Emptiness and Objects

[Tiff]

The link should work if you copy and paste in your browser.

[Tiff]

Here's an interesting consideration on infinity. Following this same kind of logic being presented here, and it IS logic.



Its been said that the reason man has settled upon the theory of infinity is because he finds it more impossible to conceive of an absolute finity. Yet it is impossible for man to grasp both finity and infinity. One merely thinks they have apprehended infinity by "imagining" space without end. But to truly apprehend infinity would be impossible, an end could not be reached. So the mental imagining only implies "it is without end" without one actually being able to experience this directly.



So its important to note, that infinity has been settled upon because man finds it the lesser of two impossibilities: the finite and infinity. But how can there be a lesser impossible thing? If two things are impossible, they are equal in that impossibility. An impossible thing can be no greater or lesser than another impossible thing!



And this in not an argument to disprove infinity. But show that finity has been canceled out by a logic that in its very resting spot is illogical.

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:
This reminds me of the famous koan titled "The Highest meaning of the Holy Truths, wherein there is the following commentary:
By the real truth we understand that it is not existent; by the conventional truth we understand that is is not nonexistent.  That the real truth and the conventional truth are not two is the highest meaning of the holy truths.
(So...)
    "What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?"
    "Empty, without holiness."
(If only you can penetrate "Empty, without holiness", then you can return home and sit in peace.) 
All this amounts to is creating complications.
The problem, the way I see it, is many people feel they have comprehended emptiness, even may feel they exhibit it as a quality, which is missing the value of it. Its not a moral state of integrity, or a state of being in peace, nor holiness, nor not holiness. Its very mundane compared to all the qualities that have been attributed to it. Very difficult to talk about it without obscuring things.
And though its within the mundane, to apprehend it is anything but mundane.
From the Fundamentals text:
 
"Madhyamaka" means "middle way (or path)", and "Madhyamika" means "he who follows the middle way." Nagarjuna's philosophy is an attempt to avoid the extremes of "essentialism" and "nihilism." Essentialism is the view that true reality is made up of eternal, unchanging, independent, and substantial essences (self-essences as well as thing-essences); and nihilism is the view that there are no such essences and that therefore nothing (Latin, nihil) exists at all. Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent, continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words, "empty" (shunya) of essence." 
So the point is not in these words, but to experience directly this. Then one sees where all the confusion and complications are coming from, and is free of them.

[Gonzo]

Tiff wrote:Chapter 2: What's Happening?


1. What has already happened is not now happening. What has not yet happened is not now happening. What is now happening has not already happened, nor has it not yet happened. Doesn't this mean that nothing can happen?

2. What is happening is in the process of happening now. What has already happened and what has not yet happened are not in the process of happening now.

3. How is the happening of the now-happening possible? If there is no happening at all, then the now-happening cannot happen.

4. What is happening now might not happen, but it seems that what is happening now is happening now, doesn't it?

5. If what is happening now is happening now, then, in the happening of what is happening now, there are two happenings: (1) that which is happening now and (2) the happening of that which is happening now.

6. If there are two happenings, then there must be two things that happen (two happeners), for there cannot be a happening without a happener.

7. If we can't say that anything is happening unless there is a happener (something that happens), then if nothing is happening, how could there be a happener (something that happens)?
8. Whatever happens must be either something that happens (a happener) or something that does not happen (a nonhappener). If neither a happener nor a non-happener happens, what else is there that could happen?
9. If nothing happens, there cannot be a happener.
 If there is no happener, then we cannot say that a happener happens.
10. Someone who thinks that a happener happens (that is, that something that happens happens) must also think that there can be a happener even when nothing is happening.
11. If a happener were to happen, then we would have two happenings: (1) the happening of the happener and (2) the happening of the happening.
12. What is happening now doesn't begin with what has already happened, nor does it begin with what has not yet happened, nor does it begin with what is happening now (that is, with itself).
 Where, then, is the beginning of what is happening now?
13. We cannot find the beginning of what is happening now in that which is prior to the beginning of what is happening now (that is, in that which has already come and gone), nor can we find it in that which has not yet happened. Where, then, is it?
14. We can distinguish between (1) what has already happened, (2) what is happening now, and (3) what has not yet happened; but we cannot find the beginning of what is happening now anywhere.
...
[url=http://][/url]www.bergen.edu/phr/121/NagarjunaGC.pdf
What?  I tried reading this and other things Nagarjuna supposedly said, and I wondered if it wasn't a joke.  I have no idea what he's talking about and I certainly do not understand anything he says.

[snowblind]

Sounds like my Philosophy class...throw enough words at something and you sound profound/smart/nagual-like

[Gonzo]

I have to admit, I don't understand and doubt I ever will.



