XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Ummmmmmm wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 11:24 PM, noname wrote:
>> Ummmmmmm wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2016 4:22 PM, liaM wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2016 5:14 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>>>>> On 9/9/2016 4:58 PM, Ummmmmmm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummie dear, How could you possibly know that
>>>>> it is impossible to abandon all views? How could
>>>>> you possibly know that "Our minds insist on us
>>>>> having a view or opinion about *everything* we
>>>>> encounter"? Have you perchance read all minds,
>>>>> past, present and future, anywhere on earth,
>>>>> including minds of dead people and unborn
>>>>> people?
>>>>>
>>>>> I freely admit that I have been nowhere near
>>>>> abandoning all views, meaning intellective views.
>>>>> But I read that some sages say so, ostensibly
>>>>> from their own experience. So to me it is mere
>>>>> hearsay. And I freely admit that I do not live up
>>>>> to norms and standards that I proclaim. I refrain
>>>>> from abusively universalising my views to all
>>>>> humans, though I trust those sages who
>>>>> declaim their (presumed) experience, namely
>>>>> that they can and do abandon all views. It is to
>>>>> me a noble ideal that I may or may not attain in
>>>>> this life. And if I cannot attain it, I can yet relax
>>>>> and be serene, about it and everything else, at
>>>>> least to some extent and once in a while, even
>>>>> as I know that I often fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can enjoy certainty all you want. I am sadly
>>>>> not equipped for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buddhist enlightenment must mean enlightenment with regards to
>>>> as many views as one is capable of while not
>>>> holding fast to any one view in particular. Why is it said
>>>> that a Buddha can remember all past lives he has lived ? And
>>>> is it anywhere said that he preferred one over another of his past lives ?
>>>>
>>>> People holding on to opinions, wishes and prescriptions - saying
>>>> this is so and cannot be otherwise, are soon left behind as
>>>> life passes them by. Peace and quietude are fine as goals of
>>>> spiritual development, but what are they without
>>>> the knowledge of what not having peace and quietude signifies?
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> Thus imo the sage is one who has lived many lives, seen much,
>>>> done much, loved much - died a thousand deaths, much :)
>>>> He is the holder of many views on life, in full awareness
>>>> of what each has cost him, thus has he earned his equanimity
>>>> with regards to all views.
>>>
>>> To hold an opinion, or a definition, of what a sage might be, is perhaps
>>> a good thing. It may or may not be right - you won't know for sure until
>>> you are sage yourself.
>>>
>>> No-one knows for sure whether we have lived past lives, or whether we'll
>>> live again later. That too is a matter of opinion.
>>> But what we do know for sure is that we're alive now. A wise person acts
>>> as if this is the only life he'll ever have.
>>>
>>> If enlightenment is possible in any one of a thousand lifetimes, then it
>>> must be possible in this one.
>>>
>>> There is only one 'view of life' that really matters -
>>
>> It is not the color or tint of the spectacles through which you view
>> reality that matters, it is whether what you see through it is true or
>> false. Looking through a viewpoint tinted blue, or tinted atheist, or
>> tinted fundy-Christian, it doesn't mater a bit what shape or color the
>> world you see has. What matters is what the world you see does, and what
>> significance you perceive in that. When multiple people who have different
>> viewpoints see the same thing, the same reality, behaving in the same way,
>> they are seeing the same thing, through different sets of spectacles, each
>> adjusted to the eyes of the viewer who wears them. In other words there is
>> no one true shape or color for spectacles, but there is just one reality,
>> that can be seen truly through many kinds of viewer. Or more often, seen
>> falsely through delusion rooted in desire, or misunderstanding rooted in
>> the naive ignorance of childhood. And even if one finds the magical
>> microscope focus point, attempting to compare notes with others is
>> difficult, because they may be hearing what you see, or smelling something
>> entirely different from what others hear.
>>
>>> the true one, the
>>> one that's in sync with our essential human nature. The one that makes
>>> it possible for anyone to be a sage, if they really want to be.
>>
>> Really wanting something doesn't make it happen.
>
> Really, really, wanting something - and knowing that it's possible -
> means you don't give up until you've found it.
> If we have only one life - surely we have to aim for the highest?
> Otherwise we let ourselves down.
>>
You can plan your life and attempt to live the plan. No matter what it is,
maybe you plan a hiking trip to the moon. Living a plan requires the
cooperation of events. Events are not always cooperative with one's plans.
You can't make things happen. You can decline to move in a direction that
makes your desires impossible. If your desires are not what you think they
are, you might learn something from the trip.
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
