Peking Best

KEYNES has said this bullshit: The Buddha taught that one should train himself that in the seen there is just the seen... Then there is no 'you' here or there or in between. There is  NO such fucking passage, .........you ARE a goddamned idiot, congrats. like the common fuckhead, you confuse self with Self The Two Selves                    Or, the empirical self (namo-rupa, anatta), and the Spiritual (attan) Self                                                            Copyright 2007 Author: Webmaster attan.com                 *A MUST READ!! Against no-Soul theories of Anatta in PDF (187 K*        The greatest fool in Buddhist doctrine was one who ?saw Self (atman) in (mere) self (anatta)? (?anattani ca attati?) [AN 2.52], certainly one of the most common refrains in Buddhist sutta. Some of the  greatest harbingers of the incapacity to differentiate the empirical (namo-rupic) self from The Self are most certainly the ?Buddhists? who never end in revelry of quoting Gotama to the effect that all  ?phenomena are Selfless (anattoti)?. The empirical self is = anatta, [SN 3.196], that very khandic (namo-rupic) self which modern ?Buddhism? alone acknowledges, but not that other Self which is the ?light  and refuge? [DN 2.154].       What has Buddhism to say of the Self? That's not my Self (na me so atta); and the term non Self-ishness (anatta) are predicated of the world and all things (sabbe dhamma anatta); identical with the  Brahmanical of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul , (anatma hi martyah), [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] ?The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto?. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but  what it is not. There is never a ?doctrine of no-Soul?, but a doctrine of what the Soul (The Self) is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It cannot be denied that what is anatta is indeed the mere and  petty self for [SN 3.196], and countless other passages, the mere self of psycho-physicality is = anatta = khandhas; that same self which the disciple is instructed to have his will (ctta) reject in the face of  illumination and insight.       Of the _meta_physician, the common-fool (puthujjana) who knows ?only of his self, is fated to most certainly die when his time comes?, but of that noble Aryan sage who has claimed the summit of wisdom  and is ?freed the will/nous (cittavimuttati)?, he is a ?dead man walking?; meaning he has ?died to that mere self and lives in The Self?. Such a person in quest for same is commanded ?die before ye die!?, or  that before physical death come and lest you still suffer the delusion of The Self to be this (foul) self of flesh and bone you have dispirited and dis_object_ified the will (Self-assimilation = Atman) in upon itself  (samadhi, liberation).       The common fool who ruminates over immortality envisages the survival of the personality (of person so-and-so; Bob, Sue); confusing the empirical self of ?flesh, urine, blood, bone, feces? [Dhm] with  the Spirit (atman). This empirical self is in doubt by none, that very same self ?headed to the grave? and which ?goes in its own time?. The _meta_physician knows that any ?self? created in time must also perish  in those same (?fires of?) time. [Dhm. 147] Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over?; of which Buddhism in no  way quarrels with modern and corrupt ?Buddhism?, that of which this very self, the temporal phenomena of that person so-and-so is equally as much ?dukkha, anicca, and anatta?.       The ?reflexive position? taken by illogical modern ?Buddhism? proclaims the Pali term Attan (Skt. Atman, Self) to be merely a reflexive term meaning ?oneself, himself, herself?, however the reflexive  and empirical mere self is, regardless of translation, ?anatta? i.e. ?na me so atta? (not my Soul), or also ?eso khandhassa na me so atta? (these aggregates [forms, feelings, perceptions, experiences,  consciousness =mere self] are no the Self, the Soul). As pertains the reflexive self, of who proclaim ?myself, himself, herself? we are referring to ?that person so-and-so (Larry, Sue, etc.)?, the empirical and  psycho-physical (namo-rupa) self of blood and sinew which is ?doomed to fall into the grave at long last?, the very same self the poetic dead are said to cry out to the living ?what you are, we (the dead)  once were,. what we are you shall be!?. Even more illogical is the double standard of commentarialist and sectarian ?Buddhists? who desire anatta to mean ?no-Soul? as well as atta to mean simply ?myself,  himself, herself?; wherein illogically atta in the adjective anatta is, to their ignorant minds = Soul (?no-soul?), but atta in standalone  = ?myself?. As illogical an end result, modern Buddhism has proclaimed atta  = anatta! Its quite hard to fathom any position more senseless than this, however this is one of the countless reasons modern ?Buddhism? is illogical without end. However doctrinally and logically so, what IS  anatta (the five psycho-physical aggregates of the mere self) are indeed ?myself?, in so meaning the mortal (mata) self composed of the bodily humors which is fated to death. That mere self is never implied  nor meant when Buddhism speaks of immortality and the path leading to same (amatagamimagga) [SN 5.9], of which ?the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)? - Homer       The