Zen warning label
Sphere
Warning: You may become nothing.
--
Sphere.
Little green men who don't exist live under my bed.
Pyrrho
news:3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
Christianity warning label : You are nothing. God is everything.
Shiva
Sphere
Pyrrho wrote:
>
> "Sphere" <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
>
> > Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
>
> Christianity warning label : You are nothing. God is everything.
Not bad. I hadn't come up with a good
one for the xtians.
You'll have to go over to alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
to see what I invented for Vajrayana.
>
> Shiva
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
> Pyrrho wrote:
> >
> > "Sphere" <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
> >
> > > Warning: You may become nothing.
> > >
> >
> > Christianity warning label : You are nothing. God is everything.
>
> Not bad. I hadn't come up with a good
> one for the xtians.
>
> You'll have to go over to alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
> to see what I invented for Vajrayana.
Are you proud of these inventions of yours?
Gileht
"Sphere" <spher...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
>
> Warning: You may become nothing.
>
And the small print : "But then you will not care anymore, being in total
bliss all the time."
Gileht
Bill
>
>Warning: You may become nothing.
>
I'd phrase it like this:
Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
--
"Self sacrifice of ones credibility is always a noble endevor." - " "
Sphere
Bill wrote:
>
> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
> I'd phrase it like this:
>
> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
Asking people to become trapped in
the Void?
>
> --
> "Self sacrifice of ones credibility is always a noble endevor." - " "
--
Sphere
Pity the poor blissed out.
>
> Gileht
Bill
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Warning: You may become nothing.
>> >
>> I'd phrase it like this:
>>
>> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
>
>
>Asking people to become trapped in
>the Void?
>
Nope.
Sphere
Bill wrote:
>
> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> >> >
> >> I'd phrase it like this:
> >>
> >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> >
> >
> >Asking people to become trapped in
> >the Void?
> >
> Nope.
But I started out by realizing I
was nothing. If I followed your
warning then I'd still be dropping
ashes on the Buddha.
Gileht
"Bill" <b...@blarg.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3c6d50b2...@news.blarg.net...
> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
> I'd phrase it like this:
>
> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
With the small print: "Nothing but an unrealized Buddha. Alleluia !"
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> > >> >
> > >> I'd phrase it like this:
> > >>
> > >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > >Asking people to become trapped in
> > >the Void?
> > >
> > Nope.
>
> But I started out by realizing I
> was nothing.
How can you say you realize you are nothing when the word 'real'
implies reality, and existence?
> If I followed your
> warning then I'd still be dropping
> ashes on the Buddha.
Ashes from what?
Are you saying you have achieved nirvana?
Sphere
Happy Camper wrote:
>
> Sphere wrote:
>
> > Bill wrote:
> > >
> > > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Bill wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> > > >> >
> > > >> I'd phrase it like this:
> > > >>
> > > >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Asking people to become trapped in
> > > >the Void?
> > > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > But I started out by realizing I
> > was nothing.
>
> How can you say you realize you are nothing when the word 'real'
> implies reality, and existence?
>
> > If I followed your
> > warning then I'd still be dropping
> > ashes on the Buddha.
>
> Ashes from what?
It's a reference to a book. Not
such a good book, but a book.
>
> Are you saying you have achieved nirvana?
No.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
> Happy Camper wrote:
> >
> > Sphere wrote:
> >
> > > Bill wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Bill wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> I'd phrase it like this:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Asking people to become trapped in
> > > > >the Void?
> > > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > >
> > > But I started out by realizing I
> > > was nothing.
> >
> > How can you say you realize you are nothing when the word 'real'
> > implies reality, and existence?
> >
> > > If I followed your
> > > warning then I'd still be dropping
> > > ashes on the Buddha.
> >
> > Ashes from what?
>
> It's a reference to a book. Not
> such a good book, but a book.
Can you let me in on it so I will know what you are talking about?
Sphere
"Dropping Ashes on The Buddha." I wasn't
very impressed, so I can't really give
you all that much more. It was making
some sort of attempt to get past the
Void.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
What do you mean by "get past the void"?
Evelyn Ruut
"Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W1bb8.7448$bS4.5...@weber.videotron.net...
This conversation reminds me a little of this quote;
You live in illusion and the appearance of things.
There is a reality, but you do not know this.
When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing.
And, being nothing, you are everything.
That is all.
(Kalu Rinpoche)
Pyrrho
news:zweb8.1708$17.10...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
Contrast the above with what the Buddha had to say to Bahiya.
Then, Bahiya, thus must you train yourself: 'In the seen there will be
just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the sensed just the
sensed, in the cognised just the cognised.' That is how, Bahiya, you
must train yourself. Now when in the seen there will be to you just the
seen, ... just the cognised, then Bahiya, you will have no 'thereby',
when you have no 'thereby,' then Bahiya, you will have no 'therein'; as
you, Bahiya, will have no 'therein' it follows that you will have no
'here' or 'beyond' or 'midway between'. That is just the end of
suffering.
The above translation is from one of Tang's posts and the passage occurs
in the Bahiya Sutra in the Udana.
As this short passage states so very succinctly, the Buddhist
practitioner does not identify with *anything*. Thus, the question of
being "nothing" or becoming "everything" does not arise in his mind, for
he does not mentate any of these.
Shiva
GeneIn
once upon a time it was bliss to be something, a disgrace to be
nothing....best to be full, suffering to be empty....to be rather than not
to be......
g.
g.
>
Serge
Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
"Happy Camper" <hpy...@playground.net> wrote in message
news:3C6D72C2...@playground.net...
Happy Camper
Serge wrote:
> As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
As long as there is 'someone', yes, maybe so. But there can be awareness
without the label of 'someone'. So how can you call 'awareness' nothing?
>
>
> Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
>
> Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
What word would you use instead of realizing?
Happy Camper
Pyrrho wrote:
That makes more sense to me than saying one 'becomes' nothing. Because
how can awareness be nothing?
It is the identification which disappears, not the awareness. If that is
what you are saying, I agree with you.
With all due respect to Kalu Rinpoche, I don't think that particular
comment of his is particularly helpful.
But what you have posted above is helpful, in my opinion.
>
>
> Shiva
Happy Camper
GeneIn wrote:
> "Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:W1bb8.7448$bS4.5...@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> > "Sphere" <spher...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > > Warning: You may become nothing.
> > >
> > > Sphere.
> >
> > And the small print : "But then you will not care anymore, being in total
> > bliss all the time."
> >
> > Gileht
> >
>
> once upon a time it was bliss to be something,
When?
> a disgrace to be
> nothing....best to be full, suffering to be empty....to be rather than not
> to be......
>
What the hell is that supposed to mean? :-)
>
> g.
>
> g.
> >
Gileht
"Pyrrho" <Pyr...@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
a4jsst$sj8f$1...@ID-120943.news.dfncis.de...
Well that immediately makes this post useless.
Bill
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> I'd phrase it like this:
>> >>
>> >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> >Asking people to become trapped in
>> >the Void?
>> >
>> Nope.
>
>But I started out by realizing I
>was nothing. If I followed your
>warning then I'd still be dropping
>ashes on the Buddha.
>
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
Bill
>As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
>
>Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
>
>Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
Sorry, there is no one becoming nothing to begin with
therefore it can be realized even though there is no
someone realizing it as though the one who realizes
is somehow separate from the realization.
This is the core difference between non-duality
of subject-object and substantialism (theism).
Bill
No, the fine print is "anirodham, anutpadam, anucchedam, acacvatam,
anekartham, ananartham, anagamam, anirgamam."
(Trans: no annihilation, no production, no destruction, no persistance,
no unity, no plurality, no coming in, no going out.)
PS - it's also in the Heart Sutra.
norbu_tragri
> Serge wrote:
>
> > As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
>
> As long as there is 'someone', yes, maybe so. But there can be awareness
> without the label of 'someone'. So how can you call 'awareness' nothing?
>
The Sanskrit word is "sunyata".
It can be translated as "emptiness", as in empty of
preconceptions, empty of artificial boundries, etc.
It can also be translated as "openness".
Try reading Kalu's quote again, substituting
"open(ness) for "nothing.
Then ask yourself how can awareness be open?....
>
> >
> >
> > Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
> >
> > Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
>
> What word would you use instead of realizing?
>
primordial clarity is allowed to open out again
when all concepts of self/other, real/unreal,
is/is't, etc etc are allowed to fall away.
This is one of the senses of openness that can be
"experienced" without an "experiencer" in meditation.
It changes how we see the world, but doesn't damage
our ability to function in the everyday world.
i've said too much, perhaps. Others will say more.
But if you want to understand, you must experience
it for yourslf. Concepts cannot express it.
It is simple and ordinary....
Sphere
I'm planning on realizing I'm anything.
Bill
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I'd phrase it like this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Asking people to become trapped in
>> >> >the Void?
>> >> >
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> >But I started out by realizing I
>> >was nothing. If I followed your
>> >warning then I'd still be dropping
>> >ashes on the Buddha.
>> >
>> I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
>
>I'm planning on realizing I'm anything.
>
Oh. Maybe this will help:
Appearance and mind simultaneously arise inseparably.
This is not asserting, as with the chittamatra view,
that external appearances and the internal minds that
cognize them exist truly and unimputedly as being
substantially one by nature, but rather this view
asserts that all emanated appearances can be presented
in terms of the sphere of clear light. Thus the
simultaneously arising mind itself is dharmakaya,
a body encompassing everything.
(From the chapter "The Simultaneously Arising as Merged
tradition of Karma Kagyu" contained in "The Gelug-Kagyu
Tradition of Mahamudra" by Alexander Berzin and HHDL.)
Rosebud
> >
> >
> > Sphere.
> >
> > Little green men who don't exist live under my bed.
>
>
> Shiva
rosebud:
You do not understand christianity. One would understand that God has
no more meaning without you than you have without God.
Rosebud
> 3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
> >
> > Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
>
> And the small print : "But then you will not care anymore, being in total
> bliss all the time."
>
> Gileht
rosebud:
A misunderstanding of buddhism and a bunch of crap.
Tang Huyen
norbu_tragri wrote: <<The Sanskrit word is "sunyata".
It can be translated as "emptiness", as in empty of preconceptions, empty of artificial boundries,
etc.
It can also be translated as "openness". Try reading Kalu's quote again, substituting "open(ness) for
"nothing.
Then ask yourself how can awareness be open?.... [snip]
primordial clarity is allowed to open out again when all concepts of self/other, real/unreal,
is/is't, etc etc are allowed to fall away. This is one of the senses of openness that can be
"experienced" without an "experiencer" in meditation.
It changes how we see the world, but doesn't damage our ability to function in the everyday world.
i've said too much, perhaps. Others will say more. But if you want to understand, you must experience
it for yourslf. Concepts cannot express it.
It is simple and ordinary....>>
I am afraid that you, following a widespread trend in middle-period Indian Buddhism, about the time
of Naggie, have bent the Buddha's teaching away from an affective orientation towards an intellective
one. The Buddha emphasised desire, thirst, lust, clinging, whilst the middle-period Indian Buddhism,
about the time of Naggie, veered sharply towards cogitation and paid little attention to the
affective side. However, if either orientation is pursued to the end, the end-state is the same.
For instance, the Buddha’s teaching is frequently aimed at eradicating affect: “When a monk sees
forms with his eye, he experiences the forms but does not experience passion for them (cakkhuna rupam
disva rupa-patisamvedi hi kho hoti, no ca rupa-raga-patisamvedi, Skt. caksusa rupani drstva
rupa-pratisamvedi bhavati, no tu rupa-raga-pratisamvediti).” SN, IV, 42 (35, 70), SA, 313, 90c,
Zitate, 309, Vyakhya, 392.
The Buddha leans on the affective side, the Perfection of Wisdom on the intellective side, but the
end-state is the same.
The Buddha can also like his later epigones lean on the intellective side, and by not attending to
all signs (Skt. sarva-nimittanam amanasikarad), Maha-Maudgalyayana realises in the body the signless
concentration of mind (Skt. animitta-cetah-samadhi). He dwells in it much, but the sign-pursuing
consciousness (nimittanusari viññanam, Skt. nimittanusari vijñanam) arises. The Buddha then comes by
spiritual power to warn him: “Maudgalyayana! You ought to dwell in the saintly dwelling, and not be
remiss!” SA, 502, 132b-c, SN, IV, 268-269 (40, 9).
Maha-Kaccana says: “One who is in bondage to the token-following (niketa-sara, ketu is ‘sign,
characteristic, mark,’ niketa is ‘house, abode, company, association,’ niketa-sara may be ‘devoted
to’) to the signs (nimitta) of forms (rupa-nimitta-niketa-sara vinibandha) is called a token-follower
(niketa-sari).” SN, III, 10 (22, 3), SA, 553, 145a. All the talks of the Perfection of Wisdom
scriptures about signs (nimitta) and marks (laksana), ungraspability (anupalabdhi) and
non-mentability (amanyamanata) are mere variations on these two themes.
Asta, 1935, 566, Perfection, T, 25, 1509, 549c8, Conze, Large Sutra, 355: “Where consciousness arises
which does not turn form into an intentional object (na rup‘ arambanam vijñanam utpadyate), there the
perfection of wisdom becomes an instructress through not-seeing of form (rupasyadrstata).” Here, the
non-seeing (a-drstata) is purely intentional, and there is a non-intentional consciousness which
cognises form. The Asta continues: “It is thus that the not-seeing of form is the seeing of the world
(ya ca Subhute rupasyadrstata saiva lokasya drstata bhavati). It is thus that the world is seen by
the Tathagata (evam hi Subhute lokas tathagatena drsto bhavati).”
In this non-seeing, the world is seen, but no attachment to it, affective or intellective, retains it
and turns it and its parts into intentional objects, and so it quietly slips away unmolested, in the
very instant. No affective glue attempts to jel it and its parts, lend them stability and turn them
into concept-delimited objects -- intentional objects.
In this state, there is no "I" and mine, and whatever is experienced is not experienced *as* anything
at all, that would be set up against the experiencer. So words and concepts like "nothing" and
"everything", "emptiness" and "fulness", "openness" and "closedness" never arise in the first place,
even less "I" and mine.
Tang Huyen
Pyrrho
news:3C6E7A71...@yahoo.com...
> consciousness (nimittanusari viņņanam, Skt. nimittanusari vijņanam)
arises. The Buddha then comes by
> spiritual power to warn him: "Maudgalyayana! You ought to dwell in the
saintly dwelling, and not be
> remiss!" SA, 502, 132b-c, SN, IV, 268-269 (40, 9).
>
> Maha-Kaccana says: "One who is in bondage to the token-following
(niketa-sara, ketu is 'sign,
> characteristic, mark,' niketa is 'house, abode, company, association,'
niketa-sara may be 'devoted
> to') to the signs (nimitta) of forms (rupa-nimitta-niketa-sara vinibandha)
is called a token-follower
> (niketa-sari)." SN, III, 10 (22, 3), SA, 553, 145a. All the talks of the
Perfection of Wisdom
> scriptures about signs (nimitta) and marks (laksana), ungraspability
(anupalabdhi) and
> non-mentability (amanyamanata) are mere variations on these two themes.
>
> Asta, 1935, 566, Perfection, T, 25, 1509, 549c8, Conze, Large Sutra, 355:
"Where consciousness arises
> which does not turn form into an intentional object (na rup' arambanam
vijņanam utpadyate), there the
> perfection of wisdom becomes an instructress through not-seeing of form
(rupasyadrstata)." Here, the
> non-seeing (a-drstata) is purely intentional, and there is a
non-intentional consciousness which
> cognises form. The Asta continues: "It is thus that the not-seeing of form
is the seeing of the world
> (ya ca Subhute rupasyadrstata saiva lokasya drstata bhavati). It is thus
that the world is seen by
> the Tathagata (evam hi Subhute lokas tathagatena drsto bhavati)."
>
> In this non-seeing, the world is seen, but no attachment to it, affective
or intellective, retains it
> and turns it and its parts into intentional objects, and so it quietly
slips away unmolested, in the
> very instant. No affective glue attempts to jel it and its parts, lend
them stability and turn them
> into concept-delimited objects -- intentional objects.
>
> In this state, there is no "I" and mine, and whatever is experienced is
not experienced *as* anything
> at all, that would be set up against the experiencer. So words and
concepts like "nothing" and
> "everything", "emptiness" and "fulness", "openness" and "closedness" never
arise in the first place,
> even less "I" and mine.
>
> Tang Huyen
Quite often on this NG I see affective responses to what are purely
intellectual constructs or methodological tools. For instance, there are
posters who constantly talk about "nihilism" and "eternalism" in a fashion
that would suggest that they were in imminent danger of being swallowed in
some kind of cosmic void. This suggests to me that these posters have
reified these methodological tools into constitutive facts of reality and
something to be fearful about.
Shiva
Sphere
Sphere is not of clear light.
Sphere is just a bunch of conditions.
> simultaneously arising mind itself is dharmakaya,
> a body encompassing everything.
>
> (From the chapter "The Simultaneously Arising as Merged
> tradition of Karma Kagyu" contained in "The Gelug-Kagyu
> Tradition of Mahamudra" by Alexander Berzin and HHDL.)
--
Bill
Sphere
Sand throgh a sifter
Runs hot in the morning sun --
Pebbles getting stuck.
Sphere
At least I have a chance.
> >
> >
> >
> >> simultaneously arising mind itself is dharmakaya,
> >> a body encompassing everything.
> >>
> >> (From the chapter "The Simultaneously Arising as Merged
> >> tradition of Karma Kagyu" contained in "The Gelug-Kagyu
> >> Tradition of Mahamudra" by Alexander Berzin and HHDL.)
> >
--
Bill
Happy Camper
norbu_tragri wrote:
> Happy Camper <hpy...@playground.net> wrote in message news:<3C6D8ADD...@playground.net>...
> > Serge wrote:
> >
> > > As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
> >
> > As long as there is 'someone', yes, maybe so. But there can be awareness
> > without the label of 'someone'. So how can you call 'awareness' nothing?
> >
>
> The Sanskrit word is "sunyata".
>
> It can be translated as "emptiness", as in empty of
> preconceptions, empty of artificial boundries, etc.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere (IMO).
I think the overuse of the word *nothing* gives the wrong impression because there is no
definition that I know of, for the english word *nothing*, that would hint at what the sanskrit word
*sunyata* means in these cases. So there will be inherant confusion in using the word *nothing* as a
translation without some sort of explanation as to what it actually means in that context.
>
>
> It can also be translated as "openness".
> Try reading Kalu's quote again, substituting
> "open(ness) for "nothing.
>
> Then ask yourself how can awareness be open?....
Yes it can. "How" would be a more difficult question to answer.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
> > >
> > > Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
> >
> > What word would you use instead of realizing?
> >
> primordial clarity is allowed to open out again
> when all concepts of self/other, real/unreal,
> is/is't, etc etc are allowed to fall away.
I would agree, but when people seem to be trying to 'pretend' their individual self, and 'our'
individual selves, doesn't exist, rather than do the practice and wait untill that is their 'actual'
experience; it seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse.
>
> This is one of the senses of openness that can be
> "experienced" without an "experiencer" in meditation.
I guess that would be what is called objectless awareness. But I think you would agree that in
that state awareness is still there even if there is no object to that awareness. I would call it
perfect awareness, or awareness that is only aware of being aware, with no object *but* that
awareness --- or subject and object being one and the same.
(I am sorry for repeating the word awareness so often, but my only choice was to substitute the
word *it*, and that is one of the words certain people in this group like to jump on).
>
>
> It changes how we see the world, but doesn't damage
> our ability to function in the everyday world.
>
> i've said too much, perhaps. Others will say more.
> But if you want to understand, you must experience
> it for yourslf. Concepts cannot express it.
Obviously, because it is beyond that which we call concepts.
Happy Camper
Tang Huyen wrote:
> norbu_tragri wrote: <<The Sanskrit word is "sunyata".
>
> It can be translated as "emptiness", as in empty of preconceptions, empty of artificial boundries,
> etc.
>
> It can also be translated as "openness". Try reading Kalu's quote again, substituting "open(ness) for
> "nothing.
>
> Then ask yourself how can awareness be open?.... [snip]
>
> primordial clarity is allowed to open out again when all concepts of self/other, real/unreal,
> is/is't, etc etc are allowed to fall away. This is one of the senses of openness that can be
> "experienced" without an "experiencer" in meditation.
>
> It changes how we see the world, but doesn't damage our ability to function in the everyday world.
>
> i've said too much, perhaps. Others will say more. But if you want to understand, you must experience
> it for yourslf. Concepts cannot express it.
>
> It is simple and ordinary....>>
>
> I am afraid that you, following a widespread trend in middle-period Indian Buddhism, about the time
> of Naggie, have bent the Buddha's teaching away from an affective orientation towards an intellective
> one.
By affective I assume you refer to emotions and feelings rather than intellect, right?
> The Buddha emphasised desire, thirst, lust, clinging, whilst the middle-period Indian Buddhism,
> about the time of Naggie, veered sharply towards cogitation and paid little attention to the
> affective side. However, if either orientation is pursued to the end, the end-state is the same.
>
> For instance, the Buddha’s teaching is frequently aimed at eradicating affect: “When a monk sees
> forms with his eye, he experiences the forms but does not experience passion for them
That makes sense.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
Which is relevant to the discussion how? ;-)
Happy Camper
Bill wrote:
> "Serge" <phiso...@hotmaill.com> wrote:
>
> >As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
> >
> >Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
> >
> >Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
>
> Sorry, there is no one becoming nothing to begin with
Before that state is reached there is the *appearance* of there being
"someone".
>
> therefore it can be realized even though there is no
> someone realizing it
It cannot be realized without starting from the position of the *appearance*
of their being someone, otherwise there would be no need for practice.
> as though the one who realizes
> is somehow separate from the realization.
Before the realization there is the appearance of someone existing.
>
>
> This is the core difference between non-duality
> of subject-object and substantialism (theism).
Yes, but can the non-duality come before the duality? And can we put an end to
the non-duality just by pretending it does not exist?
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Bill wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> I'd phrase it like this:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Asking people to become trapped in
> > >> >the Void?
> > >> >
> > >> Nope.
> > >
> > >But I started out by realizing I
> > >was nothing. If I followed your
> > >warning then I'd still be dropping
> > >ashes on the Buddha.
> > >
> > I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
>
> I'm planning on realizing I'm anything.
What do you mean by that?
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
A bunch of conditions that is aware of having an identity, even
though he has decided that identity is an illusion.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
How do you know if your chance is any greater than someone who has
accepted that their *experience* of "identity" is a temporary
inevitability which is not worth denying any more than it is worth
affirming?
Now I really really wish you would try and answer this question
Sphere. Then I might be getting closer to understanding what is the base
of your opinions and your practice.
Happy Camper
Rosebud wrote:
How does your understanding differ?
Happy Camper
Gileht wrote:
Why?
Or was that a joke that went over my head? :-)
Sphere
My answer is that you have made
another unwarrented assumption.
Deer fly buzzing 'round
Still bites the prancing pony --
Electrical zap.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
Okay, fair enough; but you still avoided the subject. You tend to do that a
lot Sphere.
If my assumption was wrong, then I stand corrected. But even if the
question does not apply to you it would have been possible to answer anyway.
