XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5kso$ki4$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   > dagnabit  wrote:   
   > > "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5a2h$sov$1@dont-email.me...   
   > >>> I doubt that this could be explained effectively to anyone   
   > >>> reading this who thinks of themselves as a person or as   
   > >>> an individual.   
   > >>   
   > >> Ah, a cop-out from the start!  See, that's our job.  Or at least my job   
   > >> at   
   > >> the moment.  To explain it effectively to anyone reading this.  No   
   > >> matter   
   > >> what they think of themselves as.  Because if I do it right, just once,   
   > >> it'll spread.  And if I don't, nothing much is lost, a little time, and   
   > >> what value has that?   
   > >   
   > > the extent to which the seeming individual consciousness   
   > > can grasp its delusion can oftentimes be just a temporary   
   > > sidebar anyway. even with a glimpse of what is beyond,   
   > > the individual can fade back into dreariness fairly easily.   
   >   
   > Or the individual can wake up.   
      
   and there's the rub. the individual does not become   
   a so-called enlightened individual. the more one   
   expands the horizon of one's awareness, and I use   
   the idea "one" quite loosely, the more it may become   
   apparent that in order to expand that horizon, the "one"   
   will effectively and exponentially shrink in significance   
   and realism.   
      
   > >>> the only reason you think there is a "Tang" person is because   
   > >>> of a lack of clarity.   
   > >>   
   > >> Aw, c'mon, give us a break here, don't start out by telling us we're   
   > >> morons, wait 'til the end to do that!  The ones of us who are, we know   
   > >> it   
   > >> already; the ones who don't, will figure it out or not.  No sense   
   > >> antagonizing the reader unless s/he's a moron, which we all are.  So to   
   > >> speak, imo, nobody knows nuffink, etc.   
   > >   
   > > nisargadatta maharaj likened individuals to the mushrooms   
   > > that grow from a cowpie. a handy analogy and effectively   
   > > correct.   
   >   
   > No shit?  I could see how that untwists into something reasonable.  I   
   > don't   
   > agree with it, but atm i'm not sure why.  Except that the source of   
   > individuals isn't the group.   
      
   he was just making a reference to the insignificance   
   of the idea of individualism when it comes to self   
   realization.   
      
   > >>> it appears that your awareness stops at   
   > >>> your skin boundaries, but awareness permeates all reality   
   > >>> and even the air is aware.   
   > >>   
   > >> It's a tough line to tread, saying that.  It makes some assumptions   
   > >> that   
   > >> may not stand.  Like the simple idea that we're all alike.  It's easy   
   > >> to   
   > >> assume we're all alike, in the sense of having bodies and minds that   
   > >> work   
   > >> the same way, but I'm not convinced that's true.  Even though modern   
   > >> science assures us that we are of a species.   
   > >   
   > > I'm not saying that we are all alike in our apparent   
   > > individualities but if the assumptions that awareness   
   > > permeates all isn't recognized   
   >   
   > It doesn't seem right to say "awareness permeates all".   
      
   that's just because of the popular notion of what   
   awareness entails. conscious human style awareness?   
   no, but awareness all the same. in the novel, "gravity's   
   rainbow" author thomas pynchon says; "and a soul in   
   ev'ry stone". he was of course being facetious due to   
   the popular notion of soul, but he still made a valid   
   point about the non-locality of awareness.   
      
   > > it is simply that play of   
   > > ideas known as an individual that entertains this.   
   >   
   > If that helps keep your bits straight, more power to ya.   
      
   but that notion is exactly what keeps your bits in disarray.   
      
   > >>> since most don't see the actual   
   > >>> ubiquitous-ness of awareness there arises a psychological   
   > >>> delusion of individual person-hood, so to speak.   
   > >>   
   > >> It isn't a delusion, we actually are individual persons.  I am not you,   
   > >> and   
   > >> you are not me.  Easy-peasey, individual persons.   
   > >   
   > > in the sense of differences there are individual   
   > > attributes, yet you turn this into a person and   
   > > that is where the veils come in and cloud over   
   > > the actual depths of what one truly is.   
   >   
   > An individual and a person are not necessarily the same thing.  I think   
   > you're using the term "person" where I'd use something like egoic-self.   
      
   okay.   
      
   > >>> then it follows   
   > >>> that if I am an individual and my consciousness is limited to   
   > >>> this form and I've decided that neural pathways are my   
   > >>> consciousness then I can transfer that to another form.   
   > >>   
   > >> That's messed up.  Body and mind constitute person.  Mind intersects   
   > >> brain   
   > >> through body.  Mind is not brain.  Neural pathways are brain.  Neural   
   > >> pathways get worked out between body and mind.  Mind resides primarily   
   > >> in   
   > >> heaven, and by heaven i refer to the upper realm depicted in the Golden   
   > >> Lion (wasn't it?) view that brian introduced here some time ago.  The   
   > >> realm   
   > >> of heaven is referred to as Mystery in the TTC, at least in the Feng   
   > >> version, I'm not sure of the original pictogram.  It's the realm   
   > >> Plato's   
   > >> Cave depicts as the light that casts the shadows we see as the world   
   > >> around   
   > >> us.  Maya is when we think the shadows are reality; they're not,   
   > >> they're   
   > >> flickerings of some particular planar view of the real item, that real   
   > >> item   
   > >> being between man and the projecting light.  The realm of heaven is the   
   > >> one   
   > >> Jesus referred to in some verse or other where he said "the kingdom of   
   > >> heaven is all around you".  The upper realm occupies the same space as   
   > >> the   
   > >> lower realm, they are superimposed upon one another such that what we   
   > >> see   
   > >> around us is Earth and the upper realm is in the same place at the same   
   > >> time but without form, the form arises from the upper realm, or it   
   > >> might   
   > >> be   
   > >> better to say that the upper realm continually rains its form down on   
   > >> mundane reality and in so doing creates it.  This is the origin of   
   > >> Gautama's comment that "with your mind you make the world", it is as   
   > >> literal a statement as possible while remaining true.   
   > >   
   > > I think jesus said something like, the kingdom of heaven   
   > > is at hand, meaning the same as I said about awareness   
   > > permeating everything. you at first seemed to deny this   
   > > idea and now you appear to espouse it.   
   >   
   > The.. abstraction from which the world emerges... that permeates   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)