...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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
