Le club des depressifs
- 5 421 réponses
- 175 participants
- 74 278 vues
- 154 followers
Number-6
Mais parfois on a marre de tout et surtout de se mentir à soi meme au sein de cette société de commercialisation du bonheur où le reveur n'a plus sa place...
Alors à tous ceux qui sont usés par leurs demons, checkez ici.
Agentcarotte
nope...pas d'apparition depuis quelques heures.
Bloody ou les prospérités du Vice
Agentcarotte
Bloody ou les prospérités du Vice
Bloody ou les prospérités du Vice
Bloody ou les prospérités du Vice
Agentcarotte
Number-6
Pov Gabou
Citation :
Cependant, la notion de sacré reste puissante.
Je vois pas le rapport avec dieu. Ou alors tu mets tout et n'importe quoi dans le concept de dieu. Tu peux dire que le tao, c'est dieu, tu peux dire que la rationalite, c'est dieu, tu peux dire que l'homme, c'est dieu, etc...
> Bloods:en disant que tout est pareil, tu dis rien. Dire que toutes les pensees humaines se rejoignent parce que parlent des memes themes... Ce serait comme dire que toutes les musiques sont pareilles parce q'il y a des sons. Ou que toutes les cultures sont pareilles, parce qu'orientees vers la possibilite de la vie en communaute. C'est vrai, mais je vois pas la pertinence. C'est une la palissade.
Concernant sidharata, c'est la encore un detail. Il y a meme des sectes ou tu devais pas en parler.
Citation :
(On va nourrir les Africains étiques à grand coup de métaphysique! Ah !). Pour se masturber le cerveau avec de vaines abstractions, il faut d'abord avoir le ventre plein.
C'est une vision tellement occidentale, voire colonialiste... Je ne connais pas moi meme l'afrique, mais les temoignages de personnes tres proches qui y sont alle ne m'ont pas decrit un monde semi apocalyptique, ou le malheur reigne a toutes les rues. La notion de ce qui est necessaire, de ce qui ne l'est pas, change selon les cultures. Si j'appliquais mes criteres occidentaux a tout ce que je vois ici, par exemple, je deviendrais fou.
Citation :
Heu...puis-je savoir ce que tu as lu sur le bouddhisme ? Car à mon sens si ces mots te sont étrangers, c'est que tu n'as pas dû lire les bonnes choses, auquel cas je te conseillerai volontiers quelques valeurs sûres
Non mais ne prends pas pour un neuneu Tes mots sont pas etrangers, je suis juste totalement pas d'accord avec ce que tu dis ! Pour moi, d'apres ce que j'en sais, ca correspond pas du tout a ce que tu decris ! J'ai lu pas mal de trucs de Watts, entre autre. Puis la litterature japonaise est une mine d'or. Un pays de niege de kawabata, ca vaut tous les bouquins du mo
nde sur le zen.
Citation :
Now then, if one must try to say something about what Zen is, and I want to do this by way of introduction, I must make it emphatic that Zen, in its essence, is not a doctrine. There's nothing you're supposed to believe in. It's not a philosophy in our sense, that is to say a set of ideas, an intellectual net in which one tries to catch the fish of reality. Actually, the fish of reality is more like water--it always slips through the net. And in water you know when you get into it there's nothing to hang on to. All this universe is like water; it is fluid, it is transient, it is changing. And when you're thrown into the water after being accustomed to living on the dry land, you're not used to the idea of swimming. You try to stand on the water, you try to catch hold of it, and as a result you drown. The only way to survive in the water, and this refers particularly to the waters of modern philosophical confusion, where God is dead, metaphysical propositions are meaningless, and there's really nothing to hang on to, because we're all just falling apart. And the only thing to do under those circumstances is to learn how to swim. And to swim, you relax, you let go, you give yourself to the water, and you have to know how to breathe in the right way. And then you find that the water holds you up; indeed, in a certain way you become the water. And so in the same way, one might say if one attempted to--again I say misleadingly--to put Zen into any sort of concept, it simply comes down to this:
That in this universe, there is one great energy, and we have no name for it. People have tried various names for it, like God, like *Brahmin, like Tao, but in the West, the word God has got so many funny associations attached to it that most of us are bored with it. When people say 'God, the father almighty,' most people feel funny inside. So we like to hear new words, we like to hear about Tao, about Brahmin, about Shinto, and __-__-__, and such strange names from the far East because they don't carry the same associations of mawkish sanctimony and funny meanings from the past. And actually, some of these words that the Buddhists use for the basic energy of the world really don't mean anything at all. The word _tathata_, which is translated from the Sanskrit as 'suchness' or 'thusness' or something like that, really means something more like 'dadada,' based on the word _tat_, which in Sanskrit means 'that,' and so in Sanskrit it is said _tat lum asi_, 'that thou art,' or in modern America, 'you're it.' But 'da, da'--that's the first sound a baby makes when it comes into the world, because the baby looks around and says 'da, da, da, da' and fathers flatter themselves and think it's saying 'DaDa,' which means 'Daddy,' but according to Buddhist philosophy, all this universe is one 'dadada.' That means 'ten thousand functions, ten thousand things, one suchness,' and we're all one suchness. And that means that suchess comes and goes like anything else because this whole world is an on-and-off system. As the Chinese say, it's the _yang_ and the _yin_, and therefore it consists of 'now you see it, now you don't, here you are, here you aren't, here you are,' because that the nature of energy, to be like waves, and waves have crests and troughs, only we, being under a kind of sleepiness or illusion, imagine that the trough is going to overcome the wave or the crest, the _yin_, or the dark principle, is going to overcome the _yang_, or the light principle, and that 'off' is going to finally triumph over 'on.' And we, shall I say, bug ourselves by indulging in that illusion. 'Hey, supposing darkness did win out, wouldn't that be terrible!' And so we're constantly trembling and thinking that it may, because after all, isn't it odd that anything exists? It's most peculiar, it requires effort, it requires energy, and it would have been so much easier for there to have been nothing at all. Therefore, we think 'well, since being, since the 'is' side of things is so much effort' you always give up after a while and you sink back into death. But death is just the other face of energy, and it's the rest, the not being anything around, that produces something around, just in the same way that you can't have 'solid' without 'space,' or 'space' without 'solid.' When you wake up to this, and realize that the more it changes the more it's the same thing, as the French say, that you are really a train of this one energy, and there is nothing else but that that is you, but that for you to be always you would be an insufferable bore, and therefore it is arranged that you stop being you after a while and then come back as someone else altogether, and so when you find that out, you become full energy and delight. As Blake said, 'Energy is eternal delight.' And you suddenly see through the whole sham thing. You realize you're That--we won't put a name on it-- you're That, and you can't be anything else. So you are relieved of fundamental terror. That doesn't mean tht you're always going to be a great hero, that you won't jump when you hear a bang, that you won't worry occasionally, that you won't lose your temper. It means, though, that fundamentally deep, deep, deep down within you, you will be able to be human, not a stone Buddha--you know in Zen there is a difference made between a living Buddha and a stone Buddha. If you go up to a stone Buddha and you hit him hard on the head, nothing happens. You break your fist or your stick. But if you hit a living Buddha, he may say 'ouch,' and he may feel pain, because if he didn't feel something, he wouldn't be a human being. Buddhas are human, they are not devas, they are not gods. They are enlightened men and women. But the point is that they are not afraid to be human, they are not afraid to let themselves participate in the pains, difficulties and struggles that naturally go with human existence. The only difference is--and it's almost an undetectable difference--it takes one to know one. As a Zen poem says, 'when two Zen masters meet each other on the street, they need no introduction. When fiends meet, they recognize one another instantly.' So a person who is a real cool Zen understands that, does not go around 'Oh, I understand Zen, I have satori, I have this attainment, I have that attainment, I have the other attainment,' because if he said that, he wouldn't understand the first thing about it.
Agentcarotte
Et puis de toute façon, mon dieu à moi, c'est l'économie de marché et le toyotisme.
que chacun prenne ce qu'il y a à prendre pour améliorer son quotidien, je n'ai pas de jugement à exprimer là-dessus même si j'ai forcément un avis. Toutefois, je reste persuadé que le moteur de toutes les religions reste le même, et que ce moteur est un briseur d'égo et de liberté.
- < Liste des sujets
- Charte