Nihilism (was Re: Hollywood Lee's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>
> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
> mode of clinging, views as a mode of clinging, precepts & practices as a
> mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
>
> * * *
>
> "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
> their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
> clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
> born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
> Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
> Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
> Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
> as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
> source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
> Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
> has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
> Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
> their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
> ignorance."
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
(Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
is.
What is new, in the �ceasing� sequence, is that the
Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
he went up the �arising� sequence, in which he found
that his mind turned back from consciousness, and did
not extend beyond. He now thinks: what not being,
consciousness is not? What ceasing, consciousness
ceases? He understands: the compositions not being,
consciousness is not; the compositions ceasing,
consciousness ceases. He keeps on: what not being,
the compositions are not? What ceasing, the
compositions cease? He understands: ignorance not
being, the compositions are not; ignorance ceasing, the
compositions cease. (The compositions are the fourth
aggregate).
He then goes back down the members: The
compositions ceasing, consciousness ceases.
Consciousness ceasing, name and form cease. Name
and form ceasing, the sixfold place of contact ceases.
The sixfold place of contact ceasing, contact ceases.
Contact ceasing, feeling ceases. Feeling ceasing,
craving ceases. Craving ceasing, grasping
ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming ceases. Becoming
ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing, old age and death
cease, and also sorrow and lamentation, suffering,
grief and despair. Thus this whole mass of suffering
ceases. The Buddha thinks: I have found an ancient
path, an ancient trail, travelled by men of old, and I
get to travel on it.
So, Lee, here, in the �ceasing� sequence, ignorance
ceases, and ignorance ceasing, the compositions (the
fourth aggregate) cease. The compositions ceasing,
consciousness ceases. Consciousness ceasing, name
and form cease. Name and form ceasing, the sixfold
place of contact ceases. The sixfold place of contact
ceasing, contact ceases. Contact ceasing, feeling
ceases. Feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Craving
ceasing, grasping ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming
ceases. Becoming ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing,
old age and death cease, and also sorrow and
lamentation, suffering, grief and despair. Thus this
whole mass of suffering ceases.
Apparently this entire sequence of ceasing occurs in
the live awakened person, at the moment of
awakening. As as it occurs, everything ceases.
Consciousness ceases, name and form cease, the
sixfold place of contact ceases, contact ceases, feeling
ceases, craving ceases, etc. The entire sensititve
apparatus ceases, and the entire apparatus of
consciousness ceases. So the whole five aggregates
cease.
How do you, Lee, explain that?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
>
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>>
>> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
>> mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
>> their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
>> clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
>> born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
>> Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
>> Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
>> Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
>> as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
>> source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
>> Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
>> has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
>> Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
>> their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
>> ignorance."
>>
>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
>
> This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
> is.
>
> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
> ceases, and ignorance ceasing, the compositions (the
> fourth aggregate) cease. The compositions ceasing,
> consciousness ceases. Consciousness ceasing, name
> and form cease. Name and form ceasing, the sixfold
> place of contact ceases. The sixfold place of contact
> ceasing, contact ceases. Contact ceasing, feeling
> ceases. Feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Craving
> ceasing, grasping ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming
> ceases. Becoming ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing,
> old age and death cease, and also sorrow and
> lamentation, suffering, grief and despair. Thus this
> whole mass of suffering ceases.
>
> Apparently this entire sequence of ceasing occurs in
> the live awakened person, at the moment of
> awakening. As as it occurs, everything ceases.
> Consciousness ceases, name and form cease, the
> sixfold place of contact ceases, contact ceases, feeling
> ceases, craving ceases, etc. The entire sensititve
> apparatus ceases, and the entire apparatus of
> consciousness ceases. So the whole five aggregates
> cease.
>
> How do you, Lee, explain that?
Dang. The secret is out - for literalists, the Buddha was a nihilist.
End it now.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
> > Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
> > (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
> > is.
> >
> > What is new, in the �ceasing� sequence, is that the
> > Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
> > he went up the �arising� sequence, in which he found
> > So, Lee, here, in the �ceasing� sequence, ignorance
> > ceases, and ignorance ceasing, the compositions (the
> > fourth aggregate) cease. The compositions ceasing,
> > consciousness ceases. Consciousness ceasing, name
> > and form cease. Name and form ceasing, the sixfold
> > place of contact ceases. The sixfold place of contact
> > ceasing, contact ceases. Contact ceasing, feeling
> > ceases. Feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Craving
> > ceasing, grasping ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming
> > ceases. Becoming ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing,
> > old age and death cease, and also sorrow and
> > lamentation, suffering, grief and despair. Thus this
> > whole mass of suffering ceases.
> >
> > Apparently this entire sequence of ceasing occurs in
> > the live awakened person, at the moment of
> > awakening. As as it occurs, everything ceases.
> > Consciousness ceases, name and form cease, the
> > sixfold place of contact ceases, contact ceases, feeling
> > ceases, craving ceases, etc. The entire sensititve
> > apparatus ceases, and the entire apparatus of
> > consciousness ceases. So the whole five aggregates
> > cease.
> >
> > How do you, Lee, explain that?
>
> Dang. The secret is out - for literalists, the Buddha
> was a nihilist. End it now.
Nice dodge. If you do not take a literalist approach,
fine, but how do you explain the text then?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
>
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>>> This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
>>> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
>>> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
>>> is.
>>>
>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
Dodge? How insulting. But being a nihilist, how could it matter?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Dodge? How insulting. But being a nihilist,
> how could it matter?
Sure, you could go to a tall buiding and
jump off a high floor, and if you do, I am
not responsible, as I am only mentally
developing a logical consequence of
nihilism. And if you do, being a nihilist,
how could it matter? If you wanted to
keep the honour of a nihilist, that would
be the thing to do, but again, being a nihilist,
how could it matter, one way or another?
Everything has ceased, as the text says, so
being a nihilist, how could it matter? If you
forgot to actually read the text, again, being
a nihilist, how could it matter?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
Now you're getting it. Jump again.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Hollywood Lee:
Nah. I do not take a literalist interpretation of
the text. I was only asking how you interpret
it if you do not take it literally. Keynes and
herbzet were interested in the text, and I was
checking if you could provide an interpretation
to enlighten them.
By the way, the text fits right in with Buddhism,
as I understand both. There is a logic to both,
and it shines a light on both in an unmistakable
manner. The Buddha has a reason to talk the
way he talks, it is the underlying logic of what
he teaches, and it is what I was trying to get
from you.
Anybody out there has any interpretation that
can make the text light up?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
No, not even you apparently - unless, of course, you are just being coy.
The choice is currently only between annihilationism and eternalism.
Julian. Help poor Tang.
Lee Rudolph
I'll take a crack at this task.
As preface, I quote a passage from C. S. Lewis's Christian eschatological
apologetic _The Last Battle_, which however much I disprise it still causes
the hairs on my arms to stand on end.
[... O]nce long ago, in the deep caves beneath those moors,
they had seen a great giant asleep and been told that his name
was Father Time, and that he would wake on the day the world ended.
"Yes," said Aslan, though they had not spoken. "While he lay dreaming
his name was Time. Now that he is awake he will have a new one."
Esoterically, then, Time does have a "new name" in the moment of
awakening. On some accounts (esoteric readings of "literal" texts,
perhaps) the "new name" might be Eternity (I suppose that's Lewis's
reading), it might be Nihil (the reading you, Tang, are for the nonce
ascribing to your newest creation, Lee Dillion The Fundamentalist Jack
O'Lantern, who reads the literal word of the Dependent Arisal by the
flickering candlelight of his own head), it might be who knows what
(the great thing about standards, as they say, is that there are so
many of them!).
