XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:12:12 -0400, "Evelyn"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"niunian"  wrote in message   
   >news:10cm66hrljc29g2ukm81s3eiv44hahht8b@4ax.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.   
   >   
   >You don't need to pretend here, and you don't need to put others down.  Just   
   >skip what you don't understand without all the criticism.    Give yourself   
   >time to figure it out.   
      
   It would be better if you practice your own advice to skip what you   
   have no clue which is what I'm doing overall in general.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)