Reincarnation?
fogpotion
fetched part of Buddhism.
I have heard a interpretation ( which of course is thinking) of
reincarnation I like.
WIthin my own life time I have changed. In fact, parts of my past
really do seem like 'past lives'. So being reborn simply can mean
becoming aware again. Thus if I am aware all the time, I have reached
the point where I am not 'born again'.
What is your take on reincarnation?
stumper
I would leave it alone
unless I need it to end suffering.
Are you suffering?
--
~Stumper
Richard Corfield
> What is your take on reincarnation?
I don't see how I can tell if it exists in reality or not. As a
metaphor for moving from "life" to "life" within this one physical life,
childhood to adulthood or job to job, it works wonders. Then we just
get the obvious but useful statement
"Where you'll be in your next 'life' depends on your deepest desires
towards the end of this one and your actions in this and previous
'lives'"
So you remember that your actions and desires lead you to where you're
going. Both have to point the right way. I'll add in that the actions
of others and things outside your control can also effect the outcome,
but your actions are hugely significant.
I've heard or reincarnation used as a way of explaining why lots of people
are born unlucky, or some are drawn to a meditative path. I am not sure
how satisfactory that explanation is and even if true how relevant it
is. It can lead people to withhold assistance on the basis of "They must
have done something nasty in a past life" which doesn't sound good at all.
Concerning death - I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Of interest, what is your take on another big thing in Buddhism, the
idea of Karma?
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
Tepid
Walk, don't run.
tadp...@comcast.net
Why not just believe whatever you want to believe and call it Buddhism?
That's what everyone else does.
tvp
fogpotion
Richard Corfield
>
> Of interest, what is your take on another big thing in Buddhism, the
> idea of Karma?
>
> - Richard
>
easier to understand to me - it is simply the law of cause and effect.
What I do, think, say will effect other things. The part of karma that
is not believeable to me is the idea of karma from previous lives.
I think i have bad karma I have collected within this life without
worrying about any other life.
fog
Richard Corfield
> Hey Richard - Thanks for answering the question seriously. Karma seems
> easier to understand to me - it is simply the law of cause and effect.
> What I do, think, say will effect other things. The part of karma that
> is not believeable to me is the idea of karma from previous lives.
> I think i have bad karma I have collected within this life without
> worrying about any other life.
I think it comes from the idea that everything that happens to us can be
traced back to karma that we generated, so if we can't find any karma
generating event in this life (perhaps we're only a few minutes old)
it _must_ have been a past one. It offers an explanation for why some
people are born in bad situations. I wonder if it can also be used to
account for any 'state' that we're born with. Every baby is different.
The question is - is an explanation needed? Does the world have to be
'Just'? I thought Buddha taught that things happening to us can have
external cause, someone else's karma or just bad luck, wrong place
wrong time. Can the differences between babies' temperaments be just
natural differences?
The model of Karma as what happens to our actions and even thoughts and
internal habits and how we interact with the world is still incredibly
interesting and I think incredibly useful. I think a "forward only"
model of karma.
I must admit, having experienced it from Hinduism, the comfort that
someone following this kind of path will be reborn in a better place
even if he does not achieve <whatever> in this life is nice. The idea
that the draw to the path may be a tendency from a previous life is
nice. Even the comfort that we all have Atman is nice, and helps you
see other people in a good light. Do Buddhists talk about Atman?
Logically though, based on what we can determine, is such belief really
necessary? I think we can do so much even if we don't answer that
question. So much that I've seen in Buddhism and Hinduism says live in
this moment, don't cling to ideas of enlightenment or rebirth, act out
of compassion now, attachment even to things promised in scripture can
be a block in itself.
What are the views of people who've been practicing Buddhism longer than
we've been practicing/looking at it? Do you find that belief in things
like reincarnation helps you in your practice, or do you practice without
thinking of it too often?
DharmaTroll
paste it in here. (I'm in the camp that doesn't go for literal
reincarnation or rebirth from other physical bodies, but uses it as a
helpful metaphor for cause and effect and conditioned psychological
patterns in this life.) The quote is from Thich Nhat Hanh.
--DharmaTroll
TNH, from _No Death, No Fear_, page 125-126:
<<Ask yourself, 'Where shall I go after this?' Our actions and our
words, which are being produced at this moment, take us in a linear
direction. But they also take us in a lateral direction as they flow
into and influence the world around us. They can make the world more
beautiful and bright. that beauty and brightness can go in to the
future. We should not look for our real selves in just one vertical
direction.
When I make a pot of oolong tea, I put tea leaves into the pot and
pour boiling water on them. Five minutes later there is tea to drink.
When I drink it, oolong tea is going into me. If I put in more hot
water, making a second pot of tea, the tea from those leaves continues
to go into me. After I have poured out all the tea, what will be left
in the pot is just the spent tea leaves. The leaves that remain are
only a very small part of the tea. The tea that goes into me is a much
bigger part of the tea. It is the richest part.
We are the same; our essence has gone into our children, our friends,
and the entire universe. We have to find ourselves in those directions
and not in the spent tea leaves. I invite you to see yourself reborn in
forms that you say are not yourself. You have to see your body in what
is not your body. This is called your body outside of your body.
You do not have to wait until the flame has gone out to be reborn.
I am reborn many times every day. Every moment is a moment of rebirth.
My practice is to be reborn in such a way that my new forms of
manifestation will bring light, freedom, and happiness into the world.
My practice is to not allow wrong actions to be reborn. If I have a
cruel thought or if my words carry hatred in them, then those thoughts
and words will be reborn. It will be difficult to catch them and pull
them back. They are like a runaway horse. We should try not to allow
our actions of body, speech, and mind to take us in the direction of
wrong action, wrong speech, and wrong thinking.
If you look for yourself like that, you will be able to see your
continuation into the future. You will not be caught in the idea that
you will be annihilated. You will not be caught in the notion that you
will not exist anymore when you die. The truth is that you are not
permanent, but neither are you annihilated. When the flame of the
candle reaches the end of the wick and goes out, it is still there.
You cannot find it by looking in a linear direction.
You have to find it also in the horizontal direction.>>
stumper
Not bad.
Telling people not to get too attached
by telling them there is
still another dimension of attachment.
Rather skillful, wouldn't you say?
BTW, which part of "wrong speech" you don't understand?
--
~Stumper
DharmaTroll
Must you lie about everything?
> BTW, which part of "wrong speech" you don't understand?
I don't understand any of your wrong speech. It's nonsensical.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
"No person is your friend who demands your silence,
or denies your right to grow."
stumper
There are many more things in this world
than you can even imagine.
If you stop at being witty,
you would be missing a lot.
--
~Stumper
scs...@gmail.com
reincarnated. I would sure like to chat
with him or her. Until then, please dont spread more mythology around
until this is proven as there are so many poor
fools out there who want to wait until the next time and avoid dealing
with life right now!!
DharmaTroll
been reincarnated. I would sure like to chat with him or her. Until
then, please dont spread more mythology around until this is proven as
there are so many poor fools out there who want to wait until the next
time and avoid dealing with life right now!!
DT> Years ago when I believed in reincarnation, I found only one
researcher with anything like evidence, a professor Ian Stevenson. He
did the most thorough research and does have some puzzling cases of
young children in India who seem to have memories of dead people.
However, most of the time, they could be explained better by
cryptomnesia or paramnesia. Cryptomnesia occurs when the children
acquired the information that they thought they remembered in a normal
way, forgot how they acquired it, and then subsequently honestly
mistook memories of this information for memories of a past life.
Paramnesia occurs when there are certain other sorts of honest
distortions and inaccuracies in the memories of those who provide
information on the cases. Stevenson even admits that in many of his
cases, the parents have unwittingly given their child's first few
statements about the previous life more coherence than the statements
actually ever had.
In any case, even if someone were to have memories of a dead person,
and could actually present evidence (such as digging up buried
treasures in their secret spot), and normal explanations were ruled
out, the best spooky explanation might not be rebirth or reincarnation,
but rather that they psychically 'tuned-in' to the memory echoes of the
former person with some sort of 'extra-sensory perception', like
watching extra-sensory-television. Of course, I don't go for esp
either, so the situation would fascinate me even if this were the case.
What's amazing is that with billions and billions of people, there
isn't one good case where someone can remember a past life (or display
any esp, for that matter). But one could turn up tomorrow. Then
again, the sun could go supernova tomorrow, too.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
WHO
>
> Do please let me know of anyone that you are aware of who has been
> reincarnated. I would sure like to chat with him or her. Until then,
> please dont spread more mythology around until this is proven
> as there are so many poor fools out there who want to wait until the
> next time and avoid dealing with life right now!!
I know a cat that does that. It sleeps all the time.
I can't seem to convince it to evolve faster.
buddhapest
"WHO" <DR....@WHO.ORG> wrote in message
news:12qgnif...@corp.supernews.com...
have you seen my invisible cat?
Richard Corfield
account for the fact that body and brain die. If body and brain die,
then so do those functions such as memory. This would make "remembering
past lives" seem a bit of a contradiction.
Of course the bits that die are the bits that the egotistical mind
counts as itself, so putting things off to a next life (or "when I get
to heaven") isn't so good.
If you believe in this kind of reincarnation, then a question is how
much do you value that which reincarnates? I suppose if you believe in
that kind of reincarnation, then that small bit that reincarnates is
very valuable to you.
I'm now seeing more of the differences between the religions I look at.
It looks like some people offer that 'bit' to their external god. Some
try to find that bit seeing it as divine itself, and some see all this
metaphorically "like a candle lighting a new flame", only I'd expect
many candles to many flames.
- Richard
On 2007-01-13, DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> DT> Years ago when I believed in reincarnation, I found only one
> researcher with anything like evidence, a professor Ian Stevenson. He
> did the most thorough research and does have some puzzling cases of
> young children in India who seem to have memories of dead people.
> However, most of the time, they could be explained better by
> cryptomnesia or paramnesia. Cryptomnesia occurs when the children
> acquired the information that they thought they remembered in a normal
> way, forgot how they acquired it, and then subsequently honestly
> mistook memories of this information for memories of a past life.
> Paramnesia occurs when there are certain other sorts of honest
> distortions and inaccuracies in the memories of those who provide
> information on the cases. Stevenson even admits that in many of his
> cases, the parents have unwittingly given their child's first few
> statements about the previous life more coherence than the statements
> actually ever had.
DharmaTroll
> A feature of a lot of the reincarnation ideas I've heard is that they
> account for the fact that body and brain die. If body and brain die,
> then so do those functions such as memory. This would make
> "remembering past lives" seem a bit of a contradiction.
DT> Well, what makes us 'us' are an individual set of memories, right?
Suppose that weren't true. Suppose that we aren't our memories. (Btw,
I'm speaking Locke here, and John Locke's view that we are a set of
memories has been updated since then. In Locke's day, Bishop Butler
and Thomas Reid had interesting objections to Locke's memory theory of
personal identity. These days, philosophers have more sophisticated
theories, such as Parfit's psychological continuity and chains of
connectedness which include a lot more of one's psychology than purely
memories; saying "I survived" can now be re-described as "there exists
a strong degree of psychological continuity and chains of connectedness
between these particular experiences and those particular
experiences".)
Anyway, suppose we are a 'soul' or 'consciousness'. Then what if your
soul and mine were switched when we are asleep, so that 'you' awoke
with 'my' body and memories and 'I' awoke with 'your' body and
memories. I'd say that there would be no difference, and that the
body-and-memories with 'your' soul would be DT. That is, the talk of
'you' or 'soul' or a 'particular consciousness' is nonsensical, and
having a consciousness or soul leave a body is exactly the same
absurdity as having a center of gravity leave a body or switch with
another center of gravity. If you believe in a self, you might think
that 'you' would now be in my body with my memories. But think about
it: you'd act just like me and post as obnoxiously as I do, and so
forth. There would be no difference in the world between our switching
selves and our not switching selves! Thus talk of selves or
consciousness separate from brains really makes little or no sense at
all. (And this is where the power of supervenience comes in, but
that's for another post).
> Of course the bits that die are the bits that the egotistical mind counts as itself,
DT> You'll have to divine 'bits' here -- whoops, that was a nice
spell-checker whopper of a fix! I meant to say, you'll have to define
'bits' here. Do you mean a spooky bit of self-stuff? Or do you mean
specific memories? Or opinions? Or habits? I'm not clear what you
mean here.
> If you believe in this kind of reincarnation, then a question is how
> much do you value that which reincarnates?
DT> If it was this ineffable spook or 'soul' or 'consciousness', and
not a bundle of memories, then I'd not value it at all. As in my
example above, even if our souls/consciousnesses were to switch bodies
tonight, and I had to pick one of them to receive a million bucks
tomorrow, I'd without hesitation go with the body/memories, not with
the spook. That's because I have a Lockean and not a Cartesian view of
personal identity. Btw, if we were to switch brains, I'd follow the
brain (unlike if we switched livers or hearts) as the brain is the
store of memories and other psychological dispositions. I'd even call
it a 'body' transplant, rather than a 'brain' transplant. The idea
that there is some 'bit' made of soul-stuff that can leave a body or
brain is in principle incoherent, I would argue.
> I suppose if you believe in that kind of reincarnation, then that small bit that reincarnates is very valuable to you.
DT> By bit, I'm assuming you mean a Cartesian soul. My claim is that
it's irrational to think that there are such things. Rather, the term
'I' is a grammatical but useful fiction just like a center of gravity.
Metaphorically speaking, the 'I' is the narrative center of gravity.
And again, to speak of blowing up Jupiter and having the center of
gravity of Jupiter reincarnate in some new planet is just as
nonsensical as the idea of a soul entering a new body. It's a
grammatical mistake (that only someone like buddhapest might make).
> some see all this metaphorically "like a candle lighting a new flame", only I'd expect many candles to many flames.
DT> Aha! That's called a 'fission' case. If there were a 'soul' it
would have to go to exactly one candle. The idea that you could
light many candles suggests that there is no soul to reincarnate, but
rather that we are patterns and processes -- in the candle metaphor,
burning causes more burning if the candles are touched. If not, there
is no flame that goes out. There was never a flame (just as there is
no such thing as 'heat', only molecular motion). Rather, there was
burning and then there wasn't burning taking place. No flame is
annihilated. And similarly, no flame is reincarnated over and over.
Rather, there is just the process of burning. Similarly, there is no
annihilation or eternalism with people, because there is no soul to
annihilate or continue. There are only brain processes/experiences, at
a particular time, and then there aren't at other particular times.
Anyway, the Thich Nhat Hanh quote I posted is a lovely way of refuting
linear rebirth/reincarnation while making the metaphor powerful and
helpful in his talk of lighting many candles while we are alive and
burning now.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
stumper
Dear deluded:
You are supposed to stop the rebirth;
not promote it.
--
~Stumper
Richard Corfield
> would have to go to exactly one candle. The idea that you could
> light many candles suggests that there is no soul to reincarnate, but
> rather that we are patterns and processes -- in the candle metaphor,
> burning causes more burning if the candles are touched. If not, there
> is no flame that goes out. There was never a flame (just as there is
> no such thing as 'heat', only molecular motion). Rather, there was
> burning and then there wasn't burning taking place. No flame is
> annihilated. And similarly, no flame is reincarnated over and over.
> Rather, there is just the process of burning. Similarly, there is no
> annihilation or eternalism with people, because there is no soul to
> annihilate or continue. There are only brain processes/experiences, at
> a particular time, and then there aren't at other particular times.
As an outsider looking at Buddhism, and perhaps looking for Sangha, I
see a lot of groups that appear to worship maybe Tibetan deities maybe
their own. I also read of groups that believe in things like reincarnating
into a place where it is easier to find enlightenment, or of having hope
that they'll reincarnate somewhere better. Local monastery timetables
have slots for puja.
On the other hand, a lot of my reading of late has included this no-soul
belief, and the kinds of things that would make an atheist or agnostic
happy. How does all that fit in with the deities? Is it possible to find
more non-theistic Sangha that does concentrate more on the Four Noble
Truths and Eight Fold Path?
Of interest, DharmaTroll, what tradition do you follow? (Great interest
as I've liked your posts)
Thanks
- Richard
H. Moe
My take on the topic is: The rebirth happens not only after death, it
happens everyday and it is happening right now.
Dear friend Shan Guneratne:
You asked this good question:
>After death what moves to the next life? Is it consciousness?
No! since consciousness arise & cease right there, it cannot move
anywhere!
It is not continuous, but contiguous discrete states as pearls on a
string.
The prior moment of consciousness contains the properties that
conditions
the arising of the next moment of consciousness! These inherent
properties are
mainly craving for (conscious) sensing and craving for new becoming
into being.
If these cravings are present in the rebirth-linking moment of
consciousness, then
the next moment of consciousness will arise immediately after the death
moment,
but now in another location and body, which qualities (or lack of)
indeed also are
conditioned by properties within the rebirth-linking moment of
consciousness...
Example: If deluded ignorance is dominant in the rebirth-linking moment
of
consciousness, an animal rebirth is to be expected. If harmonious peace
and
well earned settled mental calmness based on a long life of doing good
are the
dominant factors in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, a
divine deva
rebirth is to be expected. If anger, hostile enmity, envy and hate are
dominant
in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, rebirth in hell is to
be expected.
So what actually passes on is CAUSALITY: That is conditioning factors
or forces!
Nothing more! No form, feeling, perception, construction, or
consciousness passes on.
No Self, I, Me, Body, Identity, or Ego passes on, because they never
really existed in
the first place, so how can they ever then pass on?!?
The classic example is the 2 candles:
Candle A is in flame. (=Dying individuality)
This is then used to light or ignite Candle B (=Reborn individuality).
By this very ignition the flame of Candle A is extinguished...
Only candle B is now burning: What was passed on!
Is the flame of Candle B now the SAME as the flame of Candle A?
Not so. Candle B burns by its own flame, but it was turned on by A!
Is the flame of Candle B now DIFFERENT from the flame of Candle A?
Not really so either. Since Candle B was turned on by the flame of A!
What is Reborn?: Neither the SAME nor ANOTHER!
What am 'I' & 'Person'?: Neither the SAME nor ANOTHER!
Not a fixed entity, but a streaming process of ever renewed
arisings and ceasings of impersonal mental and physical states...
Just moments of name-&-form passes on!
In brevity:
Question:
What passes on at death?
Answer:
The forces or streams of:
Ignorance, Greed, & Hate,
and derivatives thereof,
passes on at death!
Regarding rebirth linking (patisandhi) see also:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/patisandhi.htm
Kamma and Rebirth: Nyanatiloka Thera:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch2
Friendship is the Greatest :-)
Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon *
http://What-Buddha-Said.net
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said
King of Karma
>
> Hi,
> My take on the topic is: The rebirth happens not only after death,
> it happens everyday and it is happening right now.
I agree with that!
> >After death what moves to the next life? Is it consciousness?
>
> No! since consciousness arise & cease right there,
> it cannot move anywhere!
So far so good!
> the next moment of consciousness will arise immediately
> after the death moment, but now in another location and body,
> which qualities (or lack of) indeed also are conditioned by
> properties within the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness...
That's where I don't go for the spookiness, as there is no explanation
or evidence of the mechanism that would transport the psychological
patterns from the dead dude's brain to the new baby's brain. How they
are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation, like "only a
Buddha can know".
> Example: If deluded ignorance is dominant in the rebirth-linking
> moment of consciousness, an animal rebirth is to be expected.
For Westerners this is laughable.
It's up there with bleeding people to let the spookies out.
> If harmonious peace and well earned settled mental calmness
> based on a long life of doing good are the dominant factors
> in the rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, a divine deva
> rebirth is to be expected.
Where you will be surrounded with 108 virgins, no doubt.
> If anger, hostile enmity, envy and hate are dominant in the
> rebirth-linking moment of consciousness, rebirth in hell is to
> be expected.
Which is how we all got reborn in this usenet hell, of course!
> No form, feeling, perception, construction, or consciousness
> passes on. No Self, I, Me, Body, Identity, or Ego passes on,
> because they never really existed in the first place, so how
> can they ever then pass on?!?
Now you're making sense, except for the body, as that was the only
thing on that list that was real -- the rest are pretty much brain
farts.
> The classic example is the 2 candles:
>
> Candle A is in flame. (=Dying individuality)
> This is then used to light or ignite Candle B (=Reborn individuality).
> By this very ignition the flame of Candle A is extinguished...
> Only candle B is now burning: What was passed on!
Of course, you can light candles C, D, and E as well, so nothing is
really passed on, but rather the burning in one ignites the burning it
the others. Also, that's nothing like rebirth, because the candles
have to touch. In your claim above, "consciousness will arise
immediately after the death moment, but now in another location and
body", which would be like a candle going out and immediately lighting
another candle, in say, New Zealand, and then saying "but the flame was
reborn". That would be silly, as is the idea of conscious brain
patterns being transported across space time and arising. Action at a
distance is a no-no. In this universe, at least.
--The King of Karma
DharmaTroll
> On 2007-01-13, DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > DT> Aha! That's called a 'fission' case. If there were a 'soul' it
> > would have to go to exactly one candle. The idea that you could
> > light many candles suggests that there is no soul to reincarnate, but
> > rather that we are patterns and processes -- in the candle metaphor,
> > burning causes more burning if the candles are touched. If not, there
> > is no flame that goes out. There was never a flame (just as there is
> > no such thing as 'heat', only molecular motion). Rather, there was
> > burning and then there wasn't burning taking place. No flame is
> > annihilated. And similarly, no flame is reincarnated over and over.
> > Rather, there is just the process of burning. Similarly, there is no
> > annihilation or eternalism with people, because there is no soul to
> > annihilate or continue. There are only brain processes/experiences,
> > at a particular time, and then there aren't at other particular times.
>
> As an outsider looking at Buddhism, and perhaps looking for Sangha,
> I see a lot of groups that appear to worship maybe Tibetan deities
> maybe their own.
DT> Ok, that can be quite tricky. When Christianity spread, it would
absorb many of the local pagan deities and turn them into pseudo-gods,
called 'saints'. Saint Brigid of Ireland allegedly started out as the
Celtic goddess of fire, for example. When Buddhism spread, there were
local deities, such as in the shamanistic Bon religion of Tibet, who
were similarly converted into the Buddhist version of saints,
Boddhisattvas. So it really isn't deity worship, and there is a lot of
interesting stuff in those sects. I will admit that to me, a lot of
Tibetan stuff is weird and spooky and not for me. However, there are
great Tibetan teachers that are completely "down to earth", such as
Pema Chodron, and even the Dalai Lama. On this list, Evelyn can vouch
for how effective and helpful Tibetan Buddhism can be.
> I also read of groups that believe in things like reincarnating into a place where it is easier to find enlightenment, or of having hope that they'll reincarnate somewhere better. Local monastery timetables have slots for puja.
