| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: Why would lhamo admit that she was wrong ? |
 |
|
"Lhamo" <lhamo@real.email.address.not> a écrit dans le message de
news:3F506329.50903@real.email.address.not...
| Quote: |
Gileht.com wrote:
That is much better.
Now you are getting to the point instead of crying like a baby.
Now it would be very nice to exlain in much detail what is this
....
and how is it different than conceptualisation ... and how it
applies to animals that do not have any capacity for
conceptualisation.
That is what I was expecting from you .. in much more detail.
That is why your attempt to be skillful is unskillful. There is
no need
to not speak the truth. Trying to be skillful with lies will only
fail
and bring harm to yourself (and to a lesser extent, to others).
It is
the cause of being separated from true teachings in the future.
So
speak the undistorted truth, for crying out loud.
- Lhamo
Try to be more proud of yourself here and act like a man. Defend
your point logically for crying out loud.
|
Again you are letting your little frustrated heart taking the lead.
There were no lies from my part.
The text is there to prove it.
You chose to ignore it because you are seeing that you were wrong.
Too bad.
Gileht |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:biotsq$1c8$3@news.eusc.inter.net...
| Quote: |
"dogwalker" <d@g.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1nK3b.14398$Cg2.1251020@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of
the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentiments beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
attachment to preconceptions of reality/
conceptual activity of the mind fails to describe the subtle
reality
accumulation of ideas, or simplification?
"the farther you go, the less you know"
"only the insubstantial can penetrate the spaceless"
"he knows to break through conceptual knowledge
in order to directly reach the subtle truth of the universe"
TTC71/Hua-Ching Ni
I would agree if "to break through conceptual knowledge" means to
transcend it, in the sense of the Middle Way: not accepting any of
it as absolute, not rejecting all of it as completely useless.
In fact we need to transcend everything, conceptualization has no
special status in this matter.
But, still, the point is that some Buddhist traditions (including
Tibetan) are proposing a model and a path based on "good direct
consciousness" vs. '"bad conceptual consciousness", and are
proposing to purify the mind from its conceptual consciousness, as
if this was the problem.
That I cannot accept for the reason mentioned above.
Gileht
whatever turns your screw |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Return of the BWZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:biplne$a2v$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
| Quote: |
"cupcake" <t@r.slrup> a écrit dans le message de
news:_QY3b.37$9n2.1363@news.more.net...
Lame-O wrote:
Gileht.com wrote:
Hummm .. well just in case, I should say:
I didn't lie, I just quoted a passage from here:
[13]http://www.tibetanclassics.org/leveling.html
And gave my interpretation and comments, and ask others for
their
opinion.
I know you were lying because your argument for why
conceptualization is
important for eliminating wrong views, both coarse and subtle,
and for
realizing true nonconceptual wisdom that can stand up to
conceptual
scrutiny is straight out of Tibetan buddhist textbooks, like
those of
Jamyang Shebay. I bet you have some sources like this on your
website
with your famous multi-colored commentaries. Therefore, you must
know
that your view on this does not differ from what Tibetan buddhism
says.
Furthermore, you stated that Tibetan buddhism teaches a
self-existent
"pure consciousness" when you know very well that all schools of
Tibetan
buddhism uphold the Prasangika Madhyamika view of Nagarjuna,
Aryadeva,
Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti as the definitive one.
for somebody who has been insisting over the past
two weeks that yu have no Vajrayani teachers and
not knowledge of Tibetan Vajrayanism, yu certainly
are being awful vehement about all this shit, yu
little Vajra dirt bag
He or she is definitively trying to hide something big.
And making projections all the way ...
Gileht
|
Personally, I think Lhamo is perhaps a Tibetan tradition teacher who likes
to play dumb.
Sean |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F50AE65.5B6D6C82@yahoo.com...
| Quote: |
Return of the BWZ wrote:
Personally, I think Lhamo is perhaps a Tibetan tradition
teacher who likes to play dumb.
He seems together, and not messed up like DharmaTroll,
Namdrol, Toshu, Evvie.
But he has merely learnt a lot and has failed to arrive
at any coherent synthesis. What he says tends to be a
big jumble, beyond his understanding and control.
So if he looks incoherent, he is incoherent.
Tang Huyen
|
these carrots (i am eating) taste like pesticide |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tang Huyen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
dogwalker wrote:
| Quote: | "Tang Huyen"
Return of the BWZ:
Personally, I think Lhamo is perhaps a Tibetan tradition
teacher who likes to play dumb.
He seems together, and not messed up like DharmaTroll,
Namdrol, Toshu, Evvie.
But he has merely learnt a lot and has failed to arrive
at any coherent synthesis. What he says tends to be a
big jumble, beyond his understanding and control.
So if he looks incoherent, he is incoherent.
these carrots (i am eating) taste like pesticide
|
Hehe, I don't know whether you're serious, but to me, a nice
dish is one in which you can't tell the infredients. Everything
has blended, like the blended sound of German and Austrian
orchestras. If you can tell the ingredients, then the dish is a
failure.
In Namdrol and Lhamo (and at a lesser level of learning, Gileht),
I can see this bit from this school and that bit from that
school, but they conflict and do not harmonise. Ranking
different schools of thought doesn't solve the problem. The
problem is how to arrive at a harmonious whole, even of it
means slighting some thoughts as wrong and un-Buddhist
(i. e., not leading to a decrease of suffering). In fact,
I see much of scholastic development as un-Buddhist, regardless
of Vehicles.
If Buddhism is to unload so that you can end your suffering
(which is true), then why load up in the first place, so that
you can unload later? Why not just unload from the first?
On these boards, the people who have loaded up on Tibetan
scholastics, with or without teachers, tend to be the most
lost. People who have loaded up on other scholastic traditions
tend to be lost, too, but not so much. Punnie, who has loaded
up on Theravada Abhidhamma (which is not taught by the Buddha),
is lost, but at least he is more coherent. His attachment to
social-political issues is definitely unmonkish.
Tang Huyen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F50BCA1.8D629997@yahoo.com...
| Quote: |
dogwalker wrote:
"Tang Huyen"
Return of the BWZ:
Personally, I think Lhamo is perhaps a Tibetan tradition
teacher who likes to play dumb.
He seems together, and not messed up like DharmaTroll,
Namdrol, Toshu, Evvie.
But he has merely learnt a lot and has failed to arrive
at any coherent synthesis. What he says tends to be a
big jumble, beyond his understanding and control.
So if he looks incoherent, he is incoherent.
these carrots (i am eating) taste like pesticide
Hehe, I don't know whether you're serious, but to me, a nice
dish is one in which you can't tell the infredients. Everything
has blended, like the blended sound of German and Austrian
orchestras. If you can tell the ingredients, then the dish is a
failure.
In Namdrol and Lhamo (and at a lesser level of learning, Gileht),
I can see this bit from this school and that bit from that
school, but they conflict and do not harmonise. Ranking
different schools of thought doesn't solve the problem. The
problem is how to arrive at a harmonious whole, even of it
means slighting some thoughts as wrong and un-Buddhist
(i. e., not leading to a decrease of suffering). In fact,
I see much of scholastic development as un-Buddhist, regardless
of Vehicles.
If Buddhism is to unload so that you can end your suffering
(which is true), then why load up in the first place, so that
you can unload later? Why not just unload from the first?
On these boards, the people who have loaded up on Tibetan
scholastics, with or without teachers, tend to be the most
lost. People who have loaded up on other scholastic traditions
tend to be lost, too, but not so much. Punnie, who has loaded
up on Theravada Abhidhamma (which is not taught by the Buddha),
is lost, but at least he is more coherent. His attachment to
social-political issues is definitely unmonkish.
Tang Huyen
|
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:biotsn$1c8$2@news.eusc.inter.net...
| Quote: |
"tiresias" <me@mine.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:bin44m$b70mr$1@ID-167739.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of
the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentient beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment and
identification
with concepts that is being indicated as the error. The freedom
from
conceptualisation is the art of not-grasping at that which appears
to
awareness which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft mis-quoted
Christian
teaching that it is the love of money which is the root of all
evil.
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
Hi T.
I would agree with you on what is the real cause of suffering:
grasping and the cause of grasping being ignorance, thinking things
and beings really inherently exist, on their own ...
But it looks like many Buddhists, including Tibetans, think it is
"conceptualisation" itself that is bad, and their path is
aiming at abandoning this.
They seem to think that there is a pure consciousness under all
conceptualization, and that it is enough to stop all
conceptualisation to "merit" enlightenment some how.
The whole trip about "direct perception" is about this.
Looks to me like they were guilty of anthropomorphism when
attributing
the capacity of conceptualization to all sentient beings and saying
that the solution is to get rid of the conceptual mind.
More later ...
Gileht
|
At the source of conceptualization is self identification rooted in
reflection. To mistake the reflection for the reality is ignorance. The
illusion of self existence emerges from this. However one need not abandon
conceptualization any more than one need abandon breathing. One needs to
see through the error of identification in reflection even as reflection
continues. The real error at this point is to compound the mistake by
conceptualizing what is not illusion with paradoxical self contradicting
nonsense formulations and taking it for truth.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
naked ape
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:04 am Post subject: Re: Lhamo will never stop lying |
|
|
"dogwalker" <d@g.com> wrote in message
news:CB34b.13256$nw3.459229@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F50BCA1.8D629997@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
"Tang Huyen"
Return of the BWZ:
Personally, I think Lhamo is perhaps a Tibetan tradition
teacher who likes to play dumb.
He seems together, and not messed up like DharmaTroll,
Namdrol, Toshu, Evvie.
But he has merely learnt a lot and has failed to arrive
at any coherent synthesis. What he says tends to be a
big jumble, beyond his understanding and control.
So if he looks incoherent, he is incoherent.
these carrots (i am eating) taste like pesticide
Hehe, I don't know whether you're serious, but to me, a nice
dish is one in which you can't tell the infredients. Everything
has blended, like the blended sound of German and Austrian
orchestras. If you can tell the ingredients, then the dish is a
failure.
In Namdrol and Lhamo (and at a lesser level of learning, Gileht),
I can see this bit from this school and that bit from that
school, but they conflict and do not harmonise. Ranking
different schools of thought doesn't solve the problem. The
problem is how to arrive at a harmonious whole, even of it
means slighting some thoughts as wrong and un-Buddhist
(i. e., not leading to a decrease of suffering). In fact,
I see much of scholastic development as un-Buddhist, regardless
of Vehicles.
If Buddhism is to unload so that you can end your suffering
(which is true), then why load up in the first place, so that
you can unload later? Why not just unload from the first?
On these boards, the people who have loaded up on Tibetan
scholastics, with or without teachers, tend to be the most
lost. People who have loaded up on other scholastic traditions
tend to be lost, too, but not so much. Punnie, who has loaded
up on Theravada Abhidhamma (which is not taught by the Buddha),
is lost, but at least he is more coherent. His attachment to
social-political issues is definitely unmonkish.
Tang Huyen
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
|
Yes, I'd agree. ..
Ape, who'd like to be a bit of everything, the wheat, but not the chaff.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tang Huyen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:19 am Post subject: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
dogwalker wrote:
| Quote: | does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
|
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ch'an Fu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:23 am Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
Tang Huyen wrote:
| Quote: | dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
|
"There's always something more I can do without."
-- unknown |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:08 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Raan" <raan@one.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:VI44b.3359$O05.733883@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
"Gileht.com" <I.do.not@want.spam.net> wrote in message
news:biotsn$1c8$2@news.eusc.inter.net...