So I will repeat my point with a slightly different wording:
I think that the *experience* of "identity" is a temporary inevitability
which is not worth denying any more than it is worth affirming?
Would you agree?
I
Sphere
I would find talking to you
more trouble than it is worth,
but the experience of the story
of self happens. Whether it
is worth affirming or denying
isn't a fixed decision.
iirc
I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
though, zen per se has no monopoly on such disorders, sufis and pentecostals
are pretty good at inducing them, too, I hear.
somebody otta write a book ...
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
Then why bother?
But you evade the question, as usual.
>
> but the experience of the story
> of self happens.
Of course. That much is apparent to everyone.
> Whether it
> is worth affirming or denying
> isn't a fixed decision.
What do you mean by fixed decision?
I am saying that either affirming or denying the "reality" of the experience of
*individuality* is rather pointless. Denial of that fact that we *experience* it as
"appearing" real seems rather pointless to me.
Serge
As long as I exist, there will be two of us...
"Bill" <b...@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:3c6de38e...@news.blarg.net...
> "Serge" <phiso...@hotmaill.com> wrote:
>
> >As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is
something...
> >
> >Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
> >
> >Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
>
> Sorry, there is no one becoming nothing to begin with
> therefore it can be realized even though there is no
> someone realizing it as though the one who realizes
> is somehow separate from the realization.
>
> This is the core difference between non-duality
> of subject-object and substantialism (theism).
>
> >
> >
> >"Happy Camper" <hpy...@playground.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C6D72C2...@playground.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Sphere wrote:
> >>
> >> > Happy Camper wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Sphere wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Happy Camper wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Sphere wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Bill wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >Bill wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> >Warning: You may become nothing.
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> I'd phrase it like this:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Warning: You may realize you are nothing.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >Asking people to become trapped in
> >> > > > > > > >the Void?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Nope.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > But I started out by realizing I
> >> > > > > > was nothing.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > How can you say you realize you are nothing when the word
> >'real'
> >> > > > > implies reality, and existence?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > If I followed your
> >> > > > > > warning then I'd still be dropping
> >> > > > > > ashes on the Buddha.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ashes from what?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's a reference to a book. Not
> >> > > > such a good book, but a book.
> >> > >
> >> > > Can you let me in on it so I will know what you are talking
about?
> >> >
> >> > "Dropping Ashes on The Buddha." I wasn't
> >> > very impressed, so I can't really give
> >> > you all that much more. It was making
> >> > some sort of attempt to get past the
> >> > Void.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "get past the void"?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
Happy Camper
iirc wrote:
> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
>
> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
I know what disassociative disorders are (for example amnesia and multiple
personality disorder) but I don't know what pathological kundalini is.
cupcake
Happy Camper wrote:
> iirc wrote:
>
>> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
>> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
>> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
>>
>> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
>
> Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
>
that's fer damn sure; and yu never will! either! --
peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
hi, peachie! i'm comin' back to our city by the bay
pretty soon! see ya then! tah tah! :)
toodle loo :)
Bill
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>
>> "Serge" <phiso...@hotmaill.com> wrote:
>>
>> >As long as there is someone realizing there is nothing there is something...
>> >
>> >Thus, the warning: You may become nothing...
>> >
>> >Sorry, realizing will not do...no cigar...
>>
>> Sorry, there is no one becoming nothing to begin with
>
> Before that state is reached there is the *appearance* of there being
>"someone".
>
Yes.
>
>>
>> therefore it can be realized even though there is no
>> someone realizing it
>
> It cannot be realized without starting from the position of the *appearance*
>of their being someone, otherwise there would be no need for practice.
>
Yep.
>
>> as though the one who realizes
>> is somehow separate from the realization.
>
> Before the realization there is the appearance of someone existing.
>
Correct.
>
>>
>>
>> This is the core difference between non-duality
>> of subject-object and substantialism (theism).
>
> Yes, but can the non-duality come before the duality? And can we put an end to
>the non-duality just by pretending it does not exist?
>
Krishnamurti pointed out that the thinker is the thought,
that the observer is the observed. Do you see it that way?
Bill
>ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
>I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
>to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
>
>dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
>
>though, zen per se has no monopoly on such disorders, sufis and pentecostals
>are pretty good at inducing them, too, I hear.
>
>somebody otta write a book ...
>
It's already been done. Read Carl Jung's psychological commentary
to the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
LStev3234
personality disorder) but I don't know what pathological kundalini is.>
Pathalogical kundalini is the reason for many misdiagnosis of amnesia and
multiple personality disorders. You gotta pay attention for a period of time
to figure out which is which. One cures itsself, and the other just keeps
going in the same loop.
norbu_tragri
> at all, that would be set up against the experiencer. So words and concepts like "nothing" and
> "everything", "emptiness" and "fulness", "openness" and "closedness" never arise in the first place,
> even less "I" and mine.
>
> Tang Huyen
...uhm, Tang,.....i just said that....
An openness that could be opposed to "closedness"
wouldn't be openness, just the concept "opennes"
Ditto "emptiness/fulness".
Good idea to point this out, but please not to
ascribe to me clinging to concepts in this way,
nor a misplaced emphasis on intellect vs. emotions.
The elegance of the word "openness" is that it
applies to all levels, and can be used in both
"sudden" and "gradual" buddhadharma.( But let's
not go to the sudden/gradual thing yet, there's
some nifty history i want to post before we go
there....)
[ this is not to say that poor pathetic norbu
does not cling to concepts, just to say that
clinging isn't my idea of buddhadharma....]
Ch'an Fu
LStev3234 wrote:
WHAT????
u mean the shrinks AND the patients
are victims of pathological kundalini ?
kool! i got it! mutual PK syndrome!
an' it's not in the pseudopsycho desk reference
'cause the guys that wrote that had it, too!
ya learn somethin every day!
yeeeeeehaaa!
eh.... which one cures itself? i fergot....
an' it's hard, y'know, t' pay attention 'cause of my
MPD and ADD kinda contribute to my PK's amnesia
problem....but don't worry, 'cause....
I GOTTA GURU WHO CAN CURE YOU!
<call kathy at 1-900-328-7448>
Happy Camper
Bill wrote:
I think it depends on what he meant by that. I think I could explain it in at least
two ways (which would probably seem contradictory) and still be saying virtually the
same thing.
1) We close our eyes and simply observe. What we observe is like a movie on a
screen. Sometimes we watch the screen and experience it from the perspective of
observer; then sometimes we get so involved that we become part of the action. Is what
we are watching, part of us when we are dispasionately observing? Or is it only part
of us when we are part of the action? I guess that depends on how you look at it.
Untill we are free of it, it seems to be as much a part of us as anything else. Maybe
once we free ourselves from it, it is more like a pet dog that we own but which pretty
much does what it's told. In that sense maybe it is part of us even after it loses
it's hold on us.
2) We are the observer, and our *mind* is made up of the observer and the computer
which we call a brain. *Mind* is not the same thing as the brain. Mind is the
totality. But one way we can divide it is into computer and programmer. The brain is
the organ, the computer, the vehicle, but it is alo part of the mind. But when the
observer (programmer) is asleep the computer operates on it's own initiative because
that is what we have programmed it to do. Sometimes we create programs that are so
strong that they refuse to be over-ridden by us even when we, the observer, are awake.
And those programs can actually create other programs without our permission. We find
out about that and don't like it, so we try to short-circuit the program, but it
doesn't work. The program seems to have a defense mechanism built into it that it
fights any attempt to get around it. That is when we have problems. So maybe the trick
is to put the *program* to sleep. Maybe Buddhism is an attempt to attack those
programs from several angles at once, hoping that eventually we can eventually delete
them. And maybe when we have defeated them they are no longer part of us. I don't
know.
But either way it seems to me that the objective is to become the dispassionate
observer. That, apparently, is what gives us distance from the movie screen and
distance from the programs, or the computer.
But I imagine that even after a person reaches enlightenment, a lot of that baggage
is still with them. It's just that it is all inconsequential by that point. So maybe
it is a part of them that will be entirely jettisoned when they die, or maybe it will
always remain part of them, just not an active part --- kind of like an apendix. :-)
I don't really know. I can only speculate.
But I cannot think of a way to explain the concept of karma and rebirth unless
there is *some* kind of continuity to that which we call our self. I guess what the
Buddha was saying is that we should just set that issue aside and forget about it
because is a distraction from the issue at hand. It doesn't really matter anyway
because what we need to do remains the same.
He was probably right about that.
Happy Camper
cupcake wrote:
> Happy Camper wrote:
>
> > iirc wrote:
> >
> >> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
> >> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
> >> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
> >>
> >> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
> >
> > Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
> >
>
> that's fer damn sure;
That's why I asked.
> and yu never will! either! --
You can't possibly have certainty about that so why pretend you have?
>
> peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
> league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
So is that because he is in such an elevated state that he is miles above
us, or is it because he is not good at expressing his thoughts? If he won't
answer my questions I have no way of judging. So pardon me if I don't take
your word for it.
Happy Camper
LStev3234 wrote:
> > I know what disassociative disorders are (for example amnesia and multiple
> personality disorder) but I don't know what pathological kundalini is.>
>
> Pathalogical kundalini is the reason for many misdiagnosis of amnesia and
> multiple personality disorders.
Are you saying that people who practice kundalini sometimes end up like that,
or are you saying that the concept of kundalini can explain why people suffer
from disorders like that in the first place?
> You gotta pay attention for a period of time
> to figure out which is which. One cures itsself, and the other just keeps
> going in the same loop.
Who has to pay attention?
Which one cures itself and which one keeps going?
cupcake
Happy Camper wrote:
> cupcake wrote:
>
>> Happy Camper wrote:
>>
>> > iirc wrote:
>> >
>> >> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
>> >> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
>> >> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
>> >>
>> >> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
>> >
>> > Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
>> >
>>
>> that's fer damn sure;
>
> That's why I asked.
>
>
>> and yu never will! either! --
>
> You can't possibly have certainty about that so why pretend you have?
>
>
>>
>> peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
>> league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
>
> So is that because he is in such an elevated state that he is miles above
>us, or is it because he is not good at expressing his thoughts? If he won't
>answer my questions I have no way of judging. So pardon me if I don't take
>your word for it.
>
well, if yu think saying snotty stuff about peachie is
going to elevate yer status around here -- yer makin'
a big mistake! :(
Happy Camper
cupcake wrote:
> Happy Camper wrote:
>
> > cupcake wrote:
> >
> >> Happy Camper wrote:
> >>
> >> > iirc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
> >> >> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
> >> >> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
> >> >>
> >> >> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
> >> >
> >> > Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
> >> >
> >>
> >> that's fer damn sure;
> >
> > That's why I asked.
> >
> >
> >> and yu never will! either! --
> >
> > You can't possibly have certainty about that so why pretend you have?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
> >> league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
> >
> > So is that because he is in such an elevated state that he is miles above
> >us, or is it because he is not good at expressing his thoughts? If he won't
> >answer my questions I have no way of judging. So pardon me if I don't take
> >your word for it.
> >
>
> well, if yu think saying snotty stuff about peachie is
> going to elevate yer status around here -- yer makin'
> a big mistake! :(
What have I said snotty about "Peachie"? Not a thing. I don't even know
him/her, and have not formed any opinions yet. So why would I say anything snotty
about him/her?
I haven't.
And I am not here to elevate my status. Is that what you are here for? Is that
what Peachie is here for?
LStev3234
>or are you saying that the concept of kundalini can explain why people suffer
>from disorders like that in the first place?
Both.
iirc
> > >> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
> > >> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
> > >>
> > >> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
check out the book 'Spiritual Emergency' by Grof, and 'Kundalini' by Sanella.
the 'danger' is pretty rare, admittedly, but still good to know about
just in case.
> > peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
> > league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
>
> So is that because he is in such an elevated state that he is miles above
> us,
phew, hardly. I had a few minor episodes of spiritual 'emergency'
once upon a time, but all is quiet now unless I am so foolish as to listen to
too much Mahalia Jackson or Shirley Caesar, then I have to watch
out for the 3 a.m. wake-up call and beg for mercy and/or meds yet again.
> or is it because he is not good at expressing his thoughts?
yep, that is closer to the truth.
I have been royally reamed on more than one occasion by ven. D. Troll for
my sloppy reasoning or lack thereof.
> > hi, peachie! i'm comin' back to our city by the bay
> > pretty soon! see ya then! tah tah! :)
> >
kewl, have a good trip!
> > toodle loo :)
Rosebud
> Gileht:
> How does your understanding differ?
rosebud:
What is bliss then? How is being nothing and not caring because you
are nothing result in bliss? Are you in a state of bliss?
Happy Camper
Rosebud wrote:
I think I see what you mean. If bliss is your goal, then you will never reach it because you are still
trying to reach something, right? Because if what exists in the here and now is not enough for you,
because it is not bliss, you are, therefore, not satisfied; so you will, therefore, never be satisfied
untill you achieve bliss. And as long as you want it, you don't have it. You can't want it and have it
too.
> Are you in a state of bliss?
Not me.
Happy Camper
LStev3234 wrote:
I see. Okay I think I understand.
I have heard that kundalini can be a very dynamic practice. Hmm, maybe a little
too dynamic in some cases, huh?
Happy Camper
iirc wrote:
> > > >> ahem, actually this is not a laughing matter imho,
> > > >> I often wonder when medical disclaimers are going
> > > >> to be required for anyone signing up for zazen or sesshin?
> > > >>
> > > >> dissociative disorder and pathological kundalini are not fun at all
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate a little? I don't know what you are talking about.
>
> check out the book 'Spiritual Emergency' by Grof, and 'Kundalini' by Sanella.
>
> the 'danger' is pretty rare, admittedly, but still good to know about
> just in case.
Okay I think I know what you mean now. I have read some of Grof's stuff about
non-ordinary states of consciousness, including what some people might call mental
illness, and about how those states may indeed be spiritual awakenings in a sense,
and not neccessarily always a bad thing. But what you are talking about sounds
like a bad thing.
>
>
> > > peachie's so far and beyond yu, and over yer head, and outta yer
> > > league, that yu'll *never* understand anything of what he sez!
> >
> > So is that because he is in such an elevated state that he is miles above
> > us,
>
> phew, hardly. I had a few minor episodes of spiritual 'emergency'
> once upon a time, but all is quiet now unless I am so foolish as to listen to
> too much Mahalia Jackson or Shirley Caesar, then I have to watch
> out for the 3 a.m. wake-up call and beg for mercy and/or meds yet again.
Chapel perilous is not always a bed of roses is it?
>
>
> > or is it because he is not good at expressing his thoughts?
>
> yep, that is closer to the truth.
The burden is always on the person who is communicating, but the listener needs
to at least try to get what is being said, otherwise no wording will ever sufice.
>
>
> I have been royally reamed on more than one occasion by ven. D. Troll for
> my sloppy reasoning or lack thereof.
I usually only ream people if I think they are being intenionally criptic, or
intentionally evasive, or if I feel they are playing some kind of game that is
other than the game which they claim to be playing.
But I'm sure I read them wrong at times and ream them unfairly.
LStev3234
You do.
> Which one cures itself and which one keeps going?>
The problem is not "which one" does what for whom. The real issue is whether
or not anyone can gaurantee anyone else the end result of any methodology,
including kundalini, meditation (of any type), therapy, spiritual practices,
"enlightenment techniques" or whatever. This is primarily why people get
locked into any type of system; they tend to latch onto whatever "method" or
"guru" that will, in their mind, give them some type of *gaurantee* of
"success." There are no gaurantees. Period. And what is "success" for one
individual may be perceived as "failure" by or for another. The entire process
is quite subjective.
So the real issue is fear of failure in achieving some alturistic idea of
"success." But what, exactly is "success"? Or even "enlightenment"? Most
people make superficial judgements based on ignorance, rather than knowledge.
Furthermore, the idea that one type of craziness is any better or worse than
any other type of craziness is, in itsself, a form of craziness. All forms of
"craziness" are merely varying levels of behaviors, and said behaviors are
inherent in all humans to a greater or lesser degree. The fact that we tend to
judge one type of behavior as "crazy" and another as "sane" is merely
convenience. What we are really saying is that we tend to be more
comfortable(i.e. harmoneous) around some types of behaviors, and less
comfortable around other types of behaviors.
I personally am not comfortable with certin types of behavior patterns. The
fact that I use the term "crazy" to describe certain behavior patterns does not
mean that I think the other party is bad or wrong. I do not use the term as
some kind of "holier than thou" judgement system. There are some types of
"craziness" that I am quite comfortable with. That somebody else is not
comfortable with them does not make me or them bad or wrong.
One must clearly see that the same behavior patterns are present in every human
being (most importantly in the self) and it is merely a difference in the
DEGREE of said patterns, and whether or not some patterns are harmoneous (in
some way or at some level) with other patterns.
There is a big difference between discernment of what is harmoneous for the
individual/self at any given time, and judgement as to what is harmoneous for
somebody else at any given time.
Ch'an Fu
LStev3234 wrote:
Please excuse one who believes "kundalini" is an interesting indian vegetable,
and could not possibly be used to "explain" anything, for butting in.
But are you perhaps trying to point out that someone's insistent and persistent
clinging to a behavior/method/mechanism while "expecting something from it" is
sometimes a royal pain in the ass to others as well as a damaging personal
behavior?
(further observations for the unknown audience:)
If "Great Expectations" was a buddhist book, it'd be blank.
"Success" is, roughly, everything you ever wanted with enough leftover to
pay for "enlightenment", when it's finally approved by the FDA.
If you want free "enlightenment", just quit buying those tights
three sizes too small for your "true self"and you'll be able to sit down.
If you peel onions (a species of kundalini) all day long, all you'll do is cry a
lot -
just let go of the onion.
Happy Camper
LStev3234 wrote:
> >> > I know what disassociative disorders are (for example amnesia and multiple
> personality disorder) but I don't know what pathological kundalini is.>>>
>
> >> Pathalogical kundalini is the reason for many misdiagnosis of amnesia and
> multiple personality disorders.>>
>
> >> Are you saying that people who practice kundalini sometimes end up like
> that, or are you saying that the concept of kundalini can explain why people
> suffer
> from disorders like that in the first place?>
> >
>
> >> You gotta pay attention for a period of time to figure out which is which.
> One cures itsself, and the other just keeps
> going in the same loop.<<
>
> > Who has to pay attention?<
>
> You do.
Okay, now I think I know what you are talking about. But sometimes people speak
in riddles around here. When they stop speaking in riddles and start talking
straight, sometimes I miss the obvious because I think the obvious is not what they
meant.
>
>
> > Which one cures itself and which one keeps going?>
>
> The problem is not "which one" does what for whom. The real issue is whether
> or not anyone can gaurantee anyone else the end result of any methodology,
> including kundalini, meditation (of any type), therapy, spiritual practices,
> "enlightenment techniques" or whatever. This is primarily why people get
> locked into any type of system; they tend to latch onto whatever "method" or
> "guru" that will, in their mind, give them some type of *gaurantee* of
> "success." There are no gaurantees. Period.
True.
I think a friend of mine went through something like that but maybe it was
different. I was the only one who seemed to think he was actually in a higher state
of awareness for a while. It completely changed his personality. In the beginning
it was an improvement, and he seemed to be in heightened state of awareness all the
time. His other friends thought he had gone a little nuts. I thought there was more
to it than that, but I was the only one. Now I think it was a little of both.
Then over time he started having problems. Eventually he had to check into a
mental institution. I saw him less frequently even before that happened, but
whenever I saw him after that he never seemed quite right. And that sublime but
subdued inner peace and confidence that he had had for such a long time eventually
began to crack.
I still don't think it was an act though. I think he really was in some higher
state of awareness. But apparently he was not ready for it, or something, because
eventually he became rather disoriented and lost his ability to function well with
other people. But that was mainly because his behavior looked so peculiar to them.
It was obvious that he was not like everyone else. And to get by in the world that
doesn't always work very well. He was a little too different to fit in anywhere
although as far as I could tell he was rather harmless. But whenever new people
would meet him you could see this puzzled look on their faces as they looked around
at the rest of us for clues, as if to say,"What is wrong with this guy"? That made
it hard for him to get and keep a job, etc.
I lost track of him almost 25 years ago and never heard what became of him.
But whatever it was that happened never reversed itself. The change was
pemanent. That was apparent even five years after the fact. So I think it is safe
to say it was not an act.
It could actually be rather soothing to get high with him because he seemed to
be so at peace with himself. His words at that time could be rather abstract, but
the sense of inner piece behind them was rather contagious. It was almost like
putting a meditation tape on or something. It's very hard to explain. But I could
smoke a joint and close my eyes and just listen to him talk and pretty soon I would
just be drifting and feeling as totally at peace as he seemed to be.
I don't think he was fooling himself either. Whatever it was that he was
experiencing, was very real for him. And his way of expressing it every single time
he opened his mouth to talk was just too ever-changing to have been an act. He was
almost like an abstract poet. Everything he said was like a mantra. It was like a
beginning and end in itself, so it was almost impossible to add anything to it.
It's very hard to describe, but I wish now that I had written down some of the
things he said.
It all started when he spent some time in California and was tripping with some
very experienced trippers who were into spirituality. The first time I noticed the
change, and the first time I had seen him since he got back, was a night we tripped
together. I thought it was very pleasant tripping with him, but the other guy who
was tripping with us seemed not to know what to make of him.
Whatever level of awareness he got tuned into, remained with him after he came
down. It was permanent. I was actually kind of envious because he seemed so at
peace with himself and with life. Not giddy, or excessively happy, or like he had
been converted to the "temple of brotherly love" and wanted to spread the word to
everyone. He was just in this almost radiant state of peace all the time, and all
of his words, all of the time, radiated the state he was in. It was no act. It was
very consistent. Even years later after it was even more apparent that he was
suffering from some sort of mental illness, that state was still a part of it. It
was a permanent change in that sense.
At times I wonder whatever happened to him, and how he is doing today.
LStev3234
speak in riddles around here. When they stop speaking in riddles and start
talking
straight, sometimes I miss the obvious because I think the obvious is not
what they meant.<
Every truth is shadowed by at least one riddle. It's important to recognize
that shadows ad riddles are part of the experience, the flow of light and dark,
it is the nature of the Tao.
> I think a friend of mine went through something like that but maybe it was
different. I was the only one who seemed to think he was actually in a higher
state of awareness for a while. It completely changed his personality. In the
beginning it was an improvement, and he seemed to be in heightened state of
awareness all the time. His other friends thought he had gone a little nuts. I
thought there was more to it than that, but I was the only one. Now I think it
was a little of both.
Is there some confusion on your part as to what is "nuts"? I am not being
sarcastic.
> Then over time he started having problems. Eventually he had to check into
a mental institution. I saw him less frequently even before that happened, but
whenever I saw him after that he never seemed quite right. And that sublime
but subdued inner peace and confidence that he had had for such a long time
eventually began to crack.<
What does "crack" mean?
>I still don't think it was an act though. I think he really was in some higher
state of awareness.<
Why do you see it as "higher" and not simply "different"?
> But apparently he was not ready for it, or something, because eventually he
became rather disoriented and lost his ability to function well with other
people.<
That is part of the "waking up" process, we all go through it in some way.
Each of us finds out we cannot function in what we once considered to be a
"normal" way. It is extremely disorentating for a while.
> But that was mainly because his behavior looked so peculiar to them.<
I don't doubt it.
