Emptiness and Objects

[ninth octave]

In the break thru
one recovers the natural mind.
A new form replaces the old form and
a simple reality is revealed.
Mountains are mountains again.
What happens to the mountain?

[Gonzo]

The mountains are there for all to enjoy.

[snowblind]

I am taking a class at the moment called the Philosophy of Mind. There is lots of talk about it...and being a neuroscientist I deal with BRAINS every day. Where is the mind? We can have lots of discussions about mind, consciousness, and transcendence but what are we transcending? More importantly...why? I have developed a hypothesis and Im gonna flop it here and see who steps on it...



Much like in the dark ages when disease was thought to be caused by demons who invade the body the mind has been deified as something other or "higher" than the body. My hypothesis: The mind is an artificial construct which is really just brain function. Our mind is no more than neural activity.



This is a new thought for me. Not terribly sexy is it? Anyone want to discuss/debate?

[The Fool]

"Anyone want to discuss/debate?"

No, but you may try this for starter if you wish:

http://zennist.typepad.com/

[lex icon]

"While all of this
sounds far fetched, nevertheless, it is implicit in the canon of
Buddhism from its earliest strata to its more recent in Tibetan
Buddhism.  What keeps this hidden from the view of West is the West's
over-preoccupation with sensory consciousness as if being aware of the
moment or the here and now were some kind of grand meditative state. 
Such awareness advances us not one inch on the path to Buddhahood.  It
is only when we grasp what Mind is, and how it works, is any real
advance made.  The rest is like playing in the toy store until we gain
maturity. "





"The enso at the
upper left, enso meaning "circle" in Japanese, is regarded as the symbol
of the absolute and awakening.  In this sense, it is Mind's return to
itself which adds up to zero or the same, Mind-only.  Make no mistake,
this return is not powerless—far from it.  If anyone has had the
slightest penetration into Mind they can attest to its power, but also
its tremendous bliss.  This is what all true mystics aim for—not for
God, Beingness, Oneness, or some other imaginary state a deluded mind
can concoct. "


From the second piece at this link.



http://zennist.typepad.com/

[ninth octave]

Snowblind's hypothesis ..The mind is an artificial construct which is really just brain function. Our mind is no more than neural activity.
Our mind  functions with the left and right hemisphere. How exactly it is wired  either with more shift to the left hemisphere or right hemisphere will establish how our perceptions and perspectives make transmission. If your are more left brain you are more enveloped with reasoning and logic using   language and analytical skills. The right brain envelops the spatial reasoning, mathematical,  musical, sport skills reside  on the right hemisphere of the brain. Also the spiritual side of man lies on the right temporal lobes, specifically-the angular gyrus.  
 I find this right brain functioning much interesting. There are studies being done using the "God Helmet".(I saw this on  the Science Channel series  "Through the Wormhole ") .. It is a helmet that is placed on a recepient head that is not already  inwardly or outwardly religious .This" God Helmet" will stimulate the right angular gyrus ( behind the ear)  as the person is awake and asked to follow the thought with the experience for a total hour .  80% of the recepients will discribe having been in the presence of some thing "other." As their visions" get translated" it is comparable to having spiritual experiences as the great prophets have had. These experiements suggesting God  or  spiritual experiences  reside in the right hemisphere / angular gyrus  part of the brain.

[lex icon]

Perhaps it means there's no such thing as "awakening". Gonzo.
Yes ultimately speaking in an absolute sense, there is no awakening, no attainment, no Buddha, no samsara, no nirvana etc, but relatively speaking there is, and since words and their meanings have been used to obscure awareness, relatively speaking words and their meanings can be used to awaken us.
When we read in Buddhism or in particular Zen literature  words that “suggest” there is no awakening  and nothing to attain and no one to attain it, these are words directed to students who have sincerely been wrestling with enlightenment. So often when passer-bys read, hear such words they breath a sigh of relief and think, “Thank God I don’t have to struggle with that issue or meditate for hours on end like ascetic monks,” and then remain unawakened.
So we are fond of saying, “This is all a dream”. We know from our own experience with lucidity in dreaming, that we can awaken in a dream and be aware that we are dreaming. Then we awake in our beds and know that our “waking” life is but a dream. We may wander around saying to ourselves, “This is all a dream” and then nothing really changes. The dream of waking life continues. You see that is jumping to the realization without first doing the work. What is the “work?” It is the troublesome step when we ask,  “if this is a dream WHY is it a dream?”  The implications must be engaged if we are to make progress. And yes there’s no such thing as progress. There’s no such thing as a car yet we drive them anyway? The question is why is there no such thing as a car?!

