XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 6:42 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> One simply knows one's own thoughts, hears them, sees them.
>> One's mind is as a clear pool or mirror, not a cesspool.
>>
>> A mirror-mind, without a mark, is markless.
>> It is able to see clearly what is reflected in it
>> by other minds, so-called.
>>
>> When called to speak, the mirror speaks.
>
> This possibility/reality is why I don't agree with
> Secular Buddhism, which is aggressively rationalistic
> and brutally physicalist. Mind is not fully reducible to
> matter, though a temptation of people who have
> gained supernatural powers is to use mind to beat up
> on matter, more specifically to inflate their ego to the
> size of the universe, and not even supernatural
> powers, but mere kundalini (which is automatically
> developed in mental culture, however impure) can
> make one's head too big to walk into doors, as
> happened often on TRB of yore. As Jen says, part of
> good mental culture is to ignore the supernatural
> powers if they grow, and not to get attached to them
> and linger over them, which would be deadly, as
> supernatural powers then become masters instead of
> tools.
If you're awake you're awake. I don't know much about siddhis without some
form of awakening. What my experience has been is that the moment you get
all, "look at what *I* did!", you've just asked for a big slap upside the
head. If you recognize a subtle rebuke in your mind and shut down the
egoic crap, things go along. I would not expect that if someone is the
kind of person who ignores such a rebuke to its face that things would
remain such that siddhis persisted. Siddhis are not done by the individual
through some power the individual has accumulated, they are not-done by the
individual and done by the world because it is necessary. It's a fine
line, and easy to think that what one's egoic self demands is what is
necessary.
> It all harks back to detachment and equability,
> two virtues rarely seen on TRB of yore. To reproduce
> what Jen said once more:
>
> < gained through meditation but if one does reach this
> stage, which includes reading minds, by comparison
> to one's previous level of control addiction satisfaction
> it takes a great deal of self discipline to ignore them. i
> have experienced at times the notion that i broadcast
> my thoughts and certain people can pick this up and
> react thusly. at work, if i see that someone is forgetting
> to do a part of their job, i will send a mental message
> to them by focusing on a specific area of their
> forehead and many times they will do what they've
> forgotten.>>
>
> Buddhist scriptures talk often of a clear mind, a mirror
> mind, and it seems to physicalists total nonsense. I
> have never been near there, but can extrapolate from
> my (very limited) experience that it is not to be
> gainsaid.
Folks soak up whatever they're in, just like they were one big cell, a
sponge-like thing that absorbs what is absent, and exudes what is excess.
That includes thoughts, as far as I can tell.
> There is much exaggeration and hyperbole in
> Buddhist scriptures, but when one knows how to
> discard the hype, there is much that is true, albeit
> (intentionally) mixed with falsity to protect the
> innocent.
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe there's some category of innocent-folks
who would go looking for siddhis, but the fact that they're power-seeking
pretty much eliminates them from the "innocent" category imo.
I think the mix of falsity is there because of stupidity rather than
conspiracy, second-hand information has lost something, third-hand has lost
more, etc. Not only that, the whole "power" thing is set up with
self-protecting interlocks that prevent the truly innocent from harming
themselves by giving them unrestricted access to power, while frustrating
the desirous by turning the inherent wastage of desire back upon them.
> There is much direct, true-to-fact (one would
> be tempted to say: down-to-earth, like eating breakfast)
> description in Buddhist scriptures, like in modern
> journalistic reporting of the competent kind, but it
> takes some sensitivity to separate fact from fiction,
> specially here as fact sounds like fiction.
>
> < degree? i thought that those who were exchanging on
> these boards had at least a modicum of spiritual
> acumen.>> Jen/fritz, 13 Aug 2006.
>
> As Jen says, spiritual discourse often does not spell
> everything out to the nth degree, but merely insinuates,
> suggests, in an evasive and evocative manner.
Incompetence rather than conspiracy, the subject matter is hell's own
bastard to express in English.
> Even
> then, it can often also be plain-Jane factual, even
> in-your-face (on-your-nose) factual, thumbing reality at
> its audience, even across yuge space and time, culture,
> language, religion, etc. When reading the DDJ or ZZ, or
> Buddhist scriptures, I am astonished as to their
> Socialist Realism.
Would you care to define "Socialist Realism"?
> But it takes some sensitivity to tune
> into it. Spiritual discourse has a way of disguising itself
> to protect the innocent, even as it delivers its message
> on a platter, ready for immediate consumption, boom,
> just like that, without further ado. No frills, just the fact,
> Ma'am.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