> It was obvious that he was not like everyone else.<
Perhaps he was not like everyone else *thought* themselves to be like.
> And to get by in the world that doesn't always work very well.<
The world works very well, just as it is. However it takes a great deal of
time to recognize that fact.
>He was a little too different to fit in anywhere although as far as I could
tell he was rather harmless. But whenever new people would meet him you could
see this puzzled look on their faces as they looked around at the rest of us
for clues, ...<
Of course, becaause they don't know what is going on. A new situation is often
disorienting for everyone.
>...as if to say,"What is wrong with this guy"? That made it hard for him to
get and keep a job, etc.<
No doubt. There were several years when I was unable to function in any kind
of "real job." But then, I had to give up my idea of what was a "real job" and
what was simply a change in lifestyle and values.
>I lost track of him almost 25 years ago and never heard what became of him. >
Is this painful, to not know what became of him?
> But whatever it was that happened never reversed itself. The change was
pemanent. That was apparent even five years after the fact. So I think it is
safe to say it was not an act.<
I assume that your observation is correct, for the purpose of this
conversation.
> It could actually be rather soothing to get high with him because he seemed
to be so at peace with himself.<
Are you sure that it was "at peace" or was it simply a very specific
perspective?
>His words at that time could be rather abstract, but the sense of inner piece
behind them was rather contagious.<
Contagious? Why do you see it that way?
> It was almost like putting a meditation tape on or something. It's very hard
to explain. But I could smoke a joint and close my eyes and just listen to him
talk and pretty soon I would just be drifting and feeling as totally at peace
as he seemed to be.<
There are some very good clues here... Are you willing to examine them? It's
OK if you aren't or don't have time.
>I don't think he was fooling himself either. Whatever it was that he was
experiencing, was very real for him.<
No doubt.
> And his way of expressing it every single time he opened his mouth to talk
was just too ever-changing to have been an act. He was almost like an abstract
poet.<
OK, but did this "abstract state" have to last forever? And why does it have
to be "higher"?
> Everything he said was like a mantra. It was like a beginning and end in
itself, so it was almost impossible to add anything to it.<
Well, some things are like that. There is nothing to add. Other things are
differnt, they need "more" to be finished.
>It's very hard to describe, but I wish now that I had written down some of the
things he said. It all started when he spent some time in California and was
tripping with some very experienced trippers who were into spirituality. The
first time I noticed the change, and the first time I had seen him since he got
back, was a night we tripped together. I thought it was very pleasant tripping
with him, but the other guy who was tripping with us seemed not to know what to
make of him.<
There's a first time for everyone. Usually, the first time is very confusing.
We don't know what to make of it. We want to pigeon hole it, which is often
not possible or necessary.
> Whatever level of awareness he got tuned into, remained with him after he
came down. It was permanent. I was actually kind of envious because he seemed
so at peace with himself and with life. Not giddy, or excessively happy, or
like he had been converted to the "temple of brotherly love" and wanted to
spread the
word to everyone. He was just in this almost radiant state of peace all the
time, and all of his words, all of the time, radiated the state he was in. It
was no act.
It was very consistent.
I am out of time, More later.
>Even years later after it was even more apparent that he was suffering from
some sort of mental illness, that state was still a part of
it. It was a permanent change in that sense.
>At times I wonder whatever happened to him, and how he is doing today. <
Forgive me, but I have the impression that you are suffering with this
particular issue, in some way. Yes? No?
Daryl
> Warning: You may become nothing.
And the alt.zen warning label:
You may be told that you are nothing.
--
Daryl
Sphere
May?
>
> --
> Daryl
Tang Huyen
Sphere wrote: <<Warning: You may become nothing.>>
The way I understand Buddhism and Chinese Chan, it is not that you
become nothing, but that the sense of self, of "I" dissolves, along with
the entire mentation that creates it, so that no thought of self or "I"
arises, nor any thought of any object internal or external to that self
or "I".
So reality is left intact, and intact to flow on at its own rhythm,
unobstructed by any inner tendency to stabilise it and agglutinate it
into relatively static concept-delimited entities or non-entities, like
the self or "I", precisely.
So your warning: You may become nothing, is an assertion, even if in
the grammatical negative, but what Buddhism and Chinese Chan teach is to
dissolve all assertions and propositions, and to stop giving rise to any
and all assertions and propositions.
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
Tang Huyen wrote:
after dropping, middle way.
Sphere
If you get there then you've become
something again.
The warning is for those who'd
remain nothing.
>
> Tang Huyen
Sphere
Look! The pretty rocks,
And some are so nice to have --
Others, why bother?
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
time t' reset that damn haiku generator again....
Sphere
Hang on there!
I'm not sure I've flooded the system yet.
Gileht
>
>
> Daryl wrote:
> >
> > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<3C6D1526...@attbi.com>...
> > > Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
> > And the alt.zen warning label:
> >
> > You may be told that you are nothing.
>
>
> May?
Or June, it is up to you.
LStev3234
came down. It was permanent. I was actually kind of envious because he seemed
so at peace with himself and with life. Not giddy, or excessively happy, or
like he had been converted to the "temple of brotherly love" and wanted to
spread the
word to everyone. He was just in this almost radiant state of peace all the
time, and all of his words, all of the time, radiated the state he was in. It
was no act.
It was very consistent.<
But there was change eventually, and he found it necessary to check himself
into a facility in order to accomplish something (I am not saying what the
"something" was because I don't know). Correct? You have not said if you know
how long he was there, what the treatment was, the presenting problem, etc.
>>Even years later after it was even more apparent that he was suffering from
some sort of mental illness, that state was still a part of it. It was a
permanent change in that sense.<
I don't know what your criteria is for mental illness. And you have not said
what, exactly, was his behavior that is being diagnosed as "mental illness."
Was it really some form of mental ilness, or simply another part of the
transformational process that was "strange" when viewed from the 'normal"
perspective?
>>At times I wonder whatever happened to him, and how he is doing today. <
Forgive me, but I have the impression that you are suffering with this
particular issue, in some way. Yes? No?
You have said that this individual had gone through some changes, and you have
no way of knowing how those changes continued to happen because you lost
contact with him. Are you assuming that the changes were somehow "unfortunate"
because he checked himself in?
We are talking about transformation, and what happens when someone really,
really changes. And it is very difficult, because everybody around us is not
changing, not transforming in the same way, and we often have a very difficult
time dealing with this type of radical change. There is no "ideal situation"
because ideals are not reality. "Normal" is very, very difficult to deal with
when one's perceptions are changing or have radically changed. "Normal" really
means "average" and the person going through radical transformation is
definately NOT going to be seen as "normal" by the "average" person.
Sphere
You june be told that you are nothing.
Much better.
Happy Camper
LStev3234 wrote:
> >Okay, now I think I know what you are talking about. But sometimes people
> speak in riddles around here. When they stop speaking in riddles and start
> talking
> straight, sometimes I miss the obvious because I think the obvious is not
> what they meant.<
>
> Every truth is shadowed by at least one riddle. It's important to recognize
> that shadows ad riddles are part of the experience, the flow of light and dark,
> it is the nature of the Tao.
>
> > I think a friend of mine went through something like that but maybe it was
> different. I was the only one who seemed to think he was actually in a higher
> state of awareness for a while. It completely changed his personality. In the
> beginning it was an improvement, and he seemed to be in heightened state of
> awareness all the time. His other friends thought he had gone a little nuts. I
> thought there was more to it than that, but I was the only one. Now I think it
> was a little of both.
>
> Is there some confusion on your part as to what is "nuts"? I am not being
> sarcastic.
No. I did not think he was "nuts". In fact I even envied him a little because he
seemed to have reached a state of awareness I knew existed but had only had a taste
of at various times. But I realized pretty quickly that I was the only one who
thought he wasn't nuts. In fact I was probably the only one besides him (outside of
our circle of friends) who believed in higher states of awareness as being
something that was posssible without psychedelic drugs, and which was beyond
ordinary reality and which was probably as old as the universe.
In fact he seemed to know I knew he wasn't nuts. I was the only one who really
took his new state of awareness seriously. Our mutual friends gave me the
bellylaugh when I said it seemed like he was at a higher state of awareness. They
all thought he has flipped his wig, but I knew he was able to handle phychedelics,
for one, as that he seemed to have never been more alive and more in control of
himself before in his life.
>
>
> > Then over time he started having problems. Eventually he had to check into
> a mental institution. I saw him less frequently even before that happened, but
> whenever I saw him after that he never seemed quite right. And that sublime
> but subdued inner peace and confidence that he had had for such a long time
> eventually began to crack.<
>
> What does "crack" mean?
I can't say exactly. Maybe it was that everyone seemed to think he was a little
nuts. Maybe it was just that his original personality was not very good at dealing
with certain aspects of life in general even before this all came about. But
eventually it seemed like he lost that shine he had. But it was strange, even years
later when he started drinking and was not exactly living the "spirtual" life
anymore, that aspect of his personality was still there. i could see it.
I have heard that the ego-loss aspect of psychedelics lasts, at the very most,
for the average person, for about two weeks. I'm not sure it ever lasted that long
for me. In fact I can only say I got to the complete egoloss state (or what I would
call the clear light) one time, and then I lost it and had a rough re-entry.
But whatever state he got tuned into lasted for him for a long time. It's very
hard to describe. But I am utterly convinced he was not playing games. In fact that
was what was amazing about it. He played absolutely no games after he reached the
place where he was at. maybe that's what threw people. His state was very honest in
that way. Of course no one but me seemed to notice that.
>
>
> >I still don't think it was an act though. I think he really was in some higher
> state of awareness.<
>
> Why do you see it as "higher" and not simply "different"?
You're right. That may be a missconception. But I was a bit envious. Obviously
something in me thought it was higher than where* I* was at. And I still think that
it was in some sense. But I can't describe it well or say for certain why I think
that.
>
>
> > But apparently he was not ready for it, or something, because eventually he
> became rather disoriented and lost his ability to function well with other
> people.<
>
> That is part of the "waking up" process, we all go through it in some way.
> Each of us finds out we cannot function in what we once considered to be a
> "normal" way. It is extremely disorentating for a while.
>
> > But that was mainly because his behavior looked so peculiar to them.<
>
> I don't doubt it.
>
> > It was obvious that he was not like everyone else.<
>
> Perhaps he was not like everyone else *thought* themselves to be like.
Yes. No doubt about it. If it weren't for everyone else's expectations he might
not have had so many problems.
>
>
> > And to get by in the world that doesn't always work very well.<
>
> The world works very well, just as it is. However it takes a great deal of
> time to recognize that fact.
What I mean is that to get by in the world you have to "play the game" a little
bit. He was beyond playing games. I am convinced of that. I think what he became
was who he really was inside. Maybe if the world couldn't relate to that it was the
world's problem, not his. But I just saw honesty and not what I would call
game-playing.
>
>
> >He was a little too different to fit in anywhere although as far as I could
> tell he was rather harmless. But whenever new people would meet him you could
> see this puzzled look on their faces as they looked around at the rest of us
> for clues, ...<
>
> Of course, becaause they don't know what is going on. A new situation is often
> disorienting for everyone.
>
> >...as if to say,"What is wrong with this guy"? That made it hard for him to
> get and keep a job, etc.<
>
> No doubt. There were several years when I was unable to function in any kind
> of "real job." But then, I had to give up my idea of what was a "real job" and
> what was simply a change in lifestyle and values.
>
> >I lost track of him almost 25 years ago and never heard what became of him. >
>
> Is this painful, to not know what became of him?
No, we were never really close friends. We just had friends in common. But the
irony was that just as I started thinking he was almost the best person I had ever
tripped with, all his friends were deciding he had gone a little nuts. I was
ridiculed for my opinion and they started looking at me if I was a little nuts
myself. And the thing is that he seemed to *know* I was the only one who knew what
was really going on with him. Everyone was kinda ribbing him about how different he
was, and one day I did too, but in a very gentle way. Well I could tell by the way
he looked at me that he was in effect saying, "Man, why are you going along with
this crap? Unlike them, you *know* better." So I felt a little guilty.
But he was kinda distant anyway. I had been trying to get closer to him to
discover what it was that was happening to him because I actually wanted to learn
from him. But he was a little distant about it all. I think he knew that whatever
it was that he was experiencing, he could not help anyone else get there. Now I
wish I had asked him more about what was going on with him.
>
>
> > But whatever it was that happened never reversed itself. The change was
> pemanent. That was apparent even five years after the fact. So I think it is
> safe to say it was not an act.<
>
> I assume that your observation is correct, for the purpose of this
> conversation.
It was no act. I am convinced of that. If it was an act it was so deeply hidden
in him that he was not aware of it. But I don't think that was it. I think it was a
genuine experince.
>
>
> > It could actually be rather soothing to get high with him because he seemed
> to be so at peace with himself.<
>
> Are you sure that it was "at peace" or was it simply a very specific
> perspective?
>
I really can't say. but I suddenly remembered one of the things he said when we
were tripping. He said: "Lately I've been listening too carefully to what I've got
to say."
Obviously he was working out personal issues. I thought that he meant he was
getting too involved with ego, you know, and starting to believe it too much.
Everything he said was very similar in that there was something very introspective
about it. It seemed as if he was reorganizing himself moment by moment.
And another thing, he got very good at seeing through other people's petty
games. So he had real clarity but didn't seem to know how to deal with the rest of
the world anymore, or care for that matter.
>
> >His words at that time could be rather abstract, but the sense of inner piece
> behind them was rather contagious.<
>
> Contagious? Why do you see it that way?
I mean contagious in a good way. The night we tripped together he got on this
monolgue after awhile. Or rather he was the only one talking. He would have a
revelation about something then express it verbally. We were stting on the beach at
night. And each thing he said was like a wave that I could ride. His words were
almost mezmerising. He kinda became the focal point of the trip, but I am sure it
was unintentional. But everything he was saying struck me as being so heavy and
poignant that it was pointless for me to even try to add anything. So I just sat
back and listened to each new thing he said. In between there was the sound of the
surf. And all of it put me in a really good place. It was one of the best trips I
ever had, and I didn't even have to try to hold onto reality. He was almost like
the captain and anchor at the same time. Ironically our mutual friend who was with
us later though Tim had gone off the deep end a bit. That was the first sign I had
that nobody but me seemed to know what was going on with him. I tried to tell
everyone but they laughed me off.
>
>
> > It was almost like putting a meditation tape on or something. It's very hard
> to explain. But I could smoke a joint and close my eyes and just listen to him
> talk and pretty soon I would just be drifting and feeling as totally at peace
> as he seemed to be.<
>
> There are some very good clues here... Are you willing to examine them? It's
> OK if you aren't or don't have time.
I'm willing, but I'm not sure I can learn anything from it. From my perspective
it seemed like I was basically "surfing" on his experience. I am convinced he was
going through some profound revelations, and I was kind of along for the ride. When
he spoke I knew where his head was at, and it seemed to put me in a similar place
to where he was at. But mainly that night when we were tripping together.
>
>
> >I don't think he was fooling himself either. Whatever it was that he was
> experiencing, was very real for him.<
>
> No doubt.
>
> > And his way of expressing it every single time he opened his mouth to talk
> was just too ever-changing to have been an act. He was almost like an abstract
> poet.<
>
> OK, but did this "abstract state" have to last forever?
Well I say abstract, but that may not be fair, because I always thought I knew
what he was talking about. It was only everyone else who saw it as abstract. He was
on cloud nine and the mundane matters of earth mattered not a whit to him.
I guess I do feel a little guilty about it now that I think about it, because I
was the only onw who seemed to know what was going on with him and I didn't tell
everyone else that it was *them* who were nuts, not Tim. I knuckled under to peer
pressure. It's not that I turned against him or anything, but he was really more
their friend than mine, and just sorta melted into the background over the
matter.
> And why does it have
> to be "higher"?
>
As I said, that's the way it seemed to me, but my perceptions obviously colored
my experience.
>
> > Everything he said was like a mantra. It was like a beginning and end in
> itself, so it was almost impossible to add anything to it.<
>
> Well, some things are like that. There is nothing to add. Other things are
> differnt, they need "more" to be finished.
Every word he uttered from his mouth was almost like the word OM. It was like
creation and destruction in the same sentence. Of course I may be romantizing a bit
here, and I am mainly tlaking about our trip together, but that is what it seemed
like at the time. But the thing is that is stuck even after he came down. He stayed
in that state of concsiousness from then on, for months and longer. It was pretty
much a permanent change.
I only had one other friend who I regularly tripped with who knew about the
spiritual aspects of psychedelics, and we always had good trips together. But This
guy was different. His words were very deep. In other words he was not just passing
time and having fun. He seemed to be having some very deep revelations. I had had
similar revelations before myself. But they were more fleeting, and I had never
quite expressed them as well as he did. He seemed to "tune in" to things on a
deeper level than I ever had. It's very hard to explain. But he seemd like the
perfect guide, even though the really wasn't. It's just that he was having a really
good trip and it was like I was along for the ride, surfing in his wake.
>
>
> >It's very hard to describe, but I wish now that I had written down some of the
> things he said. It all started when he spent some time in California and was
> tripping with some very experienced trippers who were into spirituality. The
> first time I noticed the change, and the first time I had seen him since he got
> back, was a night we tripped together. I thought it was very pleasant tripping
> with him, but the other guy who was tripping with us seemed not to know what to
> make of him.<
>
> There's a first time for everyone.
But it wasn't the first time for any of us, and the guy who didn't quite know
what to make of him was an old friend of his. He knew him much better than I did.
Isn't that ironic?
> Usually, the first time is very confusing.
> We don't know what to make of it. We want to pigeon hole it, which is often
> not possible or necessary.
No, we had all been tripping for quite some time, years in fact. Although it was
the first time I tripped with Tim, the guy who was having the revelations, I had
tripped with the other guy a couple of times, and I am sure they had both tripped
together a few times as well.
But after Tim's "revelations" his friends started talking about other trips they
had had with him. One guy was talking about how Tim had gotten up on on the couch
and started saying,"Thank you God, Thank you," as he reached skyward. I
thought,"Well hell, sounds like he was having a good trip to me," but I was alone
in my conlusions. Everyone else thought he had gone off the deep end.
>
>
> > Whatever level of awareness he got tuned into, remained with him after he
> came down. It was permanent. I was actually kind of envious because he seemed
> so at peace with himself and with life. Not giddy, or excessively happy, or
> like he had been converted to the "temple of brotherly love" and wanted to
> spread the
> word to everyone. He was just in this almost radiant state of peace all the
> time, and all of his words, all of the time, radiated the state he was in. It
> was no act.
> It was very consistent.
>
> I am out of time, More later.
Okay.
>
>
> >Even years later after it was even more apparent that he was suffering from
> some sort of mental illness, that state was still a part of
> it. It was a permanent change in that sense.
> >At times I wonder whatever happened to him, and how he is doing today. <
>
> Forgive me, but I have the impression that you are suffering with this
> particular issue, in some way. Yes? No?
No, not really. I just think it's a shame that it turned out so badly for him.
Like I say we were not real close friends before all of this took place. The
friends who were laughing at him were much closer to him than I was, although I had
known him fairly well off and on for a few years. But I wasn't very supportive of
him and I should have been. He seemed to know that I was the only one who knew what
he was going through. But he never showed anything more than mild disappointment
that I wasn't more supportive. Like everything else it seemed to not phase him a
bit.
Daryl
> Daryl wrote:
> >
> > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3C6D1526...@attbi.com>...
> > > Warning: You may become nothing.
> >
> > And the alt.zen warning label:
> >
> > You may be told that you are nothing.
>
>
> May?
Oh, heh, of course. It should be:
You <blink style="font-size: 28pt">WILL</blink> be told that you are nothing.
--
Daryl
LStev3234
he seemed to have reached a state of awareness I knew existed but had only had
a taste of at various times.<
OK, so he seemed able to hold on to this "ultra" state for a longer time. And,
it's true that this "state" can be accessed with or without drugs. It's a
really, really good buzz.
> But I realized pretty quickly that I was the only one who thought he wasn't
nuts. In fact I was probably the only one besides him (outside of our circle of
friends) who believed in higher states of awareness as being something that was
posssible without psychedelic drugs, and which was beyond ordinary reality and
which was probably as old as the universe.<
The problem is, these types of states are not "beyond ordinary." They are in
fact quite ordinary, although not always admitted. Further, they are often the
vehicle which drives people to behave in ways that appear to be quite "average"
or "normal." the fact that they are well masked or supressed does not mean
theat they are not a powerful driving force in behavior patterns.
> In fact he seemed to know I knew he wasn't nuts. I was the only one who
really took his new state of awareness seriously. Our mutual friends gave me
the bellylaugh when I said it seemed like he was at a higher state of
awareness.<
Forgive me, but "higher" is not accurate. It's actually not "higher" at all.
Have you ever seen anyone in this "state" play it all the way out? There is
definately another side to this "higher" state. When it shifts, it ain't
pretty.
>They all thought he has flipped his wig, but I knew he was able to handle
phychedelics, for one, as that he seemed to have never been more alive and more
in control of himself before in his life.>
Well, at this point in our conversation, it's becoming a bit obvious that there
was an underlying problem going on when he didn't have the benefit of the
drugs. Perhaps he was not "handeling" them at all. You may not agree with my
pov, but if you can keep an open mind (or at least try) perhaps we can see
what lessons are or were on the table. Btw I am not saying drugs are wrong.
I'm just aware that they have certain specific effects which can exascerbate
what is already there....
>> What does "crack" mean?<
>
> I can't say exactly. Maybe it was that everyone seemed to think he was a
little nuts. Maybe it was just that his original personality was not very good
at dealing with certain aspects of life in general even before this all came
about.<
This is a huge clue. Do you see it?
> But eventually it seemed like he lost that shine he had. But it was strange,
even years later when he started drinking and was not exactly living the
"spirtual" life anymore, that aspect of his personality was still there. i
could see it.<
OK, so we must get brutaly honest. The "wonderfulness" lost it's shine. So
perhaps it was not "wonderful" after all, it was in fact simply a transient
condition that took some time to play out. Again, please be aware thaat I am
not judging him as bad or good.
>I have heard that the ego-loss aspect of psychedelics lasts, at the very most,
for the average person, for about two weeks.<
Not necessarily. A lot of factors influence how long it lasts, and whether or
not it can reoccurr without any further drug use. You would be amazed at how
long the body stores residual drugs, including novacaine, ether, alcohol,
whatever.
> I'm not sure it ever lasted that long for me. In fact I can only say I got to
the complete egoloss state (or what I would call the clear light) one time, and
then I lost it and had a rough re-entry.<
What, exactly, do you think "clear light" means? It is not a "state" to
achieve, btw. And clear light does not require "re-entry." A bright light is
not a clear light.
> But whatever state he got tuned into lasted for him for a long time. It's
very hard to describe. But I am utterly convinced he was not playing games. In
fact that was what was amazing about it. He played absolutely no games after he
reached the place where he was at. maybe that's what threw people. His state
was very
honest in that way. Of course no one but me seemed to notice that.<
I am not saying that his "state" was not authentic. It was probably absolutely
authentic. I'm saying that his "state" is not what you think it was, that I
think you have mis-labeled it, confused it with something else.
>> Why do you see it as "higher" and not simply "different"?
