+- 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 - Tiff - 07-03-2010
Yes, youtube is blocked
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-03-2010
@Tiff -
What's the difference between calling something a "mystery" and believing something via "faith"? fwiw, I'm not a fan of the notion of God, primarily because, as with the notion of flyers and the foreign installation, it relieves us of responsibility.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
Asiris wrote:Thank you for your insights... I wish you the very best in your journeys... peace~
Ok, take care Asiris.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
Gonzo wrote
Tiff -What's the difference between calling something a "mystery" and believing something via "faith"? fwiw, I'm not a fan of the notion of God, primarily because, as with the notion of flyers and the foreign installation, it relieves us of responsibility.Well, mystery to me is like...our heart beats and we don't have to consciously think about it to make it occur. Or, our eyes see and we can scientifically describe how this occurs but to explain sight itself, that's the mystery.
So everything that occurs is a mystery when we really think about it. But to me this does not prove god. God as in "a being, a creator". I don't believe in god, because no beings with essence, no solid core anywhere. So religious faith would mean, one sees mystery and says, "this must prove god". I just don't see why this would be so. To me these are two unrelated things--mystery and god. God being a mental formation, mystery being what we realize when we examine phenomena. We don't need to have faith in mystery, mystery is. We do need to have faith in a god, if one seeks that, one has to rely on faith alone. Sure, they may feel love from their beliefs, but they attribute those emotions to what they project it upon, so then they conclude, god is loving. Or if they believe god is one who takes care of those who believe in him, and something good happens to the person, they conclude, "god did this...god made this miracle happen in my life, this proves god". Again, their faith leads them to attribute the outcome of result to what they project mentally. So its very hard to shake the faith of a believer. Because they perceive so many rewards in having such beliefs, and feel their beliefs are conformed.
I wouldn't say god relieves the notion of responsibility though. Some people change and improve themselves because of their belief in god. Such as they follow a doctrine of faith that says, "love they neighbor..." "do unto others...", so they will seek to do this and thus they take responsibility. Not all people of faith do this, lol, some do the opposite, use god to justify war etc. It just depends.
Same with the flyer. It can make a warrior intend to be free, and by this intent (or faith in freedom as a possibility) they will improve their weak areas and thus become stronger and more easily access freedom this way. In Buddhism it would be faith in overcoming karma. Then applying effort towards that. It helps to have some kind of functional framework. Such as I use Avalokitesvara and Tara to focus on compassion. I know such beings do not exist essentially, only within phenomenal arising that is dependent on all other phenomena as well. They are not beings, but rather a quality (embodiment of) that is expressed and felt. Such as, compassion is felt. My mental formation will see them as a Bodhisattvas, as a beings, but I know there is no being inherently. Just as with us.
So some would perhaps say, "if you know nothing exists essentially, why mentally form beings and things?" The same way we know a car does not exist (its just a label to a bunch of machine parts) but we allow the mental formation for its functionality. It would be absurd to say to someone who says, "hey want to go for a drive?" "no, man cars don't exist essentially, tell me were the essence of car is located then I will go drive with you." Its better, and people will think us more sane if we just say "ok, lets go for a drive in your car." Using the functional mental formation labeled "car" to the hunk of metal that is what we ride in . And besides, many people think car IS locatable..."hey, where's it located? Its in my driveway man."
Directly apprehending emptiness...an angel is no more real then the head of a needle, and no less real. Mental formations are no more real then form and no less real either. Most who consider the definition of "sane" or "normal" would say..."form is MORE real than thought...I can touch and expereince form. " But hey, we can also experience thought, so its equally real. (In dreams we can even feel thoughts, like, ever just stung by a bee in a dream, you feel it, lol.) Think of a car. Now you see in your minds eye car. Go look at a "car" physically. The form-car (sum of parts) will drive you someplace. The mentalization of car (and all other labels) will allow you to function in this world too because you can organize your understanding in this reality and communicate your needs via your mental capability of conceptualizing, with others. I think the only reason form has been given a greater value is because of the fear of dying.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-04-2010
Maybe see about reading the Urantia Book? You can google it and read it online for free.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-04-2010
Most people are so stuck in their beliefs that no matter what
you say, what proofs you offer, no matter how true or right you are most
people will not change beliefs, even if those beliefs are erroneous and
false. But people can hold conflicting or totally opposite beliefs and
still both be in truth as far as their underlying understanding and
knowing of truth. You cannot make another person believe in God; what I
say are just my thoughts and part of it is just to experience and
express but also for others who may be reading who do believe in God,
for their edification. Asiris
Asiris,
You say you believe in God and that's ok. I would say but why? But I do not really expect an answer because I do not believe you have even delved into the question. So they are as you say "just your thoughts", and I say unexplored thoughts.