"tiresias" <me@mine.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:bin44m$b70mr$1@ID-167739.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough
analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and
thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization.
And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual
definition of
the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in
humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is
not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentient beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form
of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot
be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this
is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment and
identification
with concepts that is being indicated as the error. The
freedom
from
conceptualisation is the art of not-grasping at that which
appears
to
awareness which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft mis-quoted
Christian
teaching that it is the love of money which is the root of all
evil.
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
Hi T.
I would agree with you on what is the real cause of suffering:
grasping and the cause of grasping being ignorance, thinking
things
and beings really inherently exist, on their own ...
But it looks like many Buddhists, including Tibetans, think it
is
"conceptualisation" itself that is bad, and their path is
aiming at abandoning this.
They seem to think that there is a pure consciousness under all
conceptualization, and that it is enough to stop all
conceptualisation to "merit" enlightenment some how.
The whole trip about "direct perception" is about this.
Looks to me like they were guilty of anthropomorphism when
attributing
the capacity of conceptualization to all sentient beings and
saying
that the solution is to get rid of the conceptual mind.
More later ...
Gileht
At the source of conceptualization is self identification rooted
in
reflection. To mistake the reflection for the reality is
ignorance. The
illusion of self existence emerges from this. However one need
not abandon
conceptualization any more than one need abandon breathing. One
needs to
see through the error of identification in reflection even as
reflection
continues. The real error at this point is to compound the
mistake by
conceptualizing what is not illusion with paradoxical self
contradicting
nonsense formulations and taking it for truth.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
|
I don't think so.
You theory cannot be applied to 99.99999999999999% of sentient
beings that do not have the capacity to conceptualize, to reflect,
to have the concept of "I" ... So that is not it.
Many have fallen into this mistake thinking the problem is
conceptualization.
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chet Osmond
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
| Quote: |
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
|
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so that one can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Evelyn Ruut
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:28 am Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8%94b.2519$tw6.2155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so that one
can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get
something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet
|
Of course it is, but he would sooner die than admit it.......(that is, even
if he did have the subtlety of thought to determine it to be so).
--
Evelyn
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chet Osmond
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:24 am Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4jb4b.69858$Sq.13034748@twister.nyc.rr.com...
| Quote: |
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8%94b.2519$tw6.2155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so that one
can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get
something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet
Of course it is, but he would sooner die than admit it.......(that is,
even
if he did have the subtlety of thought to determine it to be so).
--
Evelyn
|
Can one be real without taking any particular view or position as to what
reality actually is? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Evelyn Ruut
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Why would anyone want to be anything? (was Re: Lhamo) |
|
|
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:%%c4b.2772$Lk5.2384@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lion@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4jb4b.69858$Sq.13034748@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Chet Osmond" <foot@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8%94b.2519$tw6.2155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Tang Huyen" <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5114E5.63893337@yahoo.com...
dogwalker wrote:
does anyone become a monk
just for the fun of it?
i bet they don't last long
as a monk
i mean, really, why would
anyone want to be anything?
it is totally illogical
The state of not wanting to be anything is actually
desirable in Buddhism. It is goallessness, aimlessness,
what in Buddhism is called absence of pro-posing
(a-pranihita, not putting anything in front, the third
door to liberation, often translated wishlessness).
Of course to want to get it defeats the purpose!
Tang Huyen
Is aspiring to realize reality absent extreme elaborations, so that
one
can
discern and explain errors in thinking, the same as wanting to get
something
substantial, to your way of thinking?
Chet
Of course it is, but he would sooner die than admit it.......(that is,
even
if he did have the subtlety of thought to determine it to be so).
--
Evelyn
Can one be real without taking any particular view or position as to what
reality actually is?
|
Sure. As long as you don't try to explain it to anyone.....
--
Evelyn
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
