XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: SpiritOfGodTheLordGodOmnipotent@HereAndNow.Net   
      
   On 11/7/2016 2:00 PM, 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)