But my exoteric eisegesis is simply this: in the moment of awakening,
what ceases (all that has to cease, and really, all that *can* cease)
is naming. You (and the author, or authorial tradition, you quote
and paraphrase) hide that particular cessation in plain sight among
many corollary cessations, but I am proposing that it is both necessary
and sufficient. The world--the one big Thing--remains (where it always
was, in plain view); only the little individual "things", epiphenomena
of chunking, bagging, and naming, cease their buzz and boom.
... In which case, what the Jewish creation myth hides in plain sight
is that the Fall of Adam was already a _fait accompli_ as soon as he
was tempted (by Jehovah God Himself, who brought him every beast of the
field, and every bird of the heavens, to see what he would call them),
and yielded (he gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens,
and to every beast of the field), and fell asleep.
Br'er Rudolph, at your service
Hollywood Lee
> Tang Huyen<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:
>
>>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen:
>>>
>>>> This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
>>>> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
>>>> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
herbzet
At this point, I, for one, don't give much of a crap about
this ancient nihilist/eternalist debate.
No, the awakening comes *after* all that, when the
bhikkhu, like Gautama Buddha himself, awakes from
this state of cessation.
But that's got a problem: the cessation of ignorance
occurs by the discernment of anicca (or whatever)
in the nature of the sankhara. If *that's* the big
realization, if *that's* what we're calling enlightenment,
then that is the *cause* of all the consequent cessations.
When the already-awakened person arises from this state
of cessation (if he does!) for some, whatever, reason,
that's nothing more, it's just re-entering being animate.
But I think the awakening is what is understood/realized
upon exiting the state of utter cessation. It's a new
world, though it's the same old world ...
Just off the top of my head ...
--
hz
Julian
Do you have such a thing as WD40 in the USA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
Spray him liberally, leave for half an hour,
give him a hefty tonk with a hammer and try again.
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> At this point, I, for one, don't give much of
> a crap about this ancient nihilist/eternalist
> debate.
The point here is that Lee Dillion (Lee
Hollywood), who claims to be rationalist,
quotes texts that he doesn't understand.
Either he does that to look good and feed
his ego, or he does that just like Christian
fundies, who quote texts that they don't
understand but only believe in blind faith,
though they are honest in admitting that
they don't need to understand but only
have faith in such revealed texts.
Lee promotes thought, against people like
me who promote non-mentation, but he
does not bother to move this thought to
understand what he quotes. So either he is
lazy or he is unsincere, or perhaps like Fu
he is a Christian of bad faith.
Tang Huyen
oxtail
I was not following the thread,
but I cannot help but wonder
what it means for Lee
not to understand the text.
Does that mean he does not
understand it the way you do,
or you don't understand
the way he interprets the text?
Or something else?
--
oxtail
Tang Huyen
oxtail wrote:
> I was not following the thread,
> but I cannot help but wonder
> what it means for Lee
> not to understand the text.
> Does that mean he does not
> understand it the way you do,
> or you don't understand
> the way he interprets the text?
> Or something else?
I pointed out that the text, in its literality,
is nihilistic, in that according to it,
everything has ceased. I have not offered
my interpretation for such apparent
nihilism (Lee Rudolph has offered one,
and it seems very defensible, though there
are other interpretations that remain
possible). Lee Dillion (Lee Hollywood)
himself did not notice the nihilism of the
text that he quoted, and, when it was
pointed out to him, has not offered any
interpretation of it.
You made a veey insightful rejoinder to Fu:
<<What's the point of thinking
if you are to be free of self?>>
Lee aligns himself with Fu in bashing
non-mentation (Fu himself was for it before
his huge and spectacular crash), but seems
not to have used his thought in quoting the
text.
To go back to what you said to Fu, if one
wants to be free of self, why bother with
thinking?
Tang Huyen
Julian
If one wants to be free of self, one IS thinking.
Hollywood Lee
LOL. That's it? After all these years, all you can zing me with is
that I'm a lazy, egotistical, rationalizing Christian of bad faith.
You've been much better at dreaming stuff up in the past. I think I'm
disappointed.
Keynes
wrote:
You can think what you please, but only your therapist knows for sure.
Hollywood Lee
>
>
> oxtail wrote:
>
>> I was not following the thread,
>> but I cannot help but wonder
>> what it means for Lee
>> not to understand the text.
>> Does that mean he does not
>> understand it the way you do,
>> or you don't understand
>> the way he interprets the text?
>> Or something else?
>
> I pointed out that the text, in its literality,
> is nihilistic, in that according to it,
> everything has ceased. I have not offered
> my interpretation for such apparent
> nihilism (Lee Rudolph has offered one,
> and it seems very defensible, though there
> are other interpretations that remain
> possible). Lee Dillion (Lee Hollywood)
> himself did not notice the nihilism of the
> text that he quoted, and, when it was
> pointed out to him, has not offered any
> interpretation of it.
Hehe. So, just to recap. You make a literalist interpretation of a
text, with the result that the text, in its literality, is nihilist,
then, imagining up a story where I didn't foresee the implications of
your literalist reading want me to correct your error, even after Lee R
tried? Try some non-mentation dear. You've got yourself worked up again.
Hollywood Lee
Actually, that would be my masseuse. I tell her all.
oxtail
> oxtail wrote:
>
>> I was not following the thread,
>> but I cannot help but wonder
>> what it means for Lee
>> not to understand the text.
>> Does that mean he does not
>> understand it the way you do,
>> or you don't understand
>> the way he interprets the text?
>> Or something else?
>
> I pointed out that the text, in its literality, is nihilistic, in that
> according to it, everything has ceased. I have not offered my
> interpretation for such apparent
> nihilism (Lee Rudolph has offered one, and it seems very defensible,
> though there are other interpretations that remain possible). Lee
> Dillion (Lee Hollywood) himself did not notice the nihilism of the text
> that he quoted, and, when it was pointed out to him, has not offered any
> interpretation of it.
Even if that is the case,
that does not mean his interpretation is groundless,
whatever that might be.
Probably some kind of rationalization
of the need to think and practice harder? ;-)
Anyhow, is misunderstanding same as not understanding?
Only to someone who has blind faith
in his interpretation.
> You made a very insightful rejoinder to Fu:
>
> <<What's the point of thinking
> if you are to be free of self?>>
>
> Lee aligns himself with Fu in bashing non-mentation (Fu himself was for
> it before his huge and spectacular crash), but seems not to have used
> his thought in quoting the text.
>
> To go back to what you said to Fu, if one wants to be free of self, why
> bother with thinking?
I probably agree with you about "non-mentation."
But saying so explicitly would make me appear
clueless about the emptiness of all dharmas.
--
oxtail
oxtail
If one is free of self,
does he have to be thinking?
--
oxtail
Julian
Nothing is compulsory, all is permitted.
oxtail
Only if you don't care either way.
--
oxtail
zenworm
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Allen Barker
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> writes:
>
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen:
>>>
>>>> This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
>>>> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
>>>> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
I'll buy necessary, but not sufficient.
zenworm
wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>
> > "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
> > mode of clinging, views as a mode of clinging, precepts & practices as a
> > mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
>
> > * * *
>
> > "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
> > their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
> > clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
> > born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
> > Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
> > Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
> > Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
> > as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
> > source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
> > Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
> > has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
> > Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
> > their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
> > ignorance."
>
> >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
>
> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
> is.
>
> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
> ceases, and ignorance ceasing, the compositions (the
> fourth aggregate) cease. The compositions ceasing,
> consciousness ceases. Consciousness ceasing, name
> and form cease. Name and form ceasing, the sixfold
> place of contact ceases. The sixfold place of contact
> ceasing, contact ceases. Contact ceasing, feeling
> ceases. Feeling ceasing, craving ceases. Craving
> ceasing, grasping ceases. Clinging ceasing, becoming
> ceases. Becoming ceasing, birth ceases. Birth ceasing,
> old age and death cease, and also sorrow and
> lamentation, suffering, grief and despair. Thus this
> whole mass of suffering ceases.
>
> Apparently this entire sequence of ceasing occurs in
> the live awakened person, at the moment of
> awakening. As as it occurs, everything ceases.
> Consciousness ceases, name and form cease, the
> sixfold place of contact ceases, contact ceases, feeling
> ceases, craving ceases, etc. The entire sensititve
> apparatus ceases, and the entire apparatus of
> consciousness ceases. So the whole five aggregates
> cease.
>
> How do you, Lee, explain that?
>
Is the 'ceasing' referring to the actuality or the
actuality accompanied with mental fermentation?
The 'ceasing' would be the mental fermentation
that causes the attachment and the distractions
pulling attention from Moment.?
Hollywood Lee
> On Nov 1, 9:59 am, Tang Huyen<tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>> Clinging, and its source, defined as follows:
>>
>>> "Monks, there are four [modes of] clinging. Which four? Sensuality as a
>>> mode of clinging, doctrines of the self as a mode of clinging."
>>
>>> * * *
>>
>>> "Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
>>> their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of
>>> clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin, they are
>>> born and produced from craving.10 Craving has what as its source...?
>>> Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as its source...?
>>> Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what as its source...?
>>> Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The sixfold base has what
>>> as its source...? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its
>>> source... Mentality-materiality has what as its source...?
>>> Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source... Consciousness
>>> has what as its source...? Consciousness has formations as its source...
>>> Formations have what as their source...? Formations have ignorance as
>>> their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from
>>> ignorance."
>>
>>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
>>
>> This text is derived from the full text of the Dependent
>> Arisal, which I quoted recently. Apparently Lee Dillion
>> (Lee Hollywood) has not noticed how nihilistic this text
>> is.
>>
>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
While Tang appears stuck in a quiz show, you and Lee R have offered two
possible outs from the dilemma of annihilationism or eternalism arising
from a literalist or idealist reading of the passages. Nanananda (Tang
hates it when I, in his words, grasp hold of his flowing robes) puts it
this way:
---------
Before the advent of the Buddha, the world conceived of exis�tence in
terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of destroying
that essence of being was regarded as annihilation�ism. It was some
state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the law of
dependent arising made known by the Buddha, exis�tence is something that
depends on grasping, up�d�napaccay� bhavo. It is due to grasping that
there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching.
In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
foot�stool when it was used as such. If in the next act it is used to
sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
table. Simi�larly in a drama, the same piece of wood, which in one act
serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to beat
with, in the next act.
In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things taken as
real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
views. They are conditioned by the mind, but these psy�chological causes
are ignored by the world, once concepts and desig�nations are
superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real ob�jects and made
amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
mine', and so on.
Such a tendency is not there in the released mind of the ara�hant. He
has understood the fact that existence is due to grasp�ing,
up�d�na�paccay� bhavo. Generally, in the explanation of the law of
de�pendent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping, becoming' is
supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in this
life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to moment.
Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
----------
Non-mentate ho!
Keynes
wrote:
>On 11/2/2009 1:45 AM, zenworm wrote:
>>> What is new, in the “ceasing” sequence, is that the
>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
>>> he went up the “arising” sequence, in which he found
>>> So, Lee, here, in the “ceasing” sequence, ignorance
>Before the advent of the Buddha, the world conceived of existence in
>terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of destroying
>that essence of being was regarded as annihilationism. It was some
>state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the law of
>dependent arising made known by the Buddha, existence is something that
>depends on grasping, upàdànapaccayà bhavo. It is due to grasping that
>there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching.
>
>In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
>footstool when it was used as such. If in the next act it is used to
>sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
>table. Similarly in a drama, the same piece of wood, which in one act
>serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to beat
>with, in the next act.
>
>In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things taken as
>real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
>views. They are conditioned by the mind, but these psychological causes
>are ignored by the world, once concepts and designations are
>superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real objects and made
>amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
>imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
>mine', and so on.
>
>Such a tendency is not there in the released mind of the arahant. He
>has understood the fact that existence is due to grasping,
>upàdànapaccayà bhavo. Generally, in the explanation of the law of
>dependent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping, becoming' is
>supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in this
>life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to moment.
>Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
>because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
>material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
>other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
>understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
>
>----------
>
>Non-mentate ho!
Very interesting.
But what has it to do with the cessation of consciousness?
(Like it says in the sutra.)
I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
.
Hollywood Lee
If you enjoyed that, you might also like the following at
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books8/Bhikkhu_Nanananda_Nibbana_Sermon_16.htm
I'd be curious whether it speaks to you.
Keynes
Hollywood Lee
As they say, you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make him think.
Keynes
wrote:
Those who say that are apparently deeply confused...
Déjà Flu
>>>>>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
>>>>> terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of
>>>>> destroying
>>>>> state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the
>>>>> law of
>>>>> something that
>>>>> depends on grasping, upￜ dￜ napaccayￜ bhavo. It is due to grasping
>>>>> there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this
>>>>> teaching.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
>>>>> sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
>>>>> serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to
>>>>> beat
>>>>> with, in the next act.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things
>>>>> taken as
>>>>> real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
>>>>> causes
>>>>> are ignored by the world, once concepts and desigÂnations are
>>>>> superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real obÂjects and made
>>>>> amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
>>>>> imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
>>>>> mine', and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> has understood the fact that existence is due to graspÂing,
>>>>> upï¿œ Âdï¿œ naÂpaccayï¿œ bhavo. Generally, in the explanation of the
>>>>> law of
>>>>> deÂpendent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping,
>>>>> supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in
>>>>> this
>>>>> life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to
>>>>> moment.
>>>>> Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
>>>>> because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
>>>>> material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
>>>>> other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
>>>>> understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-mentate ho!
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting.
>>>> But what has it to do with the cessation of consciousness?
>>>> (Like it says in the sutra.)
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
>>>> 'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
>>>
>>> If you enjoyed that, you might also like the following at
>>> http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books8/Bhikkhu_Nanananda_Nibbana_Sermon_16.htm
>>>
>>> I'd be curious whether it speaks to you.
>>>
>> MEGO
>>
>
> As they say, you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make him think.
do0d, that was just cruel (to Nanananananda, mostly)...
And Keynes forgot that MEGO is scaled 1-10, too.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
zenworm
> >> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
> terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of destroying
> state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the law of
> depends on grasping, upàdànapaccayà bhavo. It is due to grasping that
> there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching.
>
> In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
> sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
> serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to beat
> with, in the next act.
>
> In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things taken as
> real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
> are ignored by the world, once concepts and designations are
> superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real objects and made
> amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
> imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
> mine', and so on.
>
> has understood the fact that existence is due to grasping,
> dependent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping, becoming' is
> supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in this
> life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to moment.
> Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
> because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
> material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
> other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
> understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
>
> ----------
>
> Non-mentate ho!
fermentationless
Allen Barker
>>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
>> terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of destroying
>> state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the law of
>> depends on grasping, up�d�napaccay� bhavo. It is due to grasping that
>> there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching.
>>
>> In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
>> sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
>> serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to beat
>> with, in the next act.
>>
>> In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things taken as
>> real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
>> are ignored by the world, once concepts and desig�nations are
>> superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real ob�jects and made
>> amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
>> imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
>> mine', and so on.
