+- 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 - 07-05-2010
"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?"~Lex
Well said Lex. It may seem to some that we are doing our own speculating, but in truth Nagarjuna's work that has been presented here is exposing the speculation as the flawed logic it is. Yet it's embraced as sound logic, by everyone at some point in time.
Nagarjuna does not conclude what the mystery is. He just shows,...not this, not that, not neither, not both.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-05-2010
Gonzo wrote: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.
Mystery cannot be verified in any logical way, but think of this Gonzo,... if we can eliminate all concepts that cloud the mystery, such as inherent being, creator, first cause, independent exisitence, etc, then we are just left with the mystery...which will always be a mystery and we will see it for what it is and not grasp at concepts to explain things.
Some people maybe don't believe in a creator and feel like they are beyond a certain threshold then those who do. Ok, but this does not mean there are not more thresholds to cross. You perceive your thoughts are most representative of "you" and everything is because of thoughts, you say? That's like saying "thoughts are the creators, the first cause", so its a bit like being back at religious conceptualizing, this form of perceiving thoughts as having such authority over reality. So this can be explored, why do you perceive thoughts as the cause of everything? If your logic in this is sound, I won't be able to refute it, or my refute will not be as sound as your explanation.
"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world."
Are you not saying here that there is no mystery because thought is behind everything? Granted you could say I'm doing the same by saying everything is dependently arising. But keep in mind I am very much wanting to over turn every rock of conceptualizing to show why after all other concepts are disproven, dependent arising is the only one that is left standing and if you apply it to a rigorous examination, it holds up to the test, because its not claiming absolutes or nihilist conclusions. Once all false conclusions are let go of, the feeling of mystery is quite overwhelming.
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-05-2010
Tiff wrote: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.
I like this statement because in three lines, it seems to me, all questions are answered. When he says "We are what we think" that means ALL that we are, including our bodies. Rather than cancelling anything out, I think Gautama is saying exactly the opposite: we are responsible for the creation of ALL, implied also by the quote from "Illusions".
Further, the process of spiritual evolution is purely a matter of thought, imo. First, there is the urge to evolve, which is a thought, then perhaps we acquire the data others have gathered (philosophies, teachings, etc), and this too is a thought process.
The application of teachings (disciplines, meditations, etc) are likewise a thought process - seeing the applicability of notions in our daily lives. The most important process of recapitulation is a thought process, as is shamanic journeying, as is lucid dreaming. It's all thought, and we always have the choice whether to actualize those thoughts or not.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-05-2010
Ididn't convince myself I had a soul it was always part of my mind or heart probably since birth. It develops into real self that sees through language barriers, concepts, knowledge etc.guiding my path in the right direction. My soul watches over my body when I sleep or knows how to bring the body back around after astral planing .It is like an imbelical cord to God after death. It is the split second between the inhale and the exhale. God is all encompassing . The same as absolute truth and total awareness. No one can see God 's totality and live to tell it. It takes the soul to find God in everything and to know your original face.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-05-2010
Ididn't convince myself I had a soul it was always part of my mind or heart probably since birth. It develops into real self that sees through language barriers, concepts, knowledge etc.guiding my path in the right direction. My soul watches over my body when I sleep or knows how to bring the body back around after astral planing .It is like an imbelical cord to God after death. It is the split second between the inhale and the exhale. God is all encompassing . The same as absolute truth and total awareness. No one can see God 's totality and live to tell it. It takes the soul to find God in everything and to know your original face.
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-06-2010
Tiff wrote:"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?"~Lex
Well said Lex. It may seem to some that we are doing our own speculating, but in truth Nagarjuna's work that has been presented here is exposing the speculation as the flawed logic it is. Yet it's embraced as sound logic, by everyone at some point in time.
Nagarjuna does not conclude what the mystery is. He just shows,...not this, not that, not neither, not both.
Hogwash! Existence is about doing, you two even with this very clear non-speculative understanding are still subject to the laws of physics and the laws of man. Why do you both avoid talking about that.
Emptiness and Objects - nemo.parallelperception - 07-06-2010
lex icon wrote:
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?
