The Four Divine Abodes and their fruits (was Re: The call)
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu wrote:
> Lee Dillion:
>
> > Ch'an Fu:
>
> > > to make it clearer, do you know of a place in sutta that recommends
> > > the "practice" of metta as part of the path? because i haven't found
> > > one.
>
> > Yes. See
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-08.html
> > Pretty straightforward if that is your cup of tea. Not necessary. Not
> > sufficient in and of itself. But clearly described here and in other
> > suttas as providing the state of peace and concentration that can
> > support insight.
>
> "This is to be done by one skilled in aims..."
> interesting and very poetic.
> as you say, "not sufficient in and of itself"
> seems a post hoc compilation, but
> what would i know? certainly would be
> a basis for theravada's metta "practice".
> thanks.
In the early canon, the Four Divine Abodes -- friendliness (metta),
compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (mudita), equanimity (upekha) -- are not
promoted as heavily as they will be in the Abhidharma-Abhidhamma, certainly
with regard to their fruits. They are also called Immeasurables (appamana)
because in them one spreads one's directed imagination (directed because
aimed at friendliness, compassion, etc. and focussed on each of them) to the
size of the universe, though nothing happens out there, all that happens
happens purely in one's imagination. They are totalisations (kasina) in that
one makes believe to oneself that one has turned the whole universe into,
say, friendliness, though it is mere make-believe to oneself, and nothing
happens out there.
The Chinese Agama-s and the Sanskrit fragments of the Agama-s (but not the
Pali, and here I think that the Pali is corrupt) promote the last,
equanimity, as leading to full liberation (arhat-ship), because it helps one
go beyond affection and aversion, but in general the Four Divine Abodes are
said to lead to rebirth in the Form realm (rupa-dhatu) or the Formless realm
(arupa-dhatu), unless they already lead to Non-Returnership in this life (one
level below arhat-ship, in the scheme of the four fruits of saintliness).
Whist the early canon has many texts affirming flatly the final fruit of
arhat-ship for many methods (dhamma), there are very few texts that do so for
the Four Divine Abodes, surely not in Pali, and as I said just now, the
Chinese and Sanskrit affirm that the last Divine Abode, equanimity, leads to
full liberation (arhat-ship), because it helps one go beyond affection and
aversion. Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 336c4-5 (quoting a sutra),
Lalita-vistara, ed. S. Lefmann, Halle, 1902, 442: “One cultivates equanimity
to abandon aversion and affection (upeksam pratilapsyate anunaya-pratigh‘
otsargaya),” Abhidharmadipa, 428 (quoting a sutra), Vyakhya, 686 have almost
the same: kama-raga-vyapada-prahanayopeksa, see also DN, III, 249 (33).
The Four Immeasurables (Brahma Vihara) are in fact singly and together an
exercise in futility, if there ever was one. They are exactly "voluntrary
adhesion" (adhimukti, adhimoksa), pure and simple, and in Husserlian terms
consist in pure, objectless intentioning, unsoiled by empirical factors, for
quite literally they have no reality or real object (tattva, bhuta-artha) to
deal with -- they proceed in the void, so to speak. They strictly are an
exercise in changing one's internal disposition, and that is it. They have no
-- can have no -- ambition on the real world. You can sit in a corner -- even
in the remotest mountain, for away from all congeneers so that you can do no
mutual stroking with any of them -- and still be able to practice them to
perfection. The Four Immeasurables (Brahma Vihara) are pure projection, with
no
reality or real object intended as recipient or even gift -- they are exactly
what the French call "jeux d'esprit" (mind games). See, the Buddha can get
very abstract.
In the Great Vehicle, the doctors think on how to reconcile non-mentation (or
any other name for it in the Great Vehicle, like non-dual gnosis,
non-discriminating wisdom, etc.) with the practice of the four attitudes in
the real world, and hit upon a solution that is the
reverse of the above "classical" set. In the classical set, one indulges in
pure intentioning without real object, here one deals with real objects ...
without intentioning! Technically, they four attitudes are here called
"non-intentioning friendliness" (an-alambana-maitri), etc., and one does not
intention a self for oneself, one does not intention a receiver, one does not
intention a gift (or whatever), but one does practice the four attitudes.
This triple absence of intentionality is called the purity of the triple
wheel (tri-mandala-visuddhi).
The Dŕ zhě dů lůn, T, 25, 1509, 305b10-11 (Lamotte, Traité, 2256 and n. 4)
summarizes the general Buddhist path of meditation when it says specifically
about friendliness (maitri): "It takes as object (alambate) first a
voluntarily adhered-to sign (adhimukti-nimitta), later a real object
(bhutartha)." Mahayana-sutralamkara, ed. Lévi, I, 121: the unlimiteds without
intentional objects cognise suchness (tathata), and they are without
intentional object because they are without discrimination (te hy
a-vikalpatvad an-alambanah). Bodhisattva-bhumi, 242: "Furthermore the
bodhisattva cultivates friendliness without discriminating things (dharma-s),
that is to be felt as the bodhisattva’s friendliness without intentional
object (Yat punar dharman apy a-vikalpayams tam eva maitrim bhavayati, iyam
asyan-alambana maitri veditavya)."
The practice of the Immeasurables without object is accessible to those who
do not give rise to self, others, and any object (concrete like a material
gift, abstract like the Law [Dharma] of Buddhism) to be passed in between. It
is -- if practiced in real life and not merely imagined in platonic
contemplation -- the only way to make sure that, say, friendliness is really
friendliness, because with a self around one can always fool oneself into
taking one's selfish motives for altruistic ones. In it the acts do happen,
but without thought of actor, recipient, and what is acted on (like the
gift).
So Ch'an Fu is correct in that early Buddhism does not regard the Four
Immeasurables highly (except the last one, equanimity) for their
world-transcending power. They are regarded more like public-relations
measures, because the monks who eat their meals (all of which are supposed to
be got during begging tours) whilst contemplating the Four Divine Abodes give
greater merits to their donors than if they don't do so. However they are
good as tools to get one's mind free of impediments like hatred and
malevolence so that one can begin more advanced methods, like the dropping of
good and evil, merit and demerit.
All of which is merely a long-winded way of saying that Buddhism is best
practiced by emptying oneself out and letting the situation act one. What
happens -- or doesn't happen -- happens or doesn't happen without a self to
mess up the purity of the act (or absence of an act). There is no inherence
of anything -- like compassion -- in awakening. If it happens it happens and
if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen. Awakening doesn't depend on it, and
doesn't increase or decrease due to it. Awakening is compleat in itself and
doesn't refer to anything beyond itsef.
Tang Huyen
Lee
> The practice of the Immeasurables without object is accessible to those
I don't know anyone in this conversation that argued that the Four
Immeasurables were regarded for their world-transcending power. Perhaps you
are confusing some post from alt.hindu?
Rather, a much simpler point was made that neither you nor Chan Fu have
negated - that the Four Immeasurables are disussed as part of a buddhist
practice in the early canon. That they were transformed from their utility
as calming techniques into some "world-transcending" practice by later
practitioners is something that you can argue with them about.
Evelyn Ruut
"Lee" <gonec...@redfishlake.com> wrote in message
news:behrme$p23$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
Lee, if people all practiced and truly believed the four immeasurables, they
certainly WOULD be world changing! There is nothing more kind towards
others in intent and purpose than what they express.
But sadly, I don't think that will happen. We can't even get these guys to
stop harassing the tibetan buddhists on their own newsgroup.
--
Evelyn
The Four Immeasurables
How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were to abide in
equanimity, free of bias, attachment and anger. May they abide in this way.
I shall cause them to abide in this way.
How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings had happiness and its
causes. May they have these. I shall cause them to have these.
How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were free from suffering
and its causes. May they be free. I shall cause them to be free.
How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were never parted from
upper rebirth and liberation's excellent bliss. May they never be parted.
I shall cause them never to be parted.
Ch'an Fu
> The Four Immeasurables
>
> How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were to abide in
> equanimity, free of bias, attachment and anger. May they abide in this way.
> I shall cause them to abide in this way.
>
> How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings had happiness and its
> causes. May they have these. I shall cause them to have these.
>
> How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were free from suffering
> and its causes. May they be free. I shall cause them to be free.
>
> How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were never parted from
> upper rebirth and liberation's excellent bliss. May they never be parted.
> I shall cause them never to be parted.
An excellent illustration of the Tibetan religion's
hijacking of buddhism while succoring vast ego
and servitude to the hierarchy. 'Practitioners'
must simply blossom into self-righteous universality
when they vow to do such grand things.
Perhaps their 'consciousness ejects from the tops
of their craniums' and flies around 'causing' such
delightful stuff in unsuspecting aborigines like myself.
Lee
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:kv_Oa.17144
> > I don't know anyone in this conversation that argued that the Four
> > Immeasurables were regarded for their world-transcending power. Perhaps
you
> > are confusing some post from alt.hindu?
> >
> > Rather, a much simpler point was made that neither you nor Chan Fu have
> > negated - that the Four Immeasurables are disussed as part of a buddhist
> > practice in the early canon. That they were transformed from their
utility
> > as calming techniques into some "world-transcending" practice by later
> > practitioners is something that you can argue with them about.
> Lee, if people all practiced and truly believed the four immeasurables,
they
> certainly WOULD be world changing!
Well, I am not looking to change (or transcend) the world, just my approach
to it. If it then changes because of what I do, so be it.
Tang Huyen
Barb Beier wrote:
> Thank you, Tang Huyen, for such a detailed discussion of the Four
> Abodes. It is very helpful for one trying to understand them better.
> If I may jump in here with a question....
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:21:57 -0400, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > However they are good as tools
>
> This does seem to agree with each of them being called, according to
> one translation, an "awareness-release" (AN VIII:63, Sankhitta Sutta).
> But in this "Dhamma in brief" each Abode seems to be treated equally
> and each can lead to the four jhanas.
>
> What do you think of my understanding (rightly or mistakenly) of this
> sutta to mean that, given the preliminary ('My mind will be
> established inwardly, well-composed. No evil, unskillful qualities,
> once they have arisen, will remain consuming the mind.'), dwelling (as
> you point out, in seclusion) in this sequence of abodes -- good will,
> compassion, appreciation and equanimity (in that order) -- leads to
> Arahatship and release?
The text encompasses much that goes beyond the Four Divine Abodes -- the
four form meditations, the four stations of mindfulness, etc. -- so that
the end-result (arhat-ship) seems like the result of what is most
effective and productive in the whole sequence, and the four stations of
mindfulness can easily lead to arhat-ship. But equanimity (the fourth
Divine Abode) itself can lead to arhat-ship, too.
Which illustrates one very striking point about the fruitfulness or lack
thereof of the Four Divine Abodes: they are launching pads for other
methods (dharma), and by themselves alone they only lead to rebirth in the
form and formless realms. One particular method that is often associated
with them is cultivation of the absence of self and what-belongs-to-self
(I quoted some texts in that direction). Which is understandable: their
contraries are normal means of self-expression, self-affirmation and
self-confirmation, but once the Abodes are engaged in, the self is brought
under control, and the exercise of the absence of self and
what-belongs-to-self brings closure to the self: it is abandoned and
freedom (arhat-ship) is attained.
Fénelon talks marvellously of this, in a text that I often quote.