> You're right. That may be a missconception. But I was a bit envious. <
Well, of course, it's a really "feel good" experience. And, the worse we feel
when we are "normal," the more we want to "feel really good." So we go for the
"good" and try to ignore the "not good." Sooner or later, we each must find
out that ignoring does not work very well.
>Obviously something in me thought it was higher than where* I* was at.<
OK, but what do you think now, looking back on it?
> And I still think that it was in some sense. But I can't describe it well or
say for certain why I think that.>
See, this is where one must start asking questions of ones self and doing some
really serious observation, inner and outer.
> But apparently he was not ready for it, or something, because eventually he
became rather disoriented and lost his ability to function well with other
people.<
Ah, and what does "ready for it" mean? Did you think he was supposed to run
around like that for the rest of his life? In sort of a "Permanent peaked out
state"? Being profound all the time?
> If it weren't for everyone else's expectations he might not have had so many
problems.>
But it is the nature of humans that they have expectations. Even you had
expectations of him, yes? And we each have to deal with the problems caused by
our, and other people's, expectations. So let's be careful not to shift the
focus too far away. He had problems dealing with people and the problems did
not go away just because he got blissed out for a year or 5 years.
> What I mean is that to get by in the world you have to "play the game" a
little bit.<
No, you don't "have" to play the game. But it's very difficult to not play.
One is continualy making choices to play. It's difficult to see the self
making these choices, but it's the truth of it. And then, when we see the
game, we must learn ways to not keep playing. This also is very difficult,
because of the fear of not being loved. People who play games do not like
people who do not play games. The "non players" become ostracized very
quickly. A lot of issues surface when this happens, on both sides. It is
inevitable, when we start waking up, that we don't want to play the games, but
we don't know how to stop, and we don't want to be ostracized and unloved.
> He was beyond playing games. I am convinced of that. I think what he became
was who he really was inside. Maybe if the world couldn't relate to that it was
the world's problem, not his.<
Oh, it was definately his problem. The world is busy with the next game. When
he stopped playing the game by their rules, it became a problem for him.
> But I just saw honesty and not what I would call game-playing.>
You also saw how painful it can be to start being honest. I'm sure that it was
a bit frustrating for you to see honesty and the ridicule it got.
> we were never really close friends. We just had friends in common. But the
irony was that just as I started thinking he was almost the best person I had
ever tripped with, all his friends were deciding he had gone a little nuts. I
was ridiculed for my opinion and they started looking at me if I was a little
nuts myself.<
And how did you react to their ridicule? By caving in and continuing to play
the games? (this is not an accusation). After all, you had to survive in what
was rapidly becoming a hostile situation. Maybe not overtly hostile, but
certainly an undercurrent of hostility.
> And the thing is that he seemed to *know* I was the only one who knew what
was really going on with him. Everyone was kinda ribbing him about how
different he was, and one day I did too, but in a very gentle way. Well I could
tell by the way he looked at me that he was in effect saying, "Man, why are you
going along with this crap? Unlike them, you *know* better." So I felt a little
guilty.<
It would appear that you did not meet his expectations for commradery and he
was a bit disappointed. Yes? If so, perhaps his "blissed out state" wasn't what
it appeared to be? And you took on guilt for not being the loyal friend you
"should" be?
> But he was kinda distant anyway. I had been trying to get closer to him to
discover what it was that was happening to him because I actually wanted to
learn from him. But he was a little distant about it all. I think he knew that
whatever it was that he was experiencing, he could not help anyone else get
there. Now I wish I had asked him more about what was going on with him.<
Is it possible that what he was experiencing was "distance" related?
> It was no act. I am convinced of that. If it was an act it was so deeply
hidden in him that he was not aware of it.<
Bingo.
> But I don't think that was it. I think it was a genuine experince.<
I have no doubt that his experience was "genuine." I am merely asking if you
could be open to the possibility that it was not what you think it was.
Something "genuine" can be mislabeled.
>> Are you sure that it was "at peace" or was it simply a very specific
perspective?>>
> I really can't say.<
Then perhaps "at peace" is not accurate.
> but I suddenly remembered one of the things he said when we were tripping. He
said: "Lately I've been listening too carefully to what I've got to say."<
So he began to see that there was a problem surfacing with himself?
> Obviously he was working out personal issues. I thought that he meant he was
getting too involved with ego, you know, and starting to believe it too much.<
That's the problem with being "genuine" as one must believe it , absolutely, in
order to remain "genuine." But what if one believes something that is not
realistic, or is not "workable"? Then there begins a struggle, an inner
dialogue, which is always questioning, and not geting workable answers. The
angst created by this type of thing can be extremely stressful. Sooner or
later, something's gonna give.
>Everything he said was very similar in that there was something very
introspective about it. It seemed as if he was reorganizing himself moment by
moment.<
The problem with inner reorganization is that a lot of unexpected stuff floats
to the top, not necesarily in any logical order. So it gets to be very
confusing on the inside and the outside. It's an extremely difficult situation
to deal with.
> And another thing, he got very good at seeing through other people's petty
games. So he had real clarity but didn't seem to know how to deal with the rest
of the world anymore, or care for that matter.<
Lack of people skills is often exacerbated when reorganization is going on. It
basically makes existing problems even worse, and overloading is the result. "I
don't care" is often a defensive self preservation tactic, which doesn't work
very well. The individual does in fact care, but is unable to do anything
about the situation.
> I mean contagious in a good way. The night we tripped together he got on this
monolgue after awhile. Or rather he was the only one talking. He would have a
revelation about something then express it verbally. We were stting on the
beach at night. And each thing he said was like a wave that I could ride. His
words were almost mezmerising. He kinda became the focal point of the trip, but
I am
sure it was unintentional. But everything he was saying struck me as being so
heavy and poignant that it was pointless for me to even try to add anything. So
I just sat back and listened to each new thing he said. In between there was
the sound of the surf. And all of it put me in a really good place. It was one
of the best trips I
ever had, and I didn't even have to try to hold onto reality. He was almost
like the captain and anchor at the same time. Ironically our mutual friend who
was with us later thought Tim had gone off the deep end a bit. That was the
first sign I had that nobody but me seemed to know what was going on with him.
I tried to tell
everyone but they laughed me off.<
Well, it 's obvious that you and he had a "meeting of the minds" so to speak.
But you have to ask your self, sooner or later, if the "meeting place" was
really as "good" as it appeared to be.
> It was almost like putting a meditation tape on or something. It's very hard
to explain. But I could smoke a joint and close my eyes and just listen to him
talk and pretty soon I would just be drifting and feeling as totally at peace
as he seemed to be.<
So, now you know what it's like to be mesmerized by someone. What have you
learned about being mesmerized?
> I'm willing, but I'm not sure I can learn anything from it. From my
perspective it seemed like I was basically "surfing" on his experience.<
You were "surfing" on your own experiennce, which you happened to be having at
the same time he was surfing on his own experience.
> I am convinced he was going through some profound revelations, and I was kind
of along for the ride.<
You didn't get anything of your own? It was all from him? It appears that
other folks didn't get anything at all. Why is it that you want to give him all
the credit?
> When he spoke I knew where his head was at, and it seemed to put me in a
similar place to where he was at.<
I think perhaps you were already in a "similar place" and just were open to the
dialogue.
> OK, but did this "abstract state" have to last forever?<
>
> Well I say abstract, but that may not be fair, because I always thought I
knew what he was talking about. It was only everyone else who saw it as
abstract. He was on cloud nine and the mundane matters of earth mattered not a
whit to him.<
My question is, do you still know what he was tallking about? Does anything he
said still make sense to you?
> I guess I do feel a little guilty about it now that I think about it,
because I was the only one who seemed to know what was going on with him and I
didn't tell everyone else that it was *them* who were nuts, not Tim. I knuckled
under to peer pressure. It's not that I turned against him or anything, but he
was really more their friend than mine, and just sorta melted into the
background over the
matter.<
So, you did whatever you did for self preservation, because they had already
started distancing themselves from him, and you feel guilty?
> And why does it have to be "higher"?
> As I said, that's the way it seemed to me, but my perceptions obviously
colored my experience. >
Your perceptions were at least partly colored by the drug. Now that you aren't
on the drug, and you know what happened to him later on, do you still think it
was "higher"?
> Every word he uttered from his mouth was almost like the word OM. It was like
creation and destruction in the same sentence. Of course I may be romantizing a
bit here, and I am mainly talking about our trip together, but that is what it
seemed like at the time.<
I don't doubt that it seemed like that at the time. But then was then, and now
is now. What did you learn from the experience?
>But the thing is that it stuck even after he came down. He stayed in that
state of concsiousness from then on, for months and longer. It was pretty much
a permanent change.<
It's possible that it took him a lot longer to "come down" than you realized.
And "down" for him might just be a lot farther "down" than you realized, too.
>I only had one other friend who I regularly tripped with who knew about the
spiritual aspects of psychedelics, and we always had good trips together. But
This guy was different. His words were very deep. In other words he was not
just passing time and having fun. He seemed to be having some very deep
revelations. I had had
similar revelations before myself. But they were more fleeting, and I had never
quite expressed them as well as he did. He seemed to "tune in" to things on a
deeper level than I ever had. It's very hard to explain. But he seemd like the
perfect guide, even though the really wasn't. It's just that he was having a
really good trip and it was like I was along for the ride, surfing in his
wake.<
Do you have some expectation of a "permanent high" and are disapointed with
yourself that you always "came down" afterwards, or weren't "high"' for long
enough?
>> There's a first time for everyone.
> But it wasn't the first time for any of us, and the guy who didn't quite
know what to make of him was an old friend of his. He knew him much better than
I did. Isn't that ironic?<
What I meant was, when someone or something changes, it's like a "first time''
experience and we often don't know what to do with the change. So we are
confused, and don't know how to react. This is normal human behavior. As you
know, the average person gets hostile when change shows up.
> No, we had all been tripping for quite some time, years in fact. Although it
was the first time I tripped with Tim, the guy who was having the revelations,
I had tripped with the other guy a couple of times, and I am sure they had both
tripped together a few times as well. But after Tim's "revelations" his
friends started talking about other trips they had had with him. One guy was
talking about how Tim had gotten up on on the couch and started saying,"Thank
you God, Thank you," as he reached skyward. I thought,"Well hell, sounds like
he was having a good trip to me," but I was alone
in my conlusions. Everyone else thought he had gone off the deep end.<
Why is it so important what everyone else thought?
>> Forgive me, but I have the impression that you are suffering with this
particular issue, in some way. Yes? No?
> No, not really. I just think it's a shame that it turned out so badly for
him. Like I say we were not real close friends before all of this took place.
The friends who were laughing at him were much closer to him than I was,
although I had known him fairly well off and on for a few years. But I wasn't
very supportive of him and I should have been. He seemed to know that I was the
only one who knew what he was going through. But he never showed anything more
than mild
disappointment.<
Well, shame is a way of suffering. So it appears that you failed to meet your
own expectation of yourself by not supporting your friend a bit more, and you
have a bit of shame, correct? And you are assuming that he is still suffering
or whatever, because you don't know how it turned out, correct? It would seem
that this was a rather painful series of events for you.
>that I wasn't more supportive. Like everything else it seemed to not phase him
a bit.>
But it did phase him. And you know it. I suspect (could be wrong) that you are
somewhat disappointed with yourself, and with him. Yes? No?
Kok Chee Chiong
> "Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> news:zweb8.1708$17.10...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
> > "Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:W1bb8.7448$bS4.5...@weber.videotron.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > This conversation reminds me a little of this quote;
> >
> >
> > You live in illusion and the appearance of things.
> > There is a reality, but you do not know this.
> > When you understand this, you will see that you are nothing.
> > And, being nothing, you are everything.
> > That is all.
