Discussion:
tang gets caught in his own trap
(too old to reply)
Tang Huyen
2004-12-13 17:08:07 UTC
Permalink
hey ben,
my real name is lee frank.
i am not a woman
sorry if that is the impression
you have had for so long
i guess my personification
of jen was just too convincing.
Hehe, whatever your true name is and
whether you're a man or woman, I am
not interested in you personally but only
in your shape-shifting and such. You're
an act and quite good at it, and please
keep up with it, the more the merrier.

Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-13 17:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
keep up with it, the more the merrier.
Tang Huyen
subtle tribal herding strategies
to bolster sensation addictions
from a buddhist scholar?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-13 17:51:33 UTC
Permalink
"Tang Huyen"
Post by Tang Huyen
keep up with it, the more the merrier.
subtle tribal herding strategies
to bolster sensation addictions
from a buddhist scholar?
"yeah but tang sweetnumbs, the bottom
line *is* hilarity

all else is a drag"

Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-13 18:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
"Tang Huyen"
Post by Tang Huyen
keep up with it, the more the merrier.
subtle tribal herding strategies
to bolster sensation addictions
from a buddhist scholar?
"yeah but tang sweetnumbs, the bottom
line *is* hilarity
all else is a drag"
Tang Huyen
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-13 21:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.

Tang "Jen" Huyen
Lee Dillion
2004-12-13 22:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Given your inability, might I suggest as a stocking stuffer "Power vs
Force" in which Hawkins will help you as follows:

# Mere exposure to the "Map of Consciousness' on pp. 52-53 advances
one's understanding of all human behavior
# Instant access to information that is beyond the capacity of all the
world's computers.
# By "critical point analysis" detect the exact point in any complex
system where the least effort brings about the greatest result, (p.33).
# Understand the significance of the holographic mind in a holographic
universe (p.37).
# Advance one's level of consciousness faster than any course of study,
mental or spiritual technique or consciousness expansion workshop (p.54).
# Understand the nature and power of attitudes, emotions and their
personal consequences (pp. 60-75).
# Discover how to heal oneself of any illness (p. 173).
# Discern the reality of "near death" or "out of body" experiences-fact
or fiction? (p. 81).
# Understand the basis and recovery from addiction (p. 151).
# Understand how to advance one's own level of consciousness.
# Efficiently advance industrial, scientific and medical research and
achieve rapid breakthrough (p.88).
# Ascertain correct medical diagnoses and treatments (p. 100).
# Quickly obtain information unavailable to current military
intelligence or forensic science. Identify validity of physical evidence
and forensic findings (p.l 19).
# Decipher codes that are beyond the capacity of the most advanced
cryptographers. (Simply bypass the code and directly obtain the content
of the message!) (p. 123).
# Recognize and utilize the critical differences between power and force
(p.l 19).
# Differentiate powerful attitudes and concepts from weak ones (pp.
120-122).
# Understand the basis of true political power (p. 126).
# Understand the source of power of democracy.
# Discover the true power base of successful business, and the
marketplace and commerce (p. 132).
# Reveal the power base of athletic prowess and the Olympics (p. 140).
# Discover that who and what you are and have become is more powerful
than anything you do, have, or possess (p.69).
# Discover the basis of genius, creativity, and the arts (p. 164).
# Discover how to advance health, wellness and reverse the disease
process (p. 179).
# Learn how to instantly access any information about any subject (p. 189).
# Understand how the minds of all of mankind are secretly controlled and
dominated by unsuspected energy fields which reside in the invisible
quantum space of consciousness itself (p.200).
# Discover how you and everyone you know is the prisoner of entrapment
of dominant fields that determine perception and experience (p.205).
# Understand the spiritual pathways to enlightenment and advanced states
of spiritual awareness.
# Understand the underpinnings and levels of truth of the worlds great
religious and spiritual teachers (p.233).
# Learn how 85% of the worlds population falls below the level of
integrity and how it is counterbalanced by the 15% that calibrate above
the critical level of 200 (p.234). How one person who calibrates at 500
counterbalances the negativity of 750,000 individuals who calibrate
below 200. (One person at level 300 counterbalances 90,000 below 200;
one person at 700 counterbalances 20 million below 200).
# Learn how the level of men's consciousness stood at 190 for centuries
and has now jumped to 207 with major importance for the future of the
human race (p.237).
# Understand the common plight of all mankind - how to utilize that
insight into the compassion that uplifts, heals and enlightens (p.242).
# Calibrated levels of truth of each chapter (for the first time in
history) documents objective validity of all statements made.
# How to remove doubt and ascertain correctness of personal decisions.
# Learn why this book which calibrates at an amazing 800 is described as
one of the greatest books ever written with the intrinsic capacity to
elevate one's own power merely by reading the material.
# Provide a calibrated level of power for each of alternate decisions
and choices and an objective basis for action.
# Resolve conflicts by merely recontextualizing them. Conflicts cannot
be resolved at their own level but only by raising them to the next
higher level when awareness become obvious.
# Obtain answers to questions that are beyond the world's current state
of knowledge.
# Discover the basis for all knowledge and how to access it.
# Transcend the limitations of both past and future in the timeless
quantum reality reachable only in this exact moment of now.
# Differentiate the subjective from the objective and thereby transcend
both time and space to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
# Discover simple steps to reach inner serenity.
# Discover how to unveil the mysteries of past events hidden from the
public (what happened to Amelia Earhardt, the JFK assassination, O.J.
Simpson trial, Clinton's accusers, etc.).
# Instantly detect counterfeits, bad checks, claims, or any fact that is
in doubt.
# Calibrate the level of truth of any teacher, leader, set of teachings,
philosophy, religion, or government (p.90).
# Differentiate between a cult and a legitimate spiritual group (p. 103).
# Detect fallacies in history both recent and ancient (p.96, p. 107).
# Eliminate needless avenues of research and instantly detect the most
fruitful focus of inquiry.
# Easily resolve complex business issues and decisions (p. 98).
# Select best employee for a given job.
# Discover the actual truth in any human endeavor (p. 103).
# Benefit from a cutting edge coordination of the most advanced
scientific information (chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, quantum
theory, advanced theoretical subparticle physics, the thrust of these
discoveries is expressed in simple easily understood language. (You
don't have to be an electrical engineer to throw a light switch), (p.
111-115).
# Resolve marital and personal relationship problems.
# Resolve doubts about fidelity of relationship, employees, romantic,
business associates, lawyers, accountants, earnings statements,
contracts, customers.
# Knowledge of the easily performed kinesiologic response affords a
benefit which has been unknown until the publication of this book - How
to tell the truth or falsehood about any statement about any event.
# Quickly know the whereabouts of lost objects.
# Instantly know the genuineness of art or antiques.
# Instantly know the honesty of any business, (p. 94), investment,
politician, witness, crime suspect, (p. 94, 97).
# Ascertain the degree of integrity and level of consciousness of any
person living or dead
# Instantly tell whether a politician is lying or telling the truth, (p.
95).
Tang Huyen
2004-12-13 23:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Given your inability, might I suggest as a
stocking stuffer "Power vs Force" in which
# Mere exposure to the "Map of Consciousness'
on pp. 52-53 advances one's understanding of
all human behavior [snip]
Why all this fascination if you are interested in
"my lessening of my habitual tendency to
conceptualize informed by craving, conceit and
views"?

Are you interested in Buddhism for what? For
sensational fluff or for "my lessening of my
habitual tendency to conceptualize informed by
craving, conceit and views"?

You're into, ah, yellow Buddhism?

Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
2004-12-14 02:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Lee Dillion
Given your inability, might I suggest as a
stocking stuffer "Power vs Force" in which
# Mere exposure to the "Map of Consciousness'
on pp. 52-53 advances one's understanding of
all human behavior [snip]
Why all this fascination if you are interested in
"my lessening of my habitual tendency to
conceptualize informed by craving, conceit and
views"?
Are you interested in Buddhism for what? For
sensational fluff or for "my lessening of my
habitual tendency to conceptualize informed by
craving, conceit and views"?
You're into, ah, yellow Buddhism?
Why all this apparent fascination with my apparent fascination?

You're into, ah, yellow Buddhism?
David Kotschessa
2004-12-13 22:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
hahahaha!

You shape shifter!

