XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
dagnabit wrote:
> "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.
>
>
>
>
>
If true self was frozen it wouldn't be alive.
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