DT> Again, a lot of various Asian cultures has been brought along with
the practice of Buddhism. It's very hard to separate them. You have
to remember that everyone believed in reincarnation at the time of the
Buddha. But it can be done. After all, in Christianity, Jesus spent a
lot of his ministry as a Bill Murray type of "Ghostbuster", exorcising
evil spooks from people -- but most Christians don't go for that
anymore: when they get sick they take antibiotics rather than call a
priest to cast out the spookies.
> On the other hand, a lot of my reading of late has included this no-soul belief, and the kinds of things that would make an atheist or agnostic happy. How does all that fit in with the deities? Is it possible to find more non-theistic Sangha that does concentrate more on the Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path?
DT> Yes. Stephen Batchelor wrote an introduction to Buddhism from an
'agnostic Buddhist' standpoint, which I hightly recommend, "Buddhism
Without Beliefs". Oh, and I ought to mention, as you're an outsider,
that the two overall introduction to Buddhism books that I recommend to
everyone first are "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, which is
the nicest intro to an explanation of Buddhism and the verious sects,
and "Mindfulness in Plain English" by Bhante Gunaratana, a wonderful
Sri Lankan monk, which is the best experiential introduction to
Buddhist meditation I've ever come across.
> Of interest, DharmaTroll, what tradition do you follow? (Great interest as I've liked your posts)
DT> Wow, thanks! I actually asked my professor in college in a
philosophy class on Buddhism, where I could find a sect of Buddhism
which was what I called "low in the UFO factor", and focused on
mindfulness, being present in the here and now, and reducing craving,
aversion, and delusion so that we would suffer less, and not posit
energies, astral planes, reincarnation, and a plethora of spooks and
beasties. He said that I should check out Vipassana, which means
"insight" and was in the Theravadin tradition, the oldest one that is
least mixed with various other religions and cultural influences. He
even recommended that I travel to the predominant Vipassana center in
Barre, Massachusetts. I signed up for a 10-day silent Vipassana
retreat there which started the weekend after finals at the end of that
semester. The experience changed my life, and I went back and attended
two or three 10-day retreats there every year for a long time, until it
got too popular and was always full, and so I found a nice Vipassana
center much closer.
Interestingly, though, the method I use to pick Buddhist groups I want
to join has nothing to do with their beliefs or metaphysical views. I
simply ignore the beliefs and claims totally and look at the people and
ask how many people I'd want to hang out with or go on a day-long
hiking trip with or invite to a party, and how many of the other sex
I'd want to ask out. I actually don't care too much if they are
superstitious, unless they are really way out there, and in real life
I go for the kindest and most caring and huggable people to hang
around; whereas here I bash anyone who suggests that the planets affect
their karma or that we're all in the Matrix or whatever. If the answer
is few of them that I'd want to to hiking with or ask out, even if they
all agree with all my metaphysical underpinnings, then the group is
still not for me. If the answer is many of them, then I stick around,
regardless of what absurd claims about life after death or whatever
they might make. But as it turns out, the Vipassana folks I've ended
up hanging out with have at least half of them that are naturalists
like me (creative earthy nature-lovers, not cynical hard materialists).
But the whole range are in all the sects. One Buddhist from a local
group I attend weekly I overheard talking to a Theravadin monk at the
end of a retreat I attended not too long ago. She said she thought
that after final nirvana, an awakened person merges with the One, don't
they, and the monk agreed with her that yes, that's what happens. On
this list I'd throw a tantrum and babble "Hinduist renegade!" and so
forth, but my real-life persona just thought, "that's interesting how a
lot of folks sort of merge all these New Age and Brahmanist ideas
together in their practice, and that even Western Theravadin monks
believe such things."
The same monk had given a talk earlier which the superstitious woman
had liked about how the heaven and hell story in Christianity sounded
so absurd and unintuitive and superstitious to him, but how the
Buddhist beliefs in rebirth and karma and hungry ghosts and deva planes
made so much sense and was so intuitive. Again, here I'd get obnoxious
and have fun of the guy to no end, but I simply acknowledged that
meditation doesn't lead to dropping of superstition necessarily, and
that it was ironically my rigorous philosophical training that did that
and which allowed me to see both stories as just stories we cling to,
and why not just admit we don't know much and not cling to any story at
all -- when I thought that this was what Buddhism was supposed to
teach! And here monks were just teaching people to switch their
attachments to alternate superstitions. But nonetheless, I like
Vipassana the best and have found it populated with the most
naturalists, and especially with lots of recovering Catholics like
myself (I call myself a Zen Catholic -- Catholic in that I feel guilt
and shame about everything; Zen because I am mindful of and present to
my feeling guilt and shame. Heh.)
Zen is another very grounded this-life present-oriented version of
Buddhism which appeals to me. Vipassana is similar, but there are a
lot more interesting practices that I tend to like more. Thich Nhat
Hanh is my favorite Zen guy, btw, because he is very experiential and
he is eclectic and draws from all of the various traditions, and has
created his own melting-pot version of Buddhism. The four Tibetan
sects, as well as most mahayanist sects, apart from Zen, appeal to me
less because they sometimes can invoke so much more spookery, but as I
said, the Tibetan teacher Pema Chodron is as helpful to me as just
about any Zen or Theravadin teacher out there. The Nicheren sect is
the most opposite of my tastes, and they hand out business cards that
say that you should repeat the opening words of the silly Lotus Sutra
over and over in Japanese and that this will enlighten you. Yeah,
right, and devas will fly out of my butt, too. Yet taken as metaphor,
all these various sects can add a lot of richness and mythology that
isn't found as much in the more desert-like Vipassana and Zen
traditions. Luckily, rather than have only one choice of sect in the
culture we were born into, we have all these choices in front of us,
which means we are in the unique position to pick the one that best
suits our personality.
Such choices also lead to absurdities when so many people believe so
many things in close quarters to one another. One of my favorite
Vipassana teachers, Jack Kornfield, really gets it right, I think, in
his attitude toward clinging to stories of any type, and of what's
really important in living ones life wisely. I highly recommend his "A
Path With Heart", from which I'll quote below my favorite passage on
views and on metaphysics of all time by a Buddhist teacher.
--DharmaTroll
<< from _A Path With Heart_, by Jack Kornfield
Some years ago in Massachusetts, a woman named Jean, who had been
a meditation student, came to see me in a greatly confused state.
She had been married to a doctor and they had two children.
Her husband had been subject to bouts of depression, and in the
midst of one of them during the preceding year had committed suicide.
This was very sorrowful and painful for her and even more so for her
children. The family had lived outside of Amherst and had been
involved in many of the spiritual communities in their area. They had
studied with the Tibetans and the Sufis, and after his suicide their
whole spiritual network came to the family's aid. Each day for many
weeks, friends came to cook meals, to care for the children, to bring
comfort and support. Many of them included spiritual ceremonies for
the family and for the father who had died.
One day a close friend in the Tibetan community came over excitedly
to Jean and said, "I've been doing the Tibetan prayers and
visualizations of the dead over the past forty days, and last night
I saw him. Your husband is fine. The vision was so clear. He was
entering the bardo of light of the Western Realm with the Bodhisattva
Amitabha. I could sense it so clearly. Everything is fine." Jean was
greatly heartened by this.
In town several days later, however, she encountered a friend from
the local Christian mystical community where she had also practiced.
This friend came over excitedly an said, "He's fine. I have seen him.
I had this profound vision just last night in my prayer in meditation,
and he is surrounded by white light in the heaven of the ascended
masters."
Jean was a little shaken and confused by this comment. When she went
home, she decided to call on an old and respected teacher of hers, a
Sufi master. When she arrived there, before she could explain her
dilemma, he announced to her, "Your husband is fine, you know. He has
already entered a womb and will take birth in a female body through
parents living in the Washington, DC area. I have been following his
consciousness in my meditation." Confused and upset, trying to sort
out what was true, she came to see me.
I asked her to consider carefully what she actually knew herself.
If she put aside the Tibetan teachings, the Sufi teachings, the
Christian mystical teachings, and looked in her own being and heart,
what did she already know that was so certain that even if Jesus and
the Buddha were to sit in the same room and say, "No, it's not," she
could look them straight in the eye and say, "Yes, it is."
I was asking her to put away all her philosophies and beliefs, the
maps of past and future lives and more, reminding her that what she
knew might be very simple. Finally, out of the quiet she said, "I
know that everything changes and not much more than that: everything
that is born dies, everything in life is in the process of change."
I then asked her if perhaps that wasn't enough -- could she live her
life from that simple truth fully and honestly, not holding on to
what inevitably must be let go. Perhaps this simple understanding
would be enough to live a wise and spiritual life....
Somehow, in the moment of recognizing that everything changes, Jean
found her way again. Religion and philosophy have their value, but in
the end all we can do is open to mystery and live a path with heart,
not idealistically, not without difficulties, but as a Buddha did, in
the very midst of our humanness in our life on this earth. It is worth
asking ourselves: What is it that we can see and know directly for
ourselves? Are these simple truths not enough? I have asked this
question of many meditation groups and usually people answer with
simple truths such as, "Whatever view or opinion I hold, I realize
there is some other." "This world has night and day and light and dark
and pleasure and pain. It is comprised of opposites." Or, "When I'm
attached, I suffer." Or, "Love is what has really brought me
happiness in this life."
Our liberation and happiness arise from our own deep knowing, and it
doesn't matter what anyone says to the contrary. Our spiritual life
becomes unshakable only when we are connected with our own realization
of truth.
>>
stumper
>
> .... (I call myself a Zen Catholic -- Catholic in that I feel guilt
> and shame about everything; Zen because I am mindful of and present to
> my feeling guilt and shame. Heh.)
>
What did you do to feel that way?
--
~Stumper
H. Moe
King of Karma wrote:
> H. Moe wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > My take on the topic is: The rebirth happens not only after death,
> > it happens everyday and it is happening right now.
>
> I agree with that!
Fine than, that is all I said. The rest I cut and paste as a reference.
I provided the link, if you want to chase it up to the source.
> That's where I don't go for the spookiness, as there is no explanation
> or evidence of the mechanism that would transport the psychological
> patterns from the dead dude's brain to the new baby's brain.
The tide on earth raise and fall according to the G forces of the moon.
There is no evidence of mechanism but, It seem not that strange at all.
But more importantly, I am not force feeding to anyone. How about the
"dead due and the new baby's brain", whose idea is that. Buddha never
said such things, the monk I refer to did not said that, I also did not
mentioned such as thing. If it is your idea, you should own up to it.
If it is other's idea, you should point out where you get it. But you
should not put your stuff in other people mouth.
> How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation, like "only a
> Buddha can know".
The phrase, "only a Buddha can know", is not an EXPLANATION at all.
Spooky or not, It is an usual EXCLAMATION of the lay Buddhist, when
they are shock or in limbo.
> > Example: If deluded ignorance is dominant in the rebirth-linking
> > moment of consciousness, an animal rebirth is to be expected.
>
> For Westerners this is laughable.
> It's up there with bleeding people to let the spookies out.
The due with white bread created all the animals including snakes for
enjoyment of human (his favourate creation). Do Westerners believed
that kind of things? Praised be to the Lord that he designed and made
my ass. So that, I can laugh my ass off at him.
Do you wanna join in??
Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
hahaha God God did you make the shit come out of it too? hahahaha God
God are you the one who make the shits sink?
The candled don't have to touch.
> --The King of Karma
King of Karma
> King of Karma wrote:
> > H. Moe wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > My take on the topic is: The rebirth happens not only after death,
> > > it happens everyday and it is happening right now.
> >
> > I agree with that!
>
> Fine than, that is all I said. The rest I cut and paste as a reference.
> I provided the link, if you want to chase it up to the source.
> of the new baby's brain", whose idea is that. Buddha never
> said such things, the monk I refer to did not said that,
Of course not! In the Buddha's day, nobody knew about brains or their
function, not even the Buddha. Now that we know about brains, we'd
need to describe how the software of a particular brain gets realized
on a new brain. All the old spook talk won't do anymore.
> But you should not put your stuff in other people mouth.
Even if she's cute?
> > How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation,
> > like "only a Buddha can know".
>
> The phrase, "only a Buddha can know", is not an EXPLANATION at all.
Exactly. It's a superstitious cop-out!
> Spooky or not, It is an usual EXCLAMATION of the lay Buddhist, when
> they are shock or in limbo.
>
> > > Example: If deluded ignorance is dominant in the rebirth-linking
> > > moment of consciousness, an animal rebirth is to be expected.
> >
> > For Westerners this is laughable.
> > It's up there with bleeding people to let the spookies out.
>
> The due with white bread created all the animals including snakes for
> enjoyment of human (his favourate creation). Do Westerners believe
> that kind of things? Praised be to the Lord that he designed and made
> my ass. So that, I can laugh my ass off at him.
Yes that's just as ridiculous a story. So because other people believe
their stupid superstitious story, you think that this justifies your
believing your own stupid superstitious story? Why not think for
yourself and really look into the matter? Do we really need to cling
to any such stories at all?
> Do you wanna join in??
>
> Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
> God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
Since there are no gods, I'd find it extremely foolish to have a
conversation with one or to join in complaining to one. But suit
yourself if it turns you on.
> The candles don't have to touch.
They do for one candle to be the -cause- of the other one being lit!
Maybe you missed my point. If they touch, you can trace the causal
connection (and karma is all about cause and effect, remember) from
Candle A causing Candle B to begin to burn. But when Candle A is in
New York and Candle B is in New Zealand, and Candle A runs out of fuel
about the same time that Candle B is lit, how on earth could you claim
that Candle B is the linear rebirth of Candle A? What would that even
mean? It would be meaningless nonsense talk, like one of buddhapest's
posts. And furthermore, what if Candle B were lit in the Zeta Reticuli
star system, which is 39.4 light years away? (That's the binary star
system from which UFOlogists tend to claim that alleged flying saucers
originate.) In that case, whether one candle went out and the other
was lit at the same time doesn't even have one answer: from different
reference frames either one could be said to happen before the other,
due to the nature of Einsteinian physics. When you talk about people
it's even more absurd. I mean, first there's no evidence, and on top
of that, the idea in principle is rather incoherent. That's a double
whammy.
--The King of Karma
Richard Corfield
Keynes
We come into the world with a genetic heritage.
Then we are given the cultural facts of life which
we trustingly gulp down like mother's milk. And
so, everyone is a product of what has gone before.
There is undeniable continuity in the scheme of
cause and effect.
The injustice and suffering felt by individuals can
be traced to previous injustice and suffering of
previous and current individuals (unless one is
willing to take responsibility for himself which is
vanishingly rare among all the 'unique individuals'.)
Carnation is no different than reincarnation.
Everyone is responsible for everyone.
But is there cause and effect in linear time?
We are convinced that it's so. Everybody says so.
Except zen masters and coincidentally the Buddha.
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is
fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is
discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is
discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is
unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away
is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.
"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
AN. III. 47
Tang Huyen
Richard Corfield wrote:
> As an outsider looking at Buddhism, and perhaps looking for Sangha, I
> see a lot of groups that appear to worship maybe Tibetan deities maybe
> their own. I also read of groups that believe in things like reincarnating
> into a place where it is easier to find enlightenment, or of having hope
> that they'll reincarnate somewhere better. Local monastery timetables
> have slots for puja.
>
> On the other hand, a lot of my reading of late has included this no-soul
> belief, and the kinds of things that would make an atheist or agnostic
> happy. How does all that fit in with the deities? Is it possible to find
> more non-theistic Sangha that does concentrate more on the Four Noble
> Truths and Eight Fold Path?
>
> Of interest, DharmaTroll, what tradition do you follow? (Great interest
> as I've liked your posts)
>
> Thanks
You didn't ask me, but if you want non-theistic Sangha
that does concentrate more on the Four Noble Truths
and Eight Fold Path, it is possible to get all or nearly
all the good stuff right along that line here on these
boards, and in English too, though the Four Noble
Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path may or may not
be explicitly mentioned.
Norbu Tragri, a follower of the Tibetan religion,
sums up for us the core of Buddhist practice
regardless of sectarian affiliation:
<<we do not get lost in thougts, we stay with what
is happening now...
.....and we also watch how we tend to get lost in thought.
drop it all as it happens...>>
That about sums up Buddhist practice, regardless
of particularities, so long as it is Buddhist.
Two women on these boards have lots of
good to say. Robyn from Atlanta wrote:
<<The problem with Buddhism is that it
attempts to explain nothing at all, and
everything seems to get lost in translation,
imo. (Oh dear. Another zen
moment....sheesh!)>>
Jen/buddhapest, our resident Hinduist granny from
Detroit, has great stuff to say without technical jargon.
<<it's all just a play of ideas, no need to
take it seriously. it's a passing fancy, a
caprice, a felicity.
trying to box it in with concepts is never
ending and never satisfying.>>
"you're drowning in useless concepts.
try coming up for air"
"try not to get so caught up in it all.
this too shall pass."
And (modified):
"one just doesn't get caught up in it, that's all."
dar, a Canadian from Des Moines, Iowa said:
"dont bother harbouring that thought or any
thought really."
If you can understand what they say and put
it to practice, you don't need anything fancier,
surely not anything in Indian snakescript or
Chinese characters. No puja, no bowing and
scraping, no earthen idol, no fees, etc. In brief,
drop, drop, drop. That's all you need to know
and to practice.
Tang Huyen
H. Moe
King of Karma wrote:
> H. Moe wrote:
> > King of Karma wrote:
> > > H. Moe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > My take on the topic is: The rebirth happens not only after death,
> > > > it happens everyday and it is happening right now.
> > >
> > > I agree with that!
> >
> > Fine than, that is all I said. The rest I cut and paste as a reference.
> > I provided the link, if you want to chase it up to the source.
>
> > of the new baby's brain", whose idea is that. Buddha never
> > said such things, the monk I refer to did not said that,
>
> Of course not! In the Buddha's day, nobody knew about brains or their
> function, not even the Buddha. Now that we know about brains, we'd
> need to describe how the software of a particular brain gets realized
> on a new brain. All the old spook talk won't do anymore.
Well, whatever. That is your stuff.
Here is my stuff, the karma might influence the process since pairing
of the genes, way back before the brain started to form. If I have time
to think about, I will think in that direction.
Since no Buddhist has talk about transmitting of the brain function
during rebirth, it up to you. What ever you do with your stuff.
> > But you should not put your stuff in other people mouth.
>
> Even if she's cute?
Look where you put your thing. The girl might turn out to be your long
lost sis or aunt.
> > > How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation,
> > > like "only a Buddha can know".
> Yes that's just as ridiculous a story. So because other people believe
> their stupid superstitious story, you think that this justifies your
> believing your own stupid superstitious story? Why not think for
> yourself and really look into the matter?
Think about what? Who created the universe? Who created life? Who
designed the eye and ass? No, thank you. I would like to politely
> Do we really need to cling
> to any such stories at all?
Of course not! You are free to go, whenever you choose. You are free
not to come in and talk about this in the first place. I am talking
about rebirth and reincarnation only because some one has ASKED for it.
He said "what is your take", so I show what MY TAKE is.
> > Do you wanna join in??
> >
> > Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
> > God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
>
> Since there are no gods, I'd find it extremely foolish to have a
> conversation with one or to join in complaining to one. But suit
> yourself if it turns you on.
I smell something here. Why is a 's' after 'no'? It should be 'no god'.
Why 'gods'. Are you mono? Are you against poly only? Do you feel
nervous use capital G? In English, they called it GOD. You got to
follow to the rules of language while talking. The Gdo and gods are
different in English language.
read again. I don't miss the point. You better read the original post.
I have to admit I don't read your last paragraph, I have no time. I
will be back for it later.
King of Karma
>
> Here is my stuff, the karma might influence the process since pairing
> of the genes, way back before the brain started to form.
What does that mean? Magical forces paired your genes? That's
nonsense, as the genes came from your momma's egg and your daddy's
sperm. No need to add ghostly forces or karmic magic to explain your
hook-nose anymore.
> Since no Buddhist has talk about transmitting of the brain function
Of course not, since they didn't know about brains.
> > > But you should not put your stuff in other people mouth.
> >
> > Even if she's cute?
>
> Look where you put your thing.
> The girl might turn out to be your long lost sis or aunt.
So, does karma superstitions work for you as you can fantasize girls
being your mother from a past life when you are sleeping with them?
I'd see a therapist if I were you. Sounds like you've got issues, not
karma.
> > > > How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation,
> > > > like "only a Buddha can know".
>
> > Yes that's just as ridiculous a story. So because other people believe
> > their stupid superstitious story, you think that this justifies your
> > believing your own stupid superstitious story? Why not think for
> > yourself and really look into the matter?
>
> Think about what? Who created the universe? Who created life?
What is this 'who'? Why the magic? Why a 'who'? Why blindly accept a
superstitious story, be it the 'karma' story or the 'god' story, which
are both really the same nonsensical magic story? Why not look at what
actually is going on? Is that too much for you?
> > Do we really need to cling
> > to any such stories at all?
>
> Of course not! You are free to go, whenever you choose.
We're not talking about my living in a democracy. We're talking about
why cling to superstitions, especially ridiculous ones about spooks
selecting our genes, when we know better. Do you think you are
possessed by evil spirits as well when you sneeze?
> He said "what is your take", so I show what MY TAKE is.
And I'm only pointing out that your 'TAKE' is superstitious, absurd,
and laughable, and that it's on the level of sacrificing animals or
chanting magic words.
> > Do you wanna join in??
> > >
> > > Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
> > > God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
> >
> > Since there are no gods, I'd find it extremely foolish to have a
> > conversation with one or to join in complaining to one. But suit
> > yourself if it turns you on.
>
> I smell something here. Why is a 's' after 'no'? It should be 'no god'.
> Why 'gods'. Are you mono? Are you against poly only?
I don't care if you talk about one god or two gods or one karma or two
dogmas. God/gods/karma are all nonsense here, all equally
superstitious. And what's even worse is that while blindly accepting
one stupid superstition, you insult another equally stupid
superstition, and are blind to how they are basically the same and both
are groundless and magically try to explain away everything with magic.
That is delusion of the lowest sort!
> Do you feel nervous use capital G? In English, they called it GOD.
So you believe in "God" too? No, I'm not 'nervous', as God is as
ridiculous as karma, and as I said, really the same thing, or the same
kind of nonsense. An excuse to not take a look at what's going on.
> You got to follow to the rules of language while talking.
> The God and gods are different in English language.
One spook, two spook,
red spook, blue spook.
I don't care about the number of spooks. It's still nonsense talk.
--The King of Karma
H. Moe
King of Karma wrote:
> H. Moe wrote:
> >
> > Here is my stuff, the karma might influence the process since pairing
> > of the genes, way back before the brain started to form.