Tang's on a roll today. Hand me some more kettle corn.
Awaken21
2004-12-14 16:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
hahahaha!
You shape shifter!
Tang's on a roll today. Hand me some more kettle corn.
Kettle corn=popcorn?
David Kotschessa
2004-12-14 16:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
hahahaha!
You shape shifter!
Tang's on a roll today. Hand me some more kettle corn.
Kettle corn=popcorn?
It's the "sweetened" popcorn they are now selling at blockbuster.
Actually I think it's gross. But some here like it...
Dominic
2004-12-14 05:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
attractor rings of electromagnetic and morphogenetic
cohesion formulate the sine wave vibratility necessary
to constant one into throes of limitational encoding for
stabilized boundary regulated mental culturalizings
in fastidiouslly regurgitational strategies until no scales
can any longer be said to apply.

you speak from a body and mind identification
level wherein you believe that everyone else identifies
in like manner and adjusts the gravity of
their focus of awareness to the conceptual
frameworking cages of a human embodiment's
mental culturalizings and emotional ego addiction
satisfaction agenda strategy matrix sans a clarity
of legitimate or authenticated encapsulating of the vehement
and transcensionalizing noumenon plenum in aggregational
compositions to absolute flows of vibrancy and cauterizing
exoterica.

your viewpoint, as most others, is simply
from the survival agenda of the consciousness
in its relative dualistic horizon of awareness
which is thrice compounded and relative
to its content

at a much more subtle level, going virtually
unnoticed by most, is that implicate order
which is like a whisper compared to the shout
of your human form and its mind puke.

listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words in thoughts
discern that which is the background for the silence
Lee Dillion
2004-12-14 13:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
attractor rings of electromagnetic and morphogenetic
cohesion formulate the sine wave vibratility necessary
to constant one into throes of limitational encoding for
stabilized boundary regulated mental culturalizings
in fastidiouslly regurgitational strategies until no scales
can any longer be said to apply.
you speak from a body and mind identification
level wherein you believe that everyone else identifies
in like manner and adjusts the gravity of
their focus of awareness to the conceptual
frameworking cages of a human embodiment's
mental culturalizings and emotional ego addiction
satisfaction agenda strategy matrix sans a clarity
of legitimate or authenticated encapsulating of the vehement
and transcensionalizing noumenon plenum in aggregational
compositions to absolute flows of vibrancy and cauterizing
exoterica.
your viewpoint, as most others, is simply
from the survival agenda of the consciousness
in its relative dualistic horizon of awareness
which is thrice compounded and relative
to its content
at a much more subtle level, going virtually
unnoticed by most, is that implicate order
which is like a whisper compared to the shout
of your human form and its mind puke.
listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words in thoughts
discern that which is the background for the silence
I tried to help him Jen, tried to point him to the one man who could
help him transform his life-view from "miserable" to "is" by moving from
elimination to illumination then Pure Consciousness. Course, coming
from one similarly trapped may be a problem. I hope he can overlook my
own 20 that I log on the level of enlightenment to see the benefits you
so gracefully offer him. It is clear I cannot, but others may.
cupcake
2004-12-14 13:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Re: listen ( was Re: tang gets caught in his own trap)
Reply to: [1]Lee Dillion
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:21:38 -0700
[2]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]talk.religion.buddhism
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by Dominic
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
so you're hiding behind the thin veil
of hilarity creationist conspiracy
in order to falsify the egocentric
addictions of a psychosomatic
apparatus without considering
the infinite subsequent causality
that may be involved once your
actions create an equal and
opposite reaction elsewhere?
I am unable with my finite mind to
consider infinite anything, even less
the infinite subsequent causality that
may ensue from any of my actions,
involved as they are singly and
together in infinite loops of other
actions, mine included.
Tang "Jen" Huyen
attractor rings of electromagnetic and morphogenetic
cohesion formulate the sine wave vibratility necessary
to constant one into throes of limitational encoding for
stabilized boundary regulated mental culturalizings
in fastidiouslly regurgitational strategies until no scales
can any longer be said to apply.
you speak from a body and mind identification
level wherein you believe that everyone else identifies
in like manner and adjusts the gravity of
their focus of awareness to the conceptual
frameworking cages of a human embodiment's
mental culturalizings and emotional ego addiction
satisfaction agenda strategy matrix sans a clarity
of legitimate or authenticated encapsulating of the vehement
and transcensionalizing noumenon plenum in aggregational
compositions to absolute flows of vibrancy and cauterizing
exoterica.
your viewpoint, as most others, is simply
from the survival agenda of the consciousness
in its relative dualistic horizon of awareness
which is thrice compounded and relative
to its content
at a much more subtle level, going virtually
unnoticed by most, is that implicate order
which is like a whisper compared to the shout
of your human form and its mind puke.
listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words in thoughts
discern that which is the background for the silence
I tried to help him Jen, tried to point him to the one man who could
help him transform his life-view from "miserable" to "is" by moving from
elimination to illumination then Pure Consciousness. Course, coming
from one similarly trapped may be a problem. I hope he can overlook my
own 20 that I log on the level of enlightenment to see the benefits you
so gracefully offer him. It is clear I cannot, but others may.
YOU SLIMY SLEAZE-BAG! :(
Dominic
2004-12-14 16:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
I tried to help him Jen, tried to point him to the one man who could
help him transform his life-view from "miserable" to "is" by moving from
elimination to illumination then Pure Consciousness.
you believe that you can find enlightenment
by taking a shit?

you are full of it
Lee Dillion
2004-12-14 16:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
I tried to help him Jen, tried to point him to the one man who could
help him transform his life-view from "miserable" to "is" by moving from
elimination to illumination then Pure Consciousness.
you believe that you can find enlightenment
by taking a shit?
you are full of it
Thank you.
Tang Huyen
2004-12-14 23:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
attractor rings of electromagnetic and
morphogenetic cohesion formulate the
sine wave vibratility necessary to
constant one into throes of limitational
encoding for stabilized boundary
regulated mental culturalizings in
fastidiouslly regurgitational strategies
until no scales can any longer be said
to apply.
you speak from a body and mind
identification level wherein you believe
that everyone else identifies in like
manner and adjusts the gravity of
their focus of awareness to the
conceptual frameworking cages of a
human embodiment's mental culturalizings
and emotional ego addiction satisfaction
agenda strategy matrix sans a clarity of
legitimate or authenticated encapsulating
of the vehement and transcensionalizing
noumenon plenum in aggregational
compositions to absolute flows of
vibrancy and cauterizing exoterica.
your viewpoint, as most others, is simply
from the survival agenda of the
consciousness in its relative dualistic horizon
of awareness which is thrice compounded
and relative to its content
at a much more subtle level, going
virtually unnoticed by most, is that
implicate order which is like a
whisper compared to the shout
of your human form and its mind puke.
listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words
in thoughts
discern that which is the background for
the silence
Your fluff is de rigueur and unavoidable,
but otherwise -- that is, parsing the fluff
down to its essentials -- there are good
points that vibrate with Buddhist orthodoxy.

The Buddhism saint is beyond any standard,
outside of any reference. As the Sutta-nipata
V, 6, v. 1075-1076 says (Lamotte, Traité,
235-236):

Upasiva: "When the sage is gone, should it
be said that he is no more, should it be said
that he is exempt from pain forever?
Explain to me, Wise one, because you
know it."

The Buddha: "Of he who is gone, there is
no standard (atthangatassa na pamanam
atthi). There is nothing of him any more by
which one could talk of him (yena nam
vajju tam tassa na 'tthi). All the givens
that made him up are gone, all paths of
speech are abandoned (sabbesu
dhammesu samuhatesu, smuhata
vada-patha pi sabbe ti)."

The exchange is about the saint after death,
but it is true also of the saint in life, for he
has relinquished all reference, and since he
has relinquished all reference (including the
Buddhist Law, Dharma), there is nothing
by which he judges and by which others
can judge him.

So, as you say; "no scales can any longer
be said to apply." One drops everything
(including Buddhism and Hinduism or
whatever), doesn't identify with anything
and is free.

As to:

"listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words
in thoughts
discern that which is the background for
the silence"

I can see what you mean and agree with it.

By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?

