Inability to talk about Gnosticism in positive terms?
Uncle Tantra
In the last couple of days I've asked you to metaphorically shit or
get off the pot, that is, instead of arguing incessantly about minor
points I have no interest in, to instead maybe give me an overview
of some of the *positive* benefits of the gnostic philosophy. So
far you haven't even deigned to reply.
I'm wondering why. I notice that not everyone here shares that
seeming inability to deal with *why* one would wish to practice
gnosticism from a positive point of view. Penitent leper, for example,
even though he doesn't seem to think very much of me, is *great* at
presenting "information for newbies" in a way that points them in the
right direction without putting them down for their ignorance. He is
also quite willing to present some of the positive benefits of gnos-
ticism I'm curious about, and I thank him for that.
But Kater, why can't you come up with any? All you seem to be
interested in is drawing out minor, nit-picky issues that I've done my
best to explain to you are OVER. We've both said our piece, I've
said all I have to say about them, it's HISTORY.
What I'd be interested in hearing -- from you or from anyone else who
feels so inspired -- is some of the benefits to the practitioner of being
a gnostic and following its practices. Someone reposted a list of
gnostic practices you started (I assume) some time ago, and that was
interesting, but it didn't go into *why* one would follow such practices
or what the supposed benefits might be to the practitioner. THAT's
what I'm interested in.
I don't think this is such an off-the-wall question. I could go up to
any Buddhist and say, "What's the practical value of Buddhism for you
in your daily life?" "What benefits do you receive from meditating?" "Do
you know anybody enlightened?" etc. That's all I'm asking of the
gnostics here:
-- What's the value of gnosticism for you in your daily life?
-- If you follow some of the gnostic practices mentioned here,
why? What is the practical value or benefit you receive from
such practices?
-- Is there a counterpart in gnosticism of Buddhist "enlighten-
ment," meaning final, total, full liberation from the negative
effects of the world while still living in a human body?
-- If so, do you personally know anybody who has ever attained
that state via gnostic practices?
Thanks.
Unc
mach777
> -- Is there a counterpart in gnosticism of Buddhist "enlighten-
> ment," meaning final, total, full liberation from the negative
> effects of the world while still living in a human body?
They do all, of course, point to the same things, since we are
all rummaging around in the same universe.
From what you read about Jesus in the Nag Hammadi texts, the dude was
all about dualities. Buddha had his 8fold path, imo dualistic.
The qabalistic middle pillar is about resolving dualities. Hermetism
obviously, too.
For me its all the same thing, only described in different
flavors--a model of a binary universe.
Speculating about end phenomena, whether there is a demiurge, if
there was a 'fall', what the 'mustard seed' really is, etc etc.
its all really beside the point.
Because:
People only have a capacity for knowing truth as far as their nose
reaches. Anything further than that nose is an attempt to create truth
by thinking. Its mental masturbation, smoke and mirrors. Knowledge is
an expansion of ones being, not something that can somehow be "figured
out". It comes by application.
Ideally, there should be the simplest process for achieving gnosis,
and all communication should be geared towards encouraging eachother
to incorporate that process into our lives.
I hear you, unfortunately I have little to offer.
Mach
Uncle Tantra
up on following any exchange between
Kater and myself long ago :-), and since
he's such a big one for claiming to be
misrepresented, below are a couple of
instances of me asking him to expound
upon some of the more positive, practical
aspects of gnostic philosophy. To date, he
has carefully snipped them from his replies
to those threads, and has not even acknow-
ledged that the questions were even asked.
One wonders why.
So, if anyone *else* is able to discuss any
of the pragmatic aspects of a belief in or
practice of gnosticism, I'm really, actually
curious.
It just seems to me that, for those who
actually perform some of the *practices*
that have been documented here as being
part of gnosticism, there must be some
perceived *benefits* to the practice, either
for the practitioner during his/her physical
lifetime, or after physical death. I'm most
curious as to what those perceived benefits
might be, and belatedly I'm getting the
impression that Kater just doesn't *think*
that way. Based on what he's posted so
far, he seems to be more a person who
reads *about* and argues *about* gnos-
ticism than someone who actually follows
its practices. That may not be true, but it is
certainly the impression he's created so far.
Therefore, if there is anyone here who
*does* follow some of the *practices* of
gnosticism, and thus could speak to any
of the supposed (theoretical) and/or real
(your own personal experience) benefits
of them, I would be grateful if you could
post your views. Thanks in advance.
Unc
Previous attempts to ask the same of Kater:
>As I just said in another post, one of the
>things I have to present in the book is why
>Catharism would be perceived to be a good
>thing by the people of the time. There are
>many reasons for that. There are many
>*positive* aspects of a belief in dualism.
>But so far I haven't heard you talk much
>about them. They're the only thing I'd find
>interesting enough to stick around on a.r.g.
>for. Are you capable of presenting those
>positive things, or only capable of saying
>that the world sucks? I *got* that, Ok? :-)
>It's not like I'm going to magically start
>believing it if you repeat it enough times.
>If you *really* have any interest in further
>conversation, talk about some of the
>*benefits* of a belief in gnosticism.
>In terms of gnosticism itself, you didn't
>seem to get much past "life is suffering."
>I would have actually have been interested
>if you'd had anything to say about actual
>techniques practiced by gnostics or the
>positive goals they wish to achieve as a
>result of them. Several people here on this
>newsgroup talk about those things. You
>don't seem to.
>
> <snip flashbacks to unrelated conversations>
>
>If you want further conversation, think of
>something positive to say about gnosticism
>and what it can do for its adherents. There
>is very little of that here, as far as I can
>tell, and I've enjoyed hearing about that.
>But none of it came from you. If some of
>it does, in the next day or so, I'll be happy
>to listen. I won't promise to discuss it
>with you, but I'll certainly listen. After all,
>there must be *something* that attracts you
> to gnosticism other than an audience with
>which you can enjoy shared bitching about
>the state of the evil, demiurge-created
>world. That could only hold most people's
>attention for a very short while, and gnos-
>ticism has persisted for centuries. Belief
>systems rarely do that unless they have
>something *positive* to offer. What might
>those positive qualities of gnosticism be?
mach777
> Therefore, if there is anyone here who
> *does* follow some of the *practices* of
> gnosticism, and thus could speak to any
> of the supposed (theoretical) and/or real
> (your own personal experience) benefits
> of them, I would be grateful if you could
> post your views. Thanks in advance.
What would these practices be? I've not seen anything
posted lately on this NG, but then again the NG seems
to have very small signal to noise ratio and I could
have missed it.
Mach
Uncle Tantra
> > -- Is there a counterpart in gnosticism of Buddhist "enlighten-
> > ment," meaning final, total, full liberation from the negative
> > effects of the world while still living in a human body?
Mach replies:
>They do all, of course, point to the same things, since we are
>all rummaging around in the same universe.
First, THANK YOU for your reply.
> From what you read about Jesus in the Nag Hammadi texts...
Just to clarify, I've never read them. The very little I have read
of Gnosticism per se consisted of commentaries and overviews.
I have read more of Catharism, since that is my primary interest
in the world of dualist philosophies.
And one of the reasons I ask these questions is that Catharism,
as far as I can tell from my researches, was devoid of a "payoff"
*during one's physical lifetime* that might equate to Buddhist
enlightenment or liberation. For them, because the body was
corrupt, one could never be totally free of the corrupting influence
of matter while still in the body; full "liberation" came *after*
death, and if it didn't, one was reincarnated to "try again."
In that latter sense, there is a parallel to Buddhism, but Buddha
also spoke of full liberation IN the body, not to mention many
benefits to the unenlightened practitioner of his philosophy before
realization occurred.
>...the dude was
>all about dualities. Buddha had his 8fold path, imo dualistic.
True, but he also postulated a state *beyond* duality that could
be realized while still living. In my researches I have found no
counterpart of that in Catharism or in other forms of dualism
mentioned by the sources I've read, so I'm wondering if there is
one in Gnosticism.
>The qabalistic middle pillar is about resolving dualities. Hermetism
>obviously, too.
>
>For me its all the same thing, only described in different
>flavors--a model of a binary universe.
>
>Speculating about end phenomena, whether there is a demiurge, if
>there was a 'fall', what the 'mustard seed' really is, etc etc.
>its all really beside the point.
I could not agree more. But that seems to be what the majority
of posts here are discussing. :-)
>Because:
>
>People only have a capacity for knowing truth as far as their nose
>reaches. Anything further than that nose is an attempt to create truth
>by thinking. Its mental masturbation, smoke and mirrors. Knowledge is
>an expansion of ones being, not something that can somehow be "figured
>out". It comes by application.
Again, I could not agree more.
>Ideally, there should be the simplest process for achieving gnosis,
>and all communication should be geared towards encouraging each other
>to incorporate that process into our lives.
There is a *place* for intellectual speculation. It certainly occurs in
Buddhism as well. But I'm with you...that's a poor substitute for
real gnosis, for personal, subjective realization.
>I hear you, unfortunately I have little to offer.
I thought you offered much of value. Thank you.
Unc
pes...@freemail.it
>
> -- What's the value of gnosticism for you in your daily life?
Gnosticism consequently leads to the deprecation and elimination
of the daily falsely so-called life.
> -- If you follow some of the gnostic practices mentioned here,
> why? What is the practical value or benefit you receive from
> such practices?
only hylics ask for practical benefits,
such as Bush, Gates, bin Ladn, Hussein, Stalin, Goebbels, Wojtyl/a.
thus it's Plato's Politikos who knew that 'mono gnostiken'
is completely different from 'praktiken'
Klaus Schilling
Uncle Tantra
> > Therefore, if there is anyone here who
> > *does* follow some of the *practices* of
> > gnosticism, and thus could speak to any
> > of the supposed (theoretical) and/or real
> > (your own personal experience) benefits
> > of them, I would be grateful if you could
> > post your views. Thanks in advance.
Mach:
>What would these practices be? I've not seen anything
>posted lately on this NG, but then again the NG seems
>to have very small signal to noise ratio and I could
>have missed it.
[ ...a recent post by penitent leper ]
Subject: Re: The practice of Gnosticism
From: penitent leper bast...@peak.org
Date: 10/13/2003 7:57 AM Romance Daylight Time
Message-id: <tafkov493d824q8um...@4ax.com>
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:04:58 GMT, Messer Xin <x...@woc.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:45:55 -0400, penitent leper wrote
>(in message <qrljov4ks0t6foqvf...@4ax.com>):
>
>> And so far, nobody here is impressed with your lazy lack of gumption
>> - you won't research _or_ practice Gnosticism.
>
>My ears symbolically perked up at this.
>
>What is the practice of Gnosticism?
Visualizations, prayers, and meditative methods practiced by the
Gnostics and mentioned in their works. Please see Elaine Pagels, The
Gnostic Gospels, pp. 161-169 Vintage Books/Random House, 1981.
Pagels mentions ascetic practices, detaching from sensual impressions,
chanting sacred syllables, reducing mental chaos thru meditation,
cultivating the vision of Eternal Light, "singing in silence",
receiving revelations. Pagels also mentions other such means in
Beyond Belief: the Gospel of Thomas.
[ ...and a repost made by Novadam. Ironically,
his assumption that others would add to
the list seems to have been ill-founded.
To date it is the only post in the thread. :-) ]
Subject: Documented Techniques, Other Gnostic Practices
From: Nuvo...@AOL.com (Nuvoadam)
Date: 10/12/2003 11:01 AM Romance Daylight Time
Message-id: <93508a0.03101...@posting.google.com>
This Moggin repost is good enough for its own thread.
Adding a little at a time, we should keep this one
going to at least a 100 posts.
Pansy Bassingthwaighte <anon...@anonymous.com>:
> I'd be curious to know if you Gnostic fellows have early documents which
> tell us the actual techniques of meditation and other practices that the
> early Gnostics used.
Kater Moggin:
The question came up recently, so lemme just quote you the
replies from Penitent Leper and Dreamsnake.
penitent leper <bast...@peak.org>:
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, Random House Vintage, NY 1981,
pp. 163-169 - practices performed to receive Gnostic wisdom:
Zostrianos - removed himself from physical desires, reduced mental
chaos, received a vision, retreated into the wilderness, received more
visions.
The Discourse on the Eighth and the Ninth - moral effort,
dedication, prayer, chanting sacred words and vowels, ecstatic state,
hymn of silence, realization of Mind.
The Allogenes - meditative chanting, discovery of the inner Good,
knowing of the self, ascent to Vitality and Existence, stilling the
mind, knowing the one dwelling in the self, urge to seek the
"uncontainable, ineffable, unknown", warning from "Powers" to seek no
further.
Elsewhere Pagels describes the transformative function of Gnostic
sacraments. Hope the above examples are helpful.
dreams...@yahoo.com (Dreamsnake):
Meditation on images should perhaps be added, if the Gnostic gems,
sigils in the Books of Jeu, and the Ophite diagram had a purpose
besides teaching or rote magical protection. The many beautiful
Manichean images might conceivably also have been used for
meditation. No, I have no direct evidence for this, but the
Manicheans were strongly influenced by Buddhism and could have
acquired the practice.
The Acts of John has a dance scene, possibly a reference to actual
sacred dance.
Gnostics probably held sacred meals, though I cannot think of any
direct evidence offhand.
The Valentinians had baptism and anointing, discussed in short
NHL passages. See also On the Origin of the World 111, which
talks about the oil of the olive tree in passing.
The Gospel of Philip discusses the inner meanings of some Gnostic
sacraments and practices, from which you can infer what the
external actiions were.
Kater Moggin:
I believe, in general, that ancient Gnosticism was more attentive
to external actions relating to purity and magic than most of the
new agers like to think. I do not mean this as a deprecation--
even seemingly simple acts like anointing can help transform
consciousness, if done mindfully in a ritual setting.
Nuvoadam:
Here is a link to just *some* of the gnostic source documents.
I've heard that the library of Alexandria was so large that
a Hermetic aspirant would just wander around, and let the spirit
lead them. =~)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
Most of the Gnostics had initiatory levels the aspirant advanced
through. In the same sense that the Masonic aspirant had to
work through Brown and York before reaching the top, climbinb
from a 1 to a 33 Grand Master. The Hermetics weren't so la-te-da
about the weebalo badges, but had the same basic template. They
would start you out learning about what the nature of mind was.
I recommend "A Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus to Tat, concerning
Mind in Men", in Libelli XII of the Corpus Hermetica.
Cheers!
Uncle Tantra
>> -- What's the value of gnosticism for you in your daily life?
Klaus:
>Gnosticism consequently leads to the deprecation and elimination
>of the daily falsely so-called life.
Is this quantifiable, or only an intellectual
realization? That is, is there any practical,
pragmatic counterpart to it?
>> -- If you follow some of the gnostic practices mentioned here,
>> why? What is the practical value or benefit you receive from
>> such practices?
>
>only hylics ask for practical benefits,
>such as Bush, Gates, bin Ladn, Hussein, Stalin, Goebbels, Wojtyl/a.
And Unc. :-)
Judy Stein
<snip>
> -- Is there a counterpart in gnosticism of Buddhist "enlighten-
> ment," meaning final, total, full liberation from the negative
> effects of the world while still living in a human body?
"One of the basic principles of dualist philosophy is
that liberation is not possible while living in a human
body, that it is only possible after death."
--Barry (Uncle Tantra), "Judge Judy and Her Many Hats," 10/12/03,
on a.m.t, a.r.g having been omitted from the crosspost list
Be careful, Kater. If you attempt to suggest gnosticism
had any notions like, oh, say, "realized eschatology,"
according to Barry, you risk having "most of a.r.g.
chuckling quietly to themselves."
Uncle Tantra
The discerning, or even morbidly interested :-),
will notice that Judy has figured out that I no
longer read or respond to any of her posts
on a.m.t.
Deprived of her notion of sport there, she seems
to have followed me here. I will not respond
to her directly or indirectly here either. You
have no idea how much this is going to piss
her off.