>
> What does that mean? Magical forces paired your genes? That's
> nonsense, as the genes came from your momma's egg and your daddy's
> sperm. No need to add ghostly forces or karmic magic to explain your
> hook-nose anymore.
I said, "might influence". So what up with your stuff? The "brain waves
of the dying person transmitted to the brain of a baby inside the
woumb", how are you going to cover up that bull shit of yours.
> > Since no Buddhist has talk about transmitting of the brain function
>
> Of course not, since they didn't know about brains.
Here come another un-hedged un-wise and un-true comment. Buddhist of
old day don't know much about how the brain work. But like every one
else of this day and age we know something about how brain works. No
one find out how exactly the brain work.
By the way what is Jesus's take on function of brain? Where did you pic
up your bull shit (transimtting of brain waves and that sort of cold
winter nightmares)?
> > > > But you should not put your stuff in other people mouth.
> > >
> > > Even if she's cute?
> >
> > Look where you put your thing.
> > The girl might turn out to be your long lost sis or aunt.
>
> So, does karma superstitions work for you as you can fantasize girls
> being your mother from a past life when you are sleeping with them?
> I'd see a therapist if I were you. Sounds like you've got issues, not
> karma.
What ever. I don't try to comprehend what you are saying here. I will
let you go on this.
> > > > > How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation,
> > > > > like "only a Buddha can know".
> >
> > > Yes that's just as ridiculous a story. So because other people believe
> > > their stupid superstitious story, you think that this justifies your
> > > believing your own stupid superstitious story? Why not think for
> > > yourself and really look into the matter?
> >
> > Think about what? Who created the universe? Who created life?
>
> What is this 'who'? Why the magic? Why a 'who'? Why blindly accept a
> superstitious story, be it the 'karma' story or the 'god' story, which
> are both really the same nonsensical magic story? Why not look at what
> actually is going on? Is that too much for you?
Well well. First you asked me to think. Then I asked you what to think.
Now you asked me to LOOK.
Any way, I like your reply.
You said "Why not look at what actually is going on?"
That is not what I was talking about. That is all Buddha asked Buddhist
to do, to look carefully what actually is going on.
> > > Do we really need to cling
> > > to any such stories at all?
> >
> > Of course not! You are free to go, whenever you choose.
>
> We're not talking about my living in a democracy. We're talking about
> why cling to superstitions, especially ridiculous ones about spooks
> selecting our genes, when we know better. Do you think you are
> possessed by evil spirits as well when you sneeze?
Did I ever said I cling to my "genes" stuff? I make up the genes stuff
just to show you that your 'brain wave transmitting across the
universe" stuff are bull shits.
You can choose your brain wave bull shit or my genes bullshit. Those
bull shits are four yours to think. ALL YOURS, Sir.
> > He said "what is your take", so I show what MY TAKE is.
>
> And I'm only pointing out that your 'TAKE' is superstitious, absurd,
> and laughable, and that it's on the level of sacrificing animals or
> chanting magic words.
Ok, then. I don't want it, I don't like it but if you want it we can
talk about it. We can go through what I have presented in the first
place. Start from the contest, word by word.
I don't want get involve with an monotheist in petty idology arguement.
If you are a monotheist, I have nothing to discuss with you about karma
and rebirth. If you are a atheist, I assume your sincerity in your
takes. I will go throuth what I had presented line by line, word by
word with you.First, I need a proof that you are an atheist.
> > > Do you wanna join in??
> > > >
> > > > Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
> > > > God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
> > >
> > > Since there are no gods, I'd find it extremely foolish to have a
> > > conversation with one or to join in complaining to one. But suit
> > > yourself if it turns you on.
> >
> > I smell something here. Why is a 's' after 'no'? It should be 'no god'.
> > Why 'gods'. Are you mono? Are you against poly only?
>
> I don't care if you talk about one god or two gods or one karma or two
> dogmas. God/gods/karma are all nonsense here, all equally
> superstitious. And what's even worse is that while blindly accepting
> one stupid superstition, you insult another equally stupid
> superstition, and are blind to how they are basically the same and both
> are groundless and magically try to explain away everything with magic.
> That is delusion of the lowest sort!
You said, "you insult another equally stupid". You feel that there is
an insulting going on when I insulted God. God does not exist remember?
Since there is no victim (no God) there is no crime (no insult).
Since you are feeling and insult, you are feeling for God.
I did not insult a person (such as Jesus or Mohamad peace be upon him),
I did not insult an animal, I did not insulted a thing (such as a
country or book or Bible).
If I have insulted any of above, I will accept that insulting have been
going on. Because All of these exist.
But insulting God is not an insult because it never existed and never
will. You can insult to some thing that never exist.
When I am insulting you or somthing else (even a dog or a river), I
felt I am insulting somebody. But when I am insulting God, I felt I am
insulting NOTHING. Do you know why? Because, for me a river or a dog is
something, but God means NOTHING.
So when I am insulting God, I am insulting NOTHING.
I AM INSULTING NOTHING. (I am not shouthing by using all capital, just
to make sure you read it)
I think you are an monotheist. You said, "Since there are no gods, I'd
find it extremely ..". It is the first halves of the Muslim prayer
call " There is no gods but God".
I have my doubts that you are an true atheist.
So, before we talk anything slightly meaningful, you got to prove you
are an atheaist.
If you are an mono. could you please get out of my way? I have no time
for this, I have nothing more to talk about. I want to go my own way,
you monos can go your own way, whever you go heaven or hell, good
luck.
> > Do you feel nervous use capital G? In English, they called it GOD.
>
> So you believe in "God" too? No, I'm not 'nervous', as God is as
> ridiculous as karma, and as I said, really the same thing, or the same
> kind of nonsense. An excuse to not take a look at what's going on.
>
> > You got to follow to the rules of language while talking.
> > The God and gods are different in English language.
>
> One spook, two spook,
> red spook, blue spook.
>
> I don't care about the number of spooks. It's still nonsense talk.
If you are an atheist, I assume you are sinsere in what ever you are
saying. Let us look carefully and make sense out of what we have been
talk about. I don't want it, I don't like it but I will try. What I
have posted I take responsibility to clear it up.
> --The King of Karma
King of Karma
> King of Karma wrote:
> > H. Moe wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my stuff, the karma might influence the process since pairing
> > > of the genes, way back before the brain started to form.
> >
> > What does that mean? Magical forces paired your genes? That's
> > nonsense, as the genes came from your momma's egg and your daddy's
> > sperm. No need to add ghostly forces or karmic magic to explain your
> > hook-nose anymore.
>
> I said, "might influence". So what up with your stuff?
> The "brain waves of the dying person transmitted to
> the brain of a baby inside the woumb", how are you
> going to cover up that bull shit of yours.
Actually, I claim that such transmission is bullshit. But if you wish
to claim literal reincarnation, you'll have to deal with brains, which
we now know is where memories and our individual psychological traits
are stored. You can't simply invoke magic anymore. Also, you're going
to have to produce a mechanism to demonstrate how karma influences this
process, and tell me quantitatively how much and where this happens.
You can't, because there's no evidence and nothing to test, only a
bunch of anecdotal stories and fairy tales.
> > > Since no Buddhist has talk about transmitting of the brain function
> >
> > Of course not, since they didn't know about brains.
>
> Here come another un-hedged un-wise and un-true comment.
> Buddhist of old day don't know much about how the brain work
> But like every one else of this day and age we know something
> about how brain works. No one find out how exactly the brain work.
Not exactly, but enough to know that there are billions and billions of
neurons and pathways in the brain that form this interconnecting
network that we call a mind. How that could be transmitted into
another body, even without a brain, like a one-celled animal, just
makes no sense. We inherit traits from our parents through genes, and
we can demonstrate how this happens. If you want to call our parents
our past lives, ok. But strangers across space and time that could
"influence the process since pairing of the genes, way back before the
brain started to form"? What could you possibly be talking about?
Magic?
> By the way what is Jesus's take on function of brain?
Who cares what Jesus's take on the brain, or Buddha's was? These guys
taught how to live one's life, how to care about others, be mindful and
kind, and so forth. Doesn't matter what scientific theories they held,
as they were probably both terribly wrong about those things, but got
it right in terms of ethics and psychology.
> > > > > > How they are linked is usually explained with a spooky explanation,
> > > > > > like "only a Buddha can know".
> > >
> > > > Yes that's just as ridiculous a story. So because other people believe
> > > > their stupid superstitious story, you think that this justifies your
> > > > believing your own stupid superstitious story? Why not think for
> > > > yourself and really look into the matter?
> > >
> > > Think about what? Who created the universe? Who created life?
> >
> > What is this 'who'? Why the magic? Why a 'who'? Why blindly accept a
> > superstitious story, be it the 'karma' story or the 'god' story, which
> > are both really the same nonsensical magic story? Why not look at what
> > actually is going on? Is that too much for you?
>
> Well well. First you asked me to think. Then I asked you what to think.
> Now you asked me to LOOK.
> Any way, I like your reply.
>
> You said "Why not look at what actually is going on?"
> That is not what I was talking about. That is all Buddha asked Buddhist
> to do, to look carefully what actually is going on.
Ok, well we finally agree on that. When you look, you don't see
magical past lives or any evidence that anything from a particular dead
person affected you. That's not from looking, that's only from blindly
believing ghost stories and dogma. If you just look, I have no problem
with that.
> > > > Do we really need to cling
> > > > to any such stories at all?
> > >
> > > Of course not! You are free to go, whenever you choose.
> >
> > We're not talking about my living in a democracy. We're talking about
> > why cling to superstitions, especially ridiculous ones about spooks
> > selecting our genes, when we know better. Do you think you are
> > possessed by evil spirits as well when you sneeze?
>
> Did I ever said I cling to my "genes" stuff?
> I make up the genes stuff just to show you that your
> 'brain wave transmitting across the
> universe" stuff are bull shits.
Actually, I'm saying that karma is bullshit too. But if there were
karma, it would have to take brains into account.
> > > He said "what is your take", so I show what MY TAKE is.
> >
> > And I'm only pointing out that your 'TAKE' is superstitious, absurd,
> > and laughable, and that it's on the level of sacrificing animals or
> > chanting magic words.
>
> Ok, then. I don't want it, I don't like it but if you want it we can
> talk about it. We can go through what I have presented in the first
> place. Start from the contest, word by word.
>
> I don't want get involve with an monotheist in petty
> idology arguement.
Looks almost like you define yourself against monotheists.
> If you are a monotheist, I have nothing to discuss with you
> about karma and rebirth. If you are a atheist, I assume
> your sincerity in your takes. I will go throuth what I had
> presented line by line, word by word with you.First, I need
> a proof that you are an atheist.
Well, I don't believe in anything supernatural. No God or gods, no
consciousness apart from brains, no Buddhist devas or hungry ghosts, no
life after death, just what is real, which is what can be experienced
with the senses and extensions of the senses such as telescopes and
microscopes and so forth.
> > > > Do you wanna join in??
> > > > >
> > > > > Hahahaha........... God God god.....what have you done?....hahahaha
> > > > > God...God did you created me? hahaha God God did you designed my ass??
> > > >
> > > > Since there are no gods, I'd find it extremely foolish to have a
> > > > conversation with one or to join in complaining to one. But suit
> > > > yourself if it turns you on.
> > >
> > > I smell something here. Why is a 's' after 'no'? It should be 'no god'.
> > > Why 'gods'. Are you mono? Are you against poly only?
> >
> > I don't care if you talk about one god or two gods or one karma or two
> > dogmas. God/gods/karma are all nonsense here, all equally
> > superstitious. And what's even worse is that while blindly accepting
> > one stupid superstition, you insult another equally stupid
> > superstition, and are blind to how they are basically the same and both
> > are groundless and magically try to explain away everything with magic.
> > That is delusion of the lowest sort!
>
> You said, "you insult another equally stupid". You feel that there is
> an insulting going on when I insulted God. God does not exist remember?
> Since there is no victim (no God) there is no crime (no insult).
> Since you are feeling and insult, you are feeling for God.
I don't understand that. What I mean is that if you believe in karma
and insult God, or believe in God or insult karma, you are silly,
because they are both superstitious notions, and which nonsense you
believe doesn't matter to me. I only like to deal with what we can
experience.
> I did not insult a person (such as Jesus or Mohamad peace be upon him),
> I did not insult an animal, I did not insulted a thing (such as a
> country or book or Bible).
> If I have insulted any of above, I will accept that insulting have been
> going on. Because All of these exist.
>
> But insulting God is not an insult because it never existed and never
> will. You can insult to some thing that never exist.
>
> When I am insulting you or somthing else (even a dog or a river), I
> felt I am insulting somebody. But when I am insulting God, I felt I am
> insulting NOTHING. Do you know why? Because, for me a river or a dog is
> something, but God means NOTHING.
>
> So when I am insulting God, I am insulting NOTHING.
>
> I AM INSULTING NOTHING. (I am not shouthing by using all capital, just
> to make sure you read it)
>
> I think you are an monotheist. You said, "Since there are no gods, I'd
> find it extremely ..". It is the first halves of the Muslim prayer
> call " There is no gods but God".
> I have my doubts that you are an true atheist.
Strange that you're the one believing things and yet you accuse me of
silly beliefs!
> So, before we talk anything slightly meaningful, you got to prove you
> are an atheaist.
Should I kill God? (I think that's already been tried, but point him
out again and I'll blast'im!)
> If you are an mono. could you please get out of my way? I have no time
> for this, I have nothing more to talk about. I want to go my own way,
> you monos can go your own way, whever you go heaven or hell, good
> luck.
I have no problem with your not believing in any God or gods; but you
seem obsessed with your disbelief, and then you turn around and make
claims that are equally as silly as a God. Karma basically serves the
same function as a God, and I say get rid of both concepts. How about
a world without God, without ghosts, without other realms, without life
after death, without karma? That's what I go for!
--The King of Karma
"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
-John Lennon (of the Beatles)
Richard Corfield
><<we do not get lost in thougts, we stay with what
> is happening now...
> .....and we also watch how we tend to get lost in thought.
> drop it all as it happens...>>
Which actually takes a lot of effort, unless you're doing something
which itself takes your complete thought. For relatively low demand
tasks like cycling or standing in a queue it's easy to wander off.
> Jen/buddhapest, our resident Hinduist granny from
> Detroit, has great stuff to say without technical jargon.
I may remain, even at a very abstract level, part Hindu. I think I can
extend agnosticism to the differences and not answer those questions now.
If I were to start seeing some parts of religion as a form of clinging,
which seems a possible interpretation under Buddhism and may actually be
right, I'm not sure that's a helpful way of approaching the vast majority
of people I interact with. I still don't logically understand that form
of devotion. (Hmmm, "looking forward to heaven" versus "meditation on
someone seen as an ideal, such as Buddha or Christ for the vast majority
I meet". I once heard a Christian talk about Christ-nature!)
> If you can understand what they say and put
> it to practice, you don't need anything fancier,
> surely not anything in Indian snakescript or
> Chinese characters. No puja, no bowing and
> scraping, no earthen idol, no fees, etc. In brief,
> drop, drop, drop. That's all you need to know
> and to practice.
And a group of people to practice with and compare notes or provide
support occasionally.
I've now started on "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. I'm not
sure being savaged by a cow was a nice thing to happen to the poor guy
mentioned near the start, even if he did come near enlightenment.
There's a Zechen Dzong group that meet near here every now and then
which could be an interesting group to meet.
Dork of Delusion
> ....Actually, I claim that such transmission is bullshit. But if you wish
> to claim literal reincarnation, you'll have to deal with brains, which
> we now know is where memories and our individual psychological traits
> are stored. You can't simply invoke magic anymore. Also, you're going
> to have to produce a mechanism to demonstrate how karma influences this
> process, and tell me quantitatively how much and where this happens.
> You can't, because there's no evidence and nothing to test, only a
> bunch of anecdotal stories and fairy tales.
================================
So, "King of Karma", I ask you to consider this question when reading the
passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he lying
(with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta), when,
during his great enlightenment experience, he recollected his manifold past
lives thusly (reference link below):
---
".....When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past
lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five,
ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic
contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction
& expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an
appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such
the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There
too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such
was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
manifold past lives in their modes & details.
"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night.
Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light
arose -- as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute."
---
And, "King of Karma", I now ask you to consider this question when reading
the passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he
lying (with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta), when,
during his great enlightenment experience, he gained (direct) knowledge of
the law of kamma thusly:
---
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of
defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I
directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I
saw -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- beings
passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior &
superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma: 'These beings -- who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &
mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
under the influence of wrong views -- with the break-up of the body, after
death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination,
the lower realms, in hell. But these beings -- who were endowed with good
conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held
right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views -- with
the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye,
purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing,
and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
ref:
http://www.vipassana.com/canon/majjhima/mn19.php
So, to reiterate - "King of Karma", since you have stated earlier that "I
claim that such transmission (reincarnation) is bullshit", and also "I'm
saying that karma is bullshit too", I will now ask: What say you -Do you
believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he lying (with the above words
attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta), when, during his great
enlightenment experience, he recollected his manifold past lives and gained
(direct) knowledge of the law of kamma?
-The Dork of Delusion
-------------------------------
Earl of Enlightenment
> "King of Karma" wrote in message (to H. Moe):
>
> passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he lying
>
> And, "King of Karma", I now ask you to consider this question when reading
> the passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he
Dear Deluded Dork,
As a deluded literalist, you've set up a false dilemma of two
ridiculous claims, one that is proof of the Buddha's supernatural
psychic powers and past lives, and one of the Buddha being a common
liar and charlatan.
I call this very problem, "The Fundamentalist's Dilemma".
It transcends Buddhism, as it is often asked by superstitious followers
of all the great religions. Did the Angel Gabriel literally dictate
the Koran to Muhammad, or was Muhammed a liar? Did Jesus cast out
spooks, walk on water, turn water into wine and rise from the dead, or
was he a liar? Feel proud to be in the company of fundamentalists all
across the globe.
Now the answer to this rather mundane false dilemma is universal as
well. The same answer applies to all these wise men, and no war needs
to be waged to prove which was the supernatural hero and which were the
liars. The brilliant theologian and scholar Bart Ehrman answers this
elegantly.
"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who
Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord," he tells a packed
auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs
the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth
option -- legend."
Read the entire thought-provoking interview of Ehrman at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2006/03/04/AR2006030401369_pf.html
"Ehrman's latest book, _Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed
the Bible and Why_, has become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of
the year. A slender book of textual criticism, currently at No. 16 on
the New York Times bestseller list, it casts doubt on any number of New
Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well, gospel. Example:
A crowd readies itself to stone an adulterous woman to death. Jesus
leans down, doodles in the dust. Says, let the one without sin cast the
first stone. The crowd melts away. It's one of the most famous stories
in the Bible. And it's most likely fiction, says Ehrman, seconding
other scholars who say scribes added the episode to the biblical canon
centuries after the life of Christ. There are dozens of other examples
in _Misquoting Jesus_, things that go to the heart of the faith, things
that have puzzled scholars for centuries. What actually happened to
Jesus of Nazareth, there on the sands of Judea? Was he a small-time
Jewish revolutionary or the Son of God? Both? Neither? These ancient
questions have been the guideposts to Ehrman's life. His take on them
-- first as devout believer in biblical inerrancy, then as a skeptic
who rejects it all -- suggests a demand for black and white in an arena
where others see faith, mystery and the far traces of the unknowable."
Such stories about the Buddha are also legend, created and written down
after 500 years or longer. For if you believe such outlandish
supernatural stories, surely you would also believe the description of
the Buddha himself, from which we get the famous pictures in the
statue:
>From the Pali Canon, in the third division of the Digha Niyaya, called
the Patika Division, and it's discourse number 30, the Lakkhana Sutta:
The Marks of a Great Man
There are 32 main characteristics (Pali: Lakkhana Mahapurisa 32):
"These, monks, are the thirty-two marks peculiar to a Great Man."
"And sages of other communions know these thirty-two marks, but they do
not know the karmic reasons for the gaining of them."
1. He has feet with a level sole (Pali: supati thapado). Note: "feet
with level tread,/ so that he places his foot evenly on the ground,/
lifts it evenly,/ and touches the ground evenly with the entire sole."
(Lakkhana Sutta)
2. He has wheel marks on soles (Pali: he thapadatalesu cakkani
jatani).
3. He has projecting heels (Pali: ayatapa ni).
4. He has long fingers and toes (Pali: digha nguli).
5. His hands and feet are soft-skinned (Pali: mudutalahathapado).
6. He has netlike lines on palms and soles (Pali: jalahathapado).
7. He has high raised ankles (Pali: ussa nkhapado).
8. He has taut calf muscles like an antelope (Pali: e nimigasadisaja
ngho).
9. He can touch his knees without bending (Pali: thitako va
anonamanto).
10. His sexual organs are concealed in a sheath (Pali:
kosohitavatguyho).
11. His complexion is bright, the color of gold (Pali: suva n nava
no). Note: "His body is more fair than all/ the Gods he seems, great
Indra's like" (Lakkhana Sutta).
12. His skin is so fine that no dust can attach to it (Pali:
sukhumacchavi).
13. His body hair are separate with one hair per pore (Pali:
ekekalomo).
14. His body hair is bluish and curls clockwise (Pali: uddhagalomo).
15. He has a godlike upright stance (Pali: brahmujugatto).
16. He has the seven convexities of the flesh (Pali: satusado). Note:
"the seven convex surfaces,/ on both hands, both feet, both shoulders,
and his trunk." (Lakkhana Sutta)
17. He has a chest like a lion's (Pali: sihapuba dhakayo).
18. There is no hollow between his shoulders (Pali: pitantara mso).
19. The distance from hand-to-hand and head-to-toe is equal (Pali:
nigrodhaparima n dalo). Note: incidentally, these are also the ideal
proportions according to Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.
20. He has a round and smooth neck (Pali: samva d dakhando).
21. He has sensitive taste-buds (Pali: rasagasagi).
22. His jaw is like a lion's (Pali: sihahanu).
23. He has 40 teeth (Pali: cata.lisadanto). Note: The average person
normally has 32 teeth.
24. His teeth are evenly spaced (Pali: samadanto).
25. His teeth are without gaps in-between (Pali: avira ladanto).
26. He has crystal-like canine teeth (Pali: sukadanto).
27. He has a large, long tongue (Pali: pahutajivho).
28. He has a voice like a Brahman's (Pali: brahmasaro hiravikabha
ni).
29. He has very blue eyes (Pali: abhi nila netto). Note 1: "very
(abhi) blue (nila) eyes (netto)" is the literal translation, although
it has been interpreted variously as actually blue, or possibly
blue-black. Nila is the word used to describe a sapphire and the color
of the sea, but also the color of a rain cloud. It also defines the
color of the Hindu God Krishna. Note 2: "His lashes are like a cow's;
his eyes are blue./ Those who know such things declare/ 'A child which
such fine eyes/ will be one who's looked upon with joy./ If a layman,
thus he'll be/ Pleasing to the sight of all./ If ascetic he becomes,/
Then loved as healer of folk's woes.'" (Lakkhana Sutta)
30. His eyes are like a cow's (Pali: gopa mukho). Note: Probably
refers to large eyes and long eyelashes.
31. He has a white soft wisp of hair in the center of the brow (Pali:
una loma bhamukantare jata). Note: this became the symbolic urna.
32. His head is like a royal turban (Pali: u nahisiso).
So if you accept legends of seeing zillions of past lives all at once,
as well as a plethora of psychic powers, you surely will accept as well
accept the mere tangible, physical description of the greatest of men,
who had all the marks of great men, including a long tongue, long
earlobes, extra teeth, webbed feet, and a penis that withdraws into a
sheath!
That is, the Buddha was a freakazoid mutant alien!
So, deluded dork, see how silly it is to be a blind faith
fundamentalist, you alien freakazoid mutant worshipper?
As I said, this applies to all the great legends, from the Buddha to
Jesus. And just so, Bart Ehrman's scholarly study of Jesus applies to
the Buddha as well. There is the actual human Buddha who lived, and
taught for several decades, and had no special powers, but like the
present day teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh, taught people to help
reduce their suffering. This Buddha suffered back pain and had to lean
against a tree when he was older. Then there is the legendary Buddha
who could see past lives, and had magical powers, such as the ability
to stretch his hand up so far that he could touch the sun and the moon.
That's 93 million miles. And of course there was his long earlobes,
tongue, webbed feet, and that penis that retracted into a sheath.
Well, deluded dork, can you guess which of these two Buddhas, the human
one or the legendary alien freak-show, is more helpful to me in my
Buddhist practice?
And the same goes for Jesus. Who is the true spiritual follower of
Jesus, the one who blindly believes that Jesus had magic powers, was
the half-god son of the magical Cosmic Carpenter, and reincarnated from
the dead after being murdered, or the human being who simply taught
those around him to love their neighbor, and to be kind to others and
treat them as you would wish to be treated?
I could quote Stephen Batchelor's excellent book, "Buddhism Without
Beliefs" as well, but, you just consider all the various legends found
in the sutras, especially if you add all the mahayana ones, the list of
magic is endless, so you get the picture. The Buddha was no liar, nor
a supernatural freak-show. He was simply awake. And then he became a
legend.
Yours in the Dhamma,
The Earl of Enlightenment
"India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human
speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great
grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most astrictive
materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!"
-Mark Twain
stumper
What do you mean by "he was simply awake"?
Are you trying to create a legend or something?
If not, kindly tell us what he actually did, please.
--
~Stumper
fogpotion
to be born as we are, but we are and being born means inheriting some
karma.
This isn't the same as a 'past life' that exists outside the path of
your current exsistence. I believe the Buddha did caution against such
thinking - contemplating a 'past life' or a 'future life' is forgetting
about being present in this life, and this body.
fogpotion
King
Actually, I'm saying that karma is bullshit too. But if there were
karma, it would have to take brains into account.
I don't believe in any kind of literal reincarnation. However, the
memory and the brain are really not understood much now. Even brain
experts can not tell you exactly how long term memory works or why, for
example, we dream.
My understanding of karma is that if you do something, say something,
or even think something there are effects.
Thus, saying angry words causes the body to react, the arms tremble or
the heart races. This action also has effects in the world around us.
So - at least my understanding of karma does take 'thought' into
account. Thoughts do have effects. They cause us to react in specific
ways which in turn set in motion other events.
brian mitchell
> Dork of Delusion wrote:
> > "King of Karma" wrote in message (to H. Moe):
> >
> > So, "King of Karma", I ask you to consider this question when reading the
> > passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he lying
> > (with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta),...
> >
> > And, "King of Karma", I now ask you to consider this question when reading
> > the passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he
> > lying (with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta), ...
> Dear Deluded Dork,
> As a deluded literalist, you've set up a false dilemma of two
> ridiculous claims, one that is proof of the Buddha's supernatural
> psychic powers and past lives, and one of the Buddha being a common
> liar and charlatan.
<snip screeds of dishonest swerving nonsense>
The question for you is: on what basis do you determine which part of
any particular sutta is to be disregarded as mere legend and which is to
be regarded as liberating wisdom? The answer so far seems to be that you
disregard any part which doesn't support what you already happen to
believe.
King of Karma
> King
>
> Actually, I'm saying that karma is bullshit too. But if there were
> karma, it would have to take brains into account.
Yes, I agree.
> I don't believe in any kind of literal reincarnation. However, the
> memory and the brain are really not understood much now.
> Even brain experts can not tell you exactly how long term
> memory works or why, for example, we dream.
>
> My understanding of karma is that if you do something, say
> something, or even think something there are effects.
> Thus, saying angry words causes the body to react, the
> arms tremble or the heart races. This action also has effects
> in the world around us.
Yes, that is true. And they reinforce all sorts of psychologically
conditioned patterns within us. Whereas every time we stop and instead
of strengthening the pattern, we pause and experience a moment of
mindfulness, those patterns are weakened.
> So - at least my understanding of karma does take 'thought' into
> account. Thoughts do have effects. They cause us to react in
> specific ways which in turn set in motion other events.
Yes, in that they take place in brains and bodies of real people. They
have strong effects. So yes, I am all in favor of 'soft' karma, that
happens within a person from moment to moment, year to year. Sure.
But let's make sure that we are clear that the talk of 'hard' karma
across lifetimes crossing from one body to another and so forth is
mythical and metaphorical, whereas the 'soft' kind is demonstrable and
makes a lot of sense. So the term karma is useful in terms of real
psychological patterns. Not adding superstition but taking the 'hard'
karma stories as metaphor for the 'soft' kind that is real allows one
to make use of the talk of karma and allow it to be helpful in one's
Buddhist practice.
--The King of Karma
"How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours."
-Wayne Dyer
Earl of Enlightenment
> Earl of Enlightenment wrote:
>
> > Dork of Delusion wrote:
> > > "King of Karma" wrote in message (to H. Moe):
> > >
> > > So, "King of Karma", I ask you to consider this question when reading the
> > > passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he lying
> > > (with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta),...
> > >
> > > And, "King of Karma", I now ask you to consider this question when reading
> > > the passage below: Do you believe the Buddha was delusional, or was he
> > > lying (with these words attributed to him in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta), ...
>
> > Dear Deluded Dork,
>
> > As a deluded literalist, you've set up a false dilemma of two
> > ridiculous claims, one that is proof of the Buddha's supernatural
> > psychic powers and past lives, and one of the Buddha being a common
> > liar and charlatan.
> >
> > It transcends Buddhism, as it is often asked by superstitious followers
> > of all the great religions. Did the Angel Gabriel literally dictate
> > the Koran to Muhammad, or was Muhammed a liar? Did Jesus cast out
> > spooks, walk on water, turn water into wine and rise from the dead, or
> > was he a liar? Feel proud to be in the company of fundamentalists all
> > across the globe.
> >
> > Now the answer to this rather mundane false dilemma is universal as
> > well. The same answer applies to all these wise men, and no war needs
> > to be waged to prove which was the supernatural hero and which were the
> > liars. The brilliant theologian and scholar Bart Ehrman answers this
> > elegantly.
> >
> > "Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to
> > who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord," he tells a packed
> > auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs
> > the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth
> > option -- legend."
>
>
> The question for you is:
Sir, your display of hatred and delusion here, as well as slander of my
excellent, well-thought-out and insightful points is shameful and
unbecoming on anyone with a serious Buddhist practice. The only
question for me is how to react at such a display of ignorance, to
someone who not only snips my excellent points (which I have partly
restored for the innocent observer), but who then attempts to bait such
a royal poster as myself.
You, sir, are a prevaricating scoundrel. May your outbursts of
aversion and your attachment to dogma, views, and superstition result
in your rebirth as a sheep in a Scottish slaughterhouse.
--The Earl of Enlightenment
stumper
>
> Sir, your display of hatred and delusion here, as well as slander of my
> excellent, well-thought-out and insightful points is shameful and
> unbecoming on anyone with a serious Buddhist practice. The only
> question for me is how to react at such a display of ignorance, to
> someone who not only snips my excellent points (which I have partly
> restored for the innocent observer), but who then attempts to bait such
> a royal poster as myself.
>
> You, sir, are a prevaricating scoundrel. May your outbursts of
> aversion and your attachment to dogma, views, and superstition result
> in your rebirth as a sheep in a Scottish slaughterhouse.
>
Talking to the mirror again?
Do get a pet, even a fish, please.
--
~Stumper
brian mitchell
> brian mitchell wrote:
> > <snip screeds of dishonest swerving nonsense>
> > The question for you is:
> Sir, your display of hatred and delusion here, as well as slander of my
> excellent, well-thought-out and insightful points is shameful and
> unbecoming on anyone with a serious Buddhist practice. The only
> question for me is how to react at such a display of ignorance, to
> someone who not only snips my excellent points (which I have partly
> restored for the innocent observer), but who then attempts to bait such
> a royal poster as myself.
> You, sir, are a prevaricating scoundrel. May your outbursts of
> aversion and your attachment to dogma, views, and superstition result
> in your rebirth as a sheep in a Scottish slaughterhouse.
"You set this game up that anything [of an inward or
super-rational nature] gets labeled by you as bad. That way you get to
automatically
invalidate any serious criticism of anything you say without even
listening to it. Then you turn around and attack the poster
personally. It's your one-two punch strategy."
buddhapest
"Earl of Enlightenment" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169093751.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
was the guy making popcorn also
supposed to bring the waders?
buddhapest
"stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:85-cnQAtvqI...@ptd.net...
it's the only one that listens
and it never interupts
> Do get a pet, even a fish, please.
maybe a pussy.....cat?
Earl of Enlightenment
You quote the excellent words of His Divine Grace in response to the
anti-rational ravings of Keynes, but you do not deal with the issue --
or is this a confession of your own dodging the astute points I made
once again? Prevaricator, have you nothing to comment from my reply,
where I point out that this is exactly the same pattern that your
Christian fundamentalist counterpart uses to justify his superstitions
as well? If your only recourse is to insult such highly esteemed
royalty such as I, then perhaps you have nothing but your blind faith
in the supernatural to guide you.
Whereas my honest and skillful post speaks for itself.
--The Earl of Enlightenment
Ace of Awakening
completely disappeared - only The Ace of Awakening now is! Yes, the
Wondrous Wisdom of your Writings and the Perpetual Power of your
Proclamations have liberated me from my long standing delusions - I am now
bathed in the Unspeakable Delight of Blissful, Ultimate Realization thanks
entirely to you. Wonderful indeed! My gratitude toward you knows no
bounds - you are truly The All-Knowing One of our Modern Age and deserving
of the highest praise!
Through your endless compassion, you have taken the time to teach even me,
someone weak and undeserving, that silly, superstitious fabrications such as
rebirth and karma really have nothing at all to do with Buddhism. And it of
course follows that there could not possibly be any such mysterious,
ghostly, fairy tale "thing" as fundamental, all-pervading "Buddha-nature"
that we can "wake up" to - that's most certainly just more magical, spooky
stuff that was added to the Buddha's teachings long after his death!
To think of all the years I have wasted staring at the wall, practicing Zen,
inquiring "Who am I" in a silly, misguided attempt to "wake up" to this
mythical, fairy tale fundamental all-pervading "Buddha-nature", all in
vain..... But, oh so thankfully, due to the Infinite Wisdom of your
teachings based on modern science that you have bestowed upon us all here in
this very thread, I now know that I am in Reality this body, and my Mind is
entirely based on the functioning of the billions of neurons in my brain.
This True, Perfect Knowledge has completely quenched my spiritual thirst,
and ALL of my previous spiritual confusion and doubt has now been
transformed into the Blissful Clarity of Perfect Enlightenment, since I now
know, thanks to you, Earl of Enlightenment, that I am fundamentally a
function of my brain!
And since I now also know that it's completely "the end of the line" after I
die (since you so skilfully taught me that there's no such thing as rebirth
or karma), there's nothing more I need do now except be a good, ethical
person and be nice to people like the Buddha was, and help people overcome
their suffering by reaching Nirvana through your teachings the way I did -
by simply accepting that I am my body, and my Mind is entirely a function of
my brain and it's billions of neurons, and that's all....
The Ultimate Truth is all so simple, Earl of Enlightenment, all so
simple..... And I thank you from the bottom of my Perfectly Awakened heart
and my neuron-infested brain for showing me the True Way through your
Infinite Well of Wisdom and Compassion based on modern science. You are
truly the All-Knowing Buddha of our Modern Age!
All Together Now, Everyone! -
Praise to Earl, Praise to Earl - and his Infinite Well of Wisdom and
Compassion based on modem science!
Praise to Earl, Praise to Earl - truly the All-Knowing Buddha of our Modern
Age!
-The Ace of Awakening
(thanks to The Almighty Earl of Enlightenment!)
=============
"Earl of Enlightenment" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169083233.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Keynes
wrote:
>WELL, Earl of Enlightenment, you have done it!! The Dork of Delusion has
>completely disappeared - only The Ace of Awakening now is! Yes, the
>Wondrous Wisdom of your Writings and the Perpetual Power of your
>Proclamations have liberated me from my long standing delusions - I am now
>bathed in the Unspeakable Delight of Blissful, Ultimate Realization thanks
>entirely to you. Wonderful indeed! My gratitude toward you knows no
>bounds - you are truly The All-Knowing One of our Modern Age and deserving
>of the highest praise!
>
You too?
I have also found ultimate freedom through the teachings
of the Earl.
Now all my doubts have been removed. The only question
for me now is whether to be a doorstop or a doily.
Can't be a tent pole. That would be wrong.
Lee Rudolph
>I have also found ultimate freedom through the teachings
>of the Earl.
>
>Now all my doubts have been removed. The only question
>for me now is whether to be a doorstop or a doily.
>
>Can't be a tent pole. That would be wrong.
I see you have advanced to the logic of either/or/nor.
Lee Rudolph
Robert Epstein
And what exactly does that mean, if nothing freeky?
Robert
- - - - - - -
Earl of Enlightenment
> WELL, Earl of Enlightenment, you have done it!! The Dork of Delusion has
> completely disappeared - only The Ace of Awakening now is! Yes, the
> Wondrous Wisdom of your Writings and the Perpetual Power of your
> Proclamations have liberated me from my long standing delusions - I am now
> bathed in the Unspeakable Delight of Blissful, Ultimate Realization thanks
> entirely to you. Wonderful indeed!
Not so fast, Grasshoppah! Such momentary flashes of euphoria will pass
soon. Enlightened are yet you not!
> My gratitude toward you knows no bounds - you are truly
> The All-Knowing One of our Modern Age and deserving
> of the highest praise!
Actually, I am only but a humble employee of the King of Karma.
> Through your endless compassion, you have taken the time to teach even me,
> someone weak and undeserving, that silly, superstitious fabrications such as
> rebirth and karma really have nothing at all to do with Buddhism.
Then you have surely schmoked too much and did not pay attention.
While superstitions, such as past lives and magical beasties, have
nothing to do with your practice, the point was to make room for the
real karma and rebirth that take place every moment! Yes every moment.
You see, in your superstitions, you were clinging to stories about
nonsense other lives. Whereas rebirth and karma, when they are real,
always have to do with this body, here and now. Every moment your
patterns of thought and conditioning are reborn. The belief in spooky
pasts lives was only a distraction away from this. If you have
liberated yourself from superstition, then it is time for the next
step, which is to be mindful and present to all that is in the present
moment. In other cultures, where belief in reincarnation was part of
the culture, such metaphors were helpful. In our culture, where mostly
we are rebelling from our own cultural baggage, others' metaphors tend
only to serve as something to cling to for security. Thus, better to
let go of superstition and pay attention to the real, what is
experienced here and now. Your zafu is the only 'Ultimate' anything.
All else is makyo, delusion, fluff.
> And it of course follows that there could not possibly be any such mysterious,
> ghostly, fairy tale "thing" as fundamental, all-pervading "Buddha-nature"
Yes, "Buddha-nature" is not a "thing". By reifying it into a ghostly
"thing", you had made the same mistake as those who believe in "souls"
and "God" in your own culture. Rather than a thing, Buddha-nature is a
metaphor, and a way of being of experiencing.
> - that's most certainly just more magical, spooky
> stuff that was added to the Buddha's teachings long after his death!
Most of Buddhism is cultural stuff added to the Buddha's teachings long
after his death. Remember, Buddhism is like a beautiful woman who
needed to whore herself to stay alive and so humped many a Shamanist to
have a house to stay in and an bed to sleep in. It is full of
wonderful teachings, but make sure you don't catch a social disease,
such as literalorrea.
> To think of all the years I have wasted staring at the wall, practicing Zen,
If you have only been staring at the wall and reinforcing beliefs of
yours, then you have indeed wasted much time, Grasshoppah. Zen is not
about staring at walls or about fantasizing paradises on the other side
of walss, but rather opening up to whatever arises and being fully open
and present to it right here, right now. Shoving beliefs, concepts,
and especially superstitions about some other lives on top of the
experiencing in this present moment has nothing to do with Zen. No
wonder you can still not grasp the pebble from my hand!
> in a silly, misguided attempt to "wake up" to this mythical,
> fairy tale fundamental all-pervading "Buddha-nature", all in vain.
If you would drop such stories and just stop mentating such nonsense,
and just watch, just pay attention in this present moment, you would be
surrounded by the fundamental all-pervading suchness of this present
moment. Too bad you have wasted so much time instead.
> But, oh so thankfully, due to the Infinite Wisdom of your teachings based
> on modern science that you have bestowed upon us all here in
> this very thread, I now know that I am in Reality this body,
Good. That's a start. After doing Zen, instead of fantasizing on
astral planes, you will have an "in-the-body" experience and know that
all that is known is physical bodily senses and the object of these
senses. Any notion of a "you" as well as magical beasts and astral
planes and past lives are all 'makyo' or fluff.
> and my Mind is entirely
Oops. You've slipped into deep samsara again, with nonsense talk about
a soul by reincarnating your superstition again about a soul or "Mind".
Note that any use of capital letters is a sure sign of ego and
delusion. There is no "Mind". But do not even mentate, "There is no
Mind," as that will just further more bibble-babble. Rather, just
watch the physical reality of the breath go in and out, and watch
sensations and thoughts and feelings arise and then pass, like soap
bubbles being blown by nobody which rise up and then pop again. Just
watch the coming and going, rising and falling. No 'Mind'. No matter.
Just being present.
> based on the functioning of the billions of neurons in my brain.
> This True, Perfect Knowledge has completely quenched my spiritual thirst,
It is true, but it is not perfect knowledge. You do not experience
your brain. This is just another concept to cling to out of fear. Let
go of that too and just watch. Coming, going, rising, falling. Do not
mentate "brain".
> and ALL of my previous spiritual confusion and doubt has now been
> transformed into the Blissful Clarity of Perfect Enlightenment,
No, that is more makyo. There will be moments of giggly euphoria.
They are not any silly capital letter fluff. They are only impermanent
transitory sensations mixed with thoughts. Cling to them not. The
same with painful and unpleasant sensations and thoughts. They also
are impermanent and transitory, and will pass also. Do not mentate
"Heaven" with the former nor mentate "Hell" with the latter. Just
watch without reacting, without labeling, without clinging or pushing
away. Just watch all is coming, going, rising, falling. Pay attention
to what happens next. And then to what happens next. And then to what
happens next.
> since I now know, thanks to you, Earl of Enlightenment, that I am
> fundamentally a function of my brain!
This you do not know; it is merely the most reasonable inference.
However, whether you think this or not, it matters not to Zen practice.
It only matters if you are diagnosed with a tumor. But do not mentate
on *that*, either, because needless worry is the source of much dukkha.
Rather, do not mentate "brain" but watch the experiences, and note
seeing, hearing, touching, thinking, and not that the senses and sense
experiences are all that there is in the present moment. How the
mechanism of the brain works is no more important than is what the zafu
under your butt is filled with. Rather, just pay attention to the
sensations of pressure, of warmth, of tightness, whatever is present.
Do not mentate the 'brain'. Do not mentate the stuffing of the zafu.
Do not mentate the stuffing of the brain. All that is distraction from
the present moment experience. Just watch, coming, going, rising,
falling -- watch all sensations arise like soap bubbles and then go
pop, arise, pop, arise, pop.
> And since I now also know that it's completely "the end of the line"
> after I die
More makyo. Silly grasshoppah, it's completely "the end of the line"
every moment! You see, I will tell you a big secret. You were never
born. So you cannot die. Your fear, which you perpetuate, is that
this 'you' will die and will come to an end. And so you create the
opposite superstition to give you comfort, that you will continue. But
the end of the line is this moment.
And even in my royal robes, I cannot prove this to you -- but you can
experience it. You have the zafu. Just sit and watch, pay attention
to the coming, going, rising, falling. Then instead of mentating a
'you' that will 'continue', be present to the fear which creates such
abstractions to cling to. Just watch the fear. It's only fear. That
will pass too. Watch and see that there is no 'you', no 'Mind' in all
of that, only fear. This present moment is the end of the line. Each
moment. This is it.
> there's nothing more I need do now except be a good, ethical
> person and be nice to people like the Buddha was,
Actually, if you suffer not, then yes! There is nothing more to do.
But if you still suffer or have obsessive thoughts -- and I see you do
by your use of capital letters -- then more practice would be helpful.
Otherwise, being a kind ethical person, and helping other people and
living your life fully would be fine. Or climb a big wonderful tree.
It's just like being on the zafu, except it is harder to just watch and
pay attention fully. If you are happy, then by all means, there is
nothing to do except live a full, good, ethical life.
> and help people overcome their suffering by reaching Nirvana through
> your teachings the way I did -
I'm afraid that if you think 'Nirvana' has a capital 'N' and is
somewhere else to be reached, then you have slipped into delusion
again. More time on zafu required. Nirvana cannot be reached. It is
not a place to get, like going from A to B. It is more like a going
from A to A. This very samsara is nirvana, if you only just stop and
pay attention. There is no where else to go, nothing else to do. Just
shut the mouth and pay attention, coming, going, rising, falling.
> by simply accepting that I am my body,
Do not mentate 'I' or 'I am' or 'my'. There is no 'I' which is
anything. There is no 'my'. There is only do!