Wait, I am still working on a reply to you, back in the discussion, though you seem to emphasize sub issues and ignore my main points.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-06-2010
Gonzo,
Thought reflects on objects. Can it stand alone? Can it define itself? We actually never had a point we can recall when this ever occured. Objectless thought. Still it seems to me you are preposing a beginning such as this. I really don't have time right now to make a long post as I'd like, hopefully tomorrow.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-06-2010
nemo, "hogwash"...hold on a minute partner, thems fightin words
ok, post for you tomorrow too.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-06-2010
Tiffany you sound like Lex's pet parrot. Trust yourself without some pretzel logic telling you how. Life is more than a repeat.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-06-2010
nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:"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?"~Lex
Well said Lex. It may seem to some that we are doing our own speculating, but in truth Nagarjuna's work that has been presented here is exposing the speculation as the flawed logic it is. Yet it's embraced as sound logic, by everyone at some point in time.
Nagarjuna does not conclude what the mystery is. He just shows,...not this, not that, not neither, not both.
Hogwash! Existence is about doing, you two even with this very clear non-speculative understanding are still subject to the laws of physics and the laws of man. Why do you both avoid talking about that.
Hey nemo, ok lets talk about it. What do you feel I have avoided or misunderstood about existence and doing? I need more input from you though, because imo I haven't avoided anything.
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-06-2010
Tiff wrote:Gonzo,
Thought reflects on objects. Can it stand alone? Can it define itself? We actually never had a point we can recall when this ever occured. Objectless thought. Still it seems to me you are preposing a beginning such as this.
I'm not proposing anything rather I'm making observations. Any attempt to define thought, imo, is as fruitless as attempting to define awareness or consciousness. I'm willing to accept those notions even so. It seems to me we must have some point of acceptance of terms, even though vague, in order to see what to me is a truth as expressed by Descartes.
Emptiness and Objects - snowblind - 07-06-2010
Cartesian dualism is not the way to go imo...as it postulates that thought is somehow different than any other physical function, therefore separate from the substrate of brain. Science has shown us that thought indeed comes from the brain, so I think therefore I am is a not complete statement. Consciousness is the ability to pay attention to things, to bring attention to...awareness is just that, being aware of the surroundings or what is going on around you and in you. It is as simple as that.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-06-2010
Neti Neti "neither this or that" ...The "Divine" is neither this or that. Wonder why.
Emptiness and Objects - snowblind - 07-06-2010
because the divine is us...our self.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-07-2010
Gonzo wrote:I'm not proposing anything rather I'm making observations. Any attempt to define thought, imo, is as fruitless as attempting to define awareness or consciousness. I'm willing to accept those notions even so. It seems to me we must have some point of acceptance of terms, even though vague, in order to see what to me is a truth as expressed by Descartes.Ok, but your observation is that everything arises from thought, so you've defined thought right there, and it still does not make it a conclusive observation, but rather how things can appear to you.
Ok, that's fine though, lets take your premise and if we can disprove it, then it's of no benefit to you to accept it as a notion if you see it cannot be so.
Objects reflect thought. Think of a time before objects (according to your premise that thought created everything) so if thought created all things, we must envision a beginning time. In this beginning time there are absolutely no objects whatsoever. So thought existing by itself must at some point have said to itself "I will create objects". In some manner this thought had to occur to thought
So, I ask you, how does thought, that is pure and unreflected, know what "to create" means. Or know what "objects" are. It has absolutely nothing to reflect upon in this beginning time, no point of reference. Do you see how this aspect of creating then is not possible for thought? We in truth learn to formulate our thoughts because of objects upon which thought reflects.
For example, a person observing a pottery class sees the students take hunks of clay, put the clay on a spinning wheel and then with their hands shape the clay into a vessel. Finally the finished product is a vase. So the observer of this object-expression that just took place then concluded and verified what it means "to create" and what objects (labeled form) are and how they come into creation via form and thought interacting. So this is how a child learns from the world around them how to define the meaning of words, by observation and reflection of thought upon objects. Form is action, thought is the reaction and processing of what took place, and then thought can initiate a new action that merely builds upon what was observed. If thought is the reaction, and its ability to initiate is in fact based on reflection upon form, this is unlike what you say--that thought created everything. So, I'm saying, thought reflects upon objects and develops because of this ability to reflect. Thought know "vessel" because it witnesses vessel "being created" and also observes its uses (sees water can be poured into vessel and contained there) and then labels it "vessel" for purpose of communicating this particular object's function.
If you can tell me how this is not the case, then I would say your premise is still up for examination. If you cannot tell me how its the case, I would say your premise has been put to rest in terms of, observationally we see this is not how things occur. That is, if thought is not the creator after all, then it must be codependent on form in which to reflect and thus realize itself via form. So, thus, thought and form are interdependent.
