that it is fruit of learning.)

Ned, I think you are, in fact, mistaken,
although consulting a dictionary might
not have helped you anyway. Since at
least the early 1900s (and for all I
know, for much longer; but I'm aware
of the distinction because a friend
likes it, and points back to its having
been made around then by Bertrand Russell,
and later--mid 1900s--further promoted by
Michael Polanyi in his book _Personal
Knowledge_) many people have made a
distinction between "knowledge by
description" and "knowledge by acquaintance".
(A quick search of Wikipedia turns up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ,
which reminds me that my friend also likes
to point back to Gilbert Ryle, who distinguished
"knowing how" from "knowing that", very similarly.)
The "fruit of learning" is, on such accounts,
"knowledge by description" or "knowing that",
at least when "learning" is itself distinguished
from "training", or rather when "learning" is
(more or less) identified with Tang's "training
in know-how" or your (implicit) 'building up of'
"your base of knowledge". (Interestingly, at least
to me, "training in know-how" does *not* lead
to "knowing how", in general, if I understand
what those dead white guys meant: "know-how
(like in engineering)" is "knowing that", at
least in the first instance. Of course as
one lives reflectively--e.g., by *practicing*
engineering--one's "knowing that" and one's
"knowing how" often tend to merge.)

Lee Rudolph (taking the piss out of epistemologists)

[Hollywooodlee]

Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:
>
> ...
>> Here, there is a confusion of training
>> in know-how (like in engineering) and
>> training for a change in attitude.
> ...
>
> This gives me a hook whereon to hang a
> response to something Ned wrote a few
> days ago. (I intended to respond
> immediately but got distracted and soon
> forgot my intention.)
>

>> "Learning brings knowledge." Well, this is axiomatic, is it not?

>> If you learn and remember things, this contributes to your base of

>> knowledge. (Unless I'm mistaken - and I'm not going to consult a

>> dictionary on this one - but my understanding of the word 'knowledge'

Knowing what, knowing how, and knowing why often involve different sorts of
skills and efforts. And each has their own particular dangers and
entanglements.

[Jigme Dorje]

Cheju Do, Korea was famous for it's "shit pigs" that were fed on human
excrement and said to be delicious. There's a statue of a woman
squatting and shitting into a pig's mouth.

[i2i]

"Jigme Dorje" <jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jnhf4l$9a0$1...@dont-email.me...

in "Gravity's Rainbow" Thomas Pynchon
details a man eating a turd. The rest of
the book is quite amazing though.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 4/28/2012 11:59 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> The Old One (Lao-zi)

> does not teach technique...

Erm, yes he does.. read more closely lol.

[Tang Huyen]

Hollywooodlee wrote:

> Knowing what, knowing how, and knowing
> why often involve different sorts of
> skills and efforts. And each has their
> own particular dangers and entanglements.

Many Westerners abandon their
traditional religion (Jewish
mythology) and turn to Buddhism,
and pay lip service to all the
strange ideas of Buddhism which
are starkly at antipodes with
those of Jewish mythology, such
as the one about the Buddha
only pointing out the Way and
leaving them to follow it to
end their own suffering (iow
the idea that he has no power
over their suffering and ending
of suffering, but that they
have to walk the Way to end
their own suffering).

Yet, reciting as if by rote
all such revolutionary ideas
(revolutionary for their
Jewish mythology), they yet
scarcely walk the Way, which
entails changing their
attitude (which is how one
ends one's suffering), but
only talk about the Way or
talk about walking the Way.

Basically, they change the
content of their beliefs, but
keep the structure of their
old religion (Jewish
mythology) intact, in that
they still believe that
belief in content is all, iow
is all that is required for
ending their suffering. They
have not learnt that belief in
content counts for little in
Buddhism. One has to start by
changing one's belief, yes,
but one then has to follow
that up with putting that
content of belief into
practice to change one's
attitude. They talk about the
Raft, but scarcely "get" the
idea that belief is only a
means, a means that has to be
suppressed and transcended
(Hegel has the marvellous
expression: the mediation that
transcends itself and
suppresses itself, die sich
selbst aufhebende Vermittlung).
This idea does not exist in
their old religion (Jewish
mythology), and they have
learnt to parrot it in their
new religion but not to
practice it.

Tang Huyen

[Mouse]

Yeah, leave it to humans to make stuff up.


