06-28-2010, 12:01 AM
lex icon wrote:Being cannot dissolve if it could it cannot be considered being. Also being cannot, not be if it could it could no longer be considered being. (He is not endorsing being only considering its logic.)
Examining this logic is so powerful. What can happen though is people don't examine it. Their eyes just glaze over the text and they say..."ah, I doubt there's anything to this." But the interesting aspect about this all is it CAN be verified, if one only takes the time to do it.
A being cannot dissolve. Why not? Well, if its a being it is permanent in its beingness. Nothing can come and change it.
A question: before you were born what did you look like? You may imagine you were a spark of light in some heavenly realm waiting to "be born". Ok, if you were a spark of light, how were you able to change from being a spark of light into something else like a fetus? So, you have to conclude you were not a spark of light inherently. Because if inherently something you would not become anything else, because you lack to components of anything outside of what you are. By what means could you transform into anything other than what you inherently are? So you were never born, because you have no inherent exisitence of a being to "be born". You cannot say your inherent exisitence looks like you look now, at age 20 age 30 age 40 and so on, because you are continually changing, so there is no permanent you that can be located. You are not intrinsically a child, you are not intrinsically a teenager, you are not intrinsically an adult, you are not intrinsically an elderly. You may be an adult right now, but you are changing.
And the other side of the logic to be examined is not being. That would be nothingness, non experience of phenomena. Nihilism. We know that is not so either, so non-being cannot be inherently what we are either. Because if we were nothing, thats nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
Why is it worth examining this? Because if not examined, you are believing in an erroneous view of being (absolutism) or non-being (nihilism). The root of ignorance prevails. How can a warrior dart past the eagle or a Buddhist practitioner obtain full enlightenment with such misconceptions about reality? Its not enough to just dismiss the eagle concept without understanding it. Its very contradictory. The eagle rules over man, but a warrior can dart past it and be free, but there is no eagle or eagle's emanations. To be content with this statement is not enough, because nothing has been said here, its all been thrown into contradiction. So, it should be examined.
If there is no eagle, what does a warrior have to contend with? If nothing rules over man, why would any man be prisoners to anything in any way? What would there be to achieve? Obviously what has to be overcome in this Toltec belief is the ignorance of being and not being. There is no muddying of waters, the understanding of both east and west is the same.
Examining this logic is so powerful. What can happen though is people don't examine it. Their eyes just glaze over the text and they say..."ah, I doubt there's anything to this." But the interesting aspect about this all is it CAN be verified, if one only takes the time to do it.
A being cannot dissolve. Why not? Well, if its a being it is permanent in its beingness. Nothing can come and change it.
A question: before you were born what did you look like? You may imagine you were a spark of light in some heavenly realm waiting to "be born". Ok, if you were a spark of light, how were you able to change from being a spark of light into something else like a fetus? So, you have to conclude you were not a spark of light inherently. Because if inherently something you would not become anything else, because you lack to components of anything outside of what you are. By what means could you transform into anything other than what you inherently are? So you were never born, because you have no inherent exisitence of a being to "be born". You cannot say your inherent exisitence looks like you look now, at age 20 age 30 age 40 and so on, because you are continually changing, so there is no permanent you that can be located. You are not intrinsically a child, you are not intrinsically a teenager, you are not intrinsically an adult, you are not intrinsically an elderly. You may be an adult right now, but you are changing.
And the other side of the logic to be examined is not being. That would be nothingness, non experience of phenomena. Nihilism. We know that is not so either, so non-being cannot be inherently what we are either. Because if we were nothing, thats nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
Why is it worth examining this? Because if not examined, you are believing in an erroneous view of being (absolutism) or non-being (nihilism). The root of ignorance prevails. How can a warrior dart past the eagle or a Buddhist practitioner obtain full enlightenment with such misconceptions about reality? Its not enough to just dismiss the eagle concept without understanding it. Its very contradictory. The eagle rules over man, but a warrior can dart past it and be free, but there is no eagle or eagle's emanations. To be content with this statement is not enough, because nothing has been said here, its all been thrown into contradiction. So, it should be examined.
If there is no eagle, what does a warrior have to contend with? If nothing rules over man, why would any man be prisoners to anything in any way? What would there be to achieve? Obviously what has to be overcome in this Toltec belief is the ignorance of being and not being. There is no muddying of waters, the understanding of both east and west is the same.