Heart Sutra
Tang Huyen
tiresias wrote:
> "Messer Xin" <x...@woc.org> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B9683E860...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > tiresias wrote:
> > >
> > >> Been reading through some of a commentary on this today. Interesting
> how
> > >> solipsistic truth is fudged by Mahayana Buddhism which does not apply
> the
> > >> practice of perceiving emptiness to its rational, if conventionally
> insane,
> > >> finale.
> >
> > Perhaps you are reading it other than how the Mahayana
> > understands it? Since I only saw your comments in a message
> > Mr. Vanier posted, could you say what you see as the
> > rational finale to the practice of perceiving emptiness is?
> That there are no suffering beings to bring to enlightenment
That is already part and parcel of Buddhism since the Buddha, and not just
part and parcel, but the core of Buddhism, what makes Buddhism Buddhism, in
contrast to most other teachings in India and elsewhere.
Not only are there no beings, suffering or otherwise, to awaken, but even the
(presumably) awakened person who would want to awaken others doesn't exist, at
least not as person.
There is a pole of experience, with much that is carried on without
consciousness, for sure, but the sense of self, of being a person, is made up,
composed, fictitious, unreal and untrue.
Awakening consists exactly in dropping this sense of self and of personhood,
wholesale. It is where everything still occurs just as before, but without
that sense of self or personhood, precisely.
Buddhists usually jump in and immediately talk of the five aggregates, as if
they were primordial, but they are mere conventional cuts of experience, which
however is whole, though fully differentiated (and not an homogeneous blank),
and the five aggregates are a convenient way of cutting that experience up for
easy handling, for instance in contemplating that there is no self or person
in those five aggregates.
When one has dropped the self -- the sense of self or personhood -- one also
doesn't care to cut experience up, into the five aggregates or otherwise. One
may want -- or again one may not -- to help others arrive at the same state,
but whether one does or not (there is no necessity either way), one knows that
they have to self and no personhood, anyway.
At most one would want to help them arrive at that realisation, namely that
they have no self and no personhood, and that any self or personhood is mere
attribution, mere working up of mind and by mind, driven by desire.
What you call the rational finale to the practice of emptiness (one doesn't
perceive emptiness, one cannot perceive emptiness, one can only conceive that
thing-events, including us, have no essence, no subtance, no core, therefore
are empty of ... essence, subtance, core, precisely) is fully and explicitly
spelled out in the early canon.
Tang Huyen
>
>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > |Xin|
> >
> > Being a Buddhist violates many of the fundamental
> > tenets of Buddhism. (And every basis of Zen.) -- Ned
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > ====
> > Hogwasher: You don't have to sacrifice friendliness for
> > power
> > http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm
> > l
> > ============================================================
> > ====
> >
tiresias
originated and I found your response by way of a.r.b.t.
I have read your thoughts below.
The reason this was posted on a.s is because although I no longer believe in
any other awareness, there is still awareness and this is personal. The
heart sutra states effectively that there is no inherent existence, no
other, it also effectively states that there is no inherently existent sense
of personal self.
However there is awareness and this is accompanied by a sense of awareness
of awareness which is a sense of self-awareness which happens in dependence
on maintaining a memory of a human life. To experience awareness without any
sense of self...really?
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D431B5E...@yahoo.com...
Tang Huyen
theoretical construct beaten out on the anvil of pure reason. It is a real-life
experience, and is so weird from the "normal" point of view that it has to be
experienced to be believed.
The Buddha, before starting his ministry, already knew that what he had found
went against the stream. That is why throughout the history of Buddhism, there
were and are many Buddhists -- actually, many learned doctors of fame -- who
flatly denied and deny that the Buddha ever taught such a doctrine, though it is
well recorded in the early canon.
But it is perfectly possible to live, be aware of the world and oneself, without
the self -- any sense of self and what belongs to self. In fact, without a self
to carry around, one is open to the world, including others; the world,
including others, can come in and be present, without obstruction. A self would
instead throw itself as a monkey wrench in the way.
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
two things...the first thing is the the thought that is all thoughts doesn't
emenate from the you that is writing this...not directly
anymore than the cells in your big toe are responsible for the post
you made
attaining union with this thought doesn't make you the owner...not if you
insist on retaining a physical self...proof would be being the dream,
it would take the totality of your existence to be the proof, and you
would cease to be in the proving of it
the second thing is that removing the filters of personal history or
expectation is not the same as removing the "self"
I would imagine that if I tried driving off with your car
you might put a little bit of struggle up
even if you had removed the filters
reporting your interpretation of others words is not the same as
having the experience....I would like to meet the person that can
verify the proof of your words...by demonstrating it to me
not by talking about it....I would like to see it
demonstrated by any one
Wm
ps. it seems to me that this is a mistake in buddhism,
even though I have experienced this state I don't
say _it_ is the truth....it is only a portion
it is a temporary alignment
there are other things that one can align with as
well...want to talk about them as the truth?
it is part of the woof and weave of the great fabric, but
only a part
ps2. alluding to things that you don't live is duplicitous
and misleading....I don't mean this in a mean way
----------
In article <3D4344F3...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Nick Argall
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9pJ09.11027$Ky3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> ps2. alluding to things that you don't live is duplicitous
> and misleading....I don't mean this in a mean way
Firstly, a quick acknowledgement of the things that Wm said that I snipped,
he is very wise.
I'd like to reinforce this point (that he makes very briefly), and I choose
to attempt it by writing at great and boring length. Many people have been
offended by this behaviour of mine in the past, and I hope if you are
offended now, that you be offended with _me_, and take his point above
seriously despite me.
Faith is described as a virtue, but the downside of Faith is Blindness.
Having faith causes us to turn down the volume on those things that are not
consistent with our faith.
Tang (and many others) clearly has faith that it is possible to arrive at a
complete loss of a sense of self. However, there are authorities who
disagree. In particular, there is a tradition in Zen of humiliating those
who claim not to have a sense of self, a tradition well and truly preserved
in Usenet.
But if you present yourself as a teacher, I think it is very important to
explain where you get your information from, and to help people who would
study from you to understand your limitations.
And when talking about holy texts it is important to understand where they
come from, who wrote them, and why. Gotama Siddhartha wrote nothing.
Everything contained in the Suttas was written after his death, when people
realised they wouldn't be able to go to him and ask anymore. People
disagreed about events, but a consensus version was achieved and survives to
this day.
So let's remember a few things:
1) People fail, they misremember, they colour their perceptions they avoid
the unpleasant.
2) Committees fail worse, they can rarely withstand anything unpleasant at
all, and they have a tendency to fall into line with their most politically
capable members, not nesecarily those with the best memories.
3) People with extensive political ability tend to have political ambitions.
We have to expect that there were problems with the Suttas the day they were
written, let alone after 2000 years of linguistic and societal drift.
So, (as stated in the Suttas) if you cannot verify something from your own
experience, do not believe it. And if you can't responsibly believe
something, teaching it is even more irresponsible.
Theory must always be the servant of Practice, any other arrangement breeds
delusion and imbalance.
Nick
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.solipsism:
>But it is perfectly possible to live, be aware of the world and oneself, without
>the self -- any sense of self and what belongs to self. In fact, without a self
>to carry around, one is open to the world, including others; the world,
>including others, can come in and be present, without obstruction. A self would
>instead throw itself as a monkey wrench in the way.
I have no idea what you're babbling about, but I did like the part
about the monkey.
--
V.G.
"I have not be me idiot you are still BE idiot! hahhahhahahahah!"
Theo <byj...@ch.inter.net> in alt.fan.art-bell
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Tang Huyen
Nick Argall wrote:
Nope. The options of thought and behaviour have not changed since Gautama walked
to Gangetic basin to liberate people with but a little dust in their eyes. And
those options are limited in number and fixed in nature, so whatever drift there
is since, linguistic and societal, is insignificant.
I have matched up what the Buddha taught with what European thinkers and
teachers taught, almost word for word, and the match -- which may go in
agreement or in opposition, so long as there is a match -- is perfect, or as
perfect as the oceanic realm of culture permits.
Now it can be argued that he and they spoke Indo-European languages (though he
might very well have been a non-Indo-Aryan who spoke a non-Indo-European
language as his first language, what in olden times was called his mother
tongue), and therefore the rapprochement may be due to the linguistic quirks of
Indo-European languages. But his teaching is well preserved in Chinese, as far
away from Indo-European languages as any language can be, and quite well
understood by the Chinese, them with their slanted eyes and inscrutable manners.
So his teaching is not dependent on the quirks of Indo-European languages.
If anything, the massive distortions introduced into Buddhism, like the
Abhidharma and the Great Vehiclistic fantasies like the Yogacara, the
Tathagata-garbha and the Lotus, went and go against his teachings wholesale, but
the early canon bespeaks of a genius who thought and expressed himself with
coherence and consistency, because he thought and expressed himself from a
unitary vision, which vision might or might not have been understood by many of
his followers over space and time but which has been preserved to us in the
early canon.
And the early canon is unmistakable in denying both the self and personhood.
There *is* the process of life, which in Buddhism is analysed into the five
aggregates (but we have to remember that experience is whole and not broken up,
even less into the five aggregates), but the self or the "I" or sense of
identity is a mental fabrication imposed on top of that process. It is a mere
notion, mere appellation, mere speech, mere attribution based on linguistic
convention (in Greek, kategorein means to attribute). The self is merely
constructed by the foolish common person who follows speech to chase realities.
“The foolish common person sees form [and the other aggregates] as self. This
seeing is a composition (ya kho pana sa samanupassana sankharo so, Skt. ya sa
samanupasyana samskaras te).” SA, 57, 14a14, SN, III, 96 (22, 81), Dietz,
Dharma-skandha, 53.
“‘The self, the self (atma atmeti),’ monks, [thinks] the foolish common person
who follows speech (prajñaptim anupatito). But there is no self and what belongs
to self there (na catrasty atma natmiyam va). This suffering, arising, arises,
this suffering, ceasing, ceases (duhkham idam bhiksavah utpadyamanam utpadyate,
duhkham idam niruddhyamanam niruddhyate). Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing,
cease (samskara utpadyamanautpadyante, nirudhyamana nirudhyante).” MA, 62, 498b,
Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158, Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356.
If we still are aware of ourselves and the world but do not mentate, we no
longer give rise to the self. It is in that state that the absence of the self
is actually experienced (and not merely cogitated or believed in).
The Commentary on the Large Scripture of the Perfection of Wisdom
(Maha-prajña-paramita-upadesa, Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 104c11-12 (Lamotte,
Traité, 379 is all wrong) says: “If one searches according to essence, there is
nobody who acts and nobody who feels. The empty fivefold aggregate acts, and the
empty fivefold aggregate feels.”
As to the self or "I", the Buddha says that all thing-events (dharma) are
without self (an-atma), and that the self is unestablished and cannot be got at.
He says in the Scripture on the Ultimate Emptiness (Paramartha-sunyata-sutra),
SA, 335, 92c, Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 255b1, 332c7-9, 333a17, Dà
zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 295a4:
"The eye, when it arises, does not come from anywhere, and when it ceases, does
not go anywhere. Thus the eye, having not become, becomes, and having once
become, disappears. There is deed, there is return (of deed), but there cannot
be obtained (nopalabhyate) the doer, who throws away these aggregates and takes
up other aggregates, except for a linguistic-convention on things, namely, this
being, that is, this arising, that arises, this not being, that is not, this not
arising, that does not arise, etc. (asti karmasti vipakah karakas tu
nopalabhyate ya imams ca skandhan niksipaty anyams ca skandhan pratisamdadhaty
anyatra dharma-samketat, tatrayam dharma-samketo yad utasmim satidam bhavaty
asyotpadad idam utpadyate, asminn asati idam na bhavati, asya nirodhad idam
nirudhyate)."
The important part is: "There is deed (karman), there is return (of deed), but
*there cannot be obtained the doer*, who throws away these aggregates and takes
up other aggregates, except for *a linguistic-convention on things*
(dharma-samketa), namely, this being, that is, this arising, that arises, this
not being, that is not, this not arising, that does not arise, etc."
The Buddha says: "Dependent on the eye and form, the eye consciousness arises.
The three meeting together is contact, and with contact go together feeling,
notion, and volitions. These four formless aggregates [feeling, notion,
volitions and consciousness] and the eye-organ which is form, these things
(dharma) are called humanity (manusyatva). With regard to these things (dharma),
one forms the notion ‘man,’ ‘being,’ ‘person,’ [etc.], and furthermore one says
thus: ‘my eye sees form,’ up to ‘my mind cognises things (dharma).’ One poses
such talk: ‘this venerable has this name, this birth, this clan, this food, he
experience this pleasure and pain, has this longevity, this lasting, this limit
to his life.’
Monks, these are mere notions, mere appellations, mere speech (samjña-matraka,
pratijña-matraka, vyavahara-matraka). These things (dharma) are all impermanent
(anitya), composed (samskrta), mentated (cetayita), dependently arisen
(pratitya-samutpanna). If they are impermanent, composed, mentated, dependently
arisen, they are all suffering. Further that suffering [arising] arises,
[staying] stays, [ceasing] ceases, that suffering arises in multiplication, all
are suffering. If that suffering is ended without remainder, completely
renounced, with no continuation, this is peaceful, this is excellent, that is,
the giving up of all appositions (upadhi), the ending of all craving, the
dispassion, cessation, blowing-out." SA, 306, 87c-88a, Harivarman,
Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 277b7-10. Sanskrit in Zitate, 127, 411, 505,
Sanghabhedavastu, I, 158.
The important part is: "With regard to these things (dharma), one forms *the
notion ‘man,’ ‘being,’ ‘person,’* [etc.], and furthermore one says thus: ‘my eye
sees form,’ up to ‘my mind cognises things (dharma).’ One poses such talk: ‘this
venerable has this name, this birth, this clan, this food, he experience this
pleasure and pain, has this longevity, this lasting, this limit to his life.’
Monks, these are *mere notions, mere appellations, mere speech* (samjña-matraka,
pratijña-matraka, vyavahara-matraka). These things (dharma) are all impermanent
(anitya), composed (samskrta), mentated (cetayita), dependently arisen
(pratitya-samutpanna)."
The Heart Sutra is a feeble commentary to these radical teachings, though at
least it goes in their direction and not against it.
