|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick
Date: Dec 16, 2007 15:42
On Dec 15, 6:20 pm, Robert Epstein verizon.net> wrote:>
> pj mutnick throwing around "in itself" and "for itself" and applying
> them to tathata and sunyatta shows his lack of understanding. Tathata
> does not represent the pole of the object, "suchness" or "thusness" is
> of the mind, not the object. The object world has no pole, doesn't need
> to be overcome and is impossible to transcend.
>
> Robert
I qualified my treatment of suchness as limited to the way Epstein was
defining the term. He uses the term to put a staitjacket on the
subject and limit the subject to what is imposed upon it, rather than
allow for the self-determination of the subject. Tathata means
Subject and Tathagata means Superject. If Epstein has any rational
definition of the terms he uses other than the ones I intuited, I
would love to see them. I am quite sure HE is just throwing around
terms, which he cannot define and which he has not experienced.
|
| |
|
| |
8 Comments |
|
|
Author: Hollywood LeeHollywood Lee
Date: Dec 16, 2007 15:19
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>>> When the compositions of mind (citta-sankhara) are
>>> tranquillised, mentation is tranquillised and does not
>>> proceed, and the self as a composition is not produced.
>>> This is entirely within the realm of experience, with the
>>> self being produced as a composition by the compositions
>>> and not produced as a composition by the compositions.
>>> The Buddha does take a clear-cut position on the issue
>>> and does not wimpily skirt around it.
>> In keeping within the realm of experience, he conveniently and wisely
>> stayed, well, within the realm of experience. From what I have seen,
>> when people talk about ontological commitments, they want to jump beyond
>> that realm, with the result that the Buddha is seen as evasive,
>> wishy-washy, and open to an end run. Oh well.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.76Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Dec 16, 2007 14:06
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> Hollywood Lee:
>
>>From what I have seen, when people talk about
>>ontological commitments, they want to jump beyond
>>that realm
>
> Me, I'm more of an ontological one-night-stand
> kinda guy.
Better yet, you can be an ontological butterfly
that floats nonchalantly hither thither, from
flower to flower, in the golden breeze of
Autumn.
Tang Huyen
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Dec 16, 2007 08:38
"Tang Huyen" gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:13maki9actugjd6@news.supernews.com...>
>
> "^@%%>---*=#" wrote:
>
>> "Tang Huyen":
>>
>>> Don't bother, dear. It's all fluff, it's all made up,
>>> drop it all, relax, and be serene. That's all.
>>> There is no teaching higher than that. And even
>>> that is fluff, recursively.
>>
>> are you composing that aggregational edifice
>> from a no self position or from a selfy position?
>> hard to tell really when the very same negotiational
>> tooling goes into forming the notion of self as does
>> the forming of a no-self.
>
> <
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: MI5-VictimMI5-Victim
Date: Dec 16, 2007 06:54
MI5 Persecution Update: Friday 30 April, 1999
If You Intend To Reply, Please Read This
Please.... keep your response to one page!. Faxes over a page or two will
be deleted without being read.
Somewhere between 0 and 100%%
The last few days there have been no clear recordable instances of
abuse. However, while travelling on the Underground, while walking around
near my home and going to friends homes, I am constantly troubled by
thoughts that those people over there might be about to get at me; that
the couple sitting in the opposite seats laughing are in fact laughing at
me; et cetera, et cetera.
A comment by a scientist to the BSE inquiry sticks in my mind. He
described the possible scale of the epidemic as "between 0%% and 100%%". It
might not be happening, it might not happen at all, to any discernable
degree.... or it might be total. Without clear recording, which seems to
have become impossible the last couple of weeks, there is no way of
knowing whether the harassment really is continuing, whether we have
entered a temporary hiatus, or whether perhaps it has perhaps stopped for
now.
|
| Show full article (13.10Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: RahulaRahula
Date: Dec 15, 2007 09:17
Hi,
> BY THAT ILLOGICAL BS, since Gotama said he taught "BRAHMAYANA" (SN
> 5.5) he was teaching "The path to the Best"....LOL
>
> its "path to Brahman", son.
Yes, do you which path is the best? The path to Nibbana, Arahathood is
the best, and precisely that is what the Buddha taught.
Secondly, I was only quoting the Atthakatha, which you have always
been quoting.
I am not interested in your opinion.
Regards,
Rahula
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: RahulaRahula
Date: Dec 15, 2007 09:14
Hi,
> rahula and his snake-theravada CLAIM , contrary to sutta, that there
> are pure aggregates, or as they deem "non-grasping khandhas" (however
> the Pali says actually 'khandhas which are not grasped after')
Can you explain to me the differences between 'non-grasping khandhas'
and 'khandhas which are not grasped after'?
> However Buddhism teaches the NIRODHA, the cessation, the subjugation
of the khandhas. <
I would say, the cessation, the subjugation of the clinging of the
khandhas, or craving. This is not merely my opinion. This is the third
noble thruth.
> MN 1.299 The corporeal, the corporeal I hear said. What does this
> mean? Friend Visakha, the corporeal is a designation for the five
> aggregates befallen through clinging.
'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which
self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
|
| Show full article (4.29Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: dtdt
Date: Dec 15, 2007 08:49
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> dt wrote:
>
>
>>Well, there were also several years where *I* was
>>checked out. That ought to balance the accounts
>>somewhat.
>
>
> Erm, you were checked out for some years?
> Are you saying that rebirth is for real?
>
> Tang Huyen
Hell, *I* dunno. I was checked out on beer and pot.
DT
|
| |
|
37 Comments |
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism
Date: Dec 15, 2007 02:07
Read my previos post about the Mind, please. If you have to respond,
respond to those post. Briefly, the mind in not a khandha. It;s a
process.
Regards,
Rahula
*************
Talk about inconsistency hell....... !
Citta is a "process" now,....... and also "not a khandha".........LOL!!
Buddhahood = 'process'?? LOL
Liberation (cittavimutta) = 'process'?? LOL
Nibbana = 'process'?? LOL
Nibbana = pure citta, and Nibbana is the cessation of any processes
(bhava) i.e. "bhavanirodha nibbanam" (Nirvana means the cessation of
processes/becoming).........
Can I quote you on what you said boy?????
Rahula "citta is not a khandha"...........ok Rahula, .........thanks for that
inconsistency of yours.
Course, ive told you a 1000 times the Citta is "freed of the
khandhas", the "citta is NONE of the 5khandhas".
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave KDave K
Date: Dec 12, 2007 18:31
> On Dec 12, 5:35 pm, Dave K yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> SN 1.169 (I'm looking at the Chattha Sangayana) is "Sîsupacâlâsutta."
>
>> I don't see anything like what you are quoting.
>
>
>> (it's 5.1.8)- Hide quoted text - >
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> ITS RIGHT HERE , SON, NEXT TIME, OPEN YOUR EYEBALLS.......>
>
> SN 1.169
>
> "M± br±hmaºa d±ru sam±dah±no, ...
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