If you mentate "'my' body" you have already fallen into delusion. Just
watch the bodily sensations. Terms like 'body' or 'mind' or 'brain'
are all abstract concepts; just know the body by paying attention to
sensations arise and pass, one after another, like soap bubbles that
float up and then go 'pop'.
> and my Mind is entirely a function of my brain and it's billions of neurons,
No, you are back in samsara again by mentating clinging nonsense of
'my' and capital letter nonsense 'Mind'. All that is delusion. There
is no 'Mind'; there is no 'my'; there is only do. There are billions
of neurons and billions of stars. Do not focus on the ultimate inner
or outer. They are only distractions. Just watch what is seen, hear
what is heard, and feel what is felt. Watch all of that arise and
pass, come and go. Do not mentate the world. Do not mentate the 'me'
and 'my'.
> The Ultimate Truth is all so simple, Earl of Enlightenment,
No. While truth can often be simple, we are complicated. There is no
'Ultimate' and no 'Truth' and no 'Mind' to know either. Only there is
this, feeling and the felt, seeing and the seen, hearing and the heard.
Just watch sensations and thoughts arise and then pop like soap
bubbles, arise and pass, coming and going. Just watch.
> You are truly the All-Knowing Buddha of our Modern Age!
> All Together Now, Everyone! -
> Praise to Earl, Praise to Earl - and his Infinite Well of Wisdom
Again, more nonsense. Only teacher, the zafu is.
Bow not to the Earl, the Duke, or to the King; to the zafu bow only.
>
> -The Ace of Awakening
> (thanks to The Almighty Earl of Enlightenment!)
>
Poor nutcase. Somebody hit that dork with a Zen stick, please.
But make sure to get some money out of him first.
--The Earl of Enlightenment
"Nirvana is not the blowing out of the candle.
It is the extinguishing of the flame because day is come."
-Rabindranath Tagore
brian mitchell
> . . . If your only recourse is to insult such highly esteemed
> royalty such as I, then perhaps you have nothing but your blind faith
> in the supernatural to guide you.
> Whereas my honest and skillful post speaks for itself.
You're like one of those fish which vomits up a cloud of foul matter and
gases to cover its backward retreat under a rock. This anti-religious
litany you trot out in response to any challenge is mere defensiveness.
It's you who has not answered any of the substantive points put to you,
so I'll ask you again:
What is it that enables you to determine which part of any given sutta
can be disregarded as mere legend and which should be regarded as
liberating wisdom?
Shouldn't we look into this?
Déjà Fu
damn! sounds like a serious problem.
don't suppose a toothpick and a q-tip
would be much help. guess you'll have
to figure it out for yourselves...
brian mitchell
Please don't scare him away.
Déjà Fu
ok, but you have to make tea tomorrow
i'm off duty...
H. Moe
> H. Moe wrote:
> > King of Karma wrote:
> > > H. Moe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is my stuff, the karma might influence the process since pairing
> > > > of the genes, way back before the brain started to form.
> > >
> > > What does that mean? Magical forces paired your genes? That's
> > > nonsense, as the genes came from your momma's egg and your daddy's
> > > sperm. No need to add ghostly forces or karmic magic to explain your
> > > hook-nose anymore.
> >
> > I said, "might influence". So what up with your stuff?
> > The "brain waves of the dying person transmitted to
> > the brain of a baby inside the woumb", how are you
> > going to cover up that bull shit of yours.
>
> Actually, I claim that such transmission is bullshit. But if you wish
> to claim literal reincarnation, you'll have to deal with brains, which
> we now know is where memories and our individual psychological traits
> are stored. You can't simply invoke magic anymore.
Of course you can claim such "brain waves/rays transmission are
bullshits. You bring those bullshits under topic. When we are talking
about rebirth no one except you talk about brain wave transmission. It
is you who bring in bull shit in the first and then CLAIM there is
bullshits. No one is talking about magic here, again it is only you.
No one claim that memories and psychological traits are
transmitted/transfered between individuals. That is the yet another
bull shit you bring in here.
All the monk is talking is about "cause and affect and the string of
events". Under this topic nothing is transmitted and no body invoke
magic. If you want to talk about cause and affect join in the
discussion. If you want to bring in your bull shits such as brain waves
and magic. Please, could you kindly stuff your magic and brain waves
transmission up yours and leaves.
If you are interested in the function of brain and the magic, go and
find the appropriate resources. It is certainly not in here.
Btw, the brain is an very interesting wide and deep subject in itself.
But no body say you need a brain to be a living thing. Buddha never
said you a brain or heart to be a sentient being.
The rest I will check it later.
stumper
Before you go,
give that fireboy some wood to chop.
--
~Stumper
Déjà Fu
hello hello
hello hello
goodby goodby
goodby goodby
-- Paul Simon
Déjà Fu
sentient being need no brain boing boing
boing boing need no sentient being boing
being boing boing boing boing be boing
bhudda say bhudda boing boing boing boing
boing bhudda bhudda boing boing no body say
boing boing bhudda boing boing
Well, that's as close as I can get, anyway...
Earl of Enlightenment
> "Earl of Enlightenment" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > . . . If your only recourse is to insult such highly esteemed
> > royalty such as I, then perhaps you have nothing but your blind faith
> > in the supernatural to guide you.
>
> > Whereas my honest and skillful post speaks for itself.
>
> You're like one of those fish which vomits up a cloud of foul matter
Back to insulting, I see.
> What is it that enables you to determine which part of any given sutta
> can be disregarded as mere legend and which should be regarded as
> liberating wisdom?
How many times must I answer something that is so simple? Again, if
it's something that pertains to reality, like breathing, or dealing
with aversion or craving, or fear and so forth, then tentatively take
it at face value, and only you find it helpful and seemingly true in
your experience adopt it. If it's something that defies physics or
reason, or like reaching up and touching the sun or moon with one's
hand, or having a penis that retracts into a sheath, or of beasties
such as devas or not dying when you die or traveling to other planes of
existence, or walking on water or turning water into wine, or rising
from the dead -- in other words, if it sounds like a fairy tale or
horror movie -- then it shouldn't be regarded as literal truth. Then
see if as metaphor it may be useful as liberating wisdom, or if not,
see if there is evidence that it is cultural baggage. But the acid
test, as I said over and over is this: all you need to do is sit on
your cushion and pay attention and see what experiences happen. That's
where Zen is, here and now, this very body that is experiencing, not in
some other lifetime after death in some astral plane by some ineffable
Mind, which has nothing to do with this experience here and now.
None of us has returned from the dead or remembered where they buried
treasure in an alleged last life. Nobody in our lifetimes has every
displayed an iota of psychic powers ever. Such things don't concern
practice. So talk about life after death and realms and reincarnations
or going to heaven don't have anything to do with our experiences.
However, we are afraid to die, and we cling to our sense of some solid
existence. So fear and clinging are part of our experiences. Hence,
forget about stories of life after death, and pay attention to stories
about fear and clinging before death.
It really is rather simple. Reincarnation and flying saucers and devas
and dragons are all possible, but nobody alive has any experience of
them, nor is there any evidence of any of these things. Craving,
aversion, clinging, suffering, fear -- all of those are experienced all
around us. The categories separate rather clearly. If you crave
magic, rather than focus on believing in magic, look at your boredom
right now and your craving and what is happening inside your body,
instead of fantasizing about a Universal Mind.
You may now resume insults and try to invalidate this post as well.
Your continuing to insult me instead of looking into what bothers you
parallels your clinging to superstitions instead of looking into the
fear behind them.
--The Earl of Enlightenment
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer,
pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting,
the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive."
-Carl Sagan quotes
> > "Earl of Enlightenment" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169083233.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
buddhapest
> > You're like one of those fish which vomits up a cloud of foul matter
>
> Back to insulting, I see.
is an insult forgivable if it's correct?
> > What is it that enables you to determine which part of any given sutta
> > can be disregarded as mere legend and which should be regarded as
> > liberating wisdom?
>
> How many times must I answer something that is so simple?
may depend upon whom you're speaking
to. talking to one's self, all that one knows
could be said to be simple.
Again, if
> it's something that pertains to reality, like breathing, or dealing
> with aversion or craving, or fear and so forth, then tentatively take
> it at face value,
dealing with a fear of an aversion to breathing
can be tentatively faced valued to death.
and only you find it helpful and seemingly true in
> your experience adopt it.
helpful shmelpful. in 100 years nobody
will even remember anything that
was argued about here.
If it's something that defies physics or
> reason,
[the remainder of karmadroll's logic
and reasoning addiction celebration
snipped out of pure unadulterated
compassion for anyone that may have
had the displeasured chagrin of having
accidentally read this far]
Dork of Delusion
> Ace of Awakening wrote:
>> WELL, Earl of Enlightenment, you have done it!! The Dork of Delusion has
>> completely disappeared - only The Ace of Awakening now is! Yes, the
>> Wondrous Wisdom of your Writings and the Perpetual Power of your
>> Proclamations have liberated me from my long standing delusions - I am
>> now
>> bathed in the Unspeakable Delight of Blissful, Ultimate Realization
>> thanks
>> entirely to you. Wonderful indeed!
>
> Not so fast, Grasshoppah! Such momentary flashes of euphoria will pass
> soon. Enlightened are yet you not!
Oh Pooh! Looks like it's back to being just the Dork of Delusion again....
I have read the further Great Teachings you have provided me, O All-Knowing
One, and my gratitude towards you for providing them again knows no bounds!
I wish to touch on certain points:
>> To think of all the years I have wasted staring at the wall, practicing
>> Zen,
>
> If you have only been staring at the wall and reinforcing beliefs of
> yours, then you have indeed wasted much time, Grasshoppah. Zen is not
> about staring at walls or about fantasizing paradises on the other side
> of walss, but rather opening up to whatever arises and being fully open
> and present to it right here, right now. Shoving beliefs, concepts,
> and especially superstitions about some other lives on top of the
> experiencing in this present moment has nothing to do with Zen. No
> wonder you can still not grasp the pebble from my hand!
World Honored One! I must say I'm most disappointed in you! You have
carelessly snipped away a very important part of my message, where I
spelled out exactly what my Zen practice is. You snipped out where I stated
that in my Zen practice I am "inquiring 'Who am I' " - and then you went on
to suggest that in my practice I may have been "fantasizing paradises on the
other side of walss" or "Shoving beliefs, concepts, and especially
superstitions about some other lives on top of the experiencing in this
present moment". Well SHAME on you, All-Knowing One, SHAME on you for being
so very presumptuous!
I stated, (and you snipped out), that my Zen practice is self-enquiry,
questioning "Who am I" - it does not involve fantasizing paradises or
becoming involved in any other thought process at all. It is simply
questioning and attempting to penetrate into "Who am I" to the exclusion of
all other thoughts (whether sitting on the mat staring at the wall, or not).
This practice of self-inquiry is not uncommon in Zen, and has long been the
method I prefer, O Great One.
>> in a silly, misguided attempt to "wake up" to this mythical,
>> fairy tale fundamental all-pervading "Buddha-nature", all in vain.
>
> If you would drop such stories and just stop mentating such nonsense,
> and just watch, just pay attention in this present moment, you would be
> surrounded by the fundamental all-pervading suchness of this present
> moment. Too bad you have wasted so much time instead.
Again, I have not been "mentating such nonsense" in my Zen practice O
Glorious One, I have been inquiring "Who am I", to the exclusion of all
other thoughts (to the best of my ability). I have only been "mentating"
these other matters for the sake of discussion here on this newsgroup, as
you yourself have been from your point of view. I don't involve these other
matters in my Zen Practice, World Honored One - and nowhere have I said that
I do, you have simply and erroneously assumed that I do after you deleted
where I stated what my Zen practice really is!
Now I have a question for you, O All-Understanding One, if I may engage in
some more newsgroup "mentating";
The following quote has been attributed to Zen Master Dogen: "I came to
realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great
wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars."
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy3.htm
I'm wondering how can an 'awakened' Zen master like Dogen possibly state
that, if, as you stated elsewhere in this thread, there is no "consciousness
apart from brains"? How can he possibly state that "Mind is no other than
mountains, rivers, and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the
stars", if, as you say, Mind is a function of the billions of neurons in the
brain and does not extend outside of the brain? Doesn't Dogen's statement
sound like superstitious, magical, spooky stuff to you, by suggesting that
Mind and the mountains, rivers, etc are *one*? Please dispel my doubts and
explain what's up with that, World Honored One!
As Always,
All Together Now, Everyone! -
Praise to Earl, Praise to Earl - and his Infinite Well of Wisdom and
Compassion based on modem science!
Praise to Earl, Praise to Earl - truly the All-Knowing Buddha of our Modern
Age!
-The Dork of Delusion
==========================
Dork of Delusion
news:0d0vq2dg7gkq4a7mr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:25:55 -0500, "Ace of Awakening"
> <Ac...@Awakening.com>
> wrote:
>
>>WELL, Earl of Enlightenment, you have done it!! The Dork of Delusion has
>>completely disappeared - only The Ace of Awakening now is! Yes, the
>>Wondrous Wisdom of your Writings and the Perpetual Power of your
>>Proclamations have liberated me from my long standing delusions - I am now
>>bathed in the Unspeakable Delight of Blissful, Ultimate Realization thanks
>>entirely to you. Wonderful indeed! My gratitude toward you knows no
>>bounds - you are truly The All-Knowing One of our Modern Age and deserving
>>of the highest praise!
>>
>
> You too?
As it turns out, no, unfortunately. Earl, The All-Knowing Buddha of our
Modern
Age, has informed me that my experience was not enlightenment after all...
:-(
-The Dork of Delusion
stumper
Even though he writes long posts,
he does not handle long questions that well.
Just ask him what it is that is awaken, please.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Before we go any further,
we better ask him
why he thinks the Buddha is awaken
and how he knows it is so.
--
~Stumper
buddhapest
heaven forbid. he'd launch into a
90 paragraph logic addiction
celebration and end up not
saying anything anyway.
pretty much your end result too, eh?
stumper
Any moment is a good moment.
Just keep an awareness
imbued with compassion.
Write a song about me.
--
~Stumper
buddhapest
the zen fartlighter song?
stumper
"Do nothing" song.
--
~Stumper
King of Karma
> and especially superstitions about some other lives on top of the
> experiencing in this present moment". Well SHAME on you,
> All-Knowing One, SHAME on you for being so very presumptuous!
King of Karma: I apologize for the Earl's hasty snipping of your
explanations, Dork. I'm afraid it's hard to keep all my subjects in
line. And the Earl is hardly All-knowing, just run of the mill royalty
whom I send out to do my dirty work!
Truly, the inquiry, "Who am I" is a worthy spiritual exercise, and you
deserve at least an outstanding citizen certificate for that. Unless
you come up with an answer, of course! The point of the exercise is
usually to find out "Who I am not", which is just about everything,
leading to the striking revelation that "I" does not refer indeed to
anything at all, but is a placemarker, a useful fiction, a metaphorical
narrative center of gravity.
> I stated, (and you snipped out), that my Zen practice is self-enquiry,
> questioning "Who am I" - it does not involve fantasizing paradises or
> becoming involved in any other thought process at all.
Well, the Earl reported to me that you saw yourself as a self, soul, or
consciousness that travels to another body, and that you were a
cowardly surf afraid of death because you clung to a concept of 'self'.
Now, the Earl does exaggerate at times, and surely one who has spent
time examining "who am I" would not identify with something that
continues after death and possesses other bodies, as such ghost stories
would hardly be compatible with a true inquiry into the nature of "Who
am I?"
> It is simply questioning and attempting to penetrate into "Who am I"
> to the exclusion of all other thoughts (whether sitting on the mat
> staring at the wall, or not). This practice of self-inquiry is not
> uncommon in Zen, and has long been the method I prefer, O Great One.
That is what my royal subjects call a 'concentration practice'. Those
were around and taught by all the great spiritual teachers of the
Buddha's time. However, the opening of the mind to whatever is present
in zazen is known as mindfulness, and was the Buddha's contribution.
He included both in his Noble Eight-Step Plan, so probably a mixture of
them which suits you would be the most beneficial.
> >> in a silly, misguided attempt to "wake up" to this mythical,
> >> fairy tale fundamental all-pervading "Buddha-nature", all in vain.
> >
> > If you would drop such stories and just stop mentating such nonsense,
> > and just watch, just pay attention in this present moment, you would be
> > surrounded by the fundamental all-pervading suchness of this present
> > moment. Too bad you have wasted so much time instead.
>
> Again, I have not been "mentating such nonsense" in my Zen practice O
> Glorious One, I have been inquiring "Who am I", to the exclusion of all
> other thoughts (to the best of my ability). I have only been "mentating"
> these other matters for the sake of discussion here on this newsgroup,
Ah, a 'Mara's advocate'! Well, fine. I'm in need of more court
jesters.
> as you yourself have been from your point of view. I don't involve these
> other matters in my Zen Practice, World Honored One - and nowhere
> have I said that I do, you have simply and erroneously assumed that
> I do after you deleted where I stated what my Zen practice really is!
Well, it's good to hear that you don't really think you are the
reincarnation of Napoleon, for one thing. We have enough nutcases
around here as it is.
> Now I have a question for you, O All-Understanding One, if I may engage in
> some more newsgroup "mentating";
>
> The following quote has been attributed to Zen Master Dogen: "I came to
> realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great
> wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars."
>
> http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy3.htm
>
> I'm wondering how can an 'awakened' Zen master like Dogen possibly state
> that, if, as you stated elsewhere in this thread, there is no "consciousness
> apart from brains"?
This is called a metaphor. You see, it is not that the rivers or
mountains are conscious and can talk and think and so forth. That
would be ludicrous. Rather, there is talk of small mind and big mind
in Zen. The idea is that you are the world. As there is no 'you', no
'self', then there is no 'consciousness' trapped inside a bag of skin,
which is separate from a world alien to it. That is, the mind/body and
the mountains and rivers all form one 'field'. Every breath you take
contains molecules breathed by The Buddha, Jesus, Dogen, and Hitler.
Every molecule in your body and brain was forged in the heart of stars
billions of light years ago. We are all deeply connected. There is no
separate self going through time apart from the world which is 'other'.
So metaphorically, the whole world is your mind.
> How can he possibly state that "Mind is no other than mountains, rivers,
> and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the stars", if, as
> you say, Mind is a function of the billions of neurons in the brain and
> does not extend outside of the brain? Doesn't Dogen's statement
> sound like superstitious, magical, spooky stuff to you
Not at all. Perhaps you misinterpret Dogen by capitalizing "Mind".
The particular thoughts and sensation you experience are indeed created
by the brain, but the sense organs, and the mountains, rivers, the
earth, sun, stars, etc. are all part of the process. Your sense organs
and nerves send signals to the brain, which undergo various
transformations. The sun radiates light, which is reflected off the
mountains into your eyes, and so the entire system is involved in
mental process.
Really, though, it is the logical negation of the false clinging to an
idea of a self, a consciousness, a soul, a separate ego going through
time. As the Tibetan master Kalu Rinpoche put it: "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."
> by suggesting that Mind and the mountains, rivers,
> etc are *one*? Please dispel my doubts and explain
> what's up with that, World Honored One!
Most Buddhist teachers, when confronted with a New Ager who wants to
talk about being "One With Everything", will ask the wonderful
question, "one what?" And I would say one interdependent system, or
one universe. The point is not that rivers can think -- they can't --
but that there is no soul or consciousness separate from the body or
from the world. Realizing that there is no mind, and there is just the
brain functioning and interfacing with trees and rivers and mountains
and so forth, is realizing what Kalu Rinpoche said. Once you know that
there are no spooks, that you are nothing that is separate or separable
from a brain, then suddenly in your physicality you are part of the
entire process, the ecosystem, the entire cosmological dance, that this
particular bit of ancient star-stuff is indeed the entire universe
waking up and looking back at itself. That brains like ours are the
fruit on the tree, and while different from the bark and roots, are
deeply connected and interdependent on all those things. Doesn't mean
the bark can think, but that it is part of the process and that their
is no fruit without bark and leaves and roots and soil and worms and
sun and so forth, and thus in a very powerful way, "you are the
universe."
Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh points out how many interdependent and
interconnected aspects of the world go into just the preparation of
every single meal that we eat, food which then literally becomes 'us'.
TNH teaches mindfulness of all elements of the meal, that the sun,
rain, soil which are essential in nurturing the plants, the farmers who
grow and harvest the food, as well as all those who are responsible for
bringing it to the table are all part of the experience. Much like
Dogen, Hahn claims to see clouds in carrots. Is he mad? Or talking
about anything at all spooky? Hardly. He's a Zen Master! The most
metaphorical satirists around. Hahn says:
"Looking at a carrot, I can see a cloud floating in it. I can see the
rain and the sunshine. When I chew the carrot, I am just chewing a
carrot, not my worries or my anger. I chew with one hundred percent of
myself. I feel a connection to the sky, the Earth, and the farmers who
grow the food. Eating in silence, the food becomes real with our
mindfulness and we are fully aware of its nourishment. Eating like
this, I feel that solidity, freedom, and joy are possible."
Of course, this is not unique to Zen, or to Buddhism. As Blake put it:
"To see a world in a grain of sand
and heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour."
-William Blake
I happen to find these ideas quite profound and I order all my worldly
subjects to look for clouds in their carrots and to bring microscopes
to the royal beaches (and binoculars, for the nude beaches, of course)!
I hope that satisfies your inquiry. If not, then it's off with your
head!
--The King of Karma
"The wise man can pick up a grain of sand and envision a whole
universe. But the stupid man will just lie down on some seaweed and
roll around until he's completely draped in it. Then he'll stand up and
go, 'Hey, I'm Vine Man'."
-Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]
stumper
>
> "To see a world in a grain of sand
> and heaven in a wild flower,
> Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
> and eternity in an hour."
> -William Blake
>
> I happen to find these ideas quite profound and I order all my worldly
> subjects to look for clouds in their carrots and to bring microscopes
> to the royal beaches (and binoculars, for the nude beaches, of course)!
>
Well spoken like boys
who just cannot get a girl.
Zen is not powerless.
No masturbation necessary.
--
~Stumper
brian mitchell
> brian mitchell wrote:
> Back to insulting, I see.
I think you enjoy it and fully expect you to concoct a suitable riposte
at some time.
> > What is it that enables you to determine which part of any given sutta
> > can be disregarded as mere legend and which should be regarded as
> > liberating wisdom?
> How many times must I answer something that is so simple? Again, if
> it's something that pertains to reality, like breathing, or dealing
> with aversion or craving, or fear and so forth, then tentatively take
> it at face value, and only you find it helpful and seemingly true in
> your experience adopt it...
There is straight away a problem with this in the phrase "seemingly true
in your experience..." which is that we still come back to the question
of knowing, discernment, etc.
I think you actually recognise this problem because in one post you say
that we cannot know anything about ourselves (cannot make any judgement
about our own perception or behaviour) but must rely on external
feedback; later you post a quote from Jack Kornfield in which he
demonstrates that our own direct knowing is all the truth we have and
need (fair recap?).
> . . . If it's something that defies physics or
> reason, or like reaching up and touching the sun or moon with one's
> hand, or having a penis that retracts into a sheath...
And there is, of course, a massive problem with making reason the sole
arbiter of the real, but you're already engaged on that elsewhere.
The rest of that paragraph is quite sensible and reasonable (I'm not the
enemy of reason you may like me to be), but in the sutta quoted to you
for consideration there was nothing so obviously extravagant. The Buddha
awoke, and, from the awakened perspective, saw (according to report)
into the nature of rebirth and karma. These are serious and significant
principles of mind and being which are being raised, there's nothing
there to justify dismissal as fairy-tale.
The key phrase there is "from the awakened perspective..." It seems to
me fundamental to any serious engagement with Buddhist thought that one
accepts that there is delusion and awakening from delusion, and to let
the acknowledgement that we're on the 'deluded' side of that chasm throw
into serious doubt all our cherished notions and strategies with regard
to what is and what is not. You expect everyone else to surrender their
beliefs (assuming they actually hold them) about the mystical,
supernatural, magical, etc etc, but you're not prepared to give a
millimetre on *your* basic assumptions and views.
If one doesn't really accept the delusion/awakening polarity and assumes
that one actually has a very thorough and reliable grasp on truth and
reality, and that awakening (if it exists at all) is just a bit of
psychological housecleaning, what you are doing is reducing Buddhism to
fit yourself and making yourself the measure of all things. There's no
hope of liberation that way because by definition you exclude that which
is other than yourself.
> . . . But the acid
> test, as I said over and over is this: all you need to do is sit on
> your cushion and pay attention and see what experiences happen. That's
> where Zen is, here and now, this very body that is experiencing...
Which brings us back to knowing. What is it that can see into experience
and know it for what it is? Here I refer you again to your own doubts
about the possibility of self-awareness. I like the way you sneak in
that bit about the body doing the experiencing, another of your primary
assumptions (with which I happen to disagree). I also consider
experiences to be constructed and that it's more important to have
insight into that process than to sit on cushions.
> None of us has returned from the dead or remembered where they buried
> treasure in an alleged last life. Nobody in our lifetimes has every
> displayed an iota of psychic powers ever...
These kinds of universal declarations must have Hollywood Lee tearing
his hair out in despair!
> You may now resume insults and try to invalidate this post as well...
Thank you. I welcome your presence on these lists even though I think
you are positively STEEPED in error. Such is the charm of youth, I
guess.
Tang Huyen
brian mitchell wrote:
> The key phrase there is "from the awakened perspective..." It seems to
> me fundamental to any serious engagement with Buddhist thought that one
> accepts that there is delusion and awakening from delusion, and to let
> the acknowledgement that we're on the 'deluded' side of that chasm throw
> into serious doubt all our cherished notions and strategies with regard
> to what is and what is not. You expect everyone else to surrender their
> beliefs (assuming they actually hold them) about the mystical,
> supernatural, magical, etc etc, but you're not prepared to give a
> millimetre on *your* basic assumptions and views.
>
> If one doesn't really accept the delusion/awakening polarity and assumes
> that one actually has a very thorough and reliable grasp on truth and
> reality, and that awakening (if it exists at all) is just a bit of
> psychological housecleaning, what you are doing is reducing Buddhism to
> fit yourself and making yourself the measure of all things. There's no
> hope of liberation that way because by definition you exclude that which
> is other than yourself.
Awakening occurs when one opens up unconditionally,
in utter humility, without any a priori with regard to
what happens under such a circumstance. One drops
one's norms and standards, baskets and cages, criteria
and references, puts up no obstruction and resistance,
and receives simpliciter.
It will never occur if one puts up conditions, such as: it
must be mind, it must be matter, it must be a bright
light that blots everything out, it must be total darkness
that swallows the whole universe, etc. One only empties
oneself out and leaves oneself open and accessible, and
then it will suffuse one unasked and for free.
Otherwise one merely perpetuates one's prejudices,
though one may want to dress them up as awakening
to justify them and oneself.
Tang Huyen
stumper
All very nice.
But, to be really skillful
you probably need to have a dialog.
--
~Stumper
DharmaTroll
> "Earl of Enlightenment" wrote:
>
> > brian mitchell wrote:
> > Back to insulting, I see.
>
> I think you enjoy it and fully expect you to concoct a suitable riposte
> at some time.
>
> > > What is it that enables you to determine which part of any given sutta
> > > can be disregarded as mere legend and which should be regarded as
> > > liberating wisdom?
>
> > How many times must I answer something that is so simple? Again, if
> > it's something that pertains to reality, like breathing, or dealing
> > with aversion or craving, or fear and so forth, then tentatively take
> > it at face value, and only you find it helpful and seemingly true in
> > your experience adopt it...
>
> There is straight away a problem with this in the phrase
>"seemingly true in your experience..." which is that we
> still come back to the question of knowing, discernment, etc.
>
> I think you actually recognise this problem because in one post
> you say that we cannot know anything about ourselves (cannot
> make any judgement about our own perception or behaviour) but
> must rely on external feedback; later you post a quote from
> Jack Kornfield in which he demonstrates that our own direct
> knowing is all the truth we have and need (fair recap?).
DT> Not really. Jack says that we can only know a very few minimalist
truths directly, and he suggests that we can live our spiritual lives
out of them. He never suggest we blindly adopt on authority something
literal about life after death and in the passage I quoted he pointed
out the absurdity of believing in rebirth (or any of several competing
such stories).
My point has always been that no *single* source is ever very reliable.
To rely solely on one's own experience is fine for a very minimalist
position only; any further claims are incredibly susceptible to
delusion without feedback loops to verify and calibrate one's
convictions. Similarly obedience to any authority without inner
confirmation is almost always delusional, and leads to rigid assertions
of dogma without evidence. We can't know anything for sure; however we
can have much more reliable and correctible views if we have multiple
sources and constantly are calibrating and correcting them.
> > . . . If it's something that defies physics or
> > reason, or like reaching up and touching the sun or moon with one's
> > hand, or having a penis that retracts into a sheath...
>
> And there is, of course, a massive problem with making reason the sole
> arbiter of the real, but you're already engaged on that elsewhere.
DT> Exactly. Reason alone is a whore, or lawyer, that rationalizes and
defends whatever view we start with, if we only use reason. Again, I
hold a meta-position here, and am against all single-sources, and thus
am not for any particular single source but only go for synthesized
triangulation of multiple sources.
> The rest of that paragraph is quite sensible and reasonable
DT> Well, of course. My nyms are silly but they still make good
points.
> (I'm not the enemy of reason you may like me to be),
DT> No, but you are a fundamentalist of sorts (but not a nasty one,
like Evangelicals or Nicherenigades), and in the end you seem to me to
irrationally appeal to authority and will insult me for not doing so
and for my pointing out that you have no good reasons to do so. That,
however, does not in any way make you my 'enemy'. You do not seem to
hate other people, for example. Views and superstitions to me are
simply mind-farts. So to me you're not an enemy, just someone who
farts a lot.
> but in the sutta quoted to you for consideration there was nothing
> so obviously extravagant. The Buddha awoke, and, from
> the awakened perspective, saw (according to report)
> into the nature of rebirth and karma.
DT> Actually, there is a lot extravagant there. First, you have to
qualify talk of "the awakened perspective". Are you making the claim
that this entails magical clairvoyant powers? How about reading minds?
Or is it a state of not having obsessive thoughts, not having craving,
aversion, and delusion arise? Might it be like the simple farmer --
you know the old saying of chop wood and carry water?
So first we have the problem with claims that awakening is going to
impart superpowers, rather than be simply awake and free of craving and
unnecessary suffering. Then we have the problem of what the Buddha
actually knew and how he knew it. And then we have the problem of how
the Buddha's teaching was spread for hundreds of years before it was
even written down, and what induced people to follow his practices,
especially given what the culture expected of anyone considered to be
wise. That is, no matter what the Buddha actually said, we have the
problem that he was going to have to sound like and have the cultural
marks of whatever the local people thought wise men should be like;
else Buddhism would have died out.
So if the Buddha was an amazing teacher, brilliant, clear, free from
craving and suffering, who taught for decades, then even if he were
like, say, Thich Nhat Hanh today, he might have never have been
followed for hundreds of years unless his image fulfilled the
expectations of those seeking spirituality. And if most everyone in
India believed in reincarnation and gurus and expect gurus to have
incredible super-human powers, and if the Buddha was in fact much like
Thich Nhat Hanh, then they would have seen him as mundane and not
awakened. Indeed, the only way to perpetuate the Buddhism meme would
have been to make the Buddha have more powers and be more clairvoyant
and psychic and supernatural than his contemporaries.
And hence, the "seeing into the nature of karma and rebirth" is a
validation which had to be written into the sutras, no matter what the
Buddha actually said, and no matter what his experiences were. That
is, this gives us no information whatsoever into his experiences. It
doesn't prove that he didn't have past lives; it only shows that we
have no information whatsoever on the Buddha's experiences, because no
matter what he said, or how he was, these stories would have to have
been included for the Buddhist meme to survive and for his teachings to
catch on. Else nobody would have ever heard of the Buddha, except for
anecdotal references here and there, and his teachings would have been
lost.
This is a crucial point, one that is dismissed by the fundamentalist
who rips the Buddha and what is ascribed to him out of his cultural
context, ignores the cultural texture and context, and ignores the
marketing aspect in that the teachings needed to survive and be
accepted in his culture. Analyzing similar cases in different cultural
contexts is helpful to understand the Buddha in context. The teachings
of Jesus and the rise of Christianity, for example, have many striking
parallels, and fundamentalists in Christianity ignore the cultural
context as well.
So we have no idea what the Buddha actually experienced. We do have
very awake teachers today, such as Thich Nhat Hanh, who seem to be
about as free from craving and aversion as it gets, and who live simple
lives and dedicate themselves to sharing the Dharma. Do they show
signs of having supernormal powers, and do any of them profess
knowledge of their past lives, and have any of them ever demonstrated
non-standard memories of someone else, to the point of digging up the
buried gold Buddha in a secret spot, etc.? The answer is a very strong
no, no, and no. In fact, as I've posted, Thich Nhat Hanh denies linear
rebirth into one particular future body after another, yet finds the
terms karma and rebirth central to Buddhism in terms of 'lateral'
movements of affecting the world every day, and of being reborn every
breath, every moment.
So I have no idea what the Buddha actually experienced; and I know that
stories of his knowledge of rebirth and karma had to be added, even if
he was just like Thich Nhat Hanh is today, so that those stories
provide no evidence whatsoever for what he actually experienced; and
furthermore, those today alive who are the most like the Buddha don't
display super-powers, nor provide evidence of knowledge of alleged
past-lives, nor do they (the ones from cultures such as Vietnam, Japan,
Korea, where rebirth isn't widely accepted in the culture, unlike, say,
India and Tibet) even profess to have such experiences. And on top of
that, nobody, whether highly awake Zen Master or deluded schmuck, has
ever shown any evidence of any past lives, nor any psychic powers in
our generation, ever. All those in conjunction lead me to suspect that
the chances of the Buddha actually having knowledge of past lives or
any powers more than Thich Nhat Hanh possesses now is less than 0.001
percent, or something along those lines. It is not as unlikely as our
all being in the Matrix, but it is around the same level of likelihood
as current flying saucer reports actually turning out to be caused by
extraterrestrial beings, a claim which is also vacuous of evidence.
> These are serious and significant principles of mind and being which
> are being raised, there's nothing there to justify dismissal as fairy-tale.
In my posts, I always make sure I stay at the high school level; when I
attempt to actually present a well-thought out scholarly exposition, as
I hint at in the above paragraphs, and seriously discuss the nuances
and the problems of doing history and examining the sayings of the
Buddha or Jesus or others in terms of historical and cultural context,
I end up deluged by insults and I get the wackos coming out of the
woodwork, as here is their chance to attack someone intelligent who
normally wouldn't give them the time of day. So I water down my posts,
make sure I throw in barbs and insults, but not too many, and I do what
Tang does to some extent -- which is spew out lots of interesting ideas
I've come up with or read, and then treat people as impersonal cartoon
characters and play whack-a-mole and have fun playing with them. If I
seriously want to discuss these issues, I'll join one of several
Buddhist book groups, read a serious book together and discuss it in
the company of serious scholars and long-term practitioners, without
flamers and fundamentalists. So I don't actually dismiss anything as a
"fairy-tale" but I talk that way to water-down my posts, provoke food
fights, and have fun.
> The key phrase there is "from the awakened perspective..."
DT> Yes. It is misused by fundamentalists as an uncritical appeal to
authority, and as I said, tries to bypass all the cultural context and
every other consideration to make an appeal to blind faith. We don't
even know if there is a "the" awakened perspective, as when people are
free from craving and suffering, they might take any number of
perspectives. We can't know that they will take only one, (which
somehow always happens to be the exact same perspective as the
fundamentalist -- isn't that a coincidence,) only that they won't be
obsessively attached to their perspective or perspectives, whatever
those perspectives may be.
> It seems to me fundamental...
DT> Yes, I know. That is what I consider to be the problem. (Heh!)
> to any serious engagement with Buddhist thought that one
> accepts that there is delusion and awakening from delusion,
DT> Ok, yes, and craving and the end of craving, and aversion and the
end of aversion. However, it is not clear if this is a matter of
degree, or if there is a 100% final state. Again, yes, the latter is
in the sutras, but again, perfection and ideal states are always the
characteristic of the founder or teacher in religious memes, whether we
are talking of the Buddha or of Jesus, and so forth. So again, seeing
living masters, it seems to be the case that delusion, craving, and
aversion are minimized, but does it ever get much past 99%? Would it
then take decades to get to 99.9%, and so forth? Or is there this
appeal to authority that there is a magical snap, and suddenly a person
becomes a magical authority? Certainly mystics experience things that
mundane people don't, but as they disagree on a lot -- and people
furiously try to equate them anyway and add ambiguous disclaimers that
really say nothing, such that they are "beyond dualistic discursive
thought" which somehow means that no matter how much they disagree and
describe there experiences differently, they still must all be the
same. And so on and so forth.
> and to let the acknowledgement that we're on the 'deluded' side
> of that chasm throw into serious doubt all our cherished notions
> and strategies with regard to what is and what is not.
DT> Hell, Brian, that's what females are for! All my life, females
have pointed out my many delusions and blind spots ruthlessly, and
constantly. The only way I could escape from knowing how deluded I am
would be to become gay or celibate!
> You expect everyone else to surrender their beliefs
DT> Not at all! For anyone to surrender their beliefs would be
shocking to me. No, I expect them to insult me, attack me, try to
invalidate everything I say, bully me, laugh at me, and ignore anything
I say to the extent that they have no evidence or good reason to hold
whatever superstitions they hold. I can't imagine expecting someone to
'surrender their beliefs' unless they were paying a psychiatrist $200
an hour and showing up once or twice a week for years, and even then it
would be impressive.
> (assuming they actually hold them) about the mystical,
> supernatural, magical, etc etc, but you're not prepared to
> give a millimetre on *your* basic assumptions and views.
DT> I do expect a few intelligent people to like some of the insights
I've had and to share some with me, and have us both learn. I expect
the most of that from those who already share just about all my
background domain assumptions but only quibble over fine points, such
as Lee, Robert, Dave, Evelyn, possibly Tang, and some of the old
posters like Mubul and Jigme. I expect most of the rest to insult me.
And don't forget, I used to be as superstitious as it gets, believing
in past lives, psychic powers, and I even used to try to sharpen razor
blades under pyramids. Oh and I have been a strict Catholic as well
and have eaten the body and blood of the deity who came back from the
dead, and so forth. I know what it feels like on the inside.
Repeating such patterns except with Buddhist beliefs has no interest
for me as an adult. I've been there and done that. I'm now interested
in real spirituality, which has to do more with opening the heart and
living daily life and each moment mindfully, and not getting to a
magical state and getting superpowers, or believing without any
evidence that anyone else has. And I find it fun and fascinating to
discuss.
> If one doesn't really accept the delusion/awakening polarity
DT> What polarity? You sound just like Keynes here. (That's an
observation, not an insult towards either you or him, btw.) Rather,
it's a spectrum, I'd say. And we fall somewhere on the spectrum. It's
not that we are blind and then suddenly have a magical sense, as the
appeal to blind faith in authority would go, that the Buddha or Jesus
is omniscient and has certainty, and we have our switch flipped 'off'.
That is the fundamentalist game to appeal blindly to authority.
Rather, we all have some delusion, and we have moments and areas of
clarity. And we have peers to check things out -- remember what I said
about multiple sources of information?
So if Lee gets annoyed with my flippant insulting of someone, I might
just say he's being a grumpy old grandpa, but if Lee, Evelyn, Dave,
Robert, and you all tell me this, I'm going to say -- whoa, I'm
probably deceiving myself and better take another look, as there is a
strong possibility my interpretation is wrong. No matter how
'awakened' I get, I will *always* be this way if a ton of my peers told
me this. Because this is where the highly awakened Trungpa met his
downfall, no? By taking his awakening too seriously as a sole source
of information, he ended up deluded and addicted, even while remaining
a powerful and helpful teacher. Delusion is always a matter of degree,
and no amount of wisdom is going to allow one to cut themselves off
completely from other sources of information and not be free of the
possibility of getting lost in delusion again.
> and assumes that one actually has a very thorough and reliable
> grasp on truth and reality,
DT> Before you finish the thought, that is a terrible assumption (one I
avoid like the plague) and again that assumption is the cornerstone of
Trungpa's downfall and alcoholic death. Rather, what I go for is
building as many self-correcting check mechanisms as possible, as many
lights on the dashboard to check out, and to have multiple sources of
information to check when I'm unsure of myself, which happens to be
most of the time. I also would not want to trust anyone who claims to
have a thorough and reliable grasp on truth and reality, as the track
record of those who make such claims is very, very bad. What I like to
hear is only, "I have very good reason to prefer this view or theory or
perspective based on X, Y, and Z, which you can check out and verify,
though I could always be wrong". That's why I say things like that,
because I find those who say things like that to get it right more
often than those who claim to have a grasp on truth with certainty.
> and that awakening (if it exists at all) is just a bit of psychological housecleaning,
DT> WOW! What an amazing reversal. From Omniscient Superman to "just
a bit" of therapy. Surely you say such a thing to set up a false
dilemma, so that by rejecting this silly "just a bit" story, you can
try to appeal to the authority of some version of an Omniscient
Superman Authority story, while accusing me of practicing Bud-Lite, eh?
I can smell that one coming a mile away.
> what you are doing is reducing Buddhism to fit yourself
> and making yourself the measure of all things.
DT> I already explained that I don't go for complete trust in one's own
experience, which is making yourself the measure of all things. Simply
because one's own experience cannot be trusted completely does not mean
swing the other way and go for blind faith, however, which is where
these claims tend to lead. Such false dilemmas are easily transcended
by my "binocular vision" model, which is to take multiple sources of
information and check them against each other, and never rely on any
one, even one's own experience.
> There's no hope of liberation that way because by definition you exclude
> that which is other than yourself.
DT> That sentence doesn't make sense to me. Rather, I don't blindly
believe as literal fact magical legendary stories which have better
explanations than taking them out of context as literal CNN report
reads, when not a single awakened person alive displays such magical
powers or past lives and so forth. In the same way, I don't exclude
the possibility of Martians in flying saucers; rather, I simply point
out that today, all of the many reports of flying saucers are more
likely to be due to the known irrational behavior of terrestrial
intelligence than to the unknown rational behavior of extraterrestrial
intelligence. In exactly the same way, I have met very awake people,
such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Bhante Gunaratana, the latter of whom is
the most awake person I've every met in my life, and they seem to be
simple and clear, and happy, and not super-psychics with past lives or
memories of them or anything else magical. Their magic is compassion
and being awed by flowers and snow-covered trees and even breathing.
So you (as well as the UFO people) are going to have to come up with
something other than making these pointless attacks on my character --
you're gonna have to show me the money and produce evidence. Indeed,
your view cheapens awakening to me, and reduces awakening to
palm-readers and circus performers. That's not what I want, or else
I'd be living in Southern California, dammit! I want to be like one of
these clear, intelligent, compassionate dudes, not some magical
freakshow. Unless I could have Superman's powers -- actually that
would be rather cool. But I digress.
> > . . . But the acid
> > test, as I said over and over is this: all you need to do is sit on
> > your cushion and pay attention and see what experiences happen. That's
> > where Zen is, here and now, this very body that is experiencing...
>
> Which brings us back to knowing. What is it that can see into experience
> and know it for what it is?
DT> Um, the nervous system, it is called.
> Here I refer you again to your own doubts about the possibility of self-awareness.
> I like the way you sneak in that bit about the body doing the experiencing,
DT> Not sneak in. As far as I'm concerned it is this very nervous
system that is doing all the experiencing. My question is why are you
so alienated from your own body? Doesn't sound like a way toward
awakening to me. All experience of mine is physical bodily experience
of seeing (physical eyes and electromagnetic phenomena) and hearing
(physical ears and compressed waves of air), and touching (direct
pressure and stimulation of nerves on the skin). Why even the sixth
sense of mind, when there are experiences, are pseudo-visual and
pseudo-audio, for the most part, just fainter. This is probably due to
the brain stimulating very similar neural patterns when there is a
daydream or visualization to the neural patterns which are stimulated
when an actual physical object reflects light that stimulates the
retina in the right way, which transforms the information and sends it
to the brain. And that is why my visualizing a naked woman somewhat
resembles what I experience when a real physical naked woman is
standing in front of me. (I would actually like to test this with
further experimentation, btw!) I may be wrong about this, but that is
the most reasonable explanation of all that are out there right now.
Maybe next year new evidence will come along and then I'll take that
theory as the working hypothesis.
But again, which theory of the mechanics of thought and consciousness
doesn't matter at all to my practice, any more than a serious
microbiologist could care less about which quantum mechanics theory is
the most important. This is so crucial a point, btw. If a whole new
quantum physics theory usurps the present one and we have an amazing
new revolution about the deep nature of matter and waves and all that,
it won't affect the microbiologist one bit, as the study of organisms
and bacteria and viruses and vaccines and so forth will not be
affected. In the same way, my interest in the brain has nothing to do
with practice of meditation, as I can't even experience neural firings,
and the processing of sense data, such as the taking data from both my
eyes and integrating them into a 3-dimensional transform is at an
unconscious level and not accessible to me, nor even to a Buddha. So
it just doesn't matter (pun intended).
