Re: footprints lead in, but they don't lead out
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker wrote:
> Only unenlightened people traffic in concepts
> of enlightenment vs. non-enlightenment.
>
> Truly enlightened people know that it is all
> just skillful means.
>
> But, how is the average unenlightened seeker
> to tell the difference between a truly
> enlightened person using enlightenment as
> skillful means, versus someone who has just
> learned to use the language and the
> "skillful" discriminations?
I do not pretend to be awakened, and talk
only from patched bits. I believe that people
who are awakened can well be cruel, or not,
it is up to them (awakening does not block
cruelty from them), but they do not use
"compassion", "emptiness" and "absence of
self" to justify and validate cruelty, especially
mass cruelty, practiced by soldiers trained by
Zen masters in Zen monasteries on civilians,
as with Japanese Zen masters in WW II.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:y-2dnbUpZ_KTHZHW...@supernews.com...
I don't think those people are enlightened at all. They are perhaps
spiritual materialists who talk a good line and go through all the motions,
but they don't really have any real awakening. I don't think awakened
people are ever cruel. What would be the point?
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
DharmaTroll
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
I don't think awakened people are ever cruel evil. Tang's point is
that the awakened person isn't bound by a rigid, predictable dogma,
and is spontaneous, so that their actions can't be predicted by our
"shoulds". They would not necessarily be compelled to do what we
consider moral and righteous. But they wouldn't be cruel.
Interestingly, Tang is less concerned with their not committing
unethical acts as with denial and rationalization about committing
unethical acts, such as using religious terms to justify helping the
fascist government in WWII. I don't get that part: I would think it
would apply to simply randomly kicking puppies as well.
But the point is more that if you are awakened, you aren't necessarily
driven to spending your life helping the poor or teaching meditation,
or directing a monastery: you may want to be an artist or a hermit, or
fall in love and have kids. All we'd know for sure about you is that
you are free from craving, aversion, and delusion: that is, obsessive
thoughts don't arise in you.
--DharmaTroll
Evelyn
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fd10c743-4a27-4521...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Yes, agreed on all points.
Appledog
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
So um... anyone wanna go for some mickey d's?
-
DharmaTroll
Now THAT would be cruel...
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
LMAO!
perhaps an answer to Allen's question,
to which Dharma Troll alluded could be:
After establishing a desire for mickey d's,
how many times can you drive by the drive through,
before the 'master' looses his cool?
of course this data may be secondary
if the 'masters' unmitigated grasping desire
is fueling the trip in the first place...
then again it could be a device...
if you slap a Master on the face
s/he will likely laugh with glee...
however do not be surprised if
the blow never lands...
'how can delusion discern Truth?'
look to your own sincerity
'you can't handle the truth' - is a pointer
no 'you' can give [it]
no 'you' can get [it]
are 'you' ready to give up your idea of 'you'
there is a story...
Four travelling monks were passing through a village
where they knew the village simpleton would hound
them seeking the secret ritual of enlightenment.
Several times in the past they had taken turns
compassionately explaining to the 'idiot' that there
is no secret magic woo-woo ritual only to have the
'idiot' insist there was.
This time they conspired to teach him a lesson and
get some relief from his well intentioned but incessantly
annoying insistence...
This time when he met them in the village and began
begging for the secret to enlightenment they told him
to go find a big heavy hard stick and they would share
the secret with him.
When the 'simpleton' brought the stick they told him
that all that needed to be done was that each of them
would whack him on the head very hard and then he
would be enlightened. So they had him sit on the
ground and close his eyes bid him relax.
After a minute the first monks asked him if he was
ready for the first whack to which he replied yes.
The first monk whacked him very hard.
The second monk took the stick and after a minute
asked the 'simpleton' if he was ready to which he
replied yes. The second monk whacked him even
harder. Tears were coming from the 'simpletons'
closed eyes as the third monk asked him if he was
ready to which he replied yes. The third monk hit him
hard and there was some blood on the stick when he
passed it to the fourth monk. At this point the monks
seeing the blood realised the joke had gone too far and
tried to talk the simpleton out of the fourth hit. The
simpleton would have none of it and insisted that the
monks carry through on their word and deliver the final
blow. Reluctant but resigned to finish the 'lesson' the
fourth monk asked the simpleton if he was ready to
which he said yes. The fourth monk hit him and the
simpleton became immediately enlightened.