--
<:3 )~

[Ned Ludd]

"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jnh4sm$1k3$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:
> ...
>> Here, there is a confusion of training
>> in know-how (like in engineering) and
>> training for a change in attitude.
> ...
>
> This gives me a hook whereon to hang a
> response to something Ned wrote a few
> days ago. (I intended to respond
> immediately but got distracted and soon
> forgot my intention.)
>
> NL> "Learning brings knowledge." Well, this is axiomatic, is it not?
> NL> If you learn and remember things, this contributes to your base

> NL> of knowledge. (Unless I'm mistaken - and I'm not going to consult
> NL> a dictionary on this one - but my understanding of the word
> NL> 'knowledge' is that it is fruit of learning.)

Yes, well don't we Buddhists love to make two out of
one, and carve ever finer distinctions into the whole
block of uncarved wood? The wiki article you point to
is even worse - it makes THREE out of one, as follows:

-----
Knowledge... is propositional knowledge, also known as
"knowledge that." This is distinct from "knowledge how"
and "acquaintance-knowledge."
---

Good lord. Then they give an example:

-----
For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4,
but there is also knowing how to add two numbers and knowing
a person (e.g., oneself), place (e.g., one's hometown), thing
(e.g., cars), or activity (e.g., addition).
-----

Have you ever met a 4? Of course you have, we do that
all the time.

They've even got a Venn diagram! It claims (by depiction)
that Knowledge occurs within the intersection of Truths
and Beliefs, but is a sub-section of the intersection.

Oh really this is too much. Knowing THAT "2+2=4" adds
to your base of knowledge just as much as knowing HOW
to add 2 and 2 and to get 4 contributes to it. And the "fruit
of learning" is ALL of that. Or to use Polanyi's example,
the facts of the physics involved in maintaining a state of
balance riding a bicycle build your knowledge base just as
the practical knowledge of actually riding builds it. It's
Polanyi's fault that he implies that they should be or are
the same thing, thus (incorrectly) implying that there are
two different kinds of knowledge. The "fruit of learning"
is all these things, and is not limited, as you suggest, to
just "knowledge by description" or "knowing that".

And, vis-a-vis the thread of this discussion, "Learning
brings knowledge" is still a tautology, disirregardless of
it coming out of the mouth of the Dalai Lama.

Knowledge is funny stuff. I re-watched Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy last night (3rd time - the 2005 movie.) I really
think HHGTTG is wiki, and wiki is HHGTTG. I'm surprised
that this is not more widely observed.

I just did the following tests on Google. I searched for
exact phrase matches on the above assertion, as follows:

"wikipedia is hitchhiker's guide":
4 hits (which are really the same hit)

"hitchhiker's guide is wikipedia":
1 hit (but it was used in the following
exchange:
Just reminding you 4chan gave you >9,000
and a chipmunk turning its head.
Yeah... real cultural icons.
The Hitchhiker's guide is wikipedia for
'normal people'.)

"hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy is wikipedia":
2 hits

And then for completeness:

"wiki is hitchhiker's guide"
0 hits
"hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy is wiki"
0 hits

So, 7 (really only 4 or arguably 3) hits on all of the Internet
for the obvious truism that Wikipedia is the Hitchhiker's Guide.

Sometimes the truth takes centuries to be revealed.

Ned

[liaM]

You fantasize alot about "most people".
Look to your own practice if you want to
chew on something worthwhile.

[Tang Huyen]

Sentiment Bri wrote:

> I understand your point. The idea of mental
> culture is basically to go from "anxiety" to
> "serenity" regardless of the environment.
> However, the environment will effect the
> transition from one state to the next. Some
> environments are more conducive than others.
> One can place themselves in a more conducive
> environment, such as a monastery, or one can
> alter their own environment by making it
> less prone to anxiety and more navigable.
>
> The big problem is that our minds aren't
> naturally going to seek serenity. We're
> wired for survival and seeking serenity isn't
> a good survival strategy -according to our
> genes and cultural memes. This is where your
> advice falls short.
>
> "Just relax and be serene" runs counter to
> the three f's (fight, flee, and fornicate).
> It's simple in sentiment (to say just relax
> and be serene) but challenging to actually
> put into practice; hence, all the practices
> eventually boondoggle into dogma and
> cultural norms and standards. If you really
> wanted to offer good advice you would write,
> "Try and relax and be serene. However, you
> will notice that this may or not happen
> even though reason tells you this is what
> you should do. But don't worry, personal
> experience has shown me that it will get
> easier if you practice. And remember,
> I've been there before and I know it can be
> hard, so even if you blow up, I'm not going
> to think any less of you. I'll still think
> you're all right as long as you keep
> trying."
>
> I added the Christianity cuz your shits
> getting tired.

