An for a baby, that is right action, perfectly suitable to the conditions. 

Thanks,
Chris Austin-Lane
Sent from a cell phone

On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:32, "ED" <seacrofter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>  
> 
> In one way or another, in effect, babies are almost entirely focused on 
> me-me-me, that is they are continually looking for food and a comfortable 
> environment, with no regard for anything or anyone else.
> 
> This 'selfishness' has nothing to do with any carry-over from previous lives.
> 
> Babies have evolved to be this way because such behavior enhances their 
> chances of survival in the Darwinian struggle of life.
> 
> --ED 
> 
>  
> 
> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com,  Chris wrote:
> 
> Babies do not split life into self and other.
> 
> Also they do not get distracted by abstract worries. They are fully present 
> in the moment. They are not much concerned with stuff outside of their own 
> internal needs, but that is appropriate. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris Austin-Lane
>  
>> Lana,
>> 
>> The way in which babies normally and naturally behave is to be obsessed with 
>> 'I/me/mine' (it's ego), with no regard whatsoever for the needs of its 
>> mother or anyone else - and without which attitude it would not survive.
>> 
>> In short, if babies had no egos, the only babies who survived for more than 
>> a few days would be 'buddhas' - and the population of human buddhas on this 
>> earth would be nil.
>> 
>> --ED
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Lana M. Gibbons" <lana.m.gibb...@...> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > No, Thank You. I already have much of the infant's mentality, the lack of
>> > duality, the awareness, the "no-mind" - to discard all of what I have
>> > "learned" so far would be to discard my true self.
>> > 
>> > The typical five year old has many concepts and ideas, they are possessive,
>> > materialistic, extreme in their sense of duality, some even expect others 
>> > to
>> > serve them - that is nothing I strive towards being.
>> > 
>> > If all children naturally developed as Buddhas, there would be no need for
>> > Buddhism to exist.
>> > 
>> > -Lana
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to