06-24-2010, 12:01 AM
Tiffany, This was a response to an earlier post of yours but I see from your recent posts you have clarified this yourself. But I will post anyway. As it serves to bring out the fine line we navigate. Loved that Tara stuff. Very clear!
And as I said, the being referred to is acknowledged as not having essence but still sees that miraculously everything is here and happening so just "be" amongst it.
“the being referred to is acknowledged as not having essence” Tiffany
When you express it this way it sounds as if there is such a thing as being and it is acknowledged and can be referred to and that IT does not have essence. You seem to be talking about an essenceless being. I am asking what is this being, referred to and where can it be located and how can it not have essence?
When speaking of non-being we to refer to being in someway. When speaking of being we refer to non-being, neither or both etc. So when speaking of being in an attempt to negate or empty it of its apparent inherent existence the pendulum of both hearer and speaker might gravitate to non-being. If the speaker does this there is a grasping at non-being, trying either consciously or unconsciously to substantiate non-being (nihilism) in order to show the “unrealness” of being.
I am asking what is this being, referred to, and where can it be located and how can it not have essence? See I am learning from Nagarjuna lol. (It appears at first like I am trying to establish being and essence). If a person attempting to answer this question is “successful” in their attempt to substantiate this being it would require an essence. And dependent origination quite clearly shows individual essences to be pure fantasy. So this question is Koan like. It requires answering but in doing so the answer must not appeal to one or more of the 4 assertions or attention will be trapped by objects and cyclic “being” will just appear to continue and be recycled, over and over, “moment to ever appearing moment”.
So the burden lies with the one trying to establish being or non-being neither or both as substantial.The idea of being does not need to be opposed, merely ask what is this that is being asserted. Once all attempts to substantiated have been exhausted that is the emptying that leads to a clear recognition of, “The one that has gone, has come”.
And as I said, the being referred to is acknowledged as not having essence but still sees that miraculously everything is here and happening so just "be" amongst it.
“the being referred to is acknowledged as not having essence” Tiffany
When you express it this way it sounds as if there is such a thing as being and it is acknowledged and can be referred to and that IT does not have essence. You seem to be talking about an essenceless being. I am asking what is this being, referred to and where can it be located and how can it not have essence?
When speaking of non-being we to refer to being in someway. When speaking of being we refer to non-being, neither or both etc. So when speaking of being in an attempt to negate or empty it of its apparent inherent existence the pendulum of both hearer and speaker might gravitate to non-being. If the speaker does this there is a grasping at non-being, trying either consciously or unconsciously to substantiate non-being (nihilism) in order to show the “unrealness” of being.
I am asking what is this being, referred to, and where can it be located and how can it not have essence? See I am learning from Nagarjuna lol. (It appears at first like I am trying to establish being and essence). If a person attempting to answer this question is “successful” in their attempt to substantiate this being it would require an essence. And dependent origination quite clearly shows individual essences to be pure fantasy. So this question is Koan like. It requires answering but in doing so the answer must not appeal to one or more of the 4 assertions or attention will be trapped by objects and cyclic “being” will just appear to continue and be recycled, over and over, “moment to ever appearing moment”.
So the burden lies with the one trying to establish being or non-being neither or both as substantial.The idea of being does not need to be opposed, merely ask what is this that is being asserted. Once all attempts to substantiated have been exhausted that is the emptying that leads to a clear recognition of, “The one that has gone, has come”.