:-) :-) :-)
Unc
P.S. My question at the top re enlighten-
ment and gnosticism was just that, a
question. My previous statement was an
assumption I made based on research on
Catharism, where it is certainly true. I
have since learned here that there are so
many "variants" of gnosticism that I cannot
say for sure that it is true within gnosticism.
That's why I asked the question. Duh. :-)
To date, no one has replied to it.
Judy Stein
> >tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message
> >news:<20031014043711...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> ><snip>
> >> -- Is there a counterpart in gnosticism of Buddhist "enlighten-
> >> ment," meaning final, total, full liberation from the negative
> >> effects of the world while still living in a human body?
> >
> > "One of the basic principles of dualist philosophy is
> > that liberation is not possible while living in a human
> > body, that it is only possible after death."
> >
> >--Barry (Uncle Tantra), "Judge Judy and Her Many Hats," 10/12/03,
> >on a.m.t, a.r.g having been omitted from the crosspost list
> >
> >Be careful, Kater. If you attempt to suggest gnosticism
> >had any notions like, oh, say, "realized eschatology,"
> >according to Barry, you risk having "most of a.r.g.
> >chuckling quietly to themselves."
>
> The discerning, or even morbidly interested :-),
> will notice that Judy has figured out that I no
> longer read or respond to any of her posts
> on a.m.t.
>
> Deprived of her notion of sport there, she seems
> to have followed me here.
Actually she was invited here by Kater and has
found several threads of interest not involving
Barry at all.
I will not respond
> to her directly or indirectly here either. You
> have no idea how much this is going to piss
> her off.
He apparently didn't notice I was addressing Kater,
not himself. (Of course, he responded anyway.)
Now he throws himself on the mercy of a.r.g
participants:
> P.S. My question at the top re enlighten-
> ment and gnosticism was just that, a
> question. My previous statement was an
> assumption I made based on research on
> Catharism, where it is certainly true.
But here's what he said to me on alt.m.t
(having made sure not to include a.r.g):
What's *most* laughable in your attempts
to hold your own in conversations with a
newsgroup full of people who actually seem
to be knowledgeable about a subject you
obviously know nothing about is your
attempt (yet again) to project your TM
philosophy onto another philosophy to
"explain it the way it should really be
understood, not the corrupt way its adher-
ents see it." For example, early on and
recently you attempted to project notions
of enlightenment onto Gnosticism, obviously
unaware that one of the basic principles
of dualist philosophy is that liberation is
not possible while living in a human body,
that it is only possible after death. I'm
pretty sure you had most of a.r.g.
chuckling quietly to themselves over that
one.
Keep that chuckling nice and quiet, folks.
Kater Moggin
> In the last couple of days I've asked you to metaphorically shit or
> get off the pot, that is, instead of arguing incessantly about minor
> points I have no interest in, to instead maybe give me an overview
> of some of the *positive* benefits of the gnostic philosophy. So
> far you haven't even deigned to reply.
I've been arguing with you about major points -- e.g., the
nature of the world -- that you were interested enough to
discuss (you even raised some of them in the first place) until
you had trouble defending your views.
No surprise you wanna change the subject, but I don't feel
compelled to humor you, especially since you're doing it so
dishonestly. Of course you can talk about what you like -- and
if I'm interested, maybe I'll join in.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Kater Moggin
> since
> he's such a big one for claiming to be
> misrepresented, below are a couple of
> instances of me
Something peculiar there, but thanks ever so much for more
instances of you.
Also thanks for the tendentious subject-line. I feel sure
everyone is grateful to you.
Kater Moggin
> Be careful, Kater. If you attempt to suggest gnosticism
> had any notions like, oh, say, "realized eschatology,"
> according to Barry, you risk having "most of a.r.g.
> chuckling quietly to themselves."
Oops, too late!
Kater Moggin
> What would these practices be? I've not seen anything
> posted lately on this NG, but then again the NG seems
> to have very small signal to noise ratio and I could
> have missed it.
Re-posting.
penitent leper <bast...@peak.org>:
dreams...@yahoo.com (Dreamsnake):
I believe, in general, that ancient Gnosticism was more attentive
to external actions relating to purity and magic than most of the
new agers like to think. I do not mean this as a deprecation--
even seemingly simple acts like anointing can help transform
consciousness, if done mindfully in a ritual setting.
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Judy Stein
> jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein):
>
> > Be careful, Kater. If you attempt to suggest gnosticism
> > had any notions like, oh, say, "realized eschatology,"
> > according to Barry, you risk having "most of a.r.g.
> > chuckling quietly to themselves."
>
> Oops, too late!
Yeah, guess you're right. How will you ever survive the
humiliation?
Uncle Tantra
>> he's such a big one for claiming to be
>> misrepresented, below are a couple of
>> instances of me
>
> Something peculiar there, but thanks ever so much for more
>instances of you.
>
> Also thanks for the tendentious subject-line. I feel sure
>everyone is grateful to you.
I will admit it was purposeful. I really *am*
curious, and was hoping a bit of minor
taunting on a subject line would inspire
folks other than yourself to actually address
the subject. Given the response so far,
I was naive.
Uncle Tantra
Cool. That is your right.
Uncle Tantra
>> In the last couple of days I've asked you to metaphorically shit or
>> get off the pot, that is, instead of arguing incessantly about minor
>> points I have no interest in, to instead maybe give me an overview
>> of some of the *positive* benefits of the gnostic philosophy. So
>> far you haven't even deigned to reply.
Kater:
> I've been arguing with you about major points -- e.g., the
>nature of the world...
I answered flippantly before, saying that I
finally have an idea of what you consider
"substantial," but I owe you a bit more
than that, so I'll explain, even though I
know you don't care.
I really *don't* consider intellectual specu-
lation on the nature of the world to be
substantial. What I consider substantial
in a philosophy or religion is the *practice*
of it. *Anyone* can sit around and talk the
talk; not everyone can walk the walk. It's
one thing to discuss the theoretical nature
of the universe and postulate an intellectual
framework that "explains" it. It is quite
another to live one's life in accordance with
that intellectual framework.
In other words, while I respect the obvious
time and effort many of the folks here on
a.r.g. have spent in learning about the
theory of gnositicism, and who can 'talk
the talk' far better than I shall ever be able
to do, I would be far more respectful of
someone who had not only done that, but
who had made some attempt to 'walk the
walk.' So far, nothing you have ever said
here has indicated you have made that
effort.
Unc
Kater Moggin
>> I've been arguing with you about major points -- e.g., the
>> nature of the world -- that you were interested enough to
>> discuss (you even raised some of them in the first place) until
>> you had trouble defending your views.
tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra):
> I answered flippantly before, saying that I
> finally have an idea of what you consider
> "substantial," but I owe you a bit more
> than that, so I'll explain, even though I
> know you don't care.
Turns out that your explanation is merely another exercise
in topic-changing.
> I really *don't* consider intellectual specu-
> lation on the nature of the world to be
> substantial. What I consider substantial
> in a philosophy or religion is the *practice*
> of it. *Anyone* can sit around and talk the
> talk; not everyone can walk the walk.
See, there you go. First you pretended I was arguing with
you only about minor points that you had no interest in. I
proved that false, so now you're saying you have no interest in
any abstract discussion. But you did.
sjbr...@eng.usf.edu
If you want rituals or badges or titles to pin on yourself, try
catholicism, or wiccanism. Lots of titles and neat "stuff to do" in
them. Gnosticism means knowledge-practicing gnosticism is practicing
knowledge! Contrary to what many in the public school systems believe,
you cannot teach people how to learn and how to think. You can only
transmit information about facts, and only if the person wants to
listen. In this vein, if your request(s) for rituals and practical
matters are based on a historical interest, I truly wish you luck, and
regret that I cannot help you much, other than to echo vauge things
others have said (the Valentinians had baptism, etc.). The practice of
Gnosticism amounts to discovering the truth about your situation, and
while there are literatures on the religion, they only offer glimmers
into the truth, open somewhat for interpretation. Thinking and
discussing about gnosticism *is* practising it, if such discussion is
aimed at increasing knowledge in oneself and others. As for practical
benefits......if you want one with a lot of holidays, try judaism; I
have a friend who says they have a lot. Lots of restrictions though.
If you want to be able to do magic stuff, try wiccanism. Gnosticism is
about the search for knowledge, and if that's not good enough,
Gnosticism is not for you.
Dreamsnake
[...]
> What I'd be interested in hearing -- from you or from anyone else who
> feels so inspired -- is some of the benefits to the practitioner of being
> a gnostic and following its practices.
I do not get a chance to read this ng every day. I found this post
while catching up, but I also found a lot of other posts that make
me wonder about your purposes. I am willing to grant that you seem
to be sincere. However, the way I would answer your questions
depends on what you are intending to do with them. Are you asking
out of personal curiosity, or to help create this character for
your book? If the latter is a consideration, how would you use
any answers, given that nobody here is from the 13th century? Are
you still even interested? It is hard for me to gauge your mood,
and I do not want to waste my time if you have moved on.
Dreamsnake
Uncle Tantra
>> What I'd be interested in hearing -- from you or from anyone else who
>> feels so inspired -- is some of the benefits to the practitioner of being
>> a gnostic and following its practices.
Dreamsnake:
>I do not get a chance to read this ng every day. I found this post
>while catching up, but I also found a lot of other posts that make
>me wonder about your purposes. I am willing to grant that you seem
>to be sincere. However, the way I would answer your questions
>depends on what you are intending to do with them. Are you asking
>out of personal curiosity, or to help create this character for
>your book?
Curiosity. Making a case for why Catharism
would be attractive in the 13th century is
pretty much a done deal...all you've gotta
do is look at history and the "competition."
My curiosity stems from having spent most
of a lifetime as a "hands on" practitioner
of various spiritual paths, as opposed to
the kinda guy who just reads about other
peoples' adventures. Having noticed the
almost total lack of discussion of *subjec-
tive* experience with gnosticism here, I
thought I'd ask about it. And I'm always
curious as to what the positive benefits of
a particular belief system or religion are
perceived to be, and there hasn't been a
whole lotta discusion of those things here.
>If the latter is a consideration, how would you use
>any answers, given that nobody here is from the 13th century? Are
>you still even interested? It is hard for me to gauge your mood,
>and I do not want to waste my time if you have moved on.
Still here every so often. Thanks for your
reply.
Unc
Krag
Uncle Tantra wrote in message
<20031017042714...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>Unc:
>
>My curiosity stems from having spent most
>of a lifetime as a "hands on" practitioner
>of various spiritual paths, as opposed to
>the kinda guy who just reads about other
>peoples' adventures. Having noticed the
>almost total lack of discussion of *subjec-
>tive* experience with gnosticism here, I
>thought I'd ask about it. And I'm always
>curious as to what the positive benefits of
>a particular belief system or religion are
>perceived to be, and there hasn't been a
>whole lotta discusion of those things here.
>
>
>Unc
>
Krag: All belief systems bring some measure of psychological consolation and
comfort in the face of perceived 'facts' about reality. Gnosticism generally
appeals to people who have sufferred a lot (physically, psychologically, it
makes no difference) and offers, like all worldviews, a rationale for
sufferring (flawed creation due to ignorant/evil creator). Some/many people
have had very tragic and painful lives through no fault of their own and
Gnosticism offers a solution to their sufferring. It says, ultimately, we
are not people struggling to be spiritual, but spirits struggling to be
people. We are spirits with material appendanges (bodies) which came about
through the error (of desire) and ignorance. We are eternal beings
pretending to be (or identifying as) temporal and material personalities.
When something eternal identifies with something temporal and prone to
decay, change, dissolution...you obviously have a big problem and sufferring
will result. Such an identification will result in trying to make one's
earthly existence permanent and defending an ignorant ego that one takes
itself to be immutable because it is misapprehended as immutable spirit..or
the "real I". Fortunately, there's a solution which involves a radical
reversal to one's habitual way of thinking and living: forsake the material,
visible, mutable world and embrace the invisble, spiritual, eternal world.
Forget about your body: it's a sinking ship. Desire nothing -- be nothing.
Die in order to live. For general psychological realism, (although Buddhism
still takes first prize) this is an ingenious verdict and every religious
founder has basically come to the same conclusion. Whether Gnosticism is
"true" (what is truth?) hardly matters.
It works. That's enough.
>
Uncle Tantra
>>My curiosity stems from having spent most
>>of a lifetime as a "hands on" practitioner
>>of various spiritual paths, as opposed to
>>the kinda guy who just reads about other
>>peoples' adventures. Having noticed the
>>almost total lack of discussion of *subjec-
>>tive* experience with gnosticism here, I
>>thought I'd ask about it. And I'm always
>>curious as to what the positive benefits of
>>a particular belief system or religion are
>>perceived to be, and there hasn't been a
>>whole lotta discusion of those things here.
>>
>comfort in the face of perceived 'facts' about reality. Gnosticism generally
>appeals to people who have sufferred a lot (physically, psychologically, it
>makes no difference) and offers, like all worldviews, a rationale for
>sufferring (flawed creation due to ignorant/evil creator). Some/many people
>have had very tragic and painful lives through no fault of their own and
>Gnosticism offers a solution to their sufferring.
First, thank you for your post. I appreciate
it. I agree with the above; Pansy has also
pointed this out recently, and I think it's a
valid and valuable insight.
>It says, ultimately, we
>are not people struggling to be spiritual, but spirits struggling to be
>people.
Well said.
>We are spirits with material appendanges (bodies) which came about
>through the error (of desire) and ignorance. We are eternal beings
>pretending to be (or identifying as) temporal and material personalities.
>When something eternal identifies with something temporal and prone to
>decay, change, dissolution...you obviously have a big problem and sufferring
>will result. Such an identification will result in trying to make one's
>earthly existence permanent and defending an ignorant ego that one takes
>itself to be immutable because it is misapprehended as immutable spirit..or
>the "real I".
Well said again. You have a gift for such
positive explanations of the gnostic faith.
>Fortunately, there's a solution which involves a radical
>reversal to one's habitual way of thinking and living: forsake the material,
>visible, mutable world and embrace the invisble, spiritual, eternal world.
>Forget about your body: it's a sinking ship. Desire nothing -- be nothing.
>Die in order to live. For general psychological realism, (although Buddhism
>still takes first prize) this is an ingenious verdict and every religious
>founder has basically come to the same conclusion. Whether Gnosticism is
>"true" (what is truth?) hardly matters.
> It works. That's enough.
Thanks again. This is *exactly* the kind
of thing I was hoping for. I'm so happy you
took the time to post it.
Unc
Tang Huyen
> Uncle Tantra:
> >My curiosity stems from having spent most
> >of a lifetime as a "hands on" practitioner
> >of various spiritual paths, as opposed to
> >the kinda guy who just reads about other
> >peoples' adventures. Having noticed the
> >almost total lack of discussion of *subjec-
> >tive* experience with gnosticism here, I
> >thought I'd ask about it. And I'm always
> >curious as to what the positive benefits of
> >a particular belief system or religion are
> >perceived to be, and there hasn't been a
> >whole lotta discusion of those things here.
> Krag: All belief systems bring some measure of
A difference between Gnosticism and Buddhism is that
like all revealed, theistic religions, Gnosticism
(which *is* a revealed, theistic religion) tells
the history of salvation as something real and
as something to be taken literally, in content,
forever and ever more, something true even after
the final eschaton. Buddhism delivers all its methods
as mere structures, empty patterns to be used to free
oneself of suffering but to be dropped after
accomplishing their job, and not something real and
true, to be cleaved on forever and ever more.
The explaining schemes in Buddhism are necessary evils,
and many pracitioners can avoid them altogether,
from beginning to end, but even those who need them
use them only as mere temporary means, good for
liberation but bad if grasped as something other
than mere temporary methods.
Another difference is that Buddhism teaches the
non-identification with everything, the Buddhist
teachings included. There is no exception to that
non-identification: one does not negate or deny
something and assert something else, one simply
drops everything, and that's all. Gnosticism agrees
with Hinduism in denying the temporal, particular and
identifying with something other than it, namely
the Fullness of God in Gnosticism or the Oneness
of Brahman without particulars in Hinduism, and both
do so realistically, by taking the object of
identification as real, and as ultimately real.
