XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:38:08 -0700, {:-]))) wrote:   
      
   > niunian wrote:   
   >> Tang Huyen wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Your translation is not "word for word", as the hou (simplified ?,   
   >>> traditional ?) means late, behind, posterior, as opposed to qian ?,   
   >>> which means ahead, prior, in advance. See   
   >>   
   >>Here in this context, it's about the thought in the mind. The thought in   
   >>the mind either comes from the front of the mind which is the world, or   
   >>comes from the back of the mind which is within oneself.   
   >   
   > Sometimes there are what are called figures of speech. Idioms. Sayings.   
   >   
   > These need not be taken literally.   
   > They might actually be metaphors.   
      
   I doubt that. The Sixth Patriarch speaks with assurance and certainty.   
   And the issue is an important one for Buddhist practice. I don't think it   
   has anything to do with metaphor.   
      
   >   
   >>>  ... Your "front" and "back" of the mind is a   
   >>> farfetched interpretation, which has nothing to do with the Chinese   
   >>> text.   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>> The prior thought/mind is attached to objects (the six sense-fields,   
   >>> including objects-of-mind) and is afflicted, the posterior   
   >>> thought/mind is detached from objects and is bodhi.   
   >>   
   >>This interpretation does not make sense. Time can not change a thought   
   >>from attached to detached.   
   >   
   > Time cures all ills.   
   >   
   > Such a saying carries meaning for those whom time is akin to water   
   > soothing what ails one.   
      
   That could be true, but there is no healing or renewing in time. The   
   memory may fade over time, but the wound is always there. To become   
   detached, one requires actual recovery to be strong enough to face what   
   one could not face before. Time does not provide such recovery.   
      
   >   
   >> A thought of the world is always attached to   
   >>the world regardless what time of the day, month, or year you think   
   >>about it. There is no magical force to make a second thought of the same   
   >>thing automatically detached. A misery is always a misery regardless how   
   >>many times you think about it.   
   >   
   > To have a second thought can mean, to reflect.   
   >   
   > In the back of one's mind, or head,   
   > buried, can be a form of knowing.   
   >   
   > At first glance, this appears to be true.   
   >   
   > Taking another look, it could actually appear to appear on a brain scan.   
      
   To reflect is definitely a good practice, but it also means to reflect   
   based on something else. If we have nothing to be based on, there is no   
   real reflection. It's just simple repetition which will not help anything.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>> The difference is in the attachment (zhuo ?) or detachment (li ?),   
   >>> and the object of this attachment/detachment is jing ? circumstance,   
   >>> realm, condition, in Buddhist lingo all that the mind experiences,   
   >>> all objects in the loose sense (the six sense-fields, including   
   >>> objects-of-mind).   
   >>   
   >>You understand the Buddhist question, but you offered no sensible   
   >>solution for this Buddhist question of attachment. The Sixth Patriarch   
   >>did answer the question in the above, but you didn't get it by   
   >>misinterpreting his words.   
   >   
   > Figures of speech skate on thin ice.   
   >   
   > Such a saying is true yet is not always true.   
   >   
   > Some ice is thicker than utters.   
      
   Yes. I think this is an important issue which has been overlooked by a   
   lot of Buddhists both in China and in the west.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)