On May 4, 10:15 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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 bullshit
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 bullshit 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 assess 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
Now cut that out!
--
RaaN
|
