+- tapatalk (https://tapatalk.sorcerytime.com)
+-- Forum: ALL (https://tapatalk.sorcerytime.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Exploring (https://tapatalk.sorcerytime.com/forum-23.html)
+---- Forum: Zen Magnetic (https://tapatalk.sorcerytime.com/forum-46.html)
+---- Thread: Emptiness and Objects (/thread-21326.html)
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-18-2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJGESRc3XfY
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-18-2010
"Siddhartha Buddha found the way to end our suffering during our breathing years."~ninth
We could also say he found a way to see beyond the appearance of "breathing years". Because how can we end what never started? So its realizing no beginning. That's why god must be released, he represents the idea of "beginning". So really to release this is to release a type of logic that perceives a first cause. If you perceive first cause, then you must expect annihilation at the end. What starts must come to an end and in the meanwhile endure. This is the law that govens such logic of beginning middle and end. And I'm saying this logic is incorrect. If you read NJ Arising, Enduring and Dissolving chapter this becomes very clear.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-18-2010
And in the Shrinking Man movie, the guy realized he cannot come to an end, that's really the point of that quote. If he cannot come to an end, he could not have begun, so really this cancels out the idea of god as creator of him.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-18-2010
lex icon wrote:I must say I am now curious. This topic Emptiness and Objects has quickly grown to the "featured" topic with over 4000 views. It obviously is of great interest here. So what is that everyone is finding so interesting about this? Come on you lurkers contribute. How do you relate to all this?
Yes, I am interested too. For one thing, I keep investing time to post here and one reason is because I see there is an interest in readership. I enormously appreciate the few like Gonzo, nemo, ninth, The Fool, snowblind, Mornings Son who have posted...but, I'm saying all those reading, maybe you have some worthwhile things to say??? Maybe some of you like Nagarjuna, or what is it? Now the thread is up to almost 5000 views, and I only mentioned less then 10 active posters. We 10 could not be viewing this topic so much, lol.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-18-2010
Oh and let's not forget Asiris...even though she deleted all her posts she cannot remove the quotes of her words in our posts here and our content referring her discussions. This idea of disappearing by deleting posts,...once you have interacted, you have shaped the interaction and trying to disappear later, you can't, so this is also an example of interdependency, how exchanges are whole and complete within phenomena. This idea of removing oneself, I remember that was a big topic at PP...to remove oneself from the interaction. Truly everything is here, there is nothing to remove, no need to attempt to remove a previous action. You cannot be, no matter how hard you tried to, no more or less empty then anything else.
Neither mother Teresa or Charles Mansion is any more or less empty. Neither a mountain or a black hole is more or less empty. So removing oneself from interaction, or not removing oneself from interaction...no more or less empty. Talking or silence no more or less empty.
So what are we striving for? maybe some would say. What's left to do if all we do doesn't make us any different? Ignorance and enlightenment leave much much work for us to do. If we are seeing in so many ways incorrectly, we need to take all our time to see how things really are. It doesn't happen overnight. Even after something is realized, it has to be continually reinforced.
And if anyone reading this agrees with me, it'd sure be nice to hear from you I don't mind hearing from those who disagree, I'm just saying, if you do agree, or even not sure, by all means lend your voice to add dimension. How many of you are familiar with emptiness in Buddhism, for example? Of all the Zen topics at this forum, Lex has been the only one to start one on this. Neither he nor I invented it, its been in Buddhist understanding for centuries since Sakyamuni.
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-18-2010
Re the heavy readership, I suspect it is more bots rather than "real" folk, although it doesn't appear to be search bots from Google and the like. I'm paranoid enough to think in terms of Big Brother, although I'm not sure what He might be looking for. That He is looking, there is no doubt. It is not without notice btw, which countries we each are from.
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-18-2010
Perhaps this comes down to goals, including the definition of enlightenment. In a general sense, from what has been posted, it would seem the commentaries of Nagarjuna are aimed at helping readers achieve enlightenment as defined by Gautama's attainment. It took me a while to realize and to accept for myself that I have no interest in achieving enlightenment if it results in what appears to be Gautama's achievement. That may be the fault of historians,but it doesn't matter. The same may be said of Jesus' attainment. The net result is a gray sort of existence reminiscent of "reality" in "Matrix", tattered robes, bland food, cramped surroundings and all. (There were many "messages" in that movie, btw.)
One of the things missing is joy. The other is lack of sensuality. I've said before, I'm here for the mud, the blood and the beer, the red wine, the raw steak, and the cigar. It's impossible to imagine the awakened ones, as currently portrayed, engaging in any sensual pleasures, rather they eschew them. The same is true of enjoying material things. That's not my idea of enlightenment, and in a way, one reason for not studying Nagarjuna.
Elsewhere (on my own forum) I defined enlightenment as "genuine contentment". That allows the world to be exactly as it is, regardless how anyone chooses to interpret it. It also allows for acceptance of one's self, essentially the achievement of the primary goal according to don Juan: to achieve the totality of oneself.
Emptiness and Objects - snowblind - 07-18-2010
personally I have never read the Buddhist authors at great length because of the longwinded nature of their writings. IMHO the more that is written the muddier the waters. I am a huge fan of koans for that reason, clear, crisp, and dense with insight. It has recently come to my attention that ultimate simplicity and deconstruction for me anyway, is the clearest picture of objects and self. Life then becomes a haiku, an economy of word while a clear understanding of intent. I kinda stopped reading this forum because it got too wordy, and muddy.
I guess the question that I come back to is this; What are we seeking and why? What is enlightenment and how is it different than this moment? Finally, how do emptiness and objects get us to where we are going? While conserving, and utilizing at our highest vibration, energy?
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-18-2010
Tiff wrote:And in the Shrinking Man movie, the guy realized he cannot come to an end, that's really the point of that quote. If he cannot come to an end, he could not have begun, so really this cancels out the idea of god as creator of him.,Tiffany, what do you mean by he? and or something here did begin and end, would you not agree?
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-18-2010
Tiff wrote:
"Siddhartha Buddha found the way to end our suffering during our breathing years."~ninth
We could also say he found a way to see beyond the appearance of "breathing years". Because how can we end what never started? So its realizing no beginning. That's why god must be released, he represents the idea of "beginning". So really to release this is to release a type of logic that perceives a first cause. If you perceive first cause, then you must expect annihilation at the end. What starts must come to an end and in the meanwhile endure. This is the law that governs such logic of beginning middle and end. And I'm saying this logic is incorrect. If you read NJ Arising, Enduring and Dissolving chapter this becomes very clear.If you perceive first cause, then you must expect annihilation at the end.
No permanent entities. They are subject to change and evolution. It is said that the Buddha either maintained silence or discouraged questions when asked to confirm the existence of a Supreme Being. When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo grove at Rajagriha,the Buddha made a few statements about the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of being in this world. These views are summarized as below:
1.) If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to his power unquestionably like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain with out any individuality of their own . If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?
2.)If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity, or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from him.
3.)If this is not so, then there must be some cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.
4.) It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things arise from different causes.Then we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly it is not their creator.
5.) If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant?Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?
6.) It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.
7.) We should therefore" abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stop all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.
The Buddha did not encourage speculation on the existence of Iswara,(God) among his disciples. He wanted them to confine themselves to what was within their field of awareness, that is, to understand the causes of suffering and work for its mitigation.
With all that is said of the logic of causality and emptiness,
withinin a 2D world their is a 3D element hidden. This is "God " element or how it is said the kingdom is within us and all around us for us to find in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Their are clues all around us. Chemistry in the physical world never changes. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. This elementry rule of physics explains the logic of Nagajuna quite well. The God presented by the Buddha above does not fit my logic of how I have come to perceive the God in this world. In short , God is pure energy, the hidden element in chemisrty, math, and light. Light cannot be really "seen", it simply makes seeing possible.
Emptiness and Objects - Hawkeye Crow - 07-18-2010
Ah, the current Dali Lama. One whose life story is ubiquitous and worthy, even though, thanks to China, he's between a rock and a hard place.
My respect is given to him.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-19-2010
Gonzo wrote:
Perhaps this comes down to goals, including the definition of enlightenment. In a general sense, from what has been posted, it would seem the commentaries of Nagarjuna are aimed at helping readers achieve enlightenment as defined by Gautama's attainment. It took me a while to realize and to accept for myself that I have no interest in achieving enlightenment if it results in what appears to be Gautama's achievement. That may be the fault of historians,but it doesn't matter. The same may be said of Jesus' attainment. The net result is a gray sort of existence reminiscent of "reality" in "Matrix", tattered robes, bland food, cramped surroundings and all. (There were many "messages" in that movie, btw.)
One of the things missing is joy. The other is lack of sensuality. I've said before, I'm here for the mud, the blood and the beer, the red wine, the raw steak, and the cigar. It's impossible to imagine the awakened ones, as currently portrayed, engaging in any sensual pleasures, rather they eschew them. The same is true of enjoying material things. That's not my idea of enlightenment, and in a way, one reason for not studying Nagarjuna.
Elsewhere (on my own forum) I defined enlightenment as "genuine contentment". That allows the world to be exactly as it is, regardless how anyone chooses to interpret it. It also allows for acceptance of one's self, essentially the achievement of the primary goal according to don Juan: to achieve the totality of oneself.I like my steaks bloody pink too. Helps with low iron level but maybe only once a week is my justification. lol. May I point out that Nagarjuna was also a physician.
I have learned how to "cut down the steak in to very small bites"- especially after reading this what not to do with desire excerpt from Nagarjuna's "Good Hearted Letters " w/ explanatory notes. I think this stanza of reasoning could eventually rid any one desire if we view it as closely as this.Like the woman in the red dress syndrome that "Mouse"in the Matrix movie fucked up with.
XXV. Look upon body of a young woman apart from ornaments (and clothing) like a totally impure vessel covered with skin, difficult to satisfy, bad smelling, and with impurities issuing from the nine (bodily doors).
Consider the remedy for the desire for others.( steak too) Although a man or woman or steak , may appear beautiful, reflect on impurity. The body of a man or woman or cow or bull, is just a heap of flesh, bones, blood, and the like. Therefore, such a body is really similar to a beautiful vase filled with impurities.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-19-2010
lex icon wrote:
How can a thing be empty of essence? Logically, that makes no sense. Either a thing is, or it is not. If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word. Gonzo
How can a thing be empty of essence?
Nagarjuna, has been asking how can a thing have an essence?
Thank you Gonzo! This is the crux of it all isn’t it?
So no one is denying the appearance of things. How could we? It just that things are not how they appear. Things appear to be independent, separate, distinct and different. But are they? Can that be established? Gonzo said, If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
is |iz|
third person singular present of be .
be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)
Either a thing is, or it is not. Gonzo
Ok, how about a mirage? The mirage appears but what it represents, does that have existence? Is it really there? If we were to chase after that oasis appearing in the desert would we ever find it? Could we ever grasp it and slate our thirst?
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you? Do you understand being in a different form? Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings? Gonzo
When we do not examine the objects that appear they have an effect. We are impelled to impute inherent existence to the objects. We are impelled to account for them, instantly. These objects accumulate and we become bewildered amidst their perceived presence.
inherent |inˈhi(ə)rənt; -ˈher-|
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin inhaerent- ‘sticking to,’ from the verb inhaerere, from in- ‘in, toward’ + haerere ‘to stick.’
