XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nvo4ho$542$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> dagnabit  wrote:   
   >>> "Tang Huyen"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:6623017b-35e1-7321-9055-a40c13163a0f@gmail.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 11/6/2016 9:14 AM, dagnabit wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> that certainly does seem to be what god appears as,   
   >>>>> yet if there is an understanding that as "we" made a   
   >>>>> descent into grosser and grosser forms of physical   
   >>>>> density until we came to this glob of protoplasm, our   
   >>>>> perspective falls dwell specific to that density and the   
   >>>>> levels of lesser and lesser density may only seem to be   
   >>>>> a reverie of sorts and dripping with glossy attributes and   
   >>>>> nowhere near our current comfort zone levels of negotiation,   
   >>>>> so god may seem aloof when it is just that he is non-local   
   >>>>> and non-linear and cannot sufficiently act in a grosser arena   
   >>>>> of expression like the one that we enjoy. or, maybe not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Very sorry, Jen chérie, as I have said a few times lately, I   
   >>>> often fail to understand you, specially early in your descent   
   >>>> into grosser forms on Buddhist Usenet in 2002.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> People kept asking me what I meant (and what Buddhism   
   >>>> meant) in the famous expression: "unsupported thought",   
   >>>> "un-established mind". (Those are two common translations   
   >>>> for one single expression in Indo-Aryan dialects). I struggled   
   >>>> to explain, but then it dawned on me that you often used a   
   >>>> close equivalent in your inimitable English: "dwell specific",   
   >>>> which relates to the same basic meaning of "stay", "stand",   
   >>>> "remain", "stick to", "hang on to", etc.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> <>>> relying on an appearance of individualisms in order to   
   >>>> extrapolate a clarity of focus which is dwell specific cohesive   
   >>>> to any particular agenda, or there can be a similar negotiation   
   >>>> due to the arena of what is seen as interconnectedness. one   
   >>>> doesn't appear to be anymore auspicious than the other   
   >>>> though. as long as what might be termed "depth of focus"   
   >>>> ensues then a deepening clarity can persist in contrast to   
   >>>> what gurdjieff called the sleepwalking public.>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> <>>> zone that dwells specific to the momentum of the trajectory   
   >>>> of a given perspective, there can be a natural tendency to   
   >>>> resist anything that hasn't been completely explored   
   >>>> throughout the filtering schema of the comfort zone itself. this   
   >>>> enhances the stagnation of the trajectory momentum agenda   
   >>>> and can effectively hold the comfort zone in check when it   
   >>>> originally was formulated by the momentum instead of its   
   >>>> stagnation.>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> <>>> causality and eternal subsequent consequence to a less than   
   >>>> contrived frequency, dissolved at least a dozen universes due   
   >>>> to dwell specific resonant drift, and held the vibrational   
   >>>> confinement of inter-sub-ratio aspect determinisms to their   
   >>>> least frequent usual-ness, and yet no one even blinks.>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> <>>> collective one. where one allows a dwell specific point of   
   >>>> focus to gravitate is purely arbitrary. has anyone convinced   
   >>>> you that you need to see things from either view, or any other   
   >>>> admixtural combination of the two? and if you think that your   
   >>>> larger self, as you coin it, could be tunnel visioned by human   
   >>>> qualities such as anger, you may wish to dig a little deeper. or   
   >>>> maybe not.>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So, what the "unsupported thought", "un-established mind"   
   >>>> means is a thought/mind that refrains from dwelling specific to   
   >>>> anything, itself included. It floats along with what happens, in   
   >>>> raft attention, but does not hang on to, or resist, any bit of it.   
   >>>> What happens is allowed to happen (and not blocked out), and   
   >>>> treated as clouds passing in the sky or water sliding off a duck's   
   >>>> back. Samsara comes, fine, Nirvana comes, fine, they make no   
   >>>> difference to it. It takes all kinds.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thank you again, Jen chérie, for your felicitous language.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Tang Huyen   
   >>>   
   >>> oddly enough, for those who don't understand it,   
   >>> it's pretty much useless because they can't grasp   
   >>> its meaning, and for those that do understand it, it's   
   >>> pretty much useless because they are already there.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> At least it shows poor Tang how he is supposed to think if he wishes to   
   >> grow up big and awakened, unfortunately there might be too much rebel in   
   >> the mix to permit him to comply with what is externally imposed and it's   
   >> all been a waste of time.  Or he awakens, and it's all been a waste of   
   >> time.  It's ours to waste, as the wasteland testifies.   
   >   
   > I agree that it's all a waste of time, the entire reality,   
   > since no amount of masquerade via the human disguise   
   > can tarnish one's real self, as such.  the real you, the   
   > one that buddha, christ and krishna knew about, cannot   
   > be changed or affected in any way by any temporary   
   > human disguise.   
   >   
      
   I do not agree with your assertion that the true-self is incapable of   
   learning or growing.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)