"God is self-created, ie. eternal." Asiris
Really??? God is self-created and how would you know this?
Eternal? What is eternal? Some would say it is that which lasts forever and continues without end. But if you have been following this thread we have been considering that which has no beginning as in "never began" therefore cannot persist even for a millisecond and certainly cannot end, especially if it never began to begin with, so the idea of it lasing indefinitely is redundant!
If God was self-CREATED as you suggest, then this requires a beginning. If God began (even if self created) then there is a beginning and then we have to account for whatever was before that imagined beginning, began.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-04-2010
Most of us that participate in forums such as this have arrived at a point in our thinking that we are spiritual. Most are aware of varying spiritualities and philosophies and demonstrate a certain prowess in our ability to manipulate the various information contained therein. But few it seems are actually challenged by such information.
At the very onset of spiritual awareness we become aware of information, such as the term enlightenment. Now irregardless of what we might think that is or is not, whether we have attained or not, whether it is something that can be attained or not etc. there is an accumulated notion of what it means to be spiritual and not spiritual and not just unenlightened as in the sense of being dull and material.
It is this very onset of spiritual awareness that should evoke a certain humility but instead it seems to provoke an elitism that conceals a certain hubris peculiar to “spiritual” people. At which point said “spiritual” people then measure themselves against those that are not considered “spiritual” and believe themselves more advanced.
If spiritually inclined people are to make any significant headway whatsoever, the light of their spiritually must begin with what has been the source of delusion to begin with. If spiritual people continue to accumulate knowledge that is now considered “spiritual” without uncovering the source of delusions then what is the point?
But here is the rub! Spiritual people are the most disinclined to consider what it is that is deluding them! After all spiritual people consider themselves “spiritual” and not deluded! So if you consider yourself to be “in the know” and yet cannot really point to the delusions you have uncovered about how you perceive reality then you can bet you are still deluded but don’t know it!
Spiritual people who are “worth their salt” know what it is they are up against and how they have overcome obstacles that held them back! And some are able to communicate this.
What endears me to Buddhist thought is the fact that certain “truths” are presented, truths which are not immediately verifiable and yet if they are true present a challenge in the very fact that such “truths” are not easily assimilated by existing thoughts, philosophies and spiritualities. In fact so often Buddhist thought seems the very antithesis of all spiritualities!
So how does one measure what is delusional? If you are not actively engaged in the unraveling of your own delusions then you are not actively engaged in the liberation of awareness. If you cannot speak about what has deluded you...you are still delusional, no matter how much you are able to encompass your delusional thinking in spiritual talk!
If you are not challenged by Buddhist view....then you just don’t get it! You might think you do and that you understand, but you don’t!
Again let me reiterate; It is spiritual people that must engage their delusions. Those who are totally unaware and material “don’t give a fig!”
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
ninth octave wrote:Maybe see about reading the Urantia Book? You can google it and read it online for free.
All the book does is say god is the answer to the mystery. That would be taking the mystery out of mystery wouldn't it?
"Why is everything the way it is? God made it, god makes everything happen. God's the mystery. Mystery solved. Now all I have to do is have faith in god."
Hey Gonzo, maybe this is what you meant about taking away responsibility? But I actually took what you meant as responsiblity of self-actions. But anyway, the above does take away responsibility to examine reality, doesn't it? Which explains why Lex and I repeat ourselves here and no matter how much we disprove the logic of god, faithful people keep on as if we've said absolutely nothing, lol.
Ok, I will try a different approach. Ninth, lets use your logic and follow it to conclusion. If god wants you to realize him in you, and you have the divine spark of god in you so you can do this, then you are god! And if you are god, then no one created you (you 're god just realize it) so god never existed separate from you to begin with because from the very start you were god. (still following your logic) This is really just like the eagle's emanations excerpt.
So yes, I'm suggesting you consider yourself god right now, because after all, your own belief says the kingdom of god is within you, so if it is, you must be god, otherwise you cannot realize what you are not. So there's no god vs individual, all is god if you are god to begin with. So you have no creator of you, god was always you. Now of course there's still the loophole of self-created. Which I refer to Lex's post on eternal. Never began, cannot endure, or end. So can't be self-created.
So lets recap. God didn't create you, you already had god,...or maybe think of it like this, god is god is god, no matter how many times he duplicated himself, always he got the output of himself, god, which is also you. Because if he's a being from the beginning an there was nothing to begin with but him, he can only produce what he is and so whatever he creates is him (granted Nagarjuna proves a being cannot create, but this examination is trying to give some allowance for a religious theory of "creator" to be fully unfolded).
