07-14-2010, 12:03 AM
Tiff wrote:
"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. " ~Gonzo
Gonzo, why should other people's definitions conclude your own understanding?
Perhaps I'm lazy. When I encounter notions with which I agree, I'm satisfied, and certainly if there is a certain amount of poetry and in the case of that Gautama quote, many levels of meaning and implication.
Tiff wrote:Even though you disagree with what I put forth, know that I absolutely am not just taking Nagarjuna's word on things. You seem stuck at this idea that we just have to accept notions that seem most reasonable to us because we can't truly know. But this stops you from releasing your notions then, even when your notions are not prefect in logical construction, you accept this because you believe there is no way to know so "I'll just settle on this one because its just as good as that one." But why? There is no need to have any notion then, correct? Is it that you feel you should choose a notion in hopes it's correct, and when you die, this notion if correctly followed will allow your conscious journey to continue?
I'm a computer programmer which suits my tendency to deal in black and white, or re binary, on or off. I look at a potential existence after death in a binary fashion. That is, either we continue in some fashion, or we don't. No one alive knows. If we don't continue, if we disintegrate entirely, then we will not have the awareness or consciousness to be aware we have disintegrated, so it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if we continue, there are many theories describing how we might and what may lie ahead. Those are all theories, regardless of any logical examination. That being the case, it seems reasonable to me to choose whichever one suits one's fancy.
Tiff wrote:Thoughts that create form, how so? Though is dormant, non-existent without form to reflect upon, just as form would be the same (unknown without thought). So neither are the creator of the other. So why continue to believe thought creates form when thought defines itself via form? Why have you ceased in your interest to examine? Why are you taking other people's word on things?
I don't know how thought creates form, however, I've had the experience of "creative imagining" and it works, a rather practical demonstration of thought creating form. I tend to take the words of others when they correspond with my own notions. In most cases, their phrasing and style is superior to mine.
Tiff wrote:I think to some people giving up an idea of source is an uncomfortable contemplation. Because if source can be accessed,(according to them) its perceived source can grant privileges to those who connect with it. You may not fall into this category, but still we learn to adopt many beliefs unexamined just by interreation with other people's ideas of things. And when we respect such people we can follow what they say and feel quite content upon their conclusions. This is what I feel you have done with those you have mentioned. If you perceive them as authorities on awareness, then its a situation of following them. Nagarjuna's work is not at all like this. With him, you dive into what is put forth and decide for yourself. Even, in a way, try to prove what he says as wrong. I'm referring here to the middle way text.
In my opinion, Nagarjuna, as with other philosophers, is welcome to his opinions. I've tried to read him, and failed to understand him. Therefore, I can neither prove him wrong, nor prove him right. Bottom line, it doesn't matter to me. I prefer what appears to be true as expessed in Haiku, as well as what is expressed in "The Blue Cliff Record".
Tiff wrote:You talked about essential zen, well within your understanding does not essential zen include the realization of emptiness?
No. In fact, it is the exact opposite, perhaps called "fullness". In my opinion, the essence of Zen is an absolute appreciation of what is in the moment. It does not matter whether it is maya, insubstantial, empty, or void. It is taken at face value. We are here to experience what is here, not, in my opinion, to see through it or to declare it null and void. That is, using the "Matrix" analogy, I prefer the red wine, the steak and the cigar. Or in other words, the mud, the blood and the beer, and above all, the drama.
"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. " ~Gonzo
Gonzo, why should other people's definitions conclude your own understanding?
Perhaps I'm lazy. When I encounter notions with which I agree, I'm satisfied, and certainly if there is a certain amount of poetry and in the case of that Gautama quote, many levels of meaning and implication.
Tiff wrote:Even though you disagree with what I put forth, know that I absolutely am not just taking Nagarjuna's word on things. You seem stuck at this idea that we just have to accept notions that seem most reasonable to us because we can't truly know. But this stops you from releasing your notions then, even when your notions are not prefect in logical construction, you accept this because you believe there is no way to know so "I'll just settle on this one because its just as good as that one." But why? There is no need to have any notion then, correct? Is it that you feel you should choose a notion in hopes it's correct, and when you die, this notion if correctly followed will allow your conscious journey to continue?
I'm a computer programmer which suits my tendency to deal in black and white, or re binary, on or off. I look at a potential existence after death in a binary fashion. That is, either we continue in some fashion, or we don't. No one alive knows. If we don't continue, if we disintegrate entirely, then we will not have the awareness or consciousness to be aware we have disintegrated, so it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if we continue, there are many theories describing how we might and what may lie ahead. Those are all theories, regardless of any logical examination. That being the case, it seems reasonable to me to choose whichever one suits one's fancy.
Tiff wrote:Thoughts that create form, how so? Though is dormant, non-existent without form to reflect upon, just as form would be the same (unknown without thought). So neither are the creator of the other. So why continue to believe thought creates form when thought defines itself via form? Why have you ceased in your interest to examine? Why are you taking other people's word on things?
I don't know how thought creates form, however, I've had the experience of "creative imagining" and it works, a rather practical demonstration of thought creating form. I tend to take the words of others when they correspond with my own notions. In most cases, their phrasing and style is superior to mine.
Tiff wrote:I think to some people giving up an idea of source is an uncomfortable contemplation. Because if source can be accessed,(according to them) its perceived source can grant privileges to those who connect with it. You may not fall into this category, but still we learn to adopt many beliefs unexamined just by interreation with other people's ideas of things. And when we respect such people we can follow what they say and feel quite content upon their conclusions. This is what I feel you have done with those you have mentioned. If you perceive them as authorities on awareness, then its a situation of following them. Nagarjuna's work is not at all like this. With him, you dive into what is put forth and decide for yourself. Even, in a way, try to prove what he says as wrong. I'm referring here to the middle way text.
In my opinion, Nagarjuna, as with other philosophers, is welcome to his opinions. I've tried to read him, and failed to understand him. Therefore, I can neither prove him wrong, nor prove him right. Bottom line, it doesn't matter to me. I prefer what appears to be true as expessed in Haiku, as well as what is expressed in "The Blue Cliff Record".
Tiff wrote:You talked about essential zen, well within your understanding does not essential zen include the realization of emptiness?
No. In fact, it is the exact opposite, perhaps called "fullness". In my opinion, the essence of Zen is an absolute appreciation of what is in the moment. It does not matter whether it is maya, insubstantial, empty, or void. It is taken at face value. We are here to experience what is here, not, in my opinion, to see through it or to declare it null and void. That is, using the "Matrix" analogy, I prefer the red wine, the steak and the cigar. Or in other words, the mud, the blood and the beer, and above all, the drama.