You see, your whole premise rests upon the idea that thought can stand alone. And I am pointing out to you never in our experience was this the case. For as long as we can conceive of, thought has always had objects around to enliven itself and allow itself to be realized of itself via reflection on form. So, why would we make a leap of logic and say suddenly thought does not reflect when all its ever been doing all along IS reflecting? Its very nature is to reflect. It does have a initiatory ability if given a point of reference to work with. Thus it can co-create with form within phenomenal existence.
Descartes was a mind (thought) and a body (form) who within this interrelationship formulated his theory. He did not formulate from a realm of pure unrefelcted thought. So his conclusions are based upon his reflections from the world around him he observed. So, even he was subject to objects when he proposed his thought-origin theory. A theory foreign to his actual experience of co-dependent thought and form.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-07-2010
And in case this question comes up,...
Someone may ask..."well if thought cannot create, how does it know how to create a vessel out of form?
Again, thought does not create independently, it does not originate. It uses form to co-create. Some prehistoric man observed clay in the ground. He pulled the clay out and experimented with it and observed the results. One day he observed that when he heated the clay, the clay became hardened and if the clay was shaped in a concave that objects could be contained within the hardened clay. So his reflections led to the invention of a vessel. At no point did he mentally materialize "vessel" purely by thought.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-07-2010
Asiris,
Just because you do not understand what is being spoken of here, does not mean it is "overintelualizaton." I don't see how your sniping helps any.
Ninth calling Tiff a Parrot doesn't help any either. Please try to stay on point with this discussion.
Just for the record it might seem like Tiff and I have been coordinating with all this but I assure everyone that is not the case. Since beginning this thread I have had a brief email exchange with Tiffany, we are just starting to see the implications of dependent origination and are applying it. Even the term dependent origination, have we really considered it?
Nemo, Hogwash! I love it. Ok now we are getting somewhere. I know you are still catching up trying to reply to previous emails, I have the same issue, but please could you be more specific with what you are calling hogwash? I would really like to respond. I am not a physicist but if you wish to relate this to the laws of physics etc....er ok, what's the issue?
If we are beginning to understand dependent origination and the implications involved then I can see how "hogwash" might arise, as it should. You see I think many of us think we understand Buddhism and have dismissed it or at least banished it to the realms of barely relevant. I do not mind that someone might not care for this but at least if you are going to dismiss it at least do so from having understood what is being presented. I know from my own experience that I had great difficulty even approaching what Nagarjuna was saying. He can arrest a person with just one sentence lol. It takes effort to see what he is saying. But why should this be so? Because we have piled up layers up layers of obscuring concepts that have left us confused and bewildered by the appearance of objects and plunged us deeper into the entanglements of self consciousness. What Nagarjuna is saying is very simple. It is just that we are used to imputing substantiality to things which have none. So when we hear from someone who is not doing that it seems strange and we cannot grasp where he is coming from.
I do not consider myself Buddhist, at this point. I have just come across information that I think has relevance for anyone seriously engaged.
Ps. If we having great difficulty with Nagarjuna and this first movement concerning emptiness the we will not fare well when it comes to the second movement and Dzogchen.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-07-2010
So if it boils down to just delusions of self, how does self remove the self from the proverbial black empty room- knowing it can not be truely empty until self leaves?
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-07-2010
So if it boils down to just delusions of self, how does self
remove the self from the proverbial black empty room- knowing it can not
be truely empty until self leaves?Ninth
How does anyone disabuse themselves (or anyone else) of a delusion?
If I told you I saw a unicorn run through my back yard the other day what would you think? You know there is no such thing as a unicorn.
But I seem very sincere and enthusiastic about my sighting, absolutely convinced I saw one. How would you get to the source of my delusion?
You
have to investigate and inquire.
If I am not mad then something led me to conclude and believe I saw a unicorn, what was it? That we can investigate without getting stuck on the issue of whether or not unicorns actually exist.
Now if I just assert unicorns exist that is a different matter. If I have never seen one, why would I believe such a thing? What led me to this belief? You
have to investigate and inquire.
So let's say that I believe there is a heaven and hell and that heaven is just this fantastic place that the religions rave about and that when I die I definitely wish to go there and not hell. However I also read in a book that the only way to this heaven is to believe in unicorns, because when a person dies, the only way to get to heaven is to ride in on a unicorn and that unicorns only come to the aid of people who believe in them, at the time of their death. Those who do not believe in unicorns end up getting dragged into hell by demons.
