XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   news:1kjv0che20513flk60fgjnsbjsmqfkss7n@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > "dagnabit" wrote:   
   >   
   > >"Tang Huyen"  wrote in message   
   > >news:9b75d85c-69cf-1613-05a8-63d4ffe042d2@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   
   > >   
   > >if you want to identify the fake "awakeneds", and   
   > >here in these groups they do seem to come and go   
   > >on a regular basis,  you can read the words of   
   > >christ, krishna, buddha, ramana maharshi, and   
   > >nisargadatta maharaj and put aside their words   
   > >and look for the commonality in the phrasing and   
   > >expression, because they all have a similar way in   
   > >attempting to put their state into words.   
   >   
   > The speech of any regular grouping of people or professions, such as   
   > doctors, lawyers, politicians and priests, acquires what's called a   
   > 'register'. This is not only the technical terms used but the manner   
   > of their use, the kinds of phrases, tones of voice, and so on.   
   >   
   > An intelligent, well-read and observant person can fairly easily   
   > identify and imitate a given speech register. Often people fall into   
   > it quite unconsciously, like taking on the accent of someone from   
   > another part of the country. Zen registers, Buddhist registers,   
   > Advaita registers. All adoptable.   
   >   
   > What I look for is something completely new. Something I've *not*   
   > heard before and that speaks directly from Now. Very rare.   
      
   you may be able to imitate a register, but what I'm   
   comparing is sort of like their verbal presence, if   
   you will. it's like when I go to see a boogie woogie   
   piano player and he can play all of the same notes   
   as professor longhair or dr. john but there is something   
   lacking in his playing that dr. john and professor   
   longhair can play that others can't. it's the same   
   with people I read in here that try to imitate the   
   clarity and acumen of an awakened one.  it's just   
   not coming across the same.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)