Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"If we grasp at independent existence of things, this becomes the cause
of suffering. " Ninth
No! The cause of suffering is ignorance..... which leads to grasping at existence (trying to substantiate it and confirm as something more substantial than appearance), which is the "suffering". Dependent origination ends this ignorance and the craving for existing and the impulsion towards it cease. That is the relief!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I already know ignorance is the root cause of suffering. I just don't retain words like you do.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"No! The cause of suffering is ignorance..... which leads to grasping at existence (trying to substantiate it and confirm as something more substantial than appearance), which is the "suffering". Dependent origination ends this ignorance and the craving for existing and the impulsion towards it cease. That is the relief!"
"trying to substantiate and confirm something is more substantial than appearance"...hm, isnt that what is being done here? In this forum? Trying to confirm that life is more than it appears to be? More spiritual, more "substantial" somehow? More dramatic, beefy, calm, peaceful, loving than it appears to be? Therefore, isnt everyone here really suffering by that definition?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Snowblind
The metaphysicians of the day did not like Nagarjuna because their spirituality was so firmly entrenched in "being" and 1st Cause and Atman. They did not enjoy their most cherished spiritual ideas in which they were so invested being exposed as fantasy.
"trying to substantiate and confirm something as more substantial than appearance"...hm, isnt that what is being done here? In this forum? Trying to confirm that life is more than it appears to be? More spiritual, more "substantial" somehow? More dramatic, beefy, calm, peaceful, loving than it appears to be? Therefore, isnt everyone here really suffering by that definition? Snowblind
Snowblind you are being very general with this comment. Could you be more specific?
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Lex and Tiffany, I believe what you guys are talking about in toltec terms is formlessness. At a certain point we can feel objects and be clear of the separation of the emanations and the self. It is liberating, yes labelling this achievement darting past the eagle, not i would
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo,
Could you define formlessness according to how you view it? Also darting past the eagle. Its important to get at what each of us are talking about here. For instance, Nagarjuna has been well elaborated, so hopefully his material is now very clear. Now you have introduced formlessness to the topic, and previously, Lex brought up darting past the eagle. So if we have a working definitions, we can discuss.
To me, the pinnacle of achievement for a warrior is to dart past the eagle and be free. And the pinnacle of achievement for a Buddhist is to obtain Buddhahood. Both seemingly insurmountable tasks.
Formlessness does not touch upon dependent arising in any way, as far as I know of. But again, what is your perspective?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote: Loved that Tara stuff. Very clear!
Yes! it was written by a Tibetian Buddhist nun. She has made the material available (and appealing) to both experienced practitioners and lay people.
"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”. "
yes yes, the direct taste of emptiness. That's really what is important, the experience of it. As in the 5 paths of enlightenment, we see the first two view emptiness as a concept. So its important to get beyond that. Nagarjuna is like a swift push!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Warriors have no life of their own. From the moment they understand the nature of awareness, they cease to be persons and the human condition is no longer part of their view. You have your duty as a warrior and nothing else is important. So do your best.
The challenge of a warrior is to arrive at a very subtle balance of positive and negative forces. This challenge does not mean that a warrior should strive to have everything under control, but that a warrior should strive to meet any conceivable situation, the expected and the unexpected, with equal efficiency. To be perfect under perfect circumstances is to be a paper warrior.
I will give you a formula, an incantation for times when your task is greater than your strength;
I am already given to the power that rules my fate.
And I cling to nothing, so I will have nothing to defend.
I have no thoughts, so I will see.
I fear nothing, so I will remember myself.
Detached and at ease,
I will dart past the Eagle to be free.
It takes an enormity of strength to let go of the intent of everyday life. One must place one's attention on the luminous shell. A warrior must evoke intent . The glance is the secret. The eyes beckon intent .
