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

On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:22:57 -0400, Robert Epstein wrote
(in article <lg9Uj.1396$b%1.239@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> tara wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:27:19 -0400, RaaN wrote
>> (in article 
>> <aa895768-77d2-4d32-ad5e-4a0d60ad5cd2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 5, 5:06 am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 18:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <lukecar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 4, 6:56?am, 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
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?
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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
dream.
>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>> 
>>>> Pure bull****. The reason you think you can cover it up is because
you
>>>> never really had it in the first place. What makes you think you are
>>>> so powerful that you can deny Christ? It is only because you are the
>>>> son of the Devil who will never call Christ your true father.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> Even so, why bother, especially about
>>>>>> distingui****ng between awakening and delusion
>>>>>> or whatever? Better just relax and be serene.
>>>>>> Actually, such a blasé 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. 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 cir***stances that
push
>>>>> the limits of credulity, then the Buddha could have stayed
meditating
>>>>> under his tree and never uttered a word.
>>> 
>>> Why are the self proclaimed wor****ppers of the God of Love so often
>>> filled with such Hate?
>>> --
>>> RaaN
>> 
>> 
>> Oh, what a very good question.   Often wondered this myself.  
>> Maybe it's because when you go to one extreme, blindly, nature requires
the 
>> other extreme to try to balance out.
>> 
>> tara
>> 
> 
> Also, you have to listen to the teacher.  How many people who are 
> attracted to being "righteous" and "saved" actually study the words of 
> Jesus - not Paul and everyone else - and put them directly into
practice.
> 
> You know, if  Christian spent one whole day trying to "love his enemy" 
> and "forgive him" however many thousands of times in a row Jesus 
> advocated, how transformative would that be?  I mean, how many 
> Christians spend their time trying to put those teachings into daily 
> practice?
> 
> Same with Buddhism.  Does anyone read the advice of the Buddha and 
> actually try to take it seriously?  If they do, then maybe they are 
> "Buddhists."

Yes!   to all of the above.

Tara

> 
> Robert
> 
> = = = = = = = = =