- Good Morning Sarah, ... the curry ... colette: understand that I do not know the material you re covering here, I realy don t know how to read these footnoteMessage 1 of 88 , Feb 1, 2007View SourceGood Morning Sarah,
Allow me to add a few thoughts here:
> Sarah: I wouldn't quite put it that 'the event of the burning ofthe curry
> becomes the object .....'on and on'.colette: understand that I do not know the material you're covering
here, I realy don't know how to read these footnote markers and such
that you apply, still, I go on.
Your above sentence, I take from the actions or act of the
individual. Okay, for years back in the 1990s I had incense burners,
etc. that hung from from my shelves and would glow at night when I
burned them, frankensence was my favorite fragrance, sandlewood, etc
are all good.
Enlightenment may not simply come by viewing the act of perfoming the
ceremonial of "burning the curry". The aroma may be the focus here,
no? You can do a lot thru the application of incense. I read a piece
last night that I don't have with me, that concerned
the "Perfumed" ... it will come back to me later.
Maybe there is no object, application of sunyata. Maybe it is by
looking at yourself as the diety performing a diety's ceremonials. I
refer to another piece I was reading last night the awakened me to
the fact that although "man" does not have a "soul" maybe the "soul"
has the "man", YES, now I remember, it was a definition
of "CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY".
One brief reflection or occurrence in
> daily life can be a condition for awareness (and understnaing) ofvarious
> dhammas to arise conditioned by previous 'firm remembrance' of whatsuch
> dhammas are.colette: I hope you're refering to Bija (seeds).
wow, right when I wrote that I had a big flash. sorry, I'll have to
come back later today. Does "awareness" = "consciousness"?
> The 'not wobbling' analogy is not used to indicate any 'holding' of
> object in the sense of a repeated, concentrated focus on it at all.It's
> used to indicate the quality of sati of firmly being aware when itarises,
> very naturally 'following' its object - a nama or a rupa.little
> *p.s. Thx Connie for the great recent installments - I'm running a
> behind the Sisters....puff, puff.....Meanwhile, glad to see you and
> Colette finding a common sister language:-)
- Hi Colette Good to see you still around. ... Yeah, me too. ... You don t like negativity. You like an approach that is a positive one rather than a negativeMessage 88 of 88 , Mar 17 6:52 AMView SourceHi Colette
Good to see you still around.
> Hi Jonothan,Yeah, me too.
> Only a few seconds:
>> Thanks for the encouragement, but the problemYou don't like negativity. You like an approach that is a positive one
> colette: John Lennon said: "I tell them there's no problem, only
> solutions" Don't be so negative.
>> with the approach you
>> suggest is that any choices made are only as soundly based as our
>> ignorance and wrong view will permit.
> colette: it sounds as if we have a believer in the Qliphoth, or
> keliphot. Why do you personalize, gratify, and magnify, IGNORANCE and
> WRONG VIEW? they permit anything if they were conscious or had
> consciousness <.....>
>> That is not to say there is never
>> wholesomeness or even perhaps awareness, but these moments are
>> in the minority, and cannot be summoned to be present when we
>> are making choices.
> colette: who taught you how to be human? Where did this users manual
> come from? Where is this users manual? You have to see yourself as
> the prey and preditor all in the same thought.
> Step right up, place your bets. Everybodies a winner.
rather than a negative one. But I wonder how you would regard the
Buddha's description of life as suffering, of the body as foul, of the
sense-pleasures as a danger, of being locked in the cycle of birth and
death, of the extreme length of time needed to develop the path, etc --
positive or negative? In conventional terms these would be regarded as
negative views rather than positive ones, wouldn't you say?
I think the best approach is one that is neither positive or negative,
but simply in accordance with the way things are (a *realistic* one).
>> If kusala/akusala are concepts of illusory situations we findWell why a given individual might be interested in kusala/akusala is
>> ourselves in, it would not be possible to know whether one's
>> own presently arising consciousness is kusala or aksuala.
> colette: how are things doing down there in the accounting dept.? You
> micro-managers and/or numbers crunchers are something. Why does it
> have to be deducible and, no less, deducible so that you can rest
> assured that your GLASS HOUSE IS BETTER THAN THE GLASS HOUSE OF YOUR
another question. But as to whether kusala/akusala can be known as and
when it arises, I think it's very much a part of the teachings that it
can. Otherwise how would the development of samatha or vipassana, in
fact any kind of kusala, be possible?