The reason why seeing seems to be visual is because we need the eyes to focus on intent . Our eyes can catch another aspect of intent and that's called seeing . The true function of the eyes is to be the catchers of intent ."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The power that governs the destiny of all living beings is called the Eagle or the Indescribable Force. Providing the luminous shell that comprises one's humanness has been broken, it is possible to find in the Indescribable Force the faint reflection of man. The Indescribable Force 's irrevocable dictums can then be apprehended by seers, properly interpreted by them, and accumulated in the form of a governing body. Thus the rule was formed.
The rule is not a tale. The rule states that every living thing has been granted the power, if it so desires, to seek an opening to freedom and to go through it.
To cross over to freedom does not mean eternal life as eternity is commonly understood--that is, as living forever. What the rule states is that one can keep the awareness which is ordinarily relinquished at the moment of dying. I cannot explain what it means to keep that awareness. My benefactor told me that at the moment of crossing, one enters into the third attention, and the body in its entirety is kindled with knowledge. Every cell at once becomes aware of itself, and also aware of the totality of the body.
This kind of awareness is meaningless to our compartmentalized minds. Therefore the crux of the warrior's struggle is not so much to realize that the crossing over stated in the rule means crossing to the third attention, but rather to conceive that there exists such an awareness at all.
There is a common error, that of overestimating the left-side awareness, of becoming dazzled by its clarity and power. To be in the left-side awareness does not mean that one is immediately liberated from one's folly--it only means an extended capacity for perceiving, and above all, a greater ability to forget.
One has to be utterly humble and carry nothing to defend, not even one's person. One's person should be protected, but not defended.
It takes a very long time to clean out the garbage that a luminous being picks up in the world. We are so stiff and feel so self-important.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I believe what you guys are talking about in toltec terms is formlessness. At a certain point we can feel objects and be clear of the separation of the emanations and the self. It is liberating, yes labeling this achievement darting past the eagle, not i would Nemo
What is formlessness?
formless |ˈfôrmləs|
adjective
without a clear or definite shape or structure : a dark and formless idea.
As was mentioned earlier formlessness is often thought of as emptiness as if Form is not emptiness. But Buddhism has pointed out that;
“Form is emptiness and emptiness is form”.
Form is but one of the five aggregates, the other four aggregates, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness are formless. We have been speaking about emptiness as it is revealed by dependent origination.
At a certain point we can feel objects and be clear of the separation of the emanations and the self. Nemo
The sensation of touch is active whenever an object comes into contact with the appropriate sense field. It is experienced as either contact or separation. The contact producing pleasure or pain, craving or aversion. Etc. Is this what you mean when you say we can feel objects at a certain point. What do you mean by a certain point? Are you talking about touch or are you referring to an intuitive feel for objects???
Then you have brought emanations into this. What do you mean by emanations?? Are you simply saying....that there is a clear discrimination between what we consider self and objects that are not self?
“Darting past the Eagle”....DJ made it quite clear that referring to this source of the energetic emanations as an Eagle was purely metaphorical and urged CC to come up with his own representation, perhaps a better one. However this source was presented energetically as the point from which all energetic emanations issue. It was suggested that if the feat (darting past the eagle) was not successfully accomplished this eagle/source would devour one’s awareness. It was further suggested that gathering up the totality of one’s being and burning from within would garner acknowledgement, a sort of salute from this eagle/source and one would be allowed to pass with awareness intact.
If we accept this, then we have a source to contend with, a first cause. Now I used to believe in God. I had many extraordinary experiences that I could not account for at that time other than to say, it was God or caused by God. I have since found other explanations and the events don’t seem quite so extraordinary now and are well within the potential available to us all. I do not doubt the experiences of the seers DJ refers to and how they set up teams etc to view this source of energetic emanations what I do question is their interpretation and the impact of this
in-form-ation upon their consciousness. One cannot help but wonder at the extreme distinction between this source and those sorcerers viewing it however briefly and even the distinction of the emanations. Is this not an attempt to establish this source as a formless object which is considered distinct from the viewing subject? A formless essence of energetic emanations. Within this scenario dualistic apprehension is still very much dominant. Both seer, the seen and the seeing, still very active. The discriminating mind still dividing and labeling and objectifying, consigning both the Eagle source and seer to existence, where things appear to arise, endure and cease as they have always appeared to do since beginningless time.