"Creusez donc en moi, ô mon Dieu, jusqu'à l'anéantissement de tout
moi-même. Esprit destructeur, renversez, mettez tout en désordre;
n'épargnez aucun arrangement humain; défaites tout pour refaire tout. Que
votre créature soit toute nouvelle, et qu'il ne reste aucune trace de
l'ancien plan. Alors ayant tout effacé, tout défiguré, tout réduit à un
pur néant, je deviendrai en vous toutes choses, parce que je ne serai plus
en moi rien de fixe. Je n'aurai aucun consistance mais je prendrai dans
votre main toutes les formes qui conviendront à vos desseins. C'est par
l'anéantissement de mon être propre et borné que j'entretrai dans votre
immensité divine. Ô qui le comprendra? ô qui me donnera des âmes qui aient
le goût et l'attrait de la destruction?"
"Dig in me, O my God, right up to the vanishing of all myself. Destructive
spirit, turn everything upside down, put everything in disorder; do not
spare any human arrangement; undo everything to redo everything. That your
creature be all new, and that no trace if left of the old plan. Then
having all erased, all broken up, all reduced to a pure nought, I shall
become in you all things, because I shall be in myself nothing fixed. I
shall have no consistance but shall take in your hand all the forms that
will be convenient to your intentions. It is by the annihilation of my own
and bounded being that I shall enter in your divine immensity. O who will
understand it? O who will give me the souls that have the taste and the
appeal of destruction?"
Fénelon is not claiming something positive, but merely takes away any
limit, any shape (and any shape is by definition limiting). He says that
by reducing everything (in himself) to nought, he has no fixed form, has
no consistance left but takes any all forms that God deigns to ordain in
him, which I take to mean that Fénelon has effectively eradicated any
limit, delimitation or delineation, internal or external, and simply
leaves raw sensation to fill his mind. By the vanishing of his own bounded
being, he enters the divine immensity, which is an
image-based way of saying that he has left behind all limiting factors
like any limit, delimitation or delineation, internal or external, and
simply leaves it to what happens to fill him up, though there is no "him"
any longer. There is just a passive infilling, though there is no
delimitation between inner and outer and no distinction between passivity
and activity. He has so to speak attained to *infinite plasticity* and
offers no resistance to the flow of experience -- what our very own Hal
Hesse calls dancing. He makes no platform for himself to stand on, but
surfs at the crest of experience, always and forever.
In the Buddha's doctrine of deed (karman) and its return, he borrows it
from his Indian mileu, or rather it forces itself on him as the only way
he can survive in that highly competitive and highly conformist mileu, but
he tries to wiggle his way out of it, to mince it away, to nullify it by
multiplied petty exceptions.
Or rather, the exceptions are not petty but the contrary: they are to
basically relegate deed and its return to the little people, the people
who don't cultivate their mind and thus don't make it big.
First off, he follows Jainism for some years, during which he attempts to
purge old deed which consists in material particles (prakrti) adhering to
his body by extreme asceticism, by burning it off by the heat (tapas) of
asceticism.
Then he realises that it has been a massive error, relents, eats again,
enters the meditation, and attains awakening by the quiescence of the
compositions (the fourth aggregate).
He teaches a moral, non-material version of deed (karman) and its
return,but jumps through so many hoops to make it "stick together" that
one may wonder why he bothers in the first place.
Kalupahana, Causality, 130-131 offers many references, especially AN I,
249-250 (3, 99).
One detail (but God is in the details, right?) is that the Jainas teach
that "just as this man does a deed, so does he experience it", and the
Buddha bends it his way: "just as this man does a deed that would be
experienced in a certain way, so does he experience its consequences".
One man does a trifling evil deed, and ends up in hell roasting for
centuries. Another man does a trifling evil deed, and experience its
consequence in this life or can not even feel it. The difference is that
the former has not cultivated his body, discipline (sila), thought
(citta), wisdom (pañño), is insignificant (paritto), and his life is short
whereas the latter has cultivated his body, discipline, thought, wisdom,
is significant (a-paritto), has a big mind/soul (mahatta), dwells in the
unlimited (appamana-vihari) and his life is long.
The Buddha is advertising for mental culture in general and his own
(Buddhist) mental culture in particular, as somebody who has engaged in
mental culture in general and Buddhist mental culture in particular *by
definition* is significant (a-paritto), has a big mind (mahatta), dwells
in the unlimited (appamana-vihari) -- the four Divine Abodes,
friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity.
One has to remember that having a big mind/soul (mahatmya) is in modern
times attributed to Gandhi and in Greece has its equivalent in the
Aristotelian "magnanimity":
"In Aristotle the word (by modern translators rendered `greatsouledness',
`highmindedness') expresses the attitude of one who, rightly conscious of
his own great merits, is indifferent to praise except from those whose
approval is valuable, regards the chances of fortune with equanimity, and,
while ready to confer benefits, will seldom condescend to accept them"
(OED).
So the Buddha is saying that anybody who engages in mental culture in
general and Buddhist mental culture in particular will have it easy
regarding his deed (karman) and its return. Those who don't do it are
trapped in deed and its return, but those who cultivate their mind have a
ready escape hatch: their `greatsouledness', `highmindedness'.
He is talking of the spaciousness of mind, as in the four unlimiteds --
the four Divine Abodes, friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy,
equanimity -- where the mind is "gone big", expanded to the measure of the
universe. In such a developed mind, with its envelope stretched out all
the way, deed gets lost and doesn't know how to get its return.
Remember what the Buddha says above: "just as this man does a deed that
would be experienced in a certain way, so does he experience its
consequences". The part in asterisks: "just as this man does a deed *that
would be experienced in a certain way*, so does he experience its
consequences" ushers in the exceptions: as one experiences one's
experience (sorry for the pleonasm) in a spacious, unconstrained manner,
deed dissipates into thin air so to speak and doesn't know how to find its
way back to one to deliver its return.
Last but not least, the point of the Buddha's teaching on deed is not to
do good and avoid evil (though he does teach that, also, but *only* as a
stopgap measure *in* faring-on [samsara] and still contributing to
faring-on), but to stop creating deed altogether by quiescing the
compositions (the fourth aggregate) to attain to blowing-out (nirvana).
Here, the mind not just expands itself without limit, but gives up
altogether assigning limits and boundaries and stabilising them with with
concepts and categories, structures and frameworks (all those are the
compositions). Mind then receives sensation from the world and from
oneself without any resistance, as resistance would be caused by the
tendency to assign limits to what then becomes things (somethings) and to
stabilise limits with concepts and categories, structures and frameworks.
Mind opens itself without gap to what comes to it, and receives it without
mediation, without interpretation. Mind attains to infinite plasticity to
avoid suffering. Mind attains to infinite fluidity.
Thus, while reprising the existing theory of deed and its return and
modifying it to his heart's content (with an eye on advertisement, too),
the Buddha ultimately vanishes it by teaching the destruction of deed, not
by beating it down like material particles adhering to the body as in
Jainism, but by stopping the compositions (the fourth aggregate) whilst
still fully conscious of the world and oneself.
Technically, the post-canonical Pali term that points in the direction of
this breaking through of limits and boundaries -- like the limits and
boundaries of mind, the limits and boundaries of concepts and categories,
the limites and boundaries of whatever one imposes on oneself as ...
limits and boundaries -- is siima-sambheda, as in Visuddhi-Magga, p. 246:
"The monk who wants to effect the breaking of boundaries must cultivate
friendliness to a dear friend, then to somebody indifferent as if he was a
dear friend, then to an enemy as if he was somebody indifferent. Whilst he
so does he must make in each case his thought soft and supple before
passing to the next."
The expansion of mind as a whole is obvious here, but also the expansion
within the limits and boundaries of each class, intellective and
affective, *and* the making soft and supple of such limits and boundaries,
with the aim of dissolving them altogether, so that mind has no more limit
and boundary, internal and external (let us remember that the Divine
Abodes are Immeasurables, without limit [appamana]).
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
> Which illustrates one very striking point about the fruitfulness or lack
> thereof of the Four Divine Abodes: they are launching pads for other
> methods (dharma), and by themselves alone they only lead to rebirth in the
> form and formless realms.
Yes, both statements ("they are launching pads for other methods" and
"by themselves alone they only lead to rebirth in the form and formless
realms") are important to keep in mind, for the first belies the attempt
to argue that they have no relation to a Buddhist practice and the
latter places these practices in the proper context as insufficient, in
and of themselves, to lead to release.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
Did somebody "argue that they have no relation to a Buddhist practice"? I'm
unaware of any.
There are issues of interpretation -- which in fact cover the whole early canon
in its entirety without remainders -- like how much reality to assign to
rebirth, deed (karman) and its return, previous lives and future lives, levels
of existence, even Dependent Arisal (is it real or is it thought-up? a real
relation or a thought-up relation?) and the saintly fruits (are they to be taken
literally, like the ending of all cankers/flows/leaks? Our Hayes rejects them as
literal attainments).
It is not deniable that the early canon is full of rebirth, deed (karman) and
its return, previous lives and future lives, levels of existence, regardless of
how much reality one wants to assign to them.
It is not deniable that the early canon is full of the Four Divine Abodes,
though it is also not deniable that the early canon does not get excited about
them as methods of liberation (except for the last and fourth, equanimity). This
is in sharp contrast with many other methods that by themselves lead to
liberation, flatly.
So there are means, and all of Buddhism is mere means. But there are means that
lead to the final goal without further ado, and there means that facilitate
other means that lead to the final goal, at some remove. The first three Divine
Abodes fall in the latter class.
Whilst we are at it, let us also mention the Four Noble Truths as belonging in
the latter class, for they are not used by all Buddhist cultivators, and those
who use them to attain to the first and lowest fruit, Stream Entry, abandon them
after getting that fruit, otherwise they can't go on to higher fruits.
But you can begin and end the Buddhist path with mindfulness, you can begin and
end the Buddhist path with the absence of self, etc.
That is the perspective that needs to be entertained when one considers the
various methods (dharma).
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
>
> Lee Dillion wrote:
>
>
>>Tang Huyen:
>>
>>
>>>Which illustrates one very striking point about the fruitfulness or lack
>>>thereof of the Four Divine Abodes: they are launching pads for other
>>>methods (dharma), and by themselves alone they only lead to rebirth in the
>>>form and formless realms.
>>
>>Yes, both statements ("they are launching pads for other methods" and
>>"by themselves alone they only lead to rebirth in the form and formless
>>realms") are important to keep in mind, for the first belies the attempt
>>to argue that they have no relation to a Buddhist practice and the
>>latter places these practices in the proper context as insufficient, in
>>and of themselves, to lead to release.
>
>
> Did somebody "argue that they have no relation to a Buddhist practice"? I'm
> unaware of any.
No, I think the quote was that "The Four Immeasurables (Brahma Vihara)
are in fact singly and together an exercise in futility, if there ever
was one" a technically correct statement that needed explication in my
view. That we have done so is useful in my view. Thanks.
I've never suggested otherwise. Good we can agree, eh?
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Did somebody "argue that they have no relation to a
> > Buddhist practice"? I'm unaware of any.
>
> No, I think the quote was that "The Four Immeasurables (Brahma Vihara)
> are in fact singly and together an exercise in futility, if there ever
> was one" a technically correct statement that needed explication in my
> view. That we have done so is useful in my view. Thanks.
Hehe, doesn't a whole trend in later Buddhism claim to no end that the Buddha never
uttered a word and never taught anything to anybody? That any teaching and teacher
never do anything at all, because one is already what one is? That whatever illusion
one sheds has never existed in the first place, so that Buddhism is for nothing?
From its massive output, the idea seems to be that all of Buddhism is a mere exercise
in futility, like unto selling water by the river, eh?
But the Buddha himself seemed to quite agree, too.