[snowblind]

there is no such thing as a car because the car payments were late...

[nemo.parallelperception]

lex icon wrote:So we are fond of saying, “This is all a dream”. We know from our own experience with lucidity in dreaming, that we can awaken in a dream and be aware that we are dreaming. Then we awake in our beds and know that our “waking” life is but a dream. We may wander around saying to ourselves, “This is all a dream” and then nothing really changes. The dream of waking life continues. 
Lex, when our daytime awareness wakes up in dreams, we essentially, bring the memory / sequential of this tonal life into the dream. The reverse is that in this reality, the none sequential, energetic component of our totality wakes up here and walks with us, I believe this is what DJ meant when you allow the tonal to shrink, and getting to the point that you can get it to shrink. without crapping out is the work. (quasi memories of the other self) . Does that fit into what you are trying to say?

[Tiff]

"There’s no such thing as a car yet we drive them anyway? The question is why is there no such thing as a car?!"



Yes, good question. There is a mindset that says..."this is all an illusion, this is all a dream". But in such a mindset being referred to, there is not an exploration of why there is no such thing as a car. So the "its all an illusion, a dream" becomes a meaningless mantra, because the car IS seen, IS heard, IS driven, and thus it appears as a thing with essence, as all things do. And when everything appears to have essence there is grasping, trying to understand it all, understand all the essences and how they "fit together". So essence is the hinge pin. Rarely is IT ever questioned. And when it is, often it is approached in a dull way, a route learning exercise, which cancels out the opportunity for true questioning.



Why is it in our benefit to truly question essence? Because the idea of essence is what makes for suffering. It also can bring joy. Which is why its not often questioned. But the fact that it brings suffering, and that such suffering can be alleviated, that's an extraordinary benefit. It is unbelievably liberating! Unfortunately suffering is a word misunderstood. There are all degrees of suffering. There is suffering that is unacknowledged as suffering due to the attachment to joy. So, essences are "made up" for the experience of joy found within such imaginings and thus other options of experience existence remain unexplored.



One example is a loved on dies. We imagine they go to heaven or some afterlife...reincarnation etc. This comforts us and in a sense brings us joy...thought of reunion in heaven, or continuing life in reincarnation. But there is also suffering in this perception. It is not felt as a truth, we are not sure there is a heaven or reincarnation. We are searching grasping for answers, never content. Trying to confirm such views in the world. Needing beliefs validated in some way. Suffering.

[ninth octave]

temporary joy in the orgasm,  temporary suffering in the birthing,
temporary joy and suffering in living , temporary suffering in death, permanent joy in the afterlife.

[lex icon]

Nemo, what I am saying is; that when we awake within a dream, and as you say bring our waking life into the dream, there is a profound recognition, and with this recognition we are aware that we can "do" different things, that different possibilities are immediately available. We can if we wish just start flying or transform into a ball of light etc.
Now on the other hand when we claim that our waking life is but a dream, which it is, what do we mean? In what way does knowing that this waking life is but a dream impact us? Why is this waking life a dream? It seems that it is popular to claim that this waking life is just a dream but we don't really know why!
Gonzo has said "perhaps there is no such thing as awakening"...
That's a very big non-committal, that perhaps. What do you think Gonzo is there awakening or not? And either way why do think that?
I mean can we dig in and really explore what it is we are saying and meaning? The meanings and the implications of our broad statements are probably more beneficial and informative that the statements themselves.
So anyone want to say how they came upon the profound recognition that life is a dream and how it has impacted them?

[snowblind]

wow Lex you have as many questions as me...remember the answer lies in the question(ing)

[The Fool]

Maybe some of you folks would like trying that. Who knows?...

http://www.attan.com/originalsamadhi.html

[Tiff]

What is the freedom to which you refer?



Freedom from distinguishing "self" from "others".



"I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?"