Buddhism merely lets go of identifications, and
that's all. It only builds down and does not build up,
reduces and does not heap up.
The Buddhist teaching of no-self simply says that there
is no real and true self, and that what we take to be
the self is only a composition, a product of the
compositions (the fourth aggregate), made up by us
and invested in by us, and it only exists insofar
as we make it exist and fortify it in our belief in
it (sorry for the tautologies, but the self itself exists
as a tautology and only as a tautology). It doesn't
exist on its own side, and if we but stop investing in it,
if we but stop composing it, it will disappear on its own
and we shall no longer have to carry it around as our
albatross. The less we invest in it, the easier it is for
us to let go of it, as if it was nothing, and it is indeed
nothing other than our belief in it and our investment in
it. Whatever weight and consistency it has is entirely due
to our nurturing it and growing it, and not due at all to
it itself. If we but stop nurturing it and growing it, it
will vanish of its own accord.
By the way, in Buddhism the people who have suffered
are in no better position for liberation than those
who have not, relatively speaking. Here there is that
paradox, that the people who are whole will generally
benefit more from mental culture than those who are
broken. But the Buddha teaches for the benefit of those
with but a little dust in their eye, regardless whether
they have suffered much or not. It is easier for those
with a healthy psyche to let go -- to let go even of
that healthy psyche -- than for those with a broken or
crashed psyche, and there are many of the latter class
in the Buddhist NGs. Indeed many contributors to the
Buddhist NGs are worse off than the average sinners in
the street who have never heard of mental culture.
Tang Huyen
M.T. Suit
Perhaps someone could help me.
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Krag wrote:
>
>
>>Uncle Tantra:
>
>>>My curiosity stems from ...
> .. spirits struggling to become people ..
Comment only: This also sounds like the Australian Aborignal "dream
spirit" or "smoke spirit" mythology, which I find beautifully magical.
> <snip>
>>... Whether Gnosticism is "true" (what is
>>truth?) hardly matters. It works. That's enough.
>
>
> A difference between Gnosticism and Buddhism is ...
Why should it matter whether one believes in one thing or another? "It
works [for me], that's enough" really should be enough, shouldn't it?
And I have a really, really tough time trying to see what the difference
would be between true salvation and enlightment or, more pertinently,
why I should care if there was.
>
> Another difference is that Buddhism teaches the
> non-identification with everything, the Buddhist
> teachings included. There is no exception to that
> non-identification: one does not negate or deny
> something and assert something else, one simply
> drops everything, and that's all. ...
I must have misread everything I ever read about Buddhism. I thought
the deal was non-separation, i.e. identification with everything. Maybe
my confusion comes from my utter non-comprehension of the A is not A,
therefore it is A formula. Any help on either of these issues would be
most welcome.
> <snip> .. some really good stuff ..
> Indeed many contributors to the
> Buddhist NGs are worse off than the average sinners in
> the street who have never heard of mental culture.
>
> Tang Huyen
In that last sentence you have described me pretty much perfectly there,
Tang. Could you either describe or provide a reference for "mental
culture"? I really don't remember seeing or hearing the term before.
Please understand that I have no intent to imply any criticism of what
you say. I find parts of it extremely clean and clear and other parts
just elude me. If there is any fault to be found here, it's mine.
~mt
Judy Stein
<snip>
> >Krag: All belief systems bring some measure of psychological consolation and
> >comfort in the face of perceived 'facts' about reality. Gnosticism generally
> >appeals to people who have sufferred a lot (physically, psychologically, it
> >makes no difference) and offers, like all worldviews, a rationale for
> >sufferring (flawed creation due to ignorant/evil creator). Some/many people
> >have had very tragic and painful lives through no fault of their own and
> >Gnosticism offers a solution to their sufferring.
>
> First, thank you for your post. I appreciate
> it. I agree with the above; Pansy has also
> pointed this out recently, and I think it's a
> valid and valuable insight.
Except that as far as Barry's concerned, tragedy and pain don't
deserve consolation or comfort; any recognition of suffering
amounts to no more than "whining."
Krag
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3F913686...@yahoo.com>...
Krag: You would have to go into more detail here. In Gnosticism, 'Mind" is
the ultimate revealer, or more precisely, the "illuminator". Sophia is the
mother of the enlightened or sons of light, just as Prajna is the "mother of
all Buddhas" and is given a feminine designation. Certain illuminated
individuals might reveal a doctrine, but it is illuminated mind that is
acting through them. As such, they are simply intermediaries. Nor is
Gnosticism necessarily theistic. It does not require belief in a God per se,
and in fact the ultimate reality is often described in terms of a
*transcendent other* beyond all name and form. In "the three Steles of
Seth", for instance, it is described as "existence and non-existence" which
is a far cry from Theism, where the positive existence of a god separate
from other existing things is affirmed.
>
>Another difference is that Buddhism teaches the
>non-identification with everything, the Buddhist
>teachings included. There is no exception to that
>non-identification: one does not negate or deny
>something and assert something else, one simply
>drops everything, and that's all. Gnosticism agrees
>with Hinduism in denying the temporal, particular and
>identifying with something other than it, namely
>the Fullness of God in Gnosticism or the Oneness
>of Brahman without particulars in Hinduism, and both
>do so realistically, by taking the object of
>identification as real, and as ultimately real.
Krag: This not so. For one thing, as I pointed out, the gnostic text known
as The three steles of Seth places the ultimate reality squarely between
opposing terms as a third term which combines and transcends both. It is
designated "existence *and* non-existence". It doesn't affirm something
'real" among other 'things'. As the unity of all existing things, it is also
nothingness, because there is nothing outside it from which it could be
distinguished and said to be "something".
>
>By the way, in Buddhism the people who have suffered
>are in no better position for liberation than those
>who have not, relatively speaking. Here there is that
>paradox, that the people who are whole will generally
>benefit more from mental culture than those who are
>broken. But the Buddha teaches for the benefit of those
>with but a little dust in their eye, regardless whether
>they have suffered much or not. It is easier for those
>with a healthy psyche to let go -- to let go even of
>that healthy psyche -- than for those with a broken or
>crashed psyche, and there are many of the latter class
>in the Buddhist NGs.
Krag: Someone who has a "healthy psyche" would not be inclined to let go of
it or seek liberation. If they don't know they're broken, why would they
seek wholeness? You said earlier that the self is an illusion, only real
insofar as we invest in it -- so I don't know what a 'healthy psyche" means
to you. Perhaps you mean that this healthy fictional self of yours can be
well-adjusted for life in a society of equally healthy but fictional selves.
Krag
Tang Huyen
> tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra):
> > >Krag: All belief systems bring some measure of
> > >psychological consolation and comfort in the
> > >face of perceived 'facts' about reality. Gnosticism
> > >generally appeals to people who have sufferred a
> > >lot (physically, psychologically, it makes no
> > >difference) and offers, like all worldviews, a
> > >rationale for sufferring (flawed creation due to
> > >ignorant/evil creator). Some/many people have
> > >had very tragic and painful lives through no fault
> > >of their own and Gnosticism offers a solution to
> > >their sufferring.
> > First, thank you for your post. I appreciate
> > it. I agree with the above; Pansy has also
> > pointed this out recently, and I think it's a
> > valid and valuable insight.
> Except that as far as Barry's concerned, tragedy
> and pain don't deserve consolation or comfort;
> any recognition of suffering amounts to no more
> than "whining."
Sorry for the intervention, but Buddhism in effect
takes the same view. Bodily suffering cannot be
avoided, but mental suffering is optional, and
is largely self-inflicted. Aggravation brings no
reward and only reinforces itself. Whining about
suffering doesn't help one to deal with suffering
at all, but just piles on more misery on top of
the suffering that already occurs.
If I get Buddhism aright, one gets born, grows old
and sick, and dies, but there is nothing wrong with
those, they are only wrong if one takes them to be
wrong (sorry for the tautology, but Buddhism consists
in bringing into the open the tautologies that we
create and whereby we inflict suffering on ourselves,
for nothing). If one relaxes, one can sit back and
enjoy life. One will suffer if one continues to force
life to be what one wants it to be or thinks it to
be, but if one simply lets it be just the way it is,
without imposing on it one's view of what it should
be (good, bad, just, unjust, etc.), then there is no
problem.
Whatever life has to offer, one takes it, one takes
what comes along, especially what one is and what
one has, but without clinging to any of it and
instead letting go of all of it as swiftly as one
experiences it. What is negated is not life, but
the grasping and clinging that make for suffering.
What is experienced is experienced, not blocked out
or distorded (many people spend the greater part of
their energy blocking themselves from themselves
and bending themselves strenuously to fit a certain
framework, as if they were contortionists), but it
is experienced in the mode of letting go. One just
lets it pass, like water under bridges, and creates
no problem thereby. Problems come from the resistance
to what occurs, not in what occurs itself in the raw.
One doesn't try to fit experience into any framework,
but lets it come just the way it comes and one lets
it go just the way it goes. One doesn't try to bend
it into any framework and doesn't try to freeze it
into any stability. One just experiences it the way
it is (yatha-bhutam), not the way one wants it to be
(yatha-pranihitam) or the way one thinks it to be
(yatha-cetayitam).
It is as if one pulled the rug from under one at
every instant, without leaving any station long
enough for any thought or feeling to take a stand
on, for or against. As the Buddha says: "In the seen
there will be just the seen".
All delusional activities are tautological and
recursive, in that they stroke themselves to keep
themselves going; and dismantling them is the job
of Buddhist wisdom, which it does simply by dropping
them, lock, stock and barrel, and that is how the
knot is unravelled.
In Buddhism, a problem is solved, not when one
arrives at a solution to it, in the positive, but
quite simply when one drops the problem wholesale
and no longer mentates it, in the negative. Instead
of dwelling on problems and thereby giving them
weight and consistency, one does not regard them
as problems, and thus drops them as problems. Poof
and they're gone, for good. As if by magic.
In this light, Buddhism teaches us to strive only
for one thing, the letting go of the past and the
future, even the letting go of what happens right
now, so that we do not identify with it, for or
against, but just let it flow on, and thus do not
create problems for ourselves, regarding it or
anything else. In that state, we can amaze
ourselves with the joy of the moment, yet not be
carried away with it.
Yes, each moment can be joyous when lived in the
mode of detachment and letting go, and no, we
don't hang on to it -- the moment, the joy
experienced in it, or whatever else.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
"M.T. Suit" <vo...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:xPckb.67460$pv6....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
I assure you there is no fault at all.
Many find Tang's unique (er... ahem) "interpretation" of buddhism to be at
odds with their own experience or teachings they have received from even
highly regarded teachers. Keep in mind one thing; All that glitters
(comes couched in the most lofty and scholarly terminology) is not gold
(truth). Apply your own natural wisdom to all you read and be suspicious
of anything that reeks of pushing any particular agenda at you, including
this.
Best Regards,
--
Evelyn
(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
Evelyn Ruut
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F91B403...@yahoo.com...
Good post, actually.....Tang.
Nick Argall
> Sorry for the intervention, but Buddhism in effect
> takes the same view. Bodily suffering cannot be
> avoided, but mental suffering is optional, and
> is largely self-inflicted. Aggravation brings no
> reward and only reinforces itself. Whining about
> suffering doesn't help one to deal with suffering
> at all, but just piles on more misery on top of
> the suffering that already occurs.
I think it's useful to differentiate 'suffering' and 'pain'.
"Pain" can usefully be defined as an unpleasant sensation that accompanies
harm to the self.
"Suffering" is when pain is inflicted upon the self.
Bodily suffering in such forms as muscle damage through inappropriate use,
lack of sleep, self-mutilation and many other sufferings is as preventable
as mental suffering.
Mental pain cannot be prevented before death, but since the majority of most
people's mental pain is caused by suffering, your statement above is
essentially true.
Nick
Judy Stein
>
> > tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra):
>
> > > >Krag: All belief systems bring some measure of
> > > >psychological consolation and comfort in the
> > > >face of perceived 'facts' about reality. Gnosticism
> > > >generally appeals to people who have sufferred a
> > > >lot (physically, psychologically, it makes no
> > > >difference) and offers, like all worldviews, a
> > > >rationale for sufferring (flawed creation due to
> > > >ignorant/evil creator). Some/many people have
> > > >had very tragic and painful lives through no fault
> > > >of their own and Gnosticism offers a solution to
> > > >their sufferring.
>
> > > First, thank you for your post. I appreciate
> > > it. I agree with the above; Pansy has also
> > > pointed this out recently, and I think it's a
> > > valid and valuable insight.
>
> > Except that as far as Barry's concerned, tragedy
> > and pain don't deserve consolation or comfort;
> > any recognition of suffering amounts to no more
> > than "whining."
>
> Sorry for the intervention, but Buddhism in effect
> takes the same view.
I know, Tang, but none of the real Buddhists I've known
have allowed this view to make them uncompassionate
in the face of suffering, such that they would call an
expression of pain and distress "whining."
In any case, my main point was that Barry is complimenting
Krag and Pansy on a "valid and valuable insight" which
in other contexts he has viciously mocked.
<snip>
> Yes, each moment can be joyous when lived in the
> mode of detachment and letting go, and no, we
> don't hang on to it -- the moment, the joy
> experienced in it, or whatever else.
A very nice summation of the Buddhist attitude
nonetheless, thank you.
Hayagriva
see another like this for another year or so....kind of a fluke....
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mPikb.90544$lZ6.14...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > arrives at a solution to it, in the positive, but
> > quite simply when one drops the problem wholesale
> > and no longer mentates it, in the negative. Instead
> > of dwelling on problems and thereby giving them
> > weight and consistency, one does not regard them
> > as problems, and thus drops them as problems. Poof
> > and they're gone, for good. As if by magic.
>
Krag
Nick Argall wrote in message
<3f91d776$0$21652$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3F91B403...@yahoo.com...
>
>> Sorry for the intervention, but Buddhism in effect
>> takes the same view. Bodily suffering cannot be
>> avoided, but mental suffering is optional, and
>> is largely self-inflicted. Aggravation brings no
>> reward and only reinforces itself. Whining about
>> suffering doesn't help one to deal with suffering
>> at all, but just piles on more misery on top of
>> the suffering that already occurs.
>
>I think it's useful to differentiate 'suffering' and 'pain'.
>
>"Pain" can usefully be defined as an unpleasant sensation that accompanies
>harm to the self.
>
>"Suffering" is when pain is inflicted upon the self.
>
>Bodily suffering in such forms as muscle damage through inappropriate use,
>lack of sleep, self-mutilation and many other sufferings is as preventable
>as mental suffering.
Krag: If person x was not person x living in universe x they would have
acted differently. But person x is person x so they acted how they acted and
could not have acted otherwise. I could have prevented self-injurious
actions if I wasn't person x. But I am person x, and the universe is as it
is -- so the arguement is worthless. To call some one a "whiner' is stupid,
especially for a Buddhist (but then, you couldn't have helped it).
Gnosticism is fatalistic. Sufferring arises because the cosmos is as it is.
Sufferring can be removed when one removes oneself from the fatalistic
phenomenal world to a world beyond time and space, cause and effect, action
and reaction, karma and the whole vicious "circle of biological events" as
Jung puts it.
>
>
>
Kater Moggin
> If I get Buddhism aright
There's the question. You couldn't easily get it entirely
wrong, since Buddhism includes such a wide array of ideas.
But your "Don't worry, be happy" doctrine does seem to run into
some obstacles.
> one gets born, grows old
> and sick, and dies, but there is nothing wrong with
> those
So you like to say. But the Four Noble Truths say life is
suffering and talk about avoiding re-birth -- a very
different perspective than the one that you're always insisting
on.
Judy Stein
> Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > If I get Buddhism aright
>
> There's the question. You couldn't easily get it entirely
> wrong, since Buddhism includes such a wide array of ideas.
> But your "Don't worry, be happy" doctrine does seem to run into
> some obstacles.
If it's no more than a doctrine, then it negates itself, a very
significant obstacle indeed.
Tang says, "One doesn't try to fit experience into any framework,
but lets it come just the way it comes and one lets it go just
the way it goes." But "Don't worry, be happy," as a doctrine,
is itself a framework into which one would be trying to fit
one's experience.
> > one gets born, grows old
> > and sick, and dies, but there is nothing wrong with
> > those
>
> So you like to say. But the Four Noble Truths say life is
> suffering and talk about avoiding re-birth -- a very
> different perspective than the one that you're always insisting
> on.
If there's more than just a doctrine involved--if Buddhism offers
practical means for changing the nature of one's experience, or
rather changing how one experiences, one's experiential mode--then
the doctrine part makes sense, not as a PREscription about the
proper attitude to take toward life, but rather as a DEscription
of how one experiences life as a result of making use of the
practical means (e.g., meditation).
As Krag suggested in another post, there are two "kinds" or levels
of suffering, one circumstantial (a person suffers physical pain from
a serious illness) and one experiential (the pain is experienced
as suffering). The first ("life") cannot be changed, but the second--
how one experiences life--can be.
As to rebirth, I don't know what Buddhism has to say about it,
but in the TM context it is said that rebirth is the result of
continuing to experience pain as suffering, to claim personal
"ownership" of the pain: "*I* am in pain."
If one can change how one experiences what happens to one, through
meditation or other practical means, it becomes "There is pain."
The pain is still there, but it is no longer experienced as
something that belongs to "me," that affects "me." Breaking this
experiential "attachment" to the pain that is happening to one
also frees one from the cycle of rebirth.
Again, this is fundamentally and crucially *experiential* rather
than a matter of attitude. The attitude is generated by the mode
of experience; simply changing the attitude cannot generate a
change in the mode of experiencing.
Judy Stein
>
> > If I get Buddhism aright
>
> There's the question. You couldn't easily get it entirely
> wrong, since Buddhism includes such a wide array of ideas.
> But your "Don't worry, be happy" doctrine does seem to run into
> some obstacles.
(Sorry, in my previous post I attributed the notion of two
"kinds" of suffering to Krag; I was actually thinking of
something Nick Argall said, but the distinction he made was
between suffering and pain, rather than between two kinds of
suffering. As I reread what he wrote, I'm not sure we were
even talking about the same thing, so I'll take complete
responsibility for voicing the idea of two "kinds" of
suffering.)
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
> takes the same view. Bodily suffering cannot be
> avoided, but mental suffering is optional, and
> is largely self-inflicted.
One type of self-inflicted mental suffering is self-blame where the person
beats themself up all the time and feels guilt. Telling that person that
their suffering is self-inflicted is like trying to put out a fire by
throwing gasoline on it. It's the very thing we're trying to cure. But if
you suggest to the person that the creator of this world, called Ialdabaoth
by the Gnostics (aka Saklas, meaning fool in Aramaic), is an arrogant and
ignorant ass and the cause of our suffering, then the person, if they take
to the idea, will automatically stop blaming themself. This is what makes
Gnosticism radically different from other religions. To deprecate the evil
creator of this suffering world is an emotionally and psychologically
healthy activity.
Pansy
Krag
Pansy Bassingthwaighte wrote in message ...
Krag: Once you realise that "All is one" the question of exactly *who* this
creator is becomes a whole lot scarier.
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
Krag <scor...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bmuq83$f27$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Pansy Bassingthwaighte wrote in message ...
person
> >beats themself up all the time and feels guilt. Telling that person that
> >their suffering is self-inflicted is like trying to put out a fire by
> >throwing gasoline on it. It's the very thing we're trying to cure. But if
> >you suggest to the person that the creator of this world, called
Ialdabaoth
> >by the Gnostics (aka Saklas, meaning fool in Aramaic), is an arrogant and
> >ignorant ass and the cause of our suffering, then the person, if they
take
> >to the idea, will automatically stop blaming themself. This is what makes
> >Gnosticism radically different from other religions. To deprecate the
evil
> >creator of this suffering world is an emotionally and psychologically
> >healthy activity.
> >
> >Pansy
>
>
> Krag: Once you realise that "All is one" the question of exactly *who*
this
> creator is becomes a whole lot scarier.
Which makes you wonder why anyone would advocate such an unnatural
proposition. And anyway who realizes that 'all is one'? Only addled mystics,
brain-damaged by decades of meditation and self-abnegation and their wannabe
followers, or conmen out for a quick buck, ever make such a claim. Normal
self-respecting people never do except possibly in an abstract theoretical
sense. The straight forward Gnostic knows s/he didn't create this world and
its suffering. As you say, once you realize that 'all is one' the question
of who this creator is becomes a whole lot scarier. However, no matter how
much the would be Buddhist or Advaitin tries, such a realization will never
occur except very occasionally and only as a result of brain damage.
Therefore let them cease from their misguided philosophies and take up
Gnosticism forthwith.
Pansy
Krag
Krag: no more unnatural than your tacit assumption that "all is separate"
And anyway who realizes that 'all is one'? Only addled mystics,
>brain-damaged by decades of meditation and self-abnegation and their
wannabe
>followers,
Krag: Right. There's no aspect of self-abnegation in Gnosticism. It's all
about exalting the ego.
or conmen out for a quick buck, ever make such a claim. Normal
>self-respecting people
Krag: you?
never do except possibly in an abstract theoretical
>sense.
Krag: All that is needed to 'prove' that all is one, is the simple fact that
two or more things can be considered a third thing.
As you say, once you realize that 'all is one' the question
>of who this creator is becomes a whole lot scarier. However, no matter how
>much the would be Buddhist or Advaitin tries, such a realization will never
>occur except very occasionally and only as a result of brain damage.
>Therefore let them cease from their misguided philosophies and take up
>Gnosticism forthwith.
Krag: I guess you must have missed the whole "hen to pan" thing in
Gnosticism, huh?
p.s You're not klaus schilling's sister by any chance?
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
If equally natural, why do need to say 'once you realize'.
>
>
> And anyway who realizes that 'all is one'? Only addled mystics,
> >brain-damaged by decades of meditation and self-abnegation and their
> wannabe
> >followers,
>
>
> Krag: Right. There's no aspect of self-abnegation in Gnosticism. It's all
> about exalting the ego.
Correct. The seed of Seth; the immovable or perfect race, etc. Correct me if
I'm wrong, I'm only up to page 88.
>
>
> or conmen out for a quick buck, ever make such a claim. Normal
> >self-respecting people
>
>
> Krag: you?
You got it in one.
>
>
> never do except possibly in an abstract theoretical
> >sense.
>
>
> Krag: All that is needed to 'prove' that all is one, is the simple fact
that
> two or more things can be considered a third thing.
Precisely the abstract and theoretical sense I just mentioned. Buddhists and
Advaitins insist that their 'all is one' is an 'experiential realization'
not a mere intellectual inference.
>
>
>
>
>
> As you say, once you realize that 'all is one' the question
> >of who this creator is becomes a whole lot scarier. However, no matter
how
> >much the would be Buddhist or Advaitin tries, such a realization will
never
> >occur except very occasionally and only as a result of brain damage.
> >Therefore let them cease from their misguided philosophies and take up
> >Gnosticism forthwith.
>
>
> Krag: I guess you must have missed the whole "hen to pan" thing in
> Gnosticism, huh?
This is the first I've heard of it. I'm only up to page 88 of Layton's the
gnostic scriptures. Cut me some slack here, I'm reading as fast as I can.
>
>
> p.s You're not klaus schilling's sister by any chance?
In a sense we're all brothers and sisters unless, as you insist, all is one.
But only hylics ask such questions such as Bush, Gates, bin Ladn, Hussein,
Stalin, Goebbels, Wojtyl/a. Dualism and ascetism are shared by all decent
people, especially Marcion, Severus, Cerdo, Saturninus Antiochus,
Bassingthwaighte, Moggin, Schilling.
Pansy
William Tucker
"Pansy Bassingthwaighte" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:vp6330k...@corp.supernews.com...
Wm
Krag
Krag; I was patronising you
etc. Buddhists and
>Advaitins insist that their 'all is one' is an 'experiential realization'
>not a mere intellectual inference.
Krag: It can be both -- in the same way you can think about an apple ("mere
intellect") and also go shopping, buy one, and taste it ("experiential
realisation"). Yes, Pansy, that's right -- reality is flexible enough to
allow both intellectual AND experiential realisations of the same underlying
truth
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As you say, once you realize that 'all is one' the question
>> >of who this creator is becomes a whole lot scarier. However, no matter
>how
>> >much the would be Buddhist or Advaitin tries, such a realization will
>never
>> >occur except very occasionally and only as a result of brain damage.
>> >Therefore let them cease from their misguided philosophies and take up
>> >Gnosticism forthwith.
>>
>>
>> Krag: I guess you must have missed the whole "hen to pan" thing in
>> Gnosticism, huh?
>
>This is the first I've heard of it.
Krag: Not surprising, since this is the first book you've read about
Gnosticism in your entire life
I'm only up to page 88 of Layton's the
>gnostic scriptures. Cut me some slack here, I'm reading as fast as I can.
Krag: Maybe you should slow down. You've probably missed a few things
>
>>
>>
>> p.s You're not klaus schilling's sister by any chance?
>
>In a sense we're all brothers and sisters unless, as you insist, all is
one.
>But only hylics ask such questions such as Bush, Gates, bin Ladn, Hussein,
>Stalin, Goebbels, Wojtyl/a. Dualism and ascetism are shared by all decent
>people, especially Marcion, Severus, Cerdo, Saturninus Antiochus,
>Bassingthwaighte, Moggin, Schilling.
Krag: I assumed by your use of terms like "deprecate", a favourite of Klaus'
("Yahweh is an evil bloodthirsty demon that must be rigorously deprecated"
etc,) that you were, in fact, either Klaus himself masquerading as a young
child (in order to win our empathy) or Klaus' little sister, maliciously
indoctrinated by Klaus himself and unleashed on his unsuspecting ARG foes.
Nick Argall
>
> Krag: If person x was not person x living in universe x they would have
> acted differently. But person x is person x so they acted how they acted
and
> could not have acted otherwise. I could have prevented self-injurious
> actions if I wasn't person x. But I am person x, and the universe is as it
> is -- so the arguement is worthless. To call some one a "whiner' is
stupid,
> especially for a Buddhist (but then, you couldn't have helped it).
> Gnosticism is fatalistic. Sufferring arises because the cosmos is as it
is.
Actually, Tang was the one who used that expression. So, to say that I
couldn't help doing something that I didn't do is rather interesting.
> Sufferring can be removed when one removes oneself from the fatalistic
> phenomenal world to a world beyond time and space, cause and effect,
action
> and reaction, karma and the whole vicious "circle of biological events" as
> Jung puts it.
If suffering has been removed, future suffering is prevented, is it not?
Nick
Ch'an Fu
"removed"? it's not like taking out the garbage -
it's like not creating it in the first place.
Krag
Ch'an Fu wrote in message <3F9342E9...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>...
Krag; Most people think of karma this way, as some sort of material
accumulation. But Karma's power to condition us is possible only due to
ignorance of Self-God. All sufferring, physical and mental, is instantly
removed when the impediments to gnosis/knowledge are fully removed. How can
you suffer when your body and mind disappear and only the clear light of the
void exists?
"I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty
and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun and moon to shine on it, for
the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb"
Revelation 21:22
Judy Stein
> > is -- so the arguement is worthless. To call some one a "whiner' is
> > stupid, especially for a Buddhist (but then, you couldn't have helped it).
> > Gnosticism is fatalistic. Sufferring arises because the cosmos is as it
> > is.
>
> Actually, Tang was the one who used that expression.
Actually it was Barry's (Uncle Tantra's) term. He claims to
be a Buddhist.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Krag: Once you realise that "All is one" the question of exactly *who* this
> creator is becomes a whole lot scarier.
Didn't seem to bother Erwin Schroedinger. And it sure saves
a lot of time one might otherwise spend in prayer.
Krag
Judy Stein wrote in message
<19b3c03e.03101...@posting.google.com>...
Krag: man makes gods in his image, and these gods think they make man in
their image, or vice versa. Isn't that the lesson of Genesis? "Let US
(images created by fleshly men) make (fleshly) men in our image". All based
on ignorance: "I created you"..."No, I created you"!!
The universe: one giant illusory mirror. The deeper meaning of demi-urge is,
for this reason, "half-maker". He's an "us"...the Many as opposed to the
One) He made the fleshly material half with all its many forms, faces and
skin colours,, and we made him, the half which made us. Which came first?
There was no first. There was no beginning. Just maya, a play of images
within images. Just a big circle, a serpent biting its tail, ("I am the
alpha and Omega, saith the Lord, the first and the last, the beginning and
the end"...a great big circle that goes round and round for eternity
begetting itself and begotten of itself) nature revelling in nature.
p.s I've forgotten why this is supposed to be scary.
Kater Moggin
> The deeper meaning of demi-urge is,
> for this reason, "half-maker".
Krag's "deeper meaning" runs ashore on his own shallowness.
The prefix "demi" means "half" in Latin -- but the word
"demiurge" is ancient Greek. And in Greek, _demi_ is from
_demios_, which means "public" (same root in "democracy," which
refers to goverment by the people). _Urgos_ comes from
_ergon_, meaning "work." The term "demiourgos" literally means
"public worker," and it refers to "one who works for the
people, skilled workman, handicraftsman." (That comes from the
Liddell-Scott lexicon.) In the _Timaeus_ Plato uses it to
refer to the artisan-ish god who shapes this world. Presumably
the gnostics picked it up from him.
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
Ialdabaoth. He also seems to be possess his own Krag religio-philosophic
salad bowl into which he tosses whatever ideas suit his fancy. Since I'm a
rank beginner at Gnosticism and wish to properly understand it, I appreciate
your setting the record straight.
Pansy
Krag
Pansy Bassingthwaighte wrote in message ...
>
>news:moggin-EEC8BD....@netnews.attbi.com...
>> Krag <scor...@ihug.co.nz>:
>>
>> > The deeper meaning of demi-urge is,
>> > for this reason, "half-maker".
>>
>> Krag's "deeper meaning" runs ashore on his own shallowness.
>> The prefix "demi" means "half" in Latin -- but the word
>> "demiurge" is ancient Greek. And in Greek, _demi_ is from
>> _demios_, which means "public" (same root in "democracy," which
>> refers to goverment by the people). _Urgos_ comes from
>> _ergon_, meaning "work." The term "demiourgos" literally means
>> "public worker," and it refers to "one who works for the
>> people, skilled workman, handicraftsman." (That comes from the
>> Liddell-Scott lexicon.) In the _Timaeus_ Plato uses it to
>> refer to the artisan-ish god who shapes this world. Presumably
>> the gnostics picked it up from him.
>>
>> -- Moggin
>>
>> to e-mail, remove the thorn
>
>Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
>misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
>Ialdabaoth.
Krag: I. The name Yalda baoth appears in "On the Origin of the world".
Here's the quote: "Now when Pistis Sophia saw him moving about in the depth
of the waters she said to him, "Child, pass through to here," whose
equivalent is "Yalda baoth"".
Kater's speculating about the word's possible meaning is typically
irrelevant, since I simple said we're "told' (by the author) what it means,
irrespective of what its actual meaning might or might not be. In the
context of the story, it is given the meaning, "child, pass through to here"
and Sophia, the one you said is rejecting her son, is the one who utters
this word.
At least to the author then, Sophia is NOT fully rejecting her son, contrary
to your statement. She wants it to "pass through" to where she is, so she
wants it to be close to her. The text says it was 'expelled like an aborted
fetus" but it doesn't say Sophia did the expelling -- it gives the cause of
the expulsion in purely impersonal, cause and effect, terms: "because it had
no spirit in it" as if the expulsion was an automatic, reflex action of its
having no spirit.. Now, you can argue on the basis of other texts if you
like, but clearly you can't argue on the basis of the points I've just made
that Sophia rejected yaldabaoth in "on the origin of the world". So your
statement that he is 'rejected" in Gnosticism is a generalisation, and not
true in all cases. As for the name demi-urge, I said the deeper meaning,
not the literal -- we have demi-gods, and to Kater this would probably mean
"public goods" or "commodities".
