Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Gonzo, just so your contradictions are crystal clear to you...
"So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is."~ Gonzo
"I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort." ~Gonzo
"We progress through various soul levels - infant, baby, young, mature, old - and eventually, we "graduate", having learned all we can from being in human form." ~Gonzo
in other words, awaken to another level.
"According to Monroe's "trip reports", beyond the realm of human, lie at least seven more levels, and these really are what I was referring to. They have names and some description, but I would have to dig them up. The process, however, appears to be the same...more lessons, more learning, more experience." ~ Gonzo
more awakening to.
So in one breath you say nothing to awaken to, then in another you describe a very distinct process of evolution towards....realizing the buddha-nature because its is not heir apparent to us and thus we need to progress through stages to realize it.
We have a problem with the definition of "awaken". What you call awakening I call learning, or evolution as a process of self-discovery. The "awakening" I refer to is supposedly the process of achieving enlightenment, either the gradual or the sudden...also that state alluded to in Plato's analogy of the cave.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:nemo quoted : "He maintained that 'to comprehend' is to fix our attention on a specific point, from where things can be explained. The more accepted that point is by people in general, the truer we find it.
"But the universe is not reasonable, its essence is beyond all description. Security and common sense are islands floating around in a bottomless sea, and we only cling to them out of fear.
"If you continue on the path of knowledge, you will soon discover that explanations are placebos, since they never fulfill what they promise. For each thing they clarify, they generate a trail of contradictions. In fact, we never understand anything; true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting. That is the nature of the lessons of the nagual."
Nemo,
Know that even you yourself are not outside of this rationalization. What you present here in this thread is your rational and you use others acceptance to help reinforce it, such as this quote you give reinforces your own POV. It too is rational.
"explanations are placebos"
Yet you provide via your own words...explanations of what you believe rationally.
"But the universe is not reasonable"
Yet here you are reasoning with us about this very point.
"its essence is beyond all description"
Yet you describe it to us (multiuniverse posts).
"In fact, we never understand anything"
Yet you feel you DO understand.
"true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting."
How can there be a teaching then if, as you said, there's nothing to understand? Because even bodily knowledge would convey understanding.
Its one thing to frown upon rationalization, but to use the very vehicle of it to do this is simply contradictory and actually is an adherence to rationality itself.
This is a distorting by a lack of comprehension of what I have been saying . To clarify reason and explanations, have their place, and I have aligned myself with explanations that have resonated the best with my experience and reason.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiffany, A most reasonable explanation to me below and what I believe is meant by Darting past the Eagle. Developing your own energy body, and maintaining your personal identity.
"Encounters With The Nagual" - ©2004 by Armando
Torres
Part II. Warriors' Dialogue
The Sorcerer's Alternative
I asked him if an ordinary person has any chance of
surviving death.
He answered that there is always one possibility: The way of
the warrior.
"If you want to understand this, don't look at it in
black and white. See it more in terms of movements of the assemblage point. The
challenge of a warrior is to fix his attention, and fight to maintain the
awareness of his individuality even after his departure.
"When we reach a certain threshold of perception, we
see that physical death is a challenge. Just as there are two ways of living,
there are two ways of dying; in both we can act as impeccable warriors - or as
unconscious idiots. That difference is everything."
"Do you mean that what happens after death depends on
how we prepare for it?"
Perceiving the intention of my question, he answered:
"Yes, but not in the way you want to interpret it. The
idea that being good or complying with certain commandments will facilitate
things is a fallacy which has been transmitted to us by the social order. The
only preparation that is worthwhile is to take on the rigors of the way of the
warrior, which teaches us how to save energy and be impeccable.
"Since there are two forms of living and dying, there
are also two kinds of people: those who feel immortal, and those who are
already dead. The first ones harbor hopes, the last ones do not. A warrior is
somebody who knows that his time is already up, but still continues to fight,
because that is his nature. If you look into his eyes, you will find
emptiness."
"But then what is the sorcerer's alternative really
about?"
"There is only one way for a man to be ahead of his own
end: Through managing his energy. That work consists of dreaming, stalking and
recapitulation. These three techniques together give one result: The completion
of the energy body.
"In a general sense, the duration of our existence
depends in great measure on how we treat our energy. We leave this life filled
to the brim with everyday concerns, we are eroded by the things we see and
touch, and for that reason we die. But if we call back to ourselves all that
vital force through recapitulation, death can no longer be the same, because we
will have our totality.