Tang Huyen
Sid
2004-12-15 01:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
attractor rings of electromagnetic and
morphogenetic cohesion formulate the
sine wave vibratility necessary to
constant one into throes of limitational
encoding for stabilized boundary
regulated mental culturalizings in
fastidiouslly regurgitational strategies
until no scales can any longer be said
to apply.
you speak from a body and mind
identification level wherein you believe
that everyone else identifies in like
manner and adjusts the gravity of
their focus of awareness to the
conceptual frameworking cages of a
human embodiment's mental culturalizings
and emotional ego addiction satisfaction
agenda strategy matrix sans a clarity of
legitimate or authenticated encapsulating
of the vehement and transcensionalizing
noumenon plenum in aggregational
compositions to absolute flows of
vibrancy and cauterizing exoterica.
your viewpoint, as most others, is simply
from the survival agenda of the
consciousness in its relative dualistic horizon
of awareness which is thrice compounded
and relative to its content
at a much more subtle level, going
virtually unnoticed by most, is that
implicate order which is like a
whisper compared to the shout
of your human form and its mind puke.
listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words
in thoughts
discern that which is the background for
the silence
Your fluff is de rigueur and unavoidable,
but otherwise -- that is, parsing the fluff
down to its essentials -- there are good
points that vibrate with Buddhist orthodoxy.
The Buddhism saint is beyond any standard,
outside of any reference. As the Sutta-nipata
V, 6, v. 1075-1076 says (Lamotte, Traité,
Upasiva: "When the sage is gone, should it
be said that he is no more, should it be said
that he is exempt from pain forever?
Explain to me, Wise one, because you
know it."
The Buddha: "Of he who is gone, there is
no standard (atthangatassa na pamanam
atthi). There is nothing of him any more by
which one could talk of him (yena nam
vajju tam tassa na 'tthi). All the givens
that made him up are gone, all paths of
speech are abandoned (sabbesu
dhammesu samuhatesu, smuhata
vada-patha pi sabbe ti)."
The exchange is about the saint after death,
but it is true also of the saint in life, for he
has relinquished all reference, and since he
has relinquished all reference (including the
Buddhist Law, Dharma), there is nothing
by which he judges and by which others
can judge him.
So, as you say; "no scales can any longer
be said to apply." One drops everything
(including Buddhism and Hinduism or
whatever), doesn't identify with anything
and is free.
"listen deeply
listen closely
listen subtle
silence is the background for the words
in thoughts
discern that which is the background for
the silence"
I can see what you mean and agree with it.
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
Tang Huyen
Perhaps everyone here could be quiet enough to listen to
being. But, then again, perhaps America's Envoys (read:
armed forces with massive weapons) will be successful in
propagating democratic politics in a world of 10th century
tribal conflict.

You say, "I strip the fluff off and answer in substance,
which is bad, as people understand and will talk."

But that's incorrect.

People will still misunderstand, just differently. So, your
"substance" is not much different than Jen's fluff.

Understand that.
Tang Huyen
2004-12-15 01:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
You say, "I strip the fluff off and answer in substance,
which is bad, as people understand and will talk."
But that's incorrect.
People will still misunderstand, just differently. So, your
"substance" is not much different than Jen's fluff.
Understand that.
Ch'an-Fu?

Sure, my "substance" is not much different from
Jen's fluff. It has no other pretence. They are
direct clones of each other. In fact she/he is a
sock puppet of mine.

Tang Huyen
Sid
2004-12-15 01:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Sid
You say, "I strip the fluff off and answer in substance,
which is bad, as people understand and will talk."
But that's incorrect.
People will still misunderstand, just differently. So, your
"substance" is not much different than Jen's fluff.
Understand that.
Ch'an-Fu?
Of course, you silly soy-bean-headed scholar! New name and
title courtesy of Julian.
Post by Tang Huyen
Sure, my "substance" is not much different from
Jen's fluff. It has no other pretence. They are
direct clones of each other. In fact she/he is a
sock puppet of mine.
That's for damn sure!
Post by Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
I'll just be "Sid" for a while, ok?
Wouldn't want to dishonor the position - it's quite majestic
and you just *know* how I love majesty...

Not much time for this stuff right now, but I'll try to
accommodate...

Regards,
and stop hyphenating me, sweetie... don't need any more
dualities!

:)
Dominic
2004-12-15 05:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
People will still misunderstand, just differently. So, your
"substance" is not much different than Jen's fluff.
Understand that.
your understanding is fluff too foofie
Dominic
2004-12-15 05:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
Tang Huyen
whether the fluff is negotiable or
not is exceptioned to the notion
of finding that unbecome, that
un-fluff as such. once there, all
words are fluff anyway whether
or not they appear substantiated
or overly fluffy.
Sid
2004-12-15 05:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
Tang Huyen
whether the fluff is negotiable or
not is exceptioned to the notion
of finding that unbecome, that
un-fluff as such. once there, all
words are fluff anyway whether
or not they appear substantiated
or overly fluffy.
just shave the cat.

Sid
Julianlzb87
2004-12-15 05:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Post by Dominic
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
Tang Huyen
whether the fluff is negotiable or
not is exceptioned to the notion
of finding that unbecome, that
un-fluff as such. once there, all
words are fluff anyway whether
or not they appear substantiated
or overly fluffy.
just shave the cat.
Sid
Brazilian.


Julianlzb87
Dominic
2004-12-15 05:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Post by Dominic
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
Tang Huyen
whether the fluff is negotiable or
not is exceptioned to the notion
of finding that unbecome, that
un-fluff as such. once there, all
words are fluff anyway whether
or not they appear substantiated
or overly fluffy.
just shave the cat.
Sid
burka-mint
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 08:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
People could always talk about your fluff intimacy... Yet more
indistinguishible fluff

But isn't seeing everything as fluff, taking the sting out of reality?
And isn't it that very penetrating sting which makes it into reality?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-15 12:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
People could always talk about your fluff intimacy...
Yet more indistinguishible fluff
But isn't seeing everything as fluff, taking the sting
out of reality?
And isn't it that very penetrating sting which makes
it into reality?
Pretty good, my sweet and loving son.

You help save TRB from the babbling idiots.

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 13:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
People could always talk about your fluff intimacy...
Yet more indistinguishible fluff
But isn't seeing everything as fluff, taking the sting
out of reality?
And isn't it that very penetrating sting which makes
it into reality?
Pretty good, my sweet and loving son.
You help save TRB from the babbling idiots.
But if I wanted that I could only do so through babbling myself
Lifeform Bri
2004-12-15 13:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
People could always talk about your fluff intimacy...
Yet more indistinguishible fluff
But isn't seeing everything as fluff, taking the sting
out of reality?
And isn't it that very penetrating sting which makes
it into reality?
Pretty good, my sweet and loving son.
You help save TRB from the babbling idiots.
But if I wanted that I could only do so through babbling myself
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 13:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
By the way, you code your message in fluff,
but I strip the fluff off and answer in
substance, which is bad, as people
understand and will talk. Perhaps I should
leave your fluff intact and answer also in
fluff, and nobody can understand such
impenetrable fluff from both of us, and
therefore nobody will talk, eh?
People could always talk about your fluff intimacy...
Yet more indistinguishible fluff
But isn't seeing everything as fluff, taking the sting
out of reality?
And isn't it that very penetrating sting which makes
it into reality?
Pretty good, my sweet and loving son.
You help save TRB from the babbling idiots.
But if I wanted that I could only do so through babbling myself
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although a
pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created by a
Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about dharma),
babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be attained through
thought and language). And sometimes meaningful talk, babble and Babble
are indistinguishible.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 13:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lifeform Bri
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although a
pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created by a
Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about dharma),
babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be attained through
thought and language). And sometimes meaningful talk, babble and Babble
are indistinguishible.
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -

The Theory of Babble.

Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 14:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lifeform Bri
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although
a pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created
by a Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about
dharma), babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be
attained through thought and language). And sometimes meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are indistinguishible.
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least on a Buddhist list. On
any other list or in the real world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos again.

At least one thing will keep upright in the middle of any chaos here:
"please notice me".
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 13:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lifeform Bri
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although
a pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created
by a Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about
dharma), babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be
attained through thought and language). And sometimes meaningful
talk, babble and Babble are indistinguishible.
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least on a Buddhist list. On
any other list or in the real world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos again.
"please notice me".
A Usenet Neverending Truth?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-15 23:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least
on a Buddhist list. On any other list or in the real
world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos
again.
At least one thing will keep upright in the middle
of any chaos here: "please notice me".
Chaos or cosmos, one thing is to be kept in mind:
Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
suffering. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain how
far along the path somebody may be, one derivative
product is that somebody who has made some
progress on it becomes flexible and hard to pin
down.

Such a person is not attached to much of anything,
including what he says and does, and may deny
what he says and does in good conscience and
switch to something else quickly, because he
doesn't identify with whatever, including what he
says and does. What he says and does, he says and
does, and poof, it's gone. He is trackless and
traceless, and folks, that's in the Canon.

Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.

Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?

The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".

Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.

So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?

Tang "fluff" Huyen
Sid
2004-12-16 00:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least
on a Buddhist list. On any other list or in the real
world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos
again.
At least one thing will keep upright in the middle
of any chaos here: "please notice me".
Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
suffering. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain how
far along the path somebody may be, one derivative
product is that somebody who has made some
progress on it becomes flexible and hard to pin
down.
Such a person is not attached to much of anything,
including what he says and does, and may deny
what he says and does in good conscience and
switch to something else quickly, because he
doesn't identify with whatever, including what he
says and does. What he says and does, he says and
does, and poof, it's gone. He is trackless and
traceless, and folks, that's in the Canon.
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
Tang "fluff" Huyen
Ah - at last! - a true ch'an practitioner...
A man most likely to do *anything*!

