123d05ab   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Jigme Dorje   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Aug 17, 2:36?pm, niunian  wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:05:14 -0700 (PDT), 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.   
   >>   
   >> >> --   
   >> >> Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >I don't know more than you don't...   
   >>   
   >> Why is that a good thing?   
   >   
   >I don't know.   
      
   Do you know you are being stupid?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)