Emptiness and Objects

[Tiff]

nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:
My perspective is that that's a good thing!
In what way do you see it as a good thing?
The Toltec knowledge base is a complete, self contained discipline, that has clear goals of understanding and attainment, Why muddy the waters with cross referencing it with eastern and western belief systems.
Its not complete because its not completely examined, such as the talk of darting past the eagle, yet "there is no eagle or eagle's emanations". So its not been fully figured out or explained. Just blind belief in something that contradicts and then settling with the contradiction as if its complete by going back to the thought that there is in fact "something" If not emanations, what is that "something" living creatures cannot grasp? Still stuck with a form of "something". This is explained here as absolutism. The belief in a first cause. If there IS a first cause, then we would be able to locate it.
And no its not the void either. "The void" If it were a thing it would be a permamnent void and could not be anything outside of what it is, and thus it would lack the ability to change from being a void into being anything different if its inherently a void. So even the void cannot be a void.

[nemo.parallelperception]

Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:Whats a living creature? What made it?
A living creature is a bubble of perception living within a certain range of emanations. What made it? Intent  
And what or who created the Intent?
I think you see where I'm going with this...first cause. What is the first cause? Is there a first cause at all?
The Art of Stalking Parallel Perception- Zakai:


“Before these universes existed there was nothing but a void
and wherever the void stood within itself it was at its center. From
this intangible center it discovered it could bring expression into its
expressionlessness, and it made a sound like water dropping into a
pond. Upon that discovery the eternal force of that void turned and
converged on that one single point from all directions. The pressure
of that implosion became so intense and the sound became so
compressed that it transformed into matter; then from that
compressed point an explosion of light occurred. This is how it all
began, and know that wherever we stand within our living construct
whether it be here or ten million light years away on a distant star, we
still stand within the center of that universal void. That centralized
pivot will always be there for every sentient being, whether the
experience be physical or of luminosity; or of an inverted universal
phenomenon beyond our comprehension.

[nemo.parallelperception]

Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:In what way do you see it as a good thing?
The Toltec knowledge base is a complete, self contained discipline, that has clear goals of understanding and attainment, Why muddy the waters with cross referencing it with eastern and western belief systems.
Its not complete because its not completely examined, such as the talk of darting past the eagle, yet "there is no eagle or eagle's emanations". So its not been fully figured out or explained. Just blind belief in something that contradicts and then settling with the contradiction as if its complete by going back to the thought that there is in fact "something" If not emanations, what is that "something" living creatures cannot grasp? Still stuck with a form of "something". This is explained here as absolutism. The belief in a first cause. If there IS a first cause, then we would be able to locate it.
And no its not the void either. "The void" If it were a thing it would be a permamnent void and could not be anything outside of what it is, and thus it would lack the ability to change from being a void into being anything different if its inherently a void. So even the void cannot be a void.
You can reexamine and change the wording, but it is complete.

[Tiff]

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

[Tiff]

nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:A living creature is a bubble of perception living within a certain range of emanations. What made it? Intent  
And what or who created the Intent?
I think you see where I'm going with this...first cause. What is the first cause? Is there a first cause at all?
The Art of Stalking Parallel Perception- Zakai:


“Before these universes existed there was nothing but a void
and wherever the void stood within itself it was at its center. From
this intangible center it discovered it could bring expression into its
expressionlessness, and it made a sound like water dropping into a
pond. Upon that discovery the eternal force of that void turned and
converged on that one single point from all directions. The pressure
of that implosion became so intense and the sound became so
compressed that it transformed into matter; then from that
compressed point an explosion of light occurred. This is how it all
began, and know that wherever we stand within our living construct
whether it be here or ten million light years away on a distant star, we
still stand within the center of that universal void. That centralized
pivot will always be there for every sentient being, whether the
experience be physical or of luminosity; or of an inverted universal
phenomenon beyond our comprehension.

What created the void? How does a void stand within itself? You are seeing the void as "a thing". How did a thing come to be a thing?

[ninth octave]

Perhaps Zakai had Dharma nature and knew the experience of a black hole and could transmit that expression.  Contrary to popular belief, the void is vibrant with energy from particles of EVERYTHING that is or ever was! I would be more into trying not to dart past an inevitable black hole. What is beyond the black hole is the mystery. Unfortunately ,I think you can only be absolutely dead to enjoy the experience.
http://www.forshang.org/005blackholegal ... alaxye.htm

Master: Based on the concept that time and space are united, if you can find ( neg.) -1 second, you will be able to see the beginning of the universe. That is to say, why is someone who has entered the Dharma nature able to know the truth of the universe? That is because he knows concurrently the positions of (pos.) +1 second, -1second. and zero. It is like putting a marble bead on a tilting table and you know at the moment you drop it on the table that it will roll over and fall out from the other side. Therefore you will know the whole unavoidable process as long as you see the first moment the bead was placed on the table and the last moment when it drops. You don't need to know every detail along the way.
As the practitioner knows the truth of the universe, he need not go through the process all over. Because he knows his own Buddha nature, he only needs to know the beginning and the end and the process is all inevitable. He will know everything in the process without going through it.

[Tiff]

"What is beyond the black hole is the mystery."



The mystery is right here! And black holes are part of phenomenal exisitence. They are interdependent on other objects in phenomena for their exisitence...they do not stand alone. What does stand alone, what could stand alone?! Why keep searching for what cannot be? Or be content with what is not true?

[ninth octave]

I find this way of breaking down every thing to its neither this nor that - a very boring approach in the way to find a truth. Who can know all that is or isn't with this formula of dissecting,analising and reducing it all to a same flat zero. Who knows all that can or cant be? Who can know your inside and outside. Who can know your appointed time of birth and death and everything that happens inbetween.?

[Tiff]

Direct experience of emptiness is the reason to do it. To experience it, that's whats worthwhile.



In Buddhism its called, wisdom realizing emptiness. Phenomena is empty but to have it just as a concept is indeed boring. So getting beyond conceptualism...the key. Once that threshold is crossed, you never go back to it (there can be a weak connection to it but it's easily broken) which is why one never truly goes back to it.
Before that, the challenge is wanting to be free of cyclic existence at all, often cyclic existence is seen as a positive.

[lex icon]

Who can know your appointed time of birth and death and everything that
happens in between.? Ninith
Before that, the challenge is wanting to be free of cyclic existence at
all, often cyclic existence is seen as a positive. Tiffany
Ninth you probably wouldn't want to get free of cyclic existence, that's where the idea of God is found and indulged.

[lex icon]