>>
>> has understood the fact that existence is due to grasp�ing,
>> de�pendent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping, becoming' is
>> supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in this
>> life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to moment.
>> Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
>> because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
>> material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
>> other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
>> understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> Non-mentate ho!
>
>
> fermentationless
Exemplary equanimity after being called a ho.
zenworm
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:55:00 -0700, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com>
perhaps 'self-conciousness' refering to ego (a conflagration of owned
preferences in relation to owned definitions of projected
objectifications of the appearences of form)?
Tang Huyen
Keynes wrote:
> Very interesting.
> But what has it to do with the cessation of consciousness?
> (Like it says in the sutra.)
>
> I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
> 'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
All I wanted to know was whether Lee Dillion
(Lee Hollywood) could offer an explanation for
the wholesale cascade of cessation at the moment
of awakening in a live person, a blanket wave of
cessation that stops both the mental side (the
compositions [the fourth aggregate] and
consciousness) and the perceptive side (feeling
[the second aggregate], contact, etc.), so that
nothing is left to function -- nothing is left. Does
craving stop only when everything stops, without
remainders, period?
Did Lee (nicknamed "the sutta boy" by Jan aka
possum) quote a text that he didn't understand
and cannot explain? If so, he qualifies for salvation
by the Lord, as Jewish mythology does not require
understanding but only believing in revelation in
blind faith. He should also stop pretending to be a
rationalist. Perhaps he can start claiming to be an
obscurantist. Or an arcanist. Ho.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
hehe. So now I'm a a lazy, egotistical, obscurantist, arcanist,
rationalizing Christian of bad/blind faith Jew. Still not up to your
past standards.
BTW - IIRC the tag from jen was sutta-shover. Captures the motion
better that sutta-boy, dontcha think?
^@%>---*=#**
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:RLCdnUmUicl2jG3X...@supernews.com...
>
>
> Keynes wrote:
>
>> Very interesting.
>> But what has it to do with the cessation of consciousness?
>> (Like it says in the sutra.)
>>
>> I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
>> 'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
>
> All I wanted to know was whether Lee Dillion
> (Lee Hollywood) could offer an explanation for
> the wholesale cascade of cessation at the moment
> of awakening in a live person, a blanket wave of
> cessation that stops both the mental side (the
> compositions [the fourth aggregate] and
> consciousness) and the perceptive side (feeling
> [the second aggregate], contact, etc.), so that
> nothing is left to function -- nothing is left. Does
> craving stop only when everything stops, without
> remainders, period?
dramadroll claimed that enlightenment meant
the end of craving but i don't think that it ever
completely ceases otherwise you wouldn't even
be motivated to wake up each morning. buddha
still desired a bowl of rice each day, krishna desired
6000 wives, and christ desired a bullwhip for the
money changers in the temple just after he got done
telling people to love their enemies. tough love,
i guess.
DharmaTroll
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> > All I wanted to know was whether Lee Dillion
> > (Lee Hollywood) could offer an explanation for
> > the wholesale cascade of cessation at the moment
> > of awakening in a live person, a blanket wave of
> > cessation that stops both the mental side (the
> > compositions [the fourth aggregate] and
> > consciousness) and the perceptive side (feeling
> > [the second aggregate], contact, etc.), so that
> > nothing is left to function -- nothing is left. Does
> > craving stop only when everything stops, without
> > remainders, period?
>
> dramadroll claimed that enlightenment meant
> the end of craving but i don't think that it ever
> completely ceases otherwise you wouldn't even
> be motivated to wake up each morning.
Not so fast, oh apathetic one. Why on earth would one need to be
obsessively driven to wake up in the morning? Without craving, one
might just wake up, and enjoy the sunrise, and the birds tweeting.
Then one is free to do what one likes to do. It's like not being a
drug addict. Not being a drug addict doesn't mean your life is
meaningless if you aren't contantly trying to get your next fix.
Rather, one is now free to do all sorts of things, like take a walk in
the woods, paint a picture, read a book, spend time with a loved one,
go to work, and so on.
> buddha still desired a bowl of rice each day,
That kind of desire, being hungry for food, doesn't have to involve
all the extra 'infrastructure'. With me (a deluded and not an
awakened, in spite of being so totally awesome and insightful), when I
pay attention to my desire to eat, there's all sorts of extra stuff
going on. I'm hungry and eat when I'm lonely, when I'm sad, when I'm
angry, when I'm afraid or anxious. Eating sometimes I crave to fill
the 'void', a feeling of emptiness or incompleteness: there is an
irrational desire to 'swallow the world' to become more whole, and so
forth. When an awakened is hungry, there are simply sensations of
hunger in the body. No extra craving, no extra emotions. So he
mindfully eats.
And I expect the Buddha didn't just eat starchy rice, and hed lots of
fruits and vegetables and beans and nuts and seeds. He only ate a bowl
of rice every day when starving himself for all those years before he
decided that self-deprication was as useless as its opposite of
hedonism. The point is, that when the Buddha was hungry, he ate. No
more infrastructure added, as we deludeds tend to do.
--DharmaTroll
"Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat."
-Socrates
DharmaTroll
Geez, more of the Tang-bangers ridiculous tests.
In his _Psychology of Nirvana_, Rune Johansson astutely writes, "It is
a well-known fact that nibbana is the summum bonum of Buddhism and
that a person who has attained this ultimate goal is called an
arahant. But here the agreement ends, [because] different scholars
have started from different strata of the extensive literature and
then often generalized their findings and supposed them to be valid
for other strata as well. Buddhism has often been considered much more
homogenious than it really is. Invalid generalizations seem to be one
of the cardinal sins of scholarly works." Johansson then gives it his
best shot but ends up commiting the same cardinal sin. Which provides
yet another example of his initial astute disclaimer.
Anyway, after one of my posts about this subject, Lee then top-posted
with the comment, "I'll top-post this just to say nice post". So I
figure that Lee probably goes with something like what I said. But in
any case, I don't think there is one correct answer we can agree on,
as "Buddhism has often been considered much more homogenious than it
really is". Anyway, repeating what I said in that post:
<<The awakened is said to have replaced the problematic causal pattern
with a healthy pattern that allows the awakened to be "the master and
not slave of concepts". That "wisdom and insight into name and form"
as you say, produces nibbida (revulsion). Though there might be a
better word to translate nibbida, as revulsion sounds like aversion,
and so can be confusing. Anyway, this nibbida produces detachment
(viraga), which in turn produces freedom (vimutti), and therefore one
attains stability (thitata) of mind, so that one doesn't tremble or
get agitated like Robert [heh] as a result of gain (labha) or loss
(alabha), good repute (yasa) or disrepute (ayasa), praise (pasamsa) or
blame (ninda), happiness (sukkha) or unhappiness (dukkha). These are
the eight worldly phenomena (atthalokadhamma) by which one is
constantly assailed in everyday life. Hence, as you and Tang say, the
highest point of 'blessed-ness' (mangala) is achieved, according to
the Maha-mangala-sutta, by a person "whose mind is not overwhelmed
when in contact with worldly phenomena (lokadhamma), is freed from
sorrow, taintless and secure." That is, one feels at peace in the
midst of worldly turmoil.>>
Since the Buddha gave alternate chains of causation for the awakened,
I don't think that the Buddha was advocating nihilism in the passage
that Tang quoted. Rather, I think it was probably one of those cases
where he gives both positive and negative to tread out his middle
path, where knowledge of cessation (the part Tang quotes) is to cure
one of eternalist views and knowledge of arising is to cure one of
nihilistic views. Quoted out of context, it's easy to take the Buddha
as advocating either extreme. Anyway, that's my take on it.
As for Tang labeling Hollywood as a lazy, egotistical, obscurantist,
arcanist, rationalizing Christian of bad/blind faith Jew, well, all I
have to say is, "welcome to the club". Fu and I will throw you a
party.
--DharmaTroll
Julian
It's all only fuck*ing hearsay in the first place!
Hollywood Lee
I prefer pie over cake - but if cake, make it chocolate fudge.
Appledog
You're correct but off the mark slightly, the problem here is that Jen
does not understand what 'craving' and 'suffering' refer to; he looks
at buddhism from the standpoint of a true layman.
Isn't a central tennet of zen "eat when hungry"? Then why do so many
neophytes like jen claim buddhism is all about not eating? How
ridiculous. Buddhism is clearly about assuaging hunger. As jen herself
stated - the buddha ate food every day. What a fine example he set for
us!
-
DharmaTroll
My Divine Grace off the mark?
> the problem here is that Jen does not understand
> what 'craving' and 'suffering' refer to;
No reason to mind-read what others understand.
Better to express our own understanding, I suppose.
> Isn't a central tennet of zen "eat when hungry"?
It's a common zen "fortune cookie" comment.
Unfortunatly, a lot of nutters who are anti-thinking like to wallow in
these fortune cookies, thinking that being a dumbass and not thinking
critically is "Zen". The point of the story is that extran
infrastructure or baggage isn't added.
> Then why do so many neophytes like jen claim buddhism is
> all about not eating?
Really? Usually the nutters think it's about not thinking!
If it wasn't about eating, they would, um, starve and die.
But you remind me of a story:
Seung Sahn would say, "When you eat, just eat. When you read the
newspaper, just read the newspaper. Don't do anything other than what
you are doing."
One day a student saw him reading the newspaper while he was eating.
The student asked if this did not contradict his teaching. Seung Sahn
said, "When you eat and read the newspaper, just eat and read the
newspaper."
(from the pop book, _Essential Zen_)
Eating is indeed my favorite form of meditation at Vipassana retreats.
I swear the Bhavana Society (Bhante G's center) has the world's best
vegetarian food I've ever had. Eating it mindfully instead of the
usual planning in the head while gulping the food is one of the most
wonderful experiences there is in life. Next to sex, of course.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
wrote:
> >>>> Buddha breaks through that which held him back when
> >> terms of a perdurable essence as `being', sat. So the idea of destroying
> >> state of a soul conceived as `I' and `mine'. But according to the law of
> >> depends on grasping, upàdànapaccayà bhavo. It is due to grasping that
> >> there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching.
>
> >> In the case of the footstool, referred to earlier, it became a
> >> sit on, it becomes a stool. When it serves as a table, it becomes a
> >> serves as a walking stick to lean on, could be seized as a stick to beat
> >> with, in the next act.
>
> >> In the same way, there is no essential thing-hood in the things taken as
> >> real by the world. They appear as things due to cravings, conceits and
> >> are ignored by the world, once concepts and designations are
> >> superimposed on them. Then they are treated as real objects and made
> >> amenable to grammar and syntax, so as to entertain such conceits and
> >> imaginings as, for instance, `in the chair', `on the chair', `chair is
> >> mine', and so on.
>
> >> has understood the fact that existence is due to grasping,
> >> dependent arising, the statement `dependent on grasping, becoming' is
> >> supposed to imply that one's next life is due to one's grasping in this
> >> life. But this becoming is something that goes on from moment to moment.
> >> Now, for instance, what I am now holding in my hand has become a fan
> >> because I am using it as a fan. Even if it is made out of some other
> >> material, it will still be called a fan. But if it were used for some
> >> other purpose, it could become something else. This way we can
> >> understand how existence is dependent on grasping.
>
> >> ----------
>
> >> Non-mentate ho!
>
> > fermentationless
>
> Exemplary equanimity after being called a ho.
resistanceless
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a5ba1ea2-a82e-4195...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------
these are all desires, all cravings borne of
the momentum of the desire
packaging agenda of your specific
genetic heritage. you won't escape it by
attempts to recategorize desire or
recontextualize it.
----------------------------------------------------------
> buddha still desired a bowl of rice each day,
That kind of desire, being hungry for food, doesn't have to involve
all the extra 'infrastructure'. With me (a deluded and not an
awakened, in spite of being so totally awesome and insightful), when I
pay attention to my desire to eat, there's all sorts of extra stuff
going on. I'm hungry and eat when I'm lonely, when I'm sad, when I'm
angry, when I'm afraid or anxious. Eating sometimes I crave to fill
the 'void', a feeling of emptiness or incompleteness: there is an
irrational desire to 'swallow the world' to become more whole, and so
forth. When an awakened is hungry, there are simply sensations of
hunger in the body. No extra craving, no extra emotions. So he
mindfully eats.
----------------------------------------------------------------
he desires to eat regardless if there
is extraneous cravings or emotional
baggage attached. desire is desire.
your hair splitting routine doesn't
change that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And I expect the Buddha didn't just eat starchy rice, and hed lots of
fruits and vegetables and beans and nuts and seeds. He only ate a bowl
of rice every day when starving himself for all those years before he
decided that self-deprication was as useless as its opposite of
hedonism. The point is, that when the Buddha was hungry, he ate. No
more infrastructure added, as we deludeds tend to do.
-------------------------------------------------------------
i never said that there was extra infrastructure.
this is just your over active imagination at work
adding words concepts and meanings to what
i said in order to hair split an unnecessary point.
you stated that enlightenment meant the end of
craving and here you say that buddha did indeed
have craving thus you are claiming that buddha
was not enlightened, at least not by your standards.
^@%>---*=#**
"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:355c9640-6c7e-4542...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>You're correct but off the mark slightly, the problem here is that Jen
>does not understand what 'craving' and 'suffering' refer to; he looks
>at buddhism from the standpoint of a true layman.
another hair splitting coming right up kids.
>Isn't a central tennet of zen "eat when hungry"?
still desire.
> Then why do so many
>neophytes like jen claim buddhism is all about not eating?
here we go with the superiority addiction
coupled with over exaggerated childish
imagination to add something to what i
said which i didn't say otherwise the hair
splitting routine won't hiold water.
> How
>ridiculous.
what is truly ridiculous is how you
run with your imagination, add things
i didn't say or claim and then try to
tell me i'm wrong because you listened
to your imagination.
> Buddhism is clearly about assuaging hunger. As jen herself
>stated - the buddha ate food every day.
and that's desire, plain and simple.
> What a fine example he set for
>us!
fine example? ending suffering
by giving in to desire?
^@%>---*=#**
> You're correct but off the mark slightly,
>My Divine Grace off the mark?
yet another superiority addiction
effulging from that narcissistic core
of the ego in disbelief of its fallibility.
>Unfortunatly, a lot of nutters who are anti-thinking like to wallow in
>these fortune cookies, thinking that being a dumbass and not thinking
>critically is "Zen". The point of the story is that extran
>infrastructure or baggage isn't added.
the point is is that you said enlightenment
is the end of craving now you're backpeddling
and adding addendums to what you said because
you've been proven wrong and your need to be
right addiction has been bruised.
>Really? Usually the nutters think it's about not thinking!
>If it wasn't about eating, they would, um, starve and die.
exactly what i said before. thank you for
coming full circle in your mistaken-ness and
agreeing. it is so hard for a need to be right
addict in their superiority addiction fog due
to the over oppressiveness of their narcissistic
core of their ego to admit they were wrong and
apologize like you've done here.
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Nonsense. Doing what you love to do is not craving, but rather is most
deeply chosen when craving has not arisen.