The simpleton now enlightened stood and thanked the
monks who were greatly surprised at their success.
Later that day the (now enlightened) simpleton saw
the monks taking turns sitting and whacking each
other on the head with a big stick...
The enlightened just smiled.
The sincerity of the 'seeker'
renders the potency of a methodology.
'Real life' case in point is the story that was told on
these boards of the 'enlightened master' who built
up quite a following and after some years she was
somewhat 'debunked' by some investigations as
materialistic and narcissistic yet several of her honestly
dedicated students are reputed to have gotten some
very deep realization out of her tutelage.
Awareness uses everything
including what appears to be at hand.
A 'seekers' greatest tool
is the 'seekers' own heartfelt authenticity.
Seeking itself is a form of aversion,
this is discerned through experience.
Perhaps the answers to questions of how
can be found in the answers to why?
OTOH if you find being with the appearance of
a 'particular person' is useful... do it.
What more is needed?
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
halfawake
All this stuff you think and believe, do you have any evidence that it
is true?
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
Appledog
Your story is nice but it is a complete fabrication. And no, I am not
talking about the story itself, which is obviously made up; I am
talking about the point itself, which is so far from the truth that a
made-up fairy tale had to be constructed to deliver it, as no actual
event has ever occurred which supports what you're saying - even the
real life example you provide has at best a tenuous connection, and
then only if we conspire to assume the monks in your story were false
monks, or had received incorrect teaching, which is a stretch indeed.
I think it would be better to construct a story which does not lie to
the reader and try to trick him into believing something with a bait
and switch tactic. For if discovered, the reader will resent the story
and have none of it. In that case you will be alienating yourself from
the very class of person who you wish to enlighten - those capable of
understanding what you are saying.
-
Hidden Draggin
I normally don't get involved in these shit throwing contests so I
will keep this short.
Buddhism is a fabrication. Enlightenment is a fabrication.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
^@%>---*=#**
"Hidden Draggin" <an...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hele6c$b7t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
then fabrication must be a fabrication.
there is that pristine state, so to speak.
i've glimpsed it on occasion and find
that i understand ramana maharshi
and nisargadatta maharaj better when
i get a dose of "that" state. it's taken
many years of meditation and qigong
to arrive at even these glimpses, but
well worth the many years of effort,
if you will.
norbu_tragri
Language again. i gather that Tang is saying an Awakened might be
harsh,
slap someone if that will help them awaken, call someone on lies if
that help
the people who believe the lies - whatever helps all to awaken...
"Cruel" like that. Not "cruel" in clinging to a drama of some self
invoved with
others and in that story-drama willfully inflicting pain and suffering
for
the revenge etc satisfaction etc etc ...there's is nothing awake in
that
drama...Nor was there anything awake in using "emptiness" etc jargon
to justify
killing as in WWII Japan, when the Gelugpa attacked the Jonangpa etc
centuries ago,
and so on.
So re the question of how can you tell if some folks are awake or not
while
throwing around fancy lingo - if they are abusing, harming, killing...
not awake.
slap to awaken someone, okay.
abusing, harming, killing. no.
seems fairly clear.
>
> > --
>
> > Evelyn
>
> > "Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
> > heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
>
> I don't think awakened people are ever cruel evil. Tang's point is
> that the awakened person isn't bound by a rigid, predictable dogma,
> and is spontaneous, so that their actions can't be predicted by our
> "shoulds". They would not necessarily be compelled to do what we
> consider moral and righteous. But they wouldn't be cruel.
> Interestingly, Tang is less concerned with their not committing
> unethical acts as with denial and rationalization about committing
> unethical acts, such as using religious terms to justify helping the
> fascist government in WWII. I don't get that part: I would think it
> would apply to simply randomly kicking puppies as well.
Don't kick puppies, randomly or otherwise.
>
> But the point is more that if you are awakened, you aren't necessarily
> driven to spending your life helping the poor or teaching meditation,
> or directing a monastery: you may want to be an artist or a hermit, or
> fall in love and have kids. All we'd know for sure about you is that
> you are free from craving, aversion, and delusion: that is, obsessive
> thoughts don't arise in you.
Well, according to the Buddha, if you are free of suffering that's it.
There is no notion of self being freed or some Awakened going on...
The story is dropped. Yea, the quotes (cuz it's clear than my
mumbles:)
By whom was wrought this being?
Where is the being's maker?
Where does the being arise?
Where is the being stopped?
Why do you harp on 'being'?
lt is a false view for you.
A mere heap of samkharas,
this Here no 'being' is got at.
For as when the parts are rightly set
We utter the word 'chariot',
So when there are the khandhas
By convention, 'there is a being' we say.
For it is simply suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that perishes and wanes,
Not other than suffering comes to be,
Naught else than suffering is stopped.
[SN I, 134 ; 35]
"And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth
or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to
declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative
man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is
described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata
exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not
exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only
stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
[SN XXII.86]
The Tathagata: Here the Bodhisattva, the Mahasattva, thinks thinks
thus:
"Countless beings should I lead to Nirvana, and yet there are none who
lead to Nirvana, or who should be lead to it." However many beings he
may
lead to Nirvana, yet there is not any being that has been lead to
Nirvana,
nor that has lead others to it. For such is the true nature of
dharmas, seeing
that their nature is illusory. Just as if, Subhuti, a clever magician,
or magician's
apprentice, were to conjure up at the crossroads a great crowd of
people,
and then make them vanish again. What do you think, Subhuti, was
anyone
killed by anyone, or murdered, or destroyed, or made to vanish?
Subhuti: No indeed, Lord.
T: Even so a Bodhisattva, a Mahasattva, leads countless beings to
Nirvana,
and yet there is not any being that has been lead to Nirvana, nor that
has lead
others to it. To hear this exposition without fear, that is the great
thing which
entitles the Bodhisattva to be known as "armed with the great armour".
S: As I understand the meaning of the Lord's teaching, as cetainly
not armed
with an armour should this Bodhisattva, this Mahasattva, be known.
T: So it is. For all-knowledge is not made, not unmade, not
effected. Those
beings also for whose sake he is armed with the great armour are not
made,
not unmade, not effected.
S: So it is. For <the skandha> "Form", etc., is niether bound nor
freed. And that
is true also of the tathata <thus-ness/such-ness, etc.> of "Form", the
tathata of
<the skandha> "Feeling", etc. < the rest of the skandhas>.
Purna: But what then is that form of which you say that it is
neither bound nor
freed, and what is that tathata of "Form", etc.?
S: The form of an illusory man is neither bound nor freed. The
tathata of an
illusory man is neither bound nor freed. Because in reality it is not
there at all,
because it is "isolated", because it is unproduced. This is the great
armour,
the great non-armour of a Bodhisattva, a Mahasattva, who is armed with
the
great armour, who has set out in the great vehicle, who has mounted on
the
great vehicle.
and furthermore:
T: But no one has demonstrated it, no one has heard it, no one has
recieved it,
and no one realizes it, in the past, present, or future. Nor by this
demonstation
of dharma does anyone ever go to Nirvana. Nor by this demonstration of
dharma
has anyone been made worthy of gifts.
and so:
S: ...I do not get at any of the dharmas which constitute a
Bodhisattva. I do not
see that dharma which the word "Bodhisattva" denotes. Perfect wisdom
<prajna-
paramita> also I neither see nor get at. ... "Buddha",
"Bodhisattva", "Perfect
wisdom", all these are mere words. And what they denote is something
uncreated.
It is as with the "self". Although we speak of a "self", yet
absolutely the self is
something uncreated.
- The Astasahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra, 20-23, 205, 26
"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
...
:)
... snow soon ...
>
> --DharmaTroll
Appledog
You forgot to enclose those words in quotes.
-
Tang Huyen
halfawake wrote:
> All this stuff you think and believe, do
> you have any evidence that it is true?