You may want to consult Sylvia Browne and see what Hal
thinks about your wild and crazy new style. I bet he'd be
pretty scared, fluffy.
Julianlzb87
2004-12-16 00:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least
on a Buddhist list. On any other list or in the real
world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos
again.
At least one thing will keep upright in the middle
of any chaos here: "please notice me".
Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
suffering. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain how
far along the path somebody may be, one derivative
product is that somebody who has made some
progress on it becomes flexible and hard to pin
down.
Such a person is not attached to much of anything,
including what he says and does, and may deny
what he says and does in good conscience and
switch to something else quickly, because he
doesn't identify with whatever, including what he
says and does. What he says and does, he says and
does, and poof, it's gone. He is trackless and
traceless, and folks, that's in the Canon.
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
Tang "fluff" Huyen
Ah - at last! - a true ch'an practitioner...
A man most likely to do *anything*!
You may want to consult Sylvia Browne and see what Hal
thinks about your wild and crazy new style. I bet he'd be
pretty scared, fluffy.
The teaching of the Buddha is like a raft.

If it is used to cross the stream of birth and death
it should then be dispensed with.

But if the teaching is dispensed with,
how much more should that which
is not the teaching be dispensed with.


Julianlzb87
Sid
2004-12-16 01:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
Post by Sid
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least
on a Buddhist list. On any other list or in the real
world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos
again.
At least one thing will keep upright in the middle
of any chaos here: "please notice me".
Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
suffering. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain how
far along the path somebody may be, one derivative
product is that somebody who has made some
progress on it becomes flexible and hard to pin
down.
Such a person is not attached to much of anything,
including what he says and does, and may deny
what he says and does in good conscience and
switch to something else quickly, because he
doesn't identify with whatever, including what he
says and does. What he says and does, he says and
does, and poof, it's gone. He is trackless and
traceless, and folks, that's in the Canon.
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
Tang "fluff" Huyen
Ah - at last! - a true ch'an practitioner...
A man most likely to do *anything*!
You may want to consult Sylvia Browne and see what Hal
thinks about your wild and crazy new style. I bet he'd be
pretty scared, fluffy.
The teaching of the Buddha is like a raft.
If it is used to cross the stream of birth and death
it should then be dispensed with.
But if the teaching is dispensed with,
how much more should that which
is not the teaching be dispensed with.
Julianlzb87
In this place,
what's remembered or forgotten?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-16 22:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
The teaching of the Buddha is like a raft.
If it is used to cross the stream of birth and death
it should then be dispensed with.
But if the teaching is dispensed with,
how much more should that which
is not the teaching be dispensed with.
Hey, Julian, you're supposed to be only a troll
with nothing to do with Buddhism, and here you're
mentioning fancy stuff -- sorry, fancy fluff.

“Even so, monks, is the teaching (dhamma) of the
parable of the raft taught by me for crossing over,
not for retaining. You, monks, by understanding the
parable of the raft, should get rid even of (good)
things (dhamma), how much more so of bad ones
(a-dhamma)” (Skt. kolopamam dharma-paryayam
ajanadbhir dharma api prahatavyah prag evadharma).
The same text adds: “one leans on the raft to cross
over the river, it is not the end of the way” (kolam
asritya nadim uttaran na marga-nistho bhavati).
MA, 200, 764b-c, MN, I, 135 (22).

Tang Huyen
Sid
2004-12-17 01:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Julianlzb87
The teaching of the Buddha is like a raft.
If it is used to cross the stream of birth and death
it should then be dispensed with.
But if the teaching is dispensed with,
how much more should that which
is not the teaching be dispensed with.
Hey, Julian, you're supposed to be only a troll
with nothing to do with Buddhism, and here you're
mentioning fancy stuff -- sorry, fancy fluff.
“Even so, monks, is the teaching (dhamma) of the
parable of the raft taught by me for crossing over,
not for retaining. You, monks, by understanding the
parable of the raft, should get rid even of (good)
things (dhamma), how much more so of bad ones
(a-dhamma)” (Skt. kolopamam dharma-paryayam
ajanadbhir dharma api prahatavyah prag evadharma).
The same text adds: “one leans on the raft to cross
over the river, it is not the end of the way” (kolam
asritya nadim uttaran na marga-nistho bhavati).
MA, 200, 764b-c, MN, I, 135 (22).
Tang Huyen
New dancing shoes, fluffy?
Much bling bling, there!
Lifeform Bri
2004-12-16 03:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Ah - at last! - a true ch'an practitioner...
A man most likely to do *anything*!
Choiceless though, no? This man will do *anything*, but not unlike any of
the other unch'an. The difference will be in the amount of dukkha
experienced, supposedly. The ch'an practioneer may not be a nihilist -
which is what pops into my head when I read "do anything" They would flow
along the path of least resistance. The least resistance may involve a
metta practise, but this isn't a prior compassion, or "stupid" compassion,
it's pragmatic compassion. But still, they may not flow on a metta stream -
one master drinks heavily and visits brothels if I remember correctly.

Anybody care to read about my wonderful vMeme explanation of why the metta
stream will eventually win out and the meek really do inherit the earth.
Come on, I'm itchin' to tell it.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 06:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Anybody care to read about my wonderful vMeme explanation of why the metta
stream will eventually win out and the meek really do inherit the earth.
Come on, I'm itchin' to tell it.
Come on, out with it! I am sure you have a winner.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-16 00:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least
on a Buddhist list. On any other list or in the real
world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos
again.
At least one thing will keep upright in the middle
of any chaos here: "please notice me".
Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
suffering. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain how
far along the path somebody may be, one derivative
product is that somebody who has made some
progress on it becomes flexible and hard to pin
down.
Such a person is not attached to much of anything,
including what he says and does, and may deny
what he says and does in good conscience and
switch to something else quickly, because he
doesn't identify with whatever, including what he
says and does. What he says and does, he says and
does, and poof, it's gone. He is trackless and
traceless, and folks, that's in the Canon.
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
It may be that "such a person" can act like a weasel, slipping and
sliding without fear of a glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and slipping and sliding may
just be an elaborate part of a built up delusion.

Just a guess from right field. We are blessed to be in the presence of
so many who can tell the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Tang Huyen
2004-12-16 01:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
It may be that "such a person" can act like a
weasel, slipping and sliding without fear of a
glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and
slipping and sliding may just be an elaborate
part of a built up delusion.
Just a guess from right field. We are blessed
to be in the presence of so many who can tell
the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Vanitas vanitatum ...

Tang Huyen
Sid
2004-12-16 01:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Lee Dillion
It may be that "such a person" can act like a
weasel, slipping and sliding without fear of a
glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and
slipping and sliding may just be an elaborate
part of a built up delusion.
Just a guess from right field. We are blessed
to be in the presence of so many who can tell
the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Vanitas vanitatum ...
Tang Huyen
"All the flowers of the spring
Meet to perfume our burying;
These have but their growing prime,
And man does flourish but his time:
Survey our progress from our birth
We are set, we grow, we turn to earth.
Courts adieu, and all delights,
All bewitching appetites!
Sweetest breath and clearest eye
Like perfumes go out and die
And consequently this is done
As shadows wait upon the sun.
Vain the ambition of kings
Who seek by trophies and dead things
To leave a living name behind,
And weave but nets to catch the wind."
Lee Dillion
2004-12-16 01:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Lee Dillion
It may be that "such a person" can act like a
weasel, slipping and sliding without fear of a
glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and
slipping and sliding may just be an elaborate
part of a built up delusion.
Just a guess from right field. We are blessed
to be in the presence of so many who can tell
the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Vanitas vanitatum ...
So saith the Preacher
Lifeform Bri
2004-12-16 03:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Lee Dillion
It may be that "such a person" can act like a
weasel, slipping and sliding without fear of a
glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and
slipping and sliding may just be an elaborate
part of a built up delusion.
Just a guess from right field. We are blessed
to be in the presence of so many who can tell
the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Vanitas vanitatum ...
Tang Huyen
Speaking of which, I'm bustin' at the seams to give my little vMeme metta
theory. But I wanna prime the audience to make sure I maximize the effect.
Gotta steal some of your thunder, Tang. It's gonna take you down and blow
all your fluff out of the samsara water. Work with me, here.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 06:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Lee Dillion
It may be that "such a person" can act like a
weasel, slipping and sliding without fear of a
glove landing where they stand since they
stand nowhere. For others, the fluffery and
slipping and sliding may just be an elaborate
part of a built up delusion.
Just a guess from right field. We are blessed
to be in the presence of so many who can tell
the difference - and tell us repeatedly.
Vanitas vanitatum ...
Tang Huyen
Speaking of which, I'm bustin' at the seams to give my little vMeme metta
theory. But I wanna prime the audience to make sure I maximize the effect.
Gotta steal some of your thunder, Tang. It's gonna take you down and blow
all your fluff out of the samsara water. Work with me, here.
Go on, give him the kiss of life.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 05:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
That's terrible. It means that whatever the Buddha taught was only true
at the moment he taught it, for the people to whom he taught it and that
the teaching selfdistructed on the spot. That means we are dealing with
leftovers of teachings, of which the use-by date has long gone.
Julianlzb87
2004-12-16 12:10:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:57:53 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
That's terrible. It means that whatever the Buddha taught was only true
at the moment he taught it, for the people to whom he taught it and that
the teaching selfdistructed on the spot.
Mission Impossible.
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
That means we are dealing with
leftovers of teachings, of which the use-by date has long gone.
That's why they are free.


Julianlzb87
Tang Huyen
2004-12-16 12:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
That's terrible. It means that whatever the Buddha
taught was only true at the moment he taught it,
for the people to whom he taught it and that the
teaching selfdistructed on the spot. That means we
are dealing with leftovers of teachings, of which
the use-by date has long gone.
Buddhist training in its manifold variety is merely to
help one take fluff (life) as fluff and not seriously,
isn't it? It helps one get over oneself and flow with
fluff, and not burden oneself with what fluff is not,
because fluff is just fluff, doesn't it? If one takes
fluff (life) seriously and invests in it (DharmaTroll's
"self-stuff invested by us"), one does it on one's
own side and of one's own accord, but fluff (life)
doesn't make one do it, does it?

So Buddhist teaching is teaching by example. You
learn to do it by doing it. Theory is pure fluff, even
more fluffy than practice, and practice is practice
on how to recognise fluff (everything, including
Buddhism) and deal with it as fluff (and not
seriously), and not to stand on fluff but dance with
fluff, because it has no consistency. One learns to
shape-shift to the tune of fluff.

Buddhism is the glorification of fluff. Fluff for the
sake of fluff.

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 13:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
So Buddhist teaching is teaching by example. You
learn to do it by doing it. Theory is pure fluff, even
more fluffy than practice, and practice is practice
on how to recognise fluff (everything, including
Buddhism) and deal with it as fluff (and not
seriously), and not to stand on fluff but dance with
fluff, because it has no consistency. One learns to
shape-shift to the tune of fluff.
"You learn to do it by doing it". What do you learn to do by doing it,
convincing yourself that everything is fluff, because what else would
there be left to do?

And what would concretely be the difference with e.g. the doctrine of
disinterested action, or niskama karma? According to which, "a man could
remain in the world and do everything which had to be done in it without
any sacrifice of his religious aspirations. Indeed, no renunciation was
expected from him. But the condition was that he must not expect any
profit from his worldly actions and efforts."
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 00:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
So Buddhist teaching is teaching by example. You
learn to do it by doing it. Theory is pure fluff, even
more fluffy than practice, and practice is practice
on how to recognise fluff (everything, including
Buddhism) and deal with it as fluff (and not
seriously), and not to stand on fluff but dance with
fluff, because it has no consistency. One learns to
shape-shift to the tune of fluff.
"You learn to do it by doing it". What do you learn
to do by doing it, convincing yourself that everything
is fluff, because what else would there be left to do?
And what would concretely be the difference with
e.g. the doctrine of disinterested action, or niskama
karma? According to which, "a man could remain
in the world and do everything which had to be
done in it without any sacrifice of his religious
aspirations. Indeed, no renunciation was expected
from him. But the condition was that he must not
expect any profit from his worldly actions and
efforts."
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).

In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them. They
happen but are fungible. In classical metaphysical
terms, they may be and may not be, they're fully
contingent, there is no necessity to them. In
plainer terms they are frivolous and gratuitous.
They just happen, like that. And poof, they're
gone.

In Buddhism, one learns equanimity -- equanimity
in front of what? In front of fluff. One learns
detachment -- detachment with regard to what?
With regard to fluff. One learns the absence of
self -- absence of what? Of pure fluff, as self is
pure fluff and has no consistency to it.

One learns that all is mere fluff, that nothing is
worth adhering to, nothing is worth clinging to,
as what one adheres to and clings to gains
consistency by that very adhering to it by one
and that very clinging to it by one, but that that
consistency is quite fluffy and doesn't hold, that
it slips away as one tries to adhere to it, to cling
to it. So one learns to deal with everything as
fluff and nothing more.

"What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
"In the seen there will be just the seen." When
all is fluff, one doesn't take any of it seriously,
one doesn't stabilise any of it by concepts and
categories but dances with it at its own tune,
one however doesn't stand on any of it as it is
fluffy and offers no footing, no Archimedian
platform. One balances oneself on the absence
of balance, one skips merrily along on the crest
of the wave.

Nothing has changed except one's attitude.
Now one knows that it is all fluff and needs
to be dealt with as such, namely as fluff.

Buddhism has nothing else to offer. Which
is why the Buddha regularly denies what he
teaches, dismissing it as mere raft to help
folks cross to the other shore and not to be
kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever done its
intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The
Perfection of Wisdom scriptures regularly say
that the Buddha never utters a single word.

They all (the Buddha included) tacitly admit
that all they teach is fluff, as there is nothing
else in the world. The only thing to do (which
all Buddhism consists of) is to recognise fluff
and deal with it as it is, namely fluff.

Buddhism teaching is stealth in person. It is
there and then it is not there. If it was to have
any greater consistency than what it teaches
about -- real life -- then it would be false, but
it is true to what it teaches about -- real life --
and is fluffy to a fault. You can't pin it down.
It is therefore also true to itself. It and what it
teaches about reflect each other in their
common fluffiness.

Of course, brought to its accomplishment, the
dealing with fluff vanishes (remember, it is
itself fluff, too) and leaves what happens
(fluff) to happen, in all its fluffiness, but
without fluff as a concept or category to frame
it into (because that would freeze it into
something static and violate the nature of fluff,
which is to float free, unbound and unattached,
and the freed person is of the same nature --
pure fluff all around).

Fluff then occurs all by itself, without any
interference from one, and one limits oneself
to pure, passive reception, in rapt attention,
to make room for fluff to enter without
obstruction. Fluff is fragile and doesn't like
obstruction or interference. It's best dealt with
subtly and delicately, as subtly and delicately
as one can muster.

Glory to fluff! Halleluyah! Praise be! Let us
make a joyful noise to fluff!

Tang Huyen
cupcake
2004-12-17 00:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Re: The perfection of fluff (was Re: listen)
Reply to: [1]Tang Huyen
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:16:09 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
[2]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]talk.religion.buddhism
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
[20]<3
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
So Buddhist teaching is teaching by example. You
learn to do it by doing it. Theory is pure fluff, even
more fluffy than practice, and practice is practice
on how to recognise fluff (everything, including
Buddhism) and deal with it as fluff (and not
seriously), and not to stand on fluff but dance with
fluff, because it has no consistency. One learns to
shape-shift to the tune of fluff.
"You learn to do it by doing it". What do you learn
to do by doing it, convincing yourself that everything
is fluff, because what else would there be left to do?
And what would concretely be the difference with
e.g. the doctrine of disinterested action, or niskama
karma? According to which, "a man could remain
in the world and do everything which had to be
done in it without any sacrifice of his religious
aspirations. Indeed, no renunciation was expected
from him. But the condition was that he must not
expect any profit from his worldly actions and
efforts."
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them. They
happen but are fungible. In classical metaphysical
terms, they may be and may not be, they're fully
contingent, there is no necessity to them. In
plainer terms they are frivolous and gratuitous.
They just happen, like that. And poof, they're
gone.
In Buddhism, one learns equanimity -- equanimity
in front of what? In front of fluff. One learns
detachment -- detachment with regard to what?
With regard to fluff. One learns the absence of
self -- absence of what? Of pure fluff, as self is
pure fluff and has no consistency to it.
One learns that all is mere fluff, that nothing is
worth adhering to, nothing is worth clinging to,
as what one adheres to and clings to gains
consistency by that very adhering to it by one
and that very clinging to it by one, but that that
consistency is quite fluffy and doesn't hold, that
it slips away as one tries to adhere to it, to cling
to it. So one learns to deal with everything as
fluff and nothing more.
"What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
"In the seen there will be just the seen." When
all is fluff, one doesn't take any of it seriously,
one doesn't stabilise any of it by concepts and
categories but dances with it at its own tune,
one however doesn't stand on any of it as it is
fluffy and offers no footing, no Archimedian
platform. One balances oneself on the absence
of balance, one skips merrily along on the crest
of the wave.
Nothing has changed except one's attitude.
Now one knows that it is all fluff and needs
to be dealt with as such, namely as fluff.
Buddhism has nothing else to offer. Which
is why the Buddha regularly denies what he
teaches, dismissing it as mere raft to help
folks cross to the other shore and not to be
kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever done its
intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The
Perfection of Wisdom scriptures regularly say
that the Buddha never utters a single word.
They all (the Buddha included) tacitly admit
that all they teach is fluff, as there is nothing
else in the world. The only thing to do (which
all Buddhism consists of) is to recognise fluff
and deal with it as it is, namely fluff.
Buddhism teaching is stealth in person. It is
there and then it is not there. If it was to have
any greater consistency than what it teaches
about -- real life -- then it would be false, but
it is true to what it teaches about -- real life --
and is fluffy to a fault. You can't pin it down.
It is therefore also true to itself. It and what it
teaches about reflect each other in their
common fluffiness.
Of course, brought to its accomplishment, the
dealing with fluff vanishes (remember, it is
itself fluff, too) and leaves what happens
(fluff) to happen, in all its fluffiness, but
without fluff as a concept or category to frame
it into (because that would freeze it into
something static and violate the nature of fluff,
which is to float free, unbound and unattached,
and the freed person is of the same nature --
pure fluff all around).
Fluff then occurs all by itself, without any
interference from one, and one limits oneself
to pure, passive reception, in rapt attention,
to make room for fluff to enter without
obstruction. Fluff is fragile and doesn't like
obstruction or interference. It's best dealt with
subtly and delicately, as subtly and delicately
as one can muster.
Glory to fluff! Halleluyah! Praise be! Let us
make a joyful noise to fluff!
ergo, nobody wud dare harm cupcake, cuz he's
too fluffy and cute :)
Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-17 05:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Glory to fluff! Halleluyah! Praise be! Let us
make a joyful noise to fluff!
Tang Huyen
have you been drinking?
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 10:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results? The
only change is that "he" is no longer involved.
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 12:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising
this, I would say that his acts are real, at least as
real as the acts he acted out before and of which
he still receives the return. Who can see the
difference, both regarding the reality of the act
of a Buddha as of its results? The only change is
that "he" is no longer involved.
Right. He effaces himself in favour of the situation,
and the situation acts him. Where the grammatical
subject is, there is nothing. Pure fluff, even emptier
than what deludeds take to be their self, their "I",
which they do try to stabilise and solidify, in vain.