The idea of an essential source, as first cause, is untenable in light of dependent origination. “Darting past the eagle” is merely the recognition of this.
Awareness cannot be devoured, only obscured, like the sun behind clouds!
"This kind of awareness is meaningless to our compartmentalized minds.
Therefore the crux of the warrior's struggle is not so much to realize
that the crossing over stated in the rule means crossing to the third
attention, but rather to conceive that there exists such an awareness at
all."
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Could you define formlessness according to how you view it? At a certain point we can feel objects and be clear of the separation of the emanations and the self.
darting past the eagle.=
High energy inorganic being
Formlessness does not touch upon dependent arising in any way what is your perspective?
My perspective is that that's a good thing!
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:The sensation of touch is active whenever an object comes into contact with the appropriate sense field. It is experienced as either contact or separation. The contact producing pleasure or pain, craving or aversion. Etc. Is this what you mean when you say we can feel objects at a certain point. What do you mean by a certain point? Are you talking about touch or are you referring to an intuitive feel for objects???
Then you have brought emanations into this. What do you mean by emanations?? Are you simply saying....that there is a clear discrimination between what we consider self and objects that are not self?
what I mean by a certain point, is when the internal dialogue recedes in dominance
DJ
The entire body of a seer senses the Eagle. There is something in all of us that
can make us witness with our entire body. Seers explain the act of seeingthe Eagle in very simple
terms: because man is composed of the Eagle’s emanations, man need only revert back to his
components. The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness that becomes entangled and
confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging
themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.”
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:Formlessness does not touch upon dependent arising in any way what is your perspective?
My perspective is that that's a good thing!
In what way do you see it as a good thing?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo wrote:The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.”
Whats a living creature? What made it?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
At a certain point we can feel objects and be
clear of the separation of the emanations and the self. Nemo
what I mean by a certain point, is when the internal dialogue recedes in
dominance Nemo.
We have no trouble feeling objects. It is precisely this feel of objects as distinct that fosters the implication of a "feeler" the one "doing" the feeling and concluding a separation of feeler, felt and feeling. It is not as if the internal dialogue needs to recede in order to experience this. I would think it is quite the opposite. Still not sure what you mean by "certain point" as a point when internal dialogue recedes in order to see a separation and its relevance here.
The entire body of a seer senses the Eagle. There is something in all of us that
can make us witness with our entire body. Seers explain the act of seeingthe Eagle in very simple
terms:
because man is composed of the Eagle’s emanations, man need only revert back to his
components. The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness
that becomes entangled and
confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging
themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” DJ
So many points need clarifying.
The entire body of a seer senses the Eagle. Does it?
man need only revert back to his
components. What are these components? Oh yes they are Eagles emanations...neither of which according to DJ exist. If these components referred to by DJ are the aggregates referenced by Buddhism then we can can be more precise about what we are talking about.
What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” DJ
First, referring to an out there implies in here. DJ has come up against the farthest limits of this imagined "internal". This is the moment when both perspectives should collapse. Instead he establishes an unfathomable mystery that no living creature can grasp. What is a "living creature"? Is this the same as a sentient being referenced by Buddhism. Buddhism sees sentient beings as trapped within cyclic existence. For DJ he is surrounded by a magical and mysterious universe (existence). So really we get no help from DJ here. He only seems to obscure and muddy the waters further and accepts as paramount.
What we have been trying to introduce in this thread is what lies beyond these notions of existence, notions both crude and refined. In order to do this we must see how our notions of existence are formed. Once we are aware of this, existence can no longer obscure awareness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:I already know ignorance is the root cause of suffering. I just don't retain words like you do.
I believe it's "Desire is the root of all sorrow." - big difference.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Buddha teaches that there is one defilement which gives rise to all the others. One root that which holds them all in place. The root is ignorance (avijja).
