Is it real or is it Memorex? (was Re: A post for Jen: Friendship, Family, and Sexual Intimacy.)

[Tang Huyen]

On 2/5/2012 9:20 PM, Sanford Manley wrote:

> They are real if you think they are. If it
> hurts, the hurt is real. I know you know
> what I am talking about. The key is
> forgiveness for others, forgiveness for
> self and the extreme courage it takes to
> go on and trust people again.

As W. I. Thomas said (this was quoted by
DharmaTroll):

"If men define situations as real, they
are real in their consequences."

Iow, what people believe is real will have
real effects. It's like with paranoia:
what people believe is real (whether it is
real or not) will have real effects.

But why do the claims of the fakes turn
out to be fake (and not real, not true)?
Why don't they hold? Why can't the fakes
make good on their claims?

The Buddha said:

"the Dependent Arisal has not been made by
me (na maya pratitya-samutpadah krto), has
not been made by others (napy anyaih).
Whether the Tathagata-s were to arise or
Tathagata-s were not to arise (utpadad va
tathagatanam anutpadad va), this nature of
things has remained (sthita eveyam
dharmata, this legality has stood), the
modality (dhatu) for the standing of
things (dharma-sthitaye)." SA, 299, 85b,
Nidana-samyukta, 164-165, Da zhi du lun,
T, 25, 1509, 298a11-20.

Tathagata means "Thus come one" or "Thus
gone one" and both meanings apply to
Buddha-s. The Buddha here said that the
Dependent Arisal has not been made by him,
has not been made by others, and that
regardless whether Buddha-s were to arise
or not, this nature of things (dependent
arisal) has remained, as the modality for
the standing of things, to support all
things in their functioning.

The Law (Dharma) is independent of our
mind, of our wishes and desires. It
connects our deed (karman) and its
return, whether we like it or not. We
cannot mess with the connection.

"When a monk does not dwell devoted to
cultivation (bhavana), even though such
a *wish* as this might arise in him:
'Oh, that my mind might be liberated
from the cankers by non-clinging!', yet
his mind is *not* liberated from the
cankers by non-clinging. For what
reason? It should be said: because of
lack of cultivation (a-bhavitatta)." SN,
III, 153 (22, 101).

"Form is not-self. If form was self,
this form would not lead to affliction,
and it could be had of form: Let my
form be thus, let my form not be thus.
And because form is not-self that it
therefore leads to affliction, and that
it cannot be had of form: Let my form be
thus, let my form not be thus." SN, III,
66 (22, 59).

Leibniz, Die Philosophischen Schriften,
V, 136: "However what we cannot at all
understand is nonetheless determined in
the truth of things [Cependant ce que
nous ne pouvons point comprendre ne
laisse pas d'estre determiné dans la
verité des choses]."

There is a law of nature that governs
nature, from its own side, independently
of our wishes and desires. What the
fakes claim turns out to be fake (and
not real, not true) because they, the
fakes, try to fool nature, and it does
not work.

So, why is it that the baseless fears
of the paranoid are so real to them
and have real effects on them, but that
the claims of the fakes turn out to be
fake (and not real, not true)?

That is where the regimen of survival
is different from the regimen of grace.
In survival, we do, we build up, we
accumulate; in grace, we do not do, we
build down, we let go. In survival, we
can pile up, and it works, even if it
is false. In grace, if we pile up, it
backfires and does not work, so we do
not do and instead build down and let
go, and nature will take care of the
rest. We can trust nature to do so.

That is the difference.

Tang Huyen