Tang Huyen
tadperry
> The absence of self -- of any sense of self and what belongs to self -- is
not a
> theoretical construct beaten out on the anvil of pure reason. It is a
real-life
> experience, and is so weird from the "normal" point of view that it has to
be
> experienced to be believed.
Tang, I know you know for only one who knows can say this.
Others... Well, I don't know...
This level of consciousness is hard to achieve and to maintain. Especially
running around out in the muck of things in the regular, modern, workaday
world of men.
The best that can be done, perhaps, is to visit this world of no self. To
enter and and return. To carry with one what one saw while there. To go back
when one needs.
There is a slight problem with the early Buddhist doctrine.
Not in terms of being correct. No. In terms of practicality.
The Buddha believed that this state was possible for all and desirable. He
may have been right and we may get there.
But in a world full of what it's full of (automatons that one might almost
think work to defeat this liberation) the self can be seen as a practical
tool.
Others relate to me this way, and so I'm left thinking: "You don't get it,
but okay, here's a "me" you can believe in."
tvp
Tang Huyen
tadperry wrote:
You say: "The Buddha believed that this state was possible for all and
desirable. He may have been right and we may get there."
In fact, he knew that his teaching goes against the stream, and that it is fit
only for the few who have but a little dust in their eyes. For the rest, he
taught normative morality, doing good and getting reborn in heaven, etc.
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
I can demonstrate what I talk about
I ask the same from you
Wm
ps. I saw a glimmer of it in "not hammered out on the anvil of pure reason"
----------
In article <3D43DDB2...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
Tang Huyen
William Tucker wrote:
> tvp and tang
>
> I can demonstrate what I talk about
>
> I ask the same from you
>
> Wm
>
> ps. I saw a glimmer of it in "not hammered out on the anvil of pure reason"
Here, it is not an issue of something positive, a presence, but rather of something
negative, an absence, namely of the self.
If you have the ability to read somebody else's mind directly, you can verify
whether he has a self or not. If you don't, you have to judge by by-products, namely
signs, negative like whether he blows up or not, positive like whether he can
abnegate himself in favour of others and make them present and show his awareness of
their inner states.
But it is like a virtuous circle or a vicious circle: if you are already aware of
how to check that somebody has a self or not, you probably have dropped your self,
in part or whole, and vice versa. Your protective armature has either disappeared or
is on the way there.
On the other hand, if you are so intent on blocking yourself from yourself that you
know practically nothing about yourself and are utterly oblivious to yourself, then
your repressed and suppressed self is still a self, bigger and stronger than ever,
and throws a massive monkey wrench into your social perception, so that you have no
chance of checking whether somebody else carries around a self or not.
There are many on these boards who ooze out their self from all over, and not just
because they show massive armour-plates that protect them from themselves (more than
from others). They are the ones most liable to blowing up all over at the drop of a
hat, or even less.
Tang Huyen
Gileht
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D431B5E...@yahoo.com...
All true.
I think the misunderstanding come from the fact that "emptiness" may have
two meanings, like "Dependent Origination" may have two meanings.
There is the "ordinary understanding" of emptiness and dependent
origination, and there is their "perfection" (as described in the
Prajnaparamita for each paramita). Their ordinary description is what is
given to beginners using a lot of conceptualization and dualities; it is a
first step. Their perfection, on the other hand, is a realization that is
beyond any conceptualization, beyond all dualities. The word "emptiness" is
used very often for both "level of emptiness" and that is confusing.
So it is true to say that emptiness is not the final absolute truth,
because, as the Buddha said, even emptiness is empty. Also, dependent
origination is not the absolute truth because it is also dependently arisen.
On the other hand, their perfection consists of realizing their
inseparability, their non-duality: not two, not one (this is called the
Union of the Two Truths). But, the real meaning of this non-duality is
beyond conceptualization; this is what has to be directly seen by directly
seeing the real nature of our own mind in meditation.
So there is no "rationale finale" in the sense of an absolute truth like
emptiness; but there is the possibility of Liberation.
As for "beings to bring to enlightenment", the real nature of those beings
is also beyond any conceptualization. It is true that they are not
inherently existing as we usually think they are. But they are not
completely non-existent either. It is true that we have to realize the
"conventional nature" of what we call "beings" or "five aggregates", but we
have to be careful and not jump to the other extreme and think they are
completely non-existent either. They are existing in a way where there is no
"inherent individuality", or as Tang said "It is where everything still
occurs just as before, but without that sense of self or personhood,
precisely."
When one understand the real nature of "beings" and of the "self", one
realize that we are not different or separate, nor are we the same. And
because of that we realize that there is no "individual Liberation", and
that we should work for the Liberation of all because they are also "us"
somehow.
As for the reason and justification of Bodhicitta, it is a very complex
subject, but it is similar than the justification for morality. That is the
best way to act because it is more in accord with the real nature of
everything. It brings less suffering because it is less of a mistake than
our usual egoistic behavior.
Gileht
Gileht
"tadperry" <tadp...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
a0R09.676079$352.140880@sccrnsc02...
In short, to accept the self as absolute is wrong.
But to reject it completely is also wrong.
That is clearly explicitely the message of both Hinayana and Mahayana.
The Middle Way is described in the early canon, and made into an explicit
vehicle with the Mahayana.
The main message of the Hear Sutra is that reality is not existent (i), not
non-existent (ii), not both (iii), not neither (iv).
"Form is emptiness, (i)
emptiness is form (ii)
Emptiness does not differ from form, and form does not differ from
emptiness. (iii & iv)
Likewise, feelings, recognition, volitions and consciousnesses are empty."
We have to go beyond the four extremes: realism, idealism, dualism, monism.
TAYATA OM GATE (i) GATE (ii) PARAGATE (iii) PARASAMGATE (iv) BODHI SOHA
Gileht
William Tucker
----------
In article <3D43F178...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> William Tucker wrote:
>
>> tvp and tang
>>
>> I can demonstrate what I talk about
>>
>> I ask the same from you
>>
>> Wm
>>
>> ps. I saw a glimmer of it in "not hammered out on the anvil of pure reason"
>
yes, I do have the ability to witness this
that's why I asked for the demonstration...
and...
Wm
Lee Dillion
> And the early canon is unmistakable in denying both the self and personhood.
>
> There *is* the process of life, which in Buddhism is analysed into the five
> aggregates (but we have to remember that experience is whole and not broken up,
> even less into the five aggregates), but the self or the "I" or sense of
> identity is a mental fabrication imposed on top of that process. It is a mere
> notion, mere appellation, mere speech, mere attribution based on linguistic
> convention (in Greek, kategorein means to attribute). The self is merely
> constructed by the foolish common person who follows speech to chase realities.
What is fascinating is how this analysis and related synthesis (done, in
my opinion, for purposes of describing experience and no more) can
become a wholesale distraction from the dhamma.
--
Lee Dillion
Certitude conquers doubt, not ignorance.
And with doubt conquered, ignorance is invincible.
discover4smiths
"Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xxT09.540$OK6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
I have read it that although we do not have ultimate existence, we do have
conventional existence. By this I mean that yes there are 5 impersonal
processes that are always proceding according to precedent, and that they
function as a person and appear by conventional agreement to be a person.
This is who is typing now, however it is not ultimately existent as we tend
to coagulate it in the mind by our labeling imputations which tned to be
cast in iron. The actual base of imputation changes again before we are
able to impute a label. The idea is to see it as it is in the moment
without the help of the imputing mind. We want to stop that process before
it starts. See with the heart and not with the conceptual mind.
Nancy>
>
>
>
>
>
Gileht
"discover4smiths" <discove...@email.msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: OS6qD9mNCHA.1348@cpimsnntpa03...
Conventional existence (dependent origination) and ultimate existence
(emptiness) are inseparable, non-dual: not two, not one. One cannot exist
without the other. The real non-dual nature of everything, which is beyond
all possible conceptualization, is neither of them, nor both, nor anything
else.
> By this I mean that yes there are 5 impersonal
> processes that are always proceding according to precedent, and that they
> function as a person and appear by conventional agreement to be a person.
The 5 processes are not existing, not non-existing, not both, not neither.
> This is who is typing now, however it is not ultimately existent as we
tend
> to coagulate it in the mind by our labeling imputations which tned to be
> cast in iron.
It is not inherently existing.
> The actual base of imputation changes again before we are
> able to impute a label.
Not only is the self empty, but the base of imputation is also empty.
Everything is empty of inherent existence ; there is no exception at all.
> The idea is to see it as it is in the moment
> without the help of the imputing mind.
There is nothing to see, nothing to not see.
There is no seer, no seeing, no object seen. All three are empty of inherent
existence, but still not completely non-existent.
> We want to stop that process before
> it starts. See with the heart and not with the conceptual mind.
There is nothing to do, nothing to not do -- no process to stop.
There is no difference between a conceptual mind and a mind in the highest
meditation state.
> Nancy
Gileht
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote:
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > And the early canon is unmistakable in denying both the self and personhood.
> >
> > There *is* the process of life, which in Buddhism is analysed into the five
> > aggregates (but we have to remember that experience is whole and not broken up,
> > even less into the five aggregates), but the self or the "I" or sense of
> > identity is a mental fabrication imposed on top of that process. It is a mere
> > notion, mere appellation, mere speech, mere attribution based on linguistic
> > convention (in Greek, kategorein means to attribute). The self is merely
> > constructed by the foolish common person who follows speech to chase realities.
>
> What is fascinating is how this analysis and related synthesis (done, in
> my opinion, for purposes of describing experience and no more) can
> become a wholesale distraction from the dhamma.
The ancients did not talk in the in-your-face manner like us, they only pointed and
left it to you to figure out the rest. What the Buddha said would be phrased in
modern manner as something like this: Now you think that you are a person, that you
have a self, so go find your self and see whether you get anything. What does your
personhood consist of, other than mere attribution based on words?
Chinese Chan made it somewhat explicit by teachings students to be mindful of the
Buddha (Amitabha Buddha, but it doesn't matter, anything can serve as focus of
attention here) and at the same time turn attention inward and chase who it is who is
mindful of the Buddha. This comes as close as an overt chase of the self, to check
whether one has one or not.
This method attempts to cut down on the distance between the raw experience and the
construction of the self on top of it, and ultimately to reduce the latter to the
former and entirely eliminate the latter.
Abhidharmic analysis on the contrary builds up a huge, complicated edifice to filter
experience through, and it unintentionally does what the self does in its natural
state, which is to interpret experience. Instead of reducing the distance between the
raw experience and the construction of the self on top of it, it simply substitutes
another self which does the same thing, though this new, artificial self is very
intellectual, very obsessive-compulsive.
Naggie attempts to reverse Abhidharmic analysis, which tends to be realist and
literalist, but he falls into the same trap as his object of criticism, namely
excessive cogitation (one error) that takes itself seriously (another error), and
ends up no better. Both Abhidharmic analysis and Naggie analysis use cogitation to
firm up cogitation, regardless of statement of mission -- Naggie ostensibly takes his
analysis as destructive of all views, but it merely firms up cogitation, the vehicle
of views. He wins the battles and loses the war, because his tactics may be sound, or
not, but his strategy is counterproductive.
The same situation applies with Yogacara analysis, which constructs a grandiose
world-as-fantasy, world-fantasy, as replacement for our normal world, and it does
what Abhidharmic analysis does, namely substitute another self to our normal self,
and again this new, artificial self is very intellectual, very obsessive-compulsive.
The Tibetans have the well-known method of mentally constructing a world, then taking
it apart. Our very own Sphere seems enamoured to it, on and off. It has all the
faults of the Abhidharmic analysis, as above.
Cogitation does not calm cogitation, but only excites it further. The content is
different, but the structure is intact. The content is fungible, but the structure is
what counts, and it doesn't change when one engages in cogitation, especially in a
concentrated manner.
Sphere's method of making the three marks apply to each other, recursively, is a
clear repetition of the Abhidharmic error, namely to jump on the means and take them
as end, and make them turn on forever *on their own*, forgetting that they are there
only so that one can cut down on the distance between the raw experience and the
construction of the self on top of it, and ultimately to reduce the latter to the
former and entirely eliminate the latter.
The Buddha and Chan have the best method, all around, because they go right to the
problem and cut the knot. Other methods build knots on tops of the root knot, and all
they do is to make the root knot harder to recognise and cut. They all glorify mental
masturbation and take it as the end in itself, and completely forget that the Buddha
teaches the quiescence of all mentation as the remedy for suffering.
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
when I said alignment with or state of being
co-ocuppied
let me say this maybe it will help
in the healing system that I was taught on the seven levels of the chakra
system
there are seven coincident bodies, one inside the other,
of different size associated with each chakra
there are seven chakras one inside the other at each main
chakra position
root, sacral, solar, heart, throat, ajna, crown
chakras are transformers or stepping gears that allow
one kind of prana to be transformed to another
what this implies is that this is a _form_ of nature
a shape
a resonant structure of which must exist others
a pattern
the pattern doesn't have to be exactly the same
if I listen to you I assume the shape am coresonant with you
if I hold a high level of clarity while giving you my attention
and you reciprocate while being aware of how you feel/witness/monitor
you could say in a sense that we were both in two places at once
at least our attention/conciousness/will/intent is
which is how we know we are alive
healing is a tricky business,
not everyone can do what I do,
sometimes I can't do what I do...sometimes I have help
and it can be dangerous, quite,
it is important not to take on
sickness, or to try and heal what doesn't want to be healed
it's hard to tell sometimes
don't try these tricks at home
always work with someone that knows what they are doing
if you can
happy weekend
Wm
----------
In article <TRT09.582$OK6.1...@wagner.videotron.net>, "Gileht"
tadperry
> tvp and tang
>
> I can demonstrate what I talk about
>
> I ask the same from you
Do not assume a superior position.
tvp
Gileht
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D44753C...@yahoo.com...
That is a judgment value that obviously I do not share.
What we need now is proof of your claims.
> Both Abhidharmic analysis and Naggie analysis use cogitation to
> firm up cogitation, regardless of statement of mission -- Naggie
ostensibly takes his
> analysis as destructive of all views, but it merely firms up cogitation,
the vehicle
> of views. He wins the battles and loses the war, because his tactics may
be sound, or
> not, but his strategy is counterproductive.
>
> The same situation applies with Yogacara analysis, which constructs a
grandiose
> world-as-fantasy, world-fantasy, as replacement for our normal world, and
it does
> what Abhidharmic analysis does, namely substitute another self to our
normal self,
> and again this new, artificial self is very intellectual, very
obsessive-compulsive.
