On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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.
Of course there is the outside to look in. That is what everybody does
in zen and Buddhism. Of course we all have a self to live life. That
is how we know happiness and suffering. Is happiness a delusion? No, I
don't think so. Is suffering a delusion? No, I don't think so. As for
numbers, I'm sure everybody has one. Because when the number is up, we
will know it's time to go. Deny it all you want, life goes on.
|
