Emptiness and Objects

[ninth octave]

Also just as the Dhamma, The Cosmic Law, exists independent, of our knowledge, as exists Nibbana independent of our realization of it.

[ninth octave]

ninth octave wrote:

So if it boils down to just delusions of self,  how does self remove the self from the proverbial black empty room- knowing it can not be truely empty until self leaves?Buddha quote:
"I am , is a vain thought, "I am not", is a a vain thought,"I shall be is a vain thought, "I shall not be", is a vain thought.Vain thoughts are a sickness, an ulcer, a thorn. But after overcoming all vain thoughts one is called a silent thinker. And the thinker, the silent one does no more arise, no more pass away, no more tremble, no more desire. For there is nothing left in him that he should arise again. And as he arises no more, how should he grow old again? And as he dies no more, how should he tremble? And as he trembles no more, how should he have desire?"

[ninth octave]

lex icon wrote:

So if it boils down to just delusions of self,  how does self remove the self from the proverbial black empty room- knowing it can not be truely empty until self leaves?Ninth
How does anyone disabuse themselves (or anyone else) of a delusion?
If I told you I saw a unicorn run through my back yard the other day what would you think? You know there is no such thing as a unicorn.
But I seem very sincere and enthusiastic about my sighting, absolutely convinced I saw one. How would you get to the source of my delusion?
You have to investigate and inquire.
If I am not mad then something led me to conclude and believe I saw a unicorn, what was it? That we can investigate without getting stuck on the issue of whether or not unicorns actually exist.
Now if I just assert unicorns exist that is a different matter. If I have never seen one, why would I believe such a thing? What led me to this belief? You have to investigate and inquire.
So let's say that I believe there is a heaven and hell and that heaven is just this fantastic place that the religions rave about and that when I die I definitely wish to go there and not hell. However I also read in a book that the only way to this heaven is to believe in unicorns, because when a person dies, the only way to get to heaven is to ride in on a unicorn and that unicorns only come to the aid of people who believe in them, at the time of their death. Those who do not believe in unicorns end up getting dragged into hell by demons.
The issue of unicorns actually existing is a secondary matter now because I just want to go to heaven. So now there is an attachment to heavenly access. You might think talking about the actual existence of unicorns is the way to approach me but you would just be spinning your wheels. I don't give a fig about unicorns I just have a very strong fear and aversion of getting dragged into eternal torment by demons and a very strong desire for those 72 virgins.
See how the layers begin to build? We could go on and on. So there has to be some earnestness for truth.
This thread is called Emptiness and Objects. We have been investigating the phenomena of the appearance of objects, how they appear to be real, independent and having inherent existence.  Buddhist view has been introduced because it effectively disabuses these notions. DJ was also very suspect of the appearance of objects and though he was not as thorough about it as Buddhism they seemed to agree about this. DJ called it the first truth of awareness. I thought that was a good place to start.

Quoting from NJ's Transient Authority :  
Not by prayers, nor asceticism, nor by outward ceremonies, rites and rituals, nor by dialectual skill, was that "Holy Wisdom" secured: but only in renouncing all worldly and heavenly desires, all hopes and beliefs in an eternal Being, all inclinations to the vain glory of "I"and Mine". Then only can true understandingand intuitive wisdom be acquired."
Btw,  how could 72 male virgins be worth it for or a female ,that is supposing heaven's gate can swing both ways.

[Tiff]

Hi Gonzo,



I'm back today and just read your post. Tomorrow I'll have a chance for a longer reply, for now I just wanted to input this...I have not proposed any premises, I am working entirely with the ideas you have put forth, even if those ideas came from someone else first, I was still engaging around those ideas and trying to put them to the test of examination to show how they could not be. Somewhere along the way I believe you thought I was proposing form created thought??? Well, just know I am not proposing this at all and have not proposed anything actually, lol. But tomorrow hopefully I can clarify where I was coming from previously.