Tang Huyen
Julianlzb87
2004-12-17 12:59:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.



Julianlzb87
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 13:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address. Return to sender.
Julianlzb87
2004-12-17 13:23:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.



Julianlzb87
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 13:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.
Mumon said: 'The enlightened man is one with the law
of causation'

The law of causation is blind, it can't see.
Julianlzb87
2004-12-17 13:58:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:38:35 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.
Mumon said: 'The enlightened man is one with the law
of causation'
The law of causation is blind, it can't see.
A Buddha is at one with everything, that includes "sight."



Julianlzb87
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 14:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:38:35 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.
Mumon said: 'The enlightened man is one with the law
of causation'
The law of causation is blind, it can't see.
A Buddha is at one with everything, that includes "sight."
Can he see he is one with everything?
Julianlzb87
2004-12-17 14:39:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:08:59 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:38:35 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.
Mumon said: 'The enlightened man is one with the law
of causation'
The law of causation is blind, it can't see.
A Buddha is at one with everything, that includes "sight."
Can he see he is one with everything?
If your ears see,
And you eyes hear,
Not a doubt you will cherish,
And how naturally the rain drops
From the eaves!



Julianlzb87
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 14:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:08:59 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:38:35 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:22 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Julianlzb87
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:11:05 +0100, Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
In Buddhism, a saint still receives return of his old
deed but creates no new deed. Which is another
way of saying that he acts in null action (il acte en
l'agir nul), that he is in the state of non-composition
(an-abhisamskara), where the compositions
(samskara) are the fourth aggregate and are
missing, because they have been quiesced. The
word deed (karman) comes from the same
stem (kr-).
In other words he acts but does not invest in his
actions, he acts but he acts fluff, all his actions
are fluffy and he does not stand by them.
Regardless of the possibility of actually realising this, I would say
that his acts are real, at least as real as the acts he acted out before
and of which he still receives the return. Who can see the difference,
both regarding the reality of the act of a Buddha as of its results?
A Buddha.
None such person living at this address.
Only a Buddha could make such a judgement.
Return to sender.
Mumon said: 'The enlightened man is one with the law
of causation'
The law of causation is blind, it can't see.
A Buddha is at one with everything, that includes "sight."
Can he see he is one with everything?
If your ears see,
And you eyes hear,
Not a doubt you will cherish,
And how naturally the rain drops
From the eaves!
Rain drops, frogs, herons, blossom
Zen would be lost without them

Nice though
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 14:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Rain drops, frogs, herons, blossom
Zen would be lost without them
Nice though
Life would be lost without them, mon petit.
They're fluff par excellence.

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 15:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Rain drops, frogs, herons, blossom
Zen would be lost without them
Nice though
Life would be lost without them, mon petit.
They're fluff par excellence.
What a terribly fluffy thing to say with them beautiful rain drops
falling from the eaves. Wouldn't you rather go and fly a kite?
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 15:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Rain drops, frogs, herons, blossom
Zen would be lost without them
Nice though
Life would be lost without them, mon petit.
They're fluff par excellence.
What a terribly fluffy thing to say with them
beautiful rain drops falling from the eaves.
Wouldn't you rather go and fly a kite?
Flying a kite is pure fluff, it means one doesn't
take anything seriously but lets everything fall
into perspective and balance, on their own
side and of their own accord, without any
interference and obstruction from one, so it
fits right in with the above crowd.

No need for crowd control. All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 16:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.
All clear light...
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 16:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.
All clear light...
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?

Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-17 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?
Tang Huyen
only your fluffy shadow
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 16:19:28 UTC
Permalink
"Tang Huyen"
Post by Tang Huyen
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?
only your fluffy shadow
Wow, that must be you mon amour.

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 16:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.
All clear light...
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?
Go back to sleep. Your paranoia and delusion are mere expressions of
clear light.
Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 16:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.
All clear light...
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?
Go back to sleep. Your paranoia and delusion
are mere expressions of clear light.
What? Do you want to calm my paranoia and
delusion down or to exacerbate them?

<<You are right to try and bring back some order
in the chaos (although a pretty stylized one, but
isn't Zen merely style after all?) created by a
Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful
talk (about dharma), babble and Babble (meant to
show that dharma can't be attained through thought
and language). And sometimes meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are indistinguishible.>>

Clear light, paranoia and delusion, meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are all indistinguishable.

Ah! Perfect fluff all around! Hallaluyah!

Tang Huyen
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-17 16:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
All is peaceful,
all is harmonious. It's pure fluff all around.
All clear light...
What still appears must come from my
paranoia and delusion. Is somebody stalking
me?
Go back to sleep. Your paranoia and delusion
are mere expressions of clear light.
What? Do you want to calm my paranoia and
delusion down or to exacerbate them?
<<You are right to try and bring back some order
in the chaos (although a pretty stylized one, but
isn't Zen merely style after all?) created by a
Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful
talk (about dharma), babble and Babble (meant to
show that dharma can't be attained through thought
and language). And sometimes meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are indistinguishible.>>
Clear light, paranoia and delusion, meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are all indistinguishable.
Ah! Perfect fluff all around! Hallaluyah!
Hallaluya, Kosherluya, Halleluyah! Praise the Fluff!

[strips naked standing under the eaves, head turned upwards, mouth open
to catch the rain. An ambulance approaches...]

Tang Huyen
2004-12-17 16:17:07 UTC
Permalink
oh my my
your delusion is greater than i thought originally
u seem to be going backwards
oh well
B
Fluff flying forward, fluff flying backward, it's all
fluff, inconsistent as such, my dear.

Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-16 15:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
So Buddhist teaching is teaching by example. You
learn to do it by doing it. Theory is pure fluff, even
more fluffy than practice, and practice is practice
on how to recognise fluff (everything, including
Buddhism) and deal with it as fluff (and not
seriously), and not to stand on fluff but dance with
fluff, because it has no consistency. One learns to
shape-shift to the tune of fluff.
Buddhism is the glorification of fluff. Fluff for the
sake of fluff.
Tang Huyen
there is no need to do anything. the body-mind-personality
triumvirate is so abyssmally infinitesimal in the cosmic chaotic scheme
of things that any actions towards any type of discipline,
philosophy or practice are going to have such a minute
effect on a monumentally worthless insignificant insubstantial
phenomenality that all efforts in this direction are infinitely hilarious
and a complete waste of phenomenal time. there is
no need to be or do anything. just be. being is utterly
whole perfect and complete just as it is.

for those who keep shouting that there is no self you
certainly waste a lot of breath in propogating a system
of wordmongered self disciplines and self aggrandizements

how you can sit there and say that there should be no
concern for self and the things of self and then wordstorm
thousands of posts with quote after quote about the
eightfold noble path is the height of contradiction
hypocrisy and incongruency

but that can be fun too
Tang Huyen
2004-12-16 16:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
there is no need to do anything. the
body-mind-personality triumvirate is so
abyssmally infinitesimal in the cosmic
chaotic scheme of things that any actions
towards any type of discipline, philosophy
or practice are going to have such
a minute effect on a monumentally
worthless insignificant insubstantial
phenomenality that all efforts in this
direction are infinitely hilarious and a
complete waste of phenomenal time.
there is no need to be or do anything.
just be. being is utterly whole perfect
and complete just as it is.
"there is no need to be or do anything.
just be. being is utterly whole perfect
and complete just as it is."