More importantly, neither you or Kater, if you want to take the idea of an
evil creator seriously and blame him for everything, can explain how, if
we're made in the singular image of this singular God with a single face,
how we can possibly have many faces, body types, skin colours, different
voices, different languages etc. But that's only if you want to take the
idea seriously, which you seem to want to do since in another post you used
Klaus-esque language in denouncing him and called this denunciation a
psychologically "healthy" activity. If you want to take Gnosticism
seriously, then these are the questions you're going to have to ask yourself
along with other ones like how this creator can be "real" if his creation is
called an "illusion" (gospel of Truth) and if he's said not to be a real
creator at all (the Tripartite tractate) since the term creator is in this
text properly reserved for the Father
Since I'm a
>rank beginner at Gnosticism and wish to properly understand it, I
appreciate
>your setting the record straight.
Krag: My advice is that you read the texts your self and study them more
closely than Kater has. Don't take Kurt Rudolph's opinions or Laytons or
anyone elses until you've read these texts for your self, and read them very
closely.
Krag
Krag wrote in message ...
P.s Kater is fond of quoting this text as evidence that the demi-urge was
forcibly "expelled" by his mommy -- but this doesn't happen at all. The
'chaos" is expelled and the demi-urge comes into being *after* this
expulsion, so the demi-urge isn't expelled or rejected at all. It is true
that this cosmology is confused and the 'shadow" has feelings of envy of
something mightier than it and could be considered a kind of living being of
the imperfect kind. I don't mind if the shadow or the chaos is considered
as a forerunner of the demi-urge or the demi-urge itself, it doesn't change
the fact that the expulsion isn't an "command", but rather a 'natural
process'. . The expulsion is put next to a simile, "Like an aborted fetus"
to show us the nature of this expulsion, of what type it was....we don't
have "it was expelled like an angry teacher expels a child from class". The
expulsion is like an expulsion of breath from the lungs, or the jettisoning
or expulsion of fuel from an airplane -- so it is in expelling a fetus from
the womb, a miscarriage (the mother doesn't say "get out of my womb, evil
child!!" -- the process happens by itself).
>
>
>
Kater Moggin
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>> Krag's "deeper meaning" runs ashore on his own shallowness.
>> The prefix "demi" means "half" in Latin -- but the word
>> "demiurge" is ancient Greek. And in Greek, _demi_ is from
>> _demios_, which means "public" (same root in "democracy," which
>> refers to goverment by the people). _Urgos_ comes from
>> _ergon_, meaning "work." The term "demiourgos" literally means
>> "public worker," and it refers to "one who works for the
>> people, skilled workman, handicraftsman." (That comes from the
>> Liddell-Scott lexicon.) In the _Timaeus_ Plato uses it to
>> refer to the artisan-ish god who shapes this world. Presumably
>> the gnostics picked it up from him.
Pansy Bassingthwaighte <anon...@anonymous.com>:
> Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
> misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
> Ialdabaoth.
In fairness to Krag, his comment about the name Yaldabaoth
wasn't entirely baseless. The idea it means "child, pass
through to here" is from the Nag Hammadi writing called _On the
Origin of the World_ (100:10-14). He simply didn't mention
the lack of certainly or the other possibilities that have been
suggested.
> He also seems to be possess his own Krag religio-philosophic
> salad bowl into which he tosses whatever ideas suit his fancy. Since I'm a
> rank beginner at Gnosticism and wish to properly understand it, I appreciate
> your setting the record straight.
I'm glad to help. Krag and his pal Nuvoadam are both very
unreliable sources of info.
Kater Moggin
Pansy Bassingthwaighte <anon...@anonymous.com>:
>>> Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
>>> misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
>>> Ialdabaoth.
Krag <scor...@ihug.co.nz>;
> >Kater's speculating about the word's possible meaning is typically
> >irrelevant
Krag is typically full of crap, since I did no speculating
at all. I pointed out that the meaning of the word
"Yaldabaoth" is uncertain, and I named some of the alternatives
scholars have given.
>> since I simple said we're "told' (by the author) what it means,
>>irrespective of what its actual meaning might or might not be.
You said "we're told" w/out the qualifications that you've
suddenly tacked on.
Kater Moggin
Pansy Bassingthwaighte <anon...@anonymous.com>:
>>> Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
>>> misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
>>> Ialdabaoth.
Krag <scor...@ihug.co.nz>;
> >Kater's speculating about the word's possible meaning is typically
> >irrelevant
Krag is typically full of crap, since I did no speculating
at all. I pointed out that the meaning of the word
"Yaldabaoth" is uncertain, and I named some of the alternatives
scholars have given.
> since I simple said we're "told' (by the author) what it means,
> >irrespective of what its actual meaning might or might not be.
You said "we're told" w/out the qualifications that you've
suddenly tacked on.
> P.s Kater is fond of quoting this text as evidence that the demi-urge was
> forcibly "expelled" by his mommy --
Krag is fond of making shit up, sometimes about gnosticism
and sometimes about me.
Krag
Kater Moggin wrote in message ...
>[follow-ups set]
>
>Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>
>>> Krag's "deeper meaning" runs ashore on his own shallowness.
>>> The prefix "demi" means "half" in Latin -- but the word
>>> "demiurge" is ancient Greek. And in Greek, _demi_ is from
>>> _demios_, which means "public" (same root in "democracy," which
>>> refers to goverment by the people). _Urgos_ comes from
>>> _ergon_, meaning "work." The term "demiourgos" literally means
>>> "public worker," and it refers to "one who works for the
>>> people, skilled workman, handicraftsman." (That comes from the
>>> Liddell-Scott lexicon.) In the _Timaeus_ Plato uses it to
>>> refer to the artisan-ish god who shapes this world. Presumably
>>> the gnostics picked it up from him.
>
>Pansy Bassingthwaighte <anon...@anonymous.com>:
>
>> Thank you very much for posting that. This Krag fellow so far has
>> misrepresented the meanings if two important Gnostic terms, demiurge and
>> Ialdabaoth.
>
> In fairness to Krag, his comment about the name Yaldabaoth
>wasn't entirely baseless.
Krag: Kater tries to save face after checking my references.
The idea it means "child, pass
>through to here"
Krag: That isn't an 'idea' from "on the Origin of the world" it's a
quotation. And the author is using it in a way that fits in with his
cosmology, irrespective of what it's literal meaning might be
>
>> He also seems to be possess his own Krag religio-philosophic
>> salad bowl into which he tosses whatever ideas suit his fancy. Since I'm
a
>> rank beginner at Gnosticism and wish to properly understand it, I
appreciate
>> your setting the record straight.
>
> I'm glad to help. Krag and his pal Nuvoadam are both very
>unreliable sources of info.
Krag:And Kater's mom dresses him funny
Nick Argall
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.03101...@posting.google.com...
Well, Tang put it in the subject line *grin*
And well, Hitler was a Christian. Religious affiliation != moral virtue.
Nick
Kater Moggin
["Yaldabaoth"]
>> The idea it means "child, pass
>> through to here" is from the Nag Hammadi writing called _On the
>> Origin of the World_ (100:10-14).
Krag:
> That isn't an 'idea' from "on the Origin of the world"
That's exactly what it is. I even supplied a reference to
the verses where the idea turns up. But as I already
mentioned, scholars have suggested other definitions, frex "son
of chaos" and "father of Sabaoth."
> it's a quotation.
If you feel quotes and ideas are mutually exclusive, we've
found the cause of your reading problems.
[moved from above]
> Kater tries to save face after checking my references.
Actually, I gave the reference, which you initially failed
to do. I also pointed out a coupla other things that you
didn't know or anyway didn't say: that the meaning of the word
is uncertain and that scholars have offered possibilities
other than the one you named. Now you seem to feel embarrassed.
But hey, you've done worse before.
Kater Moggin
Krag <scor...@ihug.co.nz>:
> My advice is that you read the texts your self and study them
Ain't the tune you sing when the texts dispute you -- then
you say (and I quote!), "Whatever system. Ptolemy's, Joe
Gnostic, whoever the fuck. It _doesn't_ matter." Your emphasis.
> more closely than Kater has.
Heh. This from the guy who's been contradicted by his own
examples.
Tang Huyen
> Tang Huyen:
> > If I get Buddhism aright
> There's the question. You couldn't easily
> get it entirely wrong, since Buddhism includes
> such a wide array of ideas. But your "Don't worry,
> be happy" doctrine does seem to run into some
> obstacles.
> > one gets born, grows old
> > and sick, and dies, but there is nothing wrong
> > with those
> So you like to say. But the Four Noble Truths
> say life is suffering and talk about avoiding
> re-birth -- a very different perspective than the
> one that you're always insisting on.
I answered you on this point before. The Buddha nowhere
says that "life is suffering". For if life was suffering,
the only way to end suffering would be to end life, that
is, to die. But the Buddha ends his suffering at
awakening, and lives another forty-five years to preach
his Law (Dharma).
What he says is:
"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering,
aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair
are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering,
dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what
one wants is suffering -- in short, suffering is the five
categories of clinging objects."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel017.html
So when you say that "life is suffering", you commit the
error of overpervasion, you confuse a whole (life) with some
of its parts, namely the parts that are suffering, as the
Buddha enumerated above.
He compares the foolish common person to a man who is
pierced with one arrow and then with another arrow, for the
foolish common person feels a bodily feeling and adds to
it a mental feeling (so dve vedana vedayati kayikañ ca
cetasikañ ca). He compares the learned saintly disciple to
a man who is pierced with one arrow but not with another
arrow, for the learned saintly disciple feels a bodily
feeling but does not add to it a mental feeling (so ekam
vedanam vedayati kayikam, na cetasikam). SA, 470, 119-120,
SN, IV, 207-210 (36, 6), Vyakhya, 107.
It is in that sense that the Buddha grows old and sick, and
suffers bodily, but does not add to that bodily suffering
a mental suffering. He lets it stop at the bodily level,
and it ends there and doesn't bother him further.
Again, nowhere does the Buddha call all of life suffering.
Nowhere does he say that life is suffering. The suffering
is due to desire, which constructs a self as the linking
pin to gratify its wishes. The ending of suffering occurs
when one ends one's desire and thereby stops creating its
products, like the self.
Nirvana is just the same world as our daily world, but
experienced without desire. The ending of suffering ushers
in peace and happiness, right here and now, and not in
another time in another place. It's still the same world,
the same life, but now suffering has stopped -- at least
mental suffering has stopped -- and one experiences the
same everything but in peace and happiness.
Nirvana is just an aspect of the same world, not another
world somewhere else in another time (or outside of time
and space). It is banal to tears.
In the same world, when one is driven by desire, one
builds up a self to carry around as the executor of the
wishes of desires, and that is faring-on (Samsara); in
the same world, one extinguishes one's desire, no longer
creates a self to carry around, receives what happens
without resistance to it, and that is Nirvana
"blowing-out, cooling down".
The same world has two aspects, depending on how one
deals with it, and that is the difference between Nirvana
and Samsara. In Nirvana, one unlearns the self that
nature and nurture have inculcated in one, so that one
can take what happens as it is, not as one wishes it to
be or thinks it to be. What creates suffering is desire,
and what desire does is to attempt to bend the world to
fit its wishes, intellective, affective and otherwise.
When one abandons desire, one no longer attempts to fit
what happens into one's pigeon holes and simply takes it
in the raw, just the way it is. That absence of
resistance induces peace and happiness.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
It is simple enough for anyone to put the above to the experiential
test. Yes, it doesn't promise a band of pink-footed nymphs at the end
of a rainbow and doesn't suggest that one passes into ambrosial
deathlessness for all of eternity. For that dream, a far more
imaginative method is required.
But if people are interested in whether "peace and happiness" can
manifest as an "aspect of [this] same world, not another world somewhere
else in another time (or outside of time and space)" then there are
methods that can be practiced - put to the test.
Are these methods "Buddhism"? I don't know. I think I used to care
about this question, but my encounters with Buddhist true believers of
many persuasions has dulled my desire on this point. What has happened
is that I have rediscovered what attracted me to early Buddhist thought
in the first place - that it provided a systematic description of the ad
hoc way I was already dealing with my proliferations. Of course, what I
was doing was quite mundane. Or, as you suggest, "banal to tears."
All the rest over the years has been games. Play on.
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
"Lee Dillion" <gra...@fallingover.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:vpa8qvb...@corp.supernews.com...
> Are these methods "Buddhism"? I don't know. I think I used to care
> about this question, but my encounters with Buddhist true believers of
> many persuasions has dulled my desire on this point. What has happened
> is that I have rediscovered what attracted me to early Buddhist thought
> in the first place - that it provided a systematic description of the ad
> hoc way I was already dealing with my proliferations. Of course, what I
> was doing was quite mundane. Or, as you suggest, "banal to tears."
Lee, I feel you may have gotten yourself in an impasse. One that is very
much like the situation of the Sravaka Family that Gampopa describes in his
Jewel Ornament of Liberation (tarnslation by W von Guenther pp 4-5). I hope
the following will be able to inspire and motivate you. ;-)
<<The `Sràvaka family' are those who are afraid of Samsára, yearn for
Nirvàna and have little compassion. As has been said about them:
Having seen the misery of Samsàra they become afraid
And yearn for Nirvàna;
They do not delight in working for the benefit of sentient beings;
Endowed witti these three characteristics is the Sràvaka family.
The `Pratyekabuddha family' are those who in addition to these three
characteristics are very arrogant, keep silent about their teachers and like
to live alone in solitude. As has been said
Shaken by Samsàra they run after Nirvàna;
They have little compassion and are extremely conceited;
They keep silent about their teachers and like to be alone
These the wise should know as the Pratyekabuddha family.
These two families of Sràvakas and Pratyekabuddhas represent two distinct
ways of life, and although both of them attain their respective goals, the
Nirvâna which they claim to have experienced is not the real one. In what
state, then, do they abide? Though they stand on ground prepared by the
habitual working of ignorance, they remain in an essentially mental body
acquired through unsullied deeds. Since at this stage meditative absorption
is unsullied, they cling to the idea that this is Nirvâna. You may now
argue, if this Nirvâna is not the real one, the Exalted One should not have
shown these two ways. Oh yes! He should have done so for the following
reason. Suppose some Indian merchants go to fetch jewels from the outer sea,
but in the middle of their journey, in some desert, they become exhausted
and think that they cannot go on. Then as they are about to turn back, their
leader by his miraculous power creates a huge city for their refuge. In the
Same way those of little courage take fright after hearing of the Buddha's
spiritual awareness, thinking that it will be most troublesome to attain to
Buddhahood, and that through their inability they will have to turn back.
Then they find that they can stay where they are as Sràvakas and
Pratyekabuddhas now that these two ways of life have been shown to them. As
is stated in the `Dam.chos padma dkar.po' (`Saddharmapundarikasûtra' V, 74):
Thus all Sràvakas
Think that they have attained Nirvâna.
To them the Victorious One says
That this is rest but not Nirvâna.
As soon as the Tathàgata learns that they are resting among the Sràvakas and
the Pratyekabuddhas, He urges them to attain Buddhahood by Body, Speech, and
Mind.
`By Mind' means that the radiance that emanates from Him awakens beings from
their unsullied meditative absorption as soon as it touches the Sràvakas and
Pratyekabuddhas in their mental bodies. Thereafter He reveals His Body. `By
Speech' means that He says: `Bhiksus, you have not yet accomplished your
work, you are not doers of your task, your Nirvâna is not the real one.
Bhiksus, now come to the Tathàgata, listen to and understand what He has to
say.
Thus He urges them on. This has been shown in the `Dam.chos pad.dkar'
(`Saddharmapundarikasûtra' VII, 107):
Bhiksus, today I declare:
Nirvana has not yet been attained.
For the True spiritual awareness of the Omniscient One you should rouse your
energy and have great confidence.
