Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
Tang Huyen
"Gileht.com" wrote:
> "Vanya" <vorot...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> f59a3b3e.0209...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Hey, you've just solved the energy crisis! Install Dharmic gas tanks
> > on all cars! One tank of gas, then they disappear!
> > All this theory of some hidden "true nature of reality" is a ruse to
> > get people to believe they will have some mystical understanding they
> > do not now have, when they attain Buddha hood. When they will attain
> > it is vague, but in the meantime people support the priesthood, a good
> > thing (for the priests, anyway).
> > This is the "Mystery" principle of Dostoyevsky's "Miracle, Mystery and
> > Authority," three principles any Church uses to control its flock.
>
> Ho gosh you got us. Well I guess we just have to close the shop now ... and
> go sell pencils downtown.
>
> Pffffff .....
Vanya is right about the alleged mysticism in Buddhism.
There is none.
Surely there are the four form meditations and the four formless attainments,
which are above the desire realm, and various other meditative states, like the
Four Immeasurables aka the Four Divine Abodes (friendliness, compassion,
sympathetic joy, equanimity), which are totalisations wherein one imagines that
the entire universe is pervaded by one such Immeasurable or changed into some
element, like water or space or fire. But in these totalisations, nothing is
changed out there, and the only change happens inside: one *imagines* that the
entire universe is pervaded by, for example sympathetic joy, or changed into,
for example, water.
But those meditative states do not constitute awakening. They may help in
attaining awakening, or they may serve as sidetracks that lead away from
awakening.
The end-goal itself, Nirvana, is just like normal deluded consciousness, only
minus thought and language. In normal delusion, one chases the past and future
on the wings of thought and language, and in awakening, one stops such chase
and lives simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language.
That's the only difference.
Living simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language, is not
that different from normal delusion and doesn't deserve to be called mysticism.
Tang Huyen
Gileht.com
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com...
I have to desagree on this one.
The Buddha still have thought and still uses language.
Nirvana is not that.
Sorry.
Better luck the next time.
> In normal delusion, one chases the past and future
> on the wings of thought and language, and in awakening, one stops such
chase
> and lives simply in the present,
Right
> without benefit of thought and language.
> That's the only difference.
Wrong.
I have to desagree on this one.
The Buddha still have thought and still uses language.
Nirvana is not that.
Sorry.
Better luck the next time.
> Living simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language, is
not
> that different from normal delusion and doesn't deserve to be called
mysticism.
>
> Tang Huyen
This kind of Nirvana is just anothr laguage delusion.
Gileht
cup o' tea
> The end-goal itself, Nirvana, is just like normal deluded consciousness, only
> minus thought and language.
Total trash.
What is missing is desire/aversion-driven thought and action, not
thought and language in themselves.
punnadhammo
<tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But in these totalisations, nothing is
> changed out there, and the only change happens inside: one *imagines* that the
> entire universe is pervaded by, for example sympathetic joy, or changed into,
> for example, water.
Are you sure about that? Some tibetan teachers claim the universe is
only held in being by yogis doing the brahma-viharas.
> The end-goal itself, Nirvana, is just like normal deluded consciousness, only
> minus thought and language. In normal delusion, one chases the past and future
> on the wings of thought and language, and in awakening, one stops such chase
> and lives simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language.
> That's the only difference.
As I have said before, the Nirvana of a monitor lizard.
Tang Huyen
punnadhammo wrote:
> In article <3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen
> <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But in these totalisations, nothing is
> > changed out there, and the only change happens inside: one *imagines* that the
> > entire universe is pervaded by, for example sympathetic joy, or changed into,
> > for example, water.
>
> Are you sure about that? Some tibetan teachers claim the universe is
> only held in being by yogis doing the brahma-viharas.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
The Tibetan religion, as I often say, reverts often to exactly what the Buddha
*fought against* all his teaching career!
To the Brahmanists, Brahma created the world by thought and language, and maintains
it in order by thought and language. The Brahmans pray to him daily so that he keeps
the world in order by thought and language. The day that the last Brahman dies, the
world will go poof and disperse into disorder, because Brahma no longer hears
prayers to keep it in order by thought and language.
The Buddha revolted against that -- the Brahmanic artificialism -- and taught that
Dependent Arisal was not made by him or anybody but that he had merely discovered
it, and that the world runs on its own, without intervention by anybody, even less
anybody using thought and language.
And here, according to Punnie, some Tibetan teachers claim the universe is only held
in being by yogis doing the brahma-viharas!
So the Tibetan religion reverts often to exactly what the Buddha fought against all
his teaching career, in this case artificialism!
Tang Huyen
Pyrrho
news:120920020900298130%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net...
> In article <3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen
> <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But in these totalisations, nothing is
> > changed out there, and the only change happens inside: one
*imagines* that the
> > entire universe is pervaded by, for example sympathetic joy, or
changed into,
> > for example, water.
>
> Are you sure about that? Some tibetan teachers claim the universe is
> only held in being by yogis doing the brahma-viharas.
I am sure that for every such teacher, there are at least ten Westerners
with advanced degrees in astronomy who blindly accept such
pronouncements.
Shiva
William Tucker
----------
In article <3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
You need a hug little buddy, now where are you?
Wm
William Tucker
----------
In article <3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
this thread is too either/or for me
Wm
Tang Huyen
cup o' tea wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > The end-goal itself, Nirvana, is just like normal deluded consciousness, only
> > minus thought and language.
>
> Total trash.
>
> What is missing is desire/aversion-driven thought and action, not
> thought and language in themselves.
Hehe, cup o' tea sweetie, cool down and reflect a little.
“Dependent on distinction, desire and lust [arise] (vinicchayam paticca chanda-rago ti). If
distinction were not to exist completely and absolutely, by any one or for anything, all
distinction not being, there would be cessation of distinction, could desire and lust be
made known (vinicchayo va nabhavissa sabbena sabbam sabbatha sabbam kassaci kimhici, sabbaso
vinicchaye asati vinicchaya-nirodha api nu kho chanda-rago paññayethati)?”
“No, Revered Sir.”
DN, II, 60 (15), MA, 97, 579a2 and b3-8.
Distinction (vinicchayo) is the generic name for thought and language, what in the Great
Vehicle is called discrimination (samkalpa, vikalpa).
As the Buddha says: “Dependent on distinction, desire and lust [arise]. If distinction were
not to exist completely and absolutely, by any one or for anything, all distinction not
being, there would be cessation of distinction, could desire and lust be made known?”
“No, Revered Sir.”
So the *direction* can go from language and thought (distincion) to desire. Desire *depends
on* language and thought to proceed.
Without thought and language (distinction), desire is powerless.
Desire on one side and language and thought on the other are co-extensive, in general. So
far as desire goes, language and thought go, and vice versa, in general.
The deluded is stuck with both, but (this is the exception to the "in general") the awakened
can reactivate thought and language without desire, use thought and language as mere tools,
transparent tools, and are not used by them as masters and imperious masters.
On these boards, we can see people who are slaves to words, they are thickly into language
realism. Write a few words and they jump. They can't tell that some words are in the serious
mode and some words are *not* in the serious mode. In their case, they are driven by
desire/aversion, and desire/aversion drives them into language realism, it lends substance
to words in such a way that they take words literally and are unable to distinguish between
serious words and non-serious words.
It's then an issue of chikens and eggs: does desire/aversion come first and drives language
and thought, or do language and thought come first and drive desire/aversion?
Whatever. The mutual relation between desire/aversion on one side and language and thought
on the other is clear: as desire/aversion gets stronger, so do language and thought, and
viice versa.
Buddhist training on the contrary teaches us to figure out the tricks that language and
thought play on us, and one of the most obvious tricks that they play on us is ... language
realism. As Buddhist training advances, one gets to identify the tricks that language and
thought play on us, deactive them, undo them. Thought and language recede in "thickness" and
opacity, and desire/aversion get weaker. The mutual relation between desire/aversion on one
side and language and thought on the other is clear: as desire/aversion gets weaker, so do
language and thought, and viice versa.
Progress (or regress) on the Buddhist path can be measured either way, with desire/aversion
or with language and thought. They as a block either become lighter and more transparent, or
heavier and more opaque.
Tang Huyen
Vanya
> Are you sure about that? Some tibetan teachers claim the universe is
> only held in being by yogis doing the brahma-viharas.
"There is a dream dreaming us."
- Kalahari Bushman creation myth (from "The Heart of the Hunter,"
Laurens van der Post)
- Vanya
Ch'an Fu
the Kalahari Bushmen are highly evolved
supernatural beings. ie: good examples
of the origins of mistaken identity.
there are many things to be learned
from our primitive ruts.
xt
Of course the present includes the past and the future too..but
earthly desires are enlightenment as well. Without eliminating thought
and desire one can still attain Buddhahood by following the nBuddha's
prescription outlined in the Lotus Sutra about which he says "this is
my highest teaching".
xt
cup o' tea
[snip]
...then why can arahants still talk?
cup o' tea
> Distinction (vinicchayo) is the generic name for thought and language,
I don't think that's a good way of putting it. What you are describing
is more generally the activity of preferring the pleasurable and
rejecting the unpleasurable. This can take place with OR WITHOUT
language.
Vanya
>
> Living simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language, is not
> that different from normal delusion and doesn't deserve to be called mysticism.
>
> Tang Huyen
It is evident Tang is "living... without benefit of thought..."
- Vanya
Gileht.com
"cup o' tea" <red_te...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
9faa2d55.02091...@posting.google.com...
Bingo !
Excellent !
Vanya
>
> Of course the present includes the past and the future too..but
> earthly desires are enlightenment as well. Without eliminating thought
> and desire one can still attain Buddhahood by following the nBuddha's
> prescription outlined in the Lotus Sutra about which he says "this is
> my highest teaching".
> xt
- Vanya
William Tucker
----------
In article <3D81F9FF...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
Piaget would argue this
Messer Xin
(in message
<f59a3b3e.02091...@posting.google.com>):
Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
. . .
--
|Xin|
Dharma -- it's not just a good idea . . . it's the law.
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
==
Vanya
> > But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
> > - Vanya
>
> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
> . . .
>
> --
>
> |Xin|
>
lines is non-existent...
- Vanya
"Stop making sense."
- David Byrne
Messer Xin
(in message
<f59a3b3e.0209...@posting.google.com>):
> Messer Xin <x...@woc.org> wrote in message
> news:<01HW.B9A9730E0...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
>>> - Vanya
Xin:
>> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
>> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
Vanya:
> But there is only emptiness between the lines...
This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
There is a lot of information to be had between the lines,
like, "Why didn't she rake him over the coals just then,
when he had him pinned to the pole?" "Why does he always
choose *that* kind of put-down?" See what I mean?
Like when some people interminably tweak others for no good
reason but that they can, and they enjoy that they can.
Like me, for example.
> and any sense in the
> lines is non-existent...
No, it just varies more than makes it easy.
> "Stop making sense."
> - David Byrne
Good advice, but the best part of it is the implication
that it is us that are "making" sense, that it is in our
power to shape it, and that we can choose better sense to
make of our lives than we have.
--
|Xin|
"Occasionally, go burn a bandage! Get your generally
receiving ointment behind my star." -- from spam on
<alt.zen>
============================================================
====
Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for
power
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
====
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Vanya:
>
> > Messer Xin <x...@woc.org>
> >
> >>> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
> >>> - Vanya
>
> Xin:
> >> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
> >> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
>
> Vanya:
> > But there is only emptiness between the lines...
>
> This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
>
> There is a lot of information to be had between the lines,
> like, "Why didn't she rake him over the coals just then,
> when he had him pinned to the pole?" "Why does he always
> choose *that* kind of put-down?" See what I mean?
>
> Like when some people interminably tweak others for no good
> reason but that they can, and they enjoy that they can.
>
> Like me, for example.
You do a piss-poor job of it, son.
Now, if some people interminably tweak others for no good reason but
that they can, and they enjoy that they can, don't the people tweaked by
them volunteer day in day out, month in month out, year in year out to
cooperate unasked in getting tweaked?
And don't *they* enjoy it (namely being tweaked), too? Why else would
they keep on with it, long-term and unasked?
Isn't it give-and-take in full freedom, on both sides? Isn't it a case
of "One hand washes the other"?
Tang Huyen
o
No, they all fuck off somewhere else and leave the tweakers to tweak each
other.
You just havent noticed that they all went away.
Wake up Tang and know yourself.
Vanya
> > Vanya:
> > But there is only emptiness between the lines...
>
> This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
>
ha). Ya gotta admit there is only white space (a word processor's
version of emptiness, I guess) between the lines.
The complete sentence is, "When we get older, and stop making sense."
Hope I die before I get old.
- Vanya
Tang Huyen
Vanya wrote:
The semantics may be a bit different on the basis of the same syntax, but the awakened also stops making
sense, Vanya sweetie.
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin
(in message <3D87078B...@yahoo.com>):
>
>
> Messer Xin wrote:
>
>> Vanya:
>>
>>> Messer Xin <x...@woc.org>
>>>
>>>>> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
>>>>> - Vanya
>>
>> Xin:
>>>> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
>>>> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
>>
>> Vanya:
>>> But there is only emptiness between the lines...
>>
>> This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
>>
>> There is a lot of information to be had between the lines,
>> like, "Why didn't she rake him over the coals just then,
>> when he had him pinned to the pole?" "Why does he always
>> choose *that* kind of put-down?" See what I mean?
>>
>> Like when some people interminably tweak others for no good
>> reason but that they can, and they enjoy that they can.
>>
>> Like me, for example.
>
> You do a piss-poor job of it, son.
Just bait to get you to expose your poverty.
> Now, if some people interminably tweak others for no good reason but
> that they can, and they enjoy that they can, don't the people tweaked by
> them volunteer day in day out, month in month out, year in year out to
> cooperate unasked in getting tweaked?
>
> And don't *they* enjoy it (namely being tweaked), too? Why else would
> they keep on with it, long-term and unasked?
>
> Isn't it give-and-take in full freedom, on both sides? Isn't it a case
> of "One hand washes the other"?
Is this anything but another form of, "She wanted to be
raped, officer! Why else would she put herself in a
situation where I could do it?"
Your blind spot makes you unable to see how reprehensible
your behavior seems to many, probably the majority, of
people here. Even worse, you actively claim that you are
not responsible for your instigation of ill feeling.
Please don't get all gushy with gratitude for receiving an
honest impression. I'd do it for Vanier, too.
cupcake
Minkphhfffffffftttttttttttttt wrote:
we're not interested in your personal social agenda,
Minkphhhhfffftttttt, yu fucking sap
>--
>
> |Xin|
>
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
What you say, whether an honest impression or not, should be regarded like all
phenomena. No reason to take it seriously, even less get gushy with it. I'd do
it for the Buddha's words, too.
Tang Huyen
************************************
From: Evelyn Ruut (mama...@ulster.net)
Subject: Re: question
Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism
Date: 2002-07-11 03:38:26 PST
"chopsmcp" <sith...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1WZW8.2236$F%6.12...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> just visiting, but I have a (genuine) question. is all the hatefulness in
> this group real, or a subtle joke?
Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it is
real or not, but instead regard it like all phenomena. No reason to take
it seriously.
