17 May 05
In Buddhism it is said that every person has the "buddha-mind".
If we take "Muffy" to be simply a metaphor for the awakened, self-realized state, then "Muffy" is a valid symbol for our original nature, unobstructed by the veil of projected thought. Put that way, everyone has the Muffy-mind.
Zen Muffism would then be the simple practice and ongoing intention to rest in the Muffin-mind. Seen thusly, all is encompassed within this Muffin-mind, including God or other concepts of the Great Muffin himself. Indeed, anything that can be conceptualized must necessarily be within Muffin-nature.
Problems only arise when too much lard and/or vegetable oil is added to the process of cooking our consciousness so that it can recognize Muffin-nature. This may result in becoming a spiritual fatso, or worse, resorting to a dumbed down form of Zen Muffism, known as cupcake-ism. To be a cupcake is to "play small" and resist the vastness of one's true Muffin-nature owing to the belief-system that one is not worthy of full Muffin-realization, or Enlightenmuffin, free of unecessary conceptual lard.
17 May 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisI'm half tempted to erase your post for the use of Cup Cake. That must be one of the worse insults to any Muffin on this site. There are several Muffins here, and I don't want anyone's feelings hurt.
In Buddhism it is said that every person has the "buddha-mind".
If we take "Muffy" to be simply a metaphor for the awakened, self-realized state, then "Muffy" is a valid symbol for our original nature, unobstructed by the veil of projected thought. Put that way, everyone has the Muffy-mind.
Zen Muffism would then be the simple practice and ...[text shortened]... s not worthy of full Muffin-realization, or Enlightenmuffin, free of unecessary conceptual lard.
Since I am a Muffin, it is not my place to erase your post... it would be a conflict of reason. I understand your message, and it is a good one... but the use of the word Cup Cake is rather offensive... in my mind.
ES
17 May 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitI understand the dilemma. But to be identified with Muffism may be the final illusion. Therefore, you can invoke the Anti-muffin -- Cupcake -- and his false prophet, Aunt Jemima -- to defeat this final illusion. Much as Jesus got tested by Satan in the desert, and Buddha by Mara, so too does any aspiring Enlightenmuffin need to encounter their most subtle ego-attachments, and thereby break free of them. This can be done by staring down the dread Cupcake and Aunt Jemima until they shrivel into the useless pools of grease that they really are.
I'm half tempted to erase your post for the use of Cup Cake. That must be one of the worse insults to any Muffin on this site. There are several Muffins here, and I don't want anyone's feelings hurt.
Since I am a Muffin, it is not my place to erase your post... it would be a conflict of reason. I understand your message, and it is a good one... but the use of the word Cup Cake is rather offensive... in my mind.
ES
Remember the famous saying from Zen Buddhism -- "if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." Frequently misunderstood by more, er, say we say, literal types, it is actually a teaching around the need to let go of all attachments, even spiritual ones.
So if you see the Muffin on the road, take it to Starbucks and eat it.
17 May 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisGosh, I hope you are not making things up about Muffysm!? I need an online resource to study up on Muffysm... are there any pages?! Are there any other Muffins that can back this up?!
I understand the dilemma. But to be identified with Muffism may be the final illusion. Therefore, you can invoke the Anti-muffin -- Cupcake -- and his false prophet, Aunt Jemima -- to defeat this final illusion. Much as Jesus got tested by Satan in the desert, and Buddha by Mara, so too does any aspiring Enlightenmuffin need to encounter their most sub ...[text shortened]... ven spiritual ones.
So if you see the Muffin on the road, take it to Starbucks and eat it.
I'm excited and confused about Muffysm, and ready to dive in!
ES
18 May 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitI have no need to make up anything about Muffy. Because Muffy does not exist. Neither does God. Neither does Buddha. Neither do you. Neither do I.
Gosh, I hope you are not making things up about Muffysm!? I need an online resource to study up on Muffysm... are there any pages?! Are there any other Muffins that can back this up?!
I'm excited and confused about Muffysm, and ready to dive in!
ES
All things lack inherent existence. Only the formless exists, beyond space, time, God, Muffy, or Aunt Jemima. This formless is pure consciousness, unborn, unobstructed awareness.
Put in somewhat more chessic language, the chess pieces are all illusions, ultimately. They are merely "powers" -- archetypes, if you will -- designated to perform specific functions, functions that are necessarily finite and contained by space (the board).