Attain the True spiritual awareness of the Omniscient One!>>
Lee Dillion
> "Lee Dillion" <gra...@fallingover.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:vpa8qvb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>Are these methods "Buddhism"? I don't know. I think I used to care
>>about this question, but my encounters with Buddhist true believers of
>>many persuasions has dulled my desire on this point. What has happened
>>is that I have rediscovered what attracted me to early Buddhist thought
>>in the first place - that it provided a systematic description of the ad
>>hoc way I was already dealing with my proliferations. Of course, what I
>>was doing was quite mundane. Or, as you suggest, "banal to tears."
>
>
> Lee, I feel you may have gotten yourself in an impasse. One that is very
> much like the situation of the Sravaka Family that Gampopa describes in his
> Jewel Ornament of Liberation (tarnslation by W von Guenther pp 4-5). I hope
> the following will be able to inspire and motivate you. ;-)
Your concern is touching, but I am not sure what the impasse is that you
think I have gotten myself into. As for fear of samsara, yearning for
nirvana, and lack of compassion that seem to afflict the Sravakas as you
describe below, those are emotional states that do not arise in me with
much purchase. Can you explain further?
--
Lee Dillion
Ulrich Topf
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:bn3fdl$56l$2...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> Ulrich Topf wrote:
>
> > "Lee Dillion" <gra...@fallingover.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:vpa8qvb...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >>Are these methods "Buddhism"? I don't know. I think I used to care
> >>about this question, but my encounters with Buddhist true believers of
> >>many persuasions has dulled my desire on this point. What has happened
> >>is that I have rediscovered what attracted me to early Buddhist thought
> >>in the first place - that it provided a systematic description of the ad
> >>hoc way I was already dealing with my proliferations. Of course, what I
> >>was doing was quite mundane. Or, as you suggest, "banal to tears."
> >
> >
> > Lee, I feel you may have gotten yourself in an impasse. One that is very
> > much like the situation of the Sravaka Family that Gampopa describes in
his
> > Jewel Ornament of Liberation (tarnslation by W von Guenther pp 4-5). I
hope
> > the following will be able to inspire and motivate you. ;-)
>
> Your concern is touching, but I am not sure what the impasse is that you
> think I have gotten myself into. As for fear of samsara, yearning for
> nirvana, and lack of compassion that seem to afflict the Sravakas as you
> describe below, those are emotional states that do not arise in me with
> much purchase. Can you explain further?
Sorry, this was my akward and circumvoluted way of saying that I agree with
what you said. :-)
I thought that what you said was enough to live our lifes (impasses) well
and that those who would like to go "further" are of course free to do so.
>
> >
> > <<The `Srąvaka family' are those who are afraid of Samsįra, yearn for
> > Nirvąna and have little compassion. As has been said about them:
> >
> >
> >
> > Having seen the misery of Samsąra they become afraid
> >
> > And yearn for Nirvąna;
> >
> > They do not delight in working for the benefit of sentient beings;
> >
> > Endowed witti these three characteristics is the Srąvaka family.
> >
> >
> >
> > The `Pratyekabuddha family' are those who in addition to these three
> > characteristics are very arrogant, keep silent about their teachers and
like
> > to live alone in solitude. As has been said
> >
> >
> >
> > Shaken by Samsąra they run after Nirvąna;
> >
> > They have little compassion and are extremely conceited;
> >
> > They keep silent about their teachers and like to be alone
> >
> > These the wise should know as the Pratyekabuddha family.
> >
> >
> >
> > These two families of Srąvakas and Pratyekabuddhas represent two
distinct
> > ways of life, and although both of them attain their respective goals,
the
> > Nirvāna which they claim to have experienced is not the real one. In
what
> > state, then, do they abide? Though they stand on ground prepared by the
> > habitual working of ignorance, they remain in an essentially mental body
> > acquired through unsullied deeds. Since at this stage meditative
absorption
> > is unsullied, they cling to the idea that this is Nirvāna. You may now
> > argue, if this Nirvāna is not the real one, the Exalted One should not
have
> > shown these two ways. Oh yes! He should have done so for the following
> > reason. Suppose some Indian merchants go to fetch jewels from the outer
sea,
> > but in the middle of their journey, in some desert, they become
exhausted
> > and think that they cannot go on. Then as they are about to turn back,
their
> > leader by his miraculous power creates a huge city for their refuge. In
the
> > Same way those of little courage take fright after hearing of the
Buddha's
> > spiritual awareness, thinking that it will be most troublesome to attain
to
> > Buddhahood, and that through their inability they will have to turn
back.
> > Then they find that they can stay where they are as Srąvakas and
> > Pratyekabuddhas now that these two ways of life have been shown to them.
As
> > is stated in the `Dam.chos padma dkar.po' (`Saddharmapundarikasūtra' V,
74):
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus all Srąvakas
> >
> > Think that they have attained Nirvāna.
> >
> > To them the Victorious One says
> >
> > That this is rest but not Nirvāna.
> >
> >
> >
> > As soon as the Tathągata learns that they are resting among the Srąvakas
and
> > the Pratyekabuddhas, He urges them to attain Buddhahood by Body, Speech,
and
> > Mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > `By Mind' means that the radiance that emanates from Him awakens beings
from
> > their unsullied meditative absorption as soon as it touches the Srąvakas
and
> > Pratyekabuddhas in their mental bodies. Thereafter He reveals His Body.
`By
> > Speech' means that He says: `Bhiksus, you have not yet accomplished your
> > work, you are not doers of your task, your Nirvāna is not the real one.
> > Bhiksus, now come to the Tathągata, listen to and understand what He has
to
> > say.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus He urges them on. This has been shown in the `Dam.chos pad.dkar'
> > (`Saddharmapundarikasūtra' VII, 107):
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F951B2D...@yahoo.com...
> What creates suffering is desire,
> and what desire does is to attempt to bend the world to
> fit its wishes, intellective, affective and otherwise.
> When one abandons desire, one no longer attempts to fit
> what happens into one's pigeon holes and simply takes it
> in the raw, just the way it is. That absence of
> resistance induces peace and happiness.
>
> Tang Huyen
One cannot both 'abandon desire' and also 'simply take it (what happens) in
the raw, just the way it is'. These two instructions contradict each other.
By saying 'when one abandons desire' you have fallen into the very trap you
are advocating we avoid, viz. not accepting what happens in the raw. You end
up in the same 'if only' world that you vigorously oppose. It is suffering
that creates the desire for its removal. There is no way out.
Pansy
Lee Dillion
>>Your concern is touching, but I am not sure what the impasse is that you
>>think I have gotten myself into. As for fear of samsara, yearning for
>>nirvana, and lack of compassion that seem to afflict the Sravakas as you
>>describe below, those are emotional states that do not arise in me with
>>much purchase. Can you explain further?
> Sorry, this was my akward and circumvoluted way of saying that I agree with
> what you said. :-)
>
> I thought that what you said was enough to live our lifes (impasses) well
> and that those who would like to go "further" are of course free to do so.
Two people on TRB agreeing as to practice and not just as to who our
enemy is for the day. What an odd occurrence!! :)
--
Lee Dillion
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote:
> Ulrich Topf:
>
> >> Lee:
You two must have spanked and made up,
right?
Tang Huyen
pes...@freemail.it
>
> One type of self-inflicted mental suffering is self-blame where the person
> beats themself up all the time and feels guilt. Telling that person that
> their suffering is self-inflicted is like trying to put out a fire by
> throwing gasoline on it. It's the very thing we're trying to cure. But if
> you suggest to the person that the creator of this world, called Ialdabaoth
> by the Gnostics (aka Saklas, meaning fool in Aramaic), is an arrogant and
> ignorant ass and the cause of our suffering, then the person, if they take
> to the idea, will automatically stop blaming themself. This is what makes
> Gnosticism radically different from other religions. To deprecate the evil
> creator of this suffering world is an emotionally and psychologically
> healthy activity.
Everyone right in its mind deprecates the creator severely.
Only dumbheads like Wojtyl/a, Graham, Bin Ladn, Hillel don't,
as they obsessed with evil demons who drive them insane.
Only those are menable to salvation who despise creator and creation,
such as Marcion, Satornil Antiochos, Cerdo, Severus.
Klaus Schilling
penitent leper
wrote:
[snip]
>But the Buddha ends his suffering at
>awakening, and lives another forty-five years to preach
>his Law (Dharma).
>
>What he says is:
>
>"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering,
>aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
>suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair
>are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering,
>dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what
>one wants is suffering -- in short, suffering is the five
>categories of clinging objects."
>
>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel017.html
>
>So when you say that "life is suffering", you commit the
>error of overpervasion, you confuse a whole (life) with some
>of its parts, namely the parts that are suffering, as the
>Buddha enumerated above.
[snip]
>Again, nowhere does the Buddha call all of life suffering.
>Nowhere does he say that life is suffering.
He says birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
grief, despair, disocciation from the loved, not to get what one wants
are suffering. That's life: all these things are life. Buddha also
said that all joyous states and events are transitory, impermanent -
and in this resemble suffering.
>The suffering
Which does pervade life.
>is due to desire,
Which does pervade life.
>which constructs a self as the linking
>pin to gratify its wishes.
Craving creates a self? How do we know that self does not create
craving? Craving exists even in unicellular photosynthetic organisms
- apparently craving is a function of living beings, "selves.".
>The ending of suffering occurs
>when one ends one's desire and thereby stops creating its
>products, like the self.
What is "left over" after self-annihilation? Surely that which
spoke through Gotama's post-enlightenment lips was real, vast,
authentic, radiant, admiring of truth and beauty, and personal. If
not a "self", then what was it? The Buddha taught a purified "citta"
- which indicates a transformed, rather than an abolished, personal
center.
>Nirvana is just the same world as our daily world, but
>experienced without desire. The ending of suffering ushers
>in peace and happiness, right here and now, and not in
>another time in another place. It's still the same world,
>the same life, but now suffering has stopped -- at least
>mental suffering has stopped -- and one experiences the
>same everything but in peace and happiness.
>
>Nirvana is just an aspect of the same world, not another
>world somewhere else in another time (or outside of time
>and space). It is banal to tears.
>
>In the same world, when one is driven by desire, one
>builds up a self
But you said that desire creates self. Here you're saying that self
("one") builds up a self.
>to carry around as the executor of the
>wishes of desires, and that is faring-on (Samsara); in
>the same world, one extinguishes one's desire, no longer
>creates a self to carry around, receives what happens
>without resistance to it, and that is Nirvana
>"blowing-out, cooling down".
>
>The same world has two aspects, depending on how one
>deals with it, and that is the difference between Nirvana
>and Samsara. In Nirvana, one unlearns the self that
>nature and nurture have inculcated in one, so that one
>can take what happens as it is, not as one wishes it to
>be or thinks it to be. What creates suffering is desire,
>and what desire does is to attempt to bend the world to
>fit its wishes, intellective, affective and otherwise.
"RIght" desire being an exception? If everything is "A-okay" to the
enlightened mind, then it is difficult to explain why the Buddha did
not just "let it lay", rather than spend his life trying to alter
people's perceptions. His desire that all beings be free was
commendable, but it was still desire.
>When one abandons desire, one no longer attempts to fit
>what happens into one's pigeon holes and simply takes it
>in the raw, just the way it is. That absence of
>resistance induces peace and happiness.
There are examples in Buddhism of resistance to evil intentions,
actions, and people. It would seem that the peace and happiness you
describe is no different from being a bit of seaweed, moved by
whatever currents surge through, around, and over it. It's doubtful
you mean it that way, but the extinguishing of desire, the
annihilation of self, "taking existence in the raw", "receiving what
happens without resistance" - all these qualities - as presented -
seem less, rather than more, human.
- pl -
Judy Stein
> Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F951B2D...@yahoo.com...
> > What creates suffering is desire,
> > and what desire does is to attempt to bend the world to
> > fit its wishes, intellective, affective and otherwise.
> > When one abandons desire, one no longer attempts to fit
> > what happens into one's pigeon holes and simply takes it
> > in the raw, just the way it is. That absence of
> > resistance induces peace and happiness.
> >
> > Tang Huyen
>
> One cannot both 'abandon desire' and also 'simply take it (what happens) in
> the raw, just the way it is'. These two instructions contradict each other.
But these are not two instructions. The first (abandon desire)
is an instruction, the second (takes it in the raw) is said to
be the result of following the instruction.
> By saying 'when one abandons desire' you have fallen into
> the very trap you are advocating we avoid, viz. not accepting
> what happens in the raw.
If one takes the instruction "abandon desire" as something to be
accomplished by means of intention, you're correct.
But what if there is a means of abandoning desire that does not
involve exercising intention?
pes...@freemail.it
>
>
> One cannot both 'abandon desire' and also 'simply take it (what happens) in
> the raw, just the way it is'. These two instructions contradict each other.
Newage Sewage Brewagers like Newdummy can't see simple contradictions.
They foolishly explain it away with nonduality stuffs and other jokes.
Moggers tried to explain it since years to those dummies, but without avail.
Klaus Schilling
pes...@freemail.it
>
> <<The `Srąvaka family' are those who are afraid of Samsįra, yearn for
> Nirvąna and have little compassion. As has been said about them:
>
>
>
> Having seen the misery of Samsąra they become afraid
>
> And yearn for Nirvąna;
>
> They do not delight in working for the benefit of sentient beings;
>
>
>
>
> The `Pratyekabuddha family' are those who in addition to these three
> characteristics are very arrogant, keep silent about their teachers and like
> to live alone in solitude.
Here we see that Pratyekkabuddha people are decent people,
unlike idiotic perverts like Hillel, Graham, Wojtyl/a, bin Ladn
and all others who glorify the formal world.
Pratyekabuddha people are thus destined for salvation,
like their Syriac/Armenian brethren Marcion and Satornil of Antioch.
.
>
> Shaken by Samsąra they run after Nirvąna;
>
everyone right in its mind does so.
only pervies and insaners don't.
>
>
> These two families of Srąvakas and Pratyekabuddhas represent two distinct
> ways of life, and although both of them attain their respective goals, the
> Nirvāna which they claim to have experienced is not the real one.
This is a lie invented by evil liars and corruptioneers of the worst sort
who need to be deprecated at any cost.
> In what state, then, do they abide?
In the state of eternal truth,
unlike the perverse lies of Confucianisers, Shamanisers, Shintoisers, ...
who turned mainline Buddhism into the dung it became recently.
Only Pratyekkabuddhaists are reliable, most other so-called buddhists ain't.
>
> Thus all Srąvakas
>
> Think that they have attained Nirvāna.
>
> To them the Victorious One says
>
> That this is rest but not Nirvāna.
>
the victorious one is a satanic liar and deceiver,
just like Tertullian.
Klaus Schilling
Kater Moggin
> I answered you on this point before.
Well, you disappeared. I agree that's an answer of a kind.
> The Buddha nowhere says that "life is suffering".
Let's be specific, then. You insist there's nothing wrong
with being born, growing old, getting sick, or dying. By
contrast, the First Noble Truth states, "Birth is ill, decay is
ill, sickness is ill, death is ill."
> For if life was suffering,
> the only way to end suffering would be to end life, that
> is, to die.
No, not necessarily -- one might be re-born, and therefore
returned to suffering. But as I mentioned, the Four Noble
Truths talk about avoiding re-birth, which is not much like the
happy-go-lucky attitude you preach.
Tang Huyen
> I know, Tang, but none of the real Buddhists I've
> known have allowed this view to make them
> uncompassionate in the face of suffering, such
> that they would call an expression of pain and
> distress "whining."
I am not saying that people who run into some
*particular* misfortune and complain about it
*temporarily* should be mocked and ridiculed.
I am only talking about a generalised, long-term
attitude, that is writ large to the whole universe,
that damns the whole universe as evil and beyond
redemption, and that contrasts it with something
else, the Fullness of God or whatever, and envisage
the two as a strict quid pro quo.
The point is, here we are, our parents may
have treated us badly, the world may have
treated badly, and what we are going to do
to deal with the situation.
Are we going to sit on our behind and wail
about the raw deal that life has dealt us?
Are we going to project our resentment and
hatred to the whole universe and call the
latter evil or whatever? Are we going to
personify the oppression that we feel into
a creator that we shall of course call evil or
whatever? And then spend the rest of our
lives bitching and moaning about something
that may or may not have happened (our
memory can be faulty, our interpretation can
go wild), but surely is in the past and is no
longer current? Are we going to let the rest
of our lives go to waste because something
that may or may not have happened,
thereby merely perpetuating and amplifyling
whatever disaster we take our past to have
been?
Or are we going to say to ourselves: Look,
pal, whatever deal you've got from life, it's
a done deal, now it's up to you to face it
and make the best of it, for it is your life
that you live and there is no other life for
you to live. If you wreck your life, it's
your life that you wreck. Why spend the
rest of your life hating your own guts? If
you condemn the universe as evil or
whatever, you're just aggrandizing your
ego to the size of the universe and
slapped your self-hatred on it (the
universe, as Ersatz for your broken ego).
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, get
off your self-pitying behind, accept
whatever you've got (whatever
happened or did not happen) and make
the best of it. Come to peace with
yourself and your world, and by that very
act you've made a considerable advance:
you're no longer fighting and hating
yourself and your world, but you're at
peace with them -- with yourself and your
world. Grace be to the world!
If you invest in rejection and hatred, you
get paid back in kind, namely rejection and
hatred. If you invest in peace and harmony,
you get paid back in kind, namely peace
and harmony. What would you rather
choose? And either way does not demand
more than the other, you simply get back
what you put in, by none other than yourself,
in closed circle. It's a tautology, pure and
simple. If you steam and stew against
whatever -- the universe or any part of it --
you burn yourself up. If you are at peace with
the whole show, you cool yourself down and
enjoy it. Nobody and nothing do anything to
you: you inflict suffering on yourself, you
create happiness for yourself. You are both
the agent and the patient of your own action.
In this circle, Buddhism jumps in and says:
if you're at peace with yourself, that's good,
but you can yet enhance your peace and
harmony by dropping your self, so that the
peace and harmony occur, but they don't
occur to anybody. You've recognised
yourself, you've accepted yourself, you've
reconciled with yourself, you've reconnected
with yourself, you've joined up beginning,
middle and end into a fetching whole, now you
can go ahead and let go of yourself, your self.
In alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, some stooges of
mine were aware of your (Judy's) Gnostic
position and knew that I needed some herdish
support, so they posted some intelligent stuff
that is quite relevant in the thread "Re: #12
headsack". There was this exchange:
Leebert:
> I must like being miserable, I do it so well.
Messer Xin
Keep on truckin', then.
Leebert:
> I hate my self-indulgent dwelling on sorrows
> and misfortunes, but wallowing in self-pity
> is endlessly gratifying. Besides, what's more
> gratifying than using self-pity as a
> justification for self-loathing?
Messer Xin:
<<Um, stopping using self-pity as a
justification for self-loathing?
The universe is vast. You obviously deserve
what narrow part of it you pick to prove
you have to undergo the things you do.
And I say that with all my sympathy.>>
And also:
Leebert:
>I hate my self-indulgent dwelling on
>sorrows and misfortunes, but wallowing
> in self-pity is endlessly gratifying.
>Besides, what's more gratifying than
>using self-pity as a justification for
>self-loathing?
Diane (IamSpncycl):
<<Words of wisdom from young Rodney:
"To move forward you have to want to
give up your suffering .."
gamble on happiness or bank on your
misery? seems like a no brainer.
seek the next chance to smile.>>
In summary, should one wallow in juvenile
arrest, act it up for akl its worth for the
rest of one's life, or should one take
responsibility for oneself as an adult and
create a new life for oneself, from whatever
position and status that one happens to be in?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
> >"Pansy Bassingthwaighte"
> >One cannot both 'abandon desire' and also 'simply
> >take it (what happens) in the raw, just the way
> >it is'.
> when we drop our desires for ego generated living.
> then a clear space opens instantly. in this clear
> space there is no suffering, because the idea of this
> is mine, this i am, is now gone. as long as u hold
> onto this i am this is mine. you will suffer. when
> u let go and see life in the raw as in this is not
> mine, this i am not. that is raw sensation
> B
Buddhism is to be practiced and the claimed
results are to be experienced in real life, if not
in whole, at least in part. To put Buddhism in
words necessarily entails the interminable
paradoxes that mentation produces, especially
considering that Buddhism is packed with
antinomies that are inherent to it and not just
mere accidents to it: so long as one has desire,
one uses desire to let go of desire, so long as
one creates a self to carry around, one uses
just that self-created self -- a fiction -- to undo
itself and drop itself.
Gnosticism asserts the self and exalts the self
even as it tells that self to hate itself and its
environment -- the universe -- wholesale and
without concession, but that is self-contradictory
and self-defeating. It builds the self up just to
beat it down to the ground.
Buddhism aims at attaining peace with oneself and
one's world, and, from that as a launching pad
(though in itself it is already quite more
advantageous to oneself than the pervasive
self-rejection and self-hatred as taught in
Gnosticism), to go further and drop the self and
the world.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
> Tang Huyen:
> > I answered you on this point before.
The Four Noble truths have to be seen as an ancient
version of the sound bite, in that the Buddha has just
so many words to deliver to an unfamiliar audience
before he loses its attention. So he has to make his
declaration dramatic and attention-grabbing, and if
his audience (which is an Indian audience of twenty-four
centuries ago) has some inclinations along the line of
folklore, he is quite willing to play along to sell his
message.
The Buddha is a born Thespian who play-acts a fake
acceptation ("nod nod wink wink" style) of the myths
and legends of his Indian milieu to play up his message.
He plays along with whatever manner of speech his Indian
audience is familiar with in order to reach it and pass
his message to it, stealthily if needs be. If it talks
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 across, and if local embellishments needs to
be added to make his message enticing, so be it. He bends
to convention and even polishes up on it to make an
impression, though he means it for the good of his
hearers, direct or second-hand. Literal truth is not
strictly adhered to, to put it mildly.
Thus, birth, sickness, old age, death, etc. are named as
instances of suffering, to attract attention, in a
simplified manner, but then he'll correct that with the
distinction of the two arrows: the bodily and the mental.
That is, what he says in a simplified manner has to be
interpreted in a more sophisticated manner after his
audience has given his message an initial acceptance. But
without that initial acceptance, he will have no chance to
further hold a dialogue with his audience.
He compares the foolish common person to a man who is
pierced with one arrow and then with another arrow, for the
foolish common person feels a bodily feeling and adds to
it a mental feeling (so dve vedana vedayati kayikañ ca
cetasikañ ca). He compares the learned saintly disciple to
a man who is pierced with one arrow but not with another
arrow, for the learned saintly disciple feels a bodily
feeling but does not add to it a mental feeling (so ekam
vedanam vedayati kayikam, na cetasikam). SA, 470, 119-120,
SN, IV, 207-210 (36, 6), Vyakhya, 107.
It is in that sense that the Buddha grows old and sick, and
suffers bodily, but does not add to that bodily suffering
a mental suffering. He lets it stop at the bodily level,
and it ends there and doesn't bother him further.
That is what the Noble Truth of the Ending of Suffering is
all about: one doesn't inflict suffering -- mental
suffering -- on oneself for what is inevitable, but takes it
in detachment and equanimity, considering that there is nobody
who is so affected (which is the teaching on the absence of
self).
But outside of bodily suffering, if one doesn't inflict
suffering on oneself, one can be happy and enjoy life, and one
enjoys it all the better because ... there is nobody to
enjoy it!
Tang Huyen
MasterChef
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3F95AFA5...@yahoo.com>...
if you succeed in proving that their forebodings and
fears are unfounded in some particular instance they even feel a
certain disappointment, as though they were thus deprived of a
pleasant expectation
Ch'an Fu
this is a new S&M thread, rite?
Tang Huyen
> MasterChef:
>
> > Tang Huyen:
> > >Judy Stein:
> > >> I know, Tang, but none of the real Buddhists
> > >> I've known have allowed this view to make them
> > >> uncompassionate in the face of suffering, such
> > >> that they would call an expression of pain and
> > >> distress "whining."
> > >I am not saying that people who run into some
> > >*particular* misfortune and complain about it
> > >*temporarily* should be mocked and ridiculed.
> > >
> > >I am only talking about a generalised, long-term
> > >attitude, that is writ large to the whole universe,
> > >that damns the whole universe as evil and beyond
> > >redemption, and that contrasts it with something
> > >else, the Fullness of God or whatever, and
> > >envisages the two as a strict quid pro quo.
As I often say, the Buddha's years of Jaina
self-starvation and self-mortification get him to
beat down his own nature by sheer will, and he comes
to within days of ultimate success, namely death by
starvation and exhaustion, when he suddenly realises
that it has been all a massive error, and this is
how he sees the vanity of both self-indulgence and
self-mortification (that is his first awakening,
scarcely recognised in the Buddhist tradition). He
then takes milk again, regains force, goes into
meditation, and awakes (this is his second awakening).
The basic change is the switch from self-hostility
to self-friendliness, though of course he ends up
dropping his self.
The relevance of his Jaina period to the Gnostic
situation is that he and his fellow Jaina monks
compete fiercely as to who inflicts most suffering
on himself. They take the most hostile possible
view each of himself, and wallow on piling the
greatest misery each on himself. Interestingly
enough, the Buddhist canon contains the earliest
records extant of Jaina practice, earlier than
even the Jaina ones, and of course they are
gruesome.
When his fellow Jaina monks (the five monks who will
become his first five disciples) hear that he has
taken milk, they take him to have fallen from grace.
After his awakening, he goes to see them, and the
first thing they say is that he has reverted to
luxury -- utter disgrace.
So, if the Gnostics are told that the world is not
so evil and cruel, that their forebodings and fears
are unfounded, not just in some particular instances
but also in general, they even feel a certain
disappointment, as though they were thus deprived
of a pleasant expectation.
They have banked their whole life on misery, not
just individual but also cosmic, and to be told
that it isn't necessarily so is counter-climactic.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
Much like the "survivalist" who is disappointed that Armageddon has not
yet arrived so he can test out his night-scope and hidden bunker.
Dammit when bads things don't happen.
--
Lee Dillion
penitent leper
wrote:
Dammit when new age syncretists misrepresent Gnosticism.
All that stuff is just a misinterpretation of Gnosticism. The
Gnostics did not bank their whole life on misery, which anyone who
bothers to read Gnostic texts would know. The Gnostics banked on
Gnosis - the knowing, direct, mystical insight of one's true nature
and its relationship to the alien god and the Pleroma.
The Gnostic "banking" on Gnosis is just as valid as the Buddhist
banking on bodhi and nirvana. In both cases, life is perceived to be
afflicted and painful. In both cases, there is a way out of the pain
and affliction. In both cases, there are enlightened teachers who
point the way out. In both cases (at least in Mahayana), there are
"avatars" and "incarnations" of an enlightened divine principle which
points the way out. In both cases, there are meditative methods to
practice and mental states to be cultivated to achieve the way out.
For Gnostics, "to be told that it isn't necessarily so" that life is
suffering and affliction is not "counter-climactic" - any more than
for Buddhists, to be told the same would be counter-climactic.
Pointing out to Buddhists that life in the ego is hellish ignorance no
more deprives Buddhists of "a pleasant expectation" than it does
Gnostics.
- pl -
Judy Stein
<snip>
> In alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, some stooges of
> mine were aware of your (Judy's) Gnostic
> position
Tang, I want to respond to your post at greater length
in a day or so when I have more time, but I just wanted
to clarify something in the meantime.
I'm much more in sympathy with Buddhism than I am with
Gnosticism. But sometimes life confronts me with
situations that make me lean temporarily toward the
Gnostic view.
I'll briefly describe to you the same situation I
described to Barry that led him to say I was "whining":
A friend of mine, a vibrant, loving, warm, intelligent,
creative, compassionate person, became seriously ill with
bipolar disorder (manic depression) in her mid-40s.
Medication did not help; talk therapy did not help; the
support of her friends did not help; her deep faith in
God did not help.
She struggled for several years, in and out of mental
hospitals, veering between utter despair and hysterical
mania. Every once in a while she'd have a lucid moment
and would remember what she had been like before
she became ill, but then the clouds would close in again.
Those lucid moments became less and less frequent, her
depressions became deeper, her manias more wild and
destructive.
Finally she committed suicide.
Adopting the attitudes and practices of Buddhism was
not an option that was open to her; her disordered
brain chemistry would not permit it.
Now, thank heavens, I don't suffer like that, and while
I mourn her death, I'm not absorbed in that mourning.
But when I think about her, Buddhism as you've described
it sounds like a collection of the worst kind of happy-
talk platitudes; and the characterization "whining"
strikes me as unspeakably vile.
penitent leper
wrote:
>Judy Stein wrote:
>
>> I know, Tang, but none of the real Buddhists I've
>> known have allowed this view to make them
>> uncompassionate in the face of suffering, such
>> that they would call an expression of pain and
>> distress "whining."
>
>I am not saying that people who run into some
>*particular* misfortune and complain about it
>*temporarily* should be mocked and ridiculed.
>
>I am only talking about a generalised, long-term
>attitude, that is writ large to the whole universe,
>that damns the whole universe as evil and beyond
>redemption, and that contrasts it with something
>else, the Fullness of God or whatever, and envisage
>the two as a strict quid pro quo.
Buddha pegged life's major functions as suffering, and the normal
human mentality as a hellish ignorance.
Buddha pegged even life's joys as transitory, impermanent states -
in which they most resemble suffering itself.
Gnosticism doesn't damn the universe any more than does Buddhism.
Rather, like Buddhism, Gnosticism claims to see the universe as
what-is. This what-is, is suffering: suffering of all living beings,
suffering of human beings, suffering caused by ego, suffering caused
by aggression, even on the non-human level.
Gnosticism contrasts this mess with the Pleroma, where the true,
alien Abyss-Profound God dwells in fulness. Likewise, Buddhism
contrasts this mess with the calm perfection of the Buddha-state,
awakened Bodhi (Theravada) and the Buddha lands and the pantheon of
heavenly Buddhas, saviors and Boddhisattvas (Mahayana, Vadrayana).
Gnosticism says that at least _some_ of the universe is redeemable -
this redemption is the _raison d'etre_ of Gnostic saviors, enlightened
teachers, schools, scriptures, and meditative practices. Likewise,
Buddhism says that all sentient beings are objects of Dharma action
and preaching.
>The point is, here we are, our parents may
>have treated us badly, the world may have
>treated badly, and what we are going to do
>to deal with the situation.
The point is, bad parenting is only part of the suffering of life.
>Are we going to sit on our behind and wail
>about the raw deal that life has dealt us?
Many of us do. Gnostics don't, which you'd know if you'd bother to
study.
>Are we going to project our resentment and
>hatred to the whole universe and call the
>latter evil or whatever?
Are Buddhists going to project their resentment and hatred to the
whole universe and call the latter "ignorance", "wrong desire," or
whatever?
>Are we going to
>personify the oppression that we feel into
>a creator that we shall of course call evil or
>whatever?
Are Buddhists going to personify the oppression that we feel into an
"Ego" and a demonic "Mara" that they will of course call evil or
whatever?
> And then spend the rest of our
>lives bitching and moaning about something
>that may or may not have happened (our
>memory can be faulty, our interpretation can
>go wild), but surely is in the past and is no
>longer current? Are we going to let the rest
>of our lives go to waste because something
>that may or may not have happened,
>thereby merely perpetuating and amplifyling
>whatever disaster we take our past to have
>been?
Can if you want to. 'Course, you're not talking about Gnosticism
here.
>Or are we going to say to ourselves: Look,
>pal, whatever deal you've got from life, it's
>a done deal, now it's up to you to face it
>and make the best of it, for it is your life
>that you live and there is no other life for
>you to live. If you wreck your life, it's
>your life that you wreck. Why spend the
>rest of your life hating your own guts?
Ah: your self-hatred motivates you toward Pollyanna quasi-Buddhism.
Thanks for the info.
>If
>you condemn the universe as evil or
>whatever, you're just aggrandizing your
>ego to the size of the universe and
>slapped your self-hatred on it (the
>universe, as Ersatz for your broken ego).
If you condemn life in the unregenerate ego, you're just
aggrandizing your egoic misunderstanding to the size of the universe.
>Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, get
>off your self-pitying behind, accept
>whatever you've got (whatever
>happened or did not happen) and make
>the best of it.
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, get off your self-pitying
behind, accept whatever you've got, and make the best of it. Don't
hide behind the Dharma. And stop misrepresenting Gnosticism.
>Come to peace with
>yourself and your world,
Come to peace with your unregenerate misconceptions, and make a
pact with the cosmic prison and its warden(s). Wonderful.
>and by that very
>act you've made a considerable advance:
And by that act, you've further imprisoned yourself and thrown away
the key.
>you're no longer fighting and hating
>yourself and your world, but you're at
>peace with them -- with yourself and your
>world. Grace be to the world!
You're no longer fighting for the truth and seeing the world for
what it is, but you've capitulated to the worst in both the world and
in yourself. Listen to your Inner Fuhrer!
>If you invest in rejection and hatred, you
>get paid back in kind, namely rejection and
>hatred. If you invest in peace and harmony,
>you get paid back in kind, namely peace
>and harmony. What would you rather
>choose?
Gnostics would rather choose the truth instead of half-baked new age
syncretic Pollyanna quasi-Buddhism.
> And either way does not demand
>more than the other, you simply get back
>what you put in, by none other than yourself,
>in closed circle. It's a tautology, pure and
>simple. If you steam and stew against
>whatever -- the universe or any part of it --
>you burn yourself up.
No, you see the universe as it is, and you defeat its traps.
>If you are at peace with
>the whole show, you cool yourself down and
>enjoy it.
Right. At peace with the worst scum the world breeds:
Israeli-Palestinian carnage, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, cancer,
Auschwitz, the rape and murder of Polly Klass, "war for peace," and
all the other accoutrements of your cosmic prison. Chill out,
victim-dudes!
>Nobody and nothing do anything to
>you: you inflict suffering on yourself, you
>create happiness for yourself.
Right. And Anne Frank chose her parents and chose to be terrorized
and ultimately abducted and euthanized in concentration camp. Poor
little Jew-gal! She was quite the masochist. Which of course is
great, because her persecutors were sadists. Ah. The beauty of
karma: the law of self-caused retribution and reward!
>You are both
>the agent and the patient of your own action.
And you're full of crap.
>In this circle, Buddhism jumps in and says:
>if you're at peace with yourself, that's good,
>but you can yet enhance your peace and
>harmony by dropping your self, so that the
>peace and harmony occur, but they don't
>occur to anybody. You've recognised
>yourself, you've accepted yourself, you've
>reconciled with yourself, you've reconnected
>with yourself, you've joined up beginning,
>middle and end into a fetching whole, now you
>can go ahead and let go of yourself, your self.
Self-contradictory nonsense. Good though, that it's not what the
Buddha taught.
[snip]
>In summary, should one wallow in juvenile
>arrest, act it up for akl its worth for the
>rest of one's life, or should one take
>responsibility for oneself as an adult and
>create a new life for oneself, from whatever
>position and status that one happens to be in?
No, one should not, like you, wallow in juvenile arrest, and hide
behind Pollyanna quasi-Buddhism. One should practice Gnostic revolt
and be true to oneself and live within the alien god.
- pl -
penitent leper
wrote:
>Original face 12 wrote:
Another shockingly ignorant misrepresentation of Gnosticism.
Gnosticism does not assert the self if by self you mean the ego. It
asserts the spirit - which at base is united to the Spirit of the
alien god. Gnosticism proposes that to know one's true spiritual self
is to know the alien god. It no more says to hate the self than
Buddhism says to hate one's own Buddha-Nature. Get a clue.
>and its
>environment -- the universe -- wholesale and
>without concession, but that is self-contradictory
>and self-defeating. It builds the self up just to
>beat it down to the ground.
In your ignorant opinion. The Gnostic pneuma is not the material
universe. It is spirit. The defeat of the material universe's traps
is not self-defeating, but Self-discovery and God-discovery.
Read some Gnostic scriptures and scholarly commentary - then get back
to us.
>Buddhism aims at attaining peace with oneself
Not if the self is the hellishly ignorant ego.
>and
>one's world,
Peace with Mara and Maya and Samsara. Wrong.
>and, from that as a launching pad
>(though in itself it is already quite more
>advantageous to oneself than the pervasive
>self-rejection and self-hatred as taught in
>Gnosticism), to go further and drop the self and
>the world.
There is no self-rejection and self-hatred in Gnosticism, except in
the *Buddhistic* sense that the egoic, non-pneumatic or
"psychic/hyletic" self must be transcended. Do some homework, for
Christ's sake.
- pl -
penitent leper
wrote:
>Kater Moggin wrote:
More Tang new age double-talk. Here he's saying that suffering can
be inflicted on one's SELF, that "ONE" can be happy, and that we can
be at peace with our SELVES. But then he does a complete backflip and
says that there's no self and no one to enjoy the enjoyment.
The Buddha disagrees with Tang, as the Buddha at least in some
texts, is held to have taught the post-bodhi existence of a purified
"self", a personal center, called "citta." :
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'The venerable Maha-Moggallana saw with his mind [ceto] that
their mind [citta] was freed without basis [for rebirth remaining].'
This can only mean that the arahant has still his _citta_ and that
this has kept enough of its individuality in order to be identified.
This fact will not surprise us once we have understood that _citta_ is
the agency within the person which really attains nibbana... 'If a
monk's _citta_ is not attached to the element of form..., and is
released from the obsessions without basis, then by its release it is
steadfast; by its steadfastness it is content; being content it does
not become excited; free from excitement it attains nibbana by
itself.'
It is fairly well documented that _citta_ was thought to survive
death... '[Even if the body is devoured by crows and vultures] yet his
_citta_, if longtime practiced in faith, virtue, learning and
renunciation, soars aloft and wins the excellent.' This is said by
the Buddha in reply to Mahanama,who has asked what would happen if he
were to die.
_Citta_...the core of personality, the functional, empirical
self...is by nature a center... It is partly conscious... It has
also intellectual capacities and is capable of being transformed:...
'their minds were freed from the obsessions.' This is one of the
event-definitions of nibbana... Nibbana is also a name for the
_state_ attained by _citta_: 'cittam me susamahitam vimuttam'... 'my
mind is well composed and free.'
A 'nibbana-ed' (nibbuta) citta, free from obsessions, is...
constant and unchanging..., in a state of deep and correct insight.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
...nibbana comes as a climax after a number psychological
events. Nibbana is attained through a transformation of _citta_...
even _panna_, 'understanding,' is attributed to _citta_. So is
_anna_, 'knowledge...
When [the Buddha] defines nibbana as freedom, he attributes the
freedom to _citta_.
[The arahant] was not without aesthetic sensitivity, and
aesthetic enjoyment was not considered an obstacle. there are in the
Nikayas plenty of references to appreciation of scenic beauty. The
Buddha sometimes commented on the beauty of a place, and..speaks about
_bhumibhaga manorama, 'districts delightful to the mind.'
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
quotations: Johansson, Rune E. A., The Psychology of Nirvana,
Doubleday/Anchor, Garden City, NY, 1970, pp. 24, 56-7, 104-5, 123.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Tang greatly errs about Gnosticism, for which he has no correct
data, and equally greatly errs about Buddhism for which he claims to
have much correct data. His proposed enlightened "state of enjoyment"
minus "anyone who is enjoying" may be a correct Buddhistic principle,
but it is subject to the extreme nuances introduced above by
Johansson.
- pl -
Pansy Bassingthwaighte
Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "Pansy Bassingthwaighte" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<vpahvk7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F951B2D...@yahoo.com...
> > > What creates suffering is desire,
> > > and what desire does is to attempt to bend the world to
> > > fit its wishes, intellective, affective and otherwise.
> > > When one abandons desire, one no longer attempts to fit
> > > what happens into one's pigeon holes and simply takes it
> > > in the raw, just the way it is. That absence of
> > > resistance induces peace and happiness.
> > >
> > > Tang Huyen
> >
> > One cannot both 'abandon desire' and also 'simply take it (what happens)
in
> > the raw, just the way it is'. These two instructions contradict each
other.
>
> But these are not two instructions. The first (abandon desire)
> is an instruction, the second (takes it in the raw) is said to
> be the result of following the instruction.
To try to abandon desire is to try to change the way things are. Are we to
imagine that accepting the way things are will result from trying to change
the way things are?
>
> > By saying 'when one abandons desire' you have fallen into
> > the very trap you are advocating we avoid, viz. not accepting
> > what happens in the raw.
>
> If one takes the instruction "abandon desire" as something to be
> accomplished by means of intention, you're correct.
>
> But what if there is a means of abandoning desire that does not
> involve exercising intention?
If you desire to abandon desire you are already defeated. All means involve
exercise of intention otherwise they wouldn't be called means; TM is no
different in this regard. You intentionally use it as means to get rid of
unhappiness. All people desire to be rid of suffering and be happy. There is
no way out of that. What's worth noting is that for as long as human beings
have existed as a race, we haven't figured out the secret of happiness. Why?
Pansy
Krag
penitent leper wrote in message
<75rbpvsgoq3mnvkgm...@4ax.com>...
Krag: Agreed. Gnosticism describes the ultimate reality variously as
"existence and non-existence".."the form of the formless", "the one", "The
all"
Implicit in all these terms is equality, the idea that the self of one is
the self of all. Nowhere is there an idea of self-hatred or self-exaltation
in Gnosticism.
naked ape
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F95AFA5...@yahoo.com...
naked ape
"MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message
news:3f95b...@news.iglou.com...
Yes, we always find what we're looking for. It's a choice. Even the Pope in
Rome has said that heaven or hell are states of being, ours to choose. ..
Ape;)
cupcake
naked ape wrote:
>"MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message
>[14]news:3f95b...@news.iglou.com...
it's a pretty sad state of affairs when a so called "buddhist"
is quoting the Pope in Rome -- the next thing we know yu'll
be quoting the Dalai Lama! :(
naked ape
"penitent leper" <bast...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:bmobpv47ru04mqa05...@4ax.com...
SNIP
> >Much like the "survivalist" who is disappointed that Armageddon has not
> >yet arrived so he can test out his night-scope and hidden bunker.
> >
> >Dammit when bads things don't happen.
>
> Dammit when new age syncretists misrepresent Gnosticism.
>
> All that stuff is just a misinterpretation of Gnosticism. The
> Gnostics did not bank their whole life on misery, which anyone who
> bothers to read Gnostic texts would know. The Gnostics banked on
> Gnosis - the knowing, direct, mystical insight of one's true nature
> and its relationship to the alien god and the Pleroma.
>
> The Gnostic "banking" on Gnosis is just as valid as the Buddhist
> banking on bodhi and nirvana. In both cases, life is perceived to be
> afflicted and painful. In both cases, there is a way out of the pain
> and affliction. In both cases, there are enlightened teachers who
> point the way out. In both cases (at least in Mahayana), there are
> "avatars" and "incarnations" of an enlightened divine principle which
> points the way out. In both cases, there are meditative methods to
> practice and mental states to be cultivated to achieve the way out.
>
> For Gnostics, "to be told that it isn't necessarily so" that life is
> suffering and affliction is not "counter-climactic" - any more than
> for Buddhists, to be told the same would be counter-climactic.
> Pointing out to Buddhists that life in the ego is hellish ignorance no
> more deprives Buddhists of "a pleasant expectation" than it does
> Gnostics.
>
> - pl -
One who doesn't buy into the Darkside of Gnosticism and/or Buddhism doesn't
need salvation from either. .. Ape;)
Ulrich Topf
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:3F9550F3...@yahoo.com...
Perhaps a new Buddhist ritual has been invented on TRB?
naked ape
news:<3F95AFA5...@yahoo.com>...
> <snip>
> > In alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, some stooges of
> > mine were aware of your (Judy's) Gnostic
> > position
>
> Tang, I want to respond to your post at greater length
> in a day or so when I have more time, but I just wanted
> to clarify something in the meantime.
>
> I'm much more in sympathy with Buddhism than I am with
> Gnosticism. But sometimes life confronts me with
> situations that make me lean temporarily toward the
> Gnostic view.
Why lean in any direction. Stay centered. ..
Ape, a manic-depressive.)
Ananda
>
> > There's the question. You couldn't easily
> > get it entirely wrong, since Buddhism includes
> > such a wide array of ideas. But your "Don't worry,
> > be happy" doctrine does seem to run into some
> > obstacles.
>
> > > one gets born, grows old
> > > and sick, and dies, but there is nothing wrong
> > > with those
>
> > So you like to say. But the Four Noble Truths
> > say life is suffering and talk about avoiding
> > re-birth -- a very different perspective than the
> > one that you're always insisting on.
>
> I answered you on this point before. The Buddha nowhere
> says that "life is suffering". For if life was suffering,
> the only way to end suffering would be to end life, that
> awakening, and lives another forty-five years to preach
> his Law (Dharma).
That's a strange way of interpretating the dharma. Life is suffering but
ending life doesn't end suffering because of rebirth cycle. The only logical
way to end suffering is to awaken oneself and to stop rebirth thus ending
suffering .
> What he says is:
>
> "Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering,
> aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
> suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair
> are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering,
> dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what
> one wants is suffering -- in short, suffering is the five
> categories of clinging objects."
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel017.html
>
> So when you say that "life is suffering", you commit the
> error of overpervasion, you confuse a whole (life) with some
> of its parts, namely the parts that are suffering, as the
> Buddha enumerated above.
>
> He compares the foolish common person to a man who is
> pierced with one arrow and then with another arrow, for the
> foolish common person feels a bodily feeling and adds to
> it a mental feeling (so dve vedana vedayati kayikañ ca
> cetasikañ ca). He compares the learned saintly disciple to
> a man who is pierced with one arrow but not with another
> arrow, for the learned saintly disciple feels a bodily
> feeling but does not add to it a mental feeling (so ekam
> vedanam vedayati kayikam, na cetasikam). SA, 470, 119-120,
> SN, IV, 207-210 (36, 6), Vyakhya, 107.
>
> It is in that sense that the Buddha grows old and sick, and
> suffers bodily, but does not add to that bodily suffering
> a mental suffering. He lets it stop at the bodily level,
> and it ends there and doesn't bother him further.
>
> Again, nowhere does the Buddha call all of life suffering.
> Nowhere does he say that life is suffering. The suffering
> is due to desire, which constructs a self as the linking
> pin to gratify its wishes. The ending of suffering occurs
> when one ends one's desire and thereby stops creating its
> products, like the self.
>
> Nirvana is just the same world as our daily world, but
> experienced without desire. The ending of suffering ushers
> in peace and happiness, right here and now, and not in
> another time in another place. It's still the same world,
> the same life, but now suffering has stopped -- at least
> mental suffering has stopped -- and one experiences the
> same everything but in peace and happiness.
>
> Nirvana is just an aspect of the same world, not another
> world somewhere else in another time (or outside of time
> and space). It is banal to tears.
>
> In the same world, when one is driven by desire, one
> builds up a self to carry around as the executor of the
> wishes of desires, and that is faring-on (Samsara); in
> the same world, one extinguishes one's desire, no longer
> creates a self to carry around, receives what happens
> without resistance to it, and that is Nirvana
> "blowing-out, cooling down".
>
> The same world has two aspects, depending on how one
> deals with it, and that is the difference between Nirvana
> and Samsara. In Nirvana, one unlearns the self that
> nature and nurture have inculcated in one, so that one
> can take what happens as it is, not as one wishes it to
> be or thinks it to be. What creates suffering is desire,
cupcake
Ananda wrote:
Ananda, i'm sad to say i happen to agree with you here --
His High Most Excellency Tang Huyen seems to stubbornly
resist this, the ultimate-most aspect of Buddha-Dhamma;
and yet, i still believe Tang Huyen is, nonetheless,
directing us in the right direction
>> What he says is:
>>
>> "Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering,
>> aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
>> suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair
>> are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering,
>> dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what
>> one wants is suffering -- in short, suffering is the five
>> categories of clinging objects."
>>
>> [13]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel017.html