So when we encounter “objects”, if we refer to the origin of the word inherent, and we admit them, (accept their appearance as something more substantial than it actually is) we are granting them access and they adhere within, as if they really existed. Our minds become cluttered with the perceived presence of all these objects, billions upon billions manifesting, appearing and disappearing in a dizzying array until the vast spaciousness of all encompassing all accommodating mind cannot be found. It is as if the mind has been enclosed, surrounded by myriads of objects sticking to it (crude example) when in fact Mind is much more than this and accommodates and encompasses all manifestations. The further result of this is an implied “I” subject, that is surrounded by an objective universe full of individual separate objects. The actor, the agent, the one doing the doing, whatever it is.
When we can, even tentatively, admit or entertain Nagarjuna’s words then we find the stickiness of objects releasing, like the flight inhibiting oil on those contaminated birds in the gulf when subjected to degreasing agents. The independence of objects loosens.
Like this; I go back to the mirror example. We know the objects appearing in the mirror do not really exist other than as a reflection. But look closer. Are there really many different objects even? There is only one reflectiveness of the mirror! The appearance of objects reflected cannot be separated from the reflectiveness of the mirror itself. One all accommodating reflectiveness appearing myriad. We project a holographic universe in like manner. Now do you see all the myriad objects at the expense of the one reflectiveness? Do you see many individual, independent objects or do you know the sameness.
The deeper question would be: Why do we keep on mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with? Is it simply because we do not look close enough? If it is why do we not look close enough? Or is it as Buddhism states we are ignorant about our true face?
Is this what you mean by mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with?
Desert of the Real: Jesus, The Matrix, and Hyper-Reality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbFceASpvbY
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-19-2010
Ninth that Desert of the Real link is great. But that does not explain why we keep doing that to begin with.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-19-2010
The God presented by the Buddha above does not fit my logic of how I
have come to perceive the God in this world. In short , God is pure
energy, the hidden element in chemisrty, math, and light. Light cannot
be really "seen", it simply makes seeing possible. Ninth
I think Buddha is saying of God that IF God is like this or that etc ..... then this ( whatever) does not make sense.
Ninth you say you perceive God, hmmm, perhaps you could share this perception so we too could perceive this? Which is actually something I have been asking you for years now. You have yet to tell me why you believe certain things. When pressed, your beliefs always seem so arbitrary.
Now you have stated quite categorically that "God is pure energy". I am asking how do you know this? You cannot just cop out and say faith. Something led you to believe in a particular way about something particular, in this case God as pure energy. And you have expressed this belief by your statement.
4.) It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that
which is absolute cannot be a cause.
What do these words mean? Before we dismiss them lets first understand them. You do not have to agree or believe just understand.
Why can the absolute not be a cause?
I love the direction of this. Instead of challenging the existence of God directly, we are challenged instead to understand what Absolute means and how we apply the term. What is implicit in this; is absolute is an quality we (some) attribute to God. Religiously God is also considered the cause of what is created. But the writer has said, " that
which is absolute cannot be a cause."
If we can establish what the writer is referring to here, then our ideas of God will need to be modified or discarded. But not just God our whole grasp of causation will be challenged down to the root of existence itself.
So again...
Why can the absolute not be a
cause?
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-19-2010
nemo wrote:
Tiff wrote:
And in the Shrinking Man movie, the guy realized he cannot come to an end, that's really the point of that quote. If he cannot come to an end, he could not have begun, so really this cancels out the idea of god as creator of him.
,Tiffany, what do you mean by he? and or something here did begin and end, would you not agree?
To Nemo Neo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfyJ87kidk
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
Gonzo wrote:One of the things missing is joy. The other is lack of sensuality. I've said before, I'm here for the mud, the blood and the beer, the red wine, the raw steak, and the cigar. It's impossible to imagine the awakened ones, as currently portrayed, engaging in any sensual pleasures, rather they eschew them. The same is true of enjoying material things. That's not my idea of enlightenment, and in a way, one reason for not studying Nagarjuna.
Again, I don't know why you would conclude this. I see it as opposite. I have felt really spiritually enlightened feelings and they are orgasmic. Haven't you seen that look on Sakyamuni's face, lol.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
snowblind wrote:personally I have never read the Buddhist authors at great length because of the longwinded nature of their writings. IMHO the more that is written the muddier the waters. I am a huge fan of koans for that reason, clear, crisp, and dense with insight. It has recently come to my attention that ultimate simplicity and deconstruction for me anyway, is the clearest picture of objects and self. Life then becomes a haiku, an economy of word while a clear understanding of intent. I kinda stopped reading this forum because it got too wordy, and muddy.
I guess the question that I come back to is this; What are we seeking and why? What is enlightenment and how is it different than this moment? Finally, how do emptiness and objects get us to where we are going? While conserving, and utilizing at our highest vibration, energy?Yes, I like koans too. I also like simplicity. I like both complexity and simplicity actually and sometimes I just like to delve strictly into simplicity. It can be dense with insight too, like you say.
Enlightenment to me is here and now, the moment. Both samsara and nirvana are "here". They occupy the same space so to speak.
I think your last two questions are based on what you read in Lex's posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:And in the Shrinking Man movie, the guy realized he cannot come to an end, that's really the point of that quote. If he cannot come to an end, he could not have begun, so really this cancels out the idea of god as creator of him.,Tiffany, what do you mean by he? and or something here did begin and end, would you not agree?
Well, even in texts on dependent arising they go back to using the "I" when its understood the I is empty or the mere I. Just like I said before, a car has no essence to be found but still we call it car for functional reasons.
From post #125
the 5 aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations and
consciousness.
So perception is just one of the aggregates. And
the form perceived is not just form as its is perceived.
Such as a
car. We see a car coming toward us. But how do we know its a car? We
may say "oh there is a BMW". now lets examine exactly what is occurring
here. What is car?
An engine, wheels, steering, brakes,
transmission etc. So we see various parts compose a car. Which part IS
the car? Well, we can say some parts are more important than others,
such as, we can omit the windshield wiper and still have a car. But when
we observe its a BMW then the definition is more specific of course,
the design of the body of the car, the emblem and such factor in.
We
would not look at a car engine and call that a car. So its clear it
takes a conglomeration of parts to define car and even more specific
parts to define BMW. But where is the BMW inherently? Does it exist
outside of the individual parts? No. Do the individual parts make the
car? No, its only the thought that labels car a car, and a more specific
thought that labels it a BMW. The thought still does not make a car
anymore real then the parts, rather the thought organizes phenomena for
the purpose of functionality. So mental formations, form, sensing, and
finally...consciousness of what is perceived.
We are the same.
There is no I. We are a conglomeration of aggregates. But mental
formations label the I and it is functional. But the I does not exist
anywhere independently. In Buddhism, this labeling of the functional or
conventional I is called the mere I,
and does not exist outside of this dependency.
I do not agree he began or ended. In fact that really has been the central theme of dependent arising, never in dependent arising will you see the idea of beginning or end supported in any way.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
Hawkeye Crow wrote:Ah, the current Dali Lama. One whose life story is ubiquitous and worthy, even though, thanks to China, he's between a rock and a hard place.
My respect is given to him.Its important to see the history, I think. I know the Dali Lama does not bear any resentment for his situation, in fact the test is worthy of him. And it gives him an opportunity to truly model compassion and understanding that he would not have a chance to do if things were otherwise. I'm sure he looks at it this way.
Some history...During the Qing dynasty the Mongolians had rule and they formed alliances with Tibet and brought Tibet culture more prominently into China and Buddhism become the main practice in China. The Han Chinese, which had lived here before Mongolian rule saw their country change. IMO it was change for the better due to Buddhism flourishing. But they became a minority at that time, their beliefs and religion minorities. Now that Han are back in rule, maybe they keep this history in mind too.
