Re: Interiority? Or inter-relatedness?

On May 5, 7:30 pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 9:28 am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 5 May 2008 05:05:32 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
> > <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >On May 5, 7:36?am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:04:07 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
> > >> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >On May 5, 6:06?am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 4 May 2008 18:45:18 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
> > >> >> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> >On May 3, 12:10?pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT), "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
> > >> >> >> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On May 3, 7:01?am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:43:25 -0700 (PDT),
"ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
> > >> >> >> >> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at
any time, it
> > >> >> >> >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an
illusion.
>
> > >> >> >> >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself?
?Is the
> > >> >> >> >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the
dreamer waken up
> > >> >> >> >> yet?
>
> > >> >> >> >1.The self we can know is always time limited. It is like a
snapshot
> > >> >> >> >of an arrow in flight. It is never the true self because the
> > >> >> >> >dynamicism of an arrow in flight or the real self cannot be
captured.
> > >> >> >> >Why our mind cannot function like a camcorder? One
explanation is too
> > >> >> >> >many junks inside.
>
> > >> >> >> >2. Whether we do anything or not, we are always dropping the
self at
> > >> >> >> >time t.Let us call it self(t). ?But as soon as we drop self
t, we are
> > >> >> >> >picking up self(t+1). So, one's awareness of dropping the
self is also
> > >> >> >> >an illusion.
>
> > >> >> >> I agree everything the mind can think of is an illusion, but
that does
> > >> >> >> not mean there is no reality which the mind can not think of.
To claim
> > >> >> >> the self is an illusion is a good start, but to claim
Buddhism is all
> > >> >> >> about no self is a ****ing idiot. Buddhism is about the
Buddha mind
> > >> >> >> which is the crown Jewel of this universe, and it is real and
true
> > >> >> >> more than everything else.
>
> > >> >> >The self, or Buddha-ness, is there all along but it is a self
outside
> > >> >> >of time. Outside of time means outside of causation. It is also
> > >> >> >outside the control of all power relation****ps. Hence freedom.
>
> > >> >> No. I categorically disagree.
>
> > >> >Please present your view.
>
> > >> You can never say Buddha nature is either within or without time or
> > >> anything else let alone causation. Buddha nature is the wisdom that
> > >> will not be fooled by space and time or causality. Remember the
famous
> > >> Chinese fox zen story?
>
> > >Please relate the zen story.
>
> > Don't we love wikipedia? I just found it there.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_fox_koan
>
> > Bad translation though. In my opinion, it should be: "Don't be fooled
> > by cause and effect".
>
> Thank you. I think you are right. "Don't be fooled by cause and
> effect" is exactly the point. "Buddhist nature" if looking from the
> outside in, it is nothing but another psychological construct. It
> reality is one's "experience" with it.
>
> An example. "2+2=4" is an atem****al truth. As long the characters are
> understood, two plus two always equal to four. This is arithematic
> nature. Now if two persons are arguing wether 2+2 = 4 through a
> causation framework, they are trapped.  Every arguement on whether two
> plus two should be or should not be four is like self(t) or self (t+1)
> or self(t+2) ... .

There is no outside from which to look in, and that certainly is not
enlightenment, but in supposing we have a self we already assume a
position of observation from outside and that is a delusion most
everyone suffers from.  Numbers are based on the idea of identity and
equivalence as though such things really exist beyond the delusion of
permanence and enduring self.
--
RaaN