So, now the final summation...you are god but are not self-created (Lex's post) since there is no beginning of which to create "self" nor a time before this when there is uncreated-beingness (how can uncreated "be"?). So no-being, essencelessness, its the only possibity. No-essence, no god, no inherent you.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
Tiff wrote:This is really just like the eagle's emanations excerpt.
The entire body of a seer senses the Eagle. There is something in all of us that
can make us witness with our entire body. Seers explain the act of seeingthe Eagle in very simple
terms:
because man is composed of the Eagle’s emanations, man need only revert back to his
components. The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness
that becomes entangled and
confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging
themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” DJ
because man is composed of the Eagle’s emanations, man need only revert back to his
components. = the divine spark of god is in you. You are god, you are the eagle.
The problem arises with
man’s awareness; it is his awareness
that becomes entangled and
confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging
themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. = vision (mental formation) of god and god's creations (man, creatures and things).
But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” = there is no you since you are the eagle and there is no eagle, no inherentness. Living creature is only a mental formation labeling "living creatures" as apart from eagle. A labeled thought (ignorance) of living creature does not grasp what is occurring. Emptiness not apprehended directly, stuck at the appearance of absoluteness of the eagle and living creatures both existing independently.
DJ gave Carlos all the pieces to the puzzle with the eagle explanation
(the part about living creatures gets tricky, and also the term "out
there"), so its very subtle. But it must be duly observed how everything
before the last line disproves that very last line anyway!
And in TAOSPP, on the void and how it began, like creationism in religion, this too has the same effect of not leading to directly realizing emptiness. Because then the void becomes the creator. So it can be said the void is the first cause and one can feel they understand emptiness via this but here it is only the concept of. The idea of everything as empty, except it makes emptiness inherent, so emptiness itself is "a thing", just like the eagle, and god.
We will dart past the eagle, god and the void and be free, directly realizing emptiness.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
And nemo, getting back to where you left off here. I realize this eagle story about there being no eagle and no emanations means something quite different for you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me you perceive that men mistakenly view an eagle and emanations when in fact its "something else", so the goal is to see, instead of the eagle, what that somethign else is, or else not see the eagle at least. And then you can pass as a high speed inorganic into that "out there". But remember, the out there cannot be grasped. There's only one quality that fits this description...emptiness. Everything else can be grasped, because everything else has some kind of formation be it form or thought formation. So the only possibility left is emptiness--formless, thought-less, concept-less. It can be experienced past the eagle.
"What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” DJ
Nothing you imagine or see can represent this. Therefore, it must be emptiness, everything else can be seen or represented in some way.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-04-2010
Asiris,
I know you have done some editing here. I've read the parts you erased. Such as about my time here in April when you posted in that thread about Lujan.
To continue on this a bit. Lujan and I disagreed about my friend. But it's more then that. I challenged Lujan's authority. And he felt he was above being challenged. So he banned me and said he would say we agreed to disagree. And he would be the one to announce my departure. So I let that occur. And then Turin contacted me in March next year, and I challenged Lujan here at SW during that time.
My IP banning came recently, June I believe, around the time I started posting again here. I continue to challenge Lujan, he is not above being challenged. No one is. And anyone worth their salt has no fear of challenge. Actually in truth, there should be no positions to defend anyway. The fact that he has created positions to defend is worth examining.
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-04-2010
Tiff wrote:Tiff wrote:This is really just like the eagle's emanations excerpt.
because man is composed of the Eagle’s emanations, man need only revert back to his
components. = the divine spark of god is in you. You are god, you are the eagle.
We will dart past the eagle, god and the void and be free, directly realizing emptiness.
This is a realization I have already had, But in no way do I consider this darting past the eagle, You and Lex have realized a truth, great, but you are still encased and subject to the emanations at large. DJ talked about total freedom, for any compartmentalized part of itself that wishes and works toward maintaining its individuality past death. I believe Jesus could walk on water in this reality, and I am into the energetic mechanics of that event.
Lex I am working on a more detailed reply, to an earlier post of yours
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-04-2010
Tiffany I don't see you having changed your syntax. You are still recognizable by the way you string your thought forms along as your present your logic. But why are you still drawing attention or form an attachment to the former Lujan.?
I realized 3 years, only after I read a Kabbalah book that the soul is likened to a microdot located in the soul after birth. You are one of God's many manifestations. You ARE God!. I will say I didn't want to believe I was God it in that fashion. But knowing I am God this way it is best to empty oneself of excess baggage in this lifetime with the teachings of dependent origination.
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-04-2010
Tiff wrote:
". But remember, the out there cannot be grasped. There's only one quality that fits this description...emptiness. Everything else can be grasped, because everything else has some kind of formation be it form or thought formation. So the only possibility left is emptiness--formless, thought-less, concept-less. It can be experienced past the eagle.