He realised that what he had to let go of -- his self, views, fetters, latencies,
etc.-- was unobtainable and could not be made known as real and established in the
present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah sthitito 'nupalabhyamano 'prajñapyamanas
ca). So, he realised that what was to be dropped could not be dropped because it was
unobtainable and could not be made known as real and established in the present
things, and that realisation freed him.
He said: "self and what belongs to self are unobtainable and cannot be made known as
real and established in the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah sthitito
'nupalabhyamano 'prajñapyamanas ca), the views, fetters and latencies in the mind are
unobtainable and cannot be made known," or: "The Tathagata is unobtainable and cannot
be made known as real and established in the present things." MA, 200, 765b29, SA,
104, 31b1-2, SA, 104, 31b1-2.
So if you feel you have a reasonable idea of what the illusion/delusion is, and how to
strip it away and see through it, then you're ahead of the Buddha. He gave up on all
that -- what the illusion/delusion is, and how to strip it away and see through it.
To him none of that could be got at, both the what and the how -- what the
illusion/delusion is and how to strip it away and see through it.
That was how he stripped it away and saw through it -- keeping in mind that the "it"
could not be got at.
So even with the Buddha, all of Buddhism is a mere exercise in futility, like unto
selling water by the river, isn't it?
Tang Huyen
Pema
have you considered just listing all the things you don't like? it's
hard to keep up w/o a score card...
cupcake
Dr Ben Lau wrote:
> From: Tang Huyen tang_...@yahoo.com
>
>>Whilst we are at it, let us also mention the Four Noble Truths
>
>>and those
>>who use them to attain to the first and lowest fruit, Stream Entry, abandon
>>them
>>after getting that fruit, otherwise they can't go on to higher fruits.
>Ben looks at Tang
> Tang my son, this is incorrect
>The Four Noble Truths are not abandoned, even after Nibana, they exist beyond
>speculative dharma, this is what the Buddha really discovered. his formation of
>the 4 truths and what they imply is the corner stone of all Buddhist Practice,
>and if one abandons them, then buddhism is abandoned as well.
>Ben
>
listen, yu little pea-brain -- the entire motif of
Buddha-Dhamma revolves around the issue of reincarnation --
and, what The Buddha discovered wuz how to end
rebirth and reincarnation -- ie. bhava-nirodha,
cessation, extinction, Nirvana, the end to Dukkha
Lee Dillion
> So even with the Buddha, all of Buddhism is a mere exercise in futility, like unto
> selling water by the river, isn't it?
For many, yes. Especially for those inclined to confuse means and ends.
NeoLazarusx
news:7xiPa.1145$T65....@news.more.net...
a.b.s.f.g. shields up! redirecting... please stand by.
cupcake
NeoLazarSux wrote:
>"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
>[8]news:7xiPa.1145$T65....@news.more.net...
yu always were an insipid jerk
NeoLazarusx
flattery will get you, well, um... flatter.
[yoink!] [crossposted troll headers removed]
Toodles,
-NL
XNA
Tang Huyen
Barb Beier wrote:
> A word of caution, though:
>
> >In the Buddha's doctrine of deed (karman) and its return, he
> >borrows....he follows...he attempts...The Buddha is advertising...
>
> "Then, Sariputta, you actually know me who is now the Holy One, Fully
> Enlightened, having encompassed me in your mind: 'Such and such is the
> virtue of the Exalted one; such and such are his teachings; such and
> such his wisdom; such and such is his abode (of meditation); such and
> such is his deliverance'?"
>
> "Not so, Lord."
> ----Samyutta-Nikaya 47.12, the Oghavaggo, translation by
> Nyanaponika Thera
>
> Do you really mean, by saying "he does this or that or the other
> thing," to claim a greater familiarity with the Blessed One than the
> Ven. Sariputta himself did?
>
> Or is this type of speech perhaps just a habit quite understandably
> acquired and practiced in a world where knowledge is power? To speak
> knowledgeably nowadays is to be powerful, showing and having others
> acknowledge that one has established power over (conquest of) a
> subject, that is, has mastered it.
>
> We all learn to talk this way, if we have any ambition or intellectual
> energy at all. It can be very profitable and career-advancing, and we
> must do it to fit in with our peers. But it is not necessarily the
> bottom-line truth of the matter.
>
> There are subjects that can't be conquered, that do not lend
> themselves to such an approach. Too, much of what is called knowledge
> and power in the world today will vanish with the last flick of this
> civilization's electric switch. The Dhamma, however, will still be
> here, and may shine the clearer for large swaths of humanity having
> been humbled once again.
Barb sweetie, Between the Buddha and his close disciples, there might be some (tacit, mutually agreed-upon) convention on how to
interact in order to impress the clientele (the laity, which might include kings and rich merchants), and I suspect that the above
conversation between Sariputta and the Buddha fits into that genre.
The Buddha was a born Thespian who play-acted a fake acceptation ("nod nod wink wink" style) of the myths and legends of his Indian
milieu to play up his message. He played along with whatever manner of speech his Indian audience was familiar with in order to
reach it and pass his message to it, stealthily if needs be. If it talked about past lives and future lives, he would accordingly
talk of past lives and future lives to inculcate his message about suffering and the ending of suffering, and he would lay it thick
on it just to impress the urgency of action on it. He would use the usual manners of speech of his Indian milieu as the medium to
carry his message, and if local embellishments needed to be added to make his message enticing, so be it. Literal truth was not
strictly adhered to, to put it mildly.
As you so well put it:
"We all learn to talk this way, if we have any ambition or intellectual
energy at all. It can be very profitable and career-advancing, and we
must do it to fit in with our peers. But it is not necessarily the
bottom-line truth of the matter."
The teaching of the Law (Dharma) to the public, laic and cleric, went very much along the same line, couldn't have deviated from it:
anybody who studies Plato and Aristotle knows how important convincing others of one's message is. The means thereto may or may not
be that respectable. Just look at politics. The rock-bottom attitude everywhere is: You have to do it for their own good.
Augustine, De Trinitate, I, 1, 2, CCSL, 50, 29: “For holy Scripture often reverts to things in creation, like toys for kids’ use, to
encourage the weak to search for higher things and to leave behind the lower things, according to their capacities and so to speak
step by step. As to the things which can be affirmed truly properly of God, and which cannot be found among creatures, holy
Scripture speaks of them rarely. Thus the word said to Moses: ‘I am who I am’ and ‘He who is sent me to you’ (Rebus enim quae in
creatura reperiuntur solet scriptura divina velut infantilia oblectamenta formare quibus infirmorum ad quaerenda superiora et
inferiora deserenda pro suo modulo tamquam passibus moveretur aspectus. Quae vero proprie de deo dicuntur, quae in nulla creatura
reperiuntur, raro ponit scriptura divina, sicut illud quod dictum est ad Moysen: Ego sum qui sum, et: Qui est misit me ad vos).”
Many teachings in Buddhism may be just "like toys for kids’ use, to encourage the weak to search for higher things and to leave
behind the lower things, according to their capacities and so to speak step by step." The more abrupt teachings are not that
popular, then and now, and I concentrate on them.
Let us remember that the Buddha had a cousin, Nanda, who was into sex, so he promised him five hundred pink-footed nymphs. Nanda
meditated, awoke, and released the Buddha of his, um, promise. Do you think that it was ethical (in today's parlance) for the Buddha
to make that, er, promise? The Buddha clearly fooled Nanda into meditating, and did it for his own (Nanda's) good, because it was
the only way to entice him to meditate.
> This is very complex, but one major thing I am uncertain of is this:
> is the "volition" the Blessed One speaks of here the same as the
> "mind" or "mental formations" (the fourth aggregate) you mention.
Yes, the fourth aggregate is known in the Agama-s as the cetana aggregate or the compositions aggregate. The two words are synomyms
and their referent coterminous.
Tang Huyen
jhayati
> The Buddha was a born Thespian who play-acted a fake acceptation
> ("nod nod wink wink" style) of the myths and legends of his Indian
> milieu to play up his message. He played along with whatever manner
> of speech his Indian audience was familiar with in order to reach
> it and pass his message to it, stealthily if needs be. If it talked
> about past lives and future lives, he would accordingly talk of past
> lives and future lives to inculcate his message about suffering and
> the ending of suffering, and he would lay it thick on it just to
> impress the urgency of action on it. He would use the usual manners
> of speech of his Indian milieu as the medium to carry his message,
> and if local embellishments needed to be added to make his message
> enticing, so be it. Literal truth was not strictly adhered to, to
> put it mildly.
I wonder how difficult it would be to determine whether the Buddha
"laid it on thick" and consciously used cultural beliefs to express
himself, not taking the cultural beliefs as true, or whether he did
believe these things as well.
It would seem that we in the 21st century would have a better time
with a Buddha who had modern views and was "play-acting" to people
stuck in the cultural view of the time. We today would have a harder
time with a Buddha who believed many cultural things taken for granted
at the time which we now see as false.
Reincarnation/rebirth would be one of those issues, and I don't know
if we can actually say that the Buddha "laid the past/future lives
thick" to make is point or if he actually believed it. The former
interpretation would make the skeptic feel better, but I wonder if
there is evidence that the Buddha really didn't believe such things.
And if he did believe them, then the question is how we extrapolate
the Buddha's teachings from his culture. Both taking things as
"laying it on thick" and taking every cultural belief literally seem
to have their drawbacks. In terms of practice, it doesn't really
matter to me, but I do have curiosity about the historical Buddha.
> Many teachings in Buddhism may be just "like toys for kids? use,
> to encourage the weak to search for higher things and to leave
> behind the lower things, according to their capacities and so to
> speak step by step." The more abrupt teachings are not that
> popular, then and now, and I concentrate on them.
>
> Let us remember that the Buddha had a cousin, Nanda, who was into
> sex, so he promised him five hundred pink-footed nymphs. Nanda
> meditated, awoke, and released the Buddha of his, um, promise.
> Do you think that it was ethical (in today's parlance) for the
> Buddha to make that, er, promise? The Buddha clearly fooled Nanda
> into meditating, and did it for his own (Nanda's) good, because
> it was the only way to entice him to meditate.
What an interesting story, and an interesting question.
It seems harmless enough to me, but it could be used to justify
exploiting people and promising them all sorts of things in order to
keep them as followers, so I'd think it would be dangerous as a
tradition.
We could also treat this metaphorically, and say that the Buddha was
saying that the bliss and peace of the jhanas and eventually nirvana
would be the equivalent of being surrounded by five hundred
pink-footed nymphs, because that's all Nanda could understand. Or
perhaps you mean this as an example of using the tools in the culture
to explain his message. Perhaps Nanda released him of the 'promise'
in that he got that it was a metaphor, rather than a trick.
-j
....?......
"jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
of hoodwinking his followers to keep them as followers as such. He taught
keeping the times and the mental states of his followers in mind. At
Buddhas' level of enlightenment, it is obvious that his depth of
understanding overrode any meanderings of the human psyche in his followers
and his teaching was an attempt to generalize among many specific out-going
paths of the people who listened to him. Even Nisargadatta Maharaj in modern
times would sometimes refuse to talk to a group of people on his subject of
non-dualism because they were under the belief systems of a God and bhakti
yoga and might feel that his talks would be a crticism of their belief
systems.
Tang Huyen
"....?......" wrote:
> I could be wrong but I somehow doubt that Buddha taught with the intention
> of hoodwinking his followers to keep them as followers as such. He taught
> keeping the times and the mental states of his followers in mind. At
> Buddhas' level of enlightenment, it is obvious that his depth of
> understanding overrode any meanderings of the human psyche in his followers
> and his teaching was an attempt to generalize among many specific out-going
> paths of the people who listened to him. Even Nisargadatta Maharaj in modern
> times would sometimes refuse to talk to a group of people on his subject of
> non-dualism because they were under the belief systems of a God and bhakti
> yoga and might feel that his talks would be a crticism of their belief
> systems.