But briefly...dependent arising does not remotely suggest a beginning of anything, no one thing begins, and nothing ever began at all. No first cause, so its not "form created thought" nor is it "thought created form". What occurs is a mystery but we can see via dependent arising how one thing cannot be the creator of other things...this much can be known, so there is no creator and object of creation. So you can see that within this all things are the same, no one greater or lesser than the other. Your way of thinking seems to put thought as more powerful than form, and I was endeavoring to show how this is not so, but also I do not think form is any greater then thought...its truly about not grasping at any ideas about greater or lessor in importance. Knowing things occur interdependently frees one from the need to solve or find answers according to a originator who would dominate all the rest of existence, and contrary to this, in your proposed theory (someone else's I realize) thought is given this role of originator, so more importance than form.



More tomorrow

[Gonzo]

@Tiff -



Just to clarify before your next post - you said in your prior


Tiff wrote:Objects reflect thought. Think of a time before objects (according to your premise that thought created everything) so if thought created all things, we must envision a beginning time. In this beginning time there are absolutely no objects whatsoever. So thought existing by itself must at some point have said to itself "I will create objects". In some manner this thought had to occur to thought.


That which is bolded is your premise to which I was referring.



In regard dependant arising and equality of all things - I understand what you are saying. It's just that I take Gautama at his word, primarily because I like the idea. If he says, "With out thoughts we make the world", I'm willing to take his word for it.

[Tiff]

The envisioning a beginning time was so we could explore your premise, Gautama's premise, Descartes premise, that thought creates everything. So if thought creates, thought must be a beginning point, according to what you believe, so I was saying, "lets go into what you believe and trace the footsteps back to its construction point and from this point go forward and see how your premise holds up to examination upon how reality, our experience here and now, occurs." You are saying you don't need to do this, that you prefer to take these scholars at their word. Well, with Nagarjuna this is not the case, he invites the reader to examine everything he is saying, to trace the footsteps back to the origins of concepts and examine these very concepts, not so they can be embraced, but so the observer can hopefully and finally begin to wonder why they have just accepted such concepts to begin with when in truth this is not how reality operates.



"Here's the thing...actually, my thing. It's not important to me to define "thought" or "consciousness" or "awareness" beyond where they've already been defined." ~ Gonzo



Gonzo, why should other people's definitions conclude your own understanding?



Even though you disagree with what I put forth, know that I absolutely am not just taking Nagarjuna's word on things. You seem stuck at this idea that we just have to accept notions that seem most reasonable to us because we can't truly know. But this stops you from releasing your notions then, even when your notions are not prefect in logical construction, you accept this because you believe there is no way to know so "I'll just settle on this one because its just as good as that one." But why? There is no need to have any notion then, correct? Is it that you feel you should choose a notion in hopes it's correct, and when you die, this notion if correctly followed will allow your conscious journey to continue?



Thoughts that create form, how so? Though is dormant, non-existent without form to reflect upon, just as form would be the same (unknown without thought). So neither are the creator of the other. So why continue to believe thought creates form when thought defines itself via form? Why have you ceased in your interest to examine? Why are you taking other people's word on things?



Dependent arising and equality of all things...understand this equality refers to no inherency, no originator. But only after rigorous examination can this be known and understood. Its not a concept blindly followed. Its what is arrived at after exhausting all other logical possibilities. Because the person does the work themselves, the product is of their own effort. And it becomes a new dictum upon which all concepts that grasp at inherent exisitence (or nihilism) will fall flat upon the observer who realizes emptiness directly. One is liberated from grasping. Liberated from fear of the unknown. Liberated from the complexity born from ideas about individual essences. Liberated from the idea that one must change something about themselves in order to achieve enlightenment.



Its true that afflictions will block awareness of enlightenment. Like Lex said earlier, awareness is like the sun, ever present but can become obscured by the clouds. So afflictions can be like the clouds and we must work to clear them. Still, there is nothing to change or achieve to realize emptiness and enlightenment in the sense that its erroneous to perceive we are not already that. Everything is already empty. But....it did not originate from a void and via this is inherently connected to emptiness. Rather what is here and now is empty. Absent as Lex said in last post.