> > buddha still desired a bowl of rice each day,
>
> That kind of desire, being hungry for food, doesn't have to involve
> all the extra 'infrastructure'. With me (a deluded and not an
> awakened, in spite of being so totally awesome and insightful), when I
> pay attention to my desire to eat, there's all sorts of extra stuff
> going on. I'm hungry and eat when I'm lonely, when I'm sad, when I'm
> angry, when I'm afraid or anxious. Eating sometimes I crave to fill
> the 'void', a feeling of emptiness or incompleteness: there is an
> irrational desire to 'swallow the world' to become more whole, and so
> forth. When an awakened is hungry, there are simply sensations of
> hunger in the body. No extra craving, no extra emotions. So he
> mindfully eats.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> he desires to eat regardless if there
> is extraneous cravings or emotional
> baggage attached. desire is desire.
Desire is extraneous craving. Without any craving, there is still
hunger, and one simply eats. Without desire, or craving, or obsession,
there is creativity, and one paints, or plays the sax. Desire, in the
sense of craving, always has a leaning into the future component, that
sets one off-balance (dukkha) in the present moment. When you is doing
what you truly loves to do, without craving, there is just the doing
of it totally, without the craving for it to continue, or the fear
that it will end. One's entire mental bandwidth is in the act of being/
doing, centered in the here-and-now (sukkha). We all have moments of
this, and it has a much different 'flavor' than any action driven by
desire.
Sounds to me like you are a Lobotomyana Buddhist, who thinks
enlightenment means getting a lobotomy and never thinking or doing
anything creative or spontaneous. Not my cup of tea.
--DharmaTroll
"He was a young man,
but completely the master of the seven strings and of the complex
music.
He would improvise before each song;
then would come the song,
in which there would be more improvisation.
You would never hear any song played twice in the same way.
The words were retained,
but within a certain frame there was great latitude,
and the musician could improvise to his heart’s content;
and the more the variations and combinations, the greater the
musician."
-Jiddu Krishnamurti
^@%>---*=#**
------------------------------------------------------
you said enlightenment was the end of craving
now you recontextualize to include many types
of craving. which position are you slip sliding
away on now? if you want to continue to volley
in and out of contradictory positions and still call
me a nutter, i think you should look up psychological
projection.
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8a184f89-61ec-48a9...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You're correct but off the mark slightly,
> >My Divine Grace off the mark?
>
> yet another superiority addiction
> effulging from that narcissistic core
> of the ego in disbelief of its fallibility.
Bwahahahah! I love it when you nutters miss even my simplest jokes and
instead use me as a mirror to project your inner demons. This is
classic!
> the point is is that you said enlightenment
> is the end of craving now you're backpeddling
> and adding addendums to what you said because
> you've been proven wrong
No, enlightenment indeed is the utter non-arising of craving,
aversion, and delusion; and neither I nor the Buddha, whom My Divine
Grace is quoting, have yet to be proven wrong. To think: the likes of
you proving Sid and Trollpa wrong? Bwahahahahah. Now that's a good
one!
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
^@%>---*=#**
>Bwahahahah! I love it when you nutters miss even my simplest jokes and
>instead use me as a mirror to project your inner demons. This is
>classic!
projection appreciated
> the point is is that you said enlightenment
> is the end of craving now you're backpeddling
> and adding addendums to what you said because
> you've been proven wrong
>No, enlightenment indeed is the utter non-arising of craving,
>aversion, and delusion; and neither I nor the Buddha, whom My Divine
>Grace is quoting, have yet to be proven wrong. To think: the likes of
>you proving Sid and Trollpa wrong? Bwahahahahah. Now that's a good
>one!
i didn't prove you wrong, you did
that to yourself.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>Since the Buddha gave alternate chains of causation for the awakened,
>I don't think that the Buddha was advocating nihilism in the passage
>that Tang quoted. Rather, I think it was probably one of those cases
>where he gives both positive and negative to tread out his middle
>path, where knowledge of cessation (the part Tang quotes) is to cure
>one of eternalist views and knowledge of arising is to cure one of
>nihilistic views. Quoted out of context, it's easy to take the Buddha
>as advocating either extreme. Anyway, that's my take on it.
>
(Gasp) The Buddha LIED???
^@%>---*=#**
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:llb1f551ursv35jcv...@4ax.com...
the entire misapprehension began
with dramadroll saying "I think".
it all went downhill from there.
this is classic uselessnet misunderstanding
and dramadroll does it to perfection. he
reads a post and says "you must mean...."
and then he runs with what he assumes
someone must mean and then calls them
a nutter.
i'm sure we all know who the nutter
really is.
zenworm
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
"the body hungers" - a recognition of bodily fact
No clinging, no ownership, no future grasping craving.
"I am hungry" - an association of identity with an arising sensation
of the body. The ownership of the hunger as
'my' hunger leads to the ownership of the food as 'my'
food all this objectification spawned out of futuristic
grasping.
It is called 'craving' because it can not be sated.
Craving is an attempt to satisfy desire in the 'future'.
A desire that is not present can not be sated.
Attention lost chasing projections in psychological time
perpetuates suffering.
"The only 'winner' is ego, and that means suffering."
- The Book of Masters
Once again it is the grasping / attachment /
identification / ownership that causes the Suffering.
Not the possession of.
does this clarify?
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:53:02 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
No, the Buddha didn't lie, Nutter Dude, as you are so fond of claiming
to promote your Woo-Woo. Rather, scholars interpret in many different
ways all the things written in tons of texts passed down over the
centuries. Halloween is over, and yet all the ghouls are out tonight.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d4e4e15f-12db-43c9...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> i didn't prove you wrong, you did
> that to yourself.
You claimed to have 'proved me wrong', and yet you have no proof,
nothing but fortune-cookie insults. Save it for your squabbles with
the other silly posters, until you have something to say of value.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Nicely stated. Especially:
> "the body hungers" - a recognition of bodily fact
> No clinging, no ownership, no future grasping craving.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 3, 5:30 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
(Gasp) The Buddha LIED???
Hidden Draggin
Buddha Lied - Enlightenment Died.
I want to be enlightened...so I am cutting back
on my meals.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
possum
wrote:
> Keynes wrote:
> > Very interesting.
> > But what has it to do with the cessation of consciousness?
> > (Like it says in the sutra.)
>
> > I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
> > 'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
>
> All I wanted to know was whether Lee Dillion
> (Lee Hollywood) could offer an explanation for
> the wholesale cascade of cessation at the moment
> of awakening in a live person, a blanket wave of
> cessation that stops both the mental side (the
> compositions [the fourth aggregate] and
> consciousness) and the perceptive side (feeling
> [the second aggregate], contact, etc.), so that
> nothing is left to function -- nothing is left. Does
> craving stop only when everything stops, without
> remainders, period?
>
> Did Lee (nicknamed "the sutta boy" by Jan aka
> possum) quote a text that he didn't understand
> and cannot explain?
i remember i once called Lee a sutta-shover, when i was particularly
irked and frustrated by his slipperiness in an exchange of posts, and
i lost my temper.
Lee didn't lose his temper with me at all, iirc, so i got good and
mad with him. lol...
it was meant as an insult, the buddhist equivalent of a bible-
thumper, which i have to admit was really wussy...i can't remember
what the argument was about, but i recall that partricularly lame
insult...
the really funny thing is, bearing in mind i was getting at Lee's use
of suttas as authority, and i am not wholly attached to the absolute
meaning of words at all times ( although it's something of a struggle
for me) and i interpret them in a fuzzy way sometimes, depending,
Lee's a lawyer, and has to quote authorities sometimes. i don't
expect he's attached to them...
