Religions > Atheism > In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re: Buddhism and Hinduism)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Cosmic Mosquito" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2004 01:24:16 PM |
| Object: |
In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re: Buddhism and Hinduism) |
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway! It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky, where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
.
|
|
| User: "Raan" |
|
| Title: Re: In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re: Buddhism and Hinduism) |
14 Jun 2004 05:40:07 PM |
|
|
"Cosmic Mosquito" <cosmicmosquito@email.com> wrote in message
news:2j68lhFtotn9U1@uni-berlin.de...
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway! It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always
sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have
been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us
understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky, where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
Is that what your mind is telling you?
(Victoria's parrot could do better)
--
</>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Kotschessa" |
|
| Title: Re: In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re:Buddhism and Hinduism) |
14 Jun 2004 01:48:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway! It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky, where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
That's obvious. It's a metaphor which is used to draw a very imperfect
sketch of reality. It goes without saying, so why say it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmic Mosquito" |
|
| Title: Rhetorical answering machine ( was Re: In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re: Buddhism and Hinduism) |
14 Jun 2004 01:55:05 PM |
|
|
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614144050.D18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway! It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always
sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have
been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us
understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky, where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
That's obvious. It's a metaphor which is used to draw a very imperfect
sketch of reality. It goes without saying, so why say it?
If you knew the obvious before you asked your question, which was not
completely and obviously a rhetorical question, why be surprised if all you
get is a rhetorical answer ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Kotschessa" |
|
| Title: Re: Rhetorical answering machine ( was Re: In your mind only ( was |
14 Jun 2004 02:06:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614144050.D18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway! It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always
sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have
been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us
understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky, where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
That's obvious. It's a metaphor which is used to draw a very imperfect
sketch of reality. It goes without saying, so why say it?
If you knew the obvious before you asked your question, which was not
completely and obviously a rhetorical question, why be surprised if all you
get is a rhetorical answer ?
Am I supposed to answer?! Now I am not sure! hehe
I think the question was pretty obviously rhetorical. It's just a simple
metaphor to show us that nothingness and "everythingness" re the same.
The sky (emptiness) needs to exist for the clouds (non-emptiness) to be
there. Shunryu Suzuki is much better at explaining this than me!
I didn't mean to pick on you, but sometimes in this group, people point
out stuff that to me seems irrelevant to the conversation, because they
are involved in all this enlightenment one-upsmanship and want to show
they know something you don't. It appeared you were doing that when
perhaps you weren't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmic Mosquito" |
|
| Title: Maybe-ness versus Maybe not-ness ( was Re: Rhetorical answering machine ( was Re: In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re: Buddhism and Hinduism) |
14 Jun 2004 02:12:38 PM |
|
|
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614150114.Y18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614144050.D18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Cosmic Mosquito wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614140838.W18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Evelyn Ruut wrote:
"David Kotschessa" <dave@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:20040614092739.V18128@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, escapee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:17:32 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net>
opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:52:33 GMT, Robert Epstein
<r.epstein@verizon.net> opined:
Isn't this more a description of emptiness?
depends on whether you allow that emptiness is radiant.
robert
I believe seeing emptiness directly can be luminous. Since I am
only
taking the
word of Buddha Shakyamuni and my other teachers, I will confess
I
have
not seen
emptiness, directly. If I did, I wouldn't say I did, anyway!
It
does
make
sense. That's as far as I know. I understand the concept of
emptiness, that
nothing has its own side.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
you may not mean it this way, but I would not think that
emptiness
was
like a "thing" that you could see, but a property of manifest
reality.
robert
Correct. It's what's underneath it all.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
I like to ask people who are not intersted in Buddhism (sort of my
little
experiements) if they understand the idea of emptiness. They say
"sure."
Then I tell them to describe it. It's kind of funny! It's always
sort
of
this black space with nothing in it. huh?
It's a good experiment though.
"no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined."
So it's sensory deprivation, right? hehehe
But we'd have to have some senses to deprive...
Can we talk about what emptiness is, or only what it is not? Is it
just
nothing? I don't think it's that either. I think it's no-nothing.
Does
that then make it everything? Oooh maybe!
David once it was explained to me that "everythingness" would have
been
just
as good a description of "emptiness"..... It doesn't really mean
nothingness, or somethingness either. It is more to make us
understand
that nothing exists of its own.
That is my understanding. The best metaphor is "without the sky,
where
would the clouds be?"
Same place they are now. In your mind only.
That's obvious. It's a metaphor which is used to draw a very imperfect
sketch of reality. It goes without saying, so why say it?
If you knew the obvious before you asked your question, which was not
completely and obviously a rhetorical question, why be surprised if all
you
get is a rhetorical answer ?
Am I supposed to answer?! Now I am not sure! hehe
I think the question was pretty obviously rhetorical. It's just a simple
metaphor to show us that nothingness and "everythingness" re the same.
The sky (emptiness) needs to exist for the clouds (non-emptiness) to be
there. Shunryu Suzuki is much better at explaining this than me!
I didn't mean to pick on you, but sometimes in this group, people point
out stuff that to me seems irrelevant to the conversation, because they
are involved in all this enlightenment one-upsmanship and want to show
they know something you don't. It appeared you were doing that when
perhaps you weren't.
If you see simple exchanges as spiritual ego one-upmanship, perhaps that is
where your gravity of focus needs relishment. But then again, maybe not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmic Mosquito" |
|
| Title: Hourglass bottlenecking ( was Re: In your mind only ( was Re: A perversion of Buddhism (was Re:blah blah blah ) |
14 Jun 2004 02:08:05 PM |
|
|
"Green King" <greenking@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040614145823.05521.00000951@mb-m17.aol.com...
From: David Kotschessa
That's obvious. It's a metaphor which is used to draw a very imperfect
sketch of reality. It goes without saying, so why say it?
what i see here Dave
is your on the ropes
the ropa dopa isnt working
so u try another
tactic
yet for all your endless words
u havent said a thing
related to the Buddhas Buddhism
other than
its only your mind
hehe
GK
And ropes of sand
bottleneck in the hourglass
What's your bottleneck pussing about ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Thinking About Oral Sex: How Rare French Perversion Became Widespread British And American Practice?
Christianity And The Perversion Of Human Sexuality
Perversion of GOP Precepts
Atheism is the perversion of human sensitivity and the slavery to violence
Re: FBI SADISM, PERVERSION, MENTAL TORTURE and BLATANT human rights violations
Re: Muslim Perversion - - Second To None, Muhammad was the King Pedophile
RELIGION, THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION, AND PERVERSION IN SOCIETY AND THE U.S. GOVT.
Re: FBI SADISM, PERVERSION, MENTAL TORTURE and BLATANT human rights violations
| Re: FBI SADISM, PERVERSION, MENTAL TORTURE and BLATANT human rights violations
Re: Islamic Evil: Muslim Sexual Perversion - "A man can marrya girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby beingbreastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girlyounger than nine, other sexual a
NO MORE TOLERANCE FOR PERVERSION
Hinduism: Because Something Can Be As Stupid As Scientology
Hinduism: Celebrating 7,000 Years of Apartheid Segregation!
Idols & Icons: Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the press
Where is the evil in Hinduism?
|
|
|