> >
> > (Kalu Rinpoche)
>
> Contrast the above with what the Buddha had to say to Bahiya.
>
> Then, Bahiya, thus must you train yourself: 'In the seen there will be
> just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the sensed just the
> sensed, in the cognised just the cognised.' That is how, Bahiya, you
> must train yourself. Now when in the seen there will be to you just the
> seen, ... just the cognised, then Bahiya, you will have no 'thereby',
> when you have no 'thereby,' then Bahiya, you will have no 'therein'; as
> you, Bahiya, will have no 'therein' it follows that you will have no
> 'here' or 'beyond' or 'midway between'. That is just the end of
> suffering.
>
> The above translation is from one of Tang's posts and the passage occurs
> in the Bahiya Sutra in the Udana.
>
> As this short passage states so very succinctly, the Buddhist
> practitioner does not identify with *anything*. Thus, the question of
> being "nothing" or becoming "everything" does not arise in his mind, for
> he does not mentate any of these.
>
Both are saying the same thing.
When Kalu Rinpoche refered to the cutting off of the illusion what
is left is "nothing". As it is "nothing" it can be "anything" and
"everything". The cutting off of the cognitive element of perceptions
skandas is the great undifferentiated reality. Like undifferentiated
stem cells, it can be anything.
What Buddha was saying was the same undifferentiated reality.
With metta,
-kokcc-
Sphere
Daryl wrote:
>
> Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3C704B8E...@attbi.com>...
> > Daryl wrote:
> > >
> > > Sphere <spher...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3C6D1526...@attbi.com>...
> > > > Warning: You may become nothing.
> > >
> > > And the alt.zen warning label:
> > >
> > > You may be told that you are nothing.
> >
> >
> > May?
>
> Oh, heh, of course. It should be:
>
> You <blink style="font-size: 28pt">WILL</blink> be told that you are nothing.
But I feel much better now.
>
> --
> Daryl
--
Sphere.
"Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish that man would stay away." -- anon.
Sphere
<bow>
Now, take Tang et. al. by the hand and lead them
out of the Void....
Tang Huyen
Sphere wrote:
Kok Chee Chiong: <<Both are saying the same thing.
When Kalu Rinpoche refered to the cutting off of the illusion what is left is "nothing". As it is
"nothing" it can be "anything" and "everything". The cutting off of the cognitive element of perceptions
skandas is the great undifferentiated reality. Like undifferentiated stem cells, it can be anything.
What Buddha was saying was the same undifferentiated reality.>>
Sphere: {{<bow>
Now, take Tang et. al. by the hand and lead them out of the Void....}}
Hehe, both of you are letting your Hinduism out in the open.
The Buddha established his teaching in direct contradiction to the Brahmanism (and to a lesser extent to
Jainism) of his Indian milieu (though he came from present-day Nepal and probably spoke Indo-Aryan as a
foreign language). This Brahmanism has been very well delineated by the great Dutch scholar Jan Gonda,
whose work (largely in English) has been largely ignored by the Indological community and even more so by
the Buddhological community.
This Brahmanism is, like Platonism and Aristotelianism (which were later followed faithfully by
Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians), heavily into foundation, basis, establishment, support, etc.,
with a whole phalanx of synonyms meaning just those things. The Buddha turned all that upside down by
explicitly proclaiming the total absence of basis, foundation, etc., except for the Law which runs the
universe quietly (as opposed to the language-based thought of Brahman/God who created the world with
language-based thought and maintained it in order by language-based thought), but even the Law would be
relinquished as a thought object upon awakening, along with all else.
The Brahmanical emphasis on establishment, foundation, basis, etc. is continued in the Hinduist
"All-is-One", attributeless Brahman as the foundation for the differentiated world. All features,
attributes, marks that we perceive in the world are unreal, and when we negate them (the "neti, neti",
not this, not that), we arrive back at attributeless Brahman, the foundation for the differentiated
world.
This is totally different from the Buddhism of the Buddha. In the Buddhism of the Buddha, only the
*interpretation imposed on top of perception* is denied, but the reality in that perception is not denied
at all, indeed is exalted as ultimate reality. So ultimate reality in the Buddhism of the Buddha is the
*fully differentiated* world as received in sensation, shorn of all interpretation, by language and
thought or whatever, whereas the ultimate of Hinduism is a blank, attributeless "Unity" or "Oneness" in
which all differentiating features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world have been done away
with.
In the Buddhism of the Buddha, awakening implies the total dropping of all identifications, with or
against any and all features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world and ourselves -- what in
Buddhism is called the five aggregates -- but there is nothing else, and there is nothing else to
identify with or against, either. All identifications are dropped, period. All "I" and mine, all the self
(atman) and what-belongs-to-self are dropped, without remainders.
However, the world with all its features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world and ourselves
is left intact, only no interpretation and identification, with or against, is retained.
In Hinduism, the practitioner drops the little self (which entails all the differentiating features,
attributes, marks that he perceives in the world and himself), but identifies with the Great Self, the
Oneness, Unity, attributeless Brahman. So, regardless of how far he gets in Hinduism, he still embraces
an identity and identifies with that identity, be it the Universal Consciousness. Such an identity is
still delusion in Buddhism. In Buddhism, any identity, individual or collective, small or big,
attributeful or attributeless, has to be dropped for awakening to occur.
This is where the basic options come in -- Brahmanical artificialism and mentalism against Buddhist
anti-artificialism (or naturalism) and non-mentalism, Brahmanical permanence and substantialism against
Buddhist impermanence and non-substantialism, Jaina interpretation of deed (karman) as material particles
that have to be eradicated by self-mortification and self-starvation against Buddhist deed as a
non-material composition that will bring results and that can be no longer produced (not: eradicated) by
non-composition, which is the same as non-mentation, etc.
The Hinduist identification with the Great Self, the Oneness, Unity, attributeless Brahman or the
Universal Consciousness is part of mentation, and by eradicating mentation, the Buddhist no longer
identifies with or against anything, individual or collective, small or big, attributeful or
attributeless.
Kalu still operated in the realm of identification, though he might have enlarged his horizon of
identification relative to the average person out in the street. The Buddha has dropped all
identification, for or against.
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
Tang Huyen wrote:
good one, Sir Tang!!!
"i am all" vs "i don't know"
sneaky trap, that one....
Rosebud
> Rosebud wrote:
>
> > Happy Camper <hpy...@playground.net> wrote in message news:<3C6EAA3B...@playground.net>...
> > > Rosebud wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<W1bb8.7448$bS4.5...@weber.videotron.net>...
> > > > > "Sphere" <spher...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > > > > 3C6D1526...@attbi.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the small print : "But then you will not care anymore, being in total
> > > > > bliss all the time."
> > > > >
> > > > > Gileht
> > > >
> > > > rosebud:
> > > > A misunderstanding of buddhism and a bunch of crap.
>
> > > Gileht:
> > > How does your understanding differ?
> >
> > rosebud:
> > What is bliss then? How is being nothing and not caring because you
> > are nothing result in bliss?
>
> I think I see what you mean. If bliss is your goal, then you will never reach it because you are still
> trying to reach something, right? Because if what exists in the here and now is not enough for you,
> because it is not bliss, you are, therefore, not satisfied; so you will, therefore, never be satisfied
> untill you achieve bliss. And as long as you want it, you don't have it. You can't want it and have it
> too.
>
rosebud:
Bliss is not a goal, neither is nirvanna. All you can be is you and
if that is not bliss, nirvanna oh well.
Happy Camper
Kok Chee Chiong wrote:
That makes sense. But the way some people explain it, it doesn't make sense at all.
Happy Camper
Sphere wrote:
Was that bow an example of respectfulness, or obsequiousness? One is honest, the other is not. Can you
tell the difference? :-P
Happy Camper
Tang Huyen wrote:
> Sphere wrote:
>
> Kok Chee Chiong: <<Both are saying the same thing.
>
> When Kalu Rinpoche refered to the cutting off of the illusion what is left is "nothing". As it is
> "nothing" it can be "anything" and "everything". The cutting off of the cognitive element of perceptions
> skandas is the great undifferentiated reality. Like undifferentiated stem cells, it can be anything.
>
> What Buddha was saying was the same undifferentiated reality.>>
>
> Sphere: {{<bow>
>
> Now, take Tang et. al. by the hand and lead them out of the Void....}}
>
> Hehe, both of you are letting your Hinduism out in the open.
I think there are many aspects of Hinduism, or various forms of yoga, which are harmoinious with Buddha's
teachings.
>
>
> The Buddha established his teaching in direct contradiction to the Brahmanism (and to a lesser extent to
> Jainism)
To BrahmanISM, maybe, but not to the concept of Bramah itself. Or that was my understanding.
> of his Indian milieu (though he came from present-day Nepal and probably spoke Indo-Aryan as a
> foreign language). This Brahmanism has been very well delineated by the great Dutch scholar Jan Gonda,
> whose work (largely in English) has been largely ignored by the Indological community and even more so by
> the Buddhological community.
>
> This Brahmanism is, like Platonism and Aristotelianism (which were later followed faithfully by
> Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians), heavily into foundation, basis, establishment, support, etc.,
> with a whole phalanx of synonyms meaning just those things. The Buddha turned all that upside down by
> explicitly proclaiming the total absence of basis, foundation, etc., except for the Law which runs the
> universe quietly (as opposed to the language-based thought of Brahman/God who created the world with
> language-based thought and maintained it in order by language-based thought), but even the Law would be
> relinquished as a thought object upon awakening, along with all else.
>
> The Brahmanical emphasis on establishment, foundation, basis, etc. is continued in the Hinduist
> "All-is-One", attributeless Brahman as the foundation for the differentiated world. All features,
> attributes, marks that we perceive in the world are unreal, and when we negate them (the "neti, neti",
> not this, not that), we arrive back at attributeless Brahman, the foundation for the differentiated
> world.
>
> This is totally different from the Buddhism of the Buddha.
But didn't the Buddha still believe in, and teach, the concept of Brahmah?
> In the Buddhism of the Buddha, only the
> *interpretation imposed on top of perception* is denied, but the reality in that perception is not denied
> at all, indeed is exalted as ultimate reality. So ultimate reality in the Buddhism of the Buddha is the
> *fully differentiated* world as received in sensation, shorn of all interpretation, by language and
> thought or whatever, whereas the ultimate of Hinduism is a blank, attributeless "Unity" or "Oneness" in
> which all differentiating features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world have been done away
> with.
>
> In the Buddhism of the Buddha, awakening implies the total dropping of all identifications, with or
> against any and all features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world and ourselves -- what in
> Buddhism is called the five aggregates -- but there is nothing else, and there is nothing else to
> identify with or against, either. All identifications are dropped, period. All "I" and mine, all the self
> (atman) and what-belongs-to-self are dropped, without remainders.
>
> However, the world with all its features, attributes, marks that we perceive in the world and ourselves
> is left intact, only no interpretation and identification, with or against, is retained.
>
> In Hinduism,
You talk of Hinduism as if it is a single belief system. That is a vast over-simplification. I'm sure you
know that.
> the practitioner drops the little self (which entails all the differentiating features,
> attributes, marks that he perceives in the world and himself), but identifies with the Great Self, the
> Oneness, Unity, attributeless Brahman. So, regardless of how far he gets in Hinduism, he still embraces
> an identity and identifies with that identity,
But what difference does it make if he gets where he is going? I would say John C. Lilly didn't let his
identifications get in the way. wouldn't it depend on how strong the identification was.
> be it the Universal Consciousness. Such an identity is
> still delusion in Buddhism.
Maybe it doesn't need to be.
Happy Camper
Rosebud wrote:
I think that is what I was saying. If your goal is bliss you won't find it.
> All you can be is you and
> if that is not bliss, nirvanna oh well.
I agree, it is difficult to talk about.