>
> The Tibetans have the well-known method of mentally constructing a world,
then taking
> it apart. Our very own Sphere seems enamoured to it, on and off. It has
all the
> faults of the Abhidharmic analysis, as above.
>
> Cogitation does not calm cogitation, but only excites it further.
True for Nagarjuna and for visualization in Tibetan Buddhism.
But, I think, that is the only way to see through it.
Leaving it on the side, ignoring it, would not do the job.
To master a tool you have to use it;
to see through something you have to confront it.
What is important is to use it in a way
that will make you see through it eventually.
> The content is different, but the structure is intact.
> The content is fungible, but the structure is
> what counts, and it doesn't change when one engages in cogitation,
especially in a
> concentrated manner.
It does if one uses wisdom while using the tools (virtuous methods).
If one just indulge in the methods then no ... it only makes it worst as you
said.
But if one uses wisdom while using the methods, then yes, it leads to
improvement.
That is why, Nagarjuna and Tibetan Buddhism in general, repeat over and over
again:
"We need both virtuous methods and wisdom together all the time"
That is the meaning of the:
"Om mani padme hum"
that is repeated millions of times.
But I have to concede to you that a lot of practitioners of exoteric
Buddhism are not even aware of the problem nor of the solution proposed by
Nagarjuna. Some sects have indeed gone overboard and are indulging in their
methods. So you are perfectly right to stress this problem again and again.
Otherwise it could lead to very serious problems.
> Sphere's method of making the three marks apply to each other,
recursively, is a
> clear repetition of the Abhidharmic error, namely to jump on the means and
take them
> as end, and make them turn on forever *on their own*, forgetting that they
are there
> only so that one can cut down on the distance between the raw experience
and the
> construction of the self on top of it, and ultimately to reduce the latter
to the
> former and entirely eliminate the latter.
I think the main line of the path is not to "cut down on the distance
between the raw experience and the construction of the self on top of it"
but to "directly see the real nature of everything, including the self".
I think that it is only by removing this "ignorance of the non-dual nature
of everything" that we will be free of all suffering.
> The Buddha and Chan have the best method, all around, because they go
right to the
> problem and cut the knot. Other methods build knots on tops of the root
knot, and all
> they do is to make the root knot harder to recognise and cut. They all
glorify mental
> masturbation and take it as the end in itself, and completely forget that
the Buddha
> teaches the quiescence of all mentation as the remedy for suffering.
> Tang Huyen
> > Lee Dillion
It is not suppose to become more and more complex; but more and more simple
indeed.
I think a proper understanding of Nagarjuna and Tibetan Buddhism does makes
things more and more simple indeed.
But there is a little hill to cross before seeing the flat land. And even
that is not mandatory; there are many other paths that leads to the final
destination (even if it is not a real destination).
In short, Nagarjuna, and Tibetan Buddhism in general, are perfectly aware of
the problems you are mentioning and methods have been adapted to solve this
problem (this is one of the main message of the Karikas).
So one on ehand it is important to mention this problem, but also important
to mention that there are solutions to them: we need to combine wisdom with
all virtuous methods. That is the meaning of perfecting the six paramitas as
described in the Prajnaparamita Sastra.
Thanks for your honest contribution.
Gileht
William Tucker
----------
In article <Bg719.707022$cQ3.110740@sccrnsc01>, "tadperry"
<tadp...@attbi.com> wrote:
do not assume
Wm
> tvp
>
>
>
discover4smiths
"one. One cannot exist
> without the other. The real non-dual nature of everything, which is beyond
> all possible conceptualization, is neither of them, nor both, nor anything
news:iqZ09.3904$p64.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "discover4smiths" <discove...@email.msn.com> a écrit dans le message
de
> news: OS6qD9mNCHA.1348@cpimsnntpa03...
> >
> > "Gileht" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Hi Gil,
> >
> > I have read it that although we do not have ultimate existence, we do
have
> > conventional existence.
>
> Conventional existence (dependent origination) and ultimate existence
> (emptiness) are inseparable, non-dual: not two, not
>
I am not talking about inherent existence, I am talking about conventional
agreement of relative existence.
The scripteral basis for this assertion is the Buddha's words. "That which
the world asserts to be exostent, I too assert to be existent, and that
which the world asserts to be nonexistent, I too assert to be nonexistent."
Thus, the assertion entails a conventional agreement. Such a process of
agreement, or in fact the very term of "designation" or "imputation",
implicitly denies inherent existence.
The Madyamaka position is not simply that phenomena are conceptually
designated, but that they are 'merely' conceptual designations, and the
implication of the word merely (Tib. tsam) in this context is that phenomena
have no real existence apart from the process of conceptual designation.
> This is from Realizing Emptiness by Gen Lamrimpa
Ch'an Fu
discover4smiths wrote:
relatives exist, relatively.
he didn't mean a committee or an agreement.
he meant nonduality.
"as being asserts, so I (my being) assert(s)"
which would sound nice in latin...
very unassertive...
General Lamripoff - wasn't he the one who
drove the Volkswagens out of Shangrila?
never mind Gileht, he's having a naggie
"bad hair day"... he'll get over it.
fyi - if u can read all this and understand
that it says infinitely more than it means,
u'll get a clue. Farfignewton!
(matthew 64.8.4.2: indeed knoweth he nothing, there he knoweth, for whosoever
shall knoweth, shall be he, unknowithngly knowithing, even though he not
knoweth, so shall he knoweth that he not knoweth, and; heretofore; unknowething;
so shall unknowithing unknoweth, except he who unknoweth, knoweth not.")
tiresias
of a life there is no consciousness. Describe to me an experience of
consciousness that you have had that was not dependent on you having a
memory of your life?
My other important point of view regarding the Heart Sutra is that there is
no inherent existence of other consciousnesses, that is to say that you, as
consciousness, only experience your own perceptions of "others" and merely
impute consciousness onto "others." So other consciousnesses only exist by
imputation not by direct experience. Only your own continuum of
consciousness is experienced.
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D4344F3...@yahoo.com...
tiresias
> well, really
>
> two things...the first thing is the the thought that is all thoughts
doesn't
> emenate from the you that is writing this...not directly
inherent existence, that can only be assumed, imputed or projected onto the
appearance of a person and although I play the social "game" this is done
without belief. So ideas that I experience do not come from anybody else,
there is no anybody else as far as I am concerned.
>
> anymore than the cells in your big toe are responsible for the post
> you made
The cells in my body are without inherent existence. They are dependent on
my perception.
>
> attaining union with this thought doesn't make you the owner...not if you
> insist on retaining a physical self...proof would be being the dream,
Proof...to whom? There is only the experience of your own consciousness and
the phenomena that may accompany that perception. I experience all my
perceived phenomena as if it is a dream and I am the owner of this as much
as I may own a dream. In order to still be playing a human life it may not
be advisable to try and take control of the dream. To perceive all and
everything as a personal hallucinatory state is possible whilst still going
through a semblance of a human life.
> it would take the totality of your existence to be the proof, and you
> would cease to be in the proving of it
Actually it takes the totality of perceiving all phenomena as having no
inherent existence and others cease to be in the proving or personal
experience of it all as empty of inherent existence.
>
> the second thing is that removing the filters of personal history or
> expectation is not the same as removing the "self"
> I would imagine that if I tried driving off with your car
> you might put a little bit of struggle up
> even if you had removed the filters
If there is not a continuum there is no consciousness so this removal of
personal filters is untrue.
>
>
> reporting your interpretation of others words is not the same as
> having the experience....I would like to meet the person that can
> verify the proof of your words...by demonstrating it to me
If you still impute consciousness onto persons ask yourself why.
> not by talking about it....I would like to see it
> demonstrated by any one
On matters of consciousness the only demonstration is your own, all else is
merely perceived phenomenon.
> Wm
>
> ps. it seems to me that this is a mistake in buddhism,
> even though I have experienced this state I don't
> say _it_ is the truth....it is only a portion
Describe this state to which you refer without using your continuum.
>
> it is a temporary alignment
It is dependent on your continuum of consciousness.
> there are other things that one can align with as
> well...want to talk about them as the truth?
These words are dependent on your continuum of consciousness.
>
> it is part of the woof and weave of the great fabric, but
> only a part
The perception of "great" is experienced or imputed I wonder.
tiresias
"Nick Argall" <nicka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oCM09.505010$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I went for the Buddha or Bust back in the 1970s under some youthful fantasy
that nirvana meant extinction of self consciousness and after exploding into
the void realised that I was very wrong. I found that it meant the
extinction of "other" and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
of my mind and lack inherent existence. Not at all what I had expected from
my readings of the Buddhist texts. Words are interpreted to mean what you
want them to mean.
tiresias
"tadperry" <tadp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:a0R09.676079$352.140880@sccrnsc02...
manifestation of your consciousness and there is only consciousness of
consciousness which involves a strictly personal continuum or history and no
other. So here there is the perception of apparent persons and beings but to
impute or project consciousness onto them is not necessary.
So there is nobody to teach, nobody to hurt, nobody to enlighten, so why did
the Buddha teach if not for you to realise that his story only exists in
your own mind and has no inherent existence.
Its all a story.
tiresias
tiresias
projecting consciousness onto the appearances of persons that you perceive.
Its all a story.
tiresias
originated from and a continuum of consciousness is necessary for me to be
aware of any phenomena such as where this has got to for this perceiver.
Reading through the postings I will again bring up the nature of my
experience which is that no other consciousness is experienced except that
which is dependent on an apparent continuum of consciousness or apparent
memory or apparent life story. That consciousness may as well as be named as
self consciousness where self consciousness is understood to be apparently
dependent on the personal story so far.
You cannot experience any other consciousness except your own. To project,
impute, imagine or believe that any other perceived phenomena such as
persons have consciousness is not necessary. It is possible to perceive the
emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomena and still have a continuum
of consciousness that is personally experienced and can hence be called self
consciousness.
Self consciousness is not a static unchanging experience and is apparently
dependent on the continuum of consciousness or the personal history.
So if phenomena are perceived as having no inherent existence and are empty
of inherent consciousness then the consciousness that is aware of this is
utterly alone and there are no other consciousnesses or beings except by
imputation, belief or projection. So who is there then to feel compassion
with?
Hence when boddhicitta is seen to be empty of inherent existence then the
only consciousness which you can feel compassion for is not far away but
intimately personal consciousness, your own continuum.
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3D45C02C...@metta.lk...
William Tucker
----------
In article <crl19.1991$Sc2....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "tiresias"
<m...@mine.net> wrote:
whatever pleases you, it's your story
would you rather make love to your hand or...?
and I'm sure you've never felt someone projecting
conciousness into you...
how does a story/an illusion do this?
give me a break
I feel comfortable with my words
I don't have any doctrine to uphold or
someone to impress....I'm not getting paid for this,
I don't own stock in being right,
makes no difference to me, I'm just reporting
carry on
Wm
Nick Argall
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5k119.2823$SH3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> healing is a tricky business,
> not everyone can do what I do,
> sometimes I can't do what I do...sometimes I have help
> and it can be dangerous, quite,
> it is important not to take on
> sickness, or to try and heal what doesn't want to be healed
> it's hard to tell sometimes
>
> don't try these tricks at home
>
> always work with someone that knows what they are doing
> if you can
Good advice!
It's interesting. My wife was very seriously ill on Thursday night (fever
so high I was thinking about taking her to hospital). I did some Tong Len.
The pain from the Tong Len was unbearable, and I've been sick since,
although not so bad as her most of the time.
Is that the sort of thing you're talking about, or something else?
Nick
Nick Argall
"tiresias" <m...@mine.net> wrote in message
news:9rl19.1988$Sc2....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> I went for the Buddha or Bust back in the 1970s under some youthful
fantasy
> that nirvana meant extinction of self consciousness and after exploding
into
> the void realised that I was very wrong. I found that it meant the
> extinction of "other" and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
> of my mind and lack inherent existence. Not at all what I had expected
from
> my readings of the Buddhist texts. Words are interpreted to mean what you
> want them to mean.
Thank you, I think I understand you a bit more now.
Even though I can reasonably expect you to say that there is no 'you' for
'me' to understand.
If I described us as intertwined parts of the same system, distinct at the
gross level, but indistinguishable at the detail level, would that be
consistent with your understanding?
Nick
William Tucker
----------
In article <9Tm19.516728$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Nick
Argall" <nicka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
that kind of thing mostly, you have to be able to
seperate and heal your self at will, you also have
to learn to stay connected to universal source and stay
grounded...you can't use your personal energy with out
depleting yourself...
a healer always clears, grounds, and connects with the
universal source before sending energy/healing unless
you want to get depleted...
cho kok sui talks about pranic healing in the back of
his books as well...the point is a professional doesn't use
their own energy...usually....
what's going on for you?
Wm
Gileht
"tiresias" <m...@mine.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
arl19.1990$Sc2....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
You seem to have adopted the view that everything is from the mind only. But
I could be wrong; it is almost impossible to know someone only from his/hers
posts.
My actual working hypothesis is that everything is conditionned by our mind
(or five aggregates, or accumulated karma), but not from the mind only.
Everything is like an illusion, but not only an illusion.
To think that everything is real is realism.
To think that everything is from the mind only is "idealism".
To think that everything is completely non-existent because from the mind
only is "nihilism".
The Middle Way, as I understand it today, is to take the position that
everything is not existent, but still not non-existent. Or not independent
of the mind, but still not from the mind only.
Gileht
GeoWCherry
George writes:
If I try to observe my "self" objectively,
I can't find anything substantial, just a
heap of images. Sometimes when I
look in the mirror, I don't feel any sense
of ownership or relation: it's just a face,
another face of many faces. Once, when
I took LSD, I could not find my "self": it
was something made up, fictictious, a
convention for identifying a package of
traits and capabilities. I was rather
scared, actually, about going back to
work the following day and being able
to keep up the subterfuge of having an
actual self. I was worried that my girl-
friend, who was with my during my LSD
episode would be repelled by my ad-
mission of selflessness, of essential
emptiness.
I am convinced that in my infancy and
childhood I realized that other people,
especially grownups, have an actual
self which they enact. To get along, I
would have to construct a self also. My
education had a role in defining a self.
I no longer have to concoct this fiction.