We do seem to have a rather noisy component around here lately.....
Regards,
Evelyn
Kimberly
(in message <3D88630B...@yahoo.com>):
Tang:
> What you say, whether an honest impression or not, should be regarded like
> all
> phenomena. No reason to take it seriously, even less get gushy with it. I'd
> do
> it for the Buddha's words, too.
Ecellent!
But your compulsion still manifests in your choice to post
the following.
> ************************************
>
> From: Evelyn Ruut (mama...@ulster.net)
> Subject: Re: question
> Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism
> Date: 2002-07-11 03:38:26 PST
>
>
> "chopsmcp" <sith...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1WZW8.2236$F%6.12...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> just visiting, but I have a (genuine) question. is all the hatefulness in
>> this group real, or a subtle joke?
>
>
> Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it is
> real or not, but instead regard it like all phenomena. No reason to take
> it seriously.
>
> We do seem to have a rather noisy component around here lately.....
>
> Regards,
> Evelyn
>
--
Tang Huyen
Kimberly wrote:
> Tang Huyen
> >
> > Messer Xin wrote:
> >
> >> Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, Xin sweetie, one distinguishes
the Law (Dharma) and the person (pudgala). The former is abstract, impersonal and
universal and needs not entertain any necessary relationship with the latter. One
relies on the former and not on the latter.
If one encounters good Dharma -- and by good, I mean that it helps one decrease
suffering, even end it -- then one should follow it oneself and make it known to
others, regardless of its source. The two need not entertain any necessary
relationship whatsoever with each other.
Tang Huyen
Dr Ben Lau
>at least the Buddhism that I know,
The Buddhism that the I knows is not Buddhism at all, and to see dharma
seperated from sentience is still not seeing as the buddhas do.The buddhas see
without qualification, distraction, or seperation.
Begin again
Ben
Kimberly
(in message <3D888F7A...@yahoo.com>):
[quoted post rearranged for the sake of clarity]:
>
>>> ************************************
>>>
>>> From: Evelyn Ruut (mama...@ulster.net)
>>> Subject: Re: question
>>> Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism
>>> Date: 2002-07-11 03:38:26 PST
>>>
>>>
>>> "chopsmcp" <sith...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1WZW8.2236$F%6.12...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>>>> just visiting, but I have a (genuine) question. is all the hatefulness in
>>>> this group real, or a subtle joke?
>>>
>>>
>>> Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it is
>>> real or not, but instead regard it like all phenomena. No reason to
>>> take
>>> it seriously.
>>>
>>> We do seem to have a rather noisy component around here lately.....
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Evelyn
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tang answers my comment before the quote:
> In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, Xin sweetie, one
> distinguishes
> the Law (Dharma) and the person (pudgala). The former is abstract,
> impersonal and
> universal and needs not entertain any necessary relationship with the
> latter. One
> relies on the former and not on the latter.
>
> If one encounters good Dharma -- and by good, I mean that it helps one
> decrease
> suffering, even end it -- then one should follow it oneself and make it
> known to
> others, regardless of its source. The two need not entertain any necessary
> relationship whatsoever with each other.
I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
bespeaks it.
Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
rancor -- this never occurred to you?
If not, then perhaps things are improving.
--
适|Xin|
assistance is futile! prepare to be dissimulated!
--NoMatNoMnd
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
Tang Huyen
Kimberly wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin
(in message <3D89B1E2...@yahoo.com>):
>> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
>> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
>> bespeaks it.
>>
>> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
>> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
>> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
>> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
>>
>> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
>
> To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
Which is why I added rancor.
Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
--
|Xin|
"So why speculate about such things?"
-- Lee Dillion
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen
>
> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
> >> bespeaks it.
> >>
> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
> >>
> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
> >
> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
>
> Which is why I added rancor.
>
> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
When your friend Tohsu Roshu Tohu Bohu recently dug up stories about
what happened (or did not happen) decades ago, you didn't ask him the
dynamics of the skilful bringing up of stories about what happened (or
did not happen) decades ago, so as to further the Dharma.
When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
as to further the Dharma?
So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
yourself?
How self-abnegating of you!
Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang wrote:
yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
such a little asshole? huh?
> Tang Huyen
>
cupcake
> Re: Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
>
> From: gyong khal <rokt...@hotmail.com>
> Reply to: [1]gyong khal
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:33:41 GMT
> Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<f59a3b3e.0209...@posting.google.com>
> [8]<01HW.B9AC20330...@news.earthlink.net>
> [9]<3D87078B...@yahoo.com>
> [10]<01HW.B9AD62B30...@news.earthlink.net>
> [11]<3D88630B...@yahoo.com>
> [12]<01HW.B9AE02EC0...@news.earthlink.net>
> [13]<3D888F7A...@yahoo.com>
> [14]<01HW.B9AEAFF20...@news.earthlink.net>
> [15]<3D89B1E2...@yahoo.com>
> [16]<01HW.B9AF78280...@news.earthlink.net>
> [17]<3D8A28B7...@yahoo.com>
>On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:42:47 -0400, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Messer Xin wrote:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen
>>>
>>> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
>>> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
>>> >> bespeaks it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
>>> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
>>> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
>>> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
>>> >>
>>> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
>>> >
>>> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
>>>
>>> Which is why I added rancor.
>>>
>>> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
>>> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>>Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
>>
>>When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
>>year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
>>entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>
>
>>When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
>>pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
>>of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
>>
>always some other guy
>people not even party to the thread
>and ure not even there
>
>
>>And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
>>as to further the Dharma?
>>
>
>
>>So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
>>yourself?
>>
>
>so he's wrong because he's human and ure right because ure not?
>
>not much of an arguement
>
>
well, seein's how yu wur an asshole ta begin with --
who cares!
>
>>How self-abnegating of you!
>>
>>Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
>>
>not as much as using slander and gossip in responce to a point
>
>
>ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>
cupcake
>
> Re: Mysticism? (was Re: For the one stuck)
>
> From: gyong khal <rokt...@hotmail.com>
> Reply to: [1]gyong khal
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:37:43 GMT
> Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [8]<SQpi9.245$q9....@news.more.net>
>On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:46:58 GMT, cupcake <t...@r.slrup> wrote:
>
>> yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
>> such a little asshole? huh?
>>
>
>
only an *asshole* accuses other people of
being a *bigger* asshole! :(
cupcake
cupcake wrote:
ASSHOLE!
Tang Huyen
gyong khal wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:42:47 -0400, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Messer Xin wrote:
> >
> >> Tang Huyen
> >>
> >> >> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
> >> >> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
> >> >> bespeaks it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
> >> >> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
> >> >> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
> >> >> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
> >> >>
> >> >> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
> >> >
> >> > To rouse suspicion may be a good trick, Xin luv.
> >>
> >> Which is why I added rancor.
> >>
> >> Please explain the dynamics of the skillful rousing of
> >> suspicion, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
> >Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Looooook at that!
> >
> >When your friend Sphere claimed to have entered the stream earlier this
> >year, you didn't ask him the dynamics of the skilful proclamation of
> >entering the stream, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
>
> when som posted john 16:3 i didnt see you disagee
>
> >When you yourself committed blatant acts of hypocrisy (which I then
> >pointed out), you didn't ask yourself the dynamics of the skilful acts
> >of blatant hypocrisy, so as to further the Dharma.
> >
> then ure pure hypocracy
> always some other guy
> people not even party to the thread
> and ure not even there
>
> >And now you ask me the dynamics of the skilful rousing of suspicion, so
> >as to further the Dharma?
> >
>
> since when is gossip skillful
>
> >So you hold me to *higher* standards than you do your friends and
> >yourself?
> >
>
> try makin ure points with out refence to other posters for a change
> so he's wrong because he's human and ure right because ure not?
>
> not much of an arguement
>
> >How self-abnegating of you!
> >
> >Wouldn't that rouse suspicion about your objectivity and fairness?
> >
> not as much as using slander and gossip in responce to a point
>
> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
I knew you would.
Tang Huyen
cupcake
Tang wrote:
does this mean that yer calling dar a "fucking little
weasel asshole", too, tang, huh?
> Tang Huyen
>
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8A28B7...@yahoo.com>):
A simple "No, I won't" would have sufficed. What about that
question excites you so?
--
|Xin|
"Once you learn to love hell, you'll be in heaven... "
Kim Bonfils, Danish Rock Star Dude
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
Messer Xin
(in message <SQpi9.245$q9....@news.more.net>):
> yeh, Minkfhhhffffffftttttt! -- so how's come yer
> such a little asshole? huh?
Should I then ask how come you're such a big one?
Probably not, but it's sooooo tempting :)
--
Q. Holy cow! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth . . .
A. No, but I kiss yours.
ba-da-bump ____Lee Dillion
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8A4E75...@yahoo.com>):
Dar:
>> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
Tang:
> Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
> do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
>
> I knew you would.
Xin:
Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
say so.
Take them one-by-one, if you want to pursue it. All the
evidence is available so long as it was public on these
forums. Quote the relevant posts, and let us all judge with
a consensus concerning the fairness of behavior.
I repeat, though, since you have tried to misdirect
attention yet again, how does rousing suspicion further the
Dharma?
--
|Xin|
Mike Fischer, August 2, 1995:
My young son walked up to me with an onion in his hand.
"Why is this an onion?" he asked.
I'm still not sure what I should say to him.
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
xt
> xtombr...@x-mail.net (xt) wrote in message news:<d7c3b787.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Of course the present includes the past and the future too..but
> > earthly desires are enlightenment as well. Without eliminating thought
> > and desire one can still attain Buddhahood by following the nBuddha's
> > prescription outlined in the Lotus Sutra about which he says "this is
> > my highest teaching".
> > xt
> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
> - Vanya
the internet being a cool medium for one thing. It is rather ironic
that in the age of Mappo the benefits are inconspicuous. The
influences of words and actions can be very profound whether we
realize it or not--good influences come in a variety of forms and
means of expression and are good influences if they bring out a good
latent effect on the listener in time.
The beneficial effects of the Buddha's words are far reaching and
infathomable, for example. The mystic is beyond the understanding of
common mortals-- that is why we have faith and seek to meet the
Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the sutra just
as the Buddha taught.
xt
xt
> Messer Xin <x...@woc.org> wrote in message news:<01HW.B9A9730E0...@news.earthlink.net>...
> > > But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
> > > - Vanya
> >
> > between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
> >
> > --
> >
> > |Xin|
> >
> But there is only emptiness between the lines... and any sense in the
> lines is non-existent...
> - Vanya
> "Stop making sense."
> - David Byrne
Oh, I love David Byrne--that is so 80's, NYC, black leather motorcycle
jackets and lets keep the baby up all night.
xt
xt
xt
Absolutely, there has to be a payoff for them or they wouldn't do it!
xt
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> Dar:
> >> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
> >> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
> >> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
> >> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
> >> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>
> Tang:
> > Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
> > do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
> >
> > I knew you would.
>
> Xin:
> Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
> referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
> ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
> say so.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Seriously, Xin my sweetie sweetie pie.
Are you aware of what you say or write? Do you ever apply any of it to yourself?
(Hint: not applying to oneself what one says or writes is called hypocrisy).
As you rightly write: "You haven't been elected the referee, you know."
Have you ever thought about that? Has it ever dawned on you that it also applies
to *you*?
You say rightly: "Same standards all around." Would that include you?
Or are you the Uebermensch, who says the Law but remains above all laws?
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
I have not noticed him behaving as such, but I certainly HAVE noticed you
appointing yourself to that position in that way, while being very quick to
accuse anyone else who speaks up.
Evelyn
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8B01D3...@yahoo.com>):
>
>
> Messer Xin wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>> Dar:
>>>> ya wanna talk thots talk about thots
>>>> ya wanna gossip why bother with points
>>>> gossip kills the point if you care about the point
>>>> and somehow i dont think ure the kinda guy
>>>> that shits on themselve to not smell too sweet
>>
>> Tang:
>>> Well, thank you, dar luv, for also holding me to higher standards than you
>>> do your friends Sphere, Toshu, Xin, etc.
>>>
>>> I knew you would.
>>
>> Xin:
>> Same standards all around. You haven't been elected the
>> referee, you know. None of the "cases" cited have been
>> ceded by anyone. The only "evidence" you have is your own
>> say so.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
No need for hysteria.
> Seriously, Xin my sweetie sweetie pie.
>
> Are you aware of what you say or write? Do you ever apply any of it to
> yourself?
> (Hint: not applying to oneself what one says or writes is called hypocrisy).
>
> As you rightly write: "You haven't been elected the referee, you know."
>
> Have you ever thought about that? Has it ever dawned on you that it also
> applies
> to *you*?
Quite. Which is why I proposed that you try to prove a case
or two, rather than repeat the same baseless stuff. You
*can* prove these points, right?
> You say rightly: "Same standards all around." Would that include you?
>
> Or are you the Uebermensch, who says the Law but remains above all laws?
>
> Tang Huyen
>
>>
>>
>> Take them one-by-one, if you want to pursue it. All the
>> evidence is available so long as it was public on these
>> forums. Quote the relevant posts, and let us all judge with
>> a consensus concerning the fairness of behavior.
>>
>> I repeat, though, since you have tried to misdirect
>> attention yet again, how does rousing suspicion further the
>> Dharma?
>>
>> --
>>
>>> Xin|
>>
>> Mike Fischer, August 2, 1995:
>> My young son walked up to me with an onion in his hand.
>> "Why is this an onion?" he asked.
>> I'm still not sure what I should say to him.
>>
>> ============================================================
>> ==
>> Posted with Hogwasher. For a free Test Drive click on:
>> http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
>> l
>> ============================================================
>> ==
>
--
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> >
> > Messer Xin:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Simplistic diversionary tactic, Xin sweetie sweetie.
If the same standards apply all around, why is it that you have never asked
anybody else -- surely not your friends, like Sphere and Toshu Roshu Tohu Bohu,
and last but not least, yourself -- the same question that you asked of me, with
the part between asterisks to be changed according to the situation:
"Please explain the dynamics of the skillful *rousing of suspicion*, so as to
further the Dharma."
Again, are you applying higher standards to me than to your friends and to you?
If so, you're flattering me, but it leaves the impression of double standards.
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8C6A87...@yahoo.com>):
Tang:
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Xin:
You don't have to be hysterical.
> Simplistic diversionary tactic, Xin sweetie sweetie.
>
> If the same standards apply all around, why is it that you have never asked
> anybody else -- surely not your friends, like Sphere and Toshu Roshu Tohu
> Bohu,
> and last but not least, yourself -- the same question that you asked of me,
> with
> the part between asterisks to be changed according to the situation:
>
> "Please explain the dynamics of the skillful *rousing of suspicion*, so as to
> further the Dharma."
>
> Again, are you applying higher standards to me than to your friends and to
> you?
>
> If so, you're flattering me, but it leaves the impression of double
> standards.
It's really quite simple. I do not see the relish in poking
for wounds, and poking harder if you think you've found
them, in anybody else, with the exception of Ardent.
(Cupcake, too, but he doesn't put as much effort into it
and so is ineffectual.) How then, can I ask the people you
name as my friends how the enjoyment of poking wounds
furthers the Dharma?
You may say that they do plenty of poking, but there is a
qualitative difference in intent. It is not to validate
themselves by showing someone else weaker. This I see in
you.