"What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” DJ
Nothing you imagine or see can represent this. Therefore, it must be emptiness, everything else can be seen or represented in some way.Earlier Lex, suggested that if he asked me about intent, I would say such and such. and was incorrect about what I would say, still working on the reply to that. Now his sighting of the three-hawks and the eagle seem to be coming into full view
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-04-2010
My last post did seem delusional but who gives a fig.
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-04-2010
The point re "mystery" v "faith" was that neither can be verified, just as the notion of God or the theory of reincarnation cannot be verified. In my opinion, about the best that can be had is to accept a belief that one likes for whatever reasons one chooses, whether that choice be agreement with ancients, impeccable logic, or just personal like.
In regard the notion of God relieving us of responsibility (again like the notion of flyers) I did mean personal responsibility, similar to Geraldine saying, "The Devil made me do it" - but more far reaching. That would imply we are the creators. In this I agree with those first few lines of the Dhammapada, which are rather mind boggling if taken at full face value.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
To echo that notion, I like these comments from Richard Bach's "Illusions":
It's OK if the world is destroyed. There are a thousand million other worlds for us to create and choose from. As long as people want planets, there will be planets to live on.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-04-2010
but you are still encased and subject to the emanations at large. Nemo
Nemo how did you arrive at this point of view? Why would you think I, or anyone for that matter, is encased?
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-05-2010
lex icon wrote:but you are still encased and subject to the emanations at large. Nemo
Nemo how did you arrive at this point of view? Why would you think I, or anyone for that matter, is encased?
Lex, you are viewing this reality, and living through a furrow of time, from the perspective and physical limitations of an entity called Lex.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-05-2010
ninth octave wrote:But why are you still drawing attention or form an attachment to the former Lujan.?
Asiris asked me about it, or posted expressing curiosity about it (see her previous post). So I responded to her. Also since I brung up the void as written in TAOSPP, thats the challenge I refer to, challenge of the logic behind that as we have also been discussing the eagle, creationism, first cause. I'm saying the fact that Lujan's book has also entered into it is testament no one is above being challenged in their views or perspective, especially if they are putting that perspective out there for others.
My syntax does not discuss the material from PP, that's the difference. Such as, emptiness as discussed there and as discussed now, there are considerable differences between how I spoke of it then and how I speak of it now. I may have for example, allowed for some kind of god-like intelligence that would be the void's awareness and that would be the core of us, and since Asiris said she liked some of my posts at PP, maybe she was drawn to those types. And I'm saying to her my whole perspective has changed, and mostly in that area because now I experience dependent arising and no inherent essence so I would now not allude to any kind of void intelligence or inherentness that supposedly "started it all".
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-05-2010
Gonzo wrote:
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
I would say we are more then thoughts, we are body, sense, consciousness, and perception of these. So I would ask, why do you cancel out things such as your body as if they are not you or at least less you then your thoughts? Without a body to house thoughts, what are you? You could not post here certainly, without a body. Thought is part of your experience, but not all of it.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-05-2010
"You and Lex have realized a truth, great, but you are still encased and subject to the emanations at large."
Actually Lex and I have been speaking of no encasing. No entity. The opposite of what you say. Maybe you mean, the body is still subject to rules such as gravity? Something like this?
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-05-2010
Tiff wrote:"You and Lex have realized a truth, great, but you are still encased and subject to the emanations at large."
Actually Lex and I have been speaking of no encasing. No entity. The opposite of what you say. Maybe you mean, the body is still subject to rules such as gravity? Something like this?yes
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-05-2010
Lex,
How did you convince your self you no longer had a soul or could no longer accept God's existence.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-05-2010
Ninth,
How did you convince yourself you had a soul or come to accept God's existence?
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-05-2010
Tiff wrote:"You and
Lex have realized a truth, great, but you are still encased and subject
to the emanations at large."
Actually Lex and I have been speaking of no encasing. No entity. The
opposite of what you say. Maybe you mean, the body is still subject to
rules such as gravity? Something like this?yes Nemo
If you mean the physical body is subject to gravity then why not just say that? What does encasing even mean as you present here?
Also how do you think emanations at large subject people?
I have been emphasizing from the beginning the need to be clear about what we mean. The time for ambiguity is past. The supposed advantages of ambiguity or exaggeration must be let go. When I say we need to to let go what we know I am speaking about speculating. So much of what we think is nothing but speculation, arbitrary thoughts. What would we be left with if we isolated all the speculation and admitted we don't know anything about that?
It sounds to me lie you are suggesting that the physical body is a hindrance to the "third perspective" you mentioned. If you are suggesting this then again why would you think such a thing?
I would just reiterate....FORM IS EMPTY and EMPTINESS IS FORM. It is form not the formless that provides the opportunity. To associate formlessness with emptiness at the expense of form to miss emptiness.