Many years ago, when I encountered Zen, I made several excerpts which are still in the front of my notebook, now with edges worn and the paper yellowing. The first one follows, and to me, personally, rings true. I cannot add to it...I cannot go beyond it. Here it is:


There is nothing in the self, so do not seek falsely; what is attained by false seeking is not real attainment. You just have nothing in your mind and no mind in things; then you will be empty and spiritual, tranquil and sublime. Any talk of beginning or end would all be self-deception. The slightest entanglement of thought is the foundation of the three mires [hell, animality, hungry ghosthood]; a momentarily aroused feeling is a hindrance for ten thousand aeons. The name 'sage' and the label 'ordinary man' are merely empty sounds; exceptional form and mean appearance are both illusions. If you want to seek them, how can you avoid trouble? Even if you despise them, they still become a great source of anxiety. In the end there is no benefit.

[ninth octave]

Yeah, there's a point, and I've experienced it first hand.It'sd to put into words though very liberating.
Tiff, what was liberating for you?

[ninth octave]

When the mind exists undisturbed in the way,
there is no objection to anything in the world,
and when there is no objections to anything,
things cease to be- in the old way.
When no discriminating attachment arises,
the old mindd ceases to exist.
Let go of things as separate existences and the
mind too vanishes.
Likewise when the thinking subject vanishes
so too do the objects created by mind.

[Gonzo]

@Tiff



Would you say your understanding, as difficult as it seems to be to put into words, could mean you have achieved enlightenment?

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:What?  I tried reading this and other things Nagarjuna supposedly said, and I wondered if it wasn't a joke.  I have no idea what he's talking about and I certainly do not understand anything he says.
Yes, some background would be helpful, again, Lex told me and so I'm working from memory...but Nagarjuna prepared the Fundamentals text for another school of Buddists who were entrenched in essentialism. This text was intended as an assault on that errant logic. Same as with the question on infinity and the finite. Questioning the logic the "holds everything together" in a nice tidy package. Taking each piece apart one by one to show the facade--the tightly woven appearance of things, for what it is. To do this he leaves no stone unturned, that's why you see so many statements and seeming contradictions, etc. He is exhausting the mind's tendency to "take hold" and fixate on "something".
Its really only a starting point. And its an exercise on logic but it does deliver you to a new understanding if you work with it for a while. At first I found it tedious too. But I did not find anything in there I could deny was true.

[Tiff]

ninth octave wrote:    Yeah, there's a point, and I've experienced it first hand.It'sd to put into words though very liberating.
Tiff, what was liberating for you?The way the mind had settled upon things and taken them as truths, and then to see this was not so. The liberating aspect was that what had never been questioned before, now was being questioned, and the content that was being questioned (experience of everyday phenomena) was like the fabric that held perception of things together, and to have that undone was like having the stitches taken out of a garment, its no longer a garment. And from there, new understandings emerge from the realizations. A sort of domino effect. The previous logic acted like an anchor, so to release that anchor makes available new perceptions by not being weighed down by old, accepted views of reality.
It goes much deeper from there, and the implications are vast. Some are... my feelings don't get hurt so easily, I can take alot of dislike from others. I don't care if people agree with me or disagree with me. I'm not looking for "an answer to it all", nor am I dismissing curiosity. All these are tied to a network of logic that operates on essentialism. That we are all "individuals" with essences interacting. When we feel so seperated from everything else, we fight it, feel angry and insecure, etc. The only thing that seperates us from others is how we think, so to change the thinking changes this idea of separation. Its thought only that distinguishes objects. All objects (animate and inanimate) are inter-dependent. We don't need to take anyone's word for it we can see this ourselves if we investigate what is actually occurring.
And I did get a very profound answer in the form of perceptual experiences, an intrinsicness "underneath" everything. So it was not like I had to rest upon the feeling I will never understand the mystery. I am tasting the mystery directly.
How about you? I know you have been working with this too. Are you also finding it liberating?

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:I have to admit, I don't understand and doubt I ever will.



Many years ago, when I encountered Zen, I made several excerpts which are still in the front of my notebook, now with edges worn and the paper yellowing. The first one follows, and to me, personally, rings true. I cannot add to it...I cannot go beyond it. Here it is:


There is nothing in the self, so do not seek falsely; what is attained by false seeking is not real attainment. You just have nothing in your mind and no mind in things; then you will be empty and spiritual, tranquil and sublime. Any talk of beginning or end would all be self-deception. The slightest entanglement of thought is the foundation of the three mires [hell, animality, hungry ghosthood]; a momentarily aroused feeling is a hindrance for ten thousand aeons. The name 'sage' and the label 'ordinary man' are merely empty sounds; exceptional form and mean appearance are both illusions. If you want to seek them, how can you avoid trouble? Even if you despise them, they still become a great source of anxiety. In the end there is no benefit.
6 times in this text the word "you" or "your" is mentioned.  The identity of "becoming" empty.
ninth octave wrote:When
the mind exists undisturbed in the way,
there is no objection to
anything in the world,
and when there is no objections to anything,
things
cease to be- in the old way.
When no discriminating attachment
arises,
the old mindd ceases to exist.
Let go of things as
separate existences and the
mind too vanishes.
Likewise when the
thinking subject vanishes
so too do the objects created by mind.
"You" is mentioned here 0 times.
"you will be empty and spiritual, tranquil and sublime." You will be
will be? What are you now if not empty right now, what were you before? What is everything? Are some things empty and some not? Why must you have nothing in your mind to be empty? Is emptiness a state among many other states? If so then it is a thing according to this logic, is it not?

[Tiff]

Gonzo wroteTiff



Would you say your understanding, as difficult as it seems to be to put into words, could mean you have achieved enlightenment?
No, just that I got beyond the logic that stood in the way of seeing how things are. Its enlightening yes, but its not an achievement becasue it was available all the time, its just how things are. The achievement I suppose is to see this by overcoming the challnges to it, so in that sense, yes. But to be more accurate I would say I was already enlightened and just didn't know it before. And that everything is enlightened whether every-thing each sees it as such or not.
Its erroneous to say "I am enlightened in a world of unenlightened beings". This perception will always mislead, because it's not true. Because enlightenment is not a thing to be. If it were just a thing among many other things, what would be enlightening about it?

[lex icon]

What?  I tried reading this and other things Nagarjuna supposedly said, and I wondered if it wasn't a joke.  I have no idea what he's talking about and I certainly do not understand anything he says. Gonzo
Gonzo, thank you for this honesty!
What Nagarjuna is presenting is a way of speaking that does not solely rely upon the 4 assertions for its expression. It undermines the false assumptions of the assertions. What is difficult at first is that it sometimes appears in one breath that he is agreeing with an assertion but upon closer examination he is not. Then he employs double negatives. Its like mental jujitsui. We find ourselves always trying to interpret what he saying according to one or more of the 4 assertions. But what he is speaking of cannot not be classified that way. He is negating or emptying the assertions of their deluding influence. He is unraveling existence itself.
Sounds like my Philosophy class...throw enough words at something and you sound profound/smart/nagual-like Snowblind
Snowblind, well that is one way of dismissing it, so as not to engage.
Most of us have never really questioned existence and how we consider ourselves to be part of it.  
We do not see how we are caught up in existence and do not see how it APPEARS to be occurring or as Nagarjuna says, “happening”.
I'm satisfied with these notions. Whether or not dualism is the "right" way to view existence, or non-dualism is the "right" way to view existence really is of no consequence. It's interesting to discuss, to a point. Gonzo
But what is dualism? How does it operate and can it cease as Nagarjuna is suggesting. You see we throw around these words we have garnered from the East and then think we know what they mean.  Why is it only interesting to a point? Why is it difficult to understand Nagarjuna?
One of the things I enjoy reading Nagarjuna is that it is not some “spiritual” gobblygoop. It is plain “English” (translated). What gets interesting is when reading his words how difficult it is to understand where he is coming from. Now one could chalk that off to just trying to sound profound and intellectual as Snowblind appears to have done or just watch the gyrations your own mind goes through as you wrestle with what is really very simple words. We don’t like not “knowing” where he is coming from.
When we read “spiritual” stuff from any of the spiritual traditions we can read them quite easily and accommodate their ideas even if they are very profound and even foreign to us. That is because we are agreeing or disagreeing with assertions. Even when we totally disagree with some spiritual idea presented by a tradition it does not really disturb us because it leaves consciousness and perceptions, causes and conditions, intact.

Being. Now there is a word we think we are very familiar with and we think being is just about incontestable.  Yet Nagarjuna contests such an assumption.  Now we can just dismiss him or try and understand where he is coming from. What we encounter along the way is the burden of our assumptions. Which Nagarjuna will throw in our face. Why do we think there is any such thing as “being”. If you are the one asserting, either directly or indirectly, with your use of language that there is such a thing then you will find that Nagarjuna is more than willing to explore the notion with you (if you dare). If you have nothing to defend you will enjoy the challenge and find it stimulating to get to the root of how theses assumptions impact us. If you are making an assertion that there is such a thing as “being” then show the accounting etc. How do you know this?
Once it is apparent how the four assertions frame existence itself we can begin dismantling the whole edifice.  I found it helpful to really take a look at what I think I know.  Now I am a very intellectual sort well read etc but actually what I actually know is very little. I do not say this as a false humility, which is popular with some. I found it very liberating, engaging Nagarjuna. I was forced to reassess and it was such a relief to let it all go....ALL THE STUFF I DON”T KNOW!!!! I don’t have to defend it any more I let it go like vapor. lol.
We have falsely attributed realness and being to ourselves and the things/objects that appear in our presence. What we haven’t noticed is the devastating impact of this carelessness. Grasping at appearances as if they had inherent essence of their own can cease completely! It is utterly delusional.