Of course, I could be wrong about you, the people you
mention, and even myself -- but obviously, I don't think
so.
--
|Xin|
"So why speculate about such things?"
-- Lee Dillion
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
Jen
> It's really quite simple. I do not see the relish in poking
> for wounds, and poking harder if you think you've found
> them, in anybody else, with the exception of Ardent.
> (Cupcake, too, but he doesn't put as much effort into it
> and so is ineffectual.) How then, can I ask the people you
> name as my friends how the enjoyment of poking wounds
> furthers the Dharma?
>
> You may say that they do plenty of poking, but there is a
> qualitative difference in intent. It is not to validate
Those who feign to not have war in their hearts are dead already. The
intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
Vanya
> infathomable, for example. The mystic is beyond the understanding of
> common mortals-- that is why we have faith and seek to meet the
> Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the sutra just
> as the Buddha taught.
> xt
How is this different than faith in God? In both approaches, people
admit to believing in something they cannot understand.
- Vanya
Kimberly
(in message <3d8d6e79$1...@news.teranews.com>):
Anger is in all of us. Still, to make enemies lightly is
stupid.
Alright, so stupidity is in all of us :)
--
|Xin|
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was, he could have cooked his rice
much sooner.
-Mumon
Mark P.
>
>How is this different than faith in God? In both approaches, people
>admit to believing in something they cannot understand.
>- Vanya
Because our faith is based on actual proof, we have a
foundation to grow upon. To understand the true nature of life is not
an easy thing, but is totally different than the christian concept
which can never be understood.
Mark Porter
Buddhism recognizes the existence of neither a
'God the Creator' nor a transcendent divinity,
but explains that all existence, illusion and
enlightenment, misfortune and happiness etc.,
are brought about through the causes and effects
each person makes, and nothing else.
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
How can anybody *still* have wounds after years and decades of study and practice
under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and dress
funny?
Do you mean that their long-term investment in time and energy has been a total
waste? And that they would have spent their time better flying a kite in a park?
And if per impossibile they still have wounds after years and decades of study and
practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and
dress funny, why on earth should they attempt to perpetuate that state in
themselves (instead of doing something to mend it, like, at a minimum, dropping
such teachers and their useless, even harmful teachings) and even propagate it to
others?
Given that the Dharma is to help people end their suffering, how can their
behaviour further the Dharma, if they follow teachers and teachings that have
wrecked them and even attempt to propagate the same disaster to others?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Vanya wrote:
> xtombr...@x-mail.net (xt):
>
> > The beneficial effects of the Buddha's words are far reaching and
> > infathomable, for example. The mystic is beyond the understanding of
> > common mortals-- that is why we have faith and seek to meet the
> > Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the sutra just
> > as the Buddha taught.
> > xt
>
> How is this different than faith in God? In both approaches, people
> admit to believing in something they cannot understand.
> - Vanya
xt said: "we have faith and seek to meet the Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the
sutra just as the Buddha taught."
That approach is indeed hardly distinguishable from the Christian one, so Vanya's question is valid.
Tang Huyen
Gileht.com
"Vanya" <vorot...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
f59a3b3e.02092...@posting.google.com...
I don,t see the difference.
That is why I prefer to stick to Mahayana for now.
Gileht
Mark P.
wrote:
>xt said: "we have faith and seek to meet the Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the
>sutra just as the Buddha taught."
>
>That approach is indeed hardly distinguishable from the Christian one, so Vanya's question is valid.
>
On the contrary. The christian one is blind faith. The True
Buddhist one, faith based on a lifetime of actual proof. When we chant
we recieve the benefit of the Buddha's wisdom and apply it in our
lives, even though it takes time for this to become apparent to us.
Christians recieve no benefit of this wisdom as shown by the actions
of modern man.
Mark P.
wrote:
>> How is this different than faith in God? In both approaches, people
>> admit to believing in something they cannot understand.
>> - Vanya
>
In the instance with God, you can never understand. In the
instance with True Buddhism, you can eventually fully understand. That
is a huge difference!
Gileht.com
"Mark P." <m...@imchat.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3d8dda3e...@news.ont.com...
In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
Buddhism in general.
And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
Christianity or Islam.
Gileht
Tang Huyen
Kimberly wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> >
> > Kimberly wrote:
> >
> >> Tang Huyen
> >>>
> >>> Messer Xin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tang Huyen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Messer Xin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Vanya:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Messer Xin <x...@woc.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But you wouldn't know it by anyone here, would you?
> >>>>>>>>> - Vanya
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Xin:
> >>>>>>>> Oh, I don't know. There's a lot more going on if you read
> >>>>>>>> between the lines. A lot of it is even worse, granted, but
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vanya:
> >>>>>>> But there is only emptiness between the lines...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is supposed to be bad? Or true? Or what?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a lot of information to be had between the lines,
> >>>>>> like, "Why didn't she rake him over the coals just then,
> >>>>>> when he had him pinned to the pole?" "Why does he always
> >>>>>> choose *that* kind of put-down?" See what I mean?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like when some people interminably tweak others for no good
> >>>>>> reason but that they can, and they enjoy that they can.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like me, for example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You do a piss-poor job of it, son.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just bait to get you to expose your poverty.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Now, if some people interminably tweak others for no good reason but
> >>>>> that they can, and they enjoy that they can, don't the people tweaked by
> >>>>> them volunteer day in day out, month in month out, year in year out to
> >>>>> cooperate unasked in getting tweaked?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And don't *they* enjoy it (namely being tweaked), too? Why else would
> >>>>> they keep on with it, long-term and unasked?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't it give-and-take in full freedom, on both sides? Isn't it a case
> >>>>> of "One hand washes the other"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this anything but another form of, "She wanted to be
> >>>> raped, officer! Why else would she put herself in a
> >>>> situation where I could do it?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Your blind spot makes you unable to see how reprehensible
> >>>> your behavior seems to many, probably the majority, of
> >>>> people here. Even worse, you actively claim that you are
> >>>> not responsible for your instigation of ill feeling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't get all gushy with gratitude for receiving an
> >>>> honest impression. I'd do it for Vanier, too.
> >>
> >> Tang:
> >>> What you say, whether an honest impression or not, should be regarded like
> >>> all phenomena. No reason to take it seriously, even less get gushy with
> >>> it. I'd do it for the Buddha's words, too.
> >>
> >> Ecellent!
> >>
> >> But your compulsion still manifests in your choice to post
> >> the following.
>
> [quoted post rearranged for the sake of clarity]:
>
> >
> >>> ************************************
> >>>
> >>> From: Evelyn Ruut (mama...@ulster.net)
> >>> Subject: Re: question
> >>> Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism
> >>> Date: 2002-07-11 03:38:26 PST
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "chopsmcp" <sith...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> news:1WZW8.2236$F%6.12...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >>>> just visiting, but I have a (genuine) question. is all the hatefulness in
> >>>> this group real, or a subtle joke?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether
> >>> it is real or not, but instead regard it like all phenomena. No reason
> to
> >>> take it seriously.
> >>>
> >>> We do seem to have a rather noisy component around here lately.....
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Evelyn
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Tang answers my comment before the quote:
> > In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, Xin sweetie, one
> > distinguishes the Law (Dharma) and the person (pudgala). The
> > former is abstract, impersonal and universal and needs not
> > entertain any necessary relationship with the latter. One relies
> > on the former and not on the latter.
> >
> > If one encounters good Dharma -- and by good, I mean that it helps one
> > one decrease suffering, even end it -- then one should follow it
> > oneself and make it known to others, regardless of its source.
> > The two need not entertain any necessary relationship whatsoever
> > with each other.
>
> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
> bespeaks it.