"From the seers' point of view, a warrior who has
recapitulated his life does not die. His attention is so compact that it is one
continuous and coherent line; it is not dispersed. His recapitulation never
ends, it continues for eternity, because it is the work of retracing his steps,
of existing on his own and being complete.
"Just like we need a certain quantity of experience to
function as individuals, a sorcerer requires sufficient practice in the second
attention to be a true sorcerer; otherwise, he won't be prepared when the time
comes, and he will depart into infinity as an incomplete sorcerer.
Nevertheless, a warrior who struggled all his life to reach the parameters of
impeccability does have a second chance . He can gather the events of his
existence, and pick up the scattered energy in order to pass into the world of
the nagual."
I asked him what a sorcerer does in that world.
He answered:
"For most people, to die is to speechlessly enter
something very unfamiliar, much like what we experience in ordinary dreams.
There, nothing has a linear sequence, and the concepts of time, space, and
gravity do not apply. Imagine what a warrior with the control of his dreaming
double can do on a journey of that nature! No doubt you can see that this is a
great feat of awareness.
"A sorcerer is somebody who spends his life tuning
himself through arduous discipline. When his time arrives, he faces death like
a new stage in his travel along the path. Unlike to an ordinary man, he doesn't
try to soothe his fear with false hopes.
"The warrior departs for his definitive journey filled
with joy, and his death greets him and allows him to keep his individuality
like a trophy. His sense of being is so finely tuned that he becomes pure
energy, and disappears with the fire from within. In that way, he is able to
extend his individuality for thousands of millions of years."
"Thousands of millions?"
"That's it. We are children of the Earth, it is our
ultimate source. The option of sorcerers is to unite with the awareness of the
Earth, for as long as the Earth will live."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Now what will it be...darting past the eagle? or perhaps, farting past the eagle?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
“Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of
sobriety, and at the same time they must shy away from those qualities in order
to be completely free and open to the wonders and mysteries of existence.” (DJ
giving eg. of contradictions) Lex
This
may sum up the difference in us. I see what DJ is getting at here, for
you to label it as a contradiction is easy, he was aware of that
himself. What you seem to be missing is the functional middle ground. Nemo
Nemo I did not label it as a contradiction DJ did. Here is the preceding paragraph, which I did not quote, hence my mentioning it to begin with for the sake of context and integrity.
"They didn't develop anything," he said. "They found unquestionable truths by means of their seeing. Those truths are arranged in terms of supposedly blatant contradictions, that's all."
Then.....
“Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of
sobriety, and at the same time they must shy away from those qualities in order
to be completely free and open to the wonders and mysteries of existence.” (DJ
giving eg. of contradictions) Lex
I have no problem with contradictions. I was in no way trying to imply that DJ or CC were contradicting themselves.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The perspective that I have come up with theories is wrong. Nemo
But it just seems so speculative, what you say about multiverses, creating separate entities. Then to build upon these speculations with rational...you see my point.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Secondly the time when rational explanations have had value for me has ended, you still find value in them, why? Nemo.
First and foremost compassion.
Secondly, I know that what we are ultimately dealing with is non-conceptual and is available.
However like DJ I see that the tonal is not so easily disposed of nor should it be. Premature discarding of this aspect of our lives is dangerous.
For you to say rational explanations have no more value for you is why I think you have more in common with the ancient seers and not DJ.
Got to keep that tonal impeccable, fighting fit otherwise you become as useless as Silvio Manuel, and you may as well begone or you will just sit around waiting.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Silvio Manuel, "useless" is news to me lol. Does he know that? DJ mentioned a time when there were compassionate seers and they were no better off.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:Tiff, you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo very full of your words, opinions and explanations as you constantly take the mystery out of mystery.Ninth you are sooooooooooooooooooooo focused on me as a person you dislike instead of the discussion at hand.
But that which you refer to is not a discussion between you and me, its between Gonzo and me at the moment. If Gonzo didn't want to have a discussion then I wouldn't want to either. I do feel he is okay with everything as its occurring so then its only you who is not. Regardless, if no one here wanted to have a discussion I would not engage. Its no big deal. I happen to be finding this thread very enlightening. And am glad others have participated here to make it so.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?I don't know, and I don't know if I DID know if it would make any substantial difference anywhere.
