RaaN wrote:
> On May 3, 8:56 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=# wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Robert Epstein" <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:HHRSj.13987$Bb3.8338@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=# wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Robert Epstein" <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:oDQSj.148$Fv.113@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>>^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=# wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>"Ali" <lal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:36sm14hotk0d8mba0dg8ipnhq9ac43dahp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:22:11 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#"
<yom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>"Ali" <lal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:idem14lt0i4n2p0upjlu8u7d8r64ahm8h6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:18:37 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#"
>>>>>>>>>><yom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>As
>>>>>>>>>>Tang or someone used to quote the Buddha as saying his teachings
>>>>>>>>>>were
>>>>>>>>>>for those with 'little dust in their eyes'.
>>>>>>>>>>The person who is rigorously honest with themself, be they
>>>>>>>>>>buddhist,
>>>>>>>>>>agnostic, pagan, pantheist, whatever- is already close to awake.
>>>>>>>>>>It may be compared to a light going on, but that's bull****
also.
>>>>>>>>>>Honesty. Don't leave home without it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>there is the story of
>>>>>>>>>>>valmiki who wrote the 'ramayana'. it was said
>>>>>>>>>>>that after his enlightenment valmiki murdered
>>>>>>>>>>>so many people that he had 7 vessels of small
>>>>>>>>>>>pebbles each one representing a murder that
>>>>>>>>>>>he had committed. would anyone pursuing an
>>>>>>>>>>>awakened state think that murder would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>quality of awakening ? lord krishna also told
>>>>>>>>>>>arjuna on the battlefield that no one was really
>>>>>>>>>>>dying and to pursue killing with great vigor.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, idiot, valmiki was a murderer/robber before his
enlightenment.
>>
>>>>>>>>>nisargadatta maharaj didn't say
>>>>>>>>>that when he related the story.
>>
>>>>>>>>Okay, assuming as much, what was nisaragadatta's point? And
what's
>>>>>>>>yours?
>>
>>>>>>>that supposedly a higher state of
>>>>>>>awareness, as such, could mean
>>>>>>>almost anything in terms of the
>>>>>>>thoughts, speech and behaviour
>>>>>>>of any that find themselves in the
>>>>>>>midst of it. freedom means just
>>>>>>>that, freedom, it shouldn't mean
>>>>>>>that one's behaviour is limited
>>>>>>>by the imaginations of those not
>>>>>>>yet at that perspective.
>>
>>>>>>I dunno, I kind of find this to be somewhat true, but bull**** in
>>>>>>the way in which you have framed it.
>>
>>>>>>My sense of the awakened is that if they use their "freedom," they
>>>>>>do so for a purpose, as they are closely tied to the harmony of the
>>>>>>reality they encounter, and not free in the sense of being
>>>>>>disconnected from anything. So the idea that there is an element of
>>>>>>hedonism or willful choice as the ego would frame it, I think is
>>>>>>highly unlikely.
>>
>>>>>>Robert
>>
>>>>>seems you've done even more framing
>>>>>of freedom than i did. i would say that
>>>>>the more it gets framed the less free it
>>>>>may be.
>>
>>>>yeah, but that's my point.
>>
>>>your point is to frame freedom
>>>with more and more restrictions ?
>>
>>>>your version of freedom is Platono-ideological.
>>
>>>i really don't have a 'version' of
>>>freedom, that's the whole idea.
>>
>>>>There's no such thing as "freedom" as an absolute,
>>
>>>i think you're stretching what
>>>i was trying to say or perhaps
>>>misunderstood. a lot of what gets
>>>volleyed about in here is debate
>>>about correct wording.
>>
>>>>that in fact is the sanitized/intellectualized version. Real freedom
>>>>means that you are able to adapt/create freely in the moment in
>>>>response to whatever conditions you happen to find yourself in.
>>
>>>this isn't what i said already ?
>>
>>>> Within the totally transcendent sphere of enlightened consciousness
>>>>freedom is neither experienced nor necessary, it is just pure
>>>>"tathata." There's actually no freedom in that, just "what is." What
>>>>do you do with that? Nothing.
>>
>>>i see freedom as the dropping
>>>of the 'raft'
>>
>>>>Buddha has this passage where he talks about being hacked to death by
>>>>the Rajah of Kalinga in a former lifetime, and he says that even then
>>>>he was not moved to anger because he had already abandoned the idea of
>>>>a separate self. That's freedom in a nutshell.
>>
>>>buddha also said not to believe anything
>>>that anyone says, not even him unless
>>>you test it for yourself. you claim there
>>>is no absolute when it comes to freedom
>>>and yet you finished your statement saying
>>
>>>>that's freedom in a nutshell< sounds pretty
>>
>>>absolute to me.
>>
>>whether you believe Buddha or not is not the point, that is a diversion.
>> The story is an illustration, not -- again -- an absolute, or a "yes"
>>or "no" that has to be decided on.
>>
>>nutshell ≠ absolute; no those are two different things.
>>nutshell just means 'this is a way of understanding what it is.'
>>
>>freedom as dropping of raft, is fine with me.
>>
>>the only argument I really had with you is that you claimed that the
>>unenlightened cannot judge the enlightened's actions, therefore, they
>>have no basis to *****s it. I think that is disempowering. None of us
>>really have any vantage point from which to judge each others' actions,
>>enlightened or otherwise, but we still make decisions and use our
>>intuition. I think it's probably a good idea to drop judging
>>altogether, and replace it with discernment that is not based on
>>personal desire. Maybe we can agree on that.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
> In delusion and seeking a means to transcend suffering certain
> individuals seem not only to have accomplished this but also know how
> and their actions and reactions and mannerisms (eg, relaxed, calm,
> confident, compassionate) will evidence their enlightened state.
> Certainly there are posers and there is the issue of transference but
> overall the deluded can reasonably be expected to be able to discern
> an enlightened individual especially if that individual decides to
> reveal enlightened wisdom. The enlightened is on no better ground
> really to judge whether another is enlightened or not except by trial
> and test, though empathetic similitude would tend to make it more
> readily intuitive. After all the deluded are unenlightened only
> insofar as they do not fully realize their delusion. Perhaps the
> deluded should come to see the delusion of the enlightened master and
> thus come to realize enlightenment through that. I mean who's fooling
> who? The fool that knows he is a fool is wise. (no foolin')
> --
> RaaN
Why, Raan, if I didn't know better I'd say you were agreeing with me.
Hmn....that is bad..... :(
Robert
= = = = = = =
|