Your view will obscure your understanding of emptiness because you place value on thought as being the source of manifesting all things. Your idea of source is what I was inviting you to examine. I think to some people giving up an idea of source is an uncomfortable contemplation. Because if source can be accessed,(according to them) its perceived source can grant privileges to those who connect with it. You may not fall into this category, but still we learn to adopt many beliefs unexamined just by interreation with other people's ideas of things. And when we respect such people we can follow what they say and feel quite content upon their conclusions. This is what I feel you have done with those you have mentioned. If you perceive them as authorities on awareness, then its a situation of following them. Nagarjuna's work is not at all like this. With him, you dive into what is put forth and decide for yourself.  Even, in a way, try to prove what he says as wrong. I'm referring here to the middle way text.



You talked about essential zen, well within your understanding does not essential zen include the realization of emptiness?

[The Fool]

Just in passing, allow me to rephrase Gautama's words (may he forgive me ) quoted by Gonzo :



We are not what we think.

All that we are not arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make a deluded world.



What do you think?

[Gonzo]

The Fool wrote:Just in passing, allow me to rephrase Gautama's words (may he forgive me ) quoted by Gonzo :



We are not what we think.

All that we are not arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make a deluded world.



What do you think?Heh.  Well, after a good laugh, I began to think it was rather profound.  However, I still prefer the original, keeping in mind, of course, what Jed McKenna said about quotes from dead guys.

[Gonzo]

Tiff wrote:

"Here's the thing...actually, my thing. It's not important to me to define "thought" or "consciousness" or "awareness" beyond where they've already been defined. " ~Gonzo



Gonzo, why should other people's definitions conclude your own understanding?


Perhaps I'm lazy. When I encounter notions with which I agree, I'm satisfied, and certainly if there is a certain amount of poetry and in the case of that Gautama quote, many levels of meaning and implication.


Tiff wrote:Even though you disagree with what I put forth, know that I absolutely am not just taking Nagarjuna's word on things. You seem stuck at this idea that we just have to accept notions that seem most reasonable to us because we can't truly know. But this stops you from releasing your notions then, even when your notions are not prefect in logical construction, you accept this because you believe there is no way to know so "I'll just settle on this one because its just as good as that one." But why? There is no need to have any notion then, correct? Is it that you feel you should choose a notion in hopes it's correct, and when you die, this notion if correctly followed will allow your conscious journey to continue?


I'm a computer programmer which suits my tendency to deal in black and white, or re binary, on or off. I look at a potential existence after death in a binary fashion. That is, either we continue in some fashion, or we don't. No one alive knows. If we don't continue, if we disintegrate entirely, then we will not have the awareness or consciousness to be aware we have disintegrated, so it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if we continue, there are many theories describing how we might and what may lie ahead. Those are all theories, regardless of any logical examination. That being the case, it seems reasonable to me to choose whichever one suits one's fancy.


Tiff wrote:Thoughts that create form, how so? Though is dormant, non-existent without form to reflect upon, just as form would be the same (unknown without thought). So neither are the creator of the other. So why continue to believe thought creates form when thought defines itself via form? Why have you ceased in your interest to examine? Why are you taking other people's word on things?


I don't know how thought creates form, however, I've had the experience of "creative imagining" and it works, a rather practical demonstration of thought creating form. I tend to take the words of others when they correspond with my own notions. In most cases, their phrasing and style is superior to mine.


Tiff wrote:I think to some people giving up an idea of source is an uncomfortable contemplation. Because if source can be accessed,(according to them) its perceived source can grant privileges to those who connect with it. You may not fall into this category, but still we learn to adopt many beliefs unexamined just by interreation with other people's ideas of things. And when we respect such people we can follow what they say and feel quite content upon their conclusions. This is what I feel you have done with those you have mentioned. If you perceive them as authorities on awareness, then its a situation of following them. Nagarjuna's work is not at all like this. With him, you dive into what is put forth and decide for yourself. Even, in a way, try to prove what he says as wrong. I'm referring here to the middle way text.


In my opinion, Nagarjuna, as with other philosophers, is welcome to his opinions. I've tried to read him, and failed to understand him. Therefore, I can neither prove him wrong, nor prove him right. Bottom line, it doesn't matter to me. I prefer what appears to be true as expessed in Haiku, as well as what is expressed in "The Blue Cliff Record".


Tiff wrote:You talked about essential zen, well within your understanding does not essential zen include the realization of emptiness?


No. In fact, it is the exact opposite, perhaps called "fullness". In my opinion, the essence of Zen is an absolute appreciation of what is in the moment. It does not matter whether it is maya, insubstantial, empty, or void. It is taken at face value. We are here to experience what is here, not, in my opinion, to see through it or to declare it null and void. That is, using the "Matrix" analogy, I prefer the red wine, the steak and the cigar. Or in other words, the mud, the blood and the beer, and above all, the drama.

[ninth octave]

"No, in fact, it is the exact opposite, perhaps called "fullness". In my opinion, the essence of Zen is an absolute appreciation of what is in the moment. It does not matter whether it is Maya, insubstantial, empty, or void. It is taken at face value. That is, using the"Matrix"analogy , I prefer the red wine, the steak, the cigar. Or, in other words, the mud, the blood and the beer, and above all the drama." ... Gonzo
Gonzo,
I like this way of thinking. So raw and earthy a view for us world-lings.lol. Those last two lines are worth remembering.

[ninth octave]

Gonzo, on second glance and rereading, I did not properly quote what you said from your last post.. Sorry, I did get the gist of it though. lol

[Gonzo]

@ninth -



Heh. It just seems to me being in human form is first and foremost a sensual experience and we can enjoy it. It's also fun to contemplate why.

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:


Tiff wrote:You talked about essential zen, well within your understanding does not essential zen include the realization of emptiness?


No. In fact, it is the exact opposite, perhaps called "fullness". In my opinion, the essence of Zen is an absolute appreciation of what is in the moment. It does not matter whether it is maya, insubstantial, empty, or void. It is taken at face value. We are here to experience what is here, not, in my opinion, to see through it or to declare it null and void. That is, using the "Matrix" analogy, I prefer the red wine, the steak and the cigar. Or in other words, the mud, the blood and the beer, and above all, the drama.Gonzo, in all due respect, I don't think you tried too hard to understand Nagarjuna. I say this based on your responses that are so off target of what I'm saying. Such as this quote above here. I have declared nothing null and void, in fact, I wrote many times about the importance of avoiding nihilism and of not referencing a void. I thought I spelled it out quite clearly what I meant by this, and now you conclude the very thing I said Nagarjuna helps one to avoid, which is this sense that "nothing matters because its not real" which is a nihilist perspective.
Remember what happened to the guy who took the red wine, steak, and cigar though? hehe I prefer to learn, as much as I can about this extraordinary world, and to also unlearn what was incorrectly taught. If you say you are taking the steak, you are saying you are not curious and want to live in ignorance because its pleasurable to you. The guy's exact words in the movie "ignorance is bliss" then he died, lol. I say enlightenment is bliss!
Another way of looking at that scene is that the guy, given the choice of a stark grey-world exisitence eating food from a can, compared to being in the matrix and getting all the enjoyment out of life, chose the matrix and probably without regret even if his life was shorter, it was happier... ok, in the movie its understandable why this would be a choice (still not a good one imo, but makes some sense), but here, in our discussion, it's really does not correspond, because reading Nagarjuna does not put one in a stark grey world. One does not have to give anything up in terms of these life-expereinces, enjoying food, wine, cigars whatever. So again I think you are grossly misinterpreting things and its all within your own view and nothing new allowed into your field of perception.     
Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way. Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in? Seems so to me. At the very least, try to let go of this null, blah, void thing. Its not even what I've been talking about
So order you a steak, pour some wine, and light up a stoogie and we can discuss Nagarjuna...or not...it matters not to me. Seems you are pretty much through with the discussion anyway. But I'm always willing to engage if you are. 
When I was born, the three dog night tune was the top song that week...its in my bones, I love this world. Joy to it! So that much we have in common. Drama...I've had enough drama, can do without that...but will take adventure any day.

