XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nvqaga$ic1$5@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> dagnabit  wrote:   
   >>> "noname"  wrote in message news:nvpo7a$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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)