XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 9/14/2016 7:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> Black dialects are not so important as depicting black attitudes. Oh,
>> dear, is there such a thing? In any case, if you can't render
>> authentically, don't try. That is a pretty good rule, I think. Which
>> is why they tell fledgling authors to write about what they know.
>
> I often say that mental culture is not so much about
> technique, however fancy, as about attitude. In our daily
> life knowledge is required, in the sense of know-how. We
> often get what we want (like money, food and esteem)
> by knowing how to do something, both in the senses of
> knowing a craft (technical know-how) and knowing how
> to massage others' ego (social know-how). We
> automatically extend the usefulness of knowledge to all
> domains.
>
> This is where the above extension of knowledge fails. It
> is true that in the regimen of survival, know-how helps
> us survive, by hook or crook. But in the regimen of
> grace, know-how doesn't do anything.
I think it does a great deal. It's another realm, like plumbing, or
wiring, or cutting wood. What you know within the realm of "mental
culture" is the point of a whole bunch of stuff. Unless you have know-how,
you're just flapping your gums.
> We must know
> how to deal with ourselves to attain to liberation, but
> this kind of expertise has almost nothing to do with
> know-how in the everyday sense.
You've let the cat out of the bag; if you knew, you'd know that know-how is
the same, whether it manifests in the workshop, or in the higher realm
where "mental culture" is supposed to be worth carrying around, or anywhere
else.
> In the regimen of
> grace, what is required is more of a feel for being than a
> know-how in terms of doing something to get something
> else.
It is when that know-how becomes a feel-for-being that you know how.
> We must leave details behind (which are required
> in the regimen of survival)
Most of those details aren't really required if you have know-how.
The details arise as they are required.
We deal with them, or not.
> and rise to a higher
> perspective (gasp! an higher consciousness!), where we
> take in the bigger picture and feel our way toward peace
> and contentment. The less we identify with whatever we
> deal with in our daily life, the more apt we are to float
> toward peace and contentment. It comes down to an
> attitude, rather than to any know-how.
How can I show you that they are the same thing viewed in a different
light? The attitude *is* the know-how, and the know-how *is* the attitude.
Unless of course one just wants to stand on the street corner with the
Jesus people and yell at passing cars. Taste varies.
> This is what
> should be taught in mental culture, but most people are
> in mental culture merely to learn technique.
>
> Mental culture helps us develop an attitude of allowing
> for what happens to happen without the imposition of
> ourselves on it, and our imposition consists in language
> and thought, in chunking and bagging. The Old One
> (Lao-zi) teaches us to drop knowledge and learning,
> and he means knowledge and learning by way of
> chunking and bagging. By mental culture, we gently
> cease our attachment to details and rise to the whole.
> It is not that we ignore the details or block them out,
> but that we take in the whole without distinction of the
> details, without discernment to the details, in
> detachment and equability (with regard to the details).
Do you have to confuse the issue? At awakening we see what is there. Most
people run away and keep a small memory of the "kensho" so they at least
won a booby-price, but most will never abide there.
>
> This is why I am always surprised by grooved-in
> practitioners of mental culture who, after studying and
> practicing under (presumably) reputable teachers
> from exotic lands for thirty, forty years or more, still
> blow up all over the place when confronted by mere
> words on the screen, which moreover may not be
> directed at them, at least not by name. Why don't they
> just go to parks and fly kites?
It doesn't matter if a "teacher" blows up or not, blowing up may be
something the teacher permits for specific reasons. What matters is if the
teacher can teach you anything. Most can't, anything at all, other than
some exercises that don't work. Why? Because they're frilly-foo-foo
lotus-eaters who really want to believe they're "enlightened" because
that's where their desires lead them. Because you're not ready for what
they can teach. Because you're not ready for what anybody can teach.
Lots of reasons are possible, but very damned few "enlightened" folks seem
to be walking the streets, mostly when I look at the news I see about
people shooting each other or playing political games. So if all these
so-called "teachers" are such hot shit, where are the results? Figure it
out.
>
> To return to your post, if one can't render mindfulness,
> don't try mental culture. That is a pretty good rule, I
> think. And if one can fake mindfulness, one has
> mindfulness. The attitude counts. Technique doesn't
> help if one cannot muster the attitude. But if one has
> the attitude, technique doesn't count.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Nice doily, Tang; you ever tat-up anything that'll keep you warm in the
winter?
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