If so, he qualifies for salvation
> by the Lord, as Jewish mythology does not require
> understanding but only believing in revelation in
> blind faith. He should also stop pretending to be a
> rationalist. Perhaps he can start claiming to be an
> obscurantist. Or an arcanist. Ho.
i just looked up obscurantist, thank you tang, that 's brilliant and
very helpful, for a public transport case and some fuzzy focusing on
droppings i need to work on...
: ) wow!! one word on the screen and...
i stubbed my toe real bad at the weekend.. and i was just about to
wish you good luck in pinning Lee down, lol, when i remembered you
used to call him helmet head...heh... maybe Lee could treat us to his
top ten usenet insults... ? : )
possum
>
> Tang Huyen
herbzet
Tang Huyen wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
>
> > At this point, I, for one, don't give much of
> > a crap about this ancient nihilist/eternalist
> > debate.
>
> The point here is that Lee Dillion (Lee
> Hollywood), who claims to be rationalist,
> quotes texts that he doesn't understand.
> Either he does that to look good and feed
> his ego, or he does that just like Christian
> fundies, who quote texts that they don't
> understand but only believe in blind faith,
> though they are honest in admitting that
> they don't need to understand but only
> have faith in such revealed texts.
>
> Lee promotes thought, against people like
> me who promote non-mentation, but he
> does not bother to move this thought to
> understand what he quotes. So either he is
> lazy or he is unsincere, or perhaps like Fu
> he is a Christian of bad faith.
Well, you could be less confrontational in your tone.
When people have a contradiction pointed out to them (and I'm
not saying that Lee is in contradiction) sometimes they need
some room to deal with the consequences; otherwise the usual
ego-defense mechanisms will take over to protect against insight
that threatens a painful re-organization.
We're all pretty comfortable living with self-contradictions hidden
in little corners of our conception of the world.
--
hz
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> I suspect the thing the translation wanted to say was
> 'consciousness-of' and not consciousness per se.
Oh shit oh dear, another layer of gunk to penetrate to
arrive at the "true meaning".
--
hz
possum
what's wrong with that?
it's not 'monks only' is it?
>
> Isn't a central tennet of zen "eat when hungry"?
buddhism is a sort of 'weightwatchers'...? that could work...
Then why do so many
> neophytes like jen claim buddhism is all about not eating?
don't let those 'slimming world' neophytes catch you - they just want
the before and after snaps...
How
> ridiculous. Buddhism is clearly about assuaging hunger.
As jen herself
> stated - the buddha ate food every day. What a fine example he set for
> us!
lol!
possum
>
> -
Hollywood Lee
Oh, you can pretty much assume that most any insult possible has been
hurled my way. Easier to say what I haven't been called.
zenworm
Is craving enlightenment solved by denying hunger?
Lee Rudolph
>Oh, you can pretty much assume that most any insult possible has been
>hurled my way. Easier to say what I haven't been called.
Have you been called For Jury Duty?
Lee Rudolph
Hollywood Lee
Oh no. You just lobbed a softball that he will smack with 10 pages of
ctrl-c justification. I would google his pre-prepared response for you,
but I'm too lazy.
>
> We're all pretty comfortable living with self-contradictions hidden
> in little corners of our conception of the world.
Seems true enough.
possum
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
that's the oscar wilde school...
there's a long way between that and transcending attachment to
survival addictions as in the parable of the saw, which probably calls
for being a monk...
possum
i mean... it's hardly hair -splitting....
possum
i guess it goes with the territory...
Hollywood Lee
Yeah. Buddhist usenet has pretty much always been that way. Hardly
ever see it in real life, though.
zenworm
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:53:52 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
apparently Keynes and Oxtail are missed...
excerpt from a post by noname on a.p.taoism
noname wrote:
"Yeah, that damn Keynes comes around so
infrequently it's easy to forget about him entirely.
Craig hasn't been seen for months.
I can barely remember that D9 exists.
Numerous others' names have fallen
off the end of my memory.
Was a guy called himself "cowbutt" or something
like that a while back who was a regular stumper.
Then there was the woofy junkyard guy.
Bunch of slackers, huh? "
DharmaTroll
Only if you eat soul food.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
LOL!
pass the woochestershire sauce
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > herbzet:
I was testing Lee, and he could have replied
sweetly with something like this:
<<I did quote a text that I don't understand
and cannot explain, so thank you for pointing
out my lapsus to me. I implore you (and
everybody) to offer some explanations that
could help me understand the text, and thereby
improve my understanding of Buddhism.
As you point out, I do pose and posture as
rationalist, but I do not care for labels (like
rationalist) and viewpoints (like rationalism),
even less attach to them for real, and am not
here for ego-inflation, and only care about
peace and serenity, which help me, if not to
end suffering, at least to alleviate it, insofar as
such is possible to a fallible practitioner like me.
So I do not defend myself against your
allegation but welcome it, as a helpful pointer,
and in front of my lapsus, I firstly admit it (and
therefore accept that it blows away my posing
and posturing as a rationalist, which is fake
anyway, hehe), and secondly can relax and be
serene, so as not to add to my suffering
(as aggravation brings no reward) and rather
to let it slide off as much as possible, as water
off a ducks's back, because to get defensive
about it would only pile up suffering on myself,
for nothing.>>
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Oh, you can pretty much assume that most
> any insult possible has been hurled my way.
> Easier to say what I haven't been called.
Mystery-monger who wallows in mystery religion.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> possum:
>
> > Hollywood Lee:
>
> >> Oh, you can pretty much assume that most any
> >> insult possible has been hurled my way. Easier
> >> to say what I haven't been called.
>
> > i guess it goes with the territory...
>
> Yeah. Buddhist usenet has pretty much always
> been that way. Hardly ever see it in real life,
> though.
Nobody has stuck a gun to your head in real
life, and it is all mere words in the screen. (Fu
however goes offboard to turn people in to
authorities, like the FBI, and goes onboard to
boast about it; on one hand he plays the
anti-government anarchist, on the other he is a
gun-owning, pro-government law-and-order
redneck).
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ead7cdf7-2fab-4a8f...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
--DharmaTroll
----------------------------------------------------------
superiority addiction duly noted.
what else ya got ?
^@%>---*=#**
"possum" <jhk00B0S...@spambox.us> wrote in message
news:f02269b9-a479-419f...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
i got dramadroll and appledork
both up on their reptilian defensive
posturings with just a little spark of
spiritual funny bone tickling. they're
just too damn easy.
Lee Rudolph
>I was testing [Hollywood] Lee, and he could have replied
A high-tech Jack O'Lantern, equipped wth not only an
old-fashioned candle (unless, indeed, it's LEDs fashioned
to mimic the retro style), but a voice synthesizer!
... Wait, what's that dangling from between its jagged
teeth? A cigarette? OMGz ... Jack O'Lee's become a
God of Luck! Take care, Tang; making your own luck
is more work than picking up stubs from the street,
and more responsibility, and maybe not so serene as
all that.
Br'er Rudolph (off, for my lapsi, to a seminar on
French Professional Didactics...what *would* Levi-
Strauss have made of this?)
PS Final thoughts (oops!) for the morning: one's lap
disappears, not just when one stands up, but when one
lies down. What about one's lapsi?
Lee Rudolph
>Nobody has stuck a gun to your head in real
>life, and it is all mere words in the screen.
In 1973 or 1974, I had a gun stuck to my head (literally held
in contact with it) by a neighbor, on the street outside my
apartment on the back side of Beacon Hill. I am here to testify
that the experience really is no way like mere words on the
screen (in those days, the words tended to be in green or orange
on black, but I think the principle remains the same; I don't care
to test it again).