Thank you, Brian my sweet and loving son,
for reminding me of good norms to follow.
Only friends do so for friends, and I am
particularly thrilled that you took it on
yourself to remind an old dog like me,
who is too rigid and locked-up for
relaxing and taking in anything new. If
I had money, I would hire you to follow
me around to point out my faults and
errors to me, the rest of the time it
would be just me. Your precious advice
will be taken to heart, though my
recalcitrance will make it hard to put
it to my benefit for real. Perhaps I am
just plain unworthy of your advice. I
would like to receive more of the same,
though you may be wasting your time by
casting pearls to swine.

When I first came to these boards, I
wrote that some participants were worse
off than average sinners in the streets
who had never heard of mental culture.
In the intervening years, my impression
got confirmed time and again, what with
so many burns and crashes. These boards
seemed (and still seem) to be a
demolition derby. Some people come here
to have witnesses to their coming down
in glory.

That said, your advice is most
memorable and can scarcely be improved
upon, so let me reproduce it intact:

"Try and relax and be serene. However,
you will notice that this may or not
happen even though reason tells you
this is what you should do. But don't
worry, personal experience has shown
me that it will get easier if you
practice. And remember, I've been
there before and I know it can be hard,
so even if you blow up, I'm not going
to think any less of you. I'll still
think you're all right as long as you
keep trying."

But, fastidious as I am, I cannot
refrain from adding the following, at
the risk of degrading your wonderful
message:

"And try to go above public opinion of
you, leave what others think of you to
them. This includes what I think of
you. All such opinions are mere
opinions, mere views. Plane above all
that, and you'll be at peace with
yourself easily."

Tang "tired shits" Huyen

[Hollywoood Lee]

There are structures to our thought processes that can be helpful in
some situations and rather harmful in others. I've mentioned the idea
of judgment heuristics previously - thinking shortcuts that can help us
process information quickly and allow a usually effective decision.
However, these same thinking shortcuts - heuristics of availability,
representativeness, anchoring, and on - can result in gross sorts of
thinking errors.

In a similar fashion, we all seem to have world views that silently sort
our experiences and result in judgments that feel objective and true,
but could simply be a magnified mistake.

With this lens made explicit, it isn't hard to see how those raised
within a particular cultural setting may find it hard to dispense with
their starting assumptions and thinking filters. Even within the
parameters of your story above, some do escape, such as your friend
Molinos. So be careful with how thick you posit the walls of your
thought up categories. Their utility can be also be stifling.

[Hollywoood Lee]

I think this is always good advice, yet I think many are like me - drawn
to the train wrecks of others' practices and failures in much the way
that Greek tragedies draw me in.. The latest guru to go off the rails
is John Friend, a big time yoga instructor.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-05-01/feature3.php

Let us hope that the play provides its own catharsis.

[Tang Huyen]

The problem with thoughts is the problem
of universals, which comes down to the
"one size fits all" problem. Even with
thoughts of low abstraction, like "dog"
and "cat", there are problems of
boundaries and limits, and when it gets
up to the universals that are universal,
like worldviews, which is what I am
interested in, the problems can be
exacerbated exponentially. A worldview
is a summary thought that pretends to
encompass the manifoldness of the world,
so is bound to find exceptions beyond
count. It sets the world to order in
one way, but lets escape what does not
fit such order, and yet constrains what
does not fit to try to force-fit it
into itself anyway. The constrictions of
worldviews are funny to look at. An
illusion, writ large to the scale of
the world, and fooling itself into
thinking that it is a true
representation of the world. Human
vanity, eh?

In exceptional moments, one can quiesce
all thoughts and merely receives what
comes, without any effort to force-fit
it into one's worldview, but outside of
them, one has to act in the world, and
worldviews are necessary. Keeping in
mind the limitations of one's worldview
(or worldviews) helps in keeping
balance and perspective. That is the
ideal, though at times one can fail,
and fail spectacularly. It is part of
being human.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

Haethen wrote:

> What the *fuck* are you talking about? Are
> you saying no Jews have ever managed to
> leave the Jewish framework behind? No Jews
> ever *got* Buddhism? Those would seem to
> be absurd assertions.
>
> On the other hand, there are elements of
> Jewish thought -- the prohibition of
> idolatry, the ineffable nature of God, the
> Qabalah and Chasidic mysticism -- that
> could easily form a practice parallel to
> Zen, and probably have. If there is any
> truth to Buddhism, it will be endlessly
> rediscovered.
>
> A religious system is not some monolithic
> edifice. Much as some monotheists try to
> brainwash their followers into some kind
> of uniformity, every adherent sees their
> religion in a slightly different way, due
> to their own unique history and
> inclinations.
>
> To repeat, What the *fuck* are you
> talking about? It almost sounds like
> you're stewing over some incident or
> even acquaintance, even some larger
> history with Jews, that wasn't to your
> liking, so now you're making grand
> generalizations to retaliate.

I have often admiringly quoted the
marvellous bit of Jewish wisdom,
which to me is up there with any
competition: "Vanity of vanities".
I have often said that if anybody
"gets" it, there is no need for
any of its competition. I have
often chided many contributors
who paraded the "God is within"
line, to the effect that they
went for the ostentatious but
failed the refined, namely
"Vanity of vanities". However, I
have also pointed out that the
Ecclesiastes, in which the above
saying is found, has been often
deprecated in Jewish mythology,
both in ancient form and
present-day scholarship. The
Ecclesiastes is often taken to be
a treatise in scepticism, which
it is, and it is what makes it
great. What could be a greater
form of scepticism than "Vanity
of vanities"? Right up there
with the Buddha's "What and what
they think it, it is otherwise."

Since coming to these boards, I
have said that nobody has any
corner on anything, awakening
included, and that Buddhism is a
universal, to be found time and
again, even in independence from
Buddhism proper. I have often
named Stoicism and Daoism as
convergent with Buddhism. I have
often said that most famous
Christian mystics are Stoics,
and that their teaching,
theoretical and practical, is
consonant with Buddhism.

So, that is with regard to my
exclusivist parochialism.

I am trying to grasp some
generalisations with regard to
human worldviews in the most
general, universal sense.
Anybody is welcomed to argue,
for or against or whatever. And,
just to put everything in
perspective, I climb right up to
pure reason, which is what helps
formulate thoughts to systemic
coherence, e. g., Stoicism,
Daoism and Buddhism. On the other
hand, I have scarcely detected
any pure reason in Jewish
mythology. Here I talk about
form, not content. I freely
admit that I can be wrong. I
keep in mind the above two
sayings; "Vanity of vanities"
and "What and what they think
it, it is otherwise."

That is the *fuck* that I talk
about. I understand that it can
offend some sensitivities. Mere
words on the screen, etc.

Tang Huyen

[Hollywoood Lee]

I've been reading a series of exchanges (and reader comments) between
Mario Beauregard (who believes that near death experiences demonstrate
life after death) and PZ Meyers (a hard atheist) on Beauregard's book
"Brain Wars."

Putting aside where I come down on the issue, the debate itself is an
excellent example of how each side's "worldview" ensures that they will
never directly engage each other.

[dr x]

it's funny how the debating can cause us to take worldviews so serious
just for the sake of the arguing. we might improve our logical faculty
by forging our minds like swords in this way but it is still obsessive
and prone to make errors based on self interest. another reason i think
we close ourselves off is purely to avoid the true confusion of thought
in simple, instinctive conclusions. rushing to conclusions and carry on.

[Hollywoood Lee]

You used the words "debating" and "logical" in the same sentence. Try
not to do that in the future.

[dr x]

i don't know whether you were joking or not.. you appear to be a perfect
example of what i was just talking about. i didn't use the words
debating and logical in the same sentence... did i?

if i didn't and you aren't kidding what would make you say that?

[dr x]

i think i am on the receiving end, logic can impair humour.

[Hollywoood Lee]

And for Odin's sake, don't try to make jokes on usenet. They rarely work.

[Lee Rudolph]

Hey, there are many logics. The logic of swords
is perfectly consonant with debating. As to the
logic of clubs--well, I'll be attending my town's
Town Meeting tomorrow night, and it's bound to be
on constant display.

Lee Rudolph (then there's the logic of bombs...)

[i2i]

"Hollywoood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jnml7l$mka$1...@dont-email.me...

nope. there was a period
after the word "arguing".

[Hollywoood Lee]

It has been suggested that punctuation is important.