I'm inviting you to consider and thus you would experience yourself. We can't arrive at it by talking about it, but by talking about it and exploring it in a genuine way, one will arrive at it if that's what one desires to do. But your mind has to be open, right now you are skeptical and asking for proof, ok, via this discussion I will endeavor to provide that. But the key word here is experience.





Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?







er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?



If they are individual, how can they be "One". A bunch of individual parts would be all individual (unrelated). So you are essentially trying to say they are related yet they aren't. How could that be? Where is the unifying factor of "individual parts"?



Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,







Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.



Actually, I meant the syntax of "oneness" and "unity" well-worn phrases. I am American, living in China.



Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.







Not absolutes...theories.



But theories that are so accepted they function like conclusions (absolutes) and exploration outside them is virtually absent.



In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.



Ah, essence of being, there lies what should be questioned. That can be questioned and answered. Which is what we are doing.



So if you already suspect you cannot prove essence, why accept any theories about it? But that does not mean you should rest upon the idea you cannot get answers to essence period. It only means you have thus far been approaching the questioning ineffectively.





The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?





If essence were just sameness, nothing would change, sameness would be frozen, immobile, unable to diversify out of its intrinsic sameness. If essence was diversity, nothing would interact with anything else with nothing in common, again frozen, immobile. So where is essence?



If one object has nothing in common with another, what could they possibly exchange between each other? And if there is a common factor between both objects, one would have to say the common factor is the base sameness, and if it is the base sameness, then how did the diversity ever come about from the origination of sameness? What created diversity from sameness? The sameness from the diversity? Where is the essence? Where is the First Cause?
I hope its not too distracting I combined these two discussions. What I am discussing with Gonzo and what Lex has been discussing is the same, we just had two different threads emerge on it.

[Gonzo]

lex icon wrote:Gonzo has said "perhaps there is no such thing as awakening"...

That's a very big non-committal, that perhaps. What do you think Gonzo is there awakening or not? And either way why do think that?


I tried to sneak that in there. What I was referencing was a quip from my favorite translation of The Blue Cliff Record which follows:


In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening. The concept of 'having awakened' turns around and deludes people. When you stretch out both feet and sleep, there's no false and no true - thus there isn't a single concern in one's heart. When hungry, one eats; when tired, one sleeps.


Perhaps the key phrase here is "In clear illumination", which, imo, covers a wide range of things, which I equate to the action don Juan said was vital: namely, the proper arrangement of items of the tonal. Even that phrase is general and rather vague. I take both to mean personal effort (recapitulation plus (if needed) guidance from an adept) aimed at eliminating negative effects of past history on current behavior. (Those negative effects could be called "reflexive behavior".  For reference see www.yetanotherway.com/tonalwrk.)



In a way, I suppose this kind of work can be equated to efforts Zen monks exert in the search for enlightenment. It is conceivable, according to the quip, that once the work has borne fruit, the matter of awakening is no longer relevant.


lex icon wrote:I mean can we dig in and really explore what it is we are saying and meaning? The meanings and the implications of our broad statements are probably more beneficial and informative that the statements themselves.Quite probably. It's always, to me, an interesting exercise to attempt to describe beliefs and notions since it often leads to deeper understanding.

[Gonzo]

@Tiff



Let me attempt a sort of summarization of our communications. In another post you stated: "The words I express here, especially in this thread, come from Mahayana Buddhism not PP, if that helps to clarify for anyone. What I refer to comes from a 2nd century AD text called The Fundamentals of the Middle Way."



My primary source of "inspiration" comes from Thomas and JC Cleary's translation of "The Blue Cliff Record".



It would appear those two points of reference are rather dissimilar. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the issue of "oneness" being dealt with anywhere within TBCR. Rather what is consistently dealt with is the immediate moment of being, that in a very real way, enlightenment is nothing more than the absolute mundane: the matter of fetching water and carrying firewood. Further, it's in the mundane and ordinary as reflected in various Japanese Haiku.



In my earlier "seeking" I encountered Mahayana Buddhism including "The Diamond Sutra" and "The Dhammapada", the notion of "non-abiding", notably too the first two lines of "The Dhammapada": "We are what we think. Everything that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world,."



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.

[ninth octave]

How does essence become existence ?Is existence preceded by essence?
Our idea of essence must be devised- the "what of a thing", that which is known about it by our forming of a concept). And, our idea of existence -that which makes essences" to be"-the act of existing; the activity of being.

