Re: Cheap thrills (was Re: Interiority? Or inter-relatedness?)

On May 6, 7:18=A0pm, Awaken21 <lukecar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 10:50=A0pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 9:27=A0pm, Awaken21 <lukecar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 6:56=A0am, Tang Huyen
<tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Raymond wrote:
> > > > > RaaN:
>
> > > > > >Raymond:
>
> > > > > >> "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
":
>
> > > > > >> >The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any
t=
ime, it
> > > > > >> >is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an
illusio=
n.
>
> > > > > >> How can the realization of illusion be an illusion itself?
=A0I=
s the
> > > > > >> dreamer still dreaming when he wakes up? or has the dreamer
wak=
en up
> > > > > >> yet?
>
> > > > > >It can be an illusion itself if realization is also illusory
and
> > > > > >awakening is like a lucid dream rather than any actual
awakening =
so
> > > > > >the dream persists despite a dream realization that it is a
dream=
..
> > > > > >One might be awake but on LSD and think one is having a waking
dr=
eam.
> > > > > >So what then is awakening at all but another delusion?
>
> > > > > Since cheap awakening is a dime a dozen in this day and age, who
> > > > > cares?
>
> > > > > :-)
>
> > > > On the theory of the universal Buddha-nature,
> > > > awakening is basic and universal, therefore it
> > > > is not just a dime a dozen but flat-out free. It
> > > > is the default, inalienable state, which we could
> > > > not drive away if we wanted to.
>
> > > But we can cover it up until we are no longer able to recognize it,
> > > touch it, hear it's voice. That's why the Buddha taught cultivation
> > > because...
>
> > > > Even so, why bother, especially about
> > > > distingui****ng between awakening and delusion
> > > > or whatever? Better just relax and be serene.
> > > > Actually, such a blas=E9 attitude would be
> > > > perfectly at home with the Buddha-nature,
> > > > wouldn't it? The Buddha-nature would be
> > > > inherent to it, like built-in, wouldn't it? They
> > > > would fit each other like hand and glove,
> > > > wouldn't they?
>
> > > ...just relaxing and being serene in the face of everything that we
> > > added and piled up over our Buddha nature takes cultivation, a
peeling=

> > > away of the mistaken habits we've built up over it in ignorance.
>
> > There is nothing outside of our Buddha nature. That is, no special DNA
> > sequence or sequences are needed for a person to reach realization.
> > Hence we are all born with the root of realization. We only need to
> > allow it to develop naturally.
>
> > > If it
> > > was easy or simple to relax and be serene in the face of our
enemies,
> > > in the face of hateful people, in the face of circumstances that
push
> > > the limits of credulity, then the Buddha could have stayed
meditating
> > > under his tree and never uttered a word.
>
> > Relaxing and being serene in the face of everything is not about easy
> > or difficult. It is about being reassured. Whatever may be may be....
>
> Nevertheless it's easier said than done.

Part of our problems is semantics. In the above example, I use "2+2."
One can say "Two plus two makes four" or "Two plus two equals to
four."  "Make" is indicative of a power relation****p as in "He makes
me do it."  "Equal" is not. So, one easy way to to change our view
from "make", "cause" and etc to "equal." Rather than "X has caused me
trouble." One can say "X is troube." The next is what "makes" trouble
trouble. Again, we have to unmake the "make." After we have unmake all
the make, we can only relax and serene about everything left.
Whatever was was. Whatever is is. Whatever will be will be.



> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -