From Avidyana
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Mind and Buddhism

| And what about this "there is no I" fetish? 

no real self real endlessly; anatman; no own self
 we are body lozenges of temporary conscousness

| What makes one thing more real than another? 

Buddhsm prefers endurance and truth for the real; 
 real always real; unreal changes; catch you asleep!
 even gods embrace death; no 'God' saves you 

wakefulness comprehends acceptance, enjoyment, 
 self-awareness and resoluteness; no real subjects,
 no real objects; awareness reputed to perservere

| Is the comic-book story less real than the pages it's
| printed upon? Is a thing less real than the thing it's 
| derived from? Is a thing unreal if it only exists in 
| relation to another thing? Is one perspective more 
| real than another? Is the idea of "I" less real than 
| the idea of "no I" ? Is a working definition not quite 
| good enough? If a pattern is simply "local", as opposed 
| to "global", does that mean it should be ignored as 
| "unreal"? What's real anyway? Is any habit a good habit? 
| I fondle my testicles in derision!)

dependency portrays less realness; composure dependent
 upon food and water, shelter, garments, and company.
 death overtakes us all, scattered as humans have always

concepts are less real because they need a mental frame.
 the subject ends, however. local patterns are just
 common cultural customs; what's real eludes self

repeated acts may be valuable when they are part of zen.
 please fondle more kindly