But I don't experience this absence of
a self as something wonderful or even
desirable. In fact, I think that psychia-
try would call it a depersonalization
neurosis or character disorder or some-
thing like that. I just don't have a self,
that's all. But the person remains, the
husband, the owner of two dogs, the
guy named George. Not having a self
doesn't solve many problems. George
still has to meet his obligations, pay
his taxes, be a companion to his wife,
make his dogs comfortable and happy.
I still have to act on George's political,
moral, and social convictions. I mean,
for example, that George believes
socialism cures some of the ills of un-
bridled corporate power and greed.
And George wants his government to
be secular, not Christian or theistic.
And George wants to preserve other
species and their habitats because
they have as many rights as we do,
in my estimation.
Not having a self doesn't solve my
problems of still being sentient, of
being able to experience personal
sensations of pain or worrying about
other sentient creatures. In fact, not
having a self to worry about, in-
creases my concern about others,
about, for example, the children in
Palestine who are suffering mal-
nutrition. Furthermore, I don't be-
lieve our world will endure, and my
personal selflessness and doubt
about the world's longterm pros-
pects place me on the edge of
nihilism. If self is gone, can world-
lessness be far behind?
How, Tang, can I achieve the
happiness you appear to have
achieved. I mean, you soldier on,
you laugh, you post, you try to
teach, to set others straight on
the Dharma. How do you do this,
realizing that you have no self
and therefore no future?
George
discover4smiths
> > I am not talking about inherent existence, I am talking about
conventional
> > agreement of relative existence.
> >
> > The scripteral basis for this assertion is the Buddha's words. "That
which
> > the world asserts to be exostent, I too assert to be existent, and that
> > which the world asserts to be nonexistent, I too assert to be
nonexistent."
> > Thus, the assertion entails a conventional agreement. Such a process of
> > agreement, or in fact the very term of "designation" or "imputation",
> > implicitly denies inherent existence.
> >
> > The Madyamaka position is not simply that phenomena are
conceptually
> > designated, but that they are 'merely' conceptual designations, and the
> > implication of the word merely (Tib. tsam) in this context is that
phenomena
> > have no real existence apart from the process of conceptual designation.
> >
> > > This is from Realizing Emptiness by Gen Lamrimpa
>
> relatives exist, relatively.
>
> he didn't mean a committee or an agreement.
> he meant nonduality.
> "as being asserts, so I (my being) assert(s)"
> which would sound nice in latin...
> very unassertive...
>Yo Gileht,
I disagree. For phenomenon to be established as existent (dependently) 3
things are are needed.
1. The basis of designation (Tib. gdags gzhi), which is something that
appears to the 6 senses.
2. The designator, which is of two types: (a) the conceptualizing mind and
(b) the conventional labeling and agreement on that labeling.
3. The designated object (Tib. btags chos)
One should note that the combination of the first two elements leads to the
third element of the process.
Here's an example: This body and mind are the basis of designation of a
person. The person is the designated object that is designated upon this
particular basis of designation. The designatator is of two types, the
conventional labeling, or agreement, and the conceptualization. In
dependence upon the three - the basis of designation, the designated object,
and the designator. or agreement - the person exists. When any one of those
three is missing, one cannot establish the existence of a person. Therefore
it is said that all phenomena are merely conceptual designations. When we
say that things are conceptually designated, this is an assertion, or an
agreement.
p36-7 of Realizing Emptiness by Gen Lamrimpa
snip>
GeoWCherry
If all is perceived as being empty of inherent existence then all is a
manifestation of your consciousness and there is only consciousness of
consciousness which involves a strictly personal continuum or history and no
other. So here there is the perception of apparent persons and beings but to
impute or project consciousness onto them is not necessary.
So there is nobody to teach, nobody to hurt, nobody to enlighten, so why did
the Buddha teach if not for you to realise that his story only exists in
your own mind and has no inherent existence.
Its all a story.
George writes:
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound
and fury, signifying nothing? Okay,
consciousness is all that counts.
But the consciousness of others is
a pretty sure bet, and to be con-
scious is to have the capacity for
joy and suffering. So suffering is a
bit of a problem. You haven't erad-
icated suffering, because conscious-
ness and suffering co-occur. Sound
familiar? It's the 1st Noble Truth.
Gileht
"discover4smiths" <discove...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
#xARm8$NCHA.1516@cpimsnntpa03...
I am sorry I think you lost me somewhere in your last posts.
Can we start from scratch ? Please, pretty please ... with sugar on it.
By the way I am not going to argue with Gen Lamrimpa since I agree totally
with him (can I say that even if I haven't read his book yet ? Pfff ... why
not. I certainly agree more with him than with me .... :-)
By the way if you want to quote his book please give the page number; I have
a copy.
Love you too ...
Gileht
Ch'an Fu
discover4smiths wrote:
Sounds like a job for Captain Exlax, lieutenant !
discover4smiths
Where would you like to start? This stuff is tricky by all accounts and I
feel I have to begin at the beginning and not at the end. I need to start
with how we err to begin with. How do we establish phenomenon to begin
with? How do we grasp onto true existence in error? And how do we learn to
see things as they really are? If ignorance is the cause of our suffering as
the Buddha says, then how do we cut its root? As a being ensnared by my own
ignorance, it doesn't help me to be told that nothing exists nor doesn't
exists, etc.
I do have a functional intellect though, and if we begin at the beginning, I
am sure that I can eventually follow through to the end conclusion.
Emptiness through mental gymnastics is the best I can do until further
realizations occur.
Nancy
P.S. Did I piss you off, or something? You seem annoyed.
Gileht
Not at all. I am sorry if I gave this impression.
As for "everything is existent but still not non-existent" these will become
like a short resume of a long realization process after a while.
In short: everything is not inherently existent because everything is
dependent on causes and conditions, on parts, on the mind seeing them or
labeling them.
Everything is not completely non-existent either because there is this
apparent regularity in everything; things are still dependently arisen and
functional.
And each one of those are resumes of their long realization processes.
How do we establish phenomenon to begin with? Simply through habituation.
It is like saying "it seems that this always comes after that" and after a
while forgetting that this was just a working hypothesis, and strongly
believing that "this necessarily comes after that". The more we use it, the
more it become a strong habit, a reflex, a frozen idea or concept.
How do we grasp onto true existence in error? We forget that we have created
all of those appearances. We which that things were simple and easy to
manage.
And how do we learn to see things as they really are? By analyzing them. But
that is not enough; intellectual understanding is not enough. After that we
have to directly observe the creation process in action by observing our own
mind in action in the present. That is the goal of insight meditation.
Before that we have to train in calming meditation in order to slow the mind
enough to be able to observe its mode of operation.
If ignorance is the cause of our suffering as the Buddha says, then how do
we cut its root? By seeing the real nature of the objects causing the
suffering.
Again those are short resumes of very long texts on each subjects; it takes
time to clear this up. I am still working on it.
Gileht
Justin Davis
I'm confused, so I'll think aloud. :-)
#1) Do I mean by 'exist' that something can be viewed, named in such a
way that it maintains a particular, very stable identity, that you can
point to a particular object that does not change?
Then no, nothing really 'exists' by this definition, for everything
changes and cannot be said to be the same as it was before, so nothing
has the stable identity the definition requires.
#2) Do I mean by 'exist' that something can be categorized as a
particular series of appearances, changing over time, but somehow
separate, unreliant on other "existing" things, in its changes over
time?
Then nothing really exists in itself, separate from everything else,
for everything influences everything else, whether directly or
indirectly. If I use this definition on a tree, I find that it is
reliant on everything in its immediate area, then on the planet, then
the solar system, etc...
:::shrugs::: I'm really fumbling over the word 'exist.'
Justin Davis
Ch'an Fu
Justin Davis wrote:
sooner or later, all intellectualizations of dharma
come to this.
Tang Huyen
discover4smiths wrote: <<Where would you like to start? This stuff is tricky by
all accounts and I feel I have to begin at the beginning and not at the end.
[snip]>>
Don't, Nancy sweetie.
You're completely wrong, have always been wrong, couldn't be wronger, and
probably will remain there for the rest of your life.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu wrote:
> Justin Davis wrote: [snip]
> > :::shrugs::: I'm really fumbling over the word 'exist.'
>
> sooner or later, all intellectualizations of dharma
> come to this.
Sooner or later, *all* intellectualisation comes to this, regardless of
whatever it is.
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
Tang Huyen wrote:
an ain't that about as "true" as it gets?
"Blackbird singin' in the dead of night
Take these broken wings
and learn to fly.
All your life
You've been only waiting
for this moment to arrive.
Black bird, fly!
Into the light of the dark black night."
Tang Huyen
which appears to the senses, is not inherently cut up by designation and not
inherently labelled by conventional labels (are there absolute labels?). The
cutting up for procession by designation and labelling occurs *after* the basis
is received by the senses, *on top of* the basis that is received by the senses,
but that basis remains on its own side outside of the process of cutting up,
designation and labelling. The designated object is a bit of that basis that has
been cut up from that wholesome basis and processed by the labelling process,
but the basis on its own side remains wholesome and untouched by that whole
process -- process which is called profusion/proliferation (prapańca) and
discrimination (vikalpa).
Therefore the conclusion in the text: "Therefore it is said that all phenomena
are merely conceptual designations", is wholly unwarranted from what is reported
of the text by you. Only the process of profusion/proliferation (prapańca) and
discrimination (vikalpa) and the products of it are within that realm of
phenomena, if that is what you want to call it.
But the basis that is received by the senses is outside of that process and
survives intact from that process, and when that process stops, as in the
Buddhist awakened, it is revealed to the full, and is no longer covered up by
that process. That basis is then reality (tattva), and is unmolested by that
process.
Instead of blowing your mouth in utter folly without reserve, you may want to
think on exactly what it is that you post, Nancy sweetie.
Tang Huyen
tiresias
No. My understanding is that the only consciousness that you experience is
the one that you experience and nobody else lives that life. So for me all
is perceived as like a dream in that I no longer believe or experience
phenomena as if they have inherent existence outside of my perception.
That there are no other minds, continuums of consciousnesses, awarenesses or
lives that have inherent existence outside of my perception.
My consciousness is always accompanied by perception of phenomena but I no
longer perceive any sense of "other."
After I initially found myself perceiving phenomena in this unusual manner
it took a couple of years or so before my human emotional responses to
phenomena developed adequately to have sentimental responses to the apparent
life forms that I perceived as having no inherent awareness.
So I live on two levels. I react as a human being and appreciate feeling all
kinds of reactive emotions to the shadow play and feeling sensations as if
the phenomena had inherent consciousness whilst always knowing that I am
utterly alone.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
tiresias
"William Tucker"
> >> Wm
> > There is no "other" consciousness to heal or not heal.
> > You are imputing or
> > projecting consciousness onto the appearances of persons that you
perceive.
> > Its all a story.
>
> whatever pleases you, it's your story
>
> would you rather make love to your hand or...?
am writing about. I am describing a critical and unsentimental examination
of direct experience.
>
> and I'm sure you've never felt someone projecting
> conciousness into you...
I see appearances that behave as if they were conscious but if I choose to
believe that there is an other consciousness then the basis of my belief is
what?
I have seen how all phenomena are existent only to my perception and I
cannot undo that knowledge, I have to live with that consciousness.
I am not against experiencing phenomena as though there are other
consciousnesses, indeed I have regretted deeply entering this utterly alone
view, but having seen through the story to this degree I cannot go back to
the more comforting and meaningful perception of other consciousnesses.
>
> how does a story/an illusion do this?
Easily.
>
> give me a break
I am sorry if my truth upsets you. You can have your own view, I am not
trying to enforce my own experience onto you.
> I feel comfortable with my words
>
> I don't have any doctrine to uphold or
> someone to impress....I'm not getting paid for this,
> I don't own stock in being right,
> makes no difference to me, I'm just reporting
>
> carry on
>
> Wm
I am reporting my perception of emptiness and find your reaction curious.
tiresias
perception so yes I have realised that everything is a manifestation of my
mind and that my mind is a mainifestation of everything that I perceive.
>
> My actual working hypothesis is that everything is conditionned by our
mind
> (or five aggregates, or accumulated karma), but not from the mind only.
What else then?
>
> Everything is like an illusion, but not only an illusion.
What do you mean by that? Describe this experience.
>
> To think that everything is real is realism.
> To think that everything is from the mind only is "idealism".
> To think that everything is completely non-existent because from the mind
> only is "nihilism".
It is not nihilism unless you have a nihilistic attitude to your own
consciousness. It is nihilistic unfortunately in that the extremely rich
experience of believing that you are not utterly alone and are sharing
perceptions with other minds is no longer true.
>
> The Middle Way, as I understand it today, is to take the position that
> everything is not existent, but still not non-existent. Or not independent
> of the mind, but still not from the mind only.
What else then? The Middle Way appears to hold back from an unsentimental
perception and clings to the beautiful dream of other minds and
consciousnesses. If you can stay there, then from my present and enduring
awhile position, it is a happier state of ignorance but I cannot undo what I
have done with my own perception.
>
> Gileht
>
>
>
tiresias
>
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> > Ch'an Fu wrote:
> >
> > > Justin Davis wrote: [snip]
> > > > :::shrugs::: I'm really fumbling over the word 'exist.'
> > >
> > > sooner or later, all intellectualizations of dharma
> > > come to this.
> >
> > Sooner or later, *all* intellectualisation comes to this, regardless of
> > whatever it is.
> >
> > Tang Huyen
>
> an ain't that about as "true" as it gets?
Exist means having consciousness.
Ch'an Fu
tiresias wrote:
My My My My - my my! Lots of My's and I's!
If you "know" that you are "utterly alone",
you have found a fault there.
You say "I found that it meant the extinction of 'other'
and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
of my mind and lack inherent existence"
So, rather than dropping "self", you saw all as 'self'
and became alone, still with a 'self'.
We can drop 'self' - we cannot drop 'other'.
Being is not an illusion.
This is a common accident, but you have
time to undo it. So get to work
Ch'an Fu
tiresias wrote:
tiredass,
your intellect has overwhelmed
the possibility of understanding.
discover4smiths
I am following you through the everything does not exist inherently, but
does exist dependently on its parts and our our designations.
I get you about habituatially thinking that this is that when really this is
just called that. You can see this process in action when you are learning
a new language. For a while we have to remind ourselves this is called
that, but when we get used to the language we stop doing that.
Also you can see how our generic idea of what a thing is get mixed up and
confused with what we are actually seeing. So that the object we are
apprehending is actually apprehended wrongly. Our idea of what a tree is
gets superimposed onto the designated object and then changes our view of
it.
As for realizing the nature of what is causing our suffering. Isn't that
ignorance itself? I mean, its from not understanding how we exist by either
apprehending an inherently existent self and other, or a nihilistic belief
that nothing exists so we may as well do whatever we damn well please
regardless ;all of our problems arise. We become attached or we become
averse, or we don't give a shit because it doesn't concern our all important
self. Then in order to gain what we want, avoid what we don't want or run
over the rest because it doesn't matter, we do all kinds of shitty things
that cause bad karma, initially harming others and secondarily harming
ourselves.
Behaving in a moral manner serves to discipline our minds and also to purify
our karma enough that we may be able to eventually get beyond this samsaric
mess. It trains us in detachment and renunciation.
If you follow me so far, how do you get to the nondualism of morality and
amorality? Is that just the view of someone no longer encumbered by
samsara?
Do you feel that initially people need to behave morally in order to get to
a place where its no longer behavior, but who they are? Similar to climbing
stairs to get on the airplane? Initially you need the steps, but once your
on the plane you don't need them anymore?
The reason I ask is that I recently read book written by alcoholics,
nondrinking alcoholics, and counselors of the Shambala community in Boulder
during Trungpa's days. The drug and alcolhol scene was prodigious. They
seemed to be using the vajrayana idea of transforming poison to water as a
tool for their denial.. It seems dangerous to me to assume beginners with no
experience in basic discipline should be able to practice like that. What
do you think?
discover4smiths
when we designate we often assign only some of the characteristics,
attributes , and functions of the basis, but not all. Like when my neighbor
comes around the corner and I think, "Here comes that asshole again. I hope
he won't shit or break wind until he gets on his own side of the fence." Is
that what you mean by cutting up. That I only imputed the functions one
body part to be the essence basis?
As for the basis surviving intact outside the process, I don't get that,
because the basis is in a state of constant change and flux. Its is never
exactly the same thing from one millisecond to the next. All of its
subatomic particles have blinked in out and collided and changed many times.
Its not intact at all.
But anyway, what I am saying is that phenomenon are not established as
existent until all 3 things occur together.That is why they are dependently
existent. I am saying that phenomenon exist only in the mind and nowhere
else.
Nancy
William Tucker
----------
In article <3D471F8...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
the reason is the map
is
not the
territory
you can't get the experience except from the experience
then you recognize the pattern of the words
exception, gnanni yoga
Wm
ps. paris is not the map of paris
William Tucker
you're right you are alone,
so this shouldn't bother you
Wm
ps. you're alone in your abstract mind
which is not the world...
Ch'an Fu
William Tucker wrote:
ya, sure.
u gonna continue to state the obvious?
ever get anywhere in paris without a map?
xcept by accident?
leggo yer eggo
William Tucker
----------
In article <AmG19.37943$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
"tiresias" <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>
> "William Tucker"
>> >> Wm
>> > There is no "other" consciousness to heal or not heal.
>> > You are imputing or
>> > projecting consciousness onto the appearances of persons that you
> perceive.
>> > Its all a story.
>>
>> whatever pleases you, it's your story
>>
>> would you rather make love to your hand or...?
> Sometimes my hand is preferable as it happens but preference is not what I
> am writing about. I am describing a critical and unsentimental examination
> of direct experience.
>
>>
>> and I'm sure you've never felt someone projecting
>> conciousness into you...
> I see appearances that behave as if they were conscious but if I choose to
> believe that there is an other consciousness then the basis of my belief is
> what?
playing with your perceptual process is not interfacing with reality...
and even you should be able to ask the question of where is the stimulus
coming from...
unless you're one of those guys that you play cowboys and indians with that
never gets shot...there are a few of those about
> I have seen how all phenomena are existent only to my perception and I
> cannot undo that knowledge, I have to live with that consciousness.
you know this is like the oldest error in the book
> I am not against experiencing phenomena as though there are other
> consciousnesses, indeed I have regretted deeply entering this utterly alone
> view, but having seen through the story to this degree I cannot go back to
> the more comforting and meaningful perception of other consciousnesses.
>
>>
>> how does a story/an illusion do this?
> Easily.
>
>>
>> give me a break
> I am sorry if my truth upsets you. You can have your own view, I am not
> trying to enforce my own experience onto you.
>
>> I feel comfortable with my words
>>
>> I don't have any doctrine to uphold or
>> someone to impress....I'm not getting paid for this,
>> I don't own stock in being right,
>> makes no difference to me, I'm just reporting
>>
>> carry on
>>
>> Wm
> I am reporting my perception of emptiness and find your reaction curious.
you bore me, unless I'm mistaken you haven't said anything that I haven't
experienced my self and moved on from...
could just be language, but my perception of what you are talking about
is an error in cognition and definition
your words have an energy but not an energy of "he understands"
I mean even the stupidity of talking to someone who says he
is alone but is marvelously shielded from asking the question
of how can I be surprised if I am alone...it's like you're standing
on the eiffiel tower and saying there is no paris
ps. if you're not currently in this state you can't report on it
Wm
Nick Argall
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7Qn19.4378$w45.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> ----------
> In article <9Tm19.516728$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Nick
> Argall" <nicka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:5k119.2823$SH3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> healing is a tricky business,
> >> not everyone can do what I do,
> >> sometimes I can't do what I do...sometimes I have help
> >> and it can be dangerous, quite,
> >> it is important not to take on
> >> sickness, or to try and heal what doesn't want to be healed
> >> it's hard to tell sometimes
> >>
> >> don't try these tricks at home
> >>
> >> always work with someone that knows what they are doing
> >> if you can
> >
> > Good advice!
> >
> > It's interesting. My wife was very seriously ill on Thursday night
(fever
> > so high I was thinking about taking her to hospital). I did some Tong
Len.
> > The pain from the Tong Len was unbearable, and I've been sick since,
> > although not so bad as her most of the time.
> >
> > Is that the sort of thing you're talking about, or something else?
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
>
>
> that kind of thing mostly, you have to be able to
> seperate and heal your self at will, you also have
> to learn to stay connected to universal source and stay
> grounded...you can't use your personal energy with out
> depleting yourself...
>
> a healer always clears, grounds, and connects with the
> universal source before sending energy/healing unless
> you want to get depleted...
>
> cho kok sui talks about pranic healing in the back of
> his books as well...the point is a professional doesn't use
> their own energy...usually....
>
> what's going on for you?
I transferred a significant portion of the disease from her to me.
Not something that I do often, and certainly not something that I would
recommend.
Normally, I try subtle adjustments of energy fields, a much safer thing to
do.
Nick
GeoWCherry
> In short, to accept the self as absolute is wrong.
> But to reject it completely is also wrong.
>
> That is clearly explicitely the message of both Hinayana and Mahayana.
> The Middle Way is described in the early canon, and made into an explicit
> vehicle with the Mahayana.
>
> The main message of the Hear Sutra is that reality is not existent (i),
not
> non-existent (ii), not both (iii), not neither (iv).
>
> "Form is emptiness, (i)
> emptiness is form (ii)
> Emptiness does not differ from form, and form does not differ from
> emptiness. (iii & iv)
> Likewise, feelings, recognition, volitions and consciousnesses are empty."
>
> We have to go beyond the four extremes: realism, idealism, dualism,
monism.
>
> TAYATA OM GATE (i) GATE (ii) PARAGATE (iii) PARASAMGATE (iv) BODHI SOHA
Cool, Gileht, very cool. You really have this
down pat. I really like the way you say "X
is not existent, not non-existent, not both,
not neither" all the time. And going beyond
realism, idealism, dualism, and monism is a
formula, isn't it? What is beyond all these
opposites, Gileht? Now that you have this
thing formulated and pinned and wiggling
on the wall, what is it. Tell me quick.
George
William Tucker
----------
where's the sir up
I usually go by feel, fuck the map
hopefully the map is about 5' 7" and has...
now talk about letting your fingers do the...
and oh des plaines...
wouldn't it b e luverly...luverly
Wm
William Tucker
----------
In article <S1J19.522171$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Nick
Argall" <nicka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would not do the transference....that way leads to big problems,
because you can transfer something that you can't heal...not a good
idea
we were explicity taught to ground, connect to source and then connect
to the patient student and to never take in from the patient/student,
mostly because what they need will be better provided by maintaining
your sense of well being as the monitor....if you both go off center
who's there to take care of both of you...
take care of your self so you can take care of your wife...
>
> Not something that I do often, and certainly not something that I would
> recommend.
>
> Normally, I try subtle adjustments of energy fields, a much safer thing to
> do.
>
yes,
Wm
> Nick
>
>
William Tucker
tiresias,
you know I made this same error, it's not easy
to see if you do have a lot of head energy...
meaning if most of your interaction with
reality is cereberal,
my apologies for the gruffness
a good way to test your self is to ask your self
if you think someone/thing could kill you
or does the world go away when you loose conciousness,
if you can't find the root of the change/action in you
it has to be outside
additionally there are beings that take in information,
but go around the normal sensorial input devices...
Wm
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>cho kok sui
Is that the thing with the crunchy noodles, or the thing with rice and
chicken?
--
V.G.
"I have not be me idiot you are still BE idiot! hahhahhahahahah!"
Theo <byj...@ch.inter.net> in alt.fan.art-bell
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>we were explicity taught to ground,
WE learned that in electronics class, too.
William Tucker
over time they learned to listen to the rain...
and allow the sound to wash them clean
Wm
leaning forward he moved back
the illusion complete the truth dawned
coming into the circle they realized they weren't
and it had been their choice
unperturbed he shared his vanilla wafers
banishing gloom with each crunch
shaking their mirth at him joys returned
only to leave on the wings of transformation
singing
yes
----------
In article <39tekugtedfthhjm6...@4ax.com>, "Vanilla Gorilla
tiresias
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3D4736D3...@metta.lk...
be at fault? Is it not merely YOUR experience and YOUR truth which is
perceived?
> You say "I found that it meant the extinction of 'other'
> and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
> of my mind and lack inherent existence"
> So, rather than dropping "self", you saw all as 'self'
> and became alone, still with a 'self'.
That is correct.
> We can drop 'self' - we cannot drop 'other'.
Who is this WE you are speaking for other than YOUR own perception of other
persons to which you are assigning an unverified consciousness?
Of course if you believe that there are other persons with consciousness
then you cannot drop the belief in other.
You do not experience yourself as multiple consciousnesses do you so the use
of the plural subjective is a projection or belief.
If you can drop yourself then tell me how you could be aware of such a state
or is this too personally unverified?
> Being is not an illusion.
Just because you believe that to be true does not make it so. To me you are
an appearance of a being. The only being that I can verify is me.
> This is a common accident, but you have
> time to undo it. So get to work
I have a view which is not contradicted by whatever I experience, all things
even the dharma and buddhas are all merely manifestations of my mind and
they are empty of existence so now I take teachings from my dreamscape.
>
>
tiresias
The words that I am using and the ideas that I express are coming from a
direct and sustained experience. They are not intellectualisations coming
from a different perception. Do you understand now?
tiresias
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oCH19.1386$nc.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
ideas come from this perception or view and is all the world for me. Unless
I perceive phenomena then there is no consciousness of any world as far as I
am concerned.
tiresias
that my perceived reality is not my reality...it cannot be otherwise.
>
> and even you should be able to ask the question of where is the stimulus
> coming from...
> unless you're one of those guys that you play cowboys and indians with
that
> never gets shot...there are a few of those about
The smack in the face is still perceived phenomena and there is still only a
subjective consciousness of this, seeing and feeling an apparent person hit
you does not mean that there is any consciousness in the perceived person
phenomena.
>
> > I have seen how all phenomena are existent only to my perception and I
> > cannot undo that knowledge, I have to live with that consciousness.
>
> you know this is like the oldest error in the book
Why do you judge my perception to be in error?
>
> > I am not against experiencing phenomena as though there are other
> > consciousnesses, indeed I have regretted deeply entering this utterly
alone
> > view, but having seen through the story to this degree I cannot go back
to
> > the more comforting and meaningful perception of other consciousnesses.
> >
> >>
> >> how does a story/an illusion do this?
> > Easily.
> >
> >>
> >> give me a break
> > I am sorry if my truth upsets you. You can have your own view, I am not
> > trying to enforce my own experience onto you.
> >
> >> I feel comfortable with my words
> >>
> >> I don't have any doctrine to uphold or
> >> someone to impress....I'm not getting paid for this,
> >> I don't own stock in being right,
> >> makes no difference to me, I'm just reporting
> >>
> >> carry on
> >>
> >> Wm
> > I am reporting my perception of emptiness and find your reaction
curious.
>
>
> you bore me, unless I'm mistaken you haven't said anything that I haven't
> experienced my self and moved on from...
Boredom is your own existence. Have you moved on from a truthful experience
to a fantasy because you found yourself to be boring?
>
> could just be language, but my perception of what you are talking about
> is an error in cognition and definition
Again what are you using as a judgement measure, I am reporting my
perception.
>
> your words have an energy but not an energy of "he understands"
Understands what? Something other than what you actually experience without
belief projections?
>
>
> I mean even the stupidity of talking to someone who says he
> is alone but is marvelously shielded from asking the question
> of how can I be surprised if I am alone...it's like you're standing
> on the eiffiel tower and saying there is no paris
>
> ps. if you're not currently in this state you can't report on it
I am in the state of which I write which is a solipsistic perception.
tiresias
>
> tiresias,
>
> you know I made this same error, it's not easy
> to see if you do have a lot of head energy...
>
> meaning if most of your interaction with
> reality is cereberal,
perception and consciousness and that includes ideas, feelings, sensations.
The background feeling for this state is one of almost unbearably intense
and sharp, caustic, acidic pain, I would not wish it on myself or any other
being if I still believed in that comforting fantasy.
>
> my apologies for the gruffness
I felt some emotional responses to your tone so don't worry it is all
character-forming.
>
> a good way to test your self is to ask your self
> if you think someone/thing could kill you
Yes as I am living and dying with a chronic terminal illness the possibility
of my death is never far from my awareness. I do not know what I will
perceive or not perceive after death. I can and do hypothesise but that is
all.
>
> or does the world go away when you loose conciousness,
As far as I am concerned the world only exists in my perception of it.
>
> if you can't find the root of the change/action in you
>
> it has to be outside
That is irrational because you are taking an assumptive belief of a primal
beginning as a basis for the idea.
>
> additionally there are beings that take in information,
> but go around the normal sensorial input devices...
You have no direct experience of any other consciousness other than your own
have you so why this added fantasy of other beings who can do fantastic
things that you also have had no experience of them doing.
>
>
> Wm
Ch'an Fu
tiresias wrote:
from your words.
> > You say "I found that it meant the extinction of 'other'
> > and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
> > of my mind and lack inherent existence"
> > So, rather than dropping "self", you saw all as 'self'
> > and became alone, still with a 'self'.
> That is correct.
>
> > We can drop 'self' - we cannot drop 'other'.
> Who is this WE you are speaking for other than YOUR own perception of other
> persons to which you are assigning an unverified consciousness?
humans.
> Of course if you believe that there are other persons with consciousness
> then you cannot drop the belief in other.
> You do not experience yourself as multiple consciousnesses do you so the use
> of the plural subjective is a projection or belief.
> If you can drop yourself then tell me how you could be aware of such a state
> or is this too personally unverified?
stop dreaming and find out.
> > Being is not an illusion.
> Just because you believe that to be true does not make it so. To me you are
> an appearance of a being. The only being that I can verify is me.
indeed, belief has nothing to do with it.
> > This is a common accident, but you have
> > time to undo it. So get to work
> I have a view which is not contradicted by whatever I experience, all things
> even the dharma and buddhas are all merely manifestations of my mind and
> they are empty of existence so now I take teachings from my dreamscape.
enjoy :)
tiresias
of my words and your judgement of these as a fault so what criteria of
judgement of right and wrong are you using.
>
> > > You say "I found that it meant the extinction of 'other'
> > > and that all perceived phenomena are a manifestation
> > > of my mind and lack inherent existence"
> > > So, rather than dropping "self", you saw all as 'self'
> > > and became alone, still with a 'self'.
> > That is correct.
> >
> > > We can drop 'self' - we cannot drop 'other'.
> > Who is this WE you are speaking for other than YOUR own perception of
other
> > persons to which you are assigning an unverified consciousness?
>
> humans.
Your perception of apparent humans is regal in its first person plural
attitude.
>
> > Of course if you believe that there are other persons with consciousness
> > then you cannot drop the belief in other.
> > You do not experience yourself as multiple consciousnesses do you so the
use
> > of the plural subjective is a projection or belief.
> > If you can drop yourself then tell me how you could be aware of such a
state
> > or is this too personally unverified?
>
> stop dreaming and find out.
I see that your capacity for reasoned discourse is running low so I will not
expect too much in the way of intelligence from you.
>
> > > Being is not an illusion.
> > Just because you believe that to be true does not make it so. To me you
are
> > an appearance of a being. The only being that I can verify is me.
>
> indeed, belief has nothing to do with it.
I don't suppose that you can muster the will to explain this belief of yours
that belief has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > This is a common accident, but you have
> > > time to undo it. So get to work
> > I have a view which is not contradicted by whatever I experience, all
things
> > even the dharma and buddhas are all merely manifestations of my mind and
> > they are empty of existence so now I take teachings from my dreamscape.
>
> enjoy :)
Whatever
William Tucker
----------
In article <WiT19.520$U44.49226@newsfep2-gui>, "tiresias" <m...@mine.net>
wrote:
>
> "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pUJ19.2013$cI.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> tiresias,
>>
>> you know I made this same error, it's not easy
>> to see if you do have a lot of head energy...
>>
>> meaning if most of your interaction with
>> reality is cereberal,
> You are avoiding the issue with this feel-think issue.
you are not understanding something outside of your abilities,
at your current level of development
> I am writing about my
> perception and consciousness and that includes ideas, feelings, sensations.
> The background feeling for this state is one of almost unbearably intense
> and sharp, caustic, acidic pain, I would not wish it on myself or any other
> being if I still believed in that comforting fantasy.
I'm not offering you fantasy....I don't have time for it
I have felt/seen/thought things that would kill or driven mad most people,
it's not a problem
>
>>
>> my apologies for the gruffness
> I felt some emotional responses to your tone so don't worry it is all
> character-forming.
>
>>
>> a good way to test your self is to ask your self
>> if you think someone/thing could kill you
> Yes as I am living and dying with a chronic terminal illness the possibility
> of my death is never far from my awareness.
Cool, I've often thought of working in a hospice. You should check out
nde's.
and
if it's all your perceptions, what about your perceptions is killing you?
>I do not know what I will
> perceive or not perceive after death. I can and do hypothesise but that is
> all.
not everyone is like that, you should look at the Bardo Thodol
and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the big one with pictures
and it is possible to experience what someone else is
experiencing....sorry
>> or does the world go away when you loose conciousness,
> As far as I am concerned the world only exists in my perception of it.
that's your belief system at work, as supported by you
>> if you can't find the root of the change/action in you
>>
>> it has to be outside
> That is irrational because you are taking an assumptive belief of a primal
> beginning as a basis for the idea.
it's empirical, you're the one working from _your_ model
>> additionally there are beings that take in information,
>> but go around the normal sensorial input devices...
> You have no direct experience of any other consciousness other than your own
> have you so why this added fantasy of other beings who can do fantastic
> things that you also have had no experience of them doing.
let me put it this way, you are trying to use your experience
to explain mine...and not let anything else in
in the world of venn diagrams your experience would fit
inside of mine but not the converse...that's just the way
it is....and until you open a little hole of "maybe"
that's the way it will stay
_maybe_ is the most powerful tool of perception that
you can have
neither belief nor disbelief...
learning to hover
it's like the wave particle thing....
is light a wave or a particle...most don't have
the rigor or focus of perception that they can attain the
state where light is seen as neither...
most human beings in general are not comfortable with
things being different degrees of belonging to a set...
fuzzy logic, fractals
are all reality based
nueral net training....weighting a path
a nerve ending has 4,000-10,000 possible states
I think...not yes or no
what are you dying from? If it's okay to ask
Wm
ps. I wrote this about 10 years ago:
I wrote:
We were discussing "what is science" and I wrote at the
bottom of my statement.
SCIENCE is PATTERN recognition,
not truth
and the truth is always opinion.
or something close.
I agree with you that science is not simply pattern
recognition, ultimately. Originally it is just that,
however, and that is what I am most interested in,
the seeing or realization that something is happening
or repeating itself - that's what the word pattern implies,
before the percieved pattern gets dragged back into the labyrinth
of the dreaded abstract mind, where it is dismembered, still
screaming and made to fit our precious models. We build models
and call them reality, while ignoring reality as being too
"changeable." However, if we don't "have a good feel" for reality
we build our models incorrectly. Additionally, we face the
danger that if we don't know that we may have built our models
incorrectly or if we build them without allowing for change
we end up defending them because we don't know any better,
or it's too much work to change them, or we have too much
ego invested, or we don't see the need, or we don't see
the mistakes. The biggest danger is not seeing the possibility
of a mistake, which exists because we all have marvelous
smoothing algorithms built into our minds that help us to
fit things together, perfectly - witness the fact that we are
hardly ever aware of the asymmetry of our own faces or
of others' faces. If we proceeded as if a comparison to
reality were the ultimate judge or test of veracity rather than
a comparison to accepted theory, if we know how to think rather
than parrot, if the accepted body of knowledge is treated as
reliable information rather than the gospel. Suppose...
Suppose the truth is an animal. Suppose that the truth
existed in more dimensions than our normal 3+ dimensions.
Suppose the truth left behind trails that we name "patterns",
then much like the flatlanders in Goedel's example we
would percieve only fractions of the truth at a time.
Suppose we called these little traces TRUTH without knowing
what a whole truth was. If we hold our mind's open to the
possibility that the truth is percievable only in it's
entirety, then it is only by the assimilation of all the
patterns into a single group at one time that we could percieve
this truth. But I've already said that that was impossible by
definition, we could at most build a pattern perciever, a tool of
perception, not a model and using it glance along the body of the
truth, pass truth through the tool to get an understanding, a feeling -
all the while using patterns in reality as tuning forks, to maintain
our objectivity. Picking up and trying different views, forgetting
that one was math based, one psychology based, one religion based.
Suppose this tool was called a lens - suppose this particular lens
was called something snappy like:
"the point at which all things converge, where there is
no thing(yet) and all things(beginning)."
Suppose this tool was alive.
Sound familiar yet?
Then we would build our models differently or at least we not worship
them as false idols - or we would build fewer models and look for the
patterns - they exist without any help from us, we do not need to hold
onto anything, the truth exists and is there for the picking with the
fingers of our minds. Again, the point is that reality is sacred not
the models. A matter of emphasis, a different way of thinking. You
need different tools in addition to the old ones. No sacred cows are
being slaughterd.
Trust me.
A small experiment -
try to read the rest of my words without reflection.
Listen to me without opinion. Hear the cadence of my words, don't
think - percieve, read my sentence as one thought, at once. Picture
this - the first time you hear a record, do you hear it without
anticipation? Or do you unconciously or conciously try to figure
out what the next beat, sound will be, what the next words are, what
song it reminds you of - do you try to sing along?
Hear without anticipation -
hear.
See without interpretation -
see.
Your experential history gives
you grounding and order, trust it, let reality arrange itself,
take your hands off, let things move where they want to - let the
order of the world ground you. You brought order to your personal chaos
by recognizing order within the world - it is still there, you are safe,
release your model, let it drop to the floor - if it's true it will still
be true when you pick it back up. Only a master could listen to a record
and hear it. What are these masters, masters of - reality - perception.
Your beliefs are based upon reality, whatever that is, and it doen't need
your belief to exist - it will still be there - if you can just resist the
temptation to anticipate knowing what it will be - it will still be what
it would have been, maybe. Why all this talk about seeing through the
eyes of a child? They see without anticipation - their reality is not
wrinkled or distorted by anticipation their perception is clearer
- it's not a theory it's a method - use it. Reality is my guide and
I shall not fear though it may turn out differently than I
anticipated for I AM reality and so are you.
You can start thinking again now. Let your models build themselves
as your needs dictate. Let different models exist simultaneously,
in the same space, for varied is the world. Let different models
exist concurrently for reality is fruitful, and yet let them be
one in their beingness for together they make truth. Do not bear
false witness against other models. Covet not another's model
for it is only a model..and so on. Variations on a theme y'all.
ps.
What I mean by "truth is opinion" is that interpretation of patterns
is always ultimately opinion in that we may use them predictively,
however, in finality they are always theory. We can not know the true
place or depth of a thing when we can not comprehend the totality of
the universe. We can only come close. It may seem, at this level of
our awareness, very close - however...
Wm T.
.standard disclaimer
>> Wm
>
>
>
>
William Tucker
----------
In article <tCU19.1303$6j5....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, "tiresias"
<m...@mine.net> wrote:
drop the attitude and listen to the truth
>> > Of course if you believe that there are other persons with consciousness
>> > then you cannot drop the belief in other.
>> > You do not experience yourself as multiple consciousnesses do you so the
> use
>> > of the plural subjective is a projection or belief.
>> > If you can drop yourself then tell me how you could be aware of such a
> state
>> > or is this too personally unverified?
>>
>> stop dreaming and find out.
> I see that your capacity for reasoned discourse is running low so I will not
> expect too much in the way of intelligence from you.
stop being defensive and hear...he meant dreaming as in not being awake
>> > > Being is not an illusion.
>> > Just because you believe that to be true does not make it so. To me you
> are
>> > an appearance of a being. The only being that I can verify is me.
>>
>> indeed, belief has nothing to do with it.
> I don't suppose that you can muster the will to explain this belief of yours
> that belief has nothing to do with it.
it's simply direct experience....you don't read much except to verify what
you know neh?!
>> > > This is a common accident, but you have
>> > > time to undo it. So get to work
>> > I have a view which is not contradicted by whatever I experience, all
> things
>> > even the dharma and buddhas are all merely manifestations of my mind and
>> > they are empty of existence so now I take teachings from my dreamscape.
>>
>> enjoy :)
> Whatever
it was a wish for you
Wm
Gileht
"Justin Davis" <jk...@duke.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
5bfec9e3.0207...@posting.google.com...
> What do you mean by exist?
>
> I'm confused, so I'll think aloud. :-)
>
> #1) Do I mean by 'exist' that something can be viewed, named in such a
> way that it maintains a particular, very stable identity, that you can
> point to a particular object that does not change?
>
> Then no, nothing really 'exists' by this definition, for everything
> changes and cannot be said to be the same as it was before, so nothing
> has the stable identity the definition requires.
>
> #2) Do I mean by 'exist' that something can be categorized as a
> particular series of appearances, changing over time, but somehow
> separate, unreliant on other "existing" things, in its changes over
> time?
>
> Then nothing really exists in itself, separate from everything else,
> for everything influences everything else, whether directly or
> indirectly. If I use this definition on a tree, I find that it is
> reliant on everything in its immediate area, then on the planet, then
> the solar system, etc...
>
> :::shrugs::: I'm really fumbling over the word 'exist.'
>
The object of refutation:
"Inherently existing" means existing on its own, independent of everything
else, permanent, that has its "essence of being what it is", without parts,
without causes and conditions, independently of the mind perceiving it, not
merely imputed by the mind.
It doesn't mean "completely non-existent".
Example: an inherently existing cause would be an absolute cause, "a 100%
sure cause", a cause that is primary, a cause that doesn't have its own
causes and conditions, a cause that doesn't change with the causing -- that
is still the same before, during and after the causing.
Most of the time when we think about a cause we think of it as an inherently
existing cause; we are not even aware of the contradiction, or this
impossibility.
Other example of some pseudo-primary causes: space, time, the most
elementary components of the universe, some objects of the world, universal
laws, our souls, our free will, God.
Other example: Tang's direct perceivers, the irreducible elements (earth,
water, air, space, fire), the 52 factors of consciousness, the self, the
stream of consciousness.
Gileht
Gileht
Yes.
> Behaving in a moral manner serves to discipline our minds and also to
purify
> our karma enough that we may be able to eventually get beyond this
samsaric
> mess. It trains us in detachment and renunciation.