China really has a beautiful history. Looking at these temples in Beijing, its easy to see how their devotion of spiritual understanding was central, and their appreciation of nature. China gets alot of criticism today for environmental issues, but if you look at China over 100 years ago, they were very different at that time, a true appreciation for harmony with nature. Their inventions were usually aimed at elevating spiritual understanding and philosophical development. Such as, they believed in the power of loud noises to jolt out negative energies, so they invented gun powder to make fireworks to use in ceremonies and even today when a new building is completed they set off fireworks, loud booming noises to clean the air of evil energy. So they invented gun powder to support a very spiritual understanding of energetic influences, and the Europeans used that gun powder to make guns to fire bullets and the Chinese only knew of arrows and swords so were no match for the Europeans who came to their shores and began to set up shop to get silk and other luxuries. One can say the Chinese were outsmarted. I say they just had their focus on different aims--gun powder to clear away evil vs. gun powder to use guns to enable colonization of other countries. So yes, the Chinese were outmatched in the zeal for material progress (because they were more interested in spiritual progress) and European influence sort of snuffed many of their old ways out in a hurry, and now today they are entering into that arena with the major world powers to try and be on par...but they will bring some surprising innovations, they still retain understanding of old ways. And they know their history very well, many Chinese I think.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
And it was the Qing dynasty that had such a hard time dealing with the Europeans who colonized here and the people in China got fed up with seeing their country go to pot. Or opium I should say. So they rebelled against the powers, the dynasties came to an end and then half a century later turned to Communism. Europe's role was pivotal in this because they caused the initial discontent and unrest against the Emperor's rule that could not stop the European dominance, and at this time Buddhism was revered by the Qing Emperors, so the overthrowing of the dynasties helped to send Buddhism out of China as well. Also the allied forces destroyed many Buddhist temples, and other places, also many treasures were taken to Europe and today China is trying to get some of them back.
Again I stress phenomena is not independent. We see by this how its all connected. Europe, America, China, Tibet, India...
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
Gonzo wrote:Re the heavy readership, I suspect it is more bots rather than "real" folk, although it doesn't appear to be search bots from Google and the like. I'm paranoid enough to think in terms of Big Brother, although I'm not sure what He might be looking for. That He is looking, there is no doubt. It is not without notice btw, which countries we each are from.If this were the case, all the threads I post in would get lots of hits...but this is not the case. Only this thread.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-19-2010
snowblind wrote:
personally I have never read the Buddhist authors at great length because of the longwinded nature of their writings. IMHO the more that is written the muddier the waters. I am a huge fan of koans for that reason, clear, crisp, and dense with insight. It has recently come to my attention that ultimate simplicity and deconstruction for me anyway, is the clearest picture of objects and self. Life then becomes a haiku, an economy of word while a clear understanding of intent. I kinda stopped reading this forum because it got too wordy, and muddy.
I guess the question that I come back to is this; What are we seeking and why? What is enlightenment and how is it different than this moment? Finally, how do emptiness and objects get us to where we are going? While conserving, and utilizing at our highest vibration, energy?Yes, think in Haiku 5-7-5 ..Life is could be Haiku . We are seeking so we can be continued our individual totality. We appear to be co-interdependent while doing it. But no matter what we feed off each others energy to get us there. Enlightenment imo is everytime you take a candle and light another's candle with it. Then you can blow out your own candle when you know you're done.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-19-2010
"But no matter what we feed off each others energy to get us there."
So, wouldn't you agree that there is no "my" or "your" then? How can there be if we are having this shared experience? If something were essentially yours, it could not also be essentially mine. Your and mine are only mental formations. Indeed there is no separation.
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-19-2010
Tiff wrote:I do not agree he began or ended. In fact that really has been the central theme of dependent arising, never in dependent arising will you see the idea of beginning or end supported in any way.
The central theme of a Toltec is based on the energetic achievement of individual entities keeping their flame of awareness. This is the challenge Tiffany!