On Feb 14, 8:18 pm, "Evelyn Ruut" <evelyn.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "RaaN" <raan2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:ce857d01-6e22-4928-9931-2452efe37e59@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 6:38 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> 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
>
> > Without absolute no eternity either.
> > Just animals at the watering hole.
> > Reflecting animals at the watering hole.
> > --
> > RaaN
>
> Hi Raan, here're a couple of quotes from a long time poster to these
groups.
>
> **************
>
> There are no saints,
> There are no sinners,
> It's just a bunch of ****ing monkeys. (Dar)
>
> Try it. Pick a fight you don't have a dog in and you will invariably
> find the nasty stuff each sides says about the other is always true,
> and conversely, the nice things they say about themselves is mostly
> bull****. (Dar)
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Evelyn
Dar she blew.
--
RaaN
|
