Rod, Rod, Rod, ....... You Really Cannot Help Yourself
Can You? Maybe This Might Help. Your Brain Is An
Organ..... It Secretes Thoughts Like Your Lungs Secret
Mucus. The Fact That You Have Hacked Up A Really Big
Gob Might Be Really Impressive But It Really Grosses
Out The General Public When Are Overly Enthusiastic
With Your Sharing..... Now If You A Hanging With A
Group Of 9 Year Old Boys The Fact That You Hacked Up A
Truly Humongus Gob Might Become Legendary, But Most
Adults Will Just Think You Are Just Another In A Very
Long Line Of Gross Litte Boys. There Is Nothing
Origial In Your Brain Gob. It Was All Hacked Up 2500
Years Ago And Ever Since We Have All Failed To To Hack
Up A Better Gob. I Seriously Doubt Any Of On This List
Have The Lungs To Better What Has Already Been Done.
All We Can Impress Is Our Own Little Group Of 9 Year
Old Boys. Even The Little Girls Are Just Grossed
Out.... I Can Tell You This From Experience, If You
Ever Want To Get Laid You Are Going To Have To Develop
A Different Skill.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I liked your post James. Thanks.
>
> When it comes to the redifining of self, we have
similar views. And actual
> ly, I don't consider a change in the definition of
'self' an intent of my p
> ractice (which obviously only has vague tinges of
Zen's), more a result, so
> it is only interesting to me intellectually the
paradox of my insistence o
> n a self, but my inability to find it.
>
> But I wanted to add in, that there are many texts
(inside and outside the Z
> en tradition) that talk about the concept moving
away from your idea:
> "a very changeable and inconsistent part of the
larger whole of humanity/en
> vironment/history (or, looked at another way, they
are a part of oneself)"
> and towards the more comforting "net of jewels" or
"moon in a dewdrop" idea
> .
>
> This I interpret as meaning this
moment/perspective/Being captures perfectl
> y the whole thing -- a 'mode' of the whole, or
'linear combination of all p
> ossible quantum states', or 'eigenvalue of a whole
matrix' -- in such a way
> that EVERY term of the mind/universe wraps up into
and is completely expre
> ssed by this Mode/instant/being -- and yet it isn't
the ONLY expression (le
> st we end up too indistinguishable from solipsism
for my tastes). In this
> way one never has to feel outside the whole, or
incomplete, as though we ge
> t a single view through the complex many. Obviously
words fail here, and l
> acking the 'feeling' of this experience, I'm just
quoting others who have a
> peculiarly consistent message. Might turn out
their full of sh*t -- but w
> ith my knowledge of metaphysics, etc., my money's on
the moon in a dew drop
> :)
>
> ... (shaking off the fog) anyway, back to work :)
lol.
>
> Rod Scholl
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Haines [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Buddhist connundrum #7526
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Alex Bunard wrote:
> > Denial of self is one of the cornerstones of the
> > Buddhist practice. However, this practice can seem
> > unintelligible, since this denial of self
presupposes
> > the existence of self whose existence is being
denied.
>
> Hello, Alex!
>
> Perhaps the problem lies in how you've stated things
(denial of self). I
> don't think it's really a question of *denial* of
*self*. Everyone is
> going to be around as an individual and have an
ego--which can be seen
> nicely by looking at the posts on this list--no
matter how "enlightened"
> they become. I'd say it's more a question of
(gradually) exchanging a
> mistaken view of oneself for a more realistic one:
One moves from thinking
> of oneself as a sort of separate and possibly
immortal whole to
> discovering that in fact one is simply a very
changeable and inconsistent
> part of the larger whole of
humanity/environment/history (or, looked at
> another way, they are a part of oneself). It's
exchanging a very rigid
> and inflexible view of self for a more flexible and
porous one (that will
> allow one to live more easily and helpfully in the
world), at least in my
> limited experience.
>
> It dawns on me, by the way, that you (Alex) might
want to get in touch
> with a Tibetan monk, particularly one trained in the
Gulagpa tradition
> which places great emphasis on the Prashangika
Madhyamaka (I think it is,
> something Sanskrit in any event) view of self so
heavily influenced by the
> thinking of Nagarjuna. Tibetan monks seem quite at
home discussing and
> debating the fine points of philosophy which underly
Buddhist thought
> while Zen priests (and practitioners) seem (to my
mind, at least) to find
> this sort of intellectual nit-picking a distraction
from the real work we
> all need to do in the practice of zazen and mindful
living (which is where
> we encounter our self, if we've got our eyes open
wide enough to see it in
> action).
>
> James
>
>
>
=== Message Truncated ===
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UwRTUD/UOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action,
Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