The issue of unicorns actually existing is a secondary matter now because I just want to go to heaven. So now there is an attachment to heavenly access. You might think talking about the actual existence of unicorns is the way to approach me but you would just be spinning your wheels. I don't give a fig about unicorns I just have a very strong fear and aversion of getting dragged into eternal torment by demons and a very strong desire for those 72 virgins.
See how the layers begin to build? We could go on and on. So there has to be some earnestness for truth.
This thread is called Emptiness and Objects. We have been investigating the phenomena of the appearance of objects, how they appear to be real, independent and having inherent existence. Buddhist view has been introduced because it effectively disabuses these notions. DJ was also very suspect of the appearance of objects and though he was not as thorough about it as Buddhism they seemed to agree about this. DJ called it the first truth of awareness. I thought that was a good place to start.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-07-2010
Asiris,
Yes, what you see as controlling is moderating. I am moderating this thread. I did not ask permission to do so. I assumed the responsibility.
When I urge to stay on point...it is because I view these attempts to engage personality as petty and distracting and in my experience usually lead to bickering and personal attacks of character, as is starting to happen. If you have nothing to contribute to this topic then there is no reason to keep trying to derail it, simply quit reading it.
Emptiness and Objects - Tiff - 07-08-2010
Yes, the PP method is to confront people and also bring attention to reputation. Just as you are doing Asiris. To focus on the personal motives, integrity etc. Ninth started to slip into this too. I used to think all that finger pointing was important. Truly it is not.
I engaged you in a discussion when you first came here and you showed no interest in delving into Nargarjuna and dependent arising. I agree with Lex, if you are not interested in a discussion about dependent arising, at least allow those who are to have a discussion without taunting. You are not even offering a counter perspective because you are not discussing the material presented at all. You could try to disprove dependent arising by first investigating it and then show how dependent arising is not valid in your perspective. Instead I don't think you know anything about dependent arising at all. Its not that you have to agree with it, but at least look into some things about it and offer some engagement around it before you dismiss it. Otherwise why post here, in this thread? Because you think dependent origination is wrong? Then show us how its wrong. But see, its not about this with you, otherwise you would be doing this.
Then when Lex asks to stay on topic you turn that request into a big deal. And you are off and running and we have to read several posts from you about your theories of what Lex is doing, his motives blah blah blah. Obviously if Lex and I wanted to be confronted this way, we'd ask to go back to PP, because we both had that experience there.
Now you can tell me its not my place to decide what or how you present here. This is true. However, I decided after reading about a dozen posts of yours here that are completely unrelated to content, that it was worth pointing this out. I don't care about Lex's integrity, motives, control, dominance, or even if he has an interest in owning parrots, lol. This is a discussion about dependent arising, emptiness and objects (phenomena).
Now I've just given you a whole bunch of stuff to sink your teeth into. And more fodder to "run with" and you could just keep doing this. And I already know you will continue because I can see how strongly motivated you are to do this. Your energy is quite tangible and its poised to go on and on like the energizer bunny. Even so, if you decide to continue, it's not going to stop me from continuing with this topic and staying focused as long as any others are interested.
Like, nemo, I'd like to hear more from you. My post of "fightin words" was me joking, because I was tickled to read the word hogwash, it just caught me as funny. And actually, I was at my dentist's office when I posted that to you and was about to go into my appointment, so interpret that as you will (but no my dentist wasn't going to do any drilling that day so I was not under duress, lol). I realized after ninth posted right after, that my post might have looked serious, like I intended to fight you. Never was this the case, but its my fault for hastily replying with a joke to your response when maybe it was not good idea to respond to you that way considering I have appreciated your sincerity since you came here to engage on this topic, and am wanting to go further into what you said about what I am avoiding because I don't see where I have avoided anything about physics or this realm of action etc. But if you present to me your perspective I can work with that to give my perspective about what has been occurring to me (how I am processing content being discussed here). Or however you want to approach it, just know I am interested and not offended.
And if no one wanted to continue this discussion, that's also fine with me too. Not saying this to sound snippy, lol. I'm saying, I'll just go with the interest expressed. But those who are not seriously interested in whats being discussed, well, don't expect me to be interested in your posts either if all you are doing is trying to get off topic and onto what you want.
Just to let everyone know...after this evening I will be away till mid next week, so won't be able to reply to anyone until then.
