XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "Ray Of Heaven the Son of Man the Faithful & True"  wrote in message   
   news:nvqo31$5k2$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   > On 11/7/2016 2:00 PM, dagnabit wrote:   
   > > "noname"  wrote in message news:nvqaga$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.   
   > >> >>>   
   > >> >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)