[lex icon]

Sanskrit title: Yuktisastika-karika Tibetan title: rigs pa drug cu pa
Homage to the youthful Manjushri.
Homage to the great Sage Who taught dependent origination, The means by which are eliminated Arising and destruction.
1 Those whose mind has transcended Existence and non-existence and abides no more [in them], They’ve realized the meaning of conditioned existence, The profound absence of objectification.
2 First non-existence, the source of all faults, Had already been undone; Now listen to the reasoning That undoes existence itself as well.
3 If things were truly existent, As imagined by the childish, What is the reason they’re not accepted As liberated with no entity [of existence at all]?
SIXTY STANZAS OF REASONING
Nagarjuna
4 One is not freed by existence; One does not transcend samsara through non-existence; It’s through understanding existence and non-existence That the great beings are liberated.
5 Those who do not see ultimate reality Grasp at samsara and nirvana; But those who see ultimate reality possess No pretentions of world and its’ transcendence.
6 Both samsara and nirvana, Neither of these two exists; The thorough understanding of cyclic existence- This is referred to as “nirvana.”
7 Just as cessation is imputed On the disintegration of an arisen entity; So too the sublime ones accept Cessation that is illusion-like.
1
8 Things cease due to utter destruction, But not due to understanding their conditioned nature; To whom will this be evident? How can “destruction” be possible?
9 If [grasping at] aggregates do not cease, Even if afflictions are extinct one’ll not transcend; However when they come to cease, At that instant one attains freedom.
10 When the perfect gnosis sees That things come from ignorance as condition, Nothing will then be objectified, Either in terms of arising or destruction.
11 This is transcendence of sorrow In this very life and one’s task is complete; If, after the knowledge of truth, Differentiations occur here,
12 And even with respect to most subtle things One imputes originations, Such an utterly unskilled person does not see The meaning of conditioned origination.
13 If samsara comes to an end
For a monk whose afflictions are extinguished, Why have the perfectly awakened Buddhas Not explained that [samsara] has beginning?
14 If there were a beginning, then certainly There too would be clinging in the form of dogmas; That which is dependently originated, How can there be its beginning or end?
15 That which has arisen before, How can it cease again later on? Devoid of the limits of beginning and end, The world appears like an illusion.
16 When one views the arising of illusions Or the dissolution of the illusions, One who recognizes illusions is not confused; Those who do not thoroughly crave.
17 Those who sees with their mind That existence is like a mirage and an illusion, They will not be corrupted By views [grasping at] beginning and end.
18 Those who imputes arising and disintegration With relation to conditioned things, They do not understand well the movement Of the wheel of dependent origination.
2
19 That which has originated due to “this” and “that,” That has not done so as its own being; And that which has not arisen as its own being, How can it be called “arisen”?
20 The tranquility derived from extinction of cause, This is understood to be a cessation; That which is not extinguished through its intrinsic nature, How can that be called an “extinguishment”?
21 Since there is nothing that arises, There is nothing that disintegrates; Yet the paths of arising and disintegration Were taught [by the Buddha] for a purpose.
22 By understanding arising, disintegration is understood; By understanding disintegration, impermanence is understood; By understanding how to engage with impermanence, The sublime dharma is understood as well.
23 Those who understand the dependent origination To be utterly devoid of arising and disintegration, Those who have such knowledge will cross The ocean of samsara of dogmatic views.
24 Ordinary beings who hold at entities,
Who, due to distortions of existence and non-existence, Are therefore under the domination of faults of afflictions – They’re being fooled by their own minds.
25 Those who’re learned with respect to the facts, They see that things are impermanent, Deceptive, mere shells, empty and selfless; They see them as utterly isolated.
26 Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify; Rootless, they have no fixed abode; They arise totally from the cause of ignorance, Utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end.
27 Like a plantain tree they have no essence; They resemble the city of Gandharvas; Thus this dreadful world, a city of ignorance, Appears like a magical illusion.
28 Brahma and so on that appear So real to the beings of this world, They’re said to be false to the Noble Ones; Other than that, what more is left?
29 The world blinded by ignorance Follow after the current of desire; The wise, who’re excellent, are free of craving; How can these two be equal at all?
3
30 To those searching for ultimate reality, First one should say that everything exists; Later when they understand the meaning And are free of attachment, then teach the absence.
