08-27-2010, 12:00 AM
"In my book Form (including thoughts, emotions - all manifestations) is tonal, Emptiness is nagual the elusive element that gives energy and room to all forms."
Ok, and the way you perceive it, can you have one without the other? That is, can there be form without emptiness, or emptiness without form?
Really its not a question (rather rhetorical), because I cannot perceive how it could be so...form without emptiness or emptiness without form. This tells me form is emptiness and emptiness is form. So to distinguish between tonal and nagual is done in relative truth but is not ultimately so, as everything is empty.
We may distinguish and define, but that is not an all inclusive act, nor is the elephant truly definable, as all is empty. We must understand folly. Otherwise we take our acts and thoughts to be fixed and serious affairs.
You spoke of social games played in the tonal. Its actually the opposite when it occurs in perception...people take their tonal perception ( imagined solidity, essence) so seriously and thus they become obsessed with gain, influence, competition, fear, separation. Their games are not perceived as games, but as important acts in a universe that seems to have permanent attributes of solidified manifestations. And its this false idea of permanence (and solidity of form) that makes everyone behave in such a way as to be at odds with their environment.
In other words, people give the elephant essence and then act upon that as if that was real. So truly the elephant is not in the room in the sense we don't have to give it essence.
Taking the tonal as important, an example... a Muslim (not all) will take his religion so seriously and permanent as to blow himself and others up in the name of Allah. This is not a game for him, perhaps if he did perceive folly, he could withdraw from his obsessions. But instead he is much too serious and his acts are too important (solid to him) because he gives form essence.
But this part I question,
You said: Humans are just living in it as a Dreamstate completly absorbed - They don't see that it is unreal. If they did [see it was unreal] they wound see the elephant.
I say the opposite, people perceive an elephant (a problem or separate object of import) because they don't see it is unreal. To realize emptiness would be to not pay into the idea and influence of "elephant" that they or others would make of it. So, most people see an elephant and it often bothers them, how they respond depends on them, but they don't seize the opportunity, due to perceived solidity, to dissolve the apparentness of elephant via not making it of essence. They prefer (not much choice really) to have "their problems" and blow them out of proportion and then either avoid the problem (they created) or else combat it depending on their character.
So is there an elephant in the room? If we make it so, yes, because perception is nine tenths of the law.
To embrace folly is to accept relative experience of phenomena for what it is, impermanent and not of essence. Reality then is dreamlike, in terms of... its all folly. Its not saying we take it carelessly, but rather we don't take ourselves or others so seriously nor see our acts as important (permanent) ultimately.Then we have freedom and cannot become ensnared into 'belief systems' or influence from others belief systems.
Ok, and the way you perceive it, can you have one without the other? That is, can there be form without emptiness, or emptiness without form?
Really its not a question (rather rhetorical), because I cannot perceive how it could be so...form without emptiness or emptiness without form. This tells me form is emptiness and emptiness is form. So to distinguish between tonal and nagual is done in relative truth but is not ultimately so, as everything is empty.
We may distinguish and define, but that is not an all inclusive act, nor is the elephant truly definable, as all is empty. We must understand folly. Otherwise we take our acts and thoughts to be fixed and serious affairs.
You spoke of social games played in the tonal. Its actually the opposite when it occurs in perception...people take their tonal perception ( imagined solidity, essence) so seriously and thus they become obsessed with gain, influence, competition, fear, separation. Their games are not perceived as games, but as important acts in a universe that seems to have permanent attributes of solidified manifestations. And its this false idea of permanence (and solidity of form) that makes everyone behave in such a way as to be at odds with their environment.
In other words, people give the elephant essence and then act upon that as if that was real. So truly the elephant is not in the room in the sense we don't have to give it essence.
Taking the tonal as important, an example... a Muslim (not all) will take his religion so seriously and permanent as to blow himself and others up in the name of Allah. This is not a game for him, perhaps if he did perceive folly, he could withdraw from his obsessions. But instead he is much too serious and his acts are too important (solid to him) because he gives form essence.
But this part I question,
You said: Humans are just living in it as a Dreamstate completly absorbed - They don't see that it is unreal. If they did [see it was unreal] they wound see the elephant.
I say the opposite, people perceive an elephant (a problem or separate object of import) because they don't see it is unreal. To realize emptiness would be to not pay into the idea and influence of "elephant" that they or others would make of it. So, most people see an elephant and it often bothers them, how they respond depends on them, but they don't seize the opportunity, due to perceived solidity, to dissolve the apparentness of elephant via not making it of essence. They prefer (not much choice really) to have "their problems" and blow them out of proportion and then either avoid the problem (they created) or else combat it depending on their character.
So is there an elephant in the room? If we make it so, yes, because perception is nine tenths of the law.
To embrace folly is to accept relative experience of phenomena for what it is, impermanent and not of essence. Reality then is dreamlike, in terms of... its all folly. Its not saying we take it carelessly, but rather we don't take ourselves or others so seriously nor see our acts as important (permanent) ultimately.Then we have freedom and cannot become ensnared into 'belief systems' or influence from others belief systems.