« Prev Page 8 of 8 6 7 8 Please log in to reply 195 replies to this topic

[Joop50]

Presence and absence are dual aspects of appearance.
An absolute is positive and present.
There IS no presence, there IS no absence,
Both are positive phenomenal concepts.

Is and is-not are positive and negative isness,
But no form of isness IS.
All saying is thinking, all thinking is mental activity.
Only absolute absence is beyond phenomenality.

Wei Wu Wei

[lungmi]

Yesterday my "isness and no issness" were absent, but not absolutely.
My hangover today tells me.

[sabaijai]

As for the innermost advice,
no matter what kind of
disturbing emotion you feel,
look into the emotion
and it tracelessly subsides.

The disturbing emotion
is thus naturally freed.

This is simple to practice.

--Padmasambhava, 8th century AD

[lungmi]

sabaijai, on 2011-03-20 19:15:41, said:

As for the innermost advice,
no matter what kind of
disturbing emotion you feel,
look into the emotion
and it tracelessly subsides.

The disturbing emotion
is thus naturally freed.

This is simple to practice.

--Padmasambhava, 8th century AD

Songkran Festival in the home town of my wife.

I follow inside and outside.
The disturbing emotion is naturally freed.
I go back on the road to see my friends.
This is simple to practice.
My hangover will tell me tomorrow if it was simple to practice..

[dutchguest]

In the political elections you can only vote for the other, which other party you give power over you (and power to enrich himself). Actually you can only choose whether you prefer a toothache or a headache.

Through meditation, which should be the core of any religion, you can distance yourself from this sickening game and you can choose for yourself (without choosing against the other or harming the other).

Anonymus

[khaowong1]

Suthep_Steve, on 2006-09-13 23:38:35, said:

Another reason why we do not regard others as precious is that we pay attention to their faults whilst ignoring their good qualities. Unfortunately we have become very skilled in recognizing the faults of others, and we devote a great deal of mental energy to listing them, analyzing them, and even meditating on them!

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Transform Your Life

Myself and another monk were just talking about this same thing yesterday..  

[cosmicwoman]

A wrong action regretted, together with the resolve not to repeat it, is a lesson well learned.

phloiwang, on 2006-10-26 21:11:46, said:

Dhamma is anything and everything (including God?).
To attain Dhamma is to oust anything (concept of defilement) from one's mind and bar everything (concept of defilement-to-be) to enter it.

Just my skeptical thought

[lungmi]

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)
To be and not to be - one answer.
Not to be and not not to be another.
To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)
Taoist tetralemma

[Xangsamhua]

lungmi, on 2012-02-18 00:18:15, said:

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)
To be and not to be - one answer.
Not to be and not not to be another.
To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)
Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on.  But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0?  And what is left if you subtract n from n?  It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples:  If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing.  The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity.  There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless.  Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

[lungmi]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-18 11:03:32, said:

lungmi, on 2012-02-18 00:18:15, said:

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)
To be and not to be - one answer.
Not to be and not not to be another.
To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)
Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on.  But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0?  And what is left if you subtract n from n?  It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples:  If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing.  The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity.  There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless.  Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.
Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.
The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.
Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

No, all is zero.

[Xangsamhua]

lungmi, on 2012-02-20 02:18:30, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-18 11:03:32, said:

lungmi, on 2012-02-18 00:18:15, said:

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)
To be and not to be - one answer.
Not to be and not not to be another.
To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)
Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on.  But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0?  And what is left if you subtract n from n?  It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples:  If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing.  The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity.  There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless.  Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.
Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.
The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.
Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

No, all is zero.

Hi Lungmi
Yes, I guess all is zero if One is formless, and formlessness is sunyata (emptiness, zero).

[lungmi]

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-20 07:20:10, said:

lungmi, on 2012-02-20 02:18:30, said:

Xangsamhua, on 2012-02-18 11:03:32, said:

lungmi, on 2012-02-18 00:18:15, said:

To be or not to be, this is the question (Hamlet)
To be and not to be - one answer.
Not to be and not not to be another.
To be the big 0 (zero) is the answer (To be all and nothing)
Taoist tetralemma

Sorry to be contrary (and pedantic), Lungmi, but I think the tetralemma came to China via India and has Buddhist origins, though I see from Wikipedia that the Greeks also thought about it mathematically.

Having said that, I think as a Dhamma Thought for the Day, the tetralemma is a good one to reflect on.  But if to be all and nothing is the answer, shouldn't the mathematical expression be n - n + 0?  And what is left if you subtract n from n?  It can't be zero, because that implies nothing, but there being no such thing as nothing in any sense - abstract or concrete, actual or potential - what remains must have a quality that is neither nothing nor something, where something = anything quantifiable.

To extend the argument by anticipating the objection from concrete examples:  If I have ten rods on the table (n) and I remove the ten rods, then I have n - n, which amounts to no rods, not to nothing.  The table remains, as well as the atoms in the area vacated by the rods, themselves all reducible to infinity.  There is certainly not nothing, only a different form of something, and the remaining form is formless.  Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

My question, however, is this: If the One is both formless and impermanent, how can there be a One at all?

The tetralemme has Taoist and Buddhist origins at the same level.
Nagarjuna the Buddhist philosopher developped one part, Jacques Derrida introduced it in western hermeneutics.
The Taoist origin is the other part, but cannot be allocated to a special person.
Hence, to be is to be all (multiplicity/plurality) and, not nothing, but One (unity/non-duality).  

No, all is zero.

Hi Lungmi
Yes, I guess all is zero if One is formless, and formlessness is sunyata (emptiness, zero).

Exactly
Śūnyatā


Suan Mokh monks in Esaarn put it  over the Toilet room.

[lungmi]

This morning I go outside. Big smokefrom  the burning fields.
I closed all doors and windows.
I went inside myself. No answer for the smoke.

I wanted to open the doors and the windows.
Buddha says to me, wait, the next rain and wind is coming.

[KasunSeneviratne]

Lord Buddha, accurately and completely understood the workings of nature and it's underlying theory (Reality in it's true essence). Only he had the ability to model the whole thing inside his mind. He also very clearly and accurately explained the workings of the human mind, it's interactions with nature and how to free the mind totally from effects of external forces (both inside and outside body) which is eternal bliss. Having read Lord Buddha's teachings Albert Einstein has proved most of those mathematically.  When all it is nature, why do people use separatist words like 'Buddhist', 'Buddhism'. Aren't they putting the greatest master's teachings in jeopardy? People should talk about what they have realistically understood not just memorized stuff.  Otherwise they will be misleading others as well as them selves.

[lungmi]

KasunSeneviratne, on 2012-02-28 01:52:26, said:

Lord Buddha, accurately and completely understood the workings of nature and it's underlying theory (Reality in it's true essence). Only he had the ability to model the whole thing inside his mind. He also very clearly and accurately explained the workings of the human mind, it's interactions with nature and how to free the mind totally from effects of external forces (both inside and outside body) which is eternal bliss. Having read Lord Buddha's teachings Albert Einstein has proved most of those mathematically.  When all it is nature, why do people use separatist words like 'Buddhist', 'Buddhism'. Aren't they putting the greatest master's teachings in jeopardy? People should talk about what they have realistically understood not just memorized stuff.  Otherwise they will be misleading others as well as them selves.

Right, if anyone understands the Truth of his own religion, there will be only the Law of Nature -Dhamma, including  (Buddha, God, Allah, Vishnu, .................)

Edited by lungmi, 2012-03-03 21:05:25.

[lungmi]

camerata, on 2010-06-05 17:59:42, said:

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestation.

- Lao Tzu

Do your (good) work and forget it.
Lao Tzu

[lungmi]

dutchguest, on 2011-05-30 18:20:09, said:

In the political elections you can only vote for the other, which other party you give power over you (and power to enrich himself). Actually you can only choose whether you prefer a toothache or a headache.

Through meditation, which should be the core of any religion, you can distance yourself from this sickening game and you can choose for yourself (without choosing against the other or harming the other).

Anonymus

Yes, light and reft don't muddre. (In Asia specially)

[Xangsamhua]

"There is nothing to practice. To know yourself, be yourself. To be yourself, stop imagining yourself to be this or that. Just be. Let your true nature emerge. Don't disturb your mind with seeking."

Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981), the tobacconist and Advaita guru of Mumbai, quoted by Dr David Loy in today's posting by Camerata

The boundaries are porous.  Dhamma transcends Buddhism.  Lao-tzu - Bodhidharma - Ch'an - Zen -Mahayana - Adi Shankara - Advaita Vedanta - Dzogchen: they have so much in common.

[camerata]

"The economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. The former is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis, equitable utilization of the means of production, and the fate of the working classes and underprivileged. This appeals to me and seems fair. The major flaw of such regimes is their emphasis on class struggle -- insistence on hatred to the detriment of compassion. Their failure is not that of Marxism, but of totalitarianism. So I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

--The Dalai Lama

[lungmi]

camerata, on 2012-03-31 13:59:30, said:

"The economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. The former is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis, equitable utilization of the means of production, and the fate of the working classes and underprivileged. This appeals to me and seems fair. The major flaw of such regimes is their emphasis on class struggle -- insistence on hatred to the detriment of compassion. Their failure is not that of Marxism, but of totalitarianism. So I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

--The Dalai Lama

Tan Buddhadasa, a good friend of the Dalai Lama, says : Dhammic Socialism.
My answer: I gave away the collected works of Mao Tse Tung, of Lenin, of Marx in my possession.
50 years to read books, the next years to forget them all (I lie, the Dhammapada is excepted)

[Xangsamhua]

"The teachings of the Buddha are skillful means; they are not absolute truth. ....... The Buddha said 'My teachings are a finger pointing to the moon.  Do not get caught in thinking that the finger is the moon.  It is because of the finger that you can see the moon." (Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, 2002)