|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2013 11:10:13 GMT -5
It seems like the significant issue and fundamental misconception you outline above could be useful to someone under the influence of the same fundamental misconception. In a sense, you are stating a 'teaching,' heaven forbid. It is what it is. These concepts are understood or they are not. One thing I like about Tzu's perspective, notwithstanding his style and treatment -- which I don't like -- is that he holds out the challenge that the fundamental misconception you lay out above may itself be another fundamental misconception. Perhaps by replacing the belief in being a separate person with a belief that there is no separation a certain form of suffering is alleviated. But is this any closer to Truth? And, tbh, I feel like a fool even capitalizing that T. I think the Buddha avoided such problems " ... the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer." Yes, I agree. There is of course a lot of dualistic nonsense under the non-duality banner. Like the idea that there is no-one, or everything is okay because it is only arising as all there is. It's nothing more than replacing one set of beliefs for another. Words can only ever point to the ineffable, so anyone who is concept-bound will dissect their way through every word of a communication seeking nothing more than that which they believe to be right or wrong. It's just what's happening. . . apparently. Beneath it all is the beauty that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of Wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing. And the Buddha nailed it with his silence... So...you are the Buddha's official mind-reader now, huh? Interesting. That is an awful lot of chutzpah. I'm impressed - unless I'm not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 12:40:51 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. There is of course a lot of dualistic nonsense under the non-duality banner. Like the idea that there is no-one, or everything is okay because it is only arising as all there is. It's nothing more than replacing one set of beliefs for another. Words can only ever point to the ineffable, so anyone who is concept-bound will dissect their way through every word of a communication seeking nothing more than that which they believe to be right or wrong. It's just what's happening. . . apparently. Beneath it all is the beauty that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of Wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing. And the Buddha nailed it with his silence... So...you are the Buddha's official mind-reader now, huh? Interesting. That is an awful lot of chutzpah. I'm impressed - unless I'm not. How can something that's not here, mind-read something that's not there?!...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2013 12:43:20 GMT -5
So...you are the Buddha's official mind-reader now, huh? Interesting. That is an awful lot of chutzpah. I'm impressed - unless I'm not. How can something that's not here, mind-read something that's not there?!... You just said you knew what he meant by something he said - did you not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 13:14:27 GMT -5
How can something that's not here, mind-read something that's not there?!... You just said you knew what he meant by something he said - did you not? He didn't say anything, the Buddha's response to a existential question was silence... What I meant was This can't be known by the mind, but it is apparently discovered in silence... I say apparently because there is nobody that actually discovers anything...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2013 13:19:21 GMT -5
You just said you knew what he meant by something he said - did you not? He didn't say anything, the Buddha's response to a existential question was silence... What I meant was This can't be known by the mind, but it is apparently discovered in silence... I say apparently because there is nobody that actually discovers anything... I'm sorry, but you made a choice to point out that in your opinion, the Buddha meant X when it clearly isn't 100% clear just what he meant. You can either discuss it or you can choose not to. You kinda started it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 14:07:23 GMT -5
He didn't say anything, the Buddha's response to a existential question was silence... What I meant was This can't be known by the mind, but it is apparently discovered in silence... I say apparently because there is nobody that actually discovers anything... I'm sorry, but you made a choice to point out that in your opinion, the Buddha meant X when it clearly isn't 100% clear just what he meant. You can either discuss it or you can choose not to. You kinda started it. You want to discuss what is meant by 'Silence'? Sorry, I got nothing...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2013 14:35:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you made a choice to point out that in your opinion, the Buddha meant X when it clearly isn't 100% clear just what he meant. You can either discuss it or you can choose not to. You kinda started it. You want to discuss what is meant by 'Silence'? Sorry, I got nothing... Whatever, trf. I remember that game show called "It's What You Don't Say" -- I think that demonstrates it clearly enough, that just because someone goes silent, you can't always guess at what they mean by that silence. Just sayin'
|
|