And as I said, all of my experience is physical, and so there is
nothing to 'sneak in', when I say that all 'my' experiences are
experiences of this body. In fact, there is this body, but there is no
me to be found -- that is what I've deeply learned after many, many
years of intense meditation. If you have meditated as much and think
that experiencing has to do with non-bodily ineffable spooks, then that
just goes to show that none of these views can be verified by pure
experience alone. And if that's the case, then you'd see how absurd it
is to appeal to the alleged claims of the experiences of a legendary
figure from thousands of years ago. Zheesh!
> another of your primary assumptions (with which I happen to disagree).
DT> Like the assumption that there was a universe before we evolved and
that life evolved, and then when critters like us with brains that
could be conscious evolved, that world which had existed for billions
of years was then experienced for the first time. If you make an
alternative assumption that Mind existed first and created the universe
out of Mind-stuff and that the universe was not prior to Mind (or God,
any other capital letter goo-goo-ka-choo), then so be it. All I can
say is that my domain assumptions are the most reasonable ones I've
come across given all I have experienced and read in all fields and all
areas. And that my practice doesn't depend on it, nor do I depend on
it for psychological security, but rather it's mainly useful for
practical matters.
I mean, it's fine if you're a supernaturalist, or mind/body dualist, or
idealist, or whatever the bardo you are. It has little to do with
Buddhist practice, however, nor with awakening, nor with being present
every moment or cultivating compassion, sympathetic joy, mindfulness,
or equanimity. At best it can be fun for debate, and may even be used
to impress girls, if you can make your story sound enchanting enough
(I've seen this done). But if you want to do Buddhism, you'd likely be
better off listening to my silly pompous nym, the Earl, as I sometimes
actually share some of the most helpful insights I've had when I'm
posting at my most obnoxious levels -- hey, I'm a lover of irony and
paradox.
> I also consider experiences to be constructed and that it's more important
> to have insight into that process than to sit on cushions.
DT> Good, then we agree on that point, although I would say that it's
not more important to do one of the other, but that it's most important
to do both, and have multiple sources of data. It's like exercise --
if you only build some of your muscles, you end up with shin splints
and the like. It's good to run one day, bike the next, swim the next,
and not just build the same muscles day after day. Same with awareness
and knowing in general, I'd say.
> > None of us has returned from the dead or remembered where they buried
> > treasure in an alleged last life. Nobody in our lifetimes has every
> > displayed an iota of psychic powers ever...
>
> These kinds of universal declarations must have Hollywood Lee tearing
> his hair out in despair!
DT> Do they? My sense is that Hollywood has view much like Kornfield,
that it's not important to him to have any metaphysical views, but
rather what is important is to be mindful, be kind to others, and to
make really good mango pie (a true mark of someone connected to
physical reality and nature). I don't think Lee has a problem with me
not accepting metaphysical views without evidence. He'd only
disapprove of my trying to disprove with certainty that such views are
wrong, which I don't really ever try to do if you pay close attention.
In fact, Lee's biggest complaint would probably be my rudely taunting
people who do cling to metaphysical views.
> > You may now resume insults and try to invalidate this post as well...
>
> Thank you. I welcome your presence on these lists
> even though I think you are positively STEEPED in error.
DT> That's actually a most admirable attitude to have around here.
Excellent! There may be hope for you yet.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in
almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from
authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but
have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions
about them were not worth a brass farthing."
-Mark Twain
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
teaches me to suspect that my own is also. I would not interfere with
anyone's religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it. I am not
able to believe one's religion can affect his hereafter one way or the
other, no matter what that religion may be. But it may easily be a
great comfort to him in this life -- hence it is a valuable possession
to him."
-Mark Twain
Robert Epstein
Rob:
Not a bad approach.
What good would it do them to follow an untrue path, based on illusion?
Surely the Buddha, if he believed as you imply, would tell the simple
truth and collect those who were ready to do the work. After all, he
debunked popular practices like asceticism and didn't care if he
remained popular or not for telling the truth.
Indeed, the only way to perpetuate the Buddhism meme would
> have been to make the Buddha have more powers and be more clairvoyant
> and psychic and supernatural than his contemporaries.
I disagree with this point, and your attempt to sanitize Buddha to
maintain his consistent brilliance in your own image and make yourself
comfortable with him by making him "just like you." There is no
evidence of any kind that he himself did not believe in the magical
stuff he preached in endless detail.
> And hence, the "seeing into the nature of karma and rebirth" is a
> validation which had to be written into the sutras, no matter what the
> Buddha actually said, and no matter what his experiences were. That
> is, this gives us no information whatsoever into his experiences. It
> doesn't prove that he didn't have past lives; it only shows that we
> have no information whatsoever on the Buddha's experiences, because no
> matter what he said, or how he was, these stories would have to have
> been included for the Buddhist meme to survive and for his teachings to
> catch on. Else nobody would have ever heard of the Buddha, except for
> anecdotal references here and there, and his teachings would have been
> lost.
Well I just don't believe this apologetic horseshit argument that allows
you to forgive the Buddha for being outside your philosophical frame.
It is a fool's victory, creating the Buddha as your imaginary friend
instead of what he was.
> This is a crucial point, one that is dismissed by the fundamentalist
> who rips the Buddha and what is ascribed to him out of his cultural
> context, ignores the cultural texture and context, and ignores the
> marketing aspect in that the teachings needed to survive and be
> accepted in his culture.
There is no evidence that Buddha was conducting a marketing ploy. You
are surmising this out of your own whole cloth, and it is you who do not
understand the cultural context in which such things were not only taken
as real by the common person but by the wise as well.
"If DT were Buddha he would...."
Analyzing similar cases in different cultural
> contexts is helpful to understand the Buddha in context. The teachings
> of Jesus and the rise of Christianity, for example, have many striking
> parallels, and fundamentalists in Christianity ignore the cultural
> context as well.
And you are probably in no position to understand what it actually was.
> So we have no idea what the Buddha actually experienced.
And that includes you.
robert
---------------------
Keynes
>brian mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Which brings us back to knowing. What is it that can see into experience
>> and know it for what it is?
>
>DT> Um, the nervous system, it is called.
>
Sounds like you've found the supernatural after all.
And you accept it on remote authority, not your own experience.
Yet you choke on karma. Go figure.
Matter as we experience it is inert, dead, non-sentient, thoughtless.
Ourselves are of an opposite nature. Science can't reconcile this
apparent duality, but just asserts it's naive' just-so stories.
(And is it a duality after all? Minds say so. Matter says nothing.)
But if you're right, why not take a pill? Or see a brain doctor?
(An auto mechanic would charge more and accomplish less maybe.)
Why not a plumber or a carpenter? What the heck. You ought to
be able to find enlightenment all by yourself with a hammer,
screwdriver, and a saw. (Use a mirror and a dropcloth.)
Does your brain know you or do you know your brain?
Probably you know your brain. It just sits there silently perking.
Doesn't say all that much. But it's handy. It's wet and meaty.
Ask it a question. If it won't answer, ask your foot.
If it's all about the brain, what's the point of thinking?
It's a mechanical problem, and thought can't do anything
about that.
I wouldn't advise you to screw your head down in a vise,
but it looks like you've already done it all by yourself.
All that to keep yourself from falling down. Or up.
brian mitchell
too much.
My newsreader won't allow me to reply to such a long post, it has a line
limit, so I retire. The field is yours.
buddhapest
not catchy enough. where's the pathos?
where's the unrequited love? you got a
lot to learn about songwriting sparkles.
buddhapest
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:12r2sik...@news.supernews.com...
> Awakening occurs
nope. 'awakening' is already there.
always has been. a de-occurring
of that which is clouding it takes
place, that's all.
when one opens up unconditionally,
> in utter humility, without any a priori with regard to
> what happens under such a circumstance.
wouldn't matter if you did fancy any
preterite notions about it when this
de-occurring takes place because
once it levels its overwhelming
audacity right in your face you too
will jump up saying things like;
"what and what they think it....."
> One drops
> one's norms and standards, baskets and cages, criteria
> and references, puts up no obstruction and resistance,
> and receives simpliciter.
don't matter whether or not you
drop since the immensity of this
de-occurring as it rips your face
off laughs at both your droppings
and non-droppings.
> It will never occur if one puts up conditions,
it laughs its teeth out at your
conditions or de-conditions.
>such as: it
> must be mind, it must be matter, it must be a bright
> light that blots everything out, it must be total darkness
> that swallows the whole universe, etc. One only empties
> oneself out and leaves oneself open and accessible, and
> then it will suffuse one unasked and for free.
that one that you think plays such
a pivotal role in all of this is so
infinitesimal to this scope that floods
in it doesn't matter if there is holding
on to things or not.
> Otherwise one merely perpetuates one's prejudices,
> though one may want to dress them up as awakening
> to justify them and oneself.
after this thing rips your face off and
laughs at the rapidly dissolving ego
stance, there is no one left to hold,
drop or not-hold and not-drop anyway.
actually, there never was to start with.
DharmaTroll
Keynes wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2007 20:08:42 -0800, "DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >brian mitchell wrote:
> >>
> >> Which brings us back to knowing.
> >> What is it that can see into experience and know it for what it is?
> >
> >DT> Um, the nervous system, it is called.
>
> Ourselves are of an opposite nature.
DT> Funny, I've had conversations with lots of alive, sentient,
thought-filled matter. The physical animal Keynes is one such chunk of
matter. Your statement assumes that the material animals known as
human are made of, what, ghost-soul-stuff? Yeah, right. And
furthermore, when the thinking part, the brain, is injured in a stroke
or car accident, or gets pickled by alcohol -- the personality changes.
Sounds like matter is pretty alive, sentient, that thoughtful when it
is organized into brains.
> Science can't reconcile this apparent duality,
> but just asserts it's naive' just-so stories.
> (And is it a duality after all? Minds say so. Matter says nothing.)
DT> This clump of matter says there is no duality -- all is physical!
> But if you're right, why not take a pill? Or see a brain doctor?
DT> Take a pill for what? I don't have a headache.
What does that mean, take a pill?
> You ought to be able to find enlightenment all by yourself
> with a hammer, screwdriver, and a saw.
DT> I can't program a computer with a hammer, screwdriver, and a saw
either. Rather, like with brains, I have to deal with software issues
on a different level. Human problems, especially attachment to views,
are more like computer viruses -- which can't be cured with hammers and
saws. Rather, you have to delete the corrupt programming, or empty the
mind of conditioned patterns -- it's a software issue, not a spook
issue.
> Does your brain know you or do you know your brain?
DT> The brain does the knowing; there is no 'you' apart from the brain,
that's only a grammatical fiction.
> If it's all about the brain, what's the point of thinking?
DT> Um, because the brain is connected to the stomach which needs it to
find food. And then there's the penis, of course... Now come on, what
kind of question is that?
> I wouldn't advise you to screw your head down in a vise,
> but it looks like you've already done it all by yourself.
DT> Yeah yeah, well, if want any more crap out of you, I'll squeeze
*your* head! Bwahahahahahahhaha.
And Brian whines:
> too much.
> My newsreader won't allow me to reply to such a long post,
> it has a line limit, so I retire. The field is yours.
DT> Bah! I wrote a serious intelligent post and you stop insulting and
run away. As I said:
<<In my posts, I always make sure I stay at the high school level; when
I attempt to actually present a well-thought out scholarly exposition,
as I hint at in the above paragraphs, and seriously discuss the nuances
and the problems of doing history and examining the sayings of the
Buddha or Jesus or others in terms of historical and cultural context,
I end up deluged by insults and I get the wackos coming out of the
woodwork, as here is their chance to attack someone intelligent who
normally wouldn't give them the time of day. So I water down my posts,
make sure I throw in barbs and insults, but not too many, and I do what
Tang does to some extent -- which is spew out lots of interesting ideas
I've come up with or read, and then treat people as impersonal cartoon
characters and play whack-a-mole and have fun playing with them. If I
seriously want to discuss these issues, I'll join one of several
Buddhist book groups, read a serious book together and discuss it in
the company of serious scholars and long-term practitioners, without
flamers and fundamentalists.>>
If I write a silly post full of insults, Brian will be back, and the
little yipping doggies like Stumper will be nipping at my heels again.
What a moronayana-fest this place is. But it's still fun. Heh!
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for
complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the
philosophy is kindness."
-The Dalai Lama
buddhapest
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169278666.4...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> DT> Funny, I've had conversations with lots of alive, sentient,
> thought-filled matter.
the rocks in your head?
> The physical animal Keynes is one such chunk of
> matter.
word improvisation correctionality
addictions quite admirable. bravo.
> Your statement assumes that the material animals known as
> human are made of, what, ghost-soul-stuff?
the human agenda consists mainly of
a pile of rotting food with a few sparks
of electricity charging up a backwater
cesspoolingly orchestrated chemical
bonanza for your dining and dancing
pleasures. souls are on back order.
> Yeah, right. And
> furthermore, when the thinking part, the brain, is injured in a stroke
> or car accident, or gets pickled by alcohol -- the personality changes.
damn personality changes with just
a few beers. i work with a guy who's
always saying he's going to go out,
get drunk and be somebody else.
> Sounds like matter is pretty alive, sentient, that thoughtful when it
> is organized into brains.
sometimes a brain is the last thing
on some folk's minds doncha know.
> DT> Take a pill for what? I don't have a headache.
> What does that mean, take a pill?
it means that there maybe should be
something to slow this train wreck of
an anxiety driven intellectual security
addiction that you're so peacock
proud of.
H. Moe
fogpotion wrote:
> King
>
> Actually, I'm saying that karma is bullshit too. But if there were
> karma, it would have to take brains into account.
>
Karma is action/cause. What has been done is done. Even if the persons
involved can't remember it later because of brain dysfunctions, what
have been done will not become undone.
Dork of Delusion
> Truly, the inquiry, "Who am I" is a worthy spiritual exercise, and you
> deserve at least an outstanding citizen certificate for that. Unless
> you come up with an answer, of course! The point of the exercise is
> usually to find out "Who I am not", which is just about everything,
> leading to the striking revelation that "I" does not refer indeed to
> anything at all, but is a placemarker, a useful fiction, a metaphorical
> narrative center of gravity.
====================
I think it's well put in Roshi Phillip Kapleau's "The Three Pillars of Zen"
(p.153, 1980 edition), when Yasutani Roshi had this exchange with a student:
Student: I have been asking and asking "Who am I?" until I feel there is no
answer to this question.
Yasutani Roshi: You won't find an entity called "I".
Student: [heatedly] Then why have I been asking the question?
Yasutani Roshi: Because in your present state you can't help yourself....
You must come up against this question with the force of a bomb, and all
your intellectual questions and ideas must be annihilated. The only way to
resolve this question is to come to the explosive inner realization that
everything is [ultimately reducible to] Nothing....
>> I stated, (and you snipped out), that my Zen practice is self-enquiry,
>> questioning "Who am I" - it does not involve fantasizing paradises or
>> becoming involved in any other thought process at all.
>
> Well, the Earl reported to me that you saw yourself as a self, soul, or
> consciousness that travels to another body, and that you were a
> cowardly surf afraid of death because you clung to a concept of 'self'.
Well of course I cling to a concept of "self", I am the Dork of Delusion
after all.... I'll be the first to admit that I am in ignorance, and this
clinging to the concept of "self" is unfortunately very deep rooted and
difficult to eradicate. That's why I practice Zen / self-inquiry - to
ultimately throw that excess baggage overboard!
> Now, the Earl does exaggerate at times, and surely one who has spent
> time examining "who am I" would not identify with something that
> continues after death and possesses other bodies, as such ghost stories
> would hardly be compatible with a true inquiry into the nature of "Who
> am I?"
That's right - as I stated earlier, I don't pursue such thoughts and
concepts during Zen practice. But having a discussion here on this
newsgroup about underlying beliefs is another matter, and we of course use
thoughts and concepts to discuss such things here. So let me tell you -
yes, I do continue to have an (underlying) belief in rebirth (after the
death of the body), and karma, from the point of view of samsara, for those
still in ignorance such as myself. I will now provide some of the (direct)
quotations that I base this belief on, from a few of my favorite teachers -
teachers who, not surprisingly, all advocated using the "Who am I?"
self-enquiry method (among others):
1. Zen Master Bassui Tokusho (1327-1387), from his "Talk on One Mind",
reproduced in Roshi Phillip Kapleau's "The Three Pillars of Zen" (1980
edition, p.171):
......."should your yearning be too weak to lead you to this state in your
present lifetime, you will undoubtedly gain Self-realization easily in the
next, provided you are still engaged in this questioning at death, just as
yesterday's work half done was finished easily today."
2. Yasutani Roshi (1885-1973), from his teisho on the koan Mu, from "The
Three Pillars of Zen" (p.79):
........"Having once perceived the world of Buddha-nature, we are
indifferent to death since we know we will be reborn through affinity with a
father and a mother. We are reborn when our karmic relations impel us to be
reborn. We die when our karmic relations decree that we die"....
3. Zen Master Daiun Sogaku Harada (1871-1961), commenting on an
"enlightenment letter" he received from Yaeko Iwasaki, from "The Three
Pillars of Zen" (p. 294):
...."Though it takes from five to ten years after kensho for most practicers
to come to this stage, she has reached it in less than a week. It is
doubtless due to her deep and pure faith in Buddhism, and her vast and
boundless Vow [made through countless lives and embracing all sentient
beings]".....
4. Ch'an Master Hsu Yun (1840-1959), from Charles Luk's "Ch'an and Zen
Teaching, First Series" (p.19):
......"If one's false thinking and grasping are cast aside one will bear
witness to the meritorious characteristic of one's Tathagata wisdom and will
become a Buddha, otherwise one will remain a living being. For since
countless aeons, our own delusion has immersed us in the (sea of) birth and
death".....
5. Sri Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), from The Teachings of Sri Ramana
Maharshi, edited by David Godman (p.198):
Questioner: Are both births and rebirths ultimately unreal?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: If there is a birth there must be not only one rebirth
but a whole succession of births. Why and how did you get this birth? For
the same reason and in the same manner you must have succeeding births. But
if you ask who has the birth and whether birth and death are for you, or for
somebody distinct from you, then you will realize the truth and the truth
burns up all karmas and frees you from all births....
See how a tree whose branches have been cut grows again. So long as the
roots of the tree remain unimpaired, the tree will continue to grow.
Similarly, the samskaras (innate tendencies) which have merely sunk in the
heart on death, but have not perished for that reason, occasion rebirth at
the right time. That is how jivas (individuals) are reborn.
------------
I know that you must find these words (direct from writings and talks by
these highly respected Zen Masters / teachers) to be very spooky, magical,
and superstitious ghost stories, and therefore "bullsh*t", but while I'm
still "here in samsara", so to speak, I'm going to believe them as opposed
to believing what you say regarding rebirth and karma, thank you very much!
(No disrespect intended).
-The Dork of Delusion
--One more little thing, about the quote I posted from Dogen earlier.
Regarding that, you stated "Perhaps you misinterpret Dogen by capitalizing
"Mind". I just wanted to point out that I did not capitalize "Mind". It
was already capitalized in the reference I provided the link to. In fact in
my copy of "The Three Pillars of Zen" that same quote appears, and "Mind" is
capitalized there also. That's because it refers to the "big mind" you were
talking about earlier.
==================================
Tang Huyen
stumper wrote:
> All very nice.
>
> But, to be really skillful
> you probably need to have a dialog.
Nah. Truth exists in itself in a Platonic heaven, separate
from all earthly concerns, including communication. On
top of that, awakening is an opening up, not a closing
down, so if people don't open up but rather close down,
there is nothing to do. However if they open up, there is
no need to do anything either, including communicating
with them, because they already open up. And if they
get to truth, it is purely subjective, strictly sentimental,
with nothing real out there to tie itself down to, so what
is there to communicate about that?
But don't bother. It's all made up, it's all fluff. There is no
truth to truth. Better just relax and be serene.
On the other hand, the Buddha says about the wise: "He
makes statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond
the scope of conjecture (a-takkavacaram), subtle,
*to-be-experienced by the wise* (pandita-vedaniyam).
He can declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it
forth, reveal it, explain it, & make it plain." See Anguttara
Nikaya IV.192 Thana Sutta (Traits).
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>Nah. Truth exists in itself in a Platonic heaven, separate
>from all earthly concerns, including communication. On
>top of that, awakening is an opening up, not a closing
>down, so if people don't open up but rather close down,
>there is nothing to do. However if they open up, there is
>no need to do anything either, including communicating
>with them, because they already open up. And if they
>get to truth, it is purely subjective, strictly sentimental,
>with nothing real out there to tie itself down to, so what
>is there to communicate about that?
The -----ist says "The glass is open up."
The -----ist says "The glass is closed down."
The -----ist says "The glass is half full and half empty."
The -----ist changes the glass's content from water to wine.
The -----ist fills in the blanks.
The -----ist fires blanks, and the glass shatters.
Lee Rudolph
small tortoiseshell
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> Awakening occurs when one opens up unconditionally,
> in utter humility, without any a priori with regard to
> what happens under such a circumstance. One drops
> one's norms and standards, baskets and cages, criteria
> and references, puts up no obstruction and resistance,
> and receives simpliciter.
do you get on well with children?
Duke of Dukkha
> "King of Karma" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message:
>
> > Truly, the inquiry, "Who am I" is a worthy spiritual exercise, and you
> > deserve at least an outstanding citizen certificate for that. Unless
> > you come up with an answer, of course! The point of the exercise is
> > usually to find out "Who I am not", which is just about everything,
> > leading to the striking revelation that "I" does not refer indeed to
> > anything at all, but is a placemarker, a useful fiction, a metaphorical
> > narrative center of gravity.
> ====================
>
> I think it's well put in Roshi Phillip Kapleau's "The Three Pillars of Zen"
I knew that DT would get you back by saying
<< Bah! I wrote a serious intelligent post and you stop insulting and
run away. If I write a silly post full of insults, Brian will be back,
and the little yipping doggies like Stumper will be nipping at my heels
again. What a moronayana-fest this place is. But it's still fun.
Heh!>>
In any case, that book, "The Three Pillars of Zen" was my favorite when
I was 19, and I was inspired by the personal stories, especially the
experiences of Kapleau and his wife. It actually inspired me to drop
lots of acid and smoke lots of pot, which in turn inspired me to
meditate more and attend intensive retreats.
> (p.153, 1980 edition), when Yasutani Roshi had this exchange with a student:
>
> Student: I have been asking and asking "Who am I?" until I feel there is no
> answer to this question.
> Yasutani Roshi: You won't find an entity called "I".
> Student: [heatedly] Then why have I been asking the question?