great dictum of the Upanishads is ?That (Brahman) thou art? (tat tvam asi). ?That? is here, of course, the Atman or Spirit, Sanctus Spiritus, the Greek pneuma; this Atman is the spiritual essence,  impartite whether transcendent or immanent; and however many and various directions to which it may extend or from which it may withdraw, it is the unmoved mover in both intransitive and transitive  senses. It lends itself to all modalities of being but never itself becomes anyone or anything. That than which all else is vexation- That thou art. ?That?, in other words, is Brahman, or Godhead in the general  sense of Logos or Being, considered as the universal source of all Being. That which is ?in? him as the finite (1) in the infinite (2- infinity, i.e. phenomena, namo-rupa), though not a ?part? of him.       Referring back to of those who are mortal, there is no Self/ Soul , the common fool doesn?t 'have' an atman as such that we might agree with heretical modern ?Buddhism? which denies Selfhood in the  absolute; for those same peoples who, in the grand bloom of ignorance, accept the foul self and deny the Great-Self, they are _object_ively (self-khandhas) assured that no underlying Subject (The Self) is  immanent, or transcendent. Just as a man might have gold on his land, undiscovered and unknown, he has no gold, no wealth, even though it be his by measure of being present upon his very lands; so too  those common fools (puthujjana), the ?Buddhists? who are certain and proud in their ignorance that this temporal personality, this self, is all there is. Theravada, in great illogic, goes one further to say that  Gotama?s denial of nihilism (ucchedavada) was aimed at meaning that even the empirical self, since it itself was merely a composite and temporal construct, had no existence to be annihilated; thereby  subverting the doctrinal ?heresy of nihilism? to be placed upon the view of denying the empirical self rather than The Self, the Atman. Of course, to ?have an atman? implies possession, and certainly so the  immanent Subject, The Self, is a possession by nothing and by nobody; in this too the wiseman agrees with the common materialist who ignorantly proclaims ?I don?t have an atman/Soul?, most certainly that  foul self does not ?have? The Self any more so than that _object_ which is illuminated from afar ?has (of itself) light?.       ?There are two within us? [Plato?s Republic 439d, 604b]; in the _expression_ of ?self-control? implying that there is one that controls and the other (self) subject to control, for we know that ?nothing acts  upon itself?; for the one self ?becomes?, and the other self ?is?. ?The ?fair? self (kalyanam attanam)?the ?foul? self (papam attanam)? [AN 1.149]; i.e. the ?great Self? (mahatta) and the ?petty? (appatumo)  [AN 1.249], or that ?self whose Lord is the Self? [Dhm 380]. In that modern so-called Buddhism has denied The Self, it has constructed an illogical impossibility in thereby positing empirical purity of which  the doctrine of Buddhism itself, not to mention logic alone most heartily protests, for there is no possibility of empirical purity within the teachings of Buddhism.        It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical ?self? in the very meaning of ?my-self? (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the  command ?denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern so-called Buddhism means to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the  immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta?) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than  in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta?, ?This/these are not my Soul? (na me so atta?= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama).   What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ?I? or ?mine? or ?me?. [MN 1.185]. What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the  Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did
... read more ť

The Buddha taught that one should train himself that in the seen there is just the seen... Then there is no 'you' here or there or in between. There is  NO such fucking passage, .........you ARE a goddamned idiot, congrats. like the common fuckhead, you confuse self with Self The Two Selves                    Or, the empirical self (namo-rupa, anatta), and the Spiritual (attan) Self                                                            Copyright 2007 Author: Webmaster attan.com                 *A MUST READ!! Against no-Soul theories of Anatta in PDF (187 K*        The greatest fool in Buddhist doctrine was one who ?saw Self (atman) in (mere) self (anatta)? (?anattani ca attati?) [AN 2.52], certainly one of the most common refrains in Buddhist sutta. Some of the  greatest harbingers of the incapacity to differentiate the empirical (namo-rupic) self from The Self are most certainly the ?Buddhists? who never end in revelry of quoting Gotama to the effect that all  ?phenomena are Selfless (anattoti)?. The empirical self is = anatta, [SN 3.196], that very khandic (namo-rupic) self which modern ?Buddhism? alone acknowledges, but not that other Self which is the ?light  and refuge? [DN 2.154].       What has Buddhism to say of the Self? That's not my Self (na me so atta); and the term non Self-ishness (anatta) are predicated of the world and all things (sabbe dhamma anatta); identical with the  Brahmanical of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul , (anatma hi martyah), [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] ?The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto?. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but  what it is not. There is never a ?doctrine of no-Soul?, but a doctrine of what the Soul (The Self) is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It cannot be denied that what is anatta is indeed the mere and  petty self for [SN 3.196], and countless other passages, the mere self of psycho-physicality is = anatta = khandhas; that same self which the disciple is instructed to have his will (ctta) reject in the face of  illumination and insight.       Of the _meta_physician, the common-fool (puthujjana) who knows ?only of his self, is fated to most certainly die when his time comes?, but of that noble Aryan sage who has claimed the summit of wisdom  and is ?freed the will/nous (cittavimuttati)?, he is a ?dead man walking?; meaning he has ?died to that mere self and lives in The Self?. Such a person in quest for same is commanded ?die before ye die!?, or  that before physical death come and lest you still suffer the delusion of The Self to be this (foul) self of flesh and bone you have dispirited and dis_object_ified the will (Self-assimilation = Atman) in upon itself  (samadhi, liberation).       The common fool who ruminates over immortality envisages the survival of the personality (of person so-and-so; Bob, Sue); confusing the empirical self of ?flesh, urine, blood, bone, feces? [Dhm] with  the Spirit (atman). This empirical self is in doubt by none, that very same self ?headed to the grave? and which ?goes in its own time?. The _meta_physician knows that any ?self? created in time must also perish  in those same (?fires of?) time. [Dhm. 147] Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over?; of which Buddhism in no  way quarrels with modern and corrupt ?Buddhism?, that of which this very self, the temporal phenomena of that person so-and-so is equally as much ?dukkha, anicca, and anatta?.       The ?reflexive position? taken by illogical modern ?Buddhism? proclaims the Pali term Attan (Skt. Atman, Self) to be merely a reflexive term meaning ?oneself, himself, herself?, however the reflexive  and empirical mere self is, regardless of translation, ?anatta? i.e. ?na me so atta? (not my Soul), or also ?eso khandhassa na me so atta? (these aggregates [forms, feelings, perceptions, experiences,  consciousness =mere self] are no the Self, the Soul). As pertains the reflexive self, of who proclaim ?myself, himself, herself? we are referring to ?that person so-and-so (Larry, Sue, etc.)?, the empirical and  psycho-physical (namo-rupa) self of blood and sinew which is ?doomed to fall into the grave at long last?, the very same self the poetic dead are said to cry out to the living ?what you are, we (the dead)  once were,. what we are you shall be!?. Even more illogical is the double standard of commentarialist and sectarian ?Buddhists? who desire anatta to mean ?no-Soul? as well as atta to mean simply ?myself,  himself, herself?; wherein illogically atta in the adjective anatta is, to their ignorant minds = Soul (?no-soul?), but atta in standalone  = ?myself?. As illogical an end result, modern Buddhism has proclaimed atta  = anatta! Its quite hard to fathom any position more senseless than this, however this is one of the countless reasons modern ?Buddhism? is illogical without end. However doctrinally and logically so, what IS  anatta (the five psycho-physical aggregates of the mere self) are indeed ?myself?, in so meaning the mortal (mata) self composed of the bodily humors which is fated to death. That mere self is never implied  nor meant when Buddhism speaks of immortality and the path leading to same (amatagamimagga) [SN 5.9], of which ?the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)? - Homer       The great dictum of the Upanishads is ?That (Brahman) thou art? (tat tvam asi). ?That? is here, of course, the Atman or Spirit, Sanctus Spiritus, the Greek pneuma; this Atman is the spiritual essence,  impartite whether transcendent or immanent; and however many and various directions to which it may extend or from which it may withdraw, it is the unmoved mover in both intransitive and transitive  senses. It lends itself to all modalities of being but never itself becomes anyone or anything. That than which all else is vexation- That thou art. ?That?, in other words, is Brahman, or Godhead in the general  sense of Logos or Being, considered as the universal source of all Being. That which is ?in? him as the finite (1) in the infinite (2- infinity, i.e. phenomena, namo-rupa), though not a ?part? of him.       