86004d2e   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: oxtail@nowhere.org   
      
   Jigme Dorje wrote:   
      
   > On Aug 17, 7:26 pm, oxtail  wrote:   
   >> Jigme Dorje wrote:   
   >> > On Aug 17, 1:52 pm, oxtail  wrote:   
   >> >> Hollywood Lee wrote:   
   >> >> > On 8/17/2010 7:05 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Aug 17, 8:43 am, Hollywood Lee  wrote:   
   >> >> >>> On 8/17/2010 6:25 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >>>> I was joking about Cat, of course. But there are also questions   
   >> >> >>>> that the mind poses about formlessness that, obviously, cannot   
   >> >> >>>> be answered by the mind that poses them.  This is why people   
   >> >> >>>> who live in the mind are continuously frustrated and,   
   >> >> >>>> conversely, always surefire certain about some position or   
   >> >> >>>> other.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>> Are you certain about that position?  And is it really certain   
   >> >> >>> and obvious that questions about formlessness cannot be answered   
   >> >> >>> by the mind that poses them?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> The function of mind is to seek knowledge, which is, essentially   
   >> >> >> putting a label on things and accumulating them, ie. objectifying   
   >> >> >> them.   
   >> >> >>  But when you scratch the surface of the concept that the mind   
   >> >> >>  has   
   >> >> >> given form to, it is no more than a nebulous idea, a mere thought   
   >> >> >> form, and there is no real experience of that to which it points.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Or so you think.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> A question like "what is formlessness" simply points to something   
   >> >> >> beyond the mind's comprehension. The mind giving it a definition   
   >> >> >> is short circuiting the process of following what points beyond   
   >> >> >> mind.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Again with the concepts and ideas.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>> It seems to me that these claims simply draw a veil of mystery   
   >> >> >>> over these ideas, elevating them up as some venerated concepts   
   >> >> >>> instead of just letting them go or helping dissolve them along   
   >> >> >>> with all our other mental fashionings.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Ah, but the intent is just the opposite. As long as the mind can   
   >> >> >> get a hold of something, it can hoplessly muddle it up, creating   
   >> >> >> concepts of it and further confusion. As you say, letting go   
   >> >> >> helps them dissolve as mental fashionings do. Where do ideas   
   >> >> >> originate? And where do they go? They either are allowed to   
   >> >> >> dissipate like a fragment of a cloud, or you can gather them up   
   >> >> >> into a larger cloud that creates havoc.   
   >>   
   >> >> > I don't mean this in a debating/critical way as if I'm going to   
   >> >> > convince you of this.  It's just my observation of how talk of   
   >> >> > what you admit you can't talk about sounds like to me.  It seems   
   >> >> > that the sentence about how we can't talk about something is   
   >> >> > always followed by pages of looptyloop word salads.   
   >>   
   >> >> I don't know much   
   >> >> but I know I don't know.   
   >>   
   >> > I don't know more than you don't...   
   >>   
   >> Good for you.   
   >> I don't know even more   
   >> than I think I don't know.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Oh yeah...   
   > I don't think, therefore I am not.   
      
      
   I don't know who I am   
   when I have no thought.   
      
   --   
   Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)