You a Quietist, mon amour?
Post by Dominic
for those who keep shouting that there
is no self you certainly waste a lot of
breath in propogating a system of
wordmongered self disciplines and self
aggrandizements
how you can sit there and say that there
should be no concern for self and the
things of self and then wordstorm
thousands of posts with quote after quote
about the eightfold noble path is the height
of contradiction hypocrisy and
incongruency
but that can be fun too
It is pure fluff, which is why it can be fun,
my sweet.

"the height of contradiction hypocrisy and
incongruency" -- you're stroking me. That's
what fluff is, itself in itself.

Just compare it with the grim, sour, dour
attitudes that ooze out from many posts
here. Their authors don't know how to
deal with fluff. But what else can they
expect, here or in real life? Have they ever
practiced Buddhism?

Tang Huyen
Dominic
2004-12-16 16:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Dominic
there is no need to do anything. the
body-mind-personality triumvirate is so
abyssmally infinitesimal in the cosmic
chaotic scheme of things that any actions
towards any type of discipline, philosophy
or practice are going to have such
a minute effect on a monumentally
worthless insignificant insubstantial
phenomenality that all efforts in this
direction are infinitely hilarious and a
complete waste of phenomenal time.
there is no need to be or do anything.
just be. being is utterly whole perfect
and complete just as it is.
"there is no need to be or do anything.
just be. being is utterly whole perfect
and complete just as it is."
You a Quietist, mon amour?
Post by Dominic
for those who keep shouting that there
is no self you certainly waste a lot of
breath in propogating a system of
wordmongered self disciplines and self
aggrandizements
how you can sit there and say that there
should be no concern for self and the
things of self and then wordstorm
thousands of posts with quote after quote
about the eightfold noble path is the height
of contradiction hypocrisy and
incongruency
but that can be fun too
It is pure fluff, which is why it can be fun,
my sweet.
"the height of contradiction hypocrisy and
incongruency" -- you're stroking me. That's
what fluff is, itself in itself.
Just compare it with the grim, sour, dour
attitudes that ooze out from many posts
here. Their authors don't know how to
deal with fluff. But what else can they
expect, here or in real life? Have they ever
practiced Buddhism?
Tang Huyen
since there is no self, tang sweetnumbs, who exactly
is it that's practicing it and what type of advantage
can be said to effulge and to whom?

the principles at play here, the consciousness and
the energies which play out into multitudinous
personalities and idiosyncracies are already
perfect in their base design owing to the notion
that they are a pale reflection of that one true
prior most principle which is perfect whole and
complete within itself, the ding an sich, the thing
in and of itself, and nothing needs to be done
to change it or to try to be something other
than what you already are right now. that which
is the creative principle cannot be changed anyway.

the only thing that you could ever change is the
false self, that which you identify yourself as,
the body-mind-personality. why bother with
all the practices and disciplines to alter
something that is false and slippery to begin
with? you only shift its falseness and slipperiness
to a different channel.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-16 12:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
That's terrible. It means that whatever the Buddha taught was only true
at the moment he taught it, for the people to whom he taught it and that
the teaching selfdistructed on the spot. That means we are dealing with
leftovers of teachings, of which the use-by date has long gone.
Don't worry. It was just the theory that imploded upon its unveiling -
which isn't really a loss since it worked only looking backwards. But
even as it fell into itself, perhaps it gave hints, suggestions of
particulars, from which you can tease out something useful.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 13:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Tang Huyen
Such a person can behave like a weasel, and the
Buddhist canon provides plenty of incriminating
evidence of the most blatant kind. In the Buddhist
tradition, beginning with the Buddha, the Buddha
regularly denies what he teaches, dismissing it as
mere raft to help folks cross to the other shore
and not to be kept thereafter, if indeed it has ever
done its intended job of helping folks to carry
themselves to the other shore. The Perfection of
Wisdom scriptures regularly say that the Buddha
never utters a single word.
Do those people (the Buddha included) lie? Do
they act like weasels? In their case, isn't it the
case that *it* can be applied perfectly after the
fact and in such a way that even if wrong it is
right and even if right it is wrong?
The "it" can be something like: "I say a word",
"I teach something", "there is a path to follow
in order to end suffering", "there is a fruit that
can be attained".
Those statements, and any number of other ones
in Buddhism, are true if false and false if true,
back and forth.
So, the Buddha's teaching and *all* Buddhist
teachings are fluff, aren't they? If they proclaim
the absence of any substance anywhere at any
time, surely that absence applies even more to
them and what they say and do, doesn't it? Don't
they glorify fluff, itself in itself?
That's terrible. It means that whatever the Buddha taught was only
true at the moment he taught it, for the people to whom he taught it
and that the teaching selfdistructed on the spot. That means we are
dealing with leftovers of teachings, of which the use-by date has long
gone.
Don't worry. It was just the theory that imploded upon its unveiling -
which isn't really a loss since it worked only looking backwards. But
even as it fell into itself, perhaps it gave hints, suggestions of
particulars, from which you can tease out something useful.
You reassured me. Btw do you think we ought to change the Four Noble
Truths into the Four Noble Hints so that people know what to expect?
Lee Dillion
2004-12-16 13:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
Don't worry. It was just the theory that imploded upon its unveiling
- which isn't really a loss since it worked only looking backwards.
But even as it fell into itself, perhaps it gave hints, suggestions of
particulars, from which you can tease out something useful.
You reassured me. Btw do you think we ought to change the Four Noble
Truths into the Four Noble Hints so that people know what to expect?
People seem to need a narrative, a story arc that has beginnings and
endings and "truths" scattered throughout. My mundane hints and
possibilities have no persuasive power or effect, so maybe it is best to
keep the public story as is until something better comes along. God
knows there is much worse out there.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 13:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
People seem to need a narrative, a story arc that has beginnings and
endings and "truths" scattered throughout. My mundane hints and
possibilities have no persuasive power or effect, so maybe it is best to
keep the public story as is until something better comes along. God
knows there is much worse out there.
May his name be used in vain and not for any specific purposes as has
been the case until now.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-16 13:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
People seem to need a narrative, a story arc that has beginnings and
endings and "truths" scattered throughout. My mundane hints and
possibilities have no persuasive power or effect, so maybe it is best
to keep the public story as is until something better comes along. God
knows there is much worse out there.
May his name be used in vain and not for any specific purposes as has
been the case until now.
Pleas are fleeting, transient - like breath in the wind.
Lifeform Bri
2004-12-16 04:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lifeform Bri
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although
a pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created
by a Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about
dharma), babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be
attained through thought and language). And sometimes meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are indistinguishible.
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least on a Buddhist list. On
any other list or in the real world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos again.
"please notice me".
You're my new best friend, Peter. I like what you write here, totally
resonates for me.

I think, given a choice, I would choose order over chaos. Hard to stop
momentum, though, and difficult to get moving once atrophy sets in. Still,
as you point out, there is the "please notice me" which speaks to the
communal self and probably plays a big part in generating both the order and
the chaos.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 06:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Lifeform Bri
I'm a little confused about what qualifies as "babbling". Is anything
that's not dharma "babbling"?
You are right to try and bring back some order in the chaos (although
a pretty stylized one, but isn't Zen merely style after all?) created
by a Zennish wind blowing on TRB. There is meaningful talk (about
dharma), babble and Babble (meant to show that dharma can't be
attained through thought and language). And sometimes meaningful talk,
babble and Babble are indistinguishible.
This is what makes it such a wonderful theory -
The Theory of Babble.
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
and it can be applied perfectly
after the fact and in such a way
that even if wrong
it is right.
A weasel's delight.
It makes that it can all be meaningful. At least on a Buddhist list. On
any other list or in the real world, people will make no mistake and see
it for what it is .... But I am bringing back chaos again.
"please notice me".
You're my new best friend, Peter. I like what you write here, totally
resonates for me.
Hmm, "new" tells me it won't last, so I will have to enjoy every moment
of it.
Post by Lifeform Bri
I think, given a choice, I would choose order over chaos. Hard to stop
momentum, though, and difficult to get moving once atrophy sets in. Still,
as you point out, there is the "please notice me" which speaks to the
communal self and probably plays a big part in generating both the order and
the chaos.
Yes I think we need both chaos and order. But you could also chose chaos
and the "please notice me" would provide the necessary reality as a
balance.
Dominic
2004-12-15 15:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening

this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time

this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 14:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
Dominic
2004-12-15 15:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
fluff monkey
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 14:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
fluff monkey
I can only hope to meet such high expectations. But I fear (one of
those trapping agendas, don't you know) I must ask for your help in
meeting another of the expectations set down by the great Taciturn Tang.
See, he has irrevocably declared me to be the talkative one, somehow
related to my low level of enlightenment or hard headedness, or
somesuch. I could say more, but it would be akin to a coma patient
diagnosing the need for a feeding tube.