>
> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
>
> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
Are you trying to insult Evelyn or what?
Let me repeat her exchange in full. chopsmcp asked:
"just visiting, but I have a (genuine) question. is all the hatefulness in
this group real, or a subtle joke?"
Evelyn replied wisely:
"Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether
it is real or not, but instead regard it like all phenomena. No reason to
take it seriously.
We do seem to have a rather noisy component around here lately....."
So, she said explicitly:
"Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it [all the
hatefulness in this group] is real or not, but instead regard it like all
phenomena. No reason to take it seriously."
She explicitly preached the regarding of all the *hatefulness* in this group "like
all phenomena. No reason to take it seriously."
If she was wise enough to preach such lovely teaching -- detachment and equanimity
come to mind, on the wing of her Dharma-imbued words -- why on earth would you
want to throw "suspicion and rancor" on her?
Do you insinuate that she just brought up the teaching to make herself look good
but that she herself had no inclination to actually practice it? (If so, you're
slyly insinuating hypocrisy on her).
Tang Huyen
Pema
hi Vanya,
beautiful name! (meaning of name pls???)
From the viewpoint of those that do ascribe to Buddha nature or christ
light, there is no confusion regarding faith, faith is the inherent
ability to reconize a truth. It is not based on thin air, it is based
on something very
real and substanial, that real "thing" is not obvious to others for it
is
within each person on a very intimate level. That can not be shared
with others, it is based on personal "knowing" at at first or at
worst, uncontrived at it's true self, it is part of what we are, born
with it. People of all religious paths have been imprisioned, and
faith never wavers, tortured, and faith never waviers. It is the ego
that covers the true nature, faith is that which is uncontrived,
natural, it is as our breath is. It is part of us, not seperate.
The ego cannot understand, it cannot put words to it, that in no way
makes it unlegitimate, if anything it legitimizes it. It is basic
space.
may all beings have the causes and conditions for happiness,
Pema
Evelyn Ruut
No insinuation was intended I am sure, and none was taken.
Evelyn
>
Mark P.
wrote:
>
>In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
>Buddhism in general.
I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
Law I'm pretty sure.
>
>And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
>Christianity or Islam.
That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
Gileht.com
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:59:21 -0400, "Gileht.com" <gil...@hot-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
> >Buddhism in general.
>
> I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
> offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
> Law I'm pretty sure.
>
> >
> >And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
> >Christianity or Islam.
>
> That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
> Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
> blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
>
>
> Mark Porter
Can you prove that ?
I think all Laws or laws are no different than beliefs ...
Do you want to open this Pandora box now ?
Gileht
Mark P.
wrote:
>Can you prove that ?
>
Laws can be proven, and the law of cause and effect is
scientifically proven. No religion refutes the law of cause and effect
even though they only give it lip service because they fail to see how
it relates to their own life.
Could you possibly prove that you have lived millions of
lifetimes prior to this one?
jesson
"Mark P." <m...@imchat.com> wrote in message
news:3d8e1469...@news.ont.com...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:59:21 -0400, "Gileht.com" <gil...@hot-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
> >Buddhism in general.
>
> I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
> offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
> Law I'm pretty sure.
>
> >
> >And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
> >Christianity or Islam.
>
> That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
> Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
> blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
>
only stupidity.
jan
boris, i'm hearing voices, and they're singing
the spam song! i'll have a mint...
Tang Huyen
jesson wrote:
> "Mark P."
>
> > "Gileht.com"
> > >
> > >In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
> > >Buddhism in general.
> >
> > I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
> > offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
> > Law I'm pretty sure.
> >
> > >
> > >And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
> > >Christianity or Islam.
> >
> > That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
> > Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
> > blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
> >
> some laws don't even require blind belief -
> only stupidity.
>
> jan
>
> boris, i'm hearing voices, and they're singing
> the spam song! i'll have a mint...
Jan, you're just right for initiation into the mysteries of the Tantra.
Especially the visualisation. Some people will take care of you shortly.
Tang Huyen
jesson
>
>
> jesson wrote:
>
> > "Mark P."
> >
> > > "Gileht.com"
> > > >
> > > >In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not
about
> > > >Buddhism in general.
> > >
> > > I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
> > > offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
> > > Law I'm pretty sure.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
> > > >Christianity or Islam.
> > >
> > > That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
> > > Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
> > > blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
> > >
> > some laws don't even require blind belief -
> > only stupidity.
> >
> > jan
> >
> > boris, i'm hearing voices, and they're singing
> > the spam song! i'll have a mint...
>
> Jan, you're just right for initiation into the mysteries of the Tantra.
> Especially the visualisation. Some people will take care of you shortly.
>
> Tang Huyen
that's great tang. : )
actually, the earth moved already!
love
jan
Dirk Bruere
jibbering.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"jesson" <spac...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:amlmbi$6r7r1$1...@ID-104323.news.dfncis.de...
>
> that's great tang. : )
> actually, the earth moved already!
True - felt it myself about an hour ago.
FFF
Dirk
Kimberly
(in message <3D8DB9EE...@yahoo.com>):
Whether they have wounds or not is secondary to your
believing so, and trying to inflame them. Now, everybody
could use a good gadfly, but a person who enjoys the pain
aroused in that kind of work certainly should not be
surprised when someone questions the propriety of their
fun.
--
|Xin|
the only guide we have to your mental state is what you
say, and
the intensity with which we say it. --Nick Argall
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8DDCD4...@yahoo.com>):
>> Tang answers my comment before the quote:
>>> In Buddhism, or at least the Buddhism that I know, Xin sweetie, one
>>> distinguishes the Law (Dharma) and the person (pudgala). The
>>> former is abstract, impersonal and universal and needs not
>>> entertain any necessary relationship with the latter. One relies
>>> on the former and not on the latter.
>>>
>>> If one encounters good Dharma -- and by good, I mean that it helps one
>>> one decrease suffering, even end it -- then one should follow it
>>> oneself and make it known to others, regardless of its source.
>>> The two need not entertain any necessary relationship whatsoever
>>> with each other.
>>
>> I can think of lots of arguments to pursue here. However, I
>> will agree that good Dharma should not be ignored, whoever
>> bespeaks it.
>>
>> Was good Dharma the *only* reason you chose a post of
>> Evelyn's to embellish your point? The thought that any
>> reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
>> rancor -- this never occurred to you?
>>
>> If not, then perhaps things are improving.
Tang:
Xin:
Non sequitur.
:p
--
适|Xin|
that was intended as supportive sarcasm, BTW
--leebert
Messer Xin
(in message <amlot8$70vls$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>):
Dirk the Ueber:
> Saw the title and thought it was about me, but really just a load of unters
> jibbering.
Being an unter ain't so bad. People expect less of you, so
you can impress them more.
--
|Xin|
"Surely you have read enough posts
by different Buddhas online to know
they war with words only because they are
not close enough to throw their own shit!"
---<IamSpncycl> 01/10/04
Mark P.
wrote:
> some laws don't even require blind belief -
> only stupidity.
>
Like the law of gravity or cause and effect? They are really
stupid laws I guess. I mean who needs to believe in laws proven by
science for decades!
Now think about the fact that these laws were mentioned by
Buddhism over 3 thousand years ago.
Vanya
> vorot...@attbi.com (Vanya) wrote in message news:<f59a3b3e.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> > xtombr...@x-mail.net (xt) wrote in message news:<d7c3b787.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > The beneficial effects of the Buddha's words are far reaching and
> > > infathomable, for example. The mystic is beyond the understanding of
> > > common mortals-- that is why we have faith and seek to meet the
> > > Buddha's mind in our practice of reciting the words of the sutra just
> > > as the Buddha taught.
