I have read ol' Buddha's teachings and have yet to discover what the old
man
said about the imagination. The Buddha was a man and men have
imaginations.
Do you find that Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity and the Muslim faiths,
all fail to mention the imagination? Why would they omit this function of
human beings? Could it be that they employed their imaginations while
spouting mystical truths? I have failed to find where there is discussion
of
the fantasies of mankind in any readings. The results of their writings
indicate that a very vivid imagination was used, but a failure to
acknowledge this trait, lends me to believe that this would have
discredited
the authenticity of their doctrines. Imagine that!

boy wrote:
i'll stop you right there and ask you a question.

tell me who of the religious fathers speaks less of
mental faculties and their respective functions?

The Old One (Lao-zi) explicitly banishes knowledge
and learning, just slightly later than the Buddha.

In the other direction, Stoicism has the best theory
on the imagination in antiquity. It is still praised
nowadays. That said, Stoicism also does away with
mentation, though not perhaps to the austere and
rigourous degree that Daoism and Buddhism do.

All three seek to go back before creation, before
the forming of things and events that we are familiar
with in our daily life. In such vision, which is devoid
of anthropomorphism, they are opposite to Jewish
mythology, which takes the same things and events
that we are familiar with in our daily life as already
formed, already created, already given and merely
attempt to explain them in a crude, anthropomorphic
manner.

There can scarcely be two more contrary
worldviews (in the most comprehensive sense of the
word) in the world, and let us remember that
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism predate
Christinianity by some centuries. They seek to go
back before thought and language, whereas Jewish
mythology is wholly within thought and language,
and talking about the imagination, Jewish mythology
works very much within the imagination. Hegel says
so.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Mort <mortonvul... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:22 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele... at (no spam) gmail.com[remove]
wrote:
boy wrote:
i'll stop you right there and ask you a question.

tell me who of the religious fathers speaks less of
mental faculties and their respective functions?

The Old One (Lao-zi) explicitly banishes knowledge
and learning, just slightly later than the Buddha.

abhidharma*cough*

the 5 skhandas*cough*

In the other direction, Stoicism has the best theory
on the imagination in antiquity. It is still praised
nowadays. That said, Stoicism also does away with
mentation, though not perhaps to the austere and
rigourous degree that Daoism and Buddhism do.

All three seek to go back before creation, before
the forming of things and events that we are familiar
with in our daily life. In such vision, which is devoid
of anthropomorphism, they are opposite to Jewish
mythology, which takes the same things and events
that we are familiar with in our daily life as already
formed, already created, already given and merely
attempt to explain them in a crude, anthropomorphic
manner.

they appear to mix evolutions downward current with involutions
heirarchical relationship which does predate the forming of things.

How can one know?  The past is mind-memory, not any
physical substance.  To place events in time is a rational
exercise without any real physical basis.  It may be the way
we tend to think, but then it may just be idle unprovable thought.

You can declare there is such a thing as the past, but no one
can experience or prove such a thing.  It's just the conventional
conjecture - a mode of thinking, an insubstantial dream.

one can imagine the imagination and emotions becoming organized and
controlled by the speaking mind, and this in a primitive mindset
appearing as "word magic", before we interpret it differently and then
become the rationally controlled modern men and women that we are not
really.

The magic of words allows one to make a whole
universe out of a little book.  We are not beyond
word-magic at all.  We're submerged in tokens
and symbolisms that are more real than 'reality' to us.

There can scarcely be two more contrary
worldviews (in the most comprehensive sense of the
word) in the world, and let us remember that
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism predate
Christinianity by some centuries. They seek to go
back before thought and language, whereas Jewish
mythology is wholly within thought and language,
and talking about the imagination, Jewish mythology
works very much within the imagination. Hegel says
so.

hegel says so.  well there you go. word magic.

Tang Huyen

i'll stop you right there and ask you a question.

tell me who of the religious fathers speaks less of
mental faculties and their respective functions?

boy wrote:

i'll stop you right there and ask you a question.

tell me who of the religious fathers speaks less of
mental faculties and their respective functions?

The Old One (Lao-zi) explicitly banishes knowledge
and learning, just slightly later than the Buddha.

In the other direction, Stoicism has the best theory
on the imagination in antiquity. It is still praised
nowadays. That said, Stoicism also does away with
mentation, though not perhaps to the austere and
rigourous degree that Daoism and Buddhism do.

All three seek to go back before creation, before
the forming of things and events that we are familiar
with in our daily life. In such vision, which is devoid
of anthropomorphism, they are opposite to Jewish
mythology, which takes the same things and events
that we are familiar with in our daily life as already
formed, already created, already given and merely
attempt to explain them in a crude, anthropomorphic
manner.

There can scarcely be two more contrary
worldviews (in the most comprehensive sense of the
word) in the world, and let us remember that
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism predate
Christinianity by some centuries. They seek to go
back before thought and language, whereas Jewish
mythology is wholly within thought and language,
and talking about the imagination, Jewish mythology
works very much within the imagination. Hegel says
so.

Tang Huyen

On Sep 13, 12:22 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele... at (no spam) gmail.com[remove]
wrote:
boy wrote:
i'll stop you right there and ask you a question.

tell me who of the religious fathers speaks less of
mental faculties and their respective functions?

The Old One (Lao-zi) explicitly banishes knowledge
and learning, just slightly later than the Buddha.

abhidharma*cough*

the 5 skhandas*cough*


In the other direction, Stoicism has the best theory
on the imagination in antiquity. It is still praised
nowadays. That said, Stoicism also does away with
mentation, though not perhaps to the austere and
rigourous degree that Daoism and Buddhism do.

All three seek to go back before creation, before
the forming of things and events that we are familiar
with in our daily life. In such vision, which is devoid
of anthropomorphism, they are opposite to Jewish
mythology, which takes the same things and events
that we are familiar with in our daily life as already
formed, already created, already given and merely
attempt to explain them in a crude, anthropomorphic
manner.

they appear to mix evolutions downward current with involutions
heirarchical relationship which does predate the forming of things.

one can imagine the imagination and emotions becoming organized and
controlled by the speaking mind, and this in a primitive mindset
appearing as "word magic", before we interpret it differently and then
become the rationally controlled modern men and women that we are not
really.

There can scarcely be two more contrary
worldviews (in the most comprehensive sense of the
word) in the world, and let us remember that
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism predate
Christinianity by some centuries. They seek to go
back before thought and language, whereas Jewish
mythology is wholly within thought and language,
and talking about the imagination, Jewish mythology
works very much within the imagination. Hegel says
so.


hegel says so. well there you go. word magic.

Tang Huyen

On Sep 12, 8:55 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele... at (no spam) gmail.com[remove]

When one imagines that the whole universe is turned
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow,
all of that occurs only in one's imagination and not
outside of it (iow, the universe does not actually turn
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow).
Those states are called without duality, without limit
(advayam appamanam, advayam apramanam), but
they are *deluded* and not awakened at all, except
for the last of the four Divine Dwellings, equanimity.

Yep. They go into the the four formal dhyanas and the four formless
states.
These states were learned by Sakyamuni from his last two Hindu
teachers before he found liberation from suffering. They are
dangerously impressive, but they do not lead to liberation from
suffering. Another name for the highest is "the peak of samsara".

Buddhism may use suchlike voluntary adhesions, but
only as mere means and not as ends in themselves,
again except for the last of the four Divine Dwellings,
equanimity. While cultivating them (and this includes
the four Divine Dwellings), one has to contemplate
them as impermanent, suffering, no-self, etc., and one
has to *let go of them* and not cling to them.

Tang:

When one imagines that the whole universe is turned
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow,
all of that occurs only in one's imagination and not
outside of it (iow, the universe does not actually turn
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow).
Those states are called without duality, without limit
(advayam appamanam, advayam apramanam), but
they are *deluded* and not awakened at all, except
for the last of the four Divine Dwellings, equanimity.

Yep. They go into the the four formal dhyanas and the four formless
states.
These states were learned by Sakyamuni from his last two Hindu
teachers before he found liberation from suffering. They are
dangerously impressive, but they do not lead to liberation from
suffering. Another name for the highest is "the peak of samsara".

Buddhism may use suchlike voluntary adhesions, but
only as mere means and not as ends in themselves,
again except for the last of the four Divine Dwellings,
equanimity. While cultivating them (and this includes
the four Divine Dwellings), one has to contemplate
them as impermanent, suffering, no-self, etc., and one
has to *let go of them* and not cling to them.

norbu:





Tang:
When one imagines that the whole universe is turned
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow,
all of that occurs only in one's imagination and not
outside of it (iow, the universe does not actually turn
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow).
Those states are called without duality, without limit
(advayam appamanam, advayam apramanam), but
they are *deluded* and not awakened at all, except
for the last of the four Divine Dwellings, equanimity.

