On Feb 13, 1:43 pm, oxtail <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>
> > "oxtail" <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:T_6dneAQzv1E3C7anZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>
> >>> "oxtail" <oxt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:Fuqdnfjdasnlky7anZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> >>>>> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
> >>>>>news:13r5llq5tmtuhbe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>> oxtail wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Very wise.
> >>>>>>> But is it Buddhism?
>
> >>>>>> Awakening is purely subjective, strictly
> >>>>>> sentimental, and has nothing out there or in here
> >>>>>> that it can be tied down to. It has nothing to do
> >>>>>> with cognition, but is merely an attitude, which is
> >>>>>> the only thing that can be changed, in Buddhism.
>
> >>>>>> The Buddha says: "What and what they think it,
> >>>>>> it is otherwise" and "self and what belongs to self
> >>>>>> are unobtainable and cannot be made known as
> >>>>>> real and established in the present things, the
> >>>>>> views, fetters and latencies in the mind are
> >>>>>> unobtainable and cannot be made known." If the
> >>>>>> views, fetters and latencies in the mind are
> >>>>>> unobtainable and cannot be made known, how
> >>>>>> can one cleanly and accurately map something
> >>>>>> into awakening and something else into delusion?
>
> >>>>>> The Diamond scripture says: "The past thought
> >>>>>> cannot be got at, the present thought cannot be
> >>>>>> got at, the future thought cannot be got at." If the
> >>>>>> past thought cannot be got at, the present thought
> >>>>>> cannot be got at, the future thought cannot be got
> >>>>>> at, how can one cleanly and accurately map
> >>>>>> something into awakening and something else into
> >>>>>> delusion?
>
> >>>>>> In Buddhism, it is said that "All sup****t is
> >>>>>> unsup****ted", "All foundation is unfounded", "All
> >>>>>> basis is baseless", "All establishment is
> >>>>>> unestablished", "All ground is groundless", "All
> >>>>>> bottom is bottomless". One drops everything and
> >>>>>> walks free. It takes nothing and leaves nothing.
> >>>>>> There is no truth to truth, otherwise truth would
> >>>>>> be en***bered with truth.
>
> >>>>>> This ambiguity and indetermination presents both
> >>>>>> room for loose talk and room for freedom. Limits
> >>>>>> can be taken any way one wants. One can take
> >>>>>> them in an angry and bitter manner, as something
> >>>>>> to revolt against, in which case they turn into
> >>>>>> prison walls that lock one up inside them solidly,
> >>>>>> in dead finality. Or one can take them in a calm,
> >>>>>> serene manner, as the soft and ****ous membrane
> >>>>>> through which eternity communes with one, in
> >>>>>> which case they become the medium with which
> >>>>>> eternity pours in and suffuses one with itself
> >>>>>> unasked. They can lock one up tightly, without
> >>>>>> appeal, or open up perspectives that go on and on,
> >>>>>> with no end in sight, right unto eternity. There is no
> >>>>>> fixity to them, no essence or substance that could
> >>>>>> bind one to one interpretation only, with no leeway
> >>>>>> left. It all depends on how one takes them. One's
> >>>>>> bound can be one's freedom. Objectively there is
> >>>>>> no difference. The margin of freedom is as big as
> >>>>>> the universe.
>
> >>>>>> Tang Huyen
>
> >>>>> Excellent, Tang! I find so much to relate to these days in your
> >>>>> posts. I am passing this one on to a couple of dharma friends.
> >>>>> Thank you.
>
> >>>> Are you sure?
>
> >>>> Tang basically talks to himself
> >>>> to cure himself from his obsession
> >>>> with absolute objectivity.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ~Oxtail
>
> >>> I know his faults (as does he). There is a lot of good basic
dharma
> >>> in his comments above. And not a word of "some people" in it.
>
> >>> I sent his post to a few friends and they all commented favorably on
it.
>
> >>> I used to tell Tang that my grandmother used to say that "even a
> >>> broken clock is right twice a day" but I think his clock is working
> >>> pretty well these days!
>
> >> He is working too hard
> >> to tell people not to work hard.
>
> >> I would prefer to see him
> >> actually relaxed and serene.
>
> >> --
> >> ~Oxtail
>
> > Whether Tang is actually serene or not serene, is hard to tell from
mere
> > words on a screen, and saying 'it is this' or 'it is that,' would be
> > coming more from us than from him. Somehow it would seem
> > presumptuous.... a bit of transference, (though I have done it often
> > enough myself.)
>
> > After all, we don't see him in his everyday life, to know for sure if
he
> > blows up in technicolor regularly, or if he allows the stresses of
life
> > to blow away like the 'fluff' he so often refers to. I am content to
> > let it all be OK with me, whatever it is or however it is.
>
> > It sorts itself out. He has the tools, he has the dharma, he can work
> > with it in his own way and I wish him peace and happiness....or peace
> > and fluff :-)
>
> > "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
>
> Good for you.
>
> But IMHO
> the apparent effect of his presence here
> is detrimental to the proper understanding of Zen.
I've heard that one before...
> Most of his posts will be much better
> if he just remove the first and the last paragraphs.
Look whose obsessing...
/leebert
|
