Re: Where rubber meets the roader (was Re: Cats have 9 Lives)

On May 13, 12:46 am, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Keynes wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008 05:01:09 GMT, Robert Epstein
<vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=# wrote:
>
> >>>"Robert Epstein" <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:paPVj.16477$Au2.1239@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=# wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:kuOdnQreJ4J9SrvVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>>Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Well, first of all, if you were an enlightened master, I think
you'd
> >>>>>>>know it.  Second of all, the real test of enlightenment [leaving
> >>>>>>>Mastery
> >>>>>>>side for a moment] is how you do when you don't have what you
want,
> >>>>>>>when
> >>>>>>>things don't go your way.  If you are fine when all your stuff is
> >>>>>>>taken
> >>>>>>>away and your plans don't work out, because you realize that none
> >>>>>>>of it
> >>>>>>>is "self," then you have a level of unattachment and
understanding
> >>>>>>>that
> >>>>>>>might qualify as enlightenment.  So that would be my question,
not
> >>>>>>>whether you are able to "create your perfect reality" which is a
> >>>>>>>manifestation of spiritualized karma perhaps, but not necessarily
a
> >>>>>>>sign
> >>>>>>>of enlightenment.
>
> >>>>>>Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
> >>>>>>suffering, and that is the test of awakening, namely
> >>>>>>whether one can handle the vagaries of life without
> >>>>>>creating suffering for oneself or not. What happens is
> >>>>>>unavoidable, but suffering is optional. Awakening is
> >>>>>>not about fancy technique, like the ability to solve
> >>>>>>public cases (which is mental masturbation) or the
> >>>>>>ability to sit in sitting only or the ability to attain to
> >>>>>>extraordinary states. All of those belong to the realm
> >>>>>>of the Devil (mara-dhatu, muo-jie, makkyo), whereas
> >>>>>>awakening is to awaken from any state and not to get
> >>>>>>carried away by it but to remain above it all, whatever
> >>>>>>it is or is not.
>
> >>>>>><<If you are fine when all your stuff is taken away
> >>>>>>and your plans don't work out, because you realize
> >>>>>>that none of it is "self," then you have a level of
> >>>>>>unattachment and understanding that might qualify as
> >>>>>>enlightenment.>>
>
> >>>>>>As the Buddha says:
>
> >>>>>>"Form is not-self. If form was self, this form would
> >>>>>>not lead to affliction, and it could be had of form:
> >>>>>>Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus. And
> >>>>>>because form is not-self that it therefore leads to
> >>>>>>affliction, and that it cannot be had of form: Let my
> >>>>>>form be thus, let my form not be thus." SN, III, 66
> >>>>>>(22, 59).
>
> >>>>>>"When a monk does not dwell devoted to cultivation
> >>>>>>(bhavana), even though such a *wish* as this might
> >>>>>>arise in him: 'Oh, that my mind might be liberated
> >>>>>>from the cankers by non-clinging!', yet his mind is
> >>>>>>*not* liberated from the cankers by non-clinging.
> >>>>>>For what reason? It should be said: because of lack
> >>>>>>of cultivation (a-bhavitatta)." SN, III, 153 (22, 101).
>
> >>>>>>That part of reality that often resists and fails human
> >>>>>>wishes and desires exists, whether one builds up a
> >>>>>>self or "I" or not. But when one does not build up a
> >>>>>>self or "I", one can accommodate it more easily and
> >>>>>>more flowingly, and therefore has less of a chance of
> >>>>>>creating suffering for oneself. One can open oneself
> >>>>>>up to it, whatever it is or is not, without resistance,
> >>>>>>and awakening is nothing other than such opening up,
> >>>>>>it is content-free and and is not any specific content,
> >>>>>>is not bound to any specific content.
>
> >>>>>>Tang Huyen
>
> >>>>>the statement " i am enlightened " is totally
> >>>>>erroneous anyway since according to
> >>>>>ramana mahar**** and nisargadatta
> >>>>>maharaj the point of awakening does
> >>>>>indeed encompass the relinquishment
> >>>>>of the notion of  an ' i ' alltogether.
>
> >>>>well they still say "I am That."  It depends on how you use the "I"
> >>>>doesn't it?
>
> >>>>Robert
>
> >>>saying 'i am that' is the best
> >>>nullification of 'i' that you
> >>>can have
>
> >>"I am enlightened" should mean the same exact thing.
>
> >>Robert
>
> >>= = = = = = = =
>
> > I prefer "where am I?"
>
> reminds me of bodhidharma's reply to the Chinese king who wanted to know
> who he was, a stranger in the court.  The King asked "Who is this that
> stands before me?"  And Bodhidharma replied:  "I don't know."
>
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = = = =

God, what an asshole, ehh?

-