Stop clubbing, baby seals.

[i2i]

"Hollywoood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jnmrpv$vac$1...@dont-email.me...

have you stopped beating?

your wife.

[Hollywoood Lee]

"That's what?", she said.

[Tang Huyen]

Sentiment Bri wrote:

> I enjoy your tired routine, sir. But yep,
> you are too old and inflexible to be
> creative so I must act as your surrogate
> thinker. Whether or not I will
> successfully inculcate my ideas into your
> stiff and rigid mind is to be seen, but I
> look forward to the challenge.
>
> Your point about trying to plane above
> public opinion is a valuable addition, but
> it lacks a justification. I'll add this
> to the end:
>
> "Plane above all that because public
> opinion is fleeting and ultimately beyond
> one's own control. Even my own moral
> support for you is dependant on
> favourable conditions and limited."

Since you want to continue the dialogue,
even if your interlocutor is too rigid
and closed-minded to take anything from
you (except as he feigns to, for
appearance's sake, and be kind enough
to play along and give him some slack),
let me add that the Stoic bottom line
is to rely on oneself, to be
self-sufficient, insofar as one can
afford it. You still need material
support, like food and shelter, but
psychologically, rely only on yourself.
Others' opinion of you is too fickle
for you to depend on. Accord yourself
with yourself, adjust yourself to
yourself, align yourself to yourself,
and you can pretty much go independent,
with the priviso of material support,
of course. That is what the Buddha
meant in his last words: Be an island
onto yourself.

But like with everything I say, I
crave your suggestion and correction
or whatever. I know that you are
perspicacious and truthful, and I rely
on your feedback, however ruthless it
is. And the more ruthless it is, the
more I crave it. I hope that you
understand that much. (Your feedback
would be totally worthless if it were
not ruthless -- the perspicacious part
is automatic).

Tang Huyen

[liaM]

Chomsky says syntax is innate. Maybe all the smoke and mirrors
is just a reflection of that fact.

In suspended animation now. Puppets stopped in their tracks.

[liaM]

Methinks people should refrain from responding to Tang Huyen's post,
as doing him a disservice. Let him find a way of applying what he
preaches so repetitively. Let silence be his guide :)

[SG]

LOL

[oxtail]

You might be making things worse.
Do you really have to do that?

--
oxtail

[Tang Huyen]

Tang Huyen wrote:

> Basically, they change the
> content of their beliefs, but
> keep the structure of their
> old religion (Jewish
> mythology) intact,

That said, there is the opposite:
I read books in Vietnamese published
in Hanoi from fighters in the
Communist liberation army, and it is
obvious that there are many passages
that look exactly (or near there)
like taken from sermons of
exhortation during Chan retreats. It
seems that some such authors had
been Buddhist monks and nuns and
became Communist fighters to fight
foreign invaders, and they copied
Buddhist slogans of mental culture
word for word, only changing the
object to fight for from Buddhism
to national liberation, but
otherwise keeping the structure
intact. One mesmerising detail is
that the last stage just before
victory would be very hard, because
the enemy would tempt one with an
easy ersatz for true victory, which
is an obvious adaptation of the
Buddha's fight with the Devil
(Mara) just before awakening.

Tang Huyen

[possum]

"Tang Huyen"
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote
in message
news:9_Wdnfq0E4JQwD3S...@supernews.com...

it sounds like they're a long way behind the
protestant church... the romans started
it... but the normans were utter bastids...

[halfawake]

You're right, by Thor!

Robert

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[halfawake]

That's good - I've always wanted someone to say something about those
wild, carousing, immoral baby seals who frequent the after-hours clubs!

Robert

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[halfawake]

What is this: anyway?

[Lee Rudolph]

halfawake <epste...@yahoo.com> writes:

>i2i wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hollywoood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jnmrpv$vac$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> On 4/30/2012 1:27 PM, i2i wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hollywoood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jnml7l$mka$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/30/2012 12:16 PM, dr x wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/05/2012 1:46 AM, Hollywoood Lee wrote:

...

>>> It has been suggested that punctuation is important.
>>>
>>> Stop clubbing, baby seals.
>>
>>
>> have you stopped beating?
>>
>> your wife.
>
>What is this: anyway?

The rebels turned themselves in
to the authorities.

Lee Rudolph

[i2i]

"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jnsrre$edg$2...@dont-email.me...

your. move.

[i2i]

"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jnssbe$861$1...@reader1.panix.com...

these aren't the droids
that you're looking for.

[Hollywoood Lee]

Hehe. Try this and choose which you prefer:

Robert:

I want to be friends with someone who knows what compassion is all
about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you
admit to being useless and inferior.

Lee

---------

Robert:

I want to be friends with someone who knows what compassion is. All
about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you.
Admit to being useless and inferior.

Lee

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/1/2012 10:43 PM, Haethen wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand you. Can you explain
> further what you mean by "pure reason" that is
> found in some systems, but not in Jewish
> mythology?
>
> My astonishment was at your apparent sweeping
> generalization that there is a common Jewish
> worldview which prevents Jews from getting
> Buddhism, even if they leave Judaism behind?

I have written on pure reason for a few years,
in dialogues with Lee Rudolph, herbzet and pi.
Please go back and read those exchanges.

I never say that there is a common Jewish
worldview which prevents Jews from getting
Buddhism, even if they leave Judaism behind.
What I say is that by the norm of pure reason,
as I stated during my above exchanges, Jewish
mythology scarcely comes anywhere hear there.
I also said repeatedly that most great
European theologians and mystics almost
universally looked down on Jewish mythology
and charged right in to save it by pure
reason (in the form of Greek philosophy).

I do say that there is a mentality that is
common to Jewish mythology, in both the OT
and the NT, and that that mentality is
realist and literalist, and is against any
other mentality, e. g., a non-realist and
non-literalist mentality (the exclusivism
of Jewish mythology is famous, in both the
OT and the NT). And such mentality is
fundamentally at antipodes with the
mentality of Buddhism, which is a
non-realist and non-literalist mentality.
The basic difference is between an
artificialist outlook and an
anti-artificialist one. Jewish mythology
insists on doing, on thought and language,
whereas Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism
reject them. Go back and read my previous
posts.

Stanislas Breton, Unicité et monothéisme,
Paris: Cerf, 1981, 82: "It is very true
that the Bible is gross and that its only
god has too human traits [Il est bien vrai
que la Bible est grossière et que son dieu
unique a des allures trop humaines]."

The late Father Breton (d. 2005) was a
well-known Catholic theologian in France
and Belgium (he taught at the Catholic
Institute in Paris and was invited to
deliver lectures just before his death at
the famous Catholic University of Louvain
in Belgium), and in that book, quoted
modern logicians like Frege, Russell, etc.
Generally, most great European theologians
and mystics agree with such a view and
charge right in to cover it up with a
cordon sanitaire of Greek philosophy, and
use Jewish mythology as mere excuse. So,
the Christianity of Europe (I mean that of
most great European theologians and
mystics) is one thing, and Jewish
mythology is something else, the former
based on pure reason, the latter shorn of
it. This chasm extends even to an
uneducated person, like Madame Guyon,
though she is universally taken to be a
vapourous mystic devoid of clear thinking
(I take her thinking, at least the part
of it based onn Greak philosophy, to be
very tightly organised, very systematic
thinking, based on the strictest pure
reason).

Reading most great European theologians
and mystics is a freaky affair, as they
lean heavily on Greek philosophy
(therefore on pure reason) and use Jewish
mythology largely as cover. It is like
two parallel universes, entertaining
little meeting ground. How they patch
together such disparate and largely
incompatible strains of thought to make
a story (European Christianity) is
fascinating.

Tang Huyen

[Hollywoood Lee]

On 5/4/2012 8:47 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:

>
> Reading most great European theologians
> and mystics is a freaky affair, as they
> lean heavily on Greek philosophy
> (therefore on pure reason) and use Jewish
> mythology largely as cover. It is like
> two parallel universes, entertaining
> little meeting ground. How they patch
> together such disparate and largely
> incompatible strains of thought to make
> a story (European Christianity) is
> fascinating.

Along a similar vein, it is fascinating to see religious and
philosophical works portrayed by some as exoteric, by others as
esoteric, and even others as both. The same text seen as plain on its
face or as subtle knowledge that is deceptive to the unaware.

[liaM]

And what conclusion have you drawn from Spinoza's jewish spin on things
(and his philosophical atheism) ?

And how did you reconcile your judeo christianity with your buddhist
heritage ?

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/4/2012 11:09 AM, liaM wrote:

> And what conclusion have you drawn from
> Spinoza's jewish spin on things (and his
> philosophical atheism) ?
>
> And how did you reconcile your judeo
> christianity with your buddhist heritage ?

