OK - Forum's slow, and all's quiet hereabouts, so I'll bite...
Yes Bill!, delusion is delusion (aka delusion of separations - aka no
independent origination - aka emptiness - aka form is
emptiness/emptiness is form - etc. - etc...), appearing as all 'other'
apparent forms of delusion. (also compare to "Original Sin' and being
cast from 'the garden' as a consequence). A multiplicitous duplicity if
you will (a compounding of error), that finds the target but misses the
mark (sins), but only because rings attaching differing values have been
painted thereon.
Please note I said "some sense of shared delusion'(suffering), which is
is not the same as "shared delusion" as you are describing. As usual I
was perhaps not very clear or detailed - on purpose. For clarification,
please refer to the first two of the four noble truths.
Compassion, to be experienced, must at least appear "dual" in aspect, or
tripartite if you prefer. Just as the 'three jewels', are but
reflections (and without reflection, nothing to see/be concerned with).
Buddha - Dharma - Sangha (as seen by 'ordinary mind')
Enlightenment - Equanimity - Compassion (as expression of Original mind)
To say "one" (to mean nonduality) is an example how this plays out. It
is either redundant to equate "just this" (suchness) with "one", or
plain wrong. Either error serves equally well to invoke duality. To say
"one", is also a misunderstanding of "not two". Advaita does not mean
"one". This is not just a matter of semantics. Thus Buddha spoke of
'suchness' rather than oneness. Not to point out any difference, but to
make such habits of differentiation more obvious. Being only imagined
differences, it still appears more difficult to be deluded that you are
separate from suchness than oneness, which is pretty damn funny.
Appearances are many, and do not appear as one. However this appears,
always aspects of 'suchness'.
I do not discuss these things with an eye to right or wrong. We can go
around in circles, tighter and looser, concentric and eccentric, like
Sambo and the Tiger going 'round and 'round the tree, until the tiger
turns to butter. No matter, as this can take us nowhere else. It's
simply never been about right and wrong, it's about turning all that
butter into Ghee. (Well not really, but if you want lots of
logical/rational arguments/perspectives - buy thick books [like Edgar's
perhaps])
In more Zennish parlance: At first it's semantics, then it's not, then
it's simply the play of words. ;)
For you to say "True compassion for me are actions which spring from
that One-ness perspective, not the 'connectedness' perspective" seems to
over-intellectualize, convolute to the point of being nonsensical (and
by even noting this, I am drawn into doing likewise to illustrate). It
requires you to see these perspectives you have created as separate, so
you can grasp one and reject the other (failing to realized the
empty/false/dual nature of adopting any such 'perspective'). All spun up
out of illusory forms. For you to see compassion as acts springing form
anything requires/generates/perpetuates this same error, and creates a
belief in compassion as some separate thing, with distinct
qualities/characteristics, to include an imagined beginning and presumed
end. Find them for us, will you?
All this rational/discriminatory thinking is none other than the root of
delusion itself, but I can only point to this. There can be no shared
realization (and no 'attainment' thereof), as there are 'not two'.
KG
On 9/15/2013 10:41 PM, Bill! wrote:
Kris,
Please don't think my continual push-back on you is any form of
disrespect. It is my method of re-stating what you say in a way that
is more compatible with my thoughts. Like bouncing them off you to see
what you will say. Many of the differences may just be semantic, but
that's why I'm rewording them and bouncing them off you - to see if it
is just semantic or something more substantial.
Below you seem to imply that "shared delusion" is necessary or at
least promotes compassion. I disagree. I see the fundamental
characteristic of delusion to be a sense of duality: the self/other
split. For me all other delusions (classification, logic, reason,
judgement, etc...) emanate from there - like the miseries springing
out of Pandora's Box. So for this reason I don't see "shared delusion"
playing any beneficial role at all in true compassion. "Shared
delusion" might indeed be a part of a faux-compassion. One still
rooted in dualism but developed as a sense of connectedness (we're all
in this together and I have empathy and 'feel your pain'). This type
of thinking is represented very well in the Indra's Web analogy: there
are separate things but they are all connected.
When I talk about One-ness I do not talk about separate things being
connected. I talk about just one thing - Just THIS!. Nothing else.
True compassion for me are actions which spring from that One-ness
perspective, not the 'connectedness' perspective.
But...the 'connectedness' perspective is better than a completely
self-oriented perspective which doesn't even recognize any
connections. An individual which holds this extreme perspective is
called (I think) a psychopath.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed (in deed - meaning maybe, maybe not - but we act as if), without
> some sense of shared 'delusion' (suffering), no sense of 'compassion'
> arises. Sharing this, is a manifest/essential aspect of 'unity'.
> Compassion, points to/reflects this.
>
> KG
>
>
> On 9/14/2013 3:48 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > KG,
> >
> > That's why I said "seems to be". I have know way of really
knowing. In
> > fact I do think some animals share some of our intellectual
> > characteristics. And maybe in that respect also share some of our
> > delusions.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Key words there Bill!: "... seem to be..."
> > >
> > > Ordinary mind, such a seemly business. Always becoming
(appearing as)
> > > this or that to itself, for itself, of itself. Ordinary mind
> > > distinguishes itself by caring for such distinctions, and thus
becoming
> > > self-deluded by continually grasping and rejecting them.
> > >
> > > KG
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/14/2013 1:14 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > I think you could also say that humans are the only beings that
> > > > actually need to make an effort to become "self-realised by
following
> > > > the Dharma". All other sentient beings of which I know seem to be
> > > > already doing that.
> > > >
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Merle,<br/><br/>I'm not "attempting" to say anything. I
wrote it in
> > > > black and white and clearly: humans are in a unique position to
> > become
> > > > self-realised by following the Dharma (law of reality). You
added the
> > > > destructive bit.<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo!
Mail
> > for
> > > > iPad
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