Perhaps it's simplistic but I prefer the notion presented by Richard Bach in "Illusions", when he says, "We are the otters of the universe." To me, that has great implications. Here's the full quote:
We are game-playing, fun-having creatures; we are the otters of the universe. We cannot die, we cannot hurt ourselves any more than illusions on the screen can be hurt."The Play's the thing", as Willie said.
Okay, so you say you don't know and its interesting to note that Nagarjuna does not explain or prove essence, he negates it. He shows how it
cannot "be" what its believed by many to be. Those that believe it have
not fully examined their own beliefs to see that such beliefs cannot be accounted for.
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.
If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:Gonzo wrote:
Well, having just read the article you pointed to, I must recant. I especially enjoyed the analogy of lighting one candle with another.Gonzo, which article are you referring to?
Your post http://sorcery.yuku.com/r...Objects.html#reply-25162 specifically the essay on rebirth.
Okay, thanks. The reason I asked is because I didn't see about the "one candle lighting another" quote so was not sure you were referring to my article. About rebirth, I'm okay with that, its cyclic exisitence, that which arises due to ignorance. Are you saying you perceive I don't support the idea of rebirth in any form?
BTW, my main reason for the article though was to show dependent arising as an original teaching of Gautama.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
It was unecessary for me to bring Silvio into this. Its there in Eagle's Gift.
As for compassion. Compassion is not for seers but for those caught in cyclic existence.
DJ mentioned a time when there were compassionate seers and they were no better off. Nemo
And you have been able to corroborate this how?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:Gonzo, just so your contradictions are crystal clear to you...
"So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is."~ Gonzo
"I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort." ~Gonzo
"We progress through various soul levels - infant, baby, young, mature, old - and eventually, we "graduate", having learned all we can from being in human form." ~Gonzo
in other words, awaken to another level.
"According to Monroe's "trip reports", beyond the realm of human, lie at least seven more levels, and these really are what I was referring to. They have names and some description, but I would have to dig them up. The process, however, appears to be the same...more lessons, more learning, more experience." ~ Gonzo
more awakening to.
So in one breath you say nothing to awaken to, then in another you describe a very distinct process of evolution towards....realizing the buddha-nature because its is not heir apparent to us and thus we need to progress through stages to realize it.
We have a problem with the definition of "awaken". What you call awakening I call learning, or evolution as a process of self-discovery. The "awakening" I refer to is supposedly the process of achieving enlightenment, either the gradual or the sudden...also that state alluded to in Plato's analogy of the cave.
Words are only meant to get to the understanding at root. The understanding that we both share is that all beings have work to do to realize enlightenment. And the reason this arose is you said about essential Zen, "Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening."
I'm saying to you that even you do not believe this. You do support a process, if you prefer not to call it awakening, it still is by another name the same quality we both refer to. So Gonzo I really don't see why you maintain we have any different views on this at all. Nor how Essentuial Zen has a different view. Our nature is already enlightened and we awaken to this gradually via process, clearing away obscurations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nemo,
I started this thread to talk about emptiness and objects. I related this to DJ because he thought this had to do with what he calls the first truth about awareness. Like DJ, I still think this is worth talking about. I realize this is a very obscure topic and is not easy to approach but again DJ states this is what the first truth of awareness is about.
Correct me if I am wrong......but it seems that rather than engage the topic you would rather make this a sort of challenge between Buddhism and Toltec sorcery. Now if Buddhism seems to be more informative concerning this subject what can I say? Should we not learn from this?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:As for compassion. Compassion is not for seers but for those caught in cyclic existence.
Yes, and its a beautiful thing. Especially considering we are all caught in ignorance. Anyone not claiming this would in essence be saying they are Buddha, or Christ or Muhammad fully realized, or whoever is fully enlightened depending on one's belief or religion. In which case I would ask, why are you at an internet forum then? But truly I don't think anyone here claims to be "all seeing or all knowing" at this juncture. In which case, we are in need of the compassion of those who are further progressed and can teach us because they hold a compassion view of our ignorance.
Its said of Kuan Yin, she attained nirvana, but on looking back at sentient beings, she saw that many suffered in ignorance. She then vowed to remain in samsara to help those very beings become enlightened like her, so for this she became a Bodhisattva (the very meaning of the term is to help others) . This is a beautiful thing, I see no value in trashing it or calling it weak, it truly takes tremendous self-lessness to decide to do something like this, because nirvana was hers for the taking, yet she chose to use her realizations here and its said she manifests in any form, ...as a beggar on the street, as a business man, as a housewife, an animal... any form that is needed when needed.
Personally, I have had encounters with people at the right place and time and wondered "did this person exist as I know myself to exist?" because their appearance seemed to be for the purpose to show the way, offer a teaching, at that moment.
Now if looked at as a mere legend, its still fine because it simply demonstrates selflessness. So whether its Toltec or Buddhist belief, selflessness (lack of ego) is the qualifier. To say "I only care about my own attainments, to hell with others" this will lead to a reinforcement of ego, separateness. The idea is to let go all strong holds of self.
In Buddhism, those in cyclic exisitence use compassion, to become like the Bodhisattvas and liberate from samsara. So we are imperfect but via showing compassion we learn to let go of attachments. So compassion helps us in two ways...the compassion shown to us (or ignorance reversed), and the compassion we show in return (sharing our wisdom). Anyone who is a loving parent shows compassion, anyone who was loved by a parent was shown compassion. This does not refer to love in any negative sense, but rather anytime true selflessness was demonstrated. We see it in nature too. A mother or father will die saving the life of their offspring. Some people prefer to remove all emotion from this and say its merely the survival instinct, regardless of what one calls it, it is selflessness. A lack of concern for "self" or protection merely of self, to that of serving something greater, this is compassion (not to be confused with love).
Compassion is strength, such as, mother Teresa working tirelessly into her 80's. The Dali Lama being able to bring positiveness to the situation in Tibet among other things.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo,
Reasonableness is inescapable, we all must employ it, even you yourself could not operate outside this. The only ones I have ever seen that I could describe as unreasonable are people who are completely insane so as to not be able to communicate in a reasonable manner. This is not to say they are not reasoning, but that their sense of doing so is unable to communicate meaningfully to mine (not that I have tried to any degree nor interacted with such people), but observing their interactions with others.
If you say you can slip into reasonableness but then out of it, this is not a big deal. We all do this. We all experience chaos and order. Chaos has no value to us until we put it into some kind of organization. Just as pure organization would have no value without the element of change (chaos) to make that order dynamic.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:
ninth octave wrote:
Tiff, you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo very full of your words, opinions and explanations as you constantly take the mystery out of mystery.Ninth you are sooooooooooooooooooooo focused on me as a person you dislike instead of the discussion at hand.
But that which you refer to is not a discussion between you and me, its between Gonzo and me at the moment. If Gonzo didn't want to have a discussion then I wouldn't want to either. I do feel he is okay with everything as its occurring so then its only you who is not. Regardless, if no one here wanted to have a discussion I would not engage. Its no big deal. I happen to be finding this thread very enlightening. And am glad others have participated here to make it so.
Tiff, I only know you by your words and what you have to say about everything. The majority of this thread's correspondane has been with between 4 interchangable members. Lex, Neo, Tiff , Gonzo. It is no big deal when there is really only 4 dominating participants. How do we talk about nonduality? This is my interest.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Words! Tao is beyond words.
Yesterday never happened.
Tomorrow never will.
Today does not exist.
Seng Ts'an - Hsin Hsin Ming
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
4 dominant people? True, because we are having a back and forth discussion,lol, hellloooo. Its called exchanging questions to each other in posts. In other words, Gonzo says something to me, I say somethign back, he responds to that...
How do you, ninth, talk about non-duality? Talk about non-duality. Make a post on it. And if others join in they obviously were interested in a discussion with you. I in no way am preventing you from having this opportunity to discuss non-duality. You don't even need my participation to have the discussions you want to have.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Non-duality is reality before we start thinking about it. In essence there is no way to express it but discussion can hint at it and bring us to realize it as long as we don't remain entangled in words and their powerful hypnotic effect. Obviously the realized ones had a lot to say about it! Too much? Too little? I guess it depends how much conceptual views one has to deconstruct in oneself.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Zen forum...a new thread has not been created in a while. To explore other aspects of Buddhism, and there are many. I know Lex created this thread to discuss dependent arising. So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol. Those that do not support or are not sure, I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with us about it in a discussion. That's makes it worthwhile for both involved.
Those who just don't agree but don't care to discuss it, why not start your own threads about what you believe Zen is? Zen being a school of Mahayana Buddhism, BTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana (see schools)
And if this topic comes to an end anytime soon, I don't think Lex minds, I know I don't, and he and I can just go back to emailing each other about dependent arising, and more importantly, beyond that basic understanding. So it matters not, really. Not to sound ungrateful. I really appreciate those who sincerely engaged here. But if after all this discussion you still don't see the point of Nagarjuna, ok, we will both get tired of the back and forth going no where, and thats ok too. Those who just are not engaging for sincere reasons...but still getting involved here, you just are showing this topic bothers you in some way that you want to change its direction. But, just to put the idea out there, again, the Zen forum is open for anyone wanting to start a new discussion heading in a different direction...stating the obvious because it seems it needs to be stated.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Okay, so you say you don't know and its interesting to note that Nagarjuna does not explain or prove essence, he negates it. He shows how it cannot "be" what its believed by many to be. Those that believe it have not fully examined their own beliefs to see that such beliefs cannot be accounted for.
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Whoa. I did not negate essence, nor deny its existence...I said I didn't know its origin.
You asked
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh?
Tiff wrote:Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.I agree.
Tiff wrote:If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.What about the third alternative? It has always been?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Okay, thanks. The reason I asked is because I didn't see about the "one candle lighting another" quote so was not sure you were referring to my article.
I was referring to the Wiki article your post linked to. Here's the quote from the Wiki article:
Some English-speaking Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" or "re-becoming" (Sanskrit: punarbhava; Pali: punabbhava) to "reincarnation" as they take the latter to imply a fixed entity that is reborn.[7] It is said to be the "evolving consciousness" (Pali: samvattanika viññana, M.1.256)[8][9] or "stream of consciousness" (Pali: viññana sotam, D.3.105).[10] that reincarnates. The early Buddhist texts make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life.[11] The lack of a fixed self does not mean lack of continuity. In the same way that a flame is transferred from one candle to another,there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next: they are neither identical nor completely distinct.
About rebirth, I'm okay with that, its cyclic exisitence, that which arises due to ignorance. Are you saying you perceive I don't support the idea of rebirth in any form?No.
BTW, my main reason for the article though was to show dependent arising as an original teaching of Gautama.Heh...well, as usual, I read the parts that interested me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Words are only meant to get to the understanding at root.Indeed. And the word "awaken" has many nuances of meaning which I think are quite relevant here. In other words, it is not, as my grandmother used to say, a matter of picking the fly **** out of the pepper.
The literal meaning obviously is to waken from sleep. The meaning we are dealing with here, however, is a philosophical one, a matter of awareness entering a new state. Essentially it is an analogy.
Tiff wrote:The understanding that we both share is that all beings have work to do to realize enlightenment. And the reason this arose is you said about essential Zen, "Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening."OK. Yet another tack.
There's another quip from The Blue Cliff Record, a koan actually, that goes like this:
"Teacher, what is Nirvana?"
"What did you call it before you opened your mouth?"
The notion here could as well be applied to enlightenment. In other words, before you encountered the word and the description of the word, was there such a thing? The same goes for awakening.
At the moment I regard the notion of enlightenment as a rather clever trick similar to the tricks don Juan pulled. For example: find your hands in dreaming. The real purpose of that is to get the reader to pay attention to his dreaming. The greater lesson is to learn to become lucid. Likewise, the notion of enlightenment is really a similar encouragement to pay attention to your being...discover the answer to "Who am I?"...achieve the totality of yourself, in don Juan's words.
I still maintain this process is one really of self-discovery, of the uncovering of true nature, a major purpose of recapitulation.
Tiff wrote:I'm saying to you that even you do not believe this. You do support a process, if you prefer not to call it awakening, it still is by another name the same quality we both refer to. So Gonzo I really don't see why you maintain we have any different views on this at all. Nor how Essentuial Zen has a different view. Our nature is already enlightened and we awaken to this gradually via process, clearing away obscurations.Perhaps we are saying the same thing, however, I'll stand by the essence of the prior quote...the notions delude people, when they are taken literally.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I was thinking the core of Nagarjuna's "What's Happening" is his contribution to a teaching in non-dualism. He is trying connect to the moment right now in front of us. Without trying to sound like a space kadet, it is the space that surrounds us freely unattached to anything , not the moment before or ahead of us. It is empty of everything. This is the viewless view I would think in reality where there really is nothing happening here.
|
