XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: niunian@ymail.com
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:18:21 -0400, "Evelyn"
wrote:
>
>"niunian" wrote in message
>news:889m661jgq8bvokeujm71uaa1mlm2m2vng@4ax.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?
>
>
>He's not being stupid, you are because you don't understand the point of
>their discussion.
I curse the point of their discussion. It is a stupid point.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