OK. So here it is. I am running behind in my talkative quota, for no
matter what I or others here say, you and/or Tang responds such that my
talkativity meter registers far below what you and the quiet one appear
to register with enlightened ease. So far this month, I run a distant
6th, with you doubling my output and our silent sage running a constant
10 or so ahead:

342 ***@gmail.com
185 ***@emaill.com
109 ***@nospace42.fslife.co.uk
106 tanghuyen{***@gmail.com[remove]
98 ***@r.slrup
91 ***@yahoo.net

What to do??
Dominic
2004-12-15 16:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
fluff monkey
I can only hope to meet such high expectations. But I fear (one of
those trapping agendas, don't you know) I must ask for your help in
meeting another of the expectations set down by the great Taciturn Tang.
See, he has irrevocably declared me to be the talkative one, somehow
related to my low level of enlightenment or hard headedness, or
somesuch. I could say more, but it would be akin to a coma patient
diagnosing the need for a feeding tube.
OK. So here it is. I am running behind in my talkative quota, for no
matter what I or others here say, you and/or Tang responds such that my
talkativity meter registers far below what you and the quiet one appear
to register with enlightened ease. So far this month, I run a distant
6th, with you doubling my output and our silent sage running a constant
What to do??
if fluff monkies do indeed feel the need to
perform clown acts in search of approval from
cathode ray tubes, should i be expected to
inflate their balloons for them?

i can already see that that flower on your
lapel simply squirts water.
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 16:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
fluff monkey
I can only hope to meet such high expectations. But I fear (one of
those trapping agendas, don't you know) I must ask for your help in
meeting another of the expectations set down by the great Taciturn Tang.
See, he has irrevocably declared me to be the talkative one, somehow
related to my low level of enlightenment or hard headedness, or
somesuch. I could say more, but it would be akin to a coma patient
diagnosing the need for a feeding tube.
OK. So here it is. I am running behind in my talkative quota, for no
matter what I or others here say, you and/or Tang responds such that my
talkativity meter registers far below what you and the quiet one appear
to register with enlightened ease. So far this month, I run a distant
6th, with you doubling my output and our silent sage running a constant
What to do??
if fluff monkies do indeed feel the need to
perform clown acts in search of approval from
cathode ray tubes, should i be expected to
inflate their balloons for them?
Expected?? No. That is why your inflationary acts of compassion (as
inevitable and predictable as they may seem to be to those such as me
stuck at level 30 of the Hawkins scale) are so humbling.
Post by Dominic
i can already see that that flower on your
lapel simply squirts water.
Pheww. I thought I had wet my pants laughing.
Dominic
2004-12-15 17:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
What to do??
if fluff monkies do indeed feel the need to
perform clown acts in search of approval from
cathode ray tubes, should i be expected to
inflate their balloons for them?
Expected?? No. That is why your inflationary acts of compassion (as
inevitable and predictable as they may seem to be to those such as me
stuck at level 30 of the Hawkins scale) are so humbling.
if my alleged compassion has a humbling effect
perhaps you should play short stop instead of left field
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
i can already see that that flower on your
lapel simply squirts water.
Pheww. I thought I had wet my pants laughing.
urinary incontinence is no laughing matter
unless it's someone else who has it

i tend to have a gathering of scar tissue on my urethra
about an inch and a half in and occasionally they
have to go in with a scalpel and roto rooter it out

the pain is exquisite
Lee Dillion
2004-12-15 17:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
What to do??
if fluff monkies do indeed feel the need to
perform clown acts in search of approval from
cathode ray tubes, should i be expected to
inflate their balloons for them?
Expected?? No. That is why your inflationary acts of compassion (as
inevitable and predictable as they may seem to be to those such as me
stuck at level 30 of the Hawkins scale) are so humbling.
if my alleged compassion has a humbling effect
perhaps you should play short stop instead of left field
If?? Surely as a student of Avatar Hawkins, you do not need to speak in
ifs and allegeds. That is only for those of us in the outer darkness of
right field who can't field your power shots. Thank God for the hard
head though. The balls bounce off with no effect.
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
i can already see that that flower on your
lapel simply squirts water.
Pheww. I thought I had wet my pants laughing.
urinary incontinence is no laughing matter
unless it's someone else who has it
Ok mom.
Dominic
2004-12-15 18:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
If?? Surely as a student of Avatar Hawkins, you do not need to speak in
ifs and allegeds.
i couldn't even pretend to attempt to
sidetrack you from your hawkins addictions

and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others

just thought you might like some new potshot material
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 18:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others
You don't do capitals do you?
Dominic
2004-12-15 18:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others
You don't do capitals do you?
i am even working on giving up commas
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-15 18:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others
You don't do capitals do you?
i am even working on giving up commas
I'll probably capitulate when you drop vowels
Lifeform Bri
2004-12-16 04:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others
You don't do capitals do you?
i am even working on giving up commas
I'll probably capitulate when you drop vowels
It's funny! Brilliantly funny! I humbly prostrate myself to the usenet
warriors who have kept their talents hidden away from me for so many years.

BTW, it's "Wilber" not "wilbur". Got his ToE book in my backpack right now.
It's fluffy funny, too.
Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
2004-12-16 06:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
Post by Peter Bergwaldheimhausen
Post by Dominic
and even though i have read one of his books,
i have also read the likes of christ krishna buddha
ramana maharshi nisargadatta maharaj nityananda
muktananda goswami kriyananda paramahamsa
yogananda babaji thich nhat hanh jack kornfield wayne dyer
deepak chopra ken wilbur and many many many
others
You don't do capitals do you?
i am even working on giving up commas
I'll probably capitulate when you drop vowels
It's funny! Brilliantly funny! I humbly prostrate myself to the usenet
warriors who have kept their talents hidden away from me for so many years.
BTW, it's "Wilber" not "wilbur". Got his ToE book in my backpack right now.
It's fluffy funny, too.
Purposely funny?
possum
2004-12-16 02:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Dominic
Post by Lee Dillion
Like many others that float through here,
it has almost no predictive value
(though prediction can still be made),
future prediction borders on the logical fallacy
of cum hoc ergo propter hoc which is the erroneous
notion of mistaking correlation for causation and failing
to take into account the multitudinous factors that
must be in play for any event to exist in subsequent
consequence as a cognizable and perceivable
happening
this idea of future prediction may also be seen as
dicto simpliciter which means that there is a logical
fallacy involved in making a sweeping statement alleging
that something must be true each time it occurs simply
because it appeared by all intents and purposes to
be true at one point in time
this also brings up the idea that future prediction could be
viewed as being a complete non-sequitor in the notion
there is a fallacy in stating , as a conclusion, something
that does not follow the premise being considered.
in this case you attempt to predict a future subsequent
occurrence based on the past performance of a previous
occurrence and giving in to the fabled notional and
unprovable cliche that history necessarily repeats itself.
Given your attainments, I am sure all you say must be true - why my
reptilian brain signals that your mere presence is raising the energy
level and calibration of thousands of others here on Usenet. I can only
hope that we will soon be able to transcend the limitations of both past
and future in the timeless quantum reality reachable only in this exact
moment of now as we drop our survival agendas and differentiate the
subjective from the objective and thereby transcend both time and space
to reach the realm of absolute certainty.
fluff monkey
I can only hope to meet such high expectations. But I fear (one of those
trapping agendas, don't you know) I must ask for your help in meeting
another of the expectations set down by the great Taciturn Tang. See, he
has irrevocably declared me to be the talkative one, somehow related to my
low level of enlightenment or hard headedness, or somesuch. I could say
more, but it would be akin to a coma patient diagnosing the need for a
feeding tube.
OK. So here it is. I am running behind in my talkative quota, for no
matter what I or others here say, you and/or Tang responds such that my
talkativity meter registers far below what you and the quiet one appear to
register with enlightened ease. So far this month, I run a distant 6th,
with you doubling my output and our silent sage running a constant 10 or
What to do??
i think i should shut up.

psm
Loading...