Yes. Without accumulating enough merit one cannot develop insight meditation
and see the non-dual nature of everything, and be free from all illusions,
attachments, fears, ...
> If you follow me so far, how do you get to the nondualism of morality and
> amorality? Is that just the view of someone no longer encumbered by
> samsara?
Obviously realizing the non-duality of good and bad karma doesn't mean that
they are the same, or that it doesn't matter what we do. Obviously
realizing the real nature of everything doesn't mean that one can act
amorally; a Bodhisattva or Buddha would never do anything to harm somebody
else for personal benefits.
Seeing the real nature of everything, their non-duality, only means to see
through their apparent opposition. Bodhicitta is part of this. In Hinayana
you have strick rules about what is wholesome and unwholesome; in Mahayana
those strict absolute rules are gradually combined with more and more wisdom
or relativity. What becomes important is not to obey strict rules, as if
there were a real opposition between wholesomeness and unwholesomeness, but
to be aware of our own motivation before doing anything.
In other words, it is not because there is no absolute good and bad, that
there is no good and bad at all. They do exist conventionally, they are
dependently arisen and functional. They are just never absolute. What is
good and bad always depend on the situation, on the intent, on the
motivation.
> Do you feel that initially people need to behave morally in order to get
to
> a place where its no longer behavior, but who they are? Similar to
climbing
> stairs to get on the airplane? Initially you need the steps, but once
your
> on the plane you don't need them anymore?
Seeing the rel nature of everything only gives more reasons to not act
badly, egoistically, amorally. The development of wisdom is inseparable with
the development of love, compassion, Bodhicitta. One cannot exist without
the other; one cannot develop without the other.
We need both virtuous methods and wisdom together all the time.
> The reason I ask is that I recently read book written by alcoholics,
> nondrinking alcoholics, and counselors of the Shambala community in
Boulder
> during Trungpa's days. The drug and alcolhol scene was prodigious. They
> seemed to be using the vajrayana idea of transforming poison to water as a
> tool for their denial.. It seems dangerous to me to assume beginners with
no
> experience in basic discipline should be able to practice like that. What
> do you think?
I have no knowledge about this, so I cannot comment on it.
Gileht
Gileht
"GeoWCherry" <geowc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20020731001303...@mb-ba.aol.com...
George,
I am bored george; so I will answer you.
You asked "What is beyond all these opposites, Gileht?"
Good question goeorge, excellent question ... the answer is obviously
Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or whatever we want to call it. But this doesn't
answer the question, does it ? So the question is what is Nirvana, or
Enlightement, or the real nature of our self and of everything.
Well the answer is ....
What ? ha ... ok !
Tang doesn't want me to tell you. He says anything I will say is useless
conceptualization.
Sorry! Ask another question. I am so borred george, so bored ... lol
Gileht
discover4smiths
Nancy
>
>
>
Boris Fuller
> "tadperry" <tadp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> If all is perceived as being empty of inherent existence then all is a
> manifestation of your consciousness and there is only consciousness of
> consciousness which involves a strictly personal continuum or history and no
> other. So here there is the perception of apparent persons and beings but to
> impute or project consciousness onto them is not necessary.
> So there is nobody to teach, nobody to hurt, nobody to enlighten, so why did
> the Buddha teach if not for you to realise that his story only exists in
> your own mind and has no inherent existence.
>
> Its all a story.
smells of solipsism,
looks like solipsism...
yup, its solipsism!
Boris
Ch'an Fu
William Tucker wrote:
hya Wm :)
nice try.
fortune cookie say,
don't feed squirrels in kitchen.
hey - got a temple bell from chiang mai!
BONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!
make yer head ring!
Ch'an Fu
Gileht wrote:
ain't that th' truth!!!
say another word and be selfoxidized!
besides, helmet-head will bounce
any answer off toward the moon...
as for u george, stop beggin'
for lollipops...
u'r starting to sound like pete...
try some anti-fungal butt cream instead...
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>_maybe_ is the most powerful tool of perception that
>you can have
Not really.
<https://www.milwaukeeconnect.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/LgImageView?lgImage=6537-22-lg.jpg>
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>brandishing his bumbershoot he took them out for a walk....
>
>over time they learned to listen to the rain...
>
>and allow the sound to wash them clean
>
>
> Wm
I got a SPAM for Bloussant Herbal Breast Enlargement, today. I'm not
really interested. I'm pretty satisfied with my current breast size,
really. I could forward it to you, if you want.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:08:54 GMT, "William Tucker"
><wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>
>>_maybe_ is the most powerful tool of perception that
>>you can have
>
>Not really.
>
><https://www.milwaukeeconnect.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/LgImageView?lgImage=6537-22-lg.jpg>
Never mind. That link doesn't work worth a shit. I've said it
before, and I'll say it again, JAVA blows.
William Tucker
Wm
ps. somewhere over the wainbow....
----------
In article <2s7hkusc8f2mir0qc...@4ax.com>, "Vanilla Gorilla
William Tucker
congratulations
Wm
ps. wash with warm water
masterbaiter
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:13:37 GMT, "William Tucker"
><wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>
>>brandishing his bumbershoot he took them out for a walk....
>>
>>over time they learned to listen to the rain...
>>
>>and allow the sound to wash them clean
>>
>>
>> Wm
>
>I got a SPAM for Bloussant Herbal Breast Enlargement, today.
I'm not
>really interested. I'm pretty satisfied with my current breast
size,
>really. I could forward it to you, if you want.
If I had large BREASTS, I would just sit in front of the mirror
and play with them all day.
William Tucker
for this you get paid?
Wm
ps. potatoes latkas on you
----------
In article <3d48a...@news.iglou.com>, "masterbaiter" <m...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.solipsism:
>why am I seeing, wearing glasses and toupees, gorrillas here?
>
>for this you get paid?
Don't I wish?
William Tucker
----------
Hey,
fortune cookie from Tuesday
'Try it you might like it."
Wm
hope all is well with you
tiresias
consciousness. Do you not only experience your own continuum of
consciousness directly?
> >> > Of course if you believe that there are other persons with
consciousness
> >> > then you cannot drop the belief in other.
> >> > You do not experience yourself as multiple consciousnesses do you so
the
> > use
> >> > of the plural subjective is a projection or belief.
> >> > If you can drop yourself then tell me how you could be aware of such
a
> > state
> >> > or is this too personally unverified?
> >>
> >> stop dreaming and find out.
> > I see that your capacity for reasoned discourse is running low so I will
not
> > expect too much in the way of intelligence from you.
>
> stop being defensive and hear...he meant dreaming as in not being awake
Alright then. He and you appear to imply that your opinion of my reported
direct experience is not the truth and is a state of dreaming. That is your
opinion of an experience which I am describing which you appear to find
unpalatable and wish to label as dreaming or not truth.
>
>
> >> > > Being is not an illusion.
> >> > Just because you believe that to be true does not make it so. To me
you
> > are
> >> > an appearance of a being. The only being that I can verify is me.
> >>
> >> indeed, belief has nothing to do with it.
> > I don't suppose that you can muster the will to explain this belief of
yours
> > that belief has nothing to do with it.
>
>
> it's simply direct experience....you don't read much except to verify what
> you know neh?!
It is surely not a genuine act of intelligence to verify an experience which
you may not have had and any experience of another being's continuum of
consciousness I would be interested to hear about if actually realised and
not merely imagined. I am open to experiencing a state of consciousness
which would change my present perception of phenomena.
>
>
> >> > > This is a common accident, but you have
> >> > > time to undo it. So get to work
> >> > I have a view which is not contradicted by whatever I experience, all
> > things
> >> > even the dharma and buddhas are all merely manifestations of my mind
and
> >> > they are empty of existence so now I take teachings from my
dreamscape.
> >>
> >> enjoy :)
> > Whatever
>
>
> it was a wish for you
Alright thanks for the sentiment, I thought you may have been of sarcastic
intent.
>
>
> Wm
tiresias
"William Tucker"
> Well you are more interesting than I thought.
> >>
> >> you know I made this same error, it's not easy
> >> to see if you do have a lot of head energy...
> >>
> >> meaning if most of your interaction with
> >> reality is cereberal,
> > You are avoiding the issue with this feel-think issue.
>
> you are not understanding something outside of your abilities,
>
> at your current level of development
Honestly now, it is impossible to realise and understand something outside
of my direct perception, anything else beyond that is imputation and sloppy
unreflective thinking.
> > I am writing about my
> > perception and consciousness and that includes ideas, feelings,
sensations.
> > The background feeling for this state is one of almost unbearably
intense
> > and sharp, caustic, acidic pain, I would not wish it on myself or any
other
> > being if I still believed in that comforting fantasy.
>
> I'm not offering you fantasy....I don't have time for it
>
> I have felt/seen/thought things that would kill or driven mad most people,
> it's not a problem
I did not write about the feelings to enter into an "if you think you had it
hard..." Pythonesque bravado, merely to correct an opinion that my
perceptions were mere intellectualisations. So you think you are a tough
guy, fair enough.
> >> my apologies for the gruffness
> > I felt some emotional responses to your tone so don't worry it is all
> > character-forming.
> >
> >>
> >> a good way to test your self is to ask your self
> >> if you think someone/thing could kill you
> > Yes as I am living and dying with a chronic terminal illness the
possibility
> > of my death is never far from my awareness.
>
>
> Cool, I've often thought of working in a hospice. You should check out
> nde's.
I will be cool enough in due course. I have had an nde or two, even the
experience of the AUM is a personal perception. I will be checking out the
non-near de soon enough.
>
> and
> if it's all your perceptions, what about your perceptions is killing you?
I am perceiving an apparent body of mine which is changing, aging and
declining in functional capacity.
>
> >I do not know what I will
> > perceive or not perceive after death. I can and do hypothesise but that
is
> > all.
>
> not everyone is like that, you should look at the Bardo Thodol
> and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the big one with pictures
I first read the Bardo Thodol back in the early 1970s and have had
out-of-body perceptions in my time which have apparently been reported by
other people in different cultures and different times but and it is a
critical but, these experiences of eternity, ancient being, vast space and
so on have all been dependent on the continuum of conscious of an apparent
living body.
The difference between near death and definitely rotting and cold death
experiences is qualitatively huge when observing phenomena and nobody has
reported back from the coffin. So the jury is out on that one for the
forseeable future.
Even books, apparent sacred books are merely perceived phenomena, there is
no inherent truth or consciousness in the words of apparent others. The only
truth is your consciousness of consciousness, all else is supposition and
grasping at straws in the void of conscious ignorance and mystery. These
words similarly have no being except as phenomena that your experience of
consciousness is at this moment dependent upon perceiving.
>
> and it is possible to experience what someone else is
> experiencing....sorry
No need to apologise, I want to know what you mean and so go ahead and
describe to me an experience which proves your point.
>
>
>
> >> or does the world go away when you loose conciousness,
> > As far as I am concerned the world only exists in my perception of it.
>
> that's your belief system at work, as supported by you
It is my direct personal experience, that is not a belief. There may or may
not be other consciousnesses other than my own but I only experience my own
continuum. I have experienced directly phenomena appearing to have no
existence other than through my direct and indirect perception and although
that state is no longer experienced that prior realisation is part of my
continuum and as when you learn that Santa Claus is unreal it is hard to
once again forget that you saw your dad dressed up as him.
My total disbelief in the existence of other continuums of consciousness
goes beyond an attitude of scepticism on the existence of other continuums
of consciousness as I do not discount apparent memories of past experience
of seeing all phenomena switch from a shared consciousness to a solitary
perception.
>
>
> >> if you can't find the root of the change/action in you
> >>
> >> it has to be outside
> > That is irrational because you are taking an assumptive belief of a
primal
> > beginning as a basis for the idea.
>
> it's empirical, you're the one working from _your_ model
Define what you mean by empirical in this context.
> >> additionally there are beings that take in information,
> >> but go around the normal sensorial input devices...
> > You have no direct experience of any other consciousness other than your
own
> > have you so why this added fantasy of other beings who can do fantastic
> > things that you also have had no experience of them doing.
>
> let me put it this way, you are trying to use your experience
> to explain mine...and not let anything else in
Yes in the interest of discussion I am pushing my experience so that you can
push yours.
> in the world of venn diagrams your experience would fit
> inside of mine but not the converse...that's just the way
> it is....
In my opinion that is just your opinion of yourself as a superior tougher
than normal type. I appreciate your arrogance.
That is a kind of stone blunts scissors, my view is more embracing than
yours kind of rivalry without reason.
>and until you open a little hole of "maybe"
> that's the way it will stay
I am not prepared to dumb down and try to forget what I have realised, a
continuum is just that and there would need to be some doubt about what I
had experienced for my view to regress back to a "maybe" position. My
position appears to be irrefutable and I will see what will be.
It is quite interesting as to wonder how my solipsistic perception will
change as it may well so do.
I will be asking a senior lama about this particular perception and how my
view can be utilised as part of the path because I have to work with what I
have got, not what I have lost or destroyed.
>
> _maybe_ is the most powerful tool of perception that
> you can have
>
> neither belief nor disbelief...
>
> learning to hover
You may be right but a continuum of consciousness has to hover with the
totality of its history however heavy that might be.
>
>
> it's like the wave particle thing....
>
> is light a wave or a particle...most don't have
> the rigor or focus of perception that they can attain the
> state where light is seen as neither...
>
>
> most human beings in general are not comfortable with
> things being different degrees of belonging to a set...
>
> fuzzy logic, fractals
>
> are all reality based
>
> nueral net training....weighting a path
>
>
> a nerve ending has 4,000-10,000 possible states
> I think...not yes or no
You forget all that intellectualisation when you are kicked in the balls,
that experience of sharp pain is not fuzzy but points directly to
consciousness.
>
>
> what are you dying from? If it's okay to ask
Cirrhosis of my liver because of chronic hepatitis c.
>
>
> Wm
>
>
> ps. I wrote this about 10 years ago:
Had a quick read but will not respond to that item here.
tiresias
looks like superficiality..
yup, its my opinion!
William Tucker
>> it was a wish for you
> Alright thanks for the sentiment, I thought you may have been of sarcastic
> intent.
Wm
and if it was a wish for you, what would that mean
William Tucker
----------
In article <1Lb29.3408$Eq4....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, "tiresias"
<m...@mine.net> wrote:
>
> "William Tucker"
>> Well you are more interesting than I thought.
> Well your opinion will probably change in that case.
>
>> >>
>> >> you know I made this same error, it's not easy
>> >> to see if you do have a lot of head energy...
>> >>
>> >> meaning if most of your interaction with
>> >> reality is cereberal,
>> > You are avoiding the issue with this feel-think issue.
>>
>> you are not understanding something outside of your abilities,
>>
>> at your current level of development
> Honestly now, it is impossible to realise and understand something outside
> of my direct perception, anything else beyond that is imputation and sloppy
> unreflective thinking.
direct perception, elimination of conditioned belief
reflection can not see what it does not reflect
henri bergson: the mind is a reducing valve that eliminates what it does not
deem useful...it's purpose is to reduce, create abstraction....abstraction
is by definition the deletion of information that is deemed "not important"
to the map
>> > I am writing about my
>> > perception and consciousness and that includes ideas, feelings,
> sensations.
>> > The background feeling for this state is one of almost unbearably
> intense
>> > and sharp, caustic, acidic pain, I would not wish it on myself or any
> other
>> > being if I still believed in that comforting fantasy.
>>
>> I'm not offering you fantasy....I don't have time for it
>>
>> I have felt/seen/thought things that would kill or driven mad most people,
>> it's not a problem
> I did not write about the feelings to enter into an "if you think you had it
> hard..." Pythonesque bravado, merely to correct an opinion that my
> perceptions were mere intellectualisations. So you think you are a tough
> guy, fair enough.
if I could I would like to see someone in as much pain as I have felt to see
what they look like out of simple curiousity....not to wish it on someone...
all I was saying is "you don't have to hold back"
the amount of projection that you're doing is a clue of something
>> >> my apologies for the gruffness
>> > I felt some emotional responses to your tone so don't worry it is all
>> > character-forming.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> a good way to test your self is to ask your self
>> >> if you think someone/thing could kill you
>> > Yes as I am living and dying with a chronic terminal illness the
> possibility
>> > of my death is never far from my awareness.
>>
>>
>> Cool, I've often thought of working in a hospice. You should check out
>> nde's.
> I will be cool enough in due course. I have had an nde or two
me too, mine was the result of meditation
, even the
> experience of the AUM is a personal perception. I will be checking out the
> non-near de soon enough.
excellent, then check out the bardo thodol by chogyam trungpa translated
I believe in the 80's aquamarine blue green, cover
>> and
>> if it's all your perceptions, what about your perceptions is killing you?
> I am perceiving an apparent body of mine which is changing, aging and
> declining in functional capacity.
>
well if it's only a perception then do the christian science thing
>> >I do not know what I will
>> > perceive or not perceive after death. I can and do hypothesise but that
> is
>> > all.
>>
>> not everyone is like that, you should look at the Bardo Thodol
>> and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the big one with pictures
> I first read the Bardo Thodol back in the early 1970s and have had
> out-of-body perceptions in my time which have apparently been reported by
> other people in different cultures and different times but and it is a
> critical but, these experiences of eternity, ancient being, vast space and
> so on have all been dependent on the continuum of conscious of an apparent
> living body.
>
> The difference between near death and definitely rotting and cold death
> experiences is qualitatively huge when observing phenomena and nobody has
> reported back from the coffin.
not everyone dies, though their body does...that is alluded to in the
mystery traditions of all cultures I suggest to you that it may be
true
> So the jury is out on that one for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Even books, apparent sacred books are merely perceived phenomena, there is
> no inherent truth or consciousness in the words of apparent others.
right, then quit reading and shut up
>The only
> truth is your consciousness of consciousness, all else is supposition and
> grasping at straws in the void of conscious ignorance and mystery.
dont try and graft your experience on top of mine...
there are people that are tone deaf too, but at least they have the
experience of hearing other people sing so that they don't run around
expecting that "singing" doesn't take place
it would be nice if you didn't try to force your experience off on me
as my reality....and have the simple good courtesy to say maybe your
experience is different than mine
certainly I've been where you are, and it is boring and lonely
> These
> words similarly have no being except as phenomena that your experience of
> consciousness is at this moment dependent upon perceiving.
>
>>
>> and it is possible to experience what someone else is
>> experiencing....sorry
> No need to apologise, I want to know what you mean and so go ahead and
> describe to me an experience which proves your point.
>
I'd rather show you
>> >> or does the world go away when you loose conciousness,
>> > As far as I am concerned the world only exists in my perception of it.
>>
>> that's your belief system at work, as supported by you
> It is my direct personal experience, that is not a belief.
bullshit....that's like saying that hearing a voice on the telephone is the
same thing as hearing the person standing in front of you....it's going
through something....and the telephone has a limiting factor that it
passes only in the 300-3,000 hz range I believe for economies sake
look, choose one or the other....you started this thread quite
distinctly about how beliefs constrained one.....
if your primary experience of the world is through a filter,
then there's not much one can do except
give you an experience which will go around or through the filter
remove the filter
get you to remove it.
> There may or may
> not be other consciousnesses other than my own but I only experience my own
> continuum. I have experienced directly phenomena appearing to have no
> existence other than through my direct and indirect perception and although
> that state is no longer experienced that prior realisation is part of my
> continuum and as when you learn that Santa Claus is unreal it is hard to
> once again forget that you saw your dad dressed up as him.
> My total disbelief in the existence of other continuums of consciousness
> goes beyond an attitude of scepticism on the existence of other continuums
> of consciousness as I do not discount apparent memories of past experience
> of seeing all phenomena switch from a shared consciousness to a solitary
> perception.
>
>>
>>
>> >> if you can't find the root of the change/action in you
>> >>
>> >> it has to be outside
>> > That is irrational because you are taking an assumptive belief of a
> primal
>> > beginning as a basis for the idea.
>>
>> it's empirical, you're the one working from _your_ model
> Define what you mean by empirical in this context.
look at the Venn diagram paragraph
think about how you're maneuvering here, and stop it
>> >> additionally there are beings that take in information,
>> >> but go around the normal sensorial input devices...
>> > You have no direct experience of any other consciousness other than your
> own
>> > have you so why this added fantasy of other beings who can do fantastic
>> > things that you also have had no experience of them doing.
>>
>> let me put it this way, you are trying to use your experience
>> to explain mine...and not let anything else in
> Yes in the interest of discussion I am pushing my experience so that you can
> push yours.
I'm not pushing something I'm offering something, which I will stap
offering, if you can't dialogue
>
>
>> in the world of venn diagrams your experience would fit
>> inside of mine but not the converse...that's just the way
>> it is....
> In my opinion that is just your opinion of yourself as a superior tougher
> than normal type. I appreciate your arrogance.
> That is a kind of stone blunts scissors, my view is more embracing than
> yours kind of rivalry without reason.
projection of yourself onto the situation is not direct perception
>
>
>>and until you open a little hole of "maybe"
>> that's the way it will stay
> I am not prepared to dumb down
you're not prepared to em bare ass your self
>and try to forget what I have realised,
concluded....if it is true it will still be true when you get back
> a
> continuum is just that and there would need to be some doubt about what I
> had experienced for my view to regress back to a "maybe" position. My
> position appears to be irrefutable and I will see what will be.
I've heard it said that you get what you expect...don't know
specifically
> It is quite interesting as to wonder how my solipsistic perception will
> change as it may well so do.
>
> I will be asking a senior lama about this particular perception and how my
> view can be utilised as part of the path because I have to work with what I
> have got, not what I have lost or destroyed.
as long as you're open
>>
>> _maybe_ is the most powerful tool of perception that
>> you can have
>>
>> neither belief nor disbelief...
>>
>> learning to hover
> You may be right but a continuum of consciousness has to hover with the
> totality of its history however heavy that might be.
you don't have to shore it up....take yourfucking hands off
put down your expectations
monitor to see if you are doing that, if not great
>>
>> it's like the wave particle thing....
>>
>> is light a wave or a particle...most don't have
>> the rigor or focus of perception that they can attain the
>> state where light is seen as neither...
>>
>>
>> most human beings in general are not comfortable with
>> things being different degrees of belonging to a set...
>>
>> fuzzy logic, fractals
>>
>> are all reality based
>>
>> nueral net training....weighting a path
>>
>>
>> a nerve ending has 4,000-10,000 possible states
>> I think...not yes or no
> You forget all that intellectualisation when you are kicked in the balls,
> that experience of sharp pain is not fuzzy but points directly to
> consciousness.
that's better...it's still a rich experience...somewhat overwhelming
there are three parts of the brain, I would imagine the reptile one
is the one getting kicked in the ball....not sure though
>> what are you dying from? If it's okay to ask
> Cirrhosis of my liver because of chronic hepatitis c.
...very uncomfortable...my sympathies
>> ps. I wrote this about 10 years ago:
> Had a quick read but will not respond to that item here.
did you understand it?
I've only had one comment on it in ten years
Tang Huyen
whatever way) oneself, and to help others, is also part and parcel of Buddhism,
but here Buddhism goes the other methods one better.
The other methods take a presence, of energies, of centres of concentration of
whatever kind (chakra-s in India, xue "holes" in China), and generally of a
network or system of existing relations (they are relations, but with substantial
connotations, as in relations of energy, where the energy is positive and
existent), all of which are lumped together as the self in Buddhism.
This self is taken in Buddhism as a mere production of mind in delusion, and as
non-existent in ultimate reality, when the mind quiesces itself and stops
producing a self to centre itself on.
To back up a little, in Buddhist training, one reorients one's thinking so as to
enlarge one's perspective and take into consideration larger schemes of things --
and the largest scheme of things is the Law (Dharma). One tries to loosen up the
usual selfish motives and intentions particular to one and apply the universal
patterns -- and the largest pattern of things is the Law (Dharma). In that way,
one loosens up the traps of the self, softens them up, drops them bit by bit, and
finally drops them and the self as a whole.
Thus there is the distinction between enlarging one's perspective and adjusting
it to the Law (Dharma) on the path, and dropping it totally to attain the
end-goal of awakening, whereupon one's acts are mere reactions to the situation,
solely myopic, purely ad hoc, strictly particular, with no universal to offer one
solace.
The Buddhist path has the vexing characteristic of teaching one to commit oneself
just enough to learn how to uncommit oneself to all structures and frameworks, to
extricate oneself from them all, including the Buddhist Law (Dharma), which is
supposed to be the highest and most universal of all universals.
The whole Law (Dharma) with all its complication comes downn to *two ideas*, to
me. (Notice that they are ideas, not realities).
I take Dependent Arisal to mean only the *idea* that the world knows how to run
itself without our interference, and runs itself best without our interference.
Dependent Arisal is used to counter artificialism, the idea that the world needs
mind to create it and keep it running in order (God's mind, the Brahmans' prayers
to Brahman to keep the world in order by mentation, etc.), just as deed (karman)
and its return is not really meant literally but only to suggest the *idea* that
we are responsible for ourselves, in bondage as in liberation, that the Buddha
can point out the path to us, but that we must walk it ourselves if we want to
attain to the end that the Buddha attains.
So the Law (Dharma) teaches us to free ourselves from all universals -- including
it as (presumably) the highest and most universal of all universals -- and
content ourselves with the mere particulars, so that our acts are mere reactions
to the situation, solely myopic, purely ad hoc, strictly particular, with no
universal to offer us solace.
That is what the Buddha means when he says that the consciousness of the freed
people is unestablished, unsupported -- it has no universal to moor itself to.
Now, Tuckie sweetie, to return to what you say, in Buddhism one aligns oneself
during training with the universal -- the highest universal possible, the Law
(Dharma) -- just so that one can shed all universals, including the Law itself.
In helping others, one looks at the others as wholes -- as Hegelian concrete
universals -- with their delusory self, and here is where Buddhism goes the other
methods one better: whilst the other methods stop at looking at others as wholes
and linking the helper and the helped to a higher and more comprehensive
universal -- you call it a universal sourse -- Buddhism does that, too, but
whilst the other methods do that in content, Buddhism does it in structure, and
the structure is the empty, impersonal Law, and whilst the other methods take
what they deal with (like energy) seriously and as present, as existent, as
ultimate, Buddhism goes further in seeing them, seeing through them, seeing past
them, to the ... absence of self in them.
The play of energy or whatever that is taken seriously in other methods (Daoism
goes right to the universe as a whole, such that what one does, like in the
shadow fight of Tai-ji-quan, can affect *the entire universe* in its turning) is
in Buddhism simply relativised, trivialised, derealised, unsubstantiated, and not
dwelt in, not rested in, not clung to.
This attitude is universal in Buddhism, in that it is applied across the board to
everything, Buddhism included. All happenings, all events, however lofty, are
unceremoniously treated with that attitude (inner events of presumable spiritual
accomplishment are most severely treated of all), and what the people who want
help take as their problems are treated in exactly that same manner.
That manner, then, can serve as the highest universal, as the backdrop of all
Buddhism, with regard to oneself as well as to others, especially as one wants to
help them. It is where Buddhism goes other methods one better, by jumping to a
higher and more abstract universal, at once more austere and more penetrating,
where there is no universal (like energy, the self, the universe) to take one's
footing on.
Tang Huyen
*********************************
William Tucker wrote: <<that kind of thing mostly, you have to be able to
seperate and heal your self at will, you also have
to learn to stay connected to universal source and stay
grounded...you can't use your personal energy with out
depleting yourself...
a healer always clears, grounds, and connects with the
universal source before sending energy/healing unless
you want to get depleted...>>
Tuckie in "Re: Thoughts on compassion", alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
2002-07-28:
<<then when in the presence of another and touching them with your
attention
and additionally being linked with the universal source
while touching another with your attention
creates a linking
some beings are always/usually touching this universal
source...in some ways this could be called being
without self...but it isn't
monitoring the self/(personal energy system) to retain the harmonic balance
while giving attention to the other, while maintaining
this equanamic/compassionate/lifted but uncolored state [snip]
most healing is done while being attached to the universal
source
what is "healed" is imbalance,
I was taught that there are no patients only students
and that each being owns their own healing/insight/process
other wise it fades when the master/healer/teacher
leaves...and so a healing never takes place
it is better that the one that leaves is
like the one that came and two teachers now walk
and buddha mind is everday mind
there are several different other kinds of healing as well
resonant
eating karmas
wheel of vishnu/chenrezig
dance of
shiva/ganesh/devi/padmasambhava/horseneckedone/garuda/cheppu/raven...
infinity linking
and so on
different than the more universal method described
above>>