XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com
"noname" wrote in message news:nvpo7a$frl$1@dont-email.me...
>
> 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.
true self is a bad way to describe that which cannot
be described, but so is any conceptual term since that
real self is prior to concepts, so to speak. what learns or
grows is a pale reflected image of true nature which already
contains all knowledge, so when it already has every possibility
within its purview, there's nothing that can be added. if true
nature could be added to or subtracted from, it wouldn't be
the real.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