> Yasutani Roshi: Because in your present state you can't help yourself....
> You must come up against this question with the force of a bomb, and all
> your intellectual questions and ideas must be annihilated. The only way to
> resolve this question is to come to the explosive inner realization that
> everything is [ultimately reducible to] Nothing....
Which I also learned in my freshman physics class. It's a shame that
Kapleau' sangha split into two over a silly quibble over the meaning of
Nothing or emptiness. What a bunch of quacks, quibbling literally over
nothing! Bwahahaha! Now with some perspective, I look back on
Kapleau's books as more slapstick and naive, as I do with Alan Watts,
but as great for high school kids as a primer on spirituality. The
stories in the Three Pillars about people under stress who then go
*poof* and say "aha -- I get it now!" seem artificial and more
contrived to me after doing lots of Buddhism and not as profound and
inspiring as the did when I read them as a teenager.
You see, I don't go for a 'self' that you must fight to 'destroy' or
'drop' anymore. Rather, I don't find any self here to begin with, just
a bunch of craving and aversion and other conditioned habits. Maybe
you have a self, but when I look inside, there's no one to be found,
just a swirling mass of thoughts and feelings and memories and
perceptions.
Also, you and Keynes and lots of my old pot-smoking Zennies from
college were really hung up on this "your intellectual questions and
ideas must be annihilated" stuff, and then you replace it with silly
intellectual pseudo-babble about Oneness and Non-duality, and because
you supposedly reject logic, you think the ridiculous holes in your
anti-logic are immune from criticism. That kind of Zen is silly to me.
I actually like Kapleau's Dharma-heir Toni Packer so much better.
Packer is basically "Zen Without Shamanism", as she left the cultural
baggage behind and teaches a much more pure Zen than Kapleau's. That
is, she doesn't paint a mustache on statues of the Buddha (you add a
wig and beard as well). When I discovered Packer, I called her
"Krishnamurti-With-Tits". Similarly, while I loved Trungpa in college,
I ended up finding his most enlightened student more helpful than he as
well, and I highly recommend Pema Chodron. I like the trend of great
teachers in America being replaced by more practical and more powerful
and naturalist female students. Hell, even the amazing Jack Kornfield
now has a female student that used to co-lead retreats with him that is
now surpassing him and is even more profound, the down-to-earth Tara
Brach, whose "Radical Acceptance" is the best new book on applying
Buddhism in practical life and dealing with daily emotional struggles
that I've come across.
When I was doing LSD and shrooms in college, I loved these stories, and
I would have amazing experiences and felt I was just on the edge of
'dropping the self' and realizing that I was the Anima Mundi, God in
Disguise, and I'd have moments of "wow-ness". You or buddhapest would
argue for years that you had experienced 'satori' and 'kensho' had you
felt such things, but I don't find such peak moments to be really
spiritual, any more than orgasms. As I said, such things seem more
contrived these days, and I think that at the start of practice most of
us experience earth-shattering breakthroughs, but as practice deepens,
the 'boring' talk of mindfulness in every moment and in daily life
seems to be where it's at. And I don't think I experienced anything
very special, nor do I put much weight in such stories, though they
make good reads. If only people got instantly enlightened after a
teacher gives a talk, like they did in the good old days, eh, given how
may students were 'instantly enlightened' after a Zen master put his
shoe on his head or held up his finger! Spirituality to me now is not
about some 'self' I have to fight against, but rather opening to pain,
softening the heart, and bringing mindfulness to everyday mundane
situations.
> Well of course I cling to a concept of "self", I am the Dork of Delusion
> after all.... I'll be the first to admit that I am in ignorance,
Nah, you brag about it, and your "first to admit that I am in
ignorance" is a credential that you pin to your chest. I've been
there, done that too. I know all the one-up-manship Zen games after
all these years. Drop some acid, and then you'll have even more to
brag about, or you could even become a guru.
> That's why I practice Zen / self-inquiry - to
> ultimately throw that excess baggage overboard!
I now take a different approach: just welcome it and watch it and
accept it totally and see what pain or suffering is beneath it. For
me, the struggle to throw the self or baggage overboard wasn't helpful.
Rather, just accepting and forgiving everything turned out to have the
most efficacy in the end. But different pills for different thrills,
eh?
> So let me tell you - yes, I do continue to have an (underlying) belief
> in rebirth (after the death of the body), and karma, from the point of
> view of samsara, for those still in ignorance such as myself.
Which is really bizarre for someone into Japanese Zen, because the
schools of Japanese Zen don't go for literal rebirth, as do, say, the
Tibetan schools. But I see from peeking below that you've mixed all
sorts of Hinduism and so forth into your mix. That's fine too, but it
seems absurd that someone wanting to "throw their baggage overboard"
has been shopping around for extra baggage to lug around.
> I will now provide some of the (direct) quotations that I base this belief on,
> 1. Zen Master Bassui Tokusho (1327-1387), from his "Talk on One Mind",
Ok, so you really go for the Shamanistic side of Buddhism. Zen has all
the Shinto stuff, and Tibetan Buddhism has the Bon stuff, and if you
don't get enough you can add some Hinduism from Maharshi into the mix.
Whereas I go for the "humanist" side of the spectrum, and prefer Packer
to Kapleau, who took the Shamanism out of Kapleau's Zen and improved on
it eight-fold. I suppose you in response will insult Packer and call
her a watered down secular humanist who has lost her Zen, right?
That's what the magic-loving spiritualists usually say to me.
> But if you ask who has the birth and whether birth and death are for you,
> or for somebody distinct from you, then you will realize the truth
No, you'll realize that all that talk is silly and that we are
collections, like clubs. If you have a Zen club that meets, and some
members leave, and others join, do you still have the same club? What
about after all the original members are replaced? Is it the same club
or a different one? This is what Western philosophers call an 'empty'
question. And the use of 'empty' is great here, as saying we are empty
of self is the same thing. In the deepest sense, I don't have a sense
of an individual self, but I really do see myself as a collection or
bundle, and what I care about in my survival is most or some of those
traits to continue.
I practice Buddhism because I suffer somewhat, and still notice
patterns of craving, aversion, and obsessive thoughts, not because I
have some so-called 'self' or because I want some magical 'aha'
experience. That was fun for the first few years, but now practice is
about being mindful at stoplights. The mountains aren't the Cosmic
Self but are again mountains once again, and now it's fun to pack a
nutritious lunch, bring along plenty of water and pretty girls, and try
to climb them mindfully on a Saturday afternoon and have good time.
> I know that you must find these words (direct from writings and talks by
> these highly respected Zen Masters / teachers) to be very spooky, magical,
> and superstitious ghost stories, and therefore "bullsh*t",
No, I used to crave that stuff, but now I'm just not into the
Shamanistic stuff any more, and find it to be nostalgic of my high
school and college days. In fact, it's hard to write to you without
thinking I'm opening a portal in time and talking to myself at 19,
which you sound exactly like.
> but while I'm still "here in samsara", so to speak, I'm going to believe them
> as opposed to believing what you say regarding rebirth and karma,
> thank you very much! (No disrespect intended).
>
> -The Dork of Delusion
Well, don't 'believe me' either! Why believe anyone? My suggestion is
to just watch and find out. If you believe my story you'll still be
equally as much of a superstitious dork, you see. To me, the problem
isn't that you believe the wrong story, but rather that you are caught
up in believing stories instead of experiencing. Even your "who am I"
stuff sounds to me like it just reinforces your story about some
so-called self that you want to throw overboard and then feel blissful
and be imbued with superpowers or something. These days I just look to
be present and open the heart to mundane pains in my knee (which is
worse than ever these days, though less of a problem than ever) and
judging thoughts that pop up and so forth. When I want that magical
stuff these days, I watch the Sci-Fi channel, and I love Sci-Fi; but
when I practice Buddhism, I no longer go for entertainment or peak
experiences.
> --One more little thing, about the quote I posted from Dogen earlier.
> Regarding that, you stated "Perhaps you misinterpret Dogen by capitalizing
> "Mind". I just wanted to point out that I did not capitalize "Mind".
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out how you cling to the Shamanistic
aspects, which permeate Buddhism. As a wise old teacher once said,
"You are like a farmer who collects the chicken shit instead of the
eggs." Bwahahahaha
So you can have the chicken shit and I'll take the eggs.
As I said, different pills for different thrills.
--The Duke of Dukkha
"Supposing an artist were to paint a portrait of a beautiful woman. And
suppose that then, just to touch it up a bit, someone were to come
along and draw a huge black mustache on the woman's face. Some would
argue that this extra touch had spoiled the picture. That is how I feel
about Buddhism. I think the Buddha painted a breathtakingly beautiful
picture of the dharma. The four noble truths, dependent origination,
the observation that all conditioned things are impermanent, a method
that actually works whereby people can overcome their self-centred
fears and can live deeply fulfilled and useful lives in which they
inflict very little suffering on others, marvelously insightful
observations about the human psyche and how it works and how we are
often deceived by our own minds, followed by prescriptions for avoiding
the trap of self-deception. It is a picture of unsurpassed beauty. Then
someone comes along and paints a big black mustache on it by talking
about a Transcendent Self and a Permanent Buddha-nature. To me, this
spoils the picture. But others have other tastes. De gustibus non
disputandum est."
-Richard Mubul Dayamati Hayes
buddhapest
"Duke of Dukkha" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169306793....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> When I was doing LSD and shrooms in college, I loved these stories, and
> I would have amazing experiences and felt I was just on the edge of
> 'dropping the self' and realizing that I was the Anima Mundi, God in
> Disguise, and I'd have moments of "wow-ness". You or buddhapest would
> argue for years that you had experienced 'satori' and 'kensho' had you
> felt such things, but I don't find such peak moments to be really
> spiritual, any more than orgasms.
the only thing i would argue for years
is how you think the rocks in your head are alive.
orgasms, lsd, sleep deprivation, sensory
deprivation, meditation, etcetera, etcetera,
are all means to arrive at and stabilize in
that midway point between consciousness
and unconsciousness. your attempts to
blame me for your corrective word replacement
addictions are truly laughable.
how you arrive at that midway point is quite a
personal matter. more involved is learning to
pool one's gravity of focus there and learn to
delve into a stabilizing aspect of such. we all
cross over that point twice each night, once on
the way to sleep and again on the way to waking
up. your logic won't get you there. dividing the
world and its nuances up into intellectual delicacies
only needlepoints your perspective into intricate
but useless intellectual doilies to cover the tabled
way you are approaching your desire and your need
of finding and understanding this midway point
intuitively and instinctually. good luck anyway.
i think you're gonna need it.
Keynes
>
>Also, you and Keynes and lots of my old pot-smoking Zennies from
>college were really hung up on this "your intellectual questions and
>ideas must be annihilated" stuff, and then you replace it with silly
>intellectual pseudo-babble about Oneness and Non-duality, and because
>you supposedly reject logic, you think the ridiculous holes in your
>anti-logic are immune from criticism. That kind of Zen is silly to me.
>
"Whatever you can't understand must be gibberish."
-- My Cat
"That cat doesn't know what it's talking about."
-- My Dog
"Why can't everyone just cheep clearly?"
-- My Bird
When will you abandon your childhood?
Close the coloring books. No more painting by number.
Everyone has your own previous faults, you suppose,
so you think you know them. You are deep in delusion
and dissatisfaction attributing it to your previous failures.
Your vacant wanderings have not made things better
so obviously no one has ever made anything better.
How self-absorbed can you be?
You can see Saturn but overlook Uranus.
" That kind of Zen is silly to me."
You have a strong opinion. Or does it have you?
Makes no difference. Any way you say it you're
trapped in yourself and can't get out.
For you meditation is a vacation in masturbation land.
Feels good. Let's do it. Sitting meditation is a clue.
Permanent mindfulness is the real thing. And in that
state one doesn't get lost in thoughts and opinions.
My free advice to you (and worth every penny)
is not to take advice from idiots and fools, beginning
with the king of idiots -- your own wild thoughts.
(Do you think them or do they think you?
As a meditator you ought to know by now.)
Stop decieving yourself and see what happens.
buddhapest
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:qpf4r2p833encmq0u...@4ax.com...
this is a notion i touched on recently
about being lived instead of living.
somehow we have convinced ourselves
that we are in control of our destiny when
we don't even regulate our need for sleep
or for food. we don't control our bodily
functions, we don't control even a small
part of the universe in which the body functions
and the mind rambles on oblivious to what
we think we want in terms of an expansion
of the horizon of awareness. understanding
a notion like 'being lived' is where surrender,
at least to the conscious part of the mind,
becomes a direct allowing of those forces
which buffet us like a pinball machine game
so that those forces might guide and direct
an evolution of that spiritual consciousness
that we have inherited the same as we have
inherited this physical form. to observe the
immensity and grandeur of the universe and
then to sit back thinking that one is in control
is pretty damn funny.
stumper
> stumper wrote:
>> buddhapest wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Write a song about me.
>>>
>>>
>>> the zen fartlighter song?
>>>
>>>
>> "Do nothing" song.
>
>
> not catchy enough. where's the pathos?
> where's the unrequited love? you got a
> lot to learn about songwriting sparkles.
>
Are you trying to sell your soul?
Can you even imagine
writing a song
to awaken all sentient beings?
--
~Stumper
stumper
>
> "This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for
> complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the
> philosophy is kindness."
> -The Dalai Lama
>
How can you be so clueless after reading this?
You failed to answer
even the simplest question I have asked.
Here is another one.
You do wanna be a kind person, don't you?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Feel free to start a new thread
and cut and paste some of his lines.
In spite of his appearance of coherency,
he is a deeply troubled soul.
Do try to lessen his suffering, please.
--
~Stumper
stumper
> <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> DT> Take a pill for what? I don't have a headache.
>> What does that mean, take a pill?
>
> it means that there maybe should be
> something to slow this train wreck of
> an anxiety driven intellectual security
> addiction that you're so peacock
> proud of.
>
He cannot even answer my simple questions.
Kindly rephrase your comments
using less imaginative usages, please.
His apparent lack of common sense
in spite of his apparent intelligence
might be due to a serious psychological trauma.
Do be gentle with him.
If you can't, leave him alone, please.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Glad to have this dialog.
I would rather do as the Buddha did.
How far did you go in your practice?
--
~Stumper
stumper
> Keynes wrote:
>> [To "Duke of Dukkha"]
Basically you don't understand Karma.
Nothing serious.
Easily overcome by mere mindfulness.
And by doing nothing once in a while, of course.
--
~Stumper
Sultan of Insultin'
> the only thing i would argue for years
> is how you think the rocks in your head are alive.
DT> There are neurons in this head, not rocks. And I think they are
alive because they have experiences, and are communicating with you,
that's how.
Coming from the "matter is stupid" camp, you find it shocking that a
meat-head could be conscious. On the other hand, coming from
experience and being a physical, conscious body/brain, the entire
universe looks a lot more intelligence and potentially conscious to me.
That is, looking at individual neurons, one can't see consciousness,
but when organized the right way, they are conscious. I wonder about
the structure of the stars, galaxies, and wonder if they were ordered
and organized if they might not be conscious but it is not apparent
just as it is not apparent that neurons are conscious. Not that I
think the cosmos as a whole is an extra person, just that it appears to
an experiencing piece of matter like myself to be plausible.
> orgasms, lsd, sleep deprivation, sensory
> deprivation, meditation, etcetera, etcetera,
> are all means to arrive at and stabilize in
> that midway point between consciousness
> and unconsciousness. your attempts to
> blame me for your corrective word replacement
> addictions are truly laughable.
DT> I blame you for nothing except being a babbling fool.
> how you arrive at that midway point is quite a personal matter.
DT> Pulling out is one way.
> your logic won't get you there. dividing the
> world and its nuances up into intellectual delicacies
DT> You idealist Hinduists pretend that the world is a big pile of goo
that logic artificially divides. NonZense! Rather, I look and
discover how the world is naturally divided rather than trying to shove
everything into a blender and coming up with your gobbledygook.
> somehow we have convinced ourselves
> that we are in control of our destiny when
> we don't even regulate our need for sleep
> or for food. we don't control our bodily
> functions,
DT> So you're not even toilet trained? You wear an adult diaper?
I am vegan and regulate what food I eat, and I always make sure to get
enough sleep or take naps in the afternoon if I stay up late. If you
don't, then that's your choice.
> we don't control even a small part of the
> universe in which the body functions
> and the mind rambles on oblivious to what
> we think we want in terms of an expansion
> of the horizon of awareness. understanding
> a notion like 'being lived' is where surrender,
> at least to the conscious part of the mind,
> becomes a direct allowing of those forces
> which buffet us like a pinball machine game
> so that those forces might guide and direct
> an evolution of that spiritual consciousness
DT> More gobbledeegook. I dislike the term "surrender", which almost
invariably ends up meaning don't think clearly but blindly follow an
authority.
And yes, most of our functions such as heartbeat aren't voluntary or
conscious, and most of Buddhist practice is an opening and letting go,
as we have an irrational craving to be in control. So let go and watch
and then make choices where it is appropriate to make choices, like
what food to eat and who to be friends with.
Keynes> When will you abandon your childhood?
Close the coloring books. No more painting by number.
DT> I abandoned my childhood long ago. It's you childish mountebanks
that remind me of it in a nostalgic way.
> Everyone has your own previous faults, you suppose,
DT> Oh, you miss the humor. I'm calling everyone me as a 14-year-old
and 19-year-old not just because there is a similarity, which there is,
but as a sort of counterpoint to Tang's calling everyone his 'son'.
Especially when I'm talking to dullards who claim that we are all One
and all the same person; for if that's the case, and everyone is I,
then most of the folks around here are 'me' between about 10 and 19,
I'd say.
> You are deep in delusion and dissatisfaction attributing it to your previous failures.
DT> Failures, what failures? I was more enlightened and did everything
you and Brian and buddhapest boast of now when I was only a young teen.
And not only was I superior to and more enlightened than the lot of
you combined, but it wasn't a failure, as I learned a lot from my
Hinduist idealist phase.
> Your vacant wanderings have not made things better so obviously no one has ever made anything better.
DT> Actually things are a lot better now, and I have much less craving
and aversion, and most of all, less delusion. For example, I no longer
am deluded into thinking that consciousness is not physical or that
anything is not physical. I've become more grounded and connected to
the Earth, you space cadet.
> You can see Saturn but overlook Uranus.
DT> That's a good one! You have a good look at Uranus, I suppose, with
your head stuck so far up your ass, eh? I prefer to gaze at beautiful
compositions of Saturn than have my head stuck up my butt as well.
Well, to each his own, I suppose.
> " That kind of Zen is silly to me."
> You have a strong opinion. Or does it have you?
DT> I have a strong intellect. Why is it that wimps always put down
muscles and say "muscles are disgusting" and "ooh look at him, he's so
ugly -- why, he doesn't even wear thick glasses!"
> For you meditation is a vacation in masturbation land.
DT> Perhaps you speak for yourself, but for me meditation has nothing
to do with masturbation. One can include masturbation in meditation
practice and be mindful while masturbating, I suppose, but I'm not sure
where you come up with your random non-sequitors, Keynes.
> Permanent mindfulness is the real thing. And in that state one doesn't get lost in thoughts and opinions.
DT> Sigh. You're looking for permanence, Keynes. That's behind your
non-dualist nonsense and so forth. I'm not looking for permanence
anymore, like I did when I was 8 years old. Heh. Permanence, even
permanent mindfulness, is quite an unreasonable expectation. I'm not
saying the Buddha didn't do that or that it's not possible, but since
nobody I've every met is close to that, I'd rather go for a little more
mindfulness in everything I do, and to be ok with impermanence and know
that even the most mindful states will pass too.
> My free advice to you (and worth every penny)
is not to take advice from idiots and fools,
DT> Well, that's a tough puzzle, because if I don't take your advice,
then I'll be taking your advice. Damn, there's no way out of this one!
You've created a non-dualist paradox! If I take your advice, then I'm
taking the advice of idiots and fools, and if I don't take your advice,
then I'm taking the advice of idiots and fools which is not to take the
advice of idiots and fools.
> beginning with the king of idiots -- your own wild thoughts.
DT> Oh I stopped believing my own propaganda years ago.
That's why I'm no longer like you and Brian and buddhapest anymore...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Gandhabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never
did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language!"
-Mark Twain
stumper
>
> DT> Oh I stopped believing my own propaganda years ago.
> That's why I'm no longer like you and Brian and buddhapest anymore...
>
That's probably why
you are clueless about your cluelessness.
Yes, Buddhism is all about being kind
enough to help others suffer less.
Get some faith somewhere and act kindly.
--
~Stumper
buddhapest
"Sultan of Insultin'" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169320840.3...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> buddhapest babbled:
>
> > the only thing i would argue for years
> > is how you think the rocks in your head are alive.
>
> DT> There are neurons in this head, not rocks. And I think they are
> alive because they have experiences, and are communicating with you,
> that's how.
critical notion here is that you 'think'
this to be so
> Coming from the "matter is stupid" camp, you find it shocking that a
> meat-head could be conscious. On the other hand, coming from
> experience and being a physical, conscious body/brain, the entire
> universe looks a lot more intelligence and potentially conscious to me.
critical notion here is that it 'looks'
that way to you.
> That is, looking at individual neurons, one can't see consciousness,
> but when organized the right way, they are conscious. I wonder about
> the structure of the stars, galaxies, and wonder if they were ordered
> and organized if they might not be conscious but it is not apparent
> just as it is not apparent that neurons are conscious. Not that I
> think the cosmos as a whole is an extra person, just that it appears to
> an experiencing piece of matter like myself to be plausible.
so far we're dabbling in how you
think things to be and how things
look to you only.
> > orgasms, lsd, sleep deprivation, sensory
> > deprivation, meditation, etcetera, etcetera,
> > are all means to arrive at and stabilize in
> > that midway point between consciousness
> > and unconsciousness. your attempts to
> > blame me for your corrective word replacement
> > addictions are truly laughable.
>
> DT> I blame you for nothing except being a babbling fool.
and now all of a sudden from your
own self admitted standpoint of
how you think things are, you put
forth denial of an obvious intellectual
security addiction and attempt to
blame me for that too.
> > how you arrive at that midway point is quite a personal matter.
>
> DT> Pulling out is one way.
is that what you 'think' too?
> > your logic won't get you there. dividing the
> > world and its nuances up into intellectual delicacies
>
> DT> You idealist Hinduists pretend that the world is a big pile of goo
> that logic artificially divides. NonZense! Rather, I look and
> discover how the world is naturally divided rather than trying to shove
> everything into a blender and coming up with your gobbledygook.
your attempt to take over the "my
shit don't stink but yours does"
competition shows you far out in
the lead over all other contenders.
hang in there. everyone is rooting
for you.