Emptiness and Objects - ninth octave - 07-08-2010
http://www.youtube.com/v/yY5r_zox-a8&hl ... 2=0x9461ca Asiris wrote:
Reality 101..acquiring a6thsense called humor
Emptiness and Objects - Gonzo - 07-09-2010
Tiff wrote: Gonzo wrote: I'm not proposing anything rather I'm making observations. Any attempt to define thought, imo, is as fruitless as attempting to define awareness or consciousness. I'm willing to accept those notions even so. It seems to me we must have some point of acceptance of terms, even though vague, in order to see what to me is a truth as expressed by Descartes.
Ok, but your observation is that everything arises from thought, so you've defined thought right there, and it still does not make it a conclusive observation, but rather how things can appear to you.
Yes, as they appear to me, and I'm willing to take them at face value; i.e. terms I'm willing to accept.
Ok, that's fine though, lets take your premise and if we can disprove it, then it's of no benefit to you to accept it as a notion if you see it cannot be so.
Actually the premise is not original with me. As quoted, it was a premise purported by Gautama.
Objects reflect thought. Think of a time before objects (according to your premise that thought created everything) so if thought created all things, we must envision a beginning time. In this beginning time there are absolutely no objects whatsoever. So thought existing by itself must at some point have said to itself "I will create objects". In some manner this thought had to occur to thought
This assumes I accept your premise that "...we must envision a beginning time" and that "...there are absolutely no objects whatsoever."
So, I ask you, how does thought, that is pure and unreflected, know what "to create" means. Or know what "objects" are. It has absolutely nothing to reflect upon in this beginning time, no point of reference. Do you see how this aspect of creating then is not possible for thought? We in truth learn to formulate our thoughts because of objects upon which thought reflects.
Perhaps we have the famous chicken/egg controversy. It's as likely, assuming your premise there was a beginning, that thought was in existence before matter, and just as possible manifestations of matter were the result of thought. There is also the matter of creative imagining, a rather well proven notion.
For example, a person observing a pottery class sees the students take hunks of clay, put the clay on a spinning wheel and then with their hands shape the clay into a vessel. Finally the finished product is a vase. So the observer of this object-expression that just took place then concluded and verified what it means "to create" and what objects (labeled form) are and how they come into creation via form and thought interacting. So this is how a child learns from the world around them how to define the meaning of words, by observation and reflection of thought upon objects. Form is action, thought is the reaction and processing of what took place, and then thought can initiate a new action that merely builds upon what was observed. If thought is the reaction, and its ability to initiate is in fact based on reflection upon form, this is unlike what you say--that thought created everything. So, I'm saying, thought reflects upon objects and develops because of this ability to reflect. Thought know "vessel" because it witnesses vessel "being created" and also observes its uses (sees water can be poured into vessel and contained there) and then labels it "vessel" for purpose of communicating this particular object's function.
If you can tell me how this is not the case, then I would say your premise is still up for examination. If you cannot tell me how its the case, I would say your premise has been put to rest in terms of, observationally we see this is not how things occur. That is, if thought is not the creator after all, then it must be codependent on form in which to reflect and thus realize itself via form. So, thus, thought and form are interdependent.
I would agree thought and form are interdependent, however, where we part company is that in my opinion, form is the product of thought, not vice versa.
You see, your whole premise rests upon the idea that thought can stand alone. And I am pointing out to you never in our experience was this the case. For as long as we can conceive of, thought has always had objects around to enliven itself and allow itself to be realized of itself via reflection on form. So, why would we make a leap of logic and say suddenly thought does not reflect when all its ever been doing all along IS reflecting? Its very nature is to reflect. It does have a initiatory ability if given a point of reference to work with. Thus it can co-create with form within phenomenal existence.
I disagree. I remain of the opinion that form is the product of thought...that is, there is no co-creation since, imo, form has not the ability to create.
Descartes was a mind (thought) and a body (form) who within this interrelationship formulated his theory. He did not formulate from a realm of pure unrefelcted thought. So his conclusions are based upon his reflections from the world around him he observed. So, even he was subject to objects when he proposed his thought-origin theory. A theory foreign to his actual experience of co-dependent thought and form.
I don't think so. This, from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote: Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
Here's the thing...actually, my thing. It's not important to me to define "thought" or "consciousness" or "awareness" beyond where they've already been defined. In addition, it's not important to me to doubt the veracity of Gautama's comments, nor similar statements from other sources noted earlier. Richard Bach in "Illusions" said, "We are the otters of the universe." I like that image and all it entails...the universe is our playground...the whole damned thing. I cannot prove that, and to me it's not necessary to do so. I like the sentiment. Perhaps when I die, I'll dissolve totally, in which case, I won't have the awareness to realize I no longer exist in totality. On the other hand, maybe something else goes on. I'm willing to bet so. If I lose the bet, I'm done and no matter. Otherwise, I'll be looking for other otters to play with.
To me, in my understanding of Zen, what I prefer to call Essential Zen (without trappings, rituals, dogma, etc), it corresponds with the otter notion...eat when hungry...sleep when tired...and enjoy what comes next.
Emptiness and Objects - lex icon - 07-09-2010
I would just like to take a moment and refer back to an earlier post of Fool's regarding,
Longchenpa's Treasury of Natural Perfection :
First let me tell you about "absence",
the absence that is essentially emptiness:
in the super-matrix of pure mind that is like space
whatever appears is absent in reality.
So here Longchenpa is speaking of absence. He is pointing out that the absence he is referring to is the essential nature of emptiness. Now Longchenpa is always very specific in his use of words, so let’s just see what we are meaning with the word Absence.
Absence: noun
the state of being away from a place or person : the letter had arrived during his absence | I supervised the rehearsal in the absence of the director.
• an occasion or period of being away from a place or person : repeated absences from school.
( absence of) the nonexistence or lack of : she found his total absence of facial expression disconcerting. See note at lack .
Absent: Adjective
1 not present in a place or at an occasion :
We have stated earlier that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Lonchenpa now says that this emptiness is essentially absence! So what is not present, ie; absent? Lonchenpa says, Whatever appears, is absent, (with the qualifier of) in reality. Let’s just take a moment because Lonchenpa has introduced the “super matrix of pure mind”.
Matrix: Noun
1 an environment or material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure.
We could spend hours discussing the super matrix of pure mind, but for now let’s just say he is referring to Mind free from the “defilements” of conceptual overlay. Mind in which all is spontaneously released as it occurs. Unobstructed Mind. Nirvana, Etc. Those familiar with Buddhist terminology will get the gist.
When we consider space we think of vast openness in which appears stars, suns, planets, moons and grains of sand and dust. Space is the medium in which we see these things appear. Now back to the absence. Longchenpa is saying that to the environment of pure mind, whatever appears is absent in reality. So the appearance is not negated or denied it is acknowledged, but it is acknowledged in relation to reality. In reality whatever appears is known as absence. Whatever appears has no actuality in reality. The actuality is not present only the appearance of actuality. Essential, inherent, substance of whatever appears is not present in reality. So the multiplicity of individual objects inherently existing is undermined. So what is it that appears? This is where minds entangled in the obscurations of appearances become bewildered and stagger away from reality grasping at anyTHING in order to establish a foothold.
it is a vivid display of absence, like magical illusion,
in the very moment inconceivable and unutterable.
Now when he says, “inconceivable and unutterable” he is not referring to some deep inscrutable mystery of spirit, void and formlessness etc, he is referring to whatever appears! This is why we do not have to be spiritual to consider this and investigate its veracity.
How can this be? We have a very orderly conception of just about everything that appears. We know all about it. Yes since beginningless time we have built, layer upon layer, an extravagant apologetics of what we have mistakenly accepted as reality. We have failed to understand existence, confusing mere existence for reality.
Just as the objective field is absent in reality,
so "the knower"--in actuality pure mind,
in essence an absence--is like the clear sky:
know it in its ineffable reality!
Now if we wish to know WHY, whatever appears is absent in reality, then Nagarjuna offers an exhaustive presentation of why this is so.
In the universal womb that is boundless space
all forms of matter and energy occur as the flux of the four elements,
but all are empty forms, absent in reality:
all phenomena, arising in pure mind are like that.
Magical illusion, whatever its form,
lacks substance, empty in nature;
likewise, all experience of the world, arisen in the moment,
unstirring from pure mind, is insubstantial evanescence.
Just as dream is part of sleep,
unreal gossamer in its arising,
so all and everything is pure mind,
never separated from it,
and without substance or attribute.
Experience may arise in the mind
but it is neither mind nor anything but mind;
it is a vivid display of absence, like magical illusion,
in the very moment inconceivable and unutterable.
All experience arising in the mind,
at its inception, know it as absence!
Just as the objective field is absent in reality,
so "the knower"--in actuality pure mind,
in essence an absence--is like the clear sky:
know it in its ineffable reality!