Kris, Thanks for your well thought out reply.
I too am not trying to infer that explanations are right or wrong. I do find some explanations more comfortable than others, and perhaps that comfortableness is strongly dependent upon semantics. Also I want to state here and now that all my posts are products of my intellect and therefore from a dualistic perspective. So when I say something like "True compassion for me are actions which spring from that One-ness perspective, not the 'connectedness' perspective", it is the result of a dualistic,intellectual concept of a monistic (One-ness) experience - not a direct expression of that monistic experience itself. I haven't learned how to do that in text format yet... ;>) ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