[1] Ignorance is not mere absence of knowledge, a lack of knowing particular pieces of information. Ignorance can co-exist with out vast accumalation of itemized knowledge, and in its own way it can be tremendously shrewd and resourceful. As the basic root of dukkha, ignorance is a fundamental darkness shrouding the mind. Sometimes this ignorance operates in a passive manner, merely obscuring correct understanding. At other times it takes on an active role: it becomes the great deceiver, conjuring up a mass of distorted perceptions and conceptions which the mind grasps as attributes of the world, unaware that they are its own deluded constructs.
Notes:
1. Ignorance is actually identical in nature with the unwholesome root "delusion"( moha ). When the Buddha speaks in a psychological construct about mental factors, he generally uses the word "delusion". When he speaks about the causal basis of samsara, he uses the word "ignorance"( avijja).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Cyclic existence and reincarnation.
When considering reincarnation we tend to focus on the aspect of physically dying and then at a later point being reborn in another body. But let me extend another view for what it is worth.
If we have made any progress at all with our examination of existence we start to uncover some key aspects. I want to focus on birth life and death. It is referred to as “cyclic” existence because it keeps recurring. The terms birth life and death are what have propelled consideration of reincarnation towards the idea that a soul keeps getting reborn in a new body. So instead of those terms if we focus on beginning, middle, end or coming into being, enduring for a period and then ceasing or as Nagarjuna has framed it, “arising, enduring and dissolving” we might draw closer to the opportunity to get off the merry go round. Hopefully we can uncover the deeper significance of Nagarjuna and what are the implications for us.
For something to be considered existent it had to be considered to “come into being” and be manifest. Once in being it can be expected to endure and at some point pass out of being.
That which is [being] cannot dissolve. That which is [being] cannot not-be. Nagarjuna
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.)
31. That which is not [non-being] cannot dissolve. Can the beheaded be beheaded a second time?
32. Dissolving does not dissolve itself, nor is it dissolved by another dissolving, just as arising can neither arise from itself nor from another arising [as shown above].
33. Since arising, enduring, and dissolving cannot happen, there are no real things that arise, endure, or dissolve. If there are no such things, how can the ordinary phenomenal world (actually) exist?
It is all a dream, an illusion, like a city of the gods floating in the heavens. So much for arising, enduring, and dissolving. Nagarjuna
The four verses are the conclusive part. The exhaustive part are the preceding 29 verses. Once the logic of being is unraveled and one does not buckle at the knees under its implications the folly of apparent cyclic existence is exposed.
Now back to my reincarnation point. Buddha and Nargarjuna and many others continue to expose cyclic existence and how it works etc. Cyclic beings, caught in the cycles of arising, enduring and dissolving are continuously offered the opportunity to examine their perceived existence and break the cycle. However cyclic beings are so attached to the notions of coming into being, living and dying that the impulsion to exist propels back into the cycle. For example when presented with the information such as Nargajuna’s Fundamentals of the Middle Way, even though all the logic of being, non-being, existence, non-existence, eternal first cause etc is exhausted, the experience and attachment of existing, existence, and exister is so appealing, that cyclic beings in ignorance retreat from reality and back into the next cycle. Every time ignorance is embraced the “karma” of it must be lived out apparently again and again. So whenever a seed of ignorance is accepted (conception) it will bear fruit (birth), apparently arise, endure and dissolve, its appears to happen daily form moment to perceived moment. That is the nature of cyclic existence. It is better to let go what one does not know, instead of inventing and indulging fantasies.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Just read this...
"Ignorance is the root cause of cyclic existence, what keeps us locked in the cycle of suffering is craving."
And Lex wrote: "Cyclic beings, caught in the cycles of arising, enduring and dissolving are continuously offered the opportunity to examine their perceived existence and break the cycle. However cyclic beings are so attached to the notions of coming into being, living and dying that the impulsion to exist propels back into the cycle."--- so the attached is the craving part. Its not the root, ignorance is the root. Ignorance upholds either absolutism or nihilism. So to examine ignorance:
"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.)"