> > > xt
> >
> > How is this different than faith in God? In both approaches, people
> > admit to believing in something they cannot understand.
> > - Vanya
>
> hi Vanya,
> beautiful name! (meaning of name pls???)
Vanya is the diminutive (nickname) for Ivan, which is Russian for
John, my given name.
> From the viewpoint of those that do ascribe to Buddha nature or christ
> light, there is no confusion regarding faith, faith is the inherent
> ability to reconize a truth...
>
It seems there are many different "truths" out there to recognize...
I'm not attacking faith, all I'm saying is that faith in a Mystic Law
of Cause and Effect (not the same as scientific cause and effect) is
no different than faith in God, because both, by Buddhists own
admission, are something beyond a "common mortal's" understanding.
(Mark says you can understand it in this lifetime, but I have yet to
meet or hear of anyone who has accomplished this).
So when you put your faith in something like this, you give up a
certain amount of control of your life, perhaps even to someone who
claims to understand God or this Mystic Law more than you do. Which is
not necessarily a bad thing, giving up control, that is.
- Vanya
Gileht.com
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:11:26 -0400, "Gileht.com" <gil...@hot-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Can you prove that ?
> >
>
> Laws can be proven, and the law of cause and effect is
> scientifically proven. No religion refutes the law of cause and effect
Are you sure about that ... the way I see it even science refutes that. I
guess we are not living on the same planet. :-)
You seem way to far apart from me to have a useful discussion. Sorry.
Gileht
Gileht.com
"Vanya" <vorot...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
f59a3b3e.02092...@posting.google.com...
I don't think there is a difference between le scientific law of cause and
effect and the karmic law of cause and effect, only the object is different.
One works with scientific theories objects, the other one with buddhist
theories objects.
THey all come down to this: There is no effect without a cause; no cause
without an effect. Seems reasonable; no ?
From this you can deduce that a new life is not without causes (no effect
without a cause), and that death is not the end either (no cause without an
effect). Seems reasonable; no ?
So if you take the karma, as the object of this law of cause and effect,
then we conclude that there is no karma without cause, and no karma without
effect. No beginning, no end.
So to think that everything stops at death is simply againts the law of
cause and effect. To think that you that there is no retribution for your
acts is simply "illogical". So you better watch out ! :-)
On the other hand, to think that there is a self that is reborn is plain
stupid. It is more subtle than this.
Gileht
Gileht.com
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:02:43 +0100, "jesson" <spac...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > some laws don't even require blind belief -
> > only stupidity.
> >
>
> Like the law of gravity or cause and effect? They are really
> stupid laws I guess. I mean who needs to believe in laws proven by
> science for decades!
Maybe you should ask a scientist before taking about things you do not
understand.
There is no laws proven in science, only throries until they fin
counter-examples, ... and they always do.
Gileht
> Now think about the fact that these laws were mentioned by
> Buddhism over 3 thousand years ago.
Stupidity is ageless. We have today the same philosophical positions as in
the time of the Buddha, and the same stupid reductionists. Nothing has
change when it comes to trying to find the real nature of our mind and of
everything. ... or maybe our layers of illusions are more thick and complex
... that is all.
Gileht
> Mark Porter
Vanya
>
> On the contrary. The christian one is blind faith. The True
> Buddhist one, faith based on a lifetime of actual proof. When we chant
Here's the mystical part: how does chanting Daimoku enable you to
"receive the benefit of the Buddha's wisdom"? No one can explain this,
so it remains "mystical."
But this is the crux of the matter: your obsession with "actual
proof," or "benefit," has a corrupting influence on your faith. You
will forget the purpose of Buddhism, which is to relieve suffering,
and the only way you can relieve suffering is in the real world,
feeding a starving person, or refraining from bombing some third world
country into oblivion, for example.
- Vanya
Tang Huyen
Kimberly wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
I cannot inflame people who are at peace with themselves. That would be a
contradiction in terms, flat out. Especially in the medium of Usenet, where only
words are used, and they appear coldly, on a screen, and not delivered in person,
in the heat of a face-to-face encounter.
Seasoned, grooved-in practitioners who have spent years and decades in study and
practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk funny and
dress funny should not be susceptible to being inflamed or poked with mere words,
sheer dots on a screen.
If they can be inflamed and poked with mere words on a screen, they only show that
their massive investment in time and energy has been a total waste, and that
therefore it should be stopped right away and not in any way perpetuated in
themselves, even less propagated to others as *means of ending suffering*, when it
obviously is ineffective, even counterproductive *in them*.
Remember, the Buddha said that the Dharma is "come-and-see-ish" (ehi-passika). What
evidence have they for the effectiveness of their methods in ending suffering, when
their methods have not helped them end suffering but rather have wrecked them,
after so many years and decades of dedication to them?
How can their behaviour further the Dharma -- the Dharma being the method of ending
of suffering?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Messer Xin wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
You asked me:
"The thought that any reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion and
rancor -- this never occurred to you?"
Where could the "suspicion and rancor" alleged by you come from, if everybody was
to behave according to her method:
"Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it [all the
hatefulness in this group] is real or not, but instead regard it like all
phenomena. No reason to take it seriously."
She was talking about "all the hatefulness in this group", which is not even near
the "suspicion and rancor" alleged by you. And yet she could remain above the fray:
"Those of us who are genuine buddhists ... instead regard it like all phenomena.
No reason to take it seriously."
Quoting her post only brought out the virtue in her, but not any "suspicion and
rancor" alleged by you.
That's the consequence that you can't see, sweetie sweetie Xin.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
Tang you are SOOOOOO full of shit!
What has the way people take you got to do with your continuing deliberate
provocations of "some people" all the time? Nothing!
You provoke because you are a mean person and obviously an unhappy one,
whose focus on "other" has to do with your inability to deal with your
"self"...... What is more, you are the mean person who has to live with
yourself. I don't have to live with you, nor does Xin. I exit this
newsgroup, shut off my computer and there is no more Tang.
You on the other hand, are living within your obsessions and the mental
energy you expend on your various provocations is considerable. Give it
up Tang and finally be at peace with yourself and others! When people call
you on your shit you play word games and dig up old quotes all in support of
your fantasies and obsessions.
Can you not see that you are a one man circle jerk?
You drove away Hayes and Jigme and Toshu and dozens of others, but YOU are
the one you haven't driven away because you can't.
I would end this with one of your typical "hahahahahahaha's" but I can't. I
haven't got the heart. You are too pitiful to laugh at.
Regards,
Evelyn
Osel Dorje
> Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D7FCC86...@yahoo.com>...
>
> >
> > Living simply in the present, without benefit of thought and language, is not
> > that different from normal delusion and doesn't deserve to be called mysticism.
> >
> > Tang Huyen
>
> It is evident Tang is "living... without benefit of thought..."
> - Vanya
Here is a quote from an old friend :
Without conceptual thinking there is no liberation. This is so
because liberation itself is nothing but a concept. It is a concept
that is necessary only as long as one has the twin concept of
bondage. But if one does have the notion that one is suffering from
afflictions, then it is very useful to have the twin notion that one
can be liberated from those afflictions. --Dayamati (Richard Hayes)
Cody
Cody
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D8EF79A...@yahoo.com...
Evelyn Ruut
Nonetheless, you are the perpetual dreamer, the one who seeks someone,
anyone, so ardently who cannot be ruffled by your provocations. You
redouble your efforts when you find someone who does not get ruffled, if not
at first, than later. The reasons for this are known only to yourself, but
I think you are in some way desperate to find something 'beyond'.... Again
it is a part of your obsession with self that makes you seek meaning by
provoking others. When you are comfortable with yourself you will cease
your concern, interest, provocation with other.
E.
Gileht.com
"Osel Dorje" <yoke...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3ef55b2e.02092...@posting.google.com...
Seems like a guy stuck in dualism. `-)
He should have said:
There is no liberation with or without thoughts.
Libearation and bondage are not different, but still not the same.
Richard never could make this little step further.
Gileht
Vanya
> I don't think there is a difference between le scientific law of cause and
> effect and the karmic law of cause and effect, only the object is different.
>
> One works with scientific theories objects, the other one with buddhist
> theories objects.
This is just plain stupid, so I won't bother to refute it.
>
> THey all come down to this: There is no effect without a cause; no cause
> without an effect. Seems reasonable; no ?
No, it does not. How does it work? What are the mechanics involved in
me receiving an effect for a cause?
>
> From this you can deduce that a new life is not without causes (no effect
> without a cause), and that death is not the end either (no cause without an
> effect). Seems reasonable; no ?
No, it does not. Exactly how is my "karma" carried forward to my next
life? In a briefcase?
- Vanya
Evelyn Ruut
"Vanya" <vorot...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:f59a3b3e.02092...@posting.google.com...
Dear Vanya,
According to buddhism, your karma is an energy.... the energy of your
attachments and your angers and the unresolved conflicts that remain at the
end of your lifetime. This energy seeks expression and it expresses itself
as a new living being.
Regards,
Evelyn
Mark P.
wrote:
>
>Maybe you should ask a scientist before taking about things you do not
>understand.
Oh, don't do the theory thing and think you can win here. I'm
quite aware of scientific methodology, but methodology aside, can you
find a single scientist that would say there is no law of cause and
effect? You might find some that talk about the theory of quatum
mechanics and how there may be inconsistencies in the law, but in
actuality, these inconsistencies point to the simultaneouty of cause
and effect instead of disproving the law of cause and effect.
Mark P.
>>
>> THey all come down to this: There is no effect without a cause; no cause
>> without an effect. Seems reasonable; no ?
>
>No, it does not. How does it work? What are the mechanics involved in
>me receiving an effect for a cause?
>>
This is the inherent darkness of life. How can you see the
cause based only on the effect? Don't even try to think about the
mechanics involved. They are way beyond science to date.
Tang Huyen
John wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> > in person in the heat of a face-to-face encounter.
> >
> > Seasoned, grooved-in practitioners who have spent years and decades in study
> > and practice under luminary teachers from exotic lands who look funny, talk
> > talk funny and dress funny should not be susceptible to being inflamed or
> > poked with mere words, sheer dots on a screen.
> >
> > If they can be inflamed and poked with mere words on a screen, they only
> > show that their massive investment in time and energy has been a total waste,
> > and that therefore it should be stopped right away and not in any way
> > perpetuated in themselves, even less propagated to others as *means of
> > ending suffering*, when it obviously is ineffective, even counterproductive
> > *in them*.
> >
> > Remember, the Buddha said that the Dharma is "come-and-see-ish"
> > (ehi-passika). What evidence have they for the effectiveness of
> > their methods in ending suffering, when their methods have not helped
> > them end suffering but rather have wrecked them, after so many
> > years and decades of dedication to them?
> >
> > How can their behaviour further the Dharma -- the Dharma being the method of
> > ending of suffering?
>
> The better question seems to be why Tang do you take such obvious
> delight in being an asshole.
>
> Are you trying to win a popularity contest child (I have no idea how old
> you are,I use child to describe your actions and conduct).
>
> You might well be 115 but you behave like a petulant 10 year old.
>
> Grow up little boy and learn how to play well with others or you will
> always be the last one picked to be on anyones team.
Thank you, John.
Tang "spoilt child, little boy" Huyen
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> but I think you are in some way desperate to find something 'beyond'....
That's the definition of Perfect Wisdom in general ...
Tang Huyen
Boris Fuller
> "Mark P." <m...@imchat.com> wrote in message
> news:3d8e1469...@news.ont.com...
>
>>On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:59:21 -0400, "Gileht.com" <gil...@hot-mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In the original post the author was talking about "mysticism", not about
>>>Buddhism in general.
>>
>>I didn't read the actual start of this thread because I was
>>offline for a while, while moving. However, Uma refers to the Mystic
>>Law I'm pretty sure.
>>
>>
>>>And "mysticism" is indeed based on blind belief ... as in the case of
>>>Christianity or Islam.
>>
>>That depends on how you define mysticism. The True Law of
>>Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a Mystic Law indeed, but laws don't require
>>blind belief whereas something like Angels would.
>>
>
> only stupidity.
>
>
> boris, i'm hearing voices, and they're singing
> the spam song! i'll have a mint...
good plan!
whats the solution to
the goons singing
"ying-tong" ?
Boris
Pema
Hello dear Ev,
I see your points made, excellent post. The basic illusion of that
this is real to him is painful exsistance. the fact we even exsist is
painful to him. basic suffering, basic poisions. I wish Tang finds his
Buddha.
thinking of you! we got married on the 20th by Namhka Rinpoche. I'll
send you an email about it :) and the retreat ;)
stay well!
Pema
Pema
> >>
> > It's really quite simple. I do not see the relish in poking
> > for wounds, and poking harder if you think you've found
> > them, in anybody else, with the exception of Ardent.
> > (Cupcake, too, but he doesn't put as much effort into it
> > and so is ineffectual.) How then, can I ask the people you
> > name as my friends how the enjoyment of poking wounds
> > furthers the Dharma?
> >
> > You may say that they do plenty of poking, but there is a
> > qualitative difference in intent. It is not to validate
>
> intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
You missed the story about the little peacock who could. So should
we just give up? or just continue to nurture that suffering until it
has us so socked in that the prospect of non harming could only be a
fanstasy?, or see the illusion of what is, medecine taken too much is
poision, taken correctly, the right dose is a cure. your just really
socked in right now, remember times when you were like this and then
you got out of it. it can change with our state of mind.
stay well :)
Pema
Andrew Boniface
Jen wrote in message <3d8d6e79$1...@news.teranews.com>...
>>>
[smip]
>Those who feign to not have war in their hearts are dead already. The
>intentions to war only seem to be many. Ahimsa is fantasy.
>
>
anyway, ahimsa is experiencing anger, but doing something other than its
stong crude urging. Mahatma Ghandi, who didn't have much of a reputation for
going to the bod, said he had to husband his anger, implying that there was
some.
Messer Xin
(in message <3D8EF79A...@yahoo.com>):
>> Xin:
>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> :p
Tang:
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>
> You asked me:
>
> "The thought that any reference to her, bad OR good, might rouse suspicion
> and
> rancor -- this never occurred to you?"
>
> Where could the "suspicion and rancor" alleged by you come from, if
> everybody was
> to behave according to her method:
>
> "Those of us who are genuine buddhists have no way of knowing whether it
> [all the
> hatefulness in this group] is real or not, but instead regard it like all
> phenomena. No reason to take it seriously."
>
> She was talking about "all the hatefulness in this group", which is not even
> near
> the "suspicion and rancor" alleged by you. And yet she could remain above
> the fray:
> "Those of us who are genuine buddhists ... instead regard it like all
> phenomena.
> No reason to take it seriously."
>
> Quoting her post only brought out the virtue in her, but not any "suspicion
> and
> rancor" alleged by you.
>
> That's the consequence that you can't see, sweetie sweetie Xin.
Tang:
What *you* seem unable to see, is that I was questioning
you, not Evelyn. She has her own problems, which have not
nearly gotten into my face as yours.
I've given you my feedback. Ignore it as you will. I'm
going to ignore you for a while.
--
|Xin|
"Occasionally, go burn a bandage! Get your generally
receiving ointment behind my star." -- from spam on
<alt.zen>
============================================================
==
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
l
============================================================
==