It is strictly on the side of discrimination
and judgment, and not on the side of
freedom, which doesn't care either way.
Tang Huyen
halfawake
would that also be demonstrated by being free from reactivity based on
vedana and emotional reactions built on vedana? in other words, if
someone stepped on the "awakened one's" foot, would he be less likely to
get pissed off and yell at the offender?
Best,
^@%>---*=#**
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:heqdag$j2j$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
as the story goes, a sage once wanted to test
krishna, so to speak, so while krishna was
taking a nap the sage walked up and kicked
krishna in the chest. krishna woke up and asked
the sage if he had hurt his foot.
DharmaTroll
He might fake it, and pretend to be pissed off, to get them to jump
off.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
Right. But you could have had them for nothing.
^@%>---*=#**
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:r9l3h55ng31j8cblb...@4ax.com...
no dancing in the aisles please.
Allen Barker
>
> would that also be demonstrated by being free from reactivity based on
> vedana and emotional reactions built on vedana? in other words, if
> someone stepped on the "awakened one's" foot, would he be less likely to
> get pissed off and yell at the offender?
Yes, unless he was wearing his blue suede shoes.
halfawake
:)
halfawake
nice.
of course he couldn't keep his hands off those pesky goatherds....
robert
- - - - -
^@%>---*=#**
they say that when krishna made love to one of
his 6000 wives that they all could feel it. if
that ain't woowoo enough for the dramadroll
then i give up.
halfawake
An interesting possibility, but doesn't answer my question, unless I am
to take an implied affirmative in your response.
Best,
Robert
DharmaTroll
Ok: he wouldn't get pissed off, but he might yell at the offender.
--DharmaTroll
norbu_tragri
> "halfawake" <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
i don't want to sound critical, erm, per say, but..well...
...that's not much of a story...
i'm trying to picture the summer movie blockbuster...
it's okay for about a minute and a half...
but then what? Forget about classic four or five act character
development arcs, dramatic tension, special fx...
maybe for TV ... ER, House, Grey's Anatomy..."Why does
the Sage's foot hurt?" obvious story hook,
but then the twist is introduced mid episode "Why is
Krsna's chest numb ?" It then becomes a race against the clock
to save etc etc etc... Still, not sure if that's even
passable TV....
...maybe if the sage had kicked Krsna a bit lower....
i'm just saying...might get better ratings....
good luck with it...but studios don't usually read unsolicited
scripts...
- :)
- n.
^@%>---*=#**
"norbu_tragri" <norbu....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd988003-dcf8-4609...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
- :)
- n.
------------------------------------------------
krishna was said to be a fabrication anyway.
stories about him are of course to simply make
a point and not to try to get the reality show makers
knocking down your door. i like the stories that
yogananda used to tell about krishna how he
went about stealing butter all of the time.
zenworm
> "norbu_tragri" <norbu.tra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
and we know what he used it for...
"so many wives, so little time"
ZN ;D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
halfawake
Strangely, after reading your more direct response, which was kind, I
went back and understood your less direct response, which was actually
more direct that I thought it was.
Robert
= = = = = = =
porkypine
"Doesn't care anyways"...read...passing the buck for self-interests.
So Buddhism is a narrow-minded, self-absorbed focus on "not suffering"
as opposed to enjoying life and everybody in it as they are.
Well that certainly doesn't give any "humanistic" value to people,
does it?
You try to lose a self-image and you gain a fathead over it.
Tang Huyen
porkypine wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> >halfawake:
>
> >> All this stuff you think and believe, do
> >> you have any evidence that it is true?
>
> >It is strictly on the side of discrimination
> >and judgment, and not on the side of
> >freedom, which doesn't care either way.
>
> "Doesn't care anyways"...read...passing the
> buck for self-interests. So Buddhism is a
> narrow-minded, self-absorbed focus on "not
> suffering" as opposed to enjoying life and
> everybody in it as they are. Well that certainly
> doesn't give any "humanistic" value to people,
> does it? You try to lose a self-image and you
> gain a fathead over it.
Don't lay another head on top of your head,
just slough off your head. Or just relax and
be serene.
Tang Huyen