On May 15, 8:08=A0pm, D=E9j=E0 Flu <cha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > IMO, this may be the distinction that is made in zen between not-
> > thinking and non-thinking. =A0
>
> That's YOUR distinction, not Zen's. In fact it's
> a distinction without a difference.
Did you miss the IMO?
> > The buddha did not apply thought, because
> > thoughts are ways of chopping up experience into bits, a bit like
> > trying to look at a large area with a small flashlight. =A0But he did
> > apply his mind, which is better able to perceive the big picture.
>
> Oh, bull****. You're starting to talk like Tang.
Oh Fu, my sweet and loving son.
> Your mythical master, the buddha, compiled by Injuns
> over 2500 years, thought. He may not have admitted it
> or even knew what the rest of his brain was doing
> but he did, thinking right along and putting
> words in his own mouth.
It depends on what you mean by thought. That's why I say he used his
mind, so there's mental stuffs going on, but to me this is different
than the usual type of thinking.
> Zen translates into not telling yourself the story of
> yourself and talking to yourself about it ALL THE DAMN TIME.
> Once you fall off that merry-go-round horse, you simply
> don't get back on because you've seen where you've been.
Translating zen, eh?
> It's as difficult as yourself makes it. When it gets easy,
> when you fall off, you know. And you don't have to do it
> anymore. And you don't have to be proud of that. And you don't
> have to obsess about it. And you don't have to appeal to
> authority to make a point about it, you practice. But practice
> is only a personal reminder - from you to you - not a trip
> to the Land of Awakened and Enlightened Beings or other
> Walt Disney Productions.
I'm my own authority first, the Buddha is second, and I'm afraid you
didn't make the list at all. But keep trying.
-DaveK
|