Even the board is not finally real in the ultimate sense, although it is perhaps "closer" to reality. All that is real, in the eternal sense, is the space in which the game is conducted. This is an analogue for the process of thought as it arises in consciousness. Thought -- and its perceptual domain -- is finite, transcient, limited. But the field of consciousness in which thought arises is unborn, undying, unlimited.
As Lao Tzu said, what can be known, is not it. So I'm afraid that Muffy is as unreal as God.
🙂
18 May 05
Originally posted by Metamorphosisdizzying...🙄
I have no need to make up anything about Muffy. Because Muffy does not exist. Neither does God. Neither does Buddha. Neither do you. Neither do I.
All things lack inherent existence. Only the formless exists, beyond space, time, God, Muffy, or Aunt Jemima. This formless is pure consciousness, unborn, unobstructed awareness.
Put in somewhat more ...[text shortened]... o Tzu said, what can be known, is not it. So I'm afraid that Muffy is as unreal as God.
🙂
how do you know that all things lack inherent existence? or are you just going to counter with 'how do you know they don't?'
18 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would not presume to be so flippant. But I will say this -- lemonjello is no more real than strawberryjello. Both are concepts given to define a particular chemical combination that is temporary in space and time.
dizzying...🙄
how do you know that all things lack inherent existence? or are you just going to counter with 'how do you know they don't?'
Modern science points toward the difficulty/impossibility of defining what anything is at the ultimate level. What we do know is that all objects are comprised of mostly empty space. The atom itself is largely empty space.
The particles that make up subatomic existence are impossible to define/pin down, and are understood more in terms of quantum probabilities.
Further, we can easily see that everything that exists is dependent on some cause to bring it into being. Nothing exists independently of anything else. Everything that appears in existence is interdependently linked to something else. Therefore, nothing exists independently and inherently unto itself. This includes the concept of "God".
But there is something that does not "buy into" that whole view. And that is the observer, consciousness itself. Looking deeply into this "consciousness", the "I am" presence, is the essence of spiritual enlightenment. It is not necessary to call it "God" (although some do). One only has to look and see what it is. But this requires great sincerity and commitment to wake up out of conceptually based illusions.
18 May 05
Originally posted by Metamorphosisthe following is a question that your posts have caused me to wonder about;
I would not presume to be so flippant. But I will say this -- lemonjello is no more real than strawberryjello. Both are concepts given to define a particular chemical combination that is temporary in space and time.
Modern science points toward the difficulty/impossibility of defining what anything is at the ultimate level. What we do know is ...[text shortened]... ut this requires great sincerity and commitment to wake up out of conceptually based illusions.
if one were to make an assumption, or premise, that nothing really exists (as opposed to a premise that things really do exist), would what follows from that be in keeping with or would it go against Occam's Razor? ie, is it more or less laborious to work within a framework of non-existence?
i am not sure what the answer is, but my first impression is that it would be less laborious to simply assume things exist, and then to go from there.
18 May 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitOriginally, I thought Muffy only to be born from the flotsam and jetsam of fundamentalist xtianity left upon the field of reason. Now I see that Muffy is so much bigger and greater. Muffy is revealing Muffy to other Muffins in so many ways.
Gosh, I hope you are not making things up about Muffysm!? I need an online resource to study up on Muffysm... are there any pages?! Are there any other Muffins that can back this up?!
I'm excited and confused about Muffysm, and ready to dive in!
ES
Continue to read the posts of those hardtacks dj2, coletti, darfius, bf101, arby hill, and all of their persuasion, but perhaps we should look for Muffy in all sorts of religious discourse. In moments of theological blatherskite, Muffy is revealed.
We should be weary not to infect or oppress honest discussions, as these are only expressions of humanity, and we do not want the insight of Muffy to become a stale annoyance. I think Muffy is not about being the antithesis of or the negation of fundamentalism, but rather its reflection, unmasking the absurd from the profound.
Finally, let us take heed not to dismiss the revelations of other Muffins. Muffy reveals what Muffy reveals to whom Muffy chooses. After all, surely Muffy would not have Muffins scattered and broken like the Xtian church?
18 May 05
Originally posted by Metamorphosisreminds me of a song on NIN new album With Teeth, Right where it Belongs
[b]I have no need to make up anything about Muffy. Because Muffy does not exist. Neither does God. Neither does Buddha. Neither do you. Neither do I.
See the animal in his cage that you built, Are you sure what side you're on? Better not look him too closely in the eye, Are you sure what side of the glass you are on? See the safety of the life you have built, Everything where it belongs Feel the hollowness inside of your heart, And it's all...right where it belongs What if everything around you, Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be? What if you could look right through the cracks, Would you find yourself...find yourself afraid to see? What if all the world's inside of your head? Just creations of your own Your devils and your gods all the living and the dead And you really oughta know You can live in this illusion You can choose to believe You keep looking but you can't find the ones, Are you hiding in the trees? What if everything around you, Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you used to know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be? What if you could look right through the cracks, Would you find yourself...find yourself afraid to see?
18 May 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisSpiritual fatso!! sounds great
In Buddhism it is said that every person has the "buddha-mind".
If we take "Muffy" to be simply a metaphor for the awakened, self-realized state, then "Muffy" is a valid symbol for our original nature, unobstructed by the veil of projected thought. Put that way, everyone has the Muffy-mind.
Zen Muffism would then be the simple practice and ...[text shortened]... s not worthy of full Muffin-realization, or Enlightenmuffin, free of unecessary conceptual lard.
It is good to hear somone of your standing helping to spread an understanding of Muffy thoughout RHP. I am truly humbled.
18 May 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisUltimately all things can be view as gauge fields, which are simply waves in space caused by oscillations of "positive" and "negative" waves between two manifold knots into the 3-dimension link between them.
I would not presume to be so flippant. But I will say this -- lemonjello is no more real than strawberryjello. Both are concepts given to define a particular chemical combination that is temporary in space and time.
Modern science points toward the difficulty/impossibility of defining what anything is at the ultimate level. What we do know is ...[text shortened]... ut this requires great sincerity and commitment to wake up out of conceptually based illusions.
18 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe key qualifier is the word inherently. Nothing inherently exists, means nothing is permanent in form, in this context. Thus, things appear to exist, that is, they exist temporarily and in our fields of perception. But the deeper we look into them, the more insubstantial they are revealed to be, being entirely dependent on other causes to maintain their temporary apparent existence.
the following is a question that your posts have caused me to wonder about;
if one were to make an assumption, or premise, that nothing really exists (as opposed to a premise that things really do exist), would what follows from that be in keeping with or would it go against Occam's Razor? ie, is it more or less laborious to work within a framework o ...[text shortened]... ion is that it would be less laborious to simply assume things exist, and then to go from there.
Given that, it makes sense to look within, to develop "insight" -- literally, seeing inside consciousness -- rather than looking for ultimate meaning from the appearances of the external universe, which are themselves in perpetual flux and impossible to ultimately pin down.
18 May 05
Originally posted by Metamorphosisah...your ideas are stating to make more sense to me now...
The key qualifier is the word inherently. Nothing inherently exists, means nothing is permanent in form, in this context. Thus, things appear to exist, that is, they exist temporarily and in our fields of perception. But the deeper we look into them, the more insubstantial they are revealed to be, being entirely dependent on other ...[text shortened]... xternal universe, which are themselves in perpetual flux and impossible to ultimately pin down.
as you say, 'inherently' is the key qualifier that i was missing.
19 May 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisChristianity, some strains of Judiasm, and Islam (I think) make clear distinctions between
The key qualifier is the word inherently. Nothing inherently exists, means nothing is permanent in form, in this context. Thus, things appear to exist, that is, they exist temporarily and in our fields of perception. But the deeper we look into them, the more insubstantial they are revealed to be, being entirely dependent on other ...[text shortened]... xternal universe, which are themselves in perpetual flux and impossible to ultimately pin down.
the ephemeral and the eternal, the flesh and the psyche (usually rendered 'soul'😉.
The psyche, they assert, inherently 'is' -- it exists, unchanging in the image of God.
The flesh is 'animated' (from anima, meaning spirit as distinct from psyche) by
means of God's grace (i.e., the Holy Spirit) so that the flesh can be a reflection of the
psyche. (Or such is one of many takes on it, I suppose.)
Does Buddhism ever dwell on such things, that inspite of the transient nature of what we
can see -- that which appears to exist -- that there is something which does not appear that
does exist?
Nemesio