Kunga wrote:....why would you intensionally commit acts of violence against yourself ?[You wouldn't].
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Kunga wrote:....why would you intensionally commit acts of violence against yourself ?[You wouldn't].
Ignorance is the fundamental act of violence against truth. By violating truth, one violates principle. By violating principle, one violates mind. By violating mind, one violates us all.
Jehu wrote:Actually, enlightenment is dependent upon our abandoning who we think that we are, and surrendering to our true nature – as authentic human beings. An erroneous metaphysical view of the phenomenal world is all that keeps us from our goal. Once this "wrong view" is fully overcome, there is nothing else that needs to be done.
Talking Ass wrote:I admit to liking the sound of what Jehu wrote. I admit that it resonates even with a more pragmatic, if even 'lusty' Whitmanesque American sense of authenticity. Still, I am thrown off by the reference to metaphysical rearrangement as being the thing needing to be done (realized) and that thereafter 'nothing more to be done'.
"Just because consciousness is expanded is no guarantee of genuine human liberation. Even alleged cosmic consciousness can be basically superficial when measured by human extremity. Horizons opened by Oriental disciplines or planetary vision, however welcome and instructive, can still be parochial. Initiation into archetypal mysteries, subliminal labyrinths, or the kaleidoscopic phantasmata induced by soma or the mu hroom may similarly by-pass the radical human problem, which has to do with our waking life in the sunlight and our choices and relations."
---Amos Niven Wilder
Still, this is a compelling statement. But it is not clear what in fact it means, nor where it leads. (I substituted 'in which' for 'that' as it seemed to bring out the sense more. I hope this is still what you meant.)Jehu wrote: "It is the belief that the phenomenal world exists in the manner [in which] it appears to the senses that must be overturned, in favour of that view which comes to be perceived only by the light of reason."
Jehu wrote:It is not the belief that we are goats that must be overturned, in favour of the equally erroneous belief that we are lions. This is not the enlightened view.
It is the belief that the phenomenal world exists in the manner that it appears to the senses that must be overturned, in favour of that view which comes to be perceived only by the light of reason.
Talking Ass wrote: I tend to believe that we have actually lost our nerve in substantial ways,
Talking Ass wrote: mystifies rather than illuminates.
Talking Ass wrote: oneself willing to trade it in 'for a mess of pottage'.
Talking Ass wrote:this is a compelling statement. But it is not clear what in fact it means, nor where it leads.
David Quinn wrote:The lion story is a metaphor, with the lion representing our true nature. You do know what a metaphor is?
David Quinn wrote:I don't know what you're trying to say here. It is the world that appears to the ignorant mind that needs to be overturned. The senses have nothing to do with the matter.
The enlightened person still perceives the world through the senses just as he did before. The difference is that he no longer projects false conceptions onto what he experiences and thus no longer lives in a fantasy of his own making. He no longer wastes his life pursuing mirages and being pursued by them.
More than this, the enlighten person continues on in the phenomenal world, but like a lucid dreamer, is no longer perturbed by their phenomenal experiences, for they know that they (and all phenomena) are devoid of any intrinsic reality.
Talking Ass wrote:The 'no intrinsic reality' realization just doesn't seem that USEFUL to me. If we were taught, and if we all 'realized', that 'nothing has intrinsic reality', nothing would.make any difference, neither life nor death.
It is possible and attractive in some way to reason things through and to see things in that way. Anyone who thinks about non-intrinsic-ness does this. It is.not even that hard of a thought. But what is the use of it? In any case, one is still in the body, alive within the non-intrinsic. So what? You don't regard anything as having 'intrinsic.existence'.
What then does one do?
Talking Ass wrote:To be a Buddhist
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests