XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Tang Huyen  wrote:   
   > On 9/7/2016 11:12 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:   
   >   
   >> I think this is definitely playing with mud, but there are,   
   >> in Buddhist scripture, supposedly 14 unanswerable   
   >> questions that the Buddha identified.  (Which, imo, are   
   >> really only four questions.)  They are:   
   >>   
   >> ---   
   >> Fourteen unanswerable questions  (10 in Pali)   
   >>   
   >> Is the world eternal?   
   >> or not?   
   >> or both?   
   >> or neither?   
   >> Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".   
   >>   
   >> Is the world finite?   
   >> or not?   
   >> or both?   
   >> or neither?   
   >> Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".   
   >>   
   >> Is the self identical with the body?   
   >> or is it different from the body?   
   >>   
   >> Does the Tathagata exist after death?   
   >> or not?   
   >> or both?   
   >> or neither?   
   >> ---   
   >>   
   >> Leaving aside the permutations of assertion and denial,   
   >> I think this boils down to four questions:   
   >>   
   >> Is the world eternal?   
   >> Is the world finite?   
   >> Is the self the same as the body?   
   >> Does a Buddha exist after death?   
   >>   
   >> Not that it's important, but I'd go with no, yes, yes, no;   
   >> but what the hell do I know?   
   >   
   > "Thus seeing it as it is with correct wisdom, the   
   > views about the prior limit do not become, the   
   > views about the prior limit not being, the views   
   > about the posterior limit do not become, the   
   > views about the posterior limit not being,   
   > obstinate misconstruing does not become,   
   > obstinate misconstruing not being, his mind   
   > turns away from form, feeling, notion, volitional   
   > compositions, consciousness, and is liberated   
   > from the cankers by not grasping." SN, III, 45-46   
   > (22, 46).   
   >   
   > "The saintly disciple who well cognises this   
   > dependent arising and these dependently   
   > arisen things as they are by correct wisdom,   
   > does not pursue the prior limit saying, 'What   
   > was I in the past? Or, did I not exist in the past?   
   > Who was I in the past? How was I in the past?'   
   > He does not pursue the posterior limit saying,   
   > 'What shall I be in the future? Or, shall I not   
   > exist in the future? Who shall I be in the future?   
   > How shall I be in the future?' He will not doubt   
   > internally, 'What is this? How is this? Who are   
   > we? Who shall we be? From where does this   
   > being come? Where will it go after dying from   
   > here?' Whatever common worldly views which   
   > recluses and brahmans attach to, to wit, views   
   > (drsti-gatani) tied to theory of self (atma-vada),   
   > views tied to theory of being (sattva-vada),   
   > views tied to theory of living being (jiva-vada),   
   > views tied to theory of rites and rituals to bring   
   > good luck (kotuhala-mangala-vada) — all these   
   > views are at this time cut, understood, cut   
   > down at the root, made like the stump of a   
   > palm tree, made something which has ceased   
   > to be, never to grow again in the future." SA,   
   > 296, 84b-c, Nidana-samyukta, 150-152, MN, I,   
   > 264-265 (38).   
   >   
   > These views about the prior limit (the past),   
   > the posterior limit (the future), and all other   
   > existential questions are mere playing with   
   > mud, are done away with at awakening, and   
   > are no longer entertained.   
      
   Interesting thought, why do you think it is true?  Careful how you answer   
   this one, it might contain a ninja-star, like how the supposedly-awakened   
   can speak of such things without thinking of them.   
      
   > In Daoism the   
   > issue is phrased differently, but it comes   
   > down to the same abandon of all views and   
   > opinions, leaving only peace and tranquillity,   
   > grace.   
   >   
   > Praise be!   
   >   
   > Tang Huyen   
   >   
      
   Views remain, opinions remain, obligations remain; but although they   
   remain, they are forgotten in the midst of  what is now and what is next,   
   arising only as the moment of action arrives.   
      
   When I set an alarm to ring at the time of my next obligation, my wife   
   calls it planning, but I call it becoming free by merit of having fully   
   performed due-diligence; if the alarm doesn't ring, oh well, these random   
   flukes happen, it's how the modern world is.  And until it does ring, oh   
   well, there's nothing on, shall we do what's next?   
      
   >> Is the world eternal?   
      
   Eternal enough.   
      
   >> Is the world finite?   
      
   Until it changes next, it is finite though uncountably large; at the point   
   of change, when what was and what is swap spit, one of a   
   theoretically-countably-infinite number of universes, the one it all   
   changes to, becomes finite once more.   
      
   >> Is the self the same as the body?   
      
   Only in the perfect being; the rest of the time the body is a footprint   
   left by the individual.   
      
   >> Does a Buddha exist after death?   
      
   Who cares, you planning to die if everything looks like upside?  Darwin   
   Award.    
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)