> On May 12, 10:15 pm, Awaken21 gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On May 12, 3:15 pm, RaaN hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On May 12, 12:14 am, Robert Epstein verizon.net> wrote:

>

>>>> ^@%%>---*=# wrote:

>

>>>>> "Tang Huyen" gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:7oidnYEf8oeZYLvVnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@supernews.com...

>

>>>>>> liaM wrote:

>

>>>>>>> And what of jazz and voodoo ?  What do you
>>>>>>> have to say about that, Mr. Huyen ?

>

>>>>>> Jazz, or any performance art in general,
>>>>>> including theatre and classical music, is very
>>>>>> much like Bushido, in that all of them pivot
>>>>>> on the ability of the performers to put
>>>>>> themselves aside temporarily and assume
>>>>>> another character during that time, let that
>>>>>> other character fill them up, and perform
>>>>>> according to that other character (let the
>>>>>> other character run them). They can even
>>>>>> perform "against type", in that the other
>>>>>> character is radically different from them,
>>>>>> even contrary to them. Greatness is in
>>>>>> harmonising themselves so that they and the
>>>>>> other character blend together seamlessly
>>>>>> and swiingly, and are not separate entities.
>>>>>> The ensuing synergy creates the flow and
>>>>>> incandescence that great performances are
>>>>>> known for.

>

>>>>>> I don't know whether voodoo death is for
>>>>>> real, but something resembling it though
>>>>>> vastly less severe occurs on these boards.

>

>>>>>> Fu and Jigme are locked (have locked
>>>>>> themselves) in a tight and unenviable spot:
>>>>>> trying to argue the worth of their life (to
>>>>>> justify and validate themselves) by way of
>>>>>> somebody else. They have freely given up
>>>>>> their independence and self-valuation to
>>>>>> somebody else, and have to leverage the
>>>>>> worth of their life (which is the existential
>>>>>> issue par excellence) by way of somebody
>>>>>> else, whose look on them is the very worth
>>>>>> of their life to them, no less. This is the
>>>>>> classic idealism in the German sense: the
>>>>>> intuition creates what it intuits. They have
>>>>>> invested from their own side in somebody
>>>>>> else the power to look at their life and create
>>>>>> the value of it to them. They have left to
>>>>>> themselves no power to look at their life
>>>>>> and evaluate it and its worth to themselves.
>>>>>> Somebody else by default (by delegation
>>>>>> from them) has monopolised it, with their
>>>>>> full knowledge and consent. That is their
>>>>>> self-stuff invested by them, and it is in the
>>>>>> control of somebody else, whose say in the
>>>>>> matter is the final word, to Fu and Jigme.
>>>>>> This is why Fu and Jigme have to chase that
>>>>>> somebody else around and around, year after
>>>>>> year, to get his approval (which constitutes
>>>>>> their self-valuing to them), though in
>>>>>> appearance they bash him relentlessly. They
>>>>>> invest the power of life (if not of physical
>>>>>> life, at least of the value of life) in somebody
>>>>>> else, who has control over it, *by remote* so
>>>>>> to speak. In a sense they throw themselves
>>>>>> away and let somebody else do the valuing of
>>>>>> their life for them in their stead.

>

>>>>>> In Japanese Buddhism, there is the distinction
>>>>>> between self-power and other-power. Fu and
>>>>>> Jigme, faithful Japanese Buddhists (who
>>>>>> pretend to go physicalist, to protect the
>>>>>> innocent), go all the way for the latter.

>

>>>>>> (Jigme, by abusively adopting the nym of
>>>>>> DharmaTroll, has cruelly robbed himself of
>>>>>> the pleasure of bashing Japanese culture in
>>>>>> general and Japanese Zen in particular as
>>>>>> borrowing hugely from their Korean
>>>>>> counterparts. He is also *locked up in a time
>>>>>> capsule from late 1999, frozen solid some
>>>>>> eight years and a half ago*, around the time
>>>>>> of his brutal crash, which occurred in late
>>>>>> Summer 1999, but the real DharmaTroll has
>>>>>> no reason to be hung up on that time frame,
>>>>>> as nothing important occurred to him around
>>>>>> that time, more specifically he underwent no
>>>>>> personality change around that time).

>

>>>>>> All very zenny, as Jen would say.

>

>>>>>> Tang Huyen

>

>>>>> when you get into creativity mode deep enough
>>>>> it's not that you exchange one character for another
>>>>> but it is such that you do indeed relinquish that ' i '
>>>>> thought that * i * spoke of earlier and you become
>>>>> creativity itself. when i sit at the easel and paint
>>>>> or when i pick up the guitar or sit down at the
>>>>> piano the creative muses coagulate and the
>>>>> personality based on genetic heritage and that
>>>>> narcissistic core of the ego take a back seat to
>>>>> enjoy the creative aspects of imagination's
>>>>> expression.  there is probably no better way
>>>>> towards relinquishment of the ego than through
>>>>> pure creative expression even though that very
>>>>> same creative expression can slip off that razor's
>>>>> edge and create super egos at times like in the
>>>>> case of rock stars.

>

>>>> that's the problem with the path of art; it gives enlightenment when its
>>>> particular device is practiced, whether it's writing poetry or playing
>>>> the guitar; but it usually remains localized and doesn't interpenetrate
>>>> all the areas of living that bring one back down to the ego; mostly
>>>> because art doesn't have real-life consequences in the same way that
>>>> life does.

>

>>>> Robert

>

>>>> = = = = = = = = =

>

>>> I found that playing a keyboard, even as ploddingly inept as I am,
>>> quickly becomes like a meditative exercise and I lose all track of
>>> time.  So why should sitting meditation be different such that it
>>> should "interpenetrate" all the areas of living?  The more often one
>>> discovers that state of absorption and nonduality by whatever
>>> modality, in my opinion means the more accessible it is likely to be
>>> in other areas and activities.
>>> --
>>> RaaN

>

>> I'd disagree. No other kind of activity delivers away from the
>> activity to the degree that sitting meditation does. I'm not sure why
>> that is, but I completely understand why the Buddha only taught forms
>> of seated meditation, there's a huge difference in efficacy away from
>> the activity. It's not just the state of absorbtion during the
>> activity which is considerable, it's the emotional balance and self
>> discipline away from it where seated meditation excels and differs
>> from other activities like playing an instrument or drawing, or other
>> focused activities.

>
> Perhaps it's addictive.. ever experienced meditation withdrawal?
> --
> RaaN