XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/25/2016 6:49 AM, Kitty P wrote:   
      
   > Heck - it's why it's called practice. I've never said my practice is   
   > stable. I'm the first to see my issues and I don't mind them pointed out   
   > and I thank you - because you're personally da bomb on that topic heh   
   >   
   > The one thing I do notice,  and here is my catnip to trump your yarn, is   
   > that I notice quite a few people talk a lot about the intricacies of   
   > Buddhism - yet never seem to actually take in the information to attempt   
   > to live that practice.   
      
   Talking and walking the talk are two different things,   
   which can be decoupled altogether, and on these boards,   
   there are various ways of telling. Overall, is the talker   
   calm and composed, even with producing and reacting   
   to mere words on the screen? Is the talker boiling in   
   continual rage like Trump? That basic level of   
   consideration is good enough to smoke out most fakers.   
   As I often say, mindfulness is hard, and demands so much   
   that if one can fake it, one has it. Of course here on these   
   boards we are all protected by asynchronicity, so that one   
   can type up any, er, intempestive post, and delete it, and   
   no one else will be wiser, but one's overall tone still bleeds   
   through anyway, willy nilly. Therefore one's absence of   
   mindfulness is very hard to hide, regardless of   
   externalities, the protection of asynchronicity   
   notwithstanding.   
      
   When posters are calm and composed, most of the time,   
   they still betray their state of mind anyway by their realism   
   and literalism. That part is almost impossible to dissemble.   
   Just throw some word plays and they'll inevitably fall for   
   realism and literalism. I believe that most of the public   
   cases in Chan are merely tests for just realism and   
   literalism. Even people who have all the meditative   
   technique and practice down pat after years and decades   
   of intensive study and practice, including the so-called   
   masters, still easily trip up on realism and literalism. It is   
   like a helmet that they wear on their head, and have no   
   idea that it is there.   
      
   In old movies up to half a century ago, there were scenes   
   of fierce dogs about to attack people, where the intended   
   victims threw an hankerchief imbued with aether to them,   
   and they sniffed it and fell unconscious. Their enemies   
   throw them a trap, and they jump right into it head first. It   
   is like catnip to trump their yarn, and just a few words   
   and/or a small gesture will do.  In that light, I see most   
   public cases as simple instances of such testing on just   
   realism and literalism.   
      
   When Channists (or other pratitioners) penetrate their   
   mind, to me they at a minimum penetrate realism and   
   literalism, in addition to much of the murk churning in their   
   mind, which often consists in defence mechanisms, and   
   they make their mind relatively transparent to them, so far   
   as humanly possible, regardless of technique, but if they   
   fail at it, no technique will help.   
      
   Just my opinion, nothing more. Perhaps Jen will kindly say   
   something to elucidate the matter.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)