[lex icon]

Everything is already empty. But....it did not originate from a void and via this is inherently connected to emptiness. Rather what is here and now is empty.  Tiffany
Perhaps those who think that void comes first and things originate from void would wish to step up and comment on this??? Or have you not examined your notions yet?
That's the beauty of a Nagarjuna. If you wish to understand what he says a firm conviction for truth is required. If you do not really care about truth you will not care about what he is drawing our attention to. He cares not whether you agree with him. In fact he would love it if you could muster an objection and engage. But what so often happens in discussions like this is that people are not that interested in what is true, not really believing there is such a thing anyway, and not wishing to be disabused of their most cherished ideas, choose instead not risk engaging for fear of appearing like a fool for believing false notions to begin with. But here's the kicker we are all full of the false ideas. It takes hard work to get through it. Just stepping forth with the Middle Way is an exercise in tackling our delusions and illusions.
Gonzo, Thank you for engaging man Please would you tell us why you find Nagarjuna so difficult to understand, perhaps with a few examples. You are not alone with this. I too find Nagarjuna difficult to understand. I am used to defining realty via the four propositions.

[ninth octave]

".. So again I think you are grossly misinterpreting things and its all within your own view and nothing allowed into your field of perception." Tiff
Tiff,
Since this is going well past #200 post, you or even Lex have not demonstrated or actualized any new perception.  So it does appear as I never understood a single word Nagarjuna said but I helped him drink his wine.
"Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way." Tiff
 Contrast as in either full or empty are really the same thing, like off and on, like yin and yang. etc. The same truth is always equanimized
from both ends or views using counterpoint to extract truth.
"Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in?" Seems so to me." ...Tiff
Are you serious here even though you place a smiley face after the fact? Only  its your tone that suggest you have that old elitist edge that you had over at PP.   
My question would be are people suppose to take words in their black and white literal sense the way they are presented to them and then analyze the death out of them till they no longer make sense or exist to the mind?  This is an emptying , void , null , zero processing. This could be like emptying the sieve of  unnecessary words and objects. This mimics the obsessive compulsive disorder  when words create and attach  themselves to take on form or object. 
Please give a an example of how Nagarjuna works in reality.It  just appears as all talking in circles for now without any real example to see.
PS. I thought that the line about  the steak, wine and good cigar that Gonzo mentioned would make a good quotable quote for a movie line. It is obvious I don't watch too many movies to know the source of the quotes . lol, who cares anyway.

[ninth octave]

".. So again I think you are grossly misinterpreting things and its all within your own view and nothing allowed into your field of perception." Tiff
Tiff,
Since this is going well past #200 post, you or even Lex have not demonstrated or actualized any new perception.  So it does appear as I never understood a single word Nagarjuna said but I helped him drink his wine.
"Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way." Tiff
 Contrast as in either full or empty are really the same thing, like off and on, like yin and yang. etc. The same truth is always equanimized
from both ends or views using counterpoint to extract truth.
"Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in?" Seems so to me." ...Tiff
Are you serious here even though you place a smiley face after the fact? Only  its your tone that suggest you have that old elitist edge that you had over at PP.   
My question would be are people suppose to take words in their black and white literal sense the way they are presented to them and then analyze the death out of them till they no longer make sense or exist to the mind?  This is an emptying , void , null , zero processing. This could be like emptying the sieve of  unnecessary words and objects. This mimics the obsessive compulsive disorder  when words create