Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

100666DIFFERENCE by Jaq Derrida?

Expand Messages
  • ksheri3
    Sep 15, 2009
      Hi Lukas,

      Yes, you speak rather nicely about a "conditional aspect" of living, and this is why I make sure to always recognize my colleagues in this matter of "enlightenment" as being a major factor in what I consider to be "that of enlighetnement", however you seem to be under the illusion that a "friendship" cannot exist without there being the continuous and total agreement in everything and all things which exist i.e. Nama and Rupa. Isn't this, the illusion of the necessity for agreement, isn't that nothing more than part of the ILLUSION which Maya produces for you to partake of? THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, LEEDS ME RIGHT BACK TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH NECESSITITATES THE NEED FOR MEDITATION. I love it, how easily the ancients used the terminology "meditation" at the same time as using the terminology "contemplation" since they are two different and seperate things. I am only now begining to "see" the actual conflict which exists between the two terms and it brings forth such an exquisite view of the actuality of the practice of MEDITATION.
      --------------

      > I think that only right understanding is the thing that really matters. All metaphisic is just a border.


      colette: WRONG WRONG WRONG! What is RIGHT UNDERSTANDING? What is REALITY? What is this thing called, which you label (name & form) as "matters"? <...>

      COME NOW, MY FRIEND, why would you constrain your beliefs to this delusional perspective which you adopted from the teachings of another person, WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING THE PRACTICE? Is the practice "efficacious" or is it neglicent, INERT? <...>Ah, this cognition of the difference between INVOLUNTARY PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR and VOLUNTARY PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR is just scratching the surface: does the dogs tail wag simply out of an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO VISUALLY SEEING ME OR HEARING MY VOICE?E Now, since you are far better than I am at repeating words that the Buddha said as if you were a recorder and actually recorder those words when they were spoken, with this as the case, why don't you help me out find the Buddha's words concerning this illusive and transient being called EMOTIONS? And to tie it in with what I was speaking to Scott about, YESTERDAY, WHICH WAS NOT PUT INTO THE GROUP,(albeit, I can easily understand why the group need not hear or read such outlandish conclusions in the Therevadan context), these emotions are real although they are NAMA AND NOT RUPA, I almost made the conclusion that Rupa was EXTERNAL and NAMA WAS/IS INTERNAL but I shy away from that stretch since I am still learning and practicing. I haven't studied the Yogachara philosophy enough to be able to make that leap of faith, yet. Nargaruna and Bavavieka are some WAY OUT THERE PRACTITIONERS. At least they don't give me headaches like Jaq. Derrida gives me when I read them. And that, the resultant headaches I got, is exactly the same as the headaches I got from reading THE ILLUMINATUS TRIOLOGY back in the early 1990s, and damn, I never got to correspond nor question my colleague Mr. R.A.Wilson about his methodology (it took me more than a year to read that single book, THE ILLUMINATUS TRILOGY). You don't know how important to me that is, that I correspond and actually have a relationship with people that study what I love studying and practicing, MAGIK. <...>

      thanks.

      gotta go.

      toodles,
      colette
      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" <szmicio@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear colette,
      >
      > I,ve got some second-hand story.
      > I dont remember it now, because it was long ago since I've heard it. So forgive me if i change something.
      >
      > <The Buddha was sitting on the bank of a river.
      <...>
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic