On Sep 2, 7:19 pm, D=E9j=E0 Flu <cha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Noel Friesen wrote:
> > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>news:57d0defd-4e53-4917-8609-2882048c27ce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Sep 2, 7:14 am, "Noel Friesen" <noel.frie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Non-action does not mean what most people think it means. The
very
> >>>>>> fact that there seems to be a consensus here about what
non-action
> >>>>>> means should be a major clue that everyone who is agreeing on it
i=
s
> >>>>>> wrong. Not because it is not possible to agree on such things.
But
> >>>>>> because they hold the common view. Non-action is a means to an
end=
,
> >>>>>> Evelyn. There, I said it, I revealed the secrets of the universe.
=
But
> >>>>>> Evelyn, now, what are you going to DO about it?
> >>>>> To what end(s) is non-action a means?
> >>>> Yes, exactly.
> >>> I don't understand.
> >> Don't sell yourself short. First, there are different levels of
> >> understanding. You may say that there is something you don't
> >> understand. When you understand that you don't understand, then
> >> really, you understand. You can then take steps to understand. Surely
> >> you cannot understand what you do not understand unless you
understand
> >> you don't understand it. If you don't understand this, you would be
> >> far more likely to say that what I said was crap, because you'd think
> >> you understood what I said, and you'd try to deal with it.
>
> > Do you understand?
>
> >> It's worthwhile to re-express this in different words if it will help
> >> reach a wider audience:
>
> >> Maybe there is some thing, we may say, which cannot be understood at
> >> all. Yet we can understand it as something which is not
> >> understandable. In a way, you are not supposed to understand - that
> >> is, you can't - that is the definition of the thing. Yet, if you are
> >> aware that you do not understand it, that does not mean it is not
> >> usable.
>
> >> Think about it. The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao. So,
> >> if you are confused, and subjective, you understand that we cannot
> >> discuss the tao. If you are enlightened and objective, you understand
> >> that we just did. And then you are ready for the next line of the
> >> poem.
>
> > Okay. Are we talking about all of the tao or a part of it?
>
> >> The name which can be named is not the eternal name.
>
> >> Given that any name which can be named is not the eternal name, the
> >> eternal name is merely something which we cannot name.
> >> Therefore, the eternal name does not exist.
>
> > Are you sure those aren't two different senses of the word "name"? Is
=
this
> > the set of all sets which don't include themselves?
>
> >> Let me say that again:
>
> >> The thing which we named "the eternal name" does not exist. It does
> >> not exist because we are naming something which cannot be named.
>
> >> Even if we say that there is something there, but we cannot find a
> >> name for it, this is false - there is nothing there. It cannot be
> >> named.
>
> > Are you sure that "doesn't exist" is a sufficiently expessive term to
d=
o
> > justice to the paradox involved?
> >> Another example, think of (name) a color which doesn't exist. You
> >> cannot do this, because in order for you to think of a color, it
would
> >> have to exist.
>
> >> This leaves us with a color or set of colors referable to as
"color(s)
> >> which do not exist". Seen with an eye which also does not exist, we
> >> may even differentiate between them. Expressing this differentiation
> >> in words, we may assign them id numbers in a first-referred to in
> >> context order. Let's say there is colorless color number one, number
> >> two, and number three. With me so far? Okay
>
> >> Which color is brighter? Which one is redder?
>
> >> The point is that what we have been discussing is not colors at all,
> >> but some mental abstraction, all along. Once you have this
realization
>
> > Maybe. All that means is that I need to add some attributes to these
> > colours so that I can answer your question.
>
> > What if I were to answer that it's obvious that colorless color 2 is
th=
e
> > reddest of the three as well as the greenest.
>
> >> you are ready for the next lines of the poem.
>
> >> "So, we must be always without desires to see the mystery:
> >> If we always have desires we will see its limits:
> >> These two are the same; once there is out-going, then there is
> >> difference of name."
>
> >> In essence then, if you don't understand that you don't understand,
> >> you really don't. That covers the people who say what I say is a
self-
> >> serving superiority complex, etc.
> >> If you understand you don't understand, then you can see the mystery.
>
> >>> Am I supposed to be asking myself that question?
> >> Yes, that's the /mystery/. It is a mystery, isn't it? What is the
end?
> >> What is the means? What is the means to the end? Are you supposed to
> >> be thinking about this? Be careful, maybe they don't want you to
think
> >> this! Maybe you're going to get attacked soon in this newsgroup, just
> >> like me!
>
> >> But sure, while we're here, you're supposed to be asking yourself
that
> >> question. I mean in answer to "am I supposed to be asking myself that
> >> question". Not The fact that you can, puts you in a position to be
> >> able to test if what you are thinking is real or not. Do not impose
> >> your will on anything, including this knowledge. If you do that, you
> >> will fail. That's the trap people encounter when they try and learn
> >> this stuff. Most people, when they fail, they believe they have
> >> succeeded; they say "look, here is the proof that action causes
> >> failure" or somesuch *rubbish* and they are prevented from
> >> understanding that it was not action which caused failure, but action
> >> by imposition of their will. You see, as soon as they began throwing
> >> out the possibility of asking what the means or the ends are, they
> >> also threw out the possibility of wei wu wei - doing without doing
> >> (versus doing by doing/imposition). In that case, if they refuse to
> >> reconsider, if they refuse to ask themselves the question, they
become
> >> lost. Now, we do know one thing - regardless if you believe in
> >> reincarnation, heaven and hell, or nothing - these people will
> >> certainly never be enlightened in this lifetime *regardless* of
> >> intelligence, study, knowledge, teaching, devotion... it is not about
> >> any of those things, once you close your eyes to the truth.
>
> >>> What did you mean?
> >> If you're the type of person that believes non-action is as simple as
> >> non-action, then anything you happen to not understand in the here
and
> >> now is something you can never understand, because you will never
take
> >> the neccessary action to figure it out.
>
> >> Why, Just look at the volume of explanation I have thrown at evelyn
> >> and robert, the two most sensible people I've encountered here so
far,
> >> (and further, at their own request!) and both of them still continue
> >> to assert that I haven't said anything of im****tance at all. Well,
> >> robert goes on about two posts I made, but he hasn't made the
> >> connection about the sort of people who are capable of writing such
> >> things which are not found in books.. even though thats precisely
what
> >> he asked for.
>
> >> Robert: Do you still beat your wife? (I demand you answer this
> >> question, or you're a dodging, self-serving idiot!)
> >> HZ: 'Even if you don't dance, you'll still be shot down'.
> >>Norbu: 'It is a game we play with newbies.'
> >> Evelyn: I completely disagree with everything you have said,
therefore
> >> you did not answer my question.
> >> Keynes: I strongly believe you are a woman born in iowa, and that you
> >> have three dogs, therefore it is true!
> >> Jen "You just can't stop responding to me, can you?" (and then
> >> proceeds to reply to every single post I write with the same out of
> >> context quote, 30 or 40 times).
>
> >> Hmm! Somethings not right! ;-) Perhaps it isn't about me being
> >> understandable at all.. perhaps these people simply don't want to
> >> learn anything?
>
> >> -
>
> there may, in fact, be nothing to "learn" -
> which might make a lot of this stuff rather
> difficult...
....
hmmm...
er...
uh...
hmmm
....
that might be the 'best post ever' ...
.....
at least a new FAQ for buddhadhamma usenet...
but folks need a clue or two to get there?...or not...
- n.
|
