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

[dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses.

Expand Messages
  • upasaka_howard
    Hi, Sarah (and Colette & all) - ... =================================== In several posts you (correctly) ask Who is this one ? I would like to ask
    Message 1 of 32 , May 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Sarah (and Colette & all) -

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Colette,
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" <colette_aube@> wrote:
      >
      > > Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river?
      > ...
      > S: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now?

      <Snip>
      ===================================
      In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only!

      With metta,
      Howard

      /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./

      (From the Sankhata Sutta)
    • colette_aube
      Hi Tep, Sorry for DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY ignoring your response to the concept the Buddha used in describing the boat that carries the individual to
      Message 32 of 32 , Jun 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Tep,

        Sorry for DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY ignoring your response to the concept the Buddha used in describing "the boat" that carries the individual to "the other side". I openly admit, from the get-go, that I do not understand the CONCEPT through the words "...conditioned attabhava sense)." that you use/apply.

        With that said and understood as my position on your statement. I shall now bother to elaborate further on this in the hopes that I can intermingle with NARGARJUNA'S actual vibration that he himself set into motion (see TURNING OF THE WHEEL).

        People devote themselves to this or that TEMPLE (see Murray Head: "ONE NIGHT IN BANGKOK") and with/included in and through this "devotion" is the dependence upon a RATIONALITY that accompanies the "Temple". Part of the UNSEEN aspect, the ESOTERIC ASPECT, the HIDDEN ASPECT, of this devotion is the acceptance of a WAVE vibration (see SOUND FEEDBACK, see PRIMARY WAVE, see SHOCK WAVE i.e. a Type 1A Supernova has sent a shock wave through the galaxy and that WAVE is going to arrive at the nebula THE PILLARS OF CREATION at some point in this theory called TIME, which will destroy THE PILLARS OF CREATION because there is NO SUBSTANCE TO THEM thus a relative truth) Beijing, in their determination to build a subway system, has been very specific about the vibrations of each and every building, skyscrapper, that the subway will travel beneath because those subway cars will create VIBRATIONS within the ground as they travel hither and yon, from here to there.

        That boat made the INCOMPREHENSIBLE possible to TRAVERSE and thus, in the small minds of the infantile slave, they view this act of behavior as having a VALUE thus they delusion a VALUE possessed by THAT/THOSE THOUGHT(S) THAT MADE THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE NOTHING MORE THAN CHILD'S PLAY i.e. "Elementary Watson". THUS, they will carry the burden of that RATIONALITY, of the PSYCHOLOGY, of that robotic behavior, with them so that it negates any EXPERIENCE they may have with and in THE FUTURE. They carry that boat as though it were a bag of bricks that NYC Lawyers praise carrying.

        toodles,
        colette


        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" <tepsastri@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Colette, Howard, Sarah -
        >
        > Here's a good example of random discussion (anything goes; i.e., I don't have to listen to you, I'll say what I want!!).
        >
        > > > > >Colette: Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river?
        >
        > > > >Sarah: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now?
        >
        > > >Howard: In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only!
        > ................
        >
        > Howard's quote: /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned.
        > Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while
        > remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./
        >
        > >Colette : OUCH, that is a hot one! Excessively accurate and potent, as though a bija were planted in dirt as an acorn.
        > ---------------
        >
        > T: A raft is not supposed to be carried -- it carries you to the other shore, given that you make an earnest effort to help yourself (in the conditioned attabhava sense).
        >
        > Truly,
        > Tep
        > ===
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.