Yep. They go into the the four formal dhyanas and the four formless
states.
These states were learned by Sakyamuni from his last two Hindu
teachers before he found liberation from suffering. They are
dangerously impressive, but they do not lead to liberation from
suffering. Another name for the highest is "the peak of samsara".

Buddhism may use suchlike voluntary adhesions, but
only as mere means and not as ends in themselves,
again except for the last of the four Divine Dwellings,
equanimity. While cultivating them (and this includes
the four Divine Dwellings), one has to contemplate
them as impermanent, suffering, no-self, etc., and one
has to *let go of them* and not cling to them.

Blue petaled lotus:
The pure sensation of mind!
Which jhana izit!?

On Sep 14, 7:17 am, norbu_tragri <norbu.tra... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:55 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele... at (no spam) gmail.com[remove]

When one imagines that the whole universe is turned
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow,
all of that occurs only in one's imagination and not
outside of it (iow, the universe does not actually turn
into friendliness or compassion or sympathetic joy or
equanimity or earth or water or fire or blue or yellow).
Those states are called without duality, without limit
(advayam appamanam, advayam apramanam), but
they are *deluded* and not awakened at all, except
for the last of the four Divine Dwellings, equanimity.

Yep. They go into the the four formal dhyanas and the four formless
states.
These states were learned by Sakyamuni from his last two Hindu
teachers before he found liberation from suffering. They are
dangerously impressive, but they do not lead to liberation from
suffering. Another name for the highest is "the peak of samsara".

Thank you for iterating this point. Having dabbled in them I can say
that although they are supernal, they are distracting as they require
a devotion all to themselves. To me it was bad therapy for a novice.

I've tried to convey this to Jeffrey Brooks in his "Ecstatic
Buddhism / Fourth Wheel" groups & got steamrolled. I'm concerned that
a declared Fourth Wheel movement would become more about engendering
forms - like reifying jhanas into stinking newage. Garf!

Buddhism may use suchlike voluntary adhesions, but
only as mere means and not as ends in themselves,
again except for the last of the four Divine Dwellings,
equanimity. While cultivating them (and this includes
the four Divine Dwellings), one has to contemplate
them as impermanent, suffering, no-self, etc., and one
has to *let go of them* and not cling to them.

Although supernal they are penultimate. Just because they are beatific
they are not quintessential. If an inexperienced meditator can
experience & repeat them (difficult) I'm not entirely sure what
milestone they establish. I'm not the least bit studied on this
matter, but calling them "attainments" starts to smell like score-
keeping, ego building credentialism, as bad as Hemp Shirt Piety.

Granted that being able to experience Mind as an intrinsic sensation
to its own establishes Mind possessing qualia not observed while
mentating or in other meditative flavors, but it appears to me that
supernal states still require self attendant as part of concentration
(albeit not in the typical vein of ordinary mind).

Also, leaving supernal states is samsaric and likewise for seeking
them again. But letting go of forms & getting into the present moment,
I'm thinking a phase shift needn't be there.

/leebert

zenworm wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:17 am, norbu_tragri <norbu.tra... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

snip

"Just look, know/feel it without any filters, do not buy into it or
reject it or go nummmmb....
no strategy at all - sheer awareness. If you were ever told "Honesty
is the best policy" - that's what this. If you want find something
real, some sort of sanity, it has to start with you being honest with
yourself. So just look."
- norbu

snip

Thank you norbu

Looking now
Being now
Smiling now

This is Moment

Yeah, probably, maybe... but "just looking" isn't realisation. It may
be a prerequisite, but realisation is to explosively and
**comprehendingly** enter something utterly new. It entails sharp,
sharp cognition as well as awareness. I regularly feel that this
Tangist, quietist, "just looking" lacks some essential dynamism.

On Sep 14, 7:17 am, norbu_tragri <norbu.tra... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

snip

"Just look, know/feel it without any filters, do not buy into it or
reject it or go nummmmb....
no strategy at all - sheer awareness. If you were ever told "Honesty
is the best policy" - that's what this. If you want find something
real, some sort of sanity, it has to start with you being honest with
yourself. So just look."
- norbu

snip

Thank you norbu

Looking now
Being now
Smiling now

This is Moment

ayayy. i wish i was full of common book knowledge we might have a
better conversation. i find most things out for myself and then
correlate ideas. maybe about 3 years since i seriously read anything,
and what i used to read was still very filtered as i only took in what
i understood intimately or sought after to help. almost anything
anyone has written passes from interest after a sentence or 2. but i
like stories and how i can learn from them in the way that i read or
watch. anyway i am always feeling the lack of knowledge that is
severely imbalanced by my own logical capacity being far past the
genius mark.