In the book by Father Breton, he pointed
out that according to Spinoza, it is
logically wrong to say: "the one God."
The book is worth reading, and not just
for that point. Spinoza is a modern
Stoic, and his philosophy is of the
strictest Stoicism, as is the philosophy
of Madame Guyon and Fénelon. None of the
three calls himself or herself a Stoic.
Most of their readers and commentators
don't know that they are Stoics.

I have little knowledge of Jewish
mythology, outside of the most learned
theology of mysticism, until Fu pressed
on me the monopoly of the *words* (and
not just the referents of such words)
"God", "the soul" and "grace". So I
have nothing to reconcile.

I understand that you are still hung
up on the Jewish Yahweh.

Tang Huyen

[liaM]

Only jaw hung on old Jawa the Hut from StarWars, dear Tang Huyn

[i2i]

"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:4fa3f126$0$12491$ba4a...@reader.news.orange.fr...

he relaxed and was serene in crashing
technicolor and surround sound

[liaM]

smile

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/4/2012 1:46 PM, i2i wrote:

> he relaxed and was serene in crashing
> technicolor and surround sound

I don't claim to be able to pull
that off, but if it could be
pulled off, it would be awesome!

As noname says, to be swirled and
able to handle it would be great!

Praise be!

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/5/2012 7:47 AM, Haethen wrote:

>> Along a similar vein, it is fascinating to see religious and
>> philosophical works portrayed by some as exoteric, by others as esoteric,
>> and even others as both. The same text seen as plain on its face or as
>> subtle knowledge that is deceptive to the unaware.
>

> Your pardon, but I have not found an exact reference for something I'm
> pretty sure I came across in the swamp mist of my intellectual reading. In
> the Kaballah, every word of Torah has ten distinct meanings. I believe this
> is a more general principle in much if not most of Judaism. The
> implications are astounding. If "implications" and "astounding" each have
> ten distinct meanings, what do I mean?

Find me a reference where it is unequivocally
stated that God did not create heaven and
earth, but that heaven and earth came into
existence by some other force, like nature.

Find me a reference where it is unequivocally
stated that Yahweh and his history of
salvation are dispensable, and will be
dropped by the followers on some specific
occasion (like their awakening to "Vanity
of vanities"), so that Yahweh and his history
of salvation become invalid -- mere human
invention.

That said, it is misleading to rely on the
Kaballah, as it is now transmitted, and
take it as a Jewish product. It was
massively revised by a Spanish Jew in the
seventeenth century, if I remember
correctly, from Hegel's lectures on the
history of philosophy, and much Neoplatonism
was incorporated, so that Jewish mythology
was saved by Greek philosophy, just like in
Christian theology and mysticism.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Tang Huyen

[Peter Olcott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
Except that humans do not separately exist apart from the one,
(non-duality)
they just (almost perfectly) seem to exist apart from the one (non-duality).

What is the difference between reality and a perfect simulation of reality?
None.

What is the difference between reality and an almost perfect simulation
of reality?
Almost none, very hard to see, conditioning almost always prevents one
from even considering this as an actual (rather than purely
hypothetical) possibility.

If one fails to consider this as an actual rather than purely
hypothetical possibility, this would indicate bias, and thus error on
the part of the investigator.

Skeptics tend to limit their search based on their bias, never realizing
that their disbelief system is just as erroneous as any belief system.

[i2i]

"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
news:BumdncbGNfcFvjjS...@giganews.com...

why do you keep coming back here?
if you're enlightened what could you
possibly get from these exchanges ?

[Peter Olcott]

An element of the infinite set of ways to spend time.

[i2i]

"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message

news:PvadnSN2Yu0k0jjS...@giganews.com...

you didn't answer the question.

[i2i]

"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message

news:osadnesT4Lc_hDjS...@supernews.com...

> On 5/5/2012 7:47 AM, Haethen wrote:
>
>>> Along a similar vein, it is fascinating to see religious and
>>> philosophical works portrayed by some as exoteric, by others as
>>> esoteric,
>>> and even others as both. The same text seen as plain on its face or as
>>> subtle knowledge that is deceptive to the unaware.
>>
>> Your pardon, but I have not found an exact reference for something I'm
>> pretty sure I came across in the swamp mist of my intellectual reading.
>> In
>> the Kaballah, every word of Torah has ten distinct meanings. I believe
>> this
>> is a more general principle in much if not most of Judaism. The
>> implications are astounding. If "implications" and "astounding" each have
>> ten distinct meanings, what do I mean?
>
> Find me a reference where it is unequivocally
> stated that God did not create heaven and
> earth, but that heaven and earth came into
> existence by some other force, like nature.

according to nisargadatta maharaj
there is no god with a vast intelligence
that created everything. he says that all
that takes place in the physical manifestation
is purely spontaneous. grains of salt available
at the concession stand.

[Tsukino Usagi]

Just because any particular person (such as you) is here, doesn't mean
the message is for you. I for one follow Peter's posts with great interest.

[Tsukino Usagi]

Or he did, but he wasn't talking to you.

[Peter Olcott]

How about:
(a) Yes I did.
(b) I am not obligated to meet your expectations.

[Peter Olcott]

Thanks.

[Peter Olcott]

On 5/5/2012 9:58 AM, i2i wrote:
>

Some of the dialogues enable realization to grow deeper.

[i2i]

"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message

news:NLydnUMkUuJY8TjS...@giganews.com...

plonk

[i2i]

"Tsukino Usagi" <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote in message
news:jo3pl2$aqr$3...@dont-email.me...

plonk

[Tsukino Usagi]

See? That's how we *all* treat people when they ignore our questions and
give them advice they didn't ask for. See how that works?

[niunian]

If you still need to grow your realization to deeper levels, you are
still far from the ultimate realization which is enlightenment, are you
not?

[niunian]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:04:08 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote:

[Peter Olcott]

The consummation of incomparable enlightenment is not yet.

[oxtail]

Good for you.
It would have been better
if you did that in silence.

--
oxtail

[oxtail]

[Peter Olcott]

My first answer was rude, and somewhat less than accurate.
I did not realize this until later on.

The accurate answer to his original question is that my**
realization is somewhere between Satori and the consummation
of incomparable enlightenment, certainly less than half-way
complete by even the most liberal measure.

**The use of this term indicating personal individuality would
tend to indicate to most here that the distance is large.

[Peter Olcott]

On 5/6/2012 7:55 AM, niunian wrote:

Somewhere between Satori and the consummation of incomparable
enlightenment, certainly less than halfway, possibly very much
less than halfway.

At this point in realization I am finding the Heart Sutra helpful.
It seems that the path of surrender is working for me.

[niunian]

The Heart Sutra is not for everyone. Are you ware of that?

[Jigme Dorje]

It speaks to me very directly too, one of the most beautiful expressions
of awareness.

[beerlet dhiblang]

A translation of the Heart Sutra I've enjoyed, intended for college
students:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html

/l

[niunian]

If you are not aware of that, then you are not even halfway through.

[Peter Olcott]

I don't know.

[niunian]

Even if you do know, you are still just about halfway through which is
roughly where I'm at right now. True enlightenment does not happen until
the end. For me, I expect it's another 30 years. But no one really knows.
God may decide to cut the journey short, since I'm such vigorous follower.

:-)

[SG]

ty

[SG]

You gots the toast..you just needs to butter that biatch!

[Tsukino Usagi]

The wooden chicken says "my".

[oxtail]

Frankly I don't care.
You are doing fine in my book
so long as you don't fester me with hasty generalizations.

--
oxtail

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/5/2012 8:14 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:

> Find me a reference where it is unequivocally
> stated that God did not create heaven and
> earth, but that heaven and earth came into
> existence by some other force, like nature.
>
> Find me a reference where it is unequivocally
> stated that Yahweh and his history of
> salvation are dispensable, and will be
> dropped by the followers on some specific
> occasion (like their awakening to "Vanity
> of vanities"), so that Yahweh and his history
> of salvation become invalid -- mere human
> invention.

Sorry for the self-follow, but one point
of Buddhist theory and practice is that
the higher one goes on the scale of
attainments, the airier and fluffier
one's experience and attitude get. The
Buddhist saint no longer believes,
because he has verified what he was
taught.

In Jewish mythology, the realism and
literalism push in the contrary
direction, in that the higher one goes
in the attainments, the surer one's
faith gets, and the more firmly one
believes the dogmas of the Church.
Madame Guyon, who had no knowledge of
pagan religions from Asia, flipped
orthodoxy of Jewish mythology around
and declared flatly that the saint no
longer believes. Heaven forbid!

Tang Huyen