XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: tony.kingsbury@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/09/2016 5:03 AM, 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,   
      
   So why, dear Tang, do you spend so much time playing with mud?   
   Latin mud, Chinese mud, German mud, French mud, Japanese mud.   
   What's the point? Is your mud muddier than our mud? Don't we spread ours   
   around thickly enough?   
      
   are done away with at awakening, and   
   > are no longer entertained. 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.   
      
   So how would it be if you abandoned the view that 'enlightenment will   
   result if you abandon all views'?   
      
   Which isn't possible, of course. Our minds insist on us having a view or   
   opinion about *everything* we encounter.   
      
   Maybe that's the whole point. If we relegate 'awakening' to the realm of   
   'can't possibly happen' - then we set ourselves free to speculate about   
   it to our heart's content. And free to simulate that condition in any   
   way that takes our fancy.   
      
   For you, that simulation seems to take the form of serene   
   imperturbality. An absence.   
      
   If this were the case, a catatonic would be ultimately enlightened, and   
   a sufferer from advanced Alzheimer's would pass as a zen master.   
      
   I suggest, respectfully, another possibility - that 'awakening' might be   
   what the word implies. A presence. In fact a super-presence. A presence   
   in the present. Not an absence in the stuffy old world of ancient   
   mis-translated concepts, but a living presence. Here. Now.   
      
   As someone on this forum very wisely said a while back, the present   
   moment is a gift, that's why it's called 'the present'.   
      
   Why should we worry about a package Marcus Aurelius forgot to unwrap   
   2000 years ago? It has turned to mud.   
      
   >   
   > Praise be!   
   >   
   > Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)