When the root is examined, the impact of the craving loosens. It can still influence, which I believe is what karma is. So emotions (desires) should not be ignored, especially when daily life presents so much opportunity to transform actions and quicken the process of positive potential, thus efforts should be made to tame reactionary responses cultivated from ignorant views since beginningless time such as pride, jealousy, anger etc. But to try and tackle these desires without examining the ignorant roots they spring from would be like cutting weeds rather than pulling out the roots.
One could say, "well then if its just a matter of pulling out the roots, then I will tackle ignorance only (and not work on changing my behaviors)", but daily actions which carry karmic reactions have to still be addressed. Such as, one can meditate on emptiness for 2 hours, but then if they go out and behave in the world as if they are a "being" with desires to fulfill, that will slow the process of bliss realizing emptiness. So targeting from both angles has to occur. Otherwise, returning to the above analogy, if focus is on ignorance only--pulling out the roots, we can imagine that as we do this seeds fall back to the ground (representing desires unchecked) that form new weeds to pull the next day.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Thought, speech, and action create karma. We produce the energy for good or bad effects/affects. We want continue with our selves in our human
status in the daily life. Our speech, our phone calls our keeping in touch. Communication arises and ceases. WE gain attachments to this way as though life depends on this. We continue on to be continued. Just like the story awaits to be told again so to leave a piece of ourselves behind, to influence others, loved ones or the world. Right or wrong karma awaits in our trembling minds and hands. We have the power to create good energy
or bad just like when Adam and Eve happened upon the fruit of equanimity.
"The experience of attachment of existing, existence and exister is so appealing that cyclic beings in ignorance retreat from reality and back into the next cycles." Lex icon
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.”
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
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:Formlessness does not touch upon dependent arising in any way what is your perspective?
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Why muddy the waters with cross referencing it with Eastern and Western belief systems." Nemo
The truth is in everything will eventually lead to full awareness and really is all part and parcel from the same knowledge and wisdom found in all righteous man's belief systems. There is nothing new under the big sun just how we can better get to harvesting the bounty.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:We have no trouble feeling objects. It is precisely this feel of objects as distinct that fosters the implication of a "feeler" the one "doing" the feeling and concluding a separation of feeler, felt and feeling. It is not as if the internal dialogue needs to recede in order to experience this. I would think it is quite the opposite. Still not sure what you mean by "certain point" as a point when internal dialogue recedes in order to see a separation and its relevance here.
So here is where we differ Lex, my experience is that the internal dialogue recedes and my body engages the emanations at large
So many points need clarifying.
The entire body of a seer senses the Eagle. Does it? Yes
man need only revert back to his
components. What are these components? Oh yes they are Eagles emanations...neither of which according to DJ exist. If these components referred to by DJ are the aggregates referenced by Buddhism then we can can be more precise about what we are talking about
First, referring to an out there implies in here. DJ has come up against the farthest limits of this imagined "internal". This is the moment when both perspectives should collapse. Instead he establishes an unfathomable mystery that no living creature can grasp. What is a "living creature"? Is this the same as a sentient being referenced by Buddhism. Buddhism sees sentient beings as trapped within cyclic existence. For DJ he is surrounded by a magical and mysterious universe (existence). So really we get no help from DJ here. He only seems to obscure and muddy the waters further and accepts as paramount.
I believe DJ was referencing out there from a third perspective, that does not imply an in here. Secondly you are mixing Buddhism with a system that does its best to not get into karmic references.
What we have been trying to introduce in this thread is what lies beyond these notions of existence, notions both crude and refined. In order to do this we must see how our notions of existence are formed. Once we are aware of this, existence can no longer obscure awareness.
Notions of existance are formed in the world of the first attention. Lex have you read the The Six Explanatory Propositions?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:The result is a vision of the Eagle and
the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no Eagle and no Eagle’s emanations.What
is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.”
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?
|