I don't deny that the Buddha's intention was good and that, in Nanda's case, his
end was accomplished (it wasn't accomplished in the case of a bunch of monks who
killed themselves after he taught them the contemplation of the foulness of
body).
I question the respectability of his method in Nanda's case.
And, Jen sweetie, you again attempt to turn the Buddha into a Hinduist ("his
teaching was an attempt to generalize among many specific out-going paths of the
people who listened to him"). His teaching rejected practically all current
teachings, except that he reprised the mere tools (though with some
modifications) like the four form meditation, the four formless attainments, the
Four Divine Abodes, etc., but fitted them into a different and new framework,
ending in the going beyond them.
Tang Huyen
....?......
I didn't mean to sound as if I was comparing Buddha to hinduism, I apologize
if it was interpreted in that manner. It's just that I think I would need to
generalize somewhat as to how I would present something I wanted to transmit
to others that would be difficult if not impossible to put into words and
that was all I was really trying to say. As to his monks committing suicide
over the foulness of the body, Nisargadatta Maharaj often referred to the
body as a skin sack of rotting food and he often told his listeners not to
listen to his talks if they valued their possessions, their relationships or
their physical vehicle in any way.
Evelyn Ruut
"....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:berplj$8cltj$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de...
Yes, that was exactly the thought that came into my mind when I read what
Tang wrote. You said it very clearly though.
--
Evelyn
"Be wise. Treat yourself, your mind, sympathetically, with
loving kindness. If you are gentle with yourself, you will
become gentle with others." -- Lama Thubten Yeshe
jhayati
>
> I didn't mean to sound as if I was comparing Buddha to hinduism, I apologize
> if it was interpreted in that manner. It's just that I think I would need to
> generalize somewhat as to how I would present something I wanted to transmit
> to others that would be difficult if not impossible to put into words and
> that was all I was really trying to say. As to his monks committing suicide
> over the foulness of the body, Nisargadatta Maharaj often referred to the
> body as a skin sack of rotting food and he often told his listeners not to
> listen to his talks if they valued their possessions, their relationships or
> their physical vehicle in any way.
Maharaj is a "Morpheus" then, saying that if you want to remain in
your complacency, take the blue pill, but once you take the red pill,
nothing will ever be the same again. I think that's a common theme on
taking up any spiritual path.
-j
....?......
Aquiring a state which is prior to All concepts is beyond most.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > Nisargadatta Maharaj often referred to the body as a skin sack
> > > of rotting food and he often told his listeners not to
> > > listen to his talks if they valued their possessions, their
> > > relationships or their physical vehicle in any way.
> >
> > Maharaj is a "Morpheus" then, saying that if you want to remain in
> > your complacency, take the blue pill, but once you take the red pill,
> > nothing will ever be the same again. I think that's a common theme on
> > taking up any spiritual path.
> >
> > -j
>
> Aquiring a state which is prior to All concepts is beyond most.
We all do it every day, but only for brief moments. I think talking
about relaxing extra thoughts, or extending those moments before
concepts rush in, is much more helpful than talk of mythical states
where one is in another dimension, beyond thought and time, and so
forth, which is actually an abstract idea being mentated in time.
-j
....?......
One concept is a symbol. It symbolizes a handed-down idea from someone else
who in turn took it from yet someone else and filtered it through a genetic
and socially influenced concept filter potentiality. In deep sleep, your
acceptance of a body mind and a consciousness are held in abeyance and yet
you are in perfect peace. Upon awakening, the 'I' self views the waking
state, itself a concept of that filters' potentiality to create feasibility
and cohesion in a chaos of swirling molecules, takes to creating
objectivizations and creates an illusion of continuity by this concept
filters' abilities to compare what it believes to be an occurring present mo
ment coupled with what it believes to be is an accurate memory bundle, and
by fusing its memory bundle and conceptual filtering strategies it creates a
dualistic object subject relationship believing itself to be something
beyond a concept and able to judge its objectivizings as justifiable reality
also beyond concepts. The 'I' thought itself, doing this objectivizing from
conceptual filtering is itself merely a concept.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > Aquiring a state which is prior to All concepts is beyond most.
> >
> > We all do it every day, but only for brief moments. I think talking
> > about relaxing extra thoughts, or extending those moments before
> > concepts rush in, is much more helpful than talk of mythical states
> > where one is in another dimension, beyond thought and time, and so
> > forth, which is actually an abstract idea being mentated in time.
> >
> > -j
>
> One concept is a symbol. It symbolizes a handed-down idea from
> someone else who in turn took it from yet someone else and filtered
> it through a genetic and socially influenced concept filter
And that's called 'dogma'.
> In deep sleep, your acceptance of a body mind and a consciousness
> are held in abeyance and yet you are in perfect peace.
Not me. I have dreams. Some are scary and vivid. Others peaceful/
> Upon awakening, the 'I' self views the waking state, itself a concept
I'm not sure if I'm saying the same thing as you or not. There are
just thoughts and emotions that bubble up, and some of the thoughts
point back to themselves. That's all there is to the 'I' or self.
> create feasibility and cohesion in a chaos of swirling molecules,
> takes to creating objectivizations and creates an illusion of continuity
I think I know what you mean. Let's look at a concept, such as "my
legs". I think there are actual legs attached to this body which
walk, but my experience of them, when examined, is a plethora of
sensations, coming and going, which get grouped, by other sensations,
called thoughts, into higher-level concepts called legs. This
interpretation is very helpful, because it seems to be somewhat true
that there are physical legs that walk. So creating a concept from
the sensations that fits with reality pretty well is useful. Only
when the concepts go too far, such as adding too much permanence to
the sensations, or thinking that the legs must be eternal, can we get
into trouble. Maybe I just said what you're trying to say, but I
can't tell from the way you say it.
> filters' abilities to compare what it believes to be an occurring present mo
> ment coupled with what it believes to be is an accurate memory bundle, and
> by fusing its memory bundle and conceptual filtering strategies it creates a
> dualistic object subject relationship believing itself to be something
> beyond a concept and able to judge its objectivizings as justifiable reality
> also beyond concepts. The 'I' thought itself, doing this objectivizing from
> conceptual filtering is itself merely a concept.
I think I agree with that, but I don't find use of words like
'dualistic' that get thrown around and are really just synonyms for
'bad'. I prefer to talk about my experiences and describe them
carefully.
-j
....?......
Nothing 'bad' about 'dualism', unless one fails to see that dualism is
simply a conceptual acceptance as reality for what is merely an imaginary
subject object relationship as a result of the nervous system's attempt to
make order out of the chaotic mass of swirling molecules that is dancing
around. Every conceivable experience or event is simply a concept because
they are based on the two primary concepts, time and space, which are merely
conceptual measurement tools designed to make a conceptual feasibility out
of what is not feasible when viewed from any angle other than the human
condition which is merely a genetic blend of elements reacting to a
spontaneous conglomeration of atomic particles. Without the surrealistic
measurement fantasies of volume and duration fluxing into less than reliable
sensory data input avenues of evaluation, one could 'see' 'reality' as it
'truly' 'is'.
jhayati
> > I think I agree with that, but I don't find use of words like
> > 'dualistic' that get thrown around and are really just synonyms for
> > 'bad'. I prefer to talk about my experiences and describe them
> > carefully.
> >
> > -j
>
> Nothing 'bad' about 'dualism',
Well, almost all of the Zen crowd I hang with uses it like 'sin'.
> unless one fails to see that dualism is simply a conceptual
> acceptance as reality for what is merely an imaginary subject object
> relationship as a result of the nervous system's attempt to make
> order out of the chaotic mass of swirling molecules that is dancing
> around.
Do you think it's a random or arbitrary making of order from chaos? I
don't. I think it's like picking out the North and South poles of a
magnetic field. There might be certain real distinctions, but you
have to take into account the whole field and never forget that the
poles are not really separate. That seems to be the error with
various 'dualisms'.
> Every conceivable experience or event is simply a concept because
> they are based on the two primary concepts, time and space,
> which are merely conceptual measurement tools
No. There's actually time and space, as in, I can mindfully walk
across the room, and take 1 minute to get there. My concepts, on how
I cut up the time and space, such as "minute" and "meters" are
conventions that are man-made, I agree. But what they are measuring
is time and space, which I can experience. My fear is that if you get
too lost in words here, you'll end up saying that the world is really
an illusion (I recall my first day posting and this fellow dharmasalad
who claimed the universe was an illusion but his fantasies about
ultimate and absolute Plato's Heaven were real, and he just added more
and more Harry Potter stuff each post until he was unintelligible.)
I'd therefore like to distinguish space-time from our concepts of
space and time such as "minutes" and "meters".
> designed to make a conceptual feasibility out
> of what is not feasible when viewed from any angle other than the human
> condition which is merely a genetic blend of elements reacting to a
> spontaneous conglomeration of atomic particles.
I cut that in half and it was still a run-on sentence. (Not an
insult, just explaining it's hard for me to read and swallow all that
and I had to read it four times, and I still might not get what you
mean.) I don't think we are "merely" blend reacting to a "spontaneous
conglomeration". I think we are very highly organized due to millions
of years of evolutionary calibration.
> Without the surrealistic measurement fantasies of volume and duration
> fluxing into less than reliable sensory data input avenues of evaluation,
> one could 'see' 'reality' as it 'truly' 'is'.
I think it would look the same, just without all the extra words.
-j
....?......
Your assumptions that because you experience something that it is real, or
that it is occurring are erroneous simply for the fact that you have no
comparison scale even in a reality of dualism. You know hot because you know
cold. You know up because there is down. All just concepts too. Where is
your yardstick of measurement comparison to tell you that space is real or
has substance ? Are you aware of an anti-space concept whereby you can say
that space is real because I can compare it to anti-space ? How about time ?
Do you have a handful of anti-time that you can show me ? You say that your
mind is measuring things for you thus they are real when I said in my
previous post that your "I" sense, or mind, if you prefer, can only be
conceptual itself since the mind needs the concepts of space and time to
operate and function. Time and space being concepts is not my idea. Ask any
physicist.
jhayati
>
> Your assumptions that because you
> experience something that it is real,
Oh no, I experienced a dream last night that I wrecked my brother's
car, but this morning it was there unwrecked, so I have experiences
and then find that they aren't real when I investigate. And then
there are sticks that seem to bend in a glass of water and so forth,
so I accept that experiences get distorted too. That's not as
important as the psychological distortions I place on things and
people with labels. The labels are important, but they are crude,
like a net or grid, which doesn't fully capture a 'wiggle', as Alan
Watts puts it very nicely.
> Where is your yardstick of measurement comparison
> to tell you that space is real or has substance ?
That sentence doesn't make sense. To say space has substance is a
contradiction or word-play like a 'round square'. We have all those
experiments that confirm space-time being curved, which may get
replaced by a better theory, but that doesn't come up in my daily life
so I don't really worry about it.
> Are you aware of an anti-space concept whereby you can say
> that space is real because I can compare it to anti-space ?
Stephen Hawking talks about imaginary time, and it sounds intriguing,
but I haven't yet made sense of it. I'd go on a physics newsgroup to
discuss it, as it has little to do with my practice except to remind
me that my conventional (Newtonian) concepts of space and time are
only appoximations that work here but would break down if we zoomed
into space really fast. As long as they get me to work or class on
time, that's good enough for me.
> Do you have a handful of anti-time that you can show me ?
Yes, I guess I could videotape you and then play it backwards on a
VCR. I bet you'd look really funny.
-j
....?......
You have voluntarily accepted something as surrealistic as sensory data
input, albeit only conceptual in nature, to be real only on the fact that
you are 'awake' , yet 'awake' is only a concept, yet you have compared it to
a dream, something that you decide is unreal, when dreams and the waking
state are made of the same substance, i.e., they are both consciousness
determining sensory data input, one from the world at large and the other
from your internal creative mentation. There is basically no difference in
the sum and substance of dreams and the world at large. At an infinitely
subtle level ALL that can be experienced is simply consciousness in its many
flavors and colors. It is merely consciousness playing with itself in a vast
array of elemental combinations and diversions. You said that you
investigate this world. Keep investigating. Go at it with whole heart. If
you truly investigate this world long enough, it will dissolve like a house
of cards.
Lee Dillion
> There is basically no difference in the sum and substance of dreams
> and the world at large.
Perhaps. But I suspect you would much prefer to be dropped from the
dream building than from the 20th floor of the building downtown.
....?......
"Lee Dillion" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
news:bf17ao$rea$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
I remember what may be an old wives' tale from when I was a kid and they
used to say that if you died in your dreams you would die in real life. It
could be that if you got scared enough in a dream from something that
brought on a heart attack while sleeping, I guess it could happen.
Lee Dillion
Old wives tale indeed, for if it were true, who could tell it?
In any event, the assertion that "There is basically no difference in
the sum and substance of dreams and the world at large" is hardly
apparent and seems contradicted by experience. That you wish to
trivialize this experience as a method of letting go of our egoistic
attachments is understandable, but to eliminate any difference between
this world and dreams is the sort of verbal nonsense that makes me run
screaming when I hear people start spouting off about nonduality and such.
ah well.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote:
> Old wives tale indeed, for if it were true, who could tell it?
>
> In any event, the assertion that "There is basically no difference in
> the sum and substance of dreams and the world at large" is hardly
> apparent and seems contradicted by experience. That you wish to
> trivialize this experience as a method of letting go of our egoistic
> attachments is understandable, but to eliminate any difference between
> this world and dreams is the sort of verbal nonsense that makes me run
> screaming when I hear people start spouting off about nonduality and such.
>
> ah well.
Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Look at that: "the sort of verbal nonsense that makes me run screaming when I
hear people start spouting off about nonduality and such."
Let us see you blow up in full Technicolour and soundsurround! That sort of
verbal nonsense will be the fart that gets you old lawyer frothing!
Tang Huyen
....?......
These are just my observations and feelings. No need to take anything I say
so seriously that you run off screaming.There is of course differences
between dreams and the world at large, but I did say that they were the same
at a subtle, basic level, that's all. It is all speculation in a world of
guessing games. Man is simply the 'measure' of the universe and considering
how vast and multiplicitous this universe is, I would venture to say that
our speculations about it can be just as vast if not more so.
Lee Dillion
To blow up for you would be a birthday present, eh? But to date, you
have never succeeded in getting close to getting your gift. Perhaps next
year?
Lee Dillion
As you say, "No need to take anything I say so seriously." The
screaming bit was just some poetic license for the non-literalists out
there.
As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the same
at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this is true.
But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am I, but a mere
dream, to stand in your way.
....?......
I find it of no 'use' to think in any way whatsoever. Utility of the
physical reality is something I attempt to stray away from, the same with
intentional utility and its consequences. Attempting to live beyond
intention and beyond utility brings my own personal measure of the universe
to a standstill even though it still goes on anyway in my mind and in my
words, but hopefully not in my 'heart'. I attempt to take a recessive
position as such in this area that I term 'heart', and just watch it all go
by.
Ned Ludd
Lee:
> As you say, "No need to take anything I say so seriously." The
> screaming bit was just some poetic license for the non-literalists
> out there.
> As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the
> same at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this
> is true. But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am
> I, but a mere dream, to stand in your way.
>
Except that's precisely what Buddha compared "all the things of
the world" to, at the end of the Diamond Sutra: a dream.
He also gave five other comparisons in addition to "a dream",
for all the rock-hard things of the universe, in case you missed
the point.
> I find it of no 'use' to think in any way whatsoever. Utility of
> the physical reality is something I attempt to stray away from,
> the same with intentional utility and its consequences. Attempting
> to live beyond intention and beyond utility brings my own personal
> measure of the universe to a standstill even though it still goes
> on anyway in my mind and in my words, but hopefully not in my
> 'heart'. I attempt to take a recessive position as such in this
> area that I term 'heart', and just watch it all go by.
>
Dreamer.
Ned
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
>>As you say, "No need to take anything I say so seriously." The
>>screaming bit was just some poetic license for the non-literalists out
>>there.
>>
>>As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the same
>>at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this is true.
>>But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am I, but a mere
>>dream, to stand in your way.
> I find it of no 'use' to think in any way whatsoever.
I have found the no mind, non-mentation, non-manifestative mind, etc.
type ideas worthwhile for my own practice, but they are the type of
ideas that are easily misunderstood and often parroted in a way that
makes them easy to parody.
For example, the fact that you sat down at a computer in Detroit,
selected your Outlook Express program to start up, dialed into your ISP,
downloaded and read some posts by me and others, apparently thought
about those posts, and typed up an answer that literally denies the
reality of what you have just done has a certain comedic value to it.
Thanks for the smile.
....?......
Spontaneity of action doesn't necessarily rely on forethought, or even
thought occurring at the time of true spontaneity, but my thought
patternings tend to come and go now. Sometimes it is pure spontaneity and at
other times the intellect chimes in and the thoughts run unabated. I seem to
not need effort anymore to shut off the thoughts. They seem to come and go
as they please anymore. This allows me to take that recessive position in
the 'heart' more easily and just watch the thoughts tumble and spill out.
Lee Dillion
>> As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the
>> same at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this
>> is true. But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am
>> I, but a mere dream, to stand in your way.
> Except that's precisely what Buddha compared "all the things of the
> world" to, at the end of the Diamond Sutra: a dream.
Well, I don't study or use the Diamond Sutra, but my understanding is
that the later sutras would often say things such as "All conditioned
dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble or a shadow, like dew or
like a lightning flash" which I don't read as saying the world *is* a
dream but rather that the world is *like* a dream in various aspects.
To my way of thinking, there is a difference between an assertion of
identity and a comparison of selected characteristics for poetical
purposes. So when I say that “How like the winter hath my absence
been”, I intend to communicate something of importance but not, for
example, that my absence literally was a winter.
Tang Huyen
Ned Ludd wrote:
> Lee:
>
> > As you say, "No need to take anything I say so seriously." The
> > screaming bit was just some poetic license for the non-literalists
> > out there.
> > As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the
> > same at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this
> > is true. But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am
> > I, but a mere dream, to stand in your way.
>
> Except that's precisely what Buddha compared "all the things of
> the world" to, at the end of the Diamond Sutra: a dream.
>
> He also gave five other comparisons in addition to "a dream",
> for all the rock-hard things of the universe, in case you missed
> the point.
Ned sweetie, It's practically impossible (I say "practically" only to be
safe) to get you to understand what the Diamond scripture says.
Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu translates the same passage from the Diamond
Scripture: "As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp, A mock show, dew
drops, or a bubble, A dream, a lightning flash, or cloud, So should one
view what is conditioned." Conze, Diamond, 92 translates (modified): "As
stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,/ A mock show, dew drops, or a
bubble,/ A dream, a lightning flash, or cloud,/ So should one view the
composed (evam drastavyam samskrtam)."
There is no "all the things of the world" in there, dear. The
composed/compounded/composition is what one's mind composes on top of
the raw sensible reality. "The world" is one such composition, "all the
things of the world" another, "all the rock-hard things of the universe"
yet another. And don't forget the qualification "as", which clearly puts
all the comparisons as, well, comparisons or metaphors.
The composed/compounded/composition is merely mental and not real, and
definitely not "all the things of the world", even less "all the
rock-hard things of the universe". The uncomposed state is outside of
it, and that uncomposed state is merely the state of mind when all the
compositions (the fourth aggregate) are quiesced. Both are only states
of mind, not realities.
Perhaps your rock-hard mind makes the composed/compounded/composition
seem so to you, but in itself it is not. It is a sheer fiction of mind.
By the way, does your Zen make your mind that way, Ned luvvie? Heavy to
carry around, no?
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
And I applaud you in this accomplishment, for it suggests an openess to
experience and an ability to minimize the categorizing and
pre-conceiving that is so often informed by craving, conceit, and view.
And yet, I suppose you did pay your ISP bill last month and that this
effort did, in fact, require some forethought, if merely to remember to
check your mailbox.
But, then, perhaps you are truly the wish-fullfilling gem of mahayana
thought that has no conceptualizing activity and adapts to the wishes of
living beings and gives them what they seek. If so, I would like a new
tent for camping. Let me know when to expect delivery. Oh, and a new
sleeping bag would be great too.
Ned Ludd
Then why say it at all? If Buddha was just intending to be
a poet, why say those words as the capping lines (or penultimate
capping lines) of what is widely regarded as the highest Mahayana
sutra in the Buddhist canon?
But then again, since you don't "use or study" the Diamond Sutra,
why would this be of any importance to you? Or why would you be
expected to understand the value or utility of such a statement?
Ned
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
> news:bf1lcm$5mb$2...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
>
>>>>As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the
>>>>same at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this
>>>>is true. But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am
>>>>I, but a mere dream, to stand in your way.
>>
>>>Except that's precisely what Buddha compared "all the things of the
>>>world" to, at the end of the Diamond Sutra: a dream.
>>
>>Well, I don't study or use the Diamond Sutra, but my understanding
>>is that the later sutras would often say things such as "All
>>conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble or a
>>shadow, like dew or like a lightning flash" which I don't read as
>>saying the world *is* a dream but rather that the world is *like*
>>a dream in various aspects.
>>To my way of thinking, there is a difference between an assertion
>>of identity and a comparison of selected characteristics for
>>poetical purposes. So when I say that "How like the winter hath
>>my absence been", I intend to communicate something of importance
>>but not, for example, that my absence literally was a winter.
>>
>
>
> Then why say it at all? If Buddha was just intending to be
> a poet, why say those words as the capping lines (or penultimate
> capping lines) of what is widely regarded as the highest Mahayana
> sutra in the Buddhist canon?
I don't know that he said it, but if he did, what is wrong with a little
poetry? I don't know of any rule that says that the final line of an
sutra has to be literally true in an ontological sense.
> But then again, since you don't "use or study" the Diamond Sutra,
> why would this be of any importance to you? Or why would you be
> expected to understand the value or utility of such a statement?
I don't know. You are the one who jumped into the conversation and
started quoting the Diamond Sutra as if the quoting alone settled the
issue that the world is simply a dream. If you have some further
argument besides the mere quote, then I am open to hearing it.
Ned Ludd
>
>>>>As to speculations about how dreams and the world at large are the
>>>>same at some subtle, basic level, I see nothing that suggests this
>>>>is true. But if you find it of some use to think this way, who am
>>>>I, but a mere dream, to stand in your way.
>>
>>>Except that's precisely what Buddha compared "all the things of the
>>>world" to, at the end of the Diamond Sutra: a dream.
>>
>>Well, I don't study or use the Diamond Sutra, but my understanding
>>is that the later sutras would often say things such as "All
>>conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble or a
>>shadow, like dew or like a lightning flash" which I don't read as
>>saying the world *is* a dream but rather that the world is *like*
>>a dream in various aspects.
>>To my way of thinking, there is a difference between an assertion
>>of identity and a comparison of selected characteristics for
>>poetical purposes. So when I say that "How like the winter hath
>>my absence been", I intend to communicate something of importance
>>but not, for example, that my absence literally was a winter.
>
> Then why say it at all? If Buddha was just intending to be
> a poet, why say those words as the capping lines (or penultimate
> capping lines) of what is widely regarded as the highest Mahayana
> sutra in the Buddhist canon?
Lee:
> I don't know that he said it, but if he did, what is wrong with a
> little poetry? I don't know of any rule that says that the final
> line of an sutra has to be literally true in an ontological sense.
>
If you had read the sutra, you would not speak of 'ontology'.
There is a great chant, which echoes through the Diamond sutra.
It is used repeatedly, in various formulations, but it always
has the structure:
What is, is not, what is.
1,100 years later, one of the earliest Chinese Zen masters stated
it, in the first Zen poem, as:
What is, is not; what is not, is.
Until you have grasped this fact,
Your position is simply untenable. - Sengtsan
Ned:
> But then again, since you don't "use or study" the Diamond Sutra,
> why would this be of any importance to you? Or why would you be
> expected to understand the value or utility of such a statement?
Lee:
> I don't know. You are the one who jumped into the conversation and
> started quoting the Diamond Sutra as if the quoting alone settled
> the issue that the world is simply a dream. If you have some
> further argument besides the mere quote, then I am open to hearing
> it.
>
I stated the sutra correctly when I said, "Buddha compared..."
So why would Buddha neither say "It is a dream", nor "It is
not a dream"?
Are you getting this yet?
Perhaps you should look for help in the sayings of the Chinese
Zen masters of the late first millennium. Maybe this will bolster
your case (for ontology). Nansen once said...
A government official who was a student of Nansen's quoted a
verse by Seng Chou: "Heaven, earth and I have the same root;
myriad things and I are one body." The officer marveled at
this quote, and Nansen pointed to a flower and said, "People
these days see this flower as a dream."
- Case 40, Blue Cliff
Lee Dillion
As I said, if you have something other than a mere quote, let me know.
But playing around with two of the four alternatives doesn't really get
you anywhere in this discussion.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf06or$9iddp$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> >
> > Yes, I guess I could videotape you and then play it backwards on a
> > VCR. I bet you'd look really funny.
> >
> > -j
Ok, how much does anybody want to bet that this fellow couldn't say
one of his topic sentences outloud with only one breath:
> You have voluntarily accepted something as surrealistic as sensory data
> input, albeit only conceptual in nature, to be real only on the fact that
> you are 'awake' , yet 'awake' is only a concept, yet you have compared it
> to a dream, something that you decide is unreal, when dreams and the waking
> state are made of the same substance, i.e., they are both consciousness
> determining sensory data input, one from the world at large and the other
> from your internal creative mentation.
Dreams and waking states aren't substances, they are relationships.
They are to each other as cartoons are to photographs. Finally, awake
isn't "only" a concept, or else I could have said 'blogooper' or any
nonsense word instead.
> There is basically no difference in the sum and substance of dreams
> and the world at large.
Only if you you are in a Harry Potter fantasy. Dream trucks don't
exist; real trucks can crush your bones and your brain, ending your
experiences altogether, including dreams. Not only is "basically no
difference" mistaken, but that's about as huge a difference as it
gets. Sounds like you just came back from the cinema and have seen
The Matrix II. Yes, I thought it was cool, too, and it had me
fantasizing like that as well. The first film was definitely better,
though.
-j
....?......
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf1lvq$5mb$3...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
UPS or USPS ?
....?......
You are stagnating your spiritual evolution at a conceptual level. Remember
what I said a few posts ago ? It is almost impossible for anyone to be in
the state prior to concepts. You state that it sounds like I just got back
from the cinema. In the words of Thomas Pynchon from his novel "Gravity's
Rainbow" ; "It was difficult even for us, old fans who've always been at
the movies (haven't we ?)."
Lee Dillion
ESP.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf16gm$9qfr2$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf06or$9iddp$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > Do you have a handful of anti-time that you can show me ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I guess I could videotape you and then play it backwards on a
> > > > VCR. I bet you'd look really funny.
> > > >
> > > > -j
> >
> > Ok, how much does anybody want to bet that this fellow couldn't say
> > one of his topic sentences outloud with only one breath:
> >
> > > You have voluntarily accepted something as surrealistic as sensory
> > > data input, albeit only conceptual in nature, to be real only on
> > > the fact that you are 'awake' , yet 'awake' is only a concept, yet
> > > you have compared it to a dream, something that you decide is
> > > unreal, when dreams and the waking state are made of the same
> > > substance, i.e., they are both consciousness determining sensory
> > > data input, one from the world at large and the other from your
> > > internal creative mentation.....
> >
> > Dreams and waking states aren't substances, they are relationships.
>
> > > There is basically no difference in the sum and substance of dreams
> > > and the world at large.
> >
> > Only if you you are in a Harry Potter fantasy. Dream trucks don't
> > exist; real trucks can crush your bones and your brain...
> You are stagnating your spiritual evolution at a conceptual level.
Me? No, I'm dealing with reality, as in eating, breathing...
Only at the conceptual level can someone say dreams are no different
from being awake and Harry Potter fantasies. Btw, you tried the same
game with Lee Dillion. I may be an arhat/airhead as TeaPot suggests,
but I'm not clueless. Let go of the mentation, and get in touch with
your body and learn to feel more and think less and you'll know the
difference.
-j
....?......
is what is holding you back. You say that I am doing a 'game' but this is
just your opinion. Your subtle way with insults and pretending to be someone
who knows something when others do not is the reason you are having so much
friction in this group. Your voluntary closing of your mind is another
stumbling block. You are trying to get me to join in on your little ego
games of one-upmanship, but homey don't play that.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf2rk6$a6tfj$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<bf16gm$9qfr2$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<bf06or$9iddp$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > > > > > > Do you have a handful of anti-time that you can show me ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I guess I could videotape you and then play it backwards on a
> > > > > > VCR. I bet you'd look really funny.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -j
> > Me? No, I'm dealing with reality, as in eating, breathing...
> You're dealing with what you think is reality.
Trucks that can crush my bones and brains I define as 'real'.
Whatever those trucks and bones are make of, be it particles, waves,
monads, psychic-energy, proto-conscious-etheral-plasm, they are real.
Dream trucks aren't.
> Your identification with body is what
No. We aren't talking about identification. No changing the subject.
Identification with something is a pyschological matter. I don't
need to have some kind of extra identification to correctly reason
that a truck will crush my bones and brains, and not walk in front of
it.
> You say that I am doing a 'game' but this is just your opinion.
> Your subtle way with insults
I don't mean to insult you. I'm saying that what you say sounds to me
like a Harry Potter novel or better yet, the Matrix movies, and that
I'm not interested in it, because it has no connection with reality
and my life. I'm not insulting you any more than I would insult a
Star Trek fan who goes on endlessly about how the "warp drive" works.
Unless I watch the show, it's all Harry Potter to me. If you are a
kind, caring person, then I value your existence.
> and pretending to be someone who knows something when others do not
> is the reason you are having so much friction in this group.
I don't pretend, and I don't claim to know anything for sure. I'm
just not into your game, or TV show, or novel, or fantasy, that's all.
Don't go off endlessly about Harry Potter and then tell me that I'm
the one pretending to know something! You're the one making all the
Harry Potter stuff up, not me. All I said to you that I know about is
eating and breathing.
> Your voluntary closing of your mind is another stumbling block.
Discarding gibberish is not the same as having an open mind.
And sir, you talk gibberish. And you talk run-on gibberish. None of
it seems to have anything to do with reality, and you make nonsense
claims that contradict everything I've experienced and you make no
arguments, but merely type more run-on gibberish. I don't mean to
insult you at all: I just think that your beliefs are wrong, and
wrong in a big way.
> You are trying to get me to join in on your little ego games of
Like so many on this list, your response is: "oh, you disagree with me
- now I must insult you". So you not only speak gibberish, but you
are mean as well. If you can't agree to disagree, then too bad for
you, Mr. Harry Potter. Nice and in Harry Potter land is fine; harsh
but brilliant might be tolerable; but harsh plus gibberish equals -
Plonk!
-j
Fuck Faced Baboon
> Nice and in Harry Potter land is fine; harsh
> but brilliant might be tolerable; but harsh plus gibberish equals -
> Plonk!
not a bad place, plonk. a few nice restaurants
and a decent laundry. no harsh detergents.
Tang Huyen
jhayati wrote:
> "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> (Jen):
>
> > Your voluntary closing of your mind is another stumbling block.
>
> Discarding gibberish is not the same as having an open mind.
>
> And sir, you talk gibberish. And you talk run-on gibberish. None of
> it seems to have anything to do with reality, and you make nonsense
> claims that contradict everything I've experienced and you make no
> arguments, but merely type more run-on gibberish. I don't mean to
> insult you at all: I just think that your beliefs are wrong, and
> wrong in a big way.
>
> > You are trying to get me to join in on your little ego games of
>
> Like so many on this list, your response is: "oh, you disagree with me
> - now I must insult you". So you not only speak gibberish, but you
> are mean as well. If you can't agree to disagree, then too bad for
> you, Mr. Harry Potter. Nice and in Harry Potter land is fine; harsh
> but brilliant might be tolerable; but harsh plus gibberish equals -
> Plonk!
>
> -j
For somebody who claims to practice friendliness (metta) and to have gotten results from it, results that he is
eager to show and share, our jhayati has something very nice to say:
"I don't mean to insult you at all: I just think that your beliefs are wrong, and wrong in a big way."
He then goes on:
"So you not only speak gibberish, but you are mean as well."
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon
> For somebody who claims to practice friendliness (metta) and to have gotten results from it, results that he is
> eager to show and share, our jhayati has something very nice to say:
>
> "I don't mean to insult you at all: I just think that your beliefs are wrong, and wrong in a big way."
>
> He then goes on:
>
> "So you not only speak gibberish, but you are mean as well."
>
> Tang Huyen
sooner or later he'll say he didn't mean it
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > For somebody who claims to practice friendliness (metta) and to
> > have gotten results from it, results that he is eager to show and
> > share, our jhayati has something very nice to say:
> >
> > "I don't mean to insult you at all: I just think that your beliefs are
> > wrong, and wrong in a big way."
> >
> > He then goes on:
> >
> > "So you not only speak gibberish, but you are mean as well."
>
> sooner or later he'll say he didn't mean it
The argument is tailor-made for him, because he doesn't know who he is and what he does. Cleaner than Kleenex.
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon
> The argument is tailor-made for him, because he doesn't know who he is and what he does. Cleaner than Kleenex.
aaachoooo!
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > The argument is tailor-made for him, because he doesn't
> > know who he is and what he does. Cleaner than Kleenex.
>
> aaachoooo!
Aren't you lucky, dear, that the tissues came just in time.
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon
> Aren't you lucky, dear, that the tissues came just in time.
>
> Tang Huyen
<snaaaarkft!>
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Aren't you lucky, dear, that the tissues came just in time.
>
> <snaaaarkft!>
One thing at a time, luvvie. Even loving mothers have to work serially.
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon
> One thing at a time, luvvie. Even loving mothers have to work serially.
so many diapers, so little time
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > One thing at a time, luvvie. Even loving mothers have to work serially.
>
> so many diapers, so little time
Right. To a loving mother even shit smells good. It makes her feel like
herself.
That's what meaning and value are for.
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon
> That's what meaning and value are for.
diapers. such a sweet attachment.
Tang Huyen
Fuck Faced Baboon wrote:
Right. Mother Nature provides for everything, in her inscrutable manner.
Tang Huyen
....?......
This is about the funniest shit I've seen on these groups tonite.
Jonathan Jennings
"....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> > > > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in
> > > > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> > > > > > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > > > > > > > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> > Discarding gibberish is not the same as having an open mind...
Learn to read.
Jonathan
> > ...And sir, you talk gibberish. And you talk run-on gibberish. None of
jhayati
> > > > > > > > > Do you have a handful of anti-time that you can show me ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I guess I could videotape you and then play it
> > > > > > > > backwards on a VCR. I bet you'd look really funny.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -j
>
> > > > Me? No, I'm dealing with reality, as in eating, breathing...
>
> > > You're dealing with what you think is reality.
> > Trucks that can crush my bones and brains I define as 'real'.
> >
> > > Your subtle way with insults
> >
> > I don't mean to insult you.
> > I'm not insulting you any more than I would insult a Star Trek
> > fan who goes on endlessly about how the "warp drive" works.
> > > and pretending to be someone who knows something when others do not
> > > is the reason you are having so much friction in this group.
> >
> > You're the one making all the Harry Potter stuff up, not me.
> > All I said to you that I know about is eating and breathing.
> >
> > > Your voluntary closing of your mind is another stumbling block.
> >
> > Discarding gibberish is not the same as having an open mind.
> > And sir, you talk gibberish. And you talk run-on gibberish.
> >
> > > You are trying to get me to join in on your little ego games of
> >
> > Like so many on this list, your response is: "oh, you disagree with me
> > - now I must insult you". So you not only speak gibberish, but you
> > are mean as well. If you can't agree to disagree, then too bad for
> > you, Mr. Harry Potter. Nice and in Harry Potter land is fine; harsh
> > but brilliant might be tolerable; but harsh plus gibberish equals -
> > Plonk!
> >
> > -j
>
> This is about the funniest shit I've seen on these groups tonite.
It's about time you had a laugh. I figured you were bullshitting
after I read your discussion with Lee, but you passed right by my VCR
joke without a good laugh so I thought you might actually be on a
Harry Potter trip.
-j
jhayati
> > Nice and in Harry Potter land is fine;
> > harsh but brilliant might be tolerable;
> > but harsh plus gibberish equals -
> > Plonk!
> >
> > -j
>
> For somebody who claims to practice friendliness (metta) and
> to have gotten results from it, results that he is eager to
> show and share, our jhayati has something very nice to say:
>
> "I don't mean to insult you at all:
> I just think that your beliefs are wrong, and wrong in a big way."
What results that I'm eager to share? I haven't claimed results I can share.
Somehow, Tang, you skipped over my saying:
> And yes, a practitioner of lovingkindness might say just about anything.
> You would never be able to tell my practice from my posts.
> Again, all you could tell from my posts might be to some extent how
> my parents raised me. Were I enlightened, and thus radiating
> loving-kindness, I wouldn't need or want to practice metta meditation!
> So actually my -not- displaying overflowing lovingkindness is a sign that
> I practice metta, or at least that I can benefit from practicing metta.
Oops! Got that foot stuck in your mouth again, Tang? Try again.
You end with a quote that couldn't sum up your accusations better:
> He then goes on:
>
> "So you not only speak gibberish, but you are mean as well."
>
> Tang Huyen
-j
....?......
as you put it. Many of the things I discuss would have sounded like bullshit
even to myself years ago but if and when you are ever able to find what I
call the recessive heartspace within you and dwell in your natural state,
you may be able to better understand what I am talking about. This
absolutely subtle heartspace is prior to concepts and thus the impossibility
of explaining it in words or expounding successfully on methods of getting
there. Even that is erroneous because you can't get there per se, because
you are already there. The key to this is a thought free meditation visited
over and over until it is so obvious that you wonder how you missed it all
this time. There are no conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain.
Just understand that there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts, prior to
consciousness and you are that.
Jonathan Jennings
"....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> >
> I laugh heartily at many things continually. None of my talks are bullshit
> as you put it. Many of the things I discuss would have sounded like
bullshit
> even to myself years ago but if and when you are ever able to find what I
> call the recessive heartspace within you and dwell in your natural state,
> you may be able to better understand what I am talking about. This
> absolutely subtle heartspace is prior to concepts and thus the
impossibility
> of explaining it in words or expounding successfully on methods of getting
> there. Even that is erroneous because you can't get there per se, because
> you are already there. The key to this is a thought free meditation
visited
> over and over until it is so obvious that you wonder how you missed it all
> this time. There are no conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain.
> Just understand that there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts, prior
to
> consciousness and you are that.
The 'you are that' can't be 'sold' to Buddhists because the Buddha declared
that all 'dhammas' are without 'self' including the unconditioned dhamma
'nibbana' = the not-born, not-grown, not-made, not-conditioned, undying etc.
The purely 'experiential' side can't be sold to him in particular partly
because he's an idiot who can't understand Buddhism or you or much but
mainly because of his value-system as given in one of his first Epistles to
the Benighted:
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote
> > > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > I guess I don't have a problem with having a mental 'fabrication'.
> > > > After all, I don't think that drooling thoughtlessly in a padded
cell
> > > > would be preferable to clear thinking.
> > >
> > > That's an interesting depiction of the Buddha's 'non-fabricating'
> liberated
> > > state which I haven't come across before. Thanks.
>
> > Well, it's less of a depiction of the Buddha's 'non-fabricating'
> > liberated state than it is a description of ideals I've read from you
> > posters.
> > I simply don't swallow the popular belief that "thinking is bad".
> > In fact, I equate Buddhists who label 'thought' or 'mentation' as the
> > enemy to be equivalent of those dieters who label carbohydrates as
> > bad, and try not to eat them.
> > It's a partial truth: refined,
> > processed food, which is readily available everywhere, isn't good for
> > you. Stupid conditioned thoughts and beliefs, which are available at
> > the click of the TV remote, aren't good for a healthy spiritual diet.
> > But whole grains and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. So is
> > creative and critical and discerning thinking for a healthy psyche.
>
> > I don't have an ideal of rolling my eyes up into my head, nor of
> > feeling some sort of 'Oneness', nor of ceasing to think altogether,
> > nor of feeling the universe is all in my mind and that the world is an
> > illusion, nor of drooling in a padded cell.
> > I simply want to feel, to
> > think, to love, to create, and to live a healthy life with as little
> > craving, hatred, and delusion as possible. When I experience fully, I
> > don't want extra conditioned thoughts and reactions to foul the
> > experience. When I eat, I want to eat a balance of good food, and not
> > eat too much or eat for the wrong reasons, but enjoy the meal, and
> > then do something else. When I think, I want to think clearly and
> > critically, enjoy the thoughts, and then let them go and do something
> > else. If I'm not mistaken, the Buddha lived a happy, fulfilled life
> > for 45 years after his awakening, and he did more thinking and talking
> > than most folks.
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
> "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
>> There are no conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain.
>> Just understand that there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts,
>> prior to consciousness and you are that.
> The 'you are that' can't be 'sold' to Buddhists because the Buddha
> declared that all 'dhammas' are without 'self' including the
> unconditioned dhamma 'nibbana' = the not-born, not-grown, not-made,
> not-conditioned, undying etc.
Hmm. I don't know what can't be sold to "Buddhists" since the term has
almost no set definition that I can see. But that point aside, I am not
sure why anybody should buy the "you are that" all for one special.
....?......
"Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bf8tnj$cgded$1...@ID-103701.news.uni-berlin.de...
It's true that there is no real self or identity no matter how high you
go,(even God is useless to God), and there actually is no God as such with a
massive intellect because this universe and all movement in consciousness is
simply going on spontaneously and has no real purpose until 'people' assign
purpose to it, and what I am attempting to describe is prior to words, so
saying 'you are that' is completely erroneous , and this prior to concepts
'state' is also not experiential because that is only conceptual too.
....?......
There is nothing to buy. You experience consciousness therefore 'you' must
be prior to it. You are the prior-most principle. Everything else came
later. When you are in deep sleep and not dreaming the consciousness
dissolves and you are in perfect peace. Somehow, 'you' are still there
without the consciousness and without realization of a body-mind concept.
That prior most principle is the un-caused cause. Recognition of it is
difficult because you are dwelling at a conceptual level of reasoning,
evaluating and understanding and this prior most principle is prior to
concepts as well.
Lee Dillion
LOL. I would explain the joke, but it is prior to concepts as well.
jhayati
> > It's about time you had a laugh. I figured you were bullshitting
> > after I read your discussion with Lee, but you passed right by my VCR
> > joke without a good laugh so I thought you might actually be on a
> > Harry Potter trip.
> >
> > -j
> I laugh heartily at many things continually.
> None of my talks are bullshit as you put it.
Well, I'd suggest you write your own posts then, as the content of
those last ones weren't worth a response.
> I discuss would have sounded like bullshit even to myself years ago
> but if and when you are ever able to find what I
The old "I used to be a moron like you back in third-grade" attack.
Now -that- is the most ridiculous kind of bullshit talk of all.
Why, I haven't used that insult on anyone since fourth grade.
Come back when you have something real.
-j
jhayati
> > "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >> There are no conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain.
> >> Just understand that there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts,
> >> prior to consciousness and you are that.
>
> > The 'you are that' can't be 'sold' to Buddhists because the Buddha
> > declared that all 'dhammas' are without 'self' including the
> > unconditioned dhamma 'nibbana' = the not-born, not-grown, not-made,
> > not-conditioned, undying etc.
>
> Hmm. I don't know what can't be sold to "Buddhists" since the term has
> almost no set definition that I can see.
Yes. Claiming that one's own particular view is the standard by which
to measure what is Buddhist doesn't get anywhere, but don't tell Jonno
that or he'll tell you to procreate with a lower hominid. Jonno is
also again slipping in nibanna as a positive unconditioned thing/state
instead of an absence of conditioned states.
> But that point aside, I am not sure why anybody should buy the
> "you are that" all for one special.
I think it can be very powerful, if you see it as an antidote to the
"I am just this" kind of framework we tend to tell ourselves, Lee.
Seeing that the components, which together form this transient wave of
you, are the same water everywhere all around is a rather profound
insight. And again, I'm talking waves and water, and not Tang's spin
on this of drop merging with ocean, the latter I also reject.
-j
....?......
"jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
> "....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<bf83iu$bacgf$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:2e4552bb.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > It's about time you had a laugh. I figured you were bullshitting
> > > after I read your discussion with Lee, but you passed right by my VCR
> > > joke without a good laugh so I thought you might actually be on a
> > > Harry Potter trip.
> > >
> > > -j
>
> > I laugh heartily at many things continually.
> > None of my talks are bullshit as you put it.
>
> Well, I'd suggest you write your own posts then, as the content of
> those last ones weren't worth a response.
> > I discuss would have sounded like bullshit even to myself years ago
> > but if and when you are ever able to find what I
>
> The old "I used to be a moron like you back in third-grade" attack.
>
> Now -that- is the most ridiculous kind of bullshit talk of all.
>
> Why, I haven't used that insult on anyone since fourth grade.
>
> Come back when you have something real.
>
> -j
In all the permutations of the consciousness, the many vagaries and the
countless avenues of expression that it explores in its thirst for emotional
addiction satisfaction based on its 'love to be', we come up with one
calling itself 'jhayati'. Limited to the genetic and social outcasting it
prisons itself with there is no avenue open for release or liberation since
all such avenues are blocked by that very 'love to be' and it cannot see
beyond it-'self' in order to escape the pressures of its instinctive
survival tactics and strategies for continuance of its grasping for that
emotional addiction satisfaction.
....?......
"Lee Dillion" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
news:bf93fn$kea$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
Attempts to explain this conceptually are like trying to explain to a puddle
of water that it used to be an ice cube.
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <leedi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> But that point aside, I am not sure why anybody should buy the "you
>> are that" all for one special.
> I think it can be very powerful, if you see it as an antidote to the
> "I am just this" kind of framework we tend to tell ourselves, Lee.
> Seeing that the components, which together form this transient wave
> of you, are the same water everywhere all around is a rather profound
> insight. And again, I'm talking waves and water, and not Tang's
> spin on this of drop merging with ocean, the latter I also reject.
A rather crude antidote, it seems to me, substituting one possible
misconcepton with another possible misconception. Don't get me wrong -
I think there are uses, however limited, for fictions that can help us
reorient away from a destructive way of thinking. But, in general, why
fight speculation with speculation if there exist simpler ways of
solving the problem? That is, if people get all caught up in thinking
they are just "this" (by which I assume you mean some sort of deleuded
thinking fueled by cravings, conceit, and views) perhaps it would be
more direct and less confusing to simply help them eliminate that
delusional pattern of thinking instead of getting caught up in ramblings
about the the nature of the world.
But this really was just an excuse to bring a little of Richard Hayes to
you. Since you indicate that you missed his tenure on trb, here is a
current posting by him over on Buddha-L:
-----
As I understand it from what I have read of Asanga, the principal
motivation for subscribing to the tathaagata-garbha doctrine was to
avert the depression and despair that might set in if one were too
familiar with the truth of how things are. Specifically, the TG
theory is prescribed as an antidote to the doldrums that might visit
a bodhisattva upon his or her encounter with emptiness. So you might
call Tathaagata-garbha a kind of doctrinal Prozac for bodhisattvas
whose bodhicitta has temporarily been snuffed out by s'uunyataa.
What I would suggest is that a better antidote to depression and
despair would be to understand emptiness correctly in the first
place and not to see it as a bleak doctrine. The best way to do
this, I submit, is to realize that emptiness is merely a poetic way
of talking about dependent origination. Dependent origination, I
think, is just about the best news in town, because from that
doctrine it follows that bitter experiences can always be brought to
an end by changing conditions, among them being our own inner
attitudes, some of which are more or less under our control. The
conditioned nature of things, which means that nothing has a fixed
nature (or that everything is empty of a fixed nature), ensures that
changes for the better are always possible. (Of course, so are
changes for the worse, which is why the work of maintaining a
healthy mind is never done.)
The doctrine adds nothing more to the good news of dependent
origination and emptiness. What it does add is a rather confused and
muddled metaphysical doctrine according to which the mind DOES have
a permanent and fixed nature, and that that nature is one of
permanent bliss. From a phenomenological perspective, of course, it
has to be admitted that people still get the blues. (Even
bodhisattvas get the blues. Just think of the time Avalokiteshvara
exploded into a billion pieces when he contemplated the enormity of
the task of rescuing every sentient being from samsara.) So this
means that TG-vaadins have to concoct some account for why a
permanently blissful mind sometimes feels cranky and out of sorts
when, for example, the body it is associated with is having a bad
hair day. The answer is that the TG is somehow being obscured by
afflictions. Well, this is a psychological truth that is accounted
for perfectly well in the much more simple and straightforward
teaching of dependent origination.
So in sum, nothing positive is gained by adding the
tathaagata-garbha doctrine to one's theoretical framework. What IS
gained is a whole new set of thorny and distracting philosophical
doctrines, which are not too different from the negative
side-effects of the various drugs that people take to battle
depression and despair. So probably the best policy, for those who
have the willpower to do it, is just say NO to tathaagata-garbha.
----------------
Lee Dillion
I haven't found the need to talk to puddles of water, so the analogy
doesn't seem to hold for me - though I have been known to talk to my
poodle. She claims to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra and I have
tried to explain to her why that just doesn't seem likely to me. I just
can't seem to get the concepts right to get her to understand. Oh well.
....?......
So you speak poodlese.That's not too far from the language of water, so
maybe with a little practice, you can sing along with your shower rather
than just singing in the shower. Better be careful if she really is the
reincarnation of Cleopatra because Cleo was said to be an unstoppable
nymphomaniac, and you just might wake up some night to.............
Lee Dillion
> So you speak poodlese.
Only when bored. But I have yet to make the speaking or not speaking a
part of my religious outlook.
NeoLazarusx
what is the source of all water on Earth?
-NL
XNA
....?......
"NeoLazarusx" <neola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhge20n...@corp.supernews.com...
An admixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules garnered from the nagging
persistence of the aether to do something on the physical plane rather than
sitting on its potential butt waiting for something to happen ?
....?......
Religous outlooks are subject to change too. God used to speak to everyone
in biblical times, now he only speaks to the insane. If you are bored, maybe
its your religous outlook itself that may be contributing to your boredom.
NeoLazarusx
where all shit originated...
-NL
XNA
Tang Huyen
"....?......" wrote:
> If you are bored, maybe its your religous outlook
> itself that may be contributing to your boredom.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
Certain conditions can give rise to boredom, then it lessens and fades
away. No reason to give it any more power than that. Certainly not
enough of a reason to start talking babble about you being this or that.
jhayati
The source of all water on Earth was the "solar nebula," where five
billion years ago innumerable particles condensed out of the gas and
orbited the sun in nearly circular orbits. There is a compteting
theory that the water all comes from comets. I don't know which is
more reasonable. Why do you ask?
-j
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@yahoo.com> wrote
I doubt that I understand what you mean in that 'should' above could be
either 'ought to' or 'would want to'. Assuming you mean the latter (?) to
the Buddha the (putative) 'self' was the sum of all 'desirables'. E.g. in
the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, the aggregates are excluded from being considered
'self' because of their unsatisfactory qualities (proneness to 'disease',
impermanence, changeability, non-compliance with one's telling them to be
thus or be not thus) and lack of the (putative) self's satisfactory
qualities (lack of proneness to 'disease', permanence, non-changeability,
compliance when one tells them to be thus or be not thus).
To me, this is the Buddha's self-made problem which he then imputes to
everyone else i.e. he starts from the universal desire for a more
satisfactory and less unsatisfactory 'experience'. Then he has a bunch of
ideas about a putative 'self' which make it the sum of all desirables. Then
he goes searching for anything to match his putative 'self' and can't find
he can't find 'it' within any of his 'experiences' (big surprise !) and then
decides that where 'everyone else' is going wrong is in believing that a
'self' exists and is a guarantor of that experience but if they can come to
see it his way, 'their' problem will no longer be a problem.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
> "Jonathan Jennings" <grf...@lineone.net> wrote
Well, I'm glad we sorted that out !
Jonathan
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <leedi...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Jonathan Jennings wrote:
>>
>>>"....?......" <questi...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>>>There are no conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain.
>>>>Just understand that there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts,
>>>>prior to consciousness and you are that.
>>
>>>The 'you are that' can't be 'sold' to Buddhists because the Buddha
>>>declared that all 'dhammas' are without 'self' including the
>>>unconditioned dhamma 'nibbana' = the not-born, not-grown, not-made,
>>>not-conditioned, undying etc.
>>
>>Hmm. I don't know what can't be sold to "Buddhists" since the term has
>>almost no set definition that I can see. But that point aside, I am not
>>sure why anybody should buy the "you are that" all for one special.
>
>
> I doubt that I understand what you mean in that 'should' above could be
> either 'ought to' or 'would want to'. Assuming you mean the latter (?) to
> the Buddha the (putative) 'self' was the sum of all 'desirables'.
Lets forget about the Buddha. Why would anyone, anywhere, of any
religion need to buy the idea that "you are that" "state which is prior
to concepts, prior to consciousness"? How could anybody even know this
in the first place to be able to make such an assertion? From what I
see, its just a fun little joke that some took far too seriously.
NeoLazarusx
what is the source of all water on Earth AT THIS MOMENT?
(Criminy!)
< grins >
Asking because you objected to something Tang says about a drop merging with
the OCEAN...
-NL
XNA
Jonathan Jennings
"Lee Dillion" <gra...@fallingover.com> wrote
Well, in the original I replied to...
<<...but if and when you are ever able to find what I call the recessive
heartspace within you and dwell in your natural state, you may be able to
better understand what I am talking about. This absolutely subtle heartspace
is prior to concepts and thus the impossibility of explaining it in words or
expounding successfully on methods of getting there. Even that is erroneous
because you can't get there per se, because you are already there. The key
to this is a thought free meditation visited over and over until it is so
obvious that you wonder how you missed it all this time. There are no
conditions to fulfill. There is nothing to obtain. Just understand that
there is a 'state' which is prior to concepts, prior to consciousness and
you are that.>>
...I took this to be a 'conscious' state (as I understand it). E.g.
unfortunately, the arising and ceasing and conditioned (etc.) 'vinnana'
often gets translated 'consciousness' leading to all sorts of confusion but
'contextually' I took her to be referring to a 'conscious' state (as I use
the term). I assumed "absolutely subtle heartspace" = "thought free
meditation" = the "state" which is equivalent to what "you" are.
In a subsequent post though e.g...
> ...You experience consciousness therefore 'you' must
> be prior to it. You are the prior-most principle. Everything else came
> later. When you are in deep sleep and not dreaming the consciousness
> dissolves and you are in perfect peace. Somehow, 'you' are still there
> without the consciousness and without realization of a body-mind concept.
> That prior most principle is the un-caused cause. Recognition of it is
> difficult because you are dwelling at a conceptual level of reasoning,
> evaluating and understanding and this prior most principle is prior to
> concepts as well.
...it became questionable whether this was a 'conscious' state or not e.g.
she was (presumably) saying previously that she had repeatedly experienced
"thought free meditation" but now this 'you' is in 'perfect peace' when in
deep sleep and not dreaming and when 'the consciousness dissolves' so
presumably this 'state' of 'peace' is not a description of an 'experience'
but more like saying that a lake was 'peaceful' or 'tranquil' or whatever.
So this 'you' and its 'peace' can only be inferred.
Jonathan
Jonathan Jennings
"NeoLazarusx" <neola...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote
<stuff>
> what is the source of all water on Earth AT THIS MOMENT?
There isn't one.
> (Criminy!)
>
> < grins >
>
> Asking because you objected to something Tang says about a drop merging
with
> the OCEAN...
A while back, Tang equated some analogy of jhayati's about waves or somesuch
(with a view to 'damning' him) to Sankara's (Advaita Vedanta) stuff about
"43-44. Just as taste, freshness and fluidity, the attributes of water, seem
to belong to the waves and then to the spray, of which the waves are a
substrautum, so to Absolute Existence, Consciousness and Bliss [which are of
the Witness], seem to belong to the jiva of waking and dreaming experiences.
45. When drops of foam go back to being waves, fluidity, freshness, etc.,
they dissolve into the waves, and then in turn the waves dissolve into the
ocean. 46. When the jiva of the dream experience is absorbed by that of
waking, the existence, consciousness and bliss of the nocturnal jiva
dissolves into the waking state. When the jiva of the waking experience is
absorbed by the Spectator-Witness, even its relection of existence,
consciousness and bliss dissolves into the Spectator-Witness."
Jonathan