XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
   > Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> "djinn"   
   >   
   >>> ask a priest what one does all day in heaven   
   >>> and they don't know.   
      
   If you ask a straw-priest, that's what they all say.   
      
   If you ask a real priest, he, or she, may say something else.   
   They might, for example, visit Mary, and Thomas.   
   And pay a visit to their great grand-parents.   
   All things would be possible for them.   
   More or less. There is that gulf   
   even Lazarus couldn't get   
   across to the living.   
      
   >>> they do however seem   
   >>> to think that they know what takes place in   
   >>> hell all day long. so any state, even serenity,   
   >>> may pale in the long run.   
      
   In the long run of a river to an ocean a notion goes   
   how all drops are reabsorbed in the sea, if one can see.   
      
   Without eyes to notice how far One is,   
   one might blink, and miss the point.   
      
   >>> this may be why what is called the absolute is   
   >>> said to be a state of non-knowing. deep states   
   >>> of samadhi and samyama are said to be similar.   
      
   Being fully absorbed, highly evolved and totally involved,   
   one has nothing to say, absolutely. Cuz that's how One is.   
      
   >>> no state which is said to be knowable can stand   
   >>> the test of time.   
      
   Eternity, now and forever.   
   How one knows now is how now is known.   
      
   >>> even our sleep state dissolves   
   >>> into a state of non-knowing when one has been   
   >>> asleep for a while. it's actually consciousness   
   >>> itself, and the existence it perceives, that we   
   >>> *absolutely* can't stand.   
   >   
   >> That is the problem that religions attempt to resolve.  For a few   
   >> people, they all seem to work.  There is something the rest of us   
   >> don't understand, I suspect.   
   >   
   >Not to go as far as what djinn says, but for   
   >many people, they are the bane of their   
   >own lives. They can't abide themselves.   
   >   
   >To borrow from djinn of some years ago:   
   >   
   ><be no less or nothing else since what   
   >you are from source cannot be changed   
   >or swayed by the pervasive yet flimsy   
   >illusion of what you are not, and i   
   >assume from your question that you   
   >never absorbed my previous answer   
   >otherwise this question of yours would   
   >never have surfaced.   
   >you already are peace and nothing else   
   >but you have temporarily identified with   
   >that which is not peace and abide there.   
   >in order to relinquish identification with   
   >that which is not peace your abidance   
   >negotiation must want peace more than   
   >it wants that which is not peace. you   
   >are not 'at' peace because you don't   
   >really want to be.>>   
   >   
   ><and yet when one finally changes all of   
   >one's desires for the one desire for   
   >freedom, peace is the mainstay by   
   >which freedom can be recognized and   
   >kept.>>   
   >   
   >Tang Huyen   
      
   When one gives up looking for peace   
   one might find one is at peace.   
      
   It's a good trick, when it works.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)