XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Ray Of Heaven the Son of Man the Faithful & True   
    wrote:   
   > On 11/7/2016 4:49 PM, Ray Of Heaven the Son of Man the Faithful & True   
   > wrote:   
   >> On 11/7/2016 4:27 PM, Ray Of Heaven the Son of Man the Faithful & True   
   >> wrote:   
   >>> 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)