31 With no understanding of the meaning of absence, But engaging only in mere studies And failing to engage in meritorious acts- Such base people are lost.
32 The karma and their results, And the realms of rebirth are explained; Full knowledge of their natures, And their absence of origination are taught.
33 Just as the Buddhas have spoken of “I” and “mine” for a practical purpose; Likewise they spoke too of “aggregates,” “Elements” and “sense-fields” for practical reasons.
34 Such things spoken of as the “great elements”, These are fully absorbed into consciousness; Since they are dissolved by understanding them, Are they not falsely imputed?
35 Inasmuch as the Conquerors have stated
Nirvana is the sole truth, What learned person would imagine That the rest is not false?
36 As long as the mind remains wavering, So long it remains within Mara’s sphere; If this is so then why is it not reasonable That this [dependent origination] is free of fault?
37 Since the Buddhas have stated That the world is conditioned by ignorance, So why is it not reasonable [to assert] That this world is [a result of] conceptualization?
38 Since it comes to an end When ignorance ceases; Why does it not become clear then That it was conjured by ignorance?
39 That which comes into being from a cause And does not endure without conditions, It disappears as well when conditions are absent- How can this be understood to exist?
40 If the proponents of existence Abide by clinging to real entities, There is nothing to be surprised of; For they live by such a path.
4
41 Deplorable are those who abide By grasping at real entities with contention, While, on the basis of the Buddha’s path, They speak about impermanence of all things.
42 If nothing is observed Through examination of “this” or “that,” What learned person would assert That this or that contention is true?
43 Those who cling to a self Or to the world as unconditioned, They are captivated by the views About arising, permanence, impermanence, and so on.
44 Those who assert the conditioned things As being established in terms of ultimate reality, Why wouldn’t the faults of permanence and so on Not arise within their minds?
45 Those who accept the conditioned things As being neither true nor false, Just like the moon in the water, They are not carried away by dogmatic views.
46 If one has the thesis of real entities,
Awful and vicious views arise, Which give birth to attachment and aversion; From this contentions ensue.
47 This is the cause of all dogmatic views; Without it no afflictions will arise; So if this is understood thoroughly, All views and afflictions will cease.
48 “Who understands this?” one might wonder; It’s those who see dependent origination. The supreme knower of reality has taught That dependent arising is unborn.
49 For those who are suppressed by false knowledge And grasp the untrue to be true, In them arises from attachment A series of grasping and contentions.
50 Those who are great beings, They have neither thesis nor contention; For those who have no thesis, How can there be opposing thesis?
51 Having found a locus one is caught By the twisting snake of afflictions; Those whose minds have no locus, They will not be caught [by this snake].
5
52 In those whose minds possess a locus, Why would the grave poison of afflictions not arise? As for those who abide in between, They too will be caught by the snake of afflictions.
53 Just as the child that thinks it to be real Feels attached to a reflection of form; Likewise, because the worldly beings are ignorant, They are trapped in the cage of objects.
54 The great beings see with their wisdom eye All things like reflections of forms; They do not become stuck In the mire of so-called objects.
55 The childish are attached to forms; The moderate attains detachment; By knowing the nature of forms, Those of supreme intellect are free.
56 One becomes attached [to something]
By thinking of it as pleasant; By turning away from it One becomes devoid of attachment.
57 The faults of mental afflictions that torment Due to false knowledge do not arise To those who understand the meaning Of conceptualizations of real and unreal entities.
58 If one possesses a locus, One becomes attached or detached; But the great beings who’re devoid of locus, They have neither attachment nor detachment.
59 Those who do not waver, even with their fluctuating mind, In such terms as “This is utterly absent,” They’ll cross the unbearable ocean of samsara Agitated by the monster of afflictions.
60 Through this virtue may all beings Gather accumulations of merit and wisdom; May they attain the two sublime Buddha bodies, Which arise from merit and wisdom.
This completes “Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning” composed by master Nagarjuna himself. The Indian abbot Muditashri and the Tibetan translator Patsap Nyima Drak standardized it with further revisions.
© English translation. Geshe Thupten Jinpa. This translation was prepared on the basis of a careful reading of both the Sanskrit original and its Tibetan translation and by consulting Candrakirti’s commentary (Tengyur, Dergé, dbu ma Ya, p.1a – 30b) as well as Je Tsongkhapa’s Notes on the “Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning” (rigs pa drug cu pa’i zin bris, The Collectected Works of Je Tsongkhapa, vol.ba).

[Tiff]

lex icon wrote:Being. Now there is a word we think we are very familiar with and we think being is just about incontestable.  Yet Nagarjuna contests such an assumption.  Now we can just dismiss him or try and understand where he is coming from. What we encounter along the way is the burden of our assumptions. Which Nagarjuna will throw in our face. Why do we think there is any such thing as “being”. If you are the one asserting, either directly or indirectly, with your use of language that there is such a thing then you will find that Nagarjuna is more than willing to explore the notion with you (if you dare). If you have nothing to defend you will enjoy the challenge and find it stimulating to get to the root of how theses assumptions impact us. If you are making an assertion that there is such a thing as “being” then show the accounting etc. How do you know this?
Lex,
First off, great posts you wrote. Agree with all, but this part I do want to mention...
I do think Nagarjuna does acknowledge a being of sorts. As stated in the Fundamental text:
Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to
nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the
world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary
to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent,
continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words,
"empty" (shunya) of essence." 
Selves and things that interact. Actions and responses of interdependent phenomena. Empty of essence but still selves. Still things.
All this means to me is, there is still a life to be lived, by a self who lives it. But in the most inexplicable way such a self can still understand it has no essence while remaining a self. A self who sleeps, a self who awakes, a self who knows other selves, a self who gets sick from a cold, a self who is happy in a moment of warmth of friendship, etc.
Self is only a hindrance when there is perceived essence of self and others. In such a case, all the above and much more becomes completely complicated by the idea of competing with others selves due to a sense of absolute individuality (separation) that is just not there. So once it's experienced this is not so, the sense of "being" changes and yet it goes on just as before. Just like the quote about the mountain.
before mountains was just mountains

then they became non-mountain

now mountain is mountains



So being I would describe as: I look with my eyes and see, I raise my arms and I see my arms being raised, I use my voice and I hear my voice, you use your voice and I hear your voice. Being.
The fact that this "I" is not anywhere to be found does not end phenomenal existence as described.

[lex icon]

being |ˈbēi ng |
present participle of be .
noun
1 existence : the railway brought many towns into being | the moment when the universe came into being.
• living; being alive : holism promotes a unified way of being.
2 [in sing. ] the nature or essence of a person : sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others.
3 a real or imaginary living creature, esp. an intelligent one : animals regarded as primitive beings | alien beings.
• a human being : she felt anxiety about so small and vulnerable a being | a rational being.
a supernatural entity : a being who had made all things.
All this means to me is, there is still a life to be lived, by a self who lives it. But in the most inexplicable way such a self can still understand it has no essence while remaining a self. A self who sleeps, a self who awakes, a self who knows other selves, a self who gets sick from a cold, a self who is happy in a moment of warmth of friendship, etc. Tiffany
Acts 17:28
'For in him (God) we live and move and have our being.
Chapter 7: Arising, Enduring, and Dissolving
20. Therefore, neither being nor non-being can arise, as stated above in Chapter 1, Verse 6.
24.    All living beings that have arisen are subject to aging and death. Are there any living beings that do not age and die?30.    That which is [being] cannot dissolve. That which is [being] cannot not-be.
That which is not [non-being] cannot dissolve. Can the beheaded be beheaded a second time?

Then from 60 Stanzas
26 Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify; Rootless, they have no fixed abode; They arise totally from the cause of ignorance, Utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end.
51 Having found a locus one is caught By the twisting snake of afflictions; Those whose minds have no locus, They will not be caught [by this snake].
58 If one possesses a locus, One becomes attached or detached; But the great beings who’re devoid of locus, They have neither attachment nor detachment.
So do we have a being? If we have being, who or what possesses this being?  Where is this being or where is it “kept”? Did this being begin? Will this being end? If it neither begins nor ends is it eternal?   Nagarjuna has said above,            “   30.    That which is [being] cannot dissolve. “ If it did dissolve (end or cease) then by definition it is not  considered being! If we ARE being then we, by definition, cannot end. 30: That which is [being] cannot not-be. 
What I am trying to point out is that when considering being we need to look at this beyond the appeal of what beings appear to do as a basis for considering being.
Chapter 8: The Agent and the Action
1.    A real agent is not an agent [that is, cannot act]. An unreal (non-existent) agent is not an agent [that is, cannot act].
 2.    That which is [being] does not act. Action in a world of real beings would be action without an agent. An agent in a
world of real beings would be an agent without action.
Chapter 15: Essence and Existence
11.    "An entity with an essence cannot not-exist." This is essentialism. "It existed before, but now it doesn't." This is nihilism.
If this body "gets" a cold should I identify with it as if I had a cold?
If this body dies and turns to dust should I identify with it as if I am now dust or that I am dead?
If anyone wants to "dart past the eagle" this is the kind of close examination that needs to occur. I know of no other way.

[Tiff]

Then I would ask what is your experience of your daily life? Do you feel joy, or sadness? Or are these numb to you?



I talked earlier about suffering, ending it. I mentioned degrees of suffering. I don't feel all suffering has to be ended. Such as, if a loved one dies, and if I looked on this event without any feeling, is not that apathy? And apathy is an awful feeling.



The suffering I think that can be ended is the suffering of seeking essence. Maybe I'm just not as "advanced" as you along the path of transcendence because I still don't see why I would want to stop the experience of empty-being. And that's not meant to sound pretentious. I am honestly saying I still don't see where you are coming from. 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. Controlled folly, but on a path with a heart. Mountain is not-mountain then mountain again.



Also a big part of Buddhism is compassion. Being compassionate. This is hard to do without any attention to being, wouldn't you say? And without compassion there is no beauty. Balance is another aspect. Not taking to any extremes.

[Tiff]

"When absolutism or nihilism is present, we are unable to understand properly either the ultimate nature or the conventional nature of phenomena.

The Middle Way view is the balance that is needed. It negates the fantasized ways of existence, including independent existence, but affirms that all persons and phenomena do exist on a conventional level. That is, although everything lacks independent exisitence, it exists dependently. Persons and phenomena are not solid things with their own immutable and inherent essence. Rather they exist like illusions in that they appear one way, but exist in another. That is, things appear to us as existing independently but this appearance is false, for in fact they exist in dependence of other factors. The Middle Way view enables us to distinguish accurately between what exists and what doesn't and between what to practice and what to abandon. In this way, our collections of wisdom and positive potential--which resemble towns and hermitages of ease and bliss--are protected, and our happiness ensured." ~Tara the Liberator, Thubten Chodron.As long as dependent exisitence is recognized, fully understood and experienced, being will not be an obstacle or false conception to overcome.

[ninth octave]

When I was given "What's Happening? " to read, I thought this could make better sense if were to smoke something funny. I still try to make better sense of  what Nagarjuna is meaning. I did find truth and a bit of humor in verse 6&7.
6) If there are two happenings, then there must be two things that happen (two happeners), for there cannot be a happening without a happener.
7) If we can't say that anything is happening unless there is a happener (something that happens), then if there cannot be a happening, how could there be a happener ( something that happens)?
In retrospect, I think Narajuna is explaining dependent origination. How life is dependent on the chain of previous causes  and effects which never cease but goes on in endless dance of birth, death and rebirth. Desire sets the life force in motion. The first cause is up for grabs in Buddhist literature. I still believe God is the first cause of creation and all else follows.  I do try to  think moreso about the nature of  quantum physics since reading Nagarjuna. I try to veiw things both microscopically and telescopically which in essence is the same truth.  Causes and effects are cyclical it is seen here on earth and in through out the universe. Humans  and every thing,  will rise, fall and die just as stars and galaxies will die and give rise . Every thing  is interdependent on cause and effect.

[Tiff]

Yes the Middle Way, dependent arising...Nagarjuna. His writing, ime can actually transport one to the direct experience of emptiness. Emptiness, like anything else can be misunderstood, fall into the extremes of conception...absolutism and nihilism.

If you believe in a first cause it negates dependent arising though. Because then you are saying everything began with the first cause and would be dependent on the first cause. Nagajuna writes in Chapt 8 The Agent and the Action.

1. A real agent is not an agent [that is, cannot act]. (Nagarjuna's assumption is that the real is permanent and thus cannot change (or act).)

12. We must say that action depends upon the agent, and the agent depends upon the action. Agent and action cannot exist independently of each other.

If god is the creator, he would have to exisit independently (not a product of dependent arising). According to what Nagarjuna is saying, a real thing (creator) would not be able to act due to being independent. An independent thing would be self-contained and could not act outside of itself.

[Tiff]

Tiff wrote:Gonzo wroteTiff



Would you say your understanding, as difficult as it seems to be to put into words, could mean you have achieved enlightenment?
No, just that I got beyond the logic that stood in the way of seeing how things are. Its enlightening yes, but its not an achievement becasue it was available all the time, its just how things are. The achievement I suppose is to see this by overcoming the challnges to it, so in that sense, yes. But to be more accurate I would say I was already enlightened and just didn't know it before. And that everything is enlightened whether every-thing each sees it as such or not.
Its erroneous to say "I am enlightened in a world of unenlightened beings". This perception will always mislead, because it's not true. Because enlightenment is not a thing to be. If it were just a thing among many other things, what would be enlightening about it?
Ultimately I am not happy with this previous response, lol. I don't mean to make it sound like after reading Nagajuna presto, I am fully enlightened. Technically I didn't say this, but it could be interpreted that way. I was moreso meaning to say the direct experience of emptiness is very liberating and is what I perceive as referred to as enlightenment, in which case, everything is already empty and thus enlightened. And the realization is inevitable for all, so thus its not an achievement but rather a guarantee it will be reached, but work has to be done to "get there".
I was reading yesterday about the five Mahayana paths to enlightenment. This better describes the degrees of realization involved. I am at the third path at the moment.
There are five Mahayana paths--the paths of accumulation, preparation, seeing, meditation, and no more learning--that a practitioner develops sequentially.
"Blissful" refers to the path of accumulation, the first path. We enter this path when we first generate unfabricated, spontaneous bodhichitta every time we see or think about a sentient being. The path of accumulation is blissful because we have the taste of emptiness that comes through the first two wisdoms, the wisdoms of hearing and thinking about emptiness. Although our wisdom is not fully developed, it starts to cut through the elaborations of inherent exisitence and brings bliss in the mind.   
"Virtuous" refers to the path of preparation. The demarcation between the path of accumulation and the path of preparation is when one has developed the union of shamatha (meditative quiescence) and vipashyana (special insight) focused on emptiness. Althogh one has realized emptiness, at this level its a conceptual realization, an inference. One's perception of emptiness is not yet direct and non-conceptual.
"Peaceful" indicates the path of seeing. That's the point when one has direct, non-conceptual realization of emptiness and becomes an arya--a noble or superior one. At this point one begins to free one's mindstream from the aquired or artificial afflictions--those learned from erroneous philosophies--and their seeds. These are eliminated entirely so that they never return. The innate afflictions and their seeds haven;t yet been eliminated, but they manifest very weakly, if at all, because one has the direct perception of emptiness when in meditative equipoise, and after meditative equipoise, one sees all phenomena like illusions and so doesn't grasp them as inherently existent.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the verse, the fourth of the five Mahayana paths, the path of meditation eliminates the innate level of afflictive obscurations that prevent liberation. These are the disturbing attitudes and negative emotions that have been with us since beginningless time. On the latter part of the path of meditation, one removes the cognitive obscurations that prevent Buddhahood. So there's a lot to do on the path of meditation.
"Nirvana's Peace" refers to the fifth path, the path of no more learning. Which is our final objective of practice. This path pacifies all obscurations, and one becomes a Buddha, a fully enlightened one who has removed all defilement and generated all good qualities to the fullest. One now has actualized the three Buddha bodies: the dharmakaya (truth body), sambhogakaya (enjoyment body), and nirmanakaya (emanation body). One has attained all this for the purpose of liberating beings from suffering and its causes. ~from Tara the Liberator

[Tiff]

lex icon wrote:If anyone wants to "dart past the eagle" this is the kind of close examination that needs to occur. I know of no other way.

Ok, I see now how to clarify the discrepancy between what we are saying.
I'm saying if "no being" is over emphasized, then the nihilist view can become conceptualized. No being, no purpose, no life to "evolve" or transcend, no reason to do anything, its not real, no being blahhhh.
But to speak of being...just as bad...inherent existence and all the traps with that.
So what are we speaking of? You are I are speaking of the same thing actually. You, I will admit, have a firmer grasp, and your recent posts got me to think about it deeper. I see why you are emphasizing non-being. Here is what I think a nihilist POV would wrestle with though...which is why I said what I said...
If anyone wants to "dart past the
eagle"
Nihilist thought would say, who is anyone? There is no "anyone". And essentialist thought would say...see I knew there was a someone after all!...all this talk of no being is BS.
Ok, so who is anyone? Who is Buddha? No one. Who was Buddha before he was Buddha? No one. What the hell?, lol. Who can obtain Buddhahood then? Or who could dart past the eagle then? Or more likely the case, how can a warrior identified with inherent exisitence of the energy body do such a feat as dart past the eagle?
 
So we are really leading towards is the 5 aggregates, which you told me about when we first began discussing Nagarjuna. 5 aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
These 5 act interdependently as an appearance of an "I" and it is this appearance, this illusional "I" that is like a vehicle of transport for these interdependent aggregates to be purified of ignorance via efforts put forth (seeking enlightenment) in phenomenal exisitence. Once ignorance if fully ended, no more grasping and cyclic exisitence. Then darting past the eagle, entering nirvana are the outcomes. "I" provided the purpose. Still there is no being, like you said. I just had to clarify in my own words this other aspect that is my own experience of having overcome the nihilist trap of thinking there is nothing to be done then. And how when compensating for this, one can end up back in an essentialist view due to the constant flux of phenomena experienced daily that will confirm the "I"'s existence.

[ninth octave]

Nowhere in Buddhist literature is God mentioned. Buddha teaches how the self depends on the self to arise out of the conditions that are placed in ones life. Nagarjuna to me is trying to show how discriminations, prejudices might arise in our minds and how to negate them. We can look at Nagarjuna's philosophy of dependent origination there certainly would not be any wars over God or man's interpretation of what God is, nor would there be borderlines or lines of demarcation  to surrender on.  Nagarjuna is good preventive medicine for any condition .and this middle way can work on many different levels while we all are living on earth. It is the belief in intrinsic existence that will feed into a never ending dysfunction with self , with others and the world. 
If we grasp at independent existence of things, this becomes the cause of suffering along with the destructive actions and reactions that happen thereafter.
It is natural for man to divide, distinguish and discriminate his likes and dislikes in his mind. Nagarjuna's philosophy of dependent origination is the emptying of this state of mind.

[lex icon]

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”.