Lee Rudolph
Hollywood Lee
> I was testing Lee, and he could have replied
> sweetly with something like this:
Sure. And you could have admitted you like hip-hop and wild women.
Whatcha going to do, eh?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> PS Final thoughts (oops!) for the morning: one's lap
> disappears, not just when one stands up, but when one
> lies down. What about one's lapsi?
One's lap disappears, not just when one stands
up, but when one lies down. However that
happens only in our real (and fallen) world,
but in Plato's Heaven of Forms (or in Frege's
Third Kingdom) it subsists forever, irrespective
of physical position, though impersonally,
therefore not as one's lap, but only as the
universal lap. Contemplate it and you will
attain redemption!
As to lapsi, drink them as if they were Pepsi.
Tang Huyen
Ron Fuller
9ac3-38e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 3, 5:19�pm, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d4e4e15f-12db-43c9-b092-
09ce4f...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> i didn't prove you wrong, you did
>> that to yourself.
>
> You claimed to have 'proved me wrong', and yet you have no proof,
> nothing but fortune-cookie insults. Save it for your squabbles with
> the other silly posters, until you have something to say of value.
>
> --DharmaTroll
hoist on your own petard ? what you offer as proof of the
failures of others is often not "proof" and would only be
accepted if i was already inclined to agree with you (and
thus not willing to examine the proof closely). the very
arguments you use against someone else could be used against
you merely by swapping terms and names. as chuckie would say
B-O-R-I-N-G. and to quote someone who was in the personal
position to refer to ol' berty as such . . .
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of
complex facts. Seek simplicity and distrust it. -- Whitehead.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@cainsquestion.org
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
Hollywood Lee
yeah. all words on a screen. Yet you remain obsessed with these people
and their words year after year. Where is that stoic virtue you go on
about?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Nobody has stuck a gun to your head in real
> > life, and it is all mere words in the screen. (Fu
> > however goes offboard to turn people in to
> > authorities, like the FBI, and goes onboard to
> > boast about it; on one hand he plays the
> > anti-government anarchist, on the other he is a
> > gun-owning, pro-government law-and-order
> > redneck).
>
> yeah. all words on a screen. Yet you remain
> obsessed with these people and their words
> year after year. Where is that stoic virtue you
> go on about?
Thank you for pointing out to me my long-term
lapsus, You're a friend (as only friends point out
faults and errors to friends). In front of my
lapsus, I admit it, and relax and am serene with
regard to it. If it is my sin, and it is, it is bearable
to me (somebody reportedly says: the yoke is
light). By the way, the Stoic sages would have
me around them to test their patience and
equability. I am by far too irredeemable.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
Ah, you once again play your structured role, thanking those who point
out your continued obsessions, while you wallow in craving and aversion
in content. It is as predictable as the rising of the sun. Is that
what the stoics saw as their goal - comfort with their obsessions?
^@%>---*=#**
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:D5mdnT-mdog272zX...@supernews.com...
but when you speak of being relaxed
and serene it is something that was
accomplished, something that "occurred"
in linear subsequence, but weren't you
already peaceful and serene the previous
night during sleep? what changed upon
waking up wherein the need arose to
practice, find, or accomplish peace and
serenity? what was the mitigating factor
by which peace and serentity left when
you woke up and needed to be reinstated,
so to speak?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > Hollywood Lee:
>
> >> yeah. all words on a screen. Yet you remain
> >> obsessed with these people and their words
> >> year after year. Where is that stoic virtue you
> >> go on about?
>
> > Thank you for pointing out to me my long-term
> > lapsus, You're a friend (as only friends point out
> > faults and errors to friends). In front of my
> > lapsus, I admit it, and relax and am serene with
> > regard to it. If it is my sin, and it is, it is bearable
> > to me (somebody reportedly says: the yoke is
> > light). By the way, the Stoic sages would have
> > me around them to test their patience and
> > equability. I am by far too irredeemable.
>
> Ah, you once again play your structured role,
> thanking those who point out your continued
> obsessions, while you wallow in craving and
> aversion in content. It is as predictable as the
> rising of the sun. Is that what the stoics saw
> as their goal - comfort with their obsessions?
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
If only you could do that, eh? Instead, you go on and on, year after
year, complaining and complaining about slights real and imagined. If
the stoics had a club, would they let you in?
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> but when you speak of being relaxed
> and serene it is something that was
> accomplished, something that "occurred"
> in linear subsequence, but weren't you
> already peaceful and serene the previous
> night during sleep? what changed upon
> waking up wherein the need arose to
> practice, find, or accomplish peace and
> serenity? what was the mitigating factor
> by which peace and serentity left when
> you woke up and needed to be reinstated,
> so to speak?
In Stoicism, one is not in control of anything,
not even one's body, but only of one's
intention. So if I wake up and peace and
serenity are not with me, I can yet take such
absence in ... peace and serenity.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d5b7ad2-9165-45b0...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>"the body hungers" - a recognition of bodily fact
>No clinging, no ownership, no future grasping craving.
then you're saying that you can
willfully cause your spirit to exit
your corporeal form at any time
you desire?
>"I am hungry" - an association of identity with an arising sensation
>of the body.
true enough. a long term practice
of certain disciplines can relieve
the physical form of hunger for
food, or so i'm told.
> The ownership of the hunger as
>'my' hunger leads to the ownership of the food as 'my'
>food all this objectification spawned out of futuristic
>grasping.
i don't feel though that simple identification
towards a physical body ensures the necessitation
of the sense of hunger as one's own.
>It is called 'craving' because it can not be sated.
so you've joined the hair splitting contest?
>Craving is an attempt to satisfy desire in the 'future'.
buddha still ate a bowl of rice every day
into his future. his hunger was still there
day after day.
>A desire that is not present can not be sated.
what 's lost can never be broken?
>Attention lost chasing projections in psychological time
>perpetuates suffering.
so simply learn to enjoy your suffering.
surrender in great depth to what ever
occurs. to do otherwise would make
it seem that you think that your little
plan is more legitimate than the plan
in place by creation.
>"The only 'winner' is ego, and that means suffering."
>- The Book of Masters
ego's where i goes.
>Once again it is the grasping / attachment /
>identification / ownership that causes the Suffering.
>Not the possession of.
like i said, enjoy your suffering.
it only lasts a fraction of a blink
of the the cosmic cookie's eye.
>does this clarify?
like warm mud.
Hollywood Lee
Yes, that is the built-up excuse you have imagined up as a way to
justify not taking past sins and insults in peace and serenity, but to
continually act with intention to display, in all its glory, your
cravings and aversions with respect to a long list of past posters.
As for you being in the dream job of the privileged court jester for the
stoics, I'm guessing they would just walk on by.
^@%>---*=#**
so when you woke up, why did
that peace and serenity of sleep
leave? what is the difference? it
is said that ego has three forms,
gross, subtle and causal. gross
when in the waking state, subtle
in dreams and causal in deep sleep
without dreaming. it is the full force
of the grosser aspects of ego that
eschew peace and serenity when it
holds sway during the waking state
since it is impossible for ego to satisfy
its demands by being peaceful and when
a peaceful state like sleep occurs it must
retreat into its more subtle forms to await
the next waking state.
^@%>---*=#**
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcrsla$25j$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
i think it was w.c. fields who said
he would never join a club that would
take someone like him as a member.
zenworm
wrote:
Is acceptance, peacefully and serenely, of the
self fulfilling prophecy of 'irredeemability' an
accomplishment; or is this acceptance an egotistically
indulgent self sacrifice to avoid the 'uncomfortable'
work of salvation and enable wallowing (peacefully &
serenely) in victim identity?
Irredeemability - accomplishment or excuse?