Referring back to of those who are mortal, there is no Self/ Soul , the common fool doesn?t 'have' an atman as such that we might agree with heretical modern ?Buddhism? which denies Selfhood in the  absolute; for those same peoples who, in the grand bloom of ignorance, accept the foul self and deny the Great-Self, they are _object_ively (self-khandhas) assured that no underlying Subject (The Self) is  immanent, or transcendent. Just as a man might have gold on his land, undiscovered and unknown, he has no gold, no wealth, even though it be his by measure of being present upon his very lands; so too  those common fools (puthujjana), the ?Buddhists? who are certain and proud in their ignorance that this temporal personality, this self, is all there is. Theravada, in great illogic, goes one further to say that  Gotama?s denial of nihilism (ucchedavada) was aimed at meaning that even the empirical self, since it itself was merely a composite and temporal construct, had no existence to be annihilated; thereby  subverting the doctrinal ?heresy of nihilism? to be placed upon the view of denying the empirical self rather than The Self, the Atman. Of course, to ?have an atman? implies possession, and certainly so the  immanent Subject, The Self, is a possession by nothing and by nobody; in this too the wiseman agrees with the common materialist who ignorantly proclaims ?I don?t have an atman/Soul?, most certainly that  foul self does not ?have? The Self any more so than that _object_ which is illuminated from afar ?has (of itself) light?.       ?There are two within us? [Plato?s Republic 439d, 604b]; in the _expression_ of ?self-control? implying that there is one that controls and the other (self) subject to control, for we know that ?nothing acts  upon itself?; for the one self ?becomes?, and the other self ?is?. ?The ?fair? self (kalyanam attanam)?the ?foul? self (papam attanam)? [AN 1.149]; i.e. the ?great Self? (mahatta) and the ?petty? (appatumo)  [AN 1.249], or that ?self whose Lord is the Self? [Dhm 380]. In that modern so-called Buddhism has denied The Self, it has constructed an illogical impossibility in thereby positing empirical purity of which  the doctrine of Buddhism itself, not to mention logic alone most heartily protests, for there is no possibility of empirical purity within the teachings of Buddhism.        It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical ?self? in the very meaning of ?my-self? (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the  command ?denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern so-called Buddhism means to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the  immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta?) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more
... read more ť

Can you point out how the following is incorrect?  It's purported to be from the Sutta-Pitaka of the Buddhist Pali Canon.  I'm just trying to understand why you take such joy in trashing people.  Is it that you fear your ideas cannot stand on their own, that you must bring all who disagree with you down to your level?  I know I shouldn't care, and it doesn't bother me at all, but I imagine people could learn from you.  But your approach is so opposite from that which you try to teach, that it does raise my curiosity and I feel bad for you. ABSTAINING FROM HARSH LANGUAGE 3. He avoids harsh language, and abstains from it. He speaks such words as are gentle, soothing to the ear, loving, such words as go to the heart, and are courteous, friendly, and agreeable to many. In Majjhima-Nic ya No. 21, the Buddha says: ?Even, O monks, should robbers and murderers saw through your limbs and joints, whosoever should give way to anger thereat would not be following my advice. For thus ought you to train yourselves: ?Undisturbed shall our mind remain, no evil words shall escape our lips; friendly and full of sympathy shall we remain, with heart full of love, and free from any hidden malice; and that person shall we penetrate with loving thoughts, wide, deep, boundless, freed from anger and hatred?. Dave ADirgeToInsanity.blogspot.com

Dave ADirgeToInsanity.blogspot.com Dave, youre a goddamned MORALITY WHORE tell me what this passage means, son How is the Buddha rude?  He insults the fools with wisdom and what is true - Udana How can it be said the Tathagata is mean? He speaks the truth to fools who cling to lies and ignorance - Samyutta 4 to insult a fool is the praise of wisdom - PLATO now, take your christian morality and shove it up your ass, the ORIGINAL POST is not about your pathetic morality-_base_d CULT OF PIETISM i.e., shutthefuckup .

Ah, Plato.  Is he in the DOCTRINE ?  You seam to not want any discussion here except for the doctrine, so I assume The Buddha was a big fan of his, no? I prefer the teacher, as opposed to the student: Wisest is he who knows he does not know. Socrates There is nothing Christian about me, oh Father. And in response to shutthefuckup , are you incapable of having a conversation?  I'm just a guy trying to learn, and honestly, you seem to know a great deal about the subject.  If you lack so much confidence in your beliefs as to be unable to discuss them, just say so and I will move on.

discussion here except for the doctrine, so I assume The Buddha was a big fan of his, no? I prefer the teacher, as opposed to the student: Wisest is he who knows he does not know. Socrates There is nothing Christian about me, oh Father. And in response to shutthefuckup , are you incapable of having a conversation?  I'm just a guy trying to learn, and honestly, you seem to know a great deal about the subject.  If you lack so much confidence in your beliefs as to be unable to discuss them, just say so and I will move on. Please don't feed this troll.  Anybody with such a severe ego problem that they must correspond almost exclusively in obscenities is not helped by responding to him.  The kindest thing one can do to that poor soul is to totally ignore his rantings. written Tourette's syndrome.  Any response