[Tiff]

Gonzo, well, regardless of whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, I appreciate your curiosity and willingness to engage. And, I've been enjoying our exchange.



I should have perhaps steered around the oneness altogether. That's not even in the text I referred to. Somehow oneness got into our discussion but I am not trying to point to a oneness, which maybe you initially perceived as a support of non-duality that I was trying to prove. No, not at all. Oneness doesn't summarize it any better than anything else would. So, try to forget I even mentioned oneness, lol. Because to imply a oneness is to apply perimeters, which is impossible.



Also, I do not view our discussion as me being a supporter of non-dualism talking to you who is satisfied with the notions of duality reality. Really that all has to be discarded too, it just gets in the way of clear observing.



You talk about the mundane, I agree! There is much to be observed in the mundane, that's where it all happens. But is anything really happening?

[Tiff]

"Instead the Middle Way offers us a way to avoid the four assertions and the entanglements they lead to. The four assertions when applied to any THING state;



It is

It is not

It is neither

It is both



These assertions only lead a person into indefensible positions of fantasy and imagination."~Lex



It is a dual exisitence

It is not a dual existence

It is neither a dual or non-dual existence

It is both a dual and non-dual existence
Perhaps the hardest of these is "It is neither a dual or non-dual
existence", which is nihilism I believe. Many people stop at nihilism and feel content in what they think they have verified...non-existence. Hence, "this is not real, this is a dream", but why is it a dream? How is the non-existent experienced if it is non-exisitent?

[Gonzo]

Tiff wrote:"Instead the Middle Way offers us a way to avoid the four assertions and the entanglements they lead to. The four assertions when applied to any THING state;



It is

It is not

It is neither

It is both



These assertions only lead a person into indefensible positions of fantasy and imagination."~Lex



It is a dual exisitence

It is not a dual existence

It is neither a dual or non-dual existence

It is both a dual and non-dual existence
Perhaps the hardest of these is "It is neither a dual or non-dual
existence", which is nihilism I believe. Many people stop at nihilism and feel content in what they think they have verified...non-existence. Hence, "this is not real, this is a dream", but why is it a dream? How is the non-existent experienced if it is non-exisitent?
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.

[Gonzo]

Tiff wrote:You talk about the mundane, I agree! There is much to be observed in the mundane, that's where it all happens. But is anything really happening?


It seems to me being is change and if so, something is happening. Were nothing happening, all would be in stasis. That does not appear to be a state the universe tolerates at the moment. But then there is the notion of entropy: "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."



However, in the meantime, let's party.



Perhaps what is of interest is the business of the transmission outside the scriptures, Mahakashyapa and all that.

[ninth octave]

yeah, let's find the point to all this and smoke a joint till we arrive.

[Tiff]

Yeah, there's a point, and I've experienced it first hand. It's hard to put it into words though. Very liberating.



"It seems to me being is change and if so, something is happening. Were nothing happening, all would be in stasis. That does not appear to be a state the universe tolerates at the moment. But then there is the notion of entropy: "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."~Gonzo



So if you feel something is happening, you feel an essence...a "something" that happens. And its not correct to seek the opposite of this condition and say well,then, its not happening, its not real, because that too is an essence "the unreal-real". Maybe the difficulty lies in believing there is anything else beyond these two extremes. Within the two extremes, kind of a "so what, who cares then" perception can set in because its perceived its either one thing, or else it must be the other. So the mundane stays the mundane. And something is always happening, or else its just an illusion. And neither of these is what I'm talking about.



And we can party or not party...its doesn't matter. Its not about terminating relative truth. Or absolute truth. Or stopping our experience of being, at least imo its not. We go on being and such, but within this we see its not this or that...



So, yes, hard to explain or convince anyone there is something to all this. I'm not going to even try. Just hopefully propose some provocative questions. Lex is really the one who it would be good to hear more from, he's worked with this much longer, has a good grasp of it. I have the experience of liberation from it, so its not that I'm just taking his word for it, but he does have a firmer grasp on the material that presents all this.



Anyway, whoever is interested hearing more that's great, whoever is not, that's fine too. Because its really something one expereinces personally, so its not like people need to be recruited to a way of thinking. Its a personal choice and one gets from it what one puts into it.

[Tiff]

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