A living creature is a bubble of perception living within a certain range of emanations. Nemo
Nemo, I could ask you, “What is Intent?” and you would respond with something like, “It’s inconceivable”, so I won’t ask that but I will ask what makes you think there is anything called Intent with a capital I? How do you know of this Intent? I am not asking about what we normally consider as intent in the respect of intentions or intending to do something. Why do you refer to this Intent as Intent even?
So here is where we differ Lex, my experience is that the internal dialogue recedes and my body engages the emanations at large nemo
My internal dialogue also “recedes” yet it would be a leap of faith to imagine that my body (itself objectively perceived) engages these emanations that do not exist yet represent the immutable.
I believe DJ was referencing out there from a third perspective, that does not imply an in here. Nemo
Why do you believe this? What is this 3rd perspective? I have been exploring what is “considered to exist out there” and found nothing but mere appearances.
Secondly you are mixing Buddhism with a system that does its best to not get into karmic references. Nemo
Buddhism seems less inclined to fantasy. I hope you don’t think I was talking about living a life for 60 or so years then dying and being reborn because I thought I was clear about that in the opening paragraph. If you prefer the word consequences instead of Karma that’s fine. The consequences of ignorance produce grasping and craving after existence resulting in cyclic being which is fantasy.
Notions of existence are formed in the world of the first attention. Nemo
But when these notions of existence are applied to 2nd and 3rd attention with the same carelessness, delusions are just compounded. IE; there is existence...magical and mysterious, in which 1st, 2nd and 3rd attentions operate. Perceptions and attentions might be probed but not the notion of existence. This is why I have maintained that it is not enough to merely switch perceptions, IE; switching perception of physical for perception of luminous.
 Lex have you read the The Six Explanatory Propositions? Yes.
The teachings of Don Juan were meant to guide me through the second stage of a warrior's development: the verification and unrestricted acceptance that within us lies another type of awareness. This stage was divided into two categories.
1. What we perceive as the world are the Eagle's emanations.
Don Juan explained to me that the world we perceive does not have a transcendental existence.
This is what I have been pointing out! It is empty and dependently originates. It is compounded.
Since we are familiarized with it we believe that what we perceive is a world of objects which exist such as we perceive them,
Yes but why do we perceive such an objective existence as “real”? Perceiving objects as energetic or luminous still does not address their existence.
when in reality there is not a world of objects, but, rather, a universe of Eagle's emanations.
OK so what are emanations?
These emanations (effect) represent the only immutable reality (1st cause).
A REPRESENTATION of the only immutable reality????
This is very murky! Would you care to expound on this Nemo?
 It is a reality that encompasses all that is, perceivable and unperceivable, knowable and unknowable.
Seers who see the Eagle's emanations call them commands because of their urging force.
How do seers or how do you see the Eagle’s emanations?
All living creatures are urged to use the emanations, and they use them without getting to know what they are. (hmmm??) Ordinary men interpret them as reality. And seers who see the emanations interpret them as the rule. In spite that seers see the emanations, they don't have a way of knowing what it is they are seeing.
Convenient when pressed to account for one’s beliefs.
 Instead of entangling themselves with useless conjectures, seers occupy themselves in the functional speculation of how the Eagle's commands can be interpreted.
This is the kind non-sense over which I take issue with Castaneda.  He prefers “functional speculation” lol, over useless conjectures.
 Don Juan sustained that to intuit a reality which transcends the world we perceive stays at the level of conjecture; it is not enough for a warrior to conjecture that the Eagle's commands are instantly perceived by all creatures that live on Earth, and that none of them perceives them in the same way.
 Warriors must try to behold the flow of emanations and "see" the way in which man and other living beings use it to build their perceptual world.
Now I don’t care for the use of the word emanations but could easily work with it if it wasn’t used so ambiguously. What I have been pointing out since I began this thread is an insistence on knowing how we perceive and why and how our perceptual world is built. This world of objects is not what it appears to be! It is important to know why and what to do about it.
Thank you for engaging Nemo!!

[ninth octave]

Lex icon,
After your cyclical existence is over what where would you like to build your house of cards ?

[ninth octave]

What is reality? We have become accustomed to firm ground beneath our feet and fleeting clouds in the sky. The concept of Nagarjuna's philosophy and the concepts of complementarity, interaction and entanglement of quantum physics teach us something quite different that one could express as:
everything is build on sand and not even the grains of sand have a solid core or nucleus. Their stability is based on the unstable interactions of their component parts.

[lex icon]

Lex icon,
After your cyclical existence is over what where would you
like to build your house of cards ? Ninth
You speak as if cyclic existence could belong to someone.  If we have been following this examination, we have to ask can cyclic existence end if it never began?

[Tiff]

The Art of Stalking Parallel Perception- Zakai:





“Before these universes existed there was nothing but a void

and wherever the void stood within itself it was at its center. From

this intangible center it discovered it could bring expression into its

expressionlessness, and it made a sound like water dropping into a

pond. Upon that discovery the eternal force of that void turned and

converged on that one single point from all directions. The pressure

of that implosion became so intense and the sound became so

compressed that it transformed into matter; then from that

compressed point an explosion of light occurred. This is how it all

began, and know that wherever we stand within our living construct

whether it be here or ten million light years away on a distant star, we

still stand within the center of that universal void. That centralized

pivot will always be there for every sentient being, whether the

experience be physical or of luminosity; or of an inverted universal

phenomenon beyond our comprehension.
Someone might ask, "Are permanent phenomena such as unobstructed space and emptiness itself, also dependent, or do they exist inherently?" They, too, are dependent. While they do not depend on causes and conditions because they are permanent phenomena, they do depend on parts, concept and label, and other phenomena. For example, a table and the table's emptiness of true exisitence depend on each other. The table's emptiness cannot exist if the table doesn't exist. Furthermore, just as a table exists by begin merely labeled by the mind, so does emptiness itself. Emptiness does not have its own absolute, independent entity.~ Thubten Chodron, Tara the LiberatorIf emptiness could "discover it could bring expression into its expressionlessness" its not emptiness we are talking about here. Because thought discovers, and expression requires phenomena (expresionlessness can't express!) so phenomena has to be dependently arisen with emptiness, emptiness cannot stand alone. Can't stand at all...has no legs. Has...nothing, not even thought.
Also, how could there be a time before universes existed? This would be first cause, belief in god. God then would create the universe. In this case, (from the AOSPP)  god would be the void.

[Tiff]

God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions



How can "something" create everything else? All things arise dependently, with no inherent creator.



An originator would have to be independent of what it originates, otherwise its not an originator. But if its independent, it stands alone and cannot be anything than its independent exisitence, thus cannot create because it would be fully self-realized.
So if nothing originates as a first cause, how can there be god, a creator?

[Tiff]

All things arise dependently. In Mahayana Buddism its called Dependent Origination or Dependent Arising. Much effort has been put forth to explain the meaning here and also it can be experienced directly by working with the misconceptions and clearing them away.



To experience emptiness directly, both absolutism and nihilism have to be let go of. Because if there is a creator, as you say (which is absolute being), that creator could not be empty, he would have to have an inherent essence of beingness.



Anyone who believes emptiness is the underlying essence of all things has to respect what is being put forth here. The only trick it one can think they grasp it and so are no longer curious.



Nagarjuna (his work has been posted here) goes extensively into clearing the misconceptions. The text is Fundamentals of the Middle Way.

[snowblind]

is it possible there is no who? That chemistry created it? Or is that too mundane?

[snowblind]

chemistry wasnt created it just is. The words are just a way to describe the reactions that happen. Who made the stuff that reacts? Why waste energy wondering?

[The Fool]

May i suggest silent knowledge...

[lex icon]

Well does God exist or not? It seems pointless to try and solve this in a few sentences.
God is Spirit, the Eagle, the Nagual, Infinity, Emptiness, Nothingness, Absoluteness, the Void, Inner Silence, Death, Immortality of Eternal Life, Paradise, Clear Shining Luminous Light, oh, and LOVE...  Asiris
To make the claim that God is emptiness, must mean you know something of God and emptiness to make the comparison. That we can explore. In this thread we have been exploring emptiness. Now you have introduced all these words which I assume you think are alternative words for the same thing. What you have created here is an impasse. It appears you are not interested enough about any one of these words to arrive at any clarity, so irrational ambiguity will do sort of thing.
If you cannot explore your own mind and how it works what chance have you of exploring God?
You post that beautiful picture of a part of the universe and then say “Who created this?” I say why do you think it was created by someone? What led you to this position. Perhaps you could share your rational with us so we could investigate it, with you?

[ninth octave]

Is it possible that God/First Cause is an ineffable formless substance of infinite wanderings ;a formless completion of energy and fuel for our purpose of continuation. We use man-made language in this attempt to describe the ineffable benevolent unknown first cause. It keeps us continually guessing and united in volition though. If it is possible there is no who, then it is also possible there is no what, when , where and how to know a First Cause either. Be it fiction or non-fiction or novel ,language skills and writers need all those tangibles to build  their complete story upond.
First cause could be likened to the letter U...an endless container of intentions, thoughtforms, creators arising out of the First Creator, The Originator. Everything has been an extention of  first cause ever since. The vibrations caused from first cause not to sound like a broken record but become little creators of the Great Creator . Everything comes back around to meet the end from the beginning in circular left motion.
Given the era that Nagajuna  lived ( 3 CE) ,  he must have been aware of  a the way Christians were being percecuted for their faith under the Roman Empire. Nagarjuna's sense of compassion devised a formula to silence all the egotistical highbrows or spiritual elites of the day. The  Buddha was a forshadowing to the reality of doing without  on a no- God formula to devoid argument and misconceptions over the ineffable God dilmnna that has been a source of man's greed and suffering since beginningless time.
This is pure speculation on my part unless it is witness by two individuals other than myself and etched in stone.

[ninth octave]

excerpt from an essay by Dr. Zakir Naik
Buddha was silent about the existence or non-existence of God. It may be that since India drowned in idol worship and anthropomorphism that a sudden step to monotheism would have been drastic and hence Buddha may have chosen to remain silent on the issue of God. Buddha was once asked by a disciple whether God exists? HE REFUSED TO REPLY .When pressed he said that if you are suffering from a stomach ache would you concentrate on relieving the pain or studying the prescription of the physician.  "It is not my business of yours to find out whether there is God- our business is to remove the suffering of the world."

[Gonzo]

Love? Really? and what is love? really? besides an indulgence?

[Tiff]

Asiris wrote:The Creator very well could be empty also...
Ok, lets examine this Asiris. An important distinction needs to be made. You speak of an inherent emptiness. Which is what I alluded to saying those who believe in an inherent emptiness should respect what is being put forth here. So I'm saying I do understand your interest.
Ninth made an interesting post yesterday:
What is reality? We have become accustomed to firm ground beneath our
feet and fleeting clouds in the sky. The concept of Nagarjuna's
philosophy and the concepts of complementarity, interaction and
entanglement of quantum physics teach us something quite different that
one could express as:
everything is build on sand and not even the
grains of sand have a solid core or nucleus. Their stability is based on
the unstable interactions of their component parts.

So here we observe not even grains of sand have a solid core. This seems to conform inherent emptiness. But then lets look at this:
Someone might ask, "Are permanent phenomena such as unobstructed space
and emptiness itself, also dependent, or do they exist inherently?"
They, too, are dependent. While they do not depend on causes and
conditions because they are permanent phenomena, they do depend on
parts, concept and label, and other phenomena. For example, a table and
the table's emptiness of true exisitence depend on each other. The
table's emptiness cannot exist if the table doesn't exist. Furthermore,
just as a table exists by begin merely labeled by the mind, so does
emptiness itself. Emptiness does not have its own absolute, independent
entity.
So here its put forth a dependency between phenomena and emptiness. Going back to the grain of sand...without the sand, the emptiness would be unrealized (no form to define its emptiness). So the emptiness is dependent on the grain (phenomena) just as much as the grain depends on emptiness. Not only this, but also emptiness is dependent on other components such as thought, consciousness, to realize emptiness.
Now one may say, "why is the grain dependent on emptiness?" the answer if because emptiness is what allows things to transform. Without emptiness, the grain would be solid and complete and unchanging, so we would have a frozen universe of fully realized objects that could not transform into anything other than what their are solidly composed of to their very core of solidity.
What is clearly evident here is the interdependency. "The
table's emptiness cannot exist if the table doesn't exist. Furthermore,
just as a table exists by begin merely labeled by the mind, so does
emptiness itself. Emptiness does not have its own absolute, independent
entity."
Now back to your statement: "The Creator very well could be empty also... "
Again, inherent emptiness is what you propose. But how can there be a creator when emptiness is as dependent on phenomena as phenomena is dependent on emptiness. Emptiness does not stand alone, nor do object that appear solid actually have a solidity. But its not because emptiness created them, nor that an empty creator created them, because we see all components are interdependent, all things that look solid define what emptiness is just as they too are empty ....BUT, don't by any means mistake this for an inherent emptiness, Rather everything that appears in this phenomenal exisitence is empty of inherency! and also emptiness is empty of inherency because of the dependency which does not allow the possibility for a first cause.
Again, why not first cause? Because emptiness cannot create by itself, it lacks form and thought. And phenomena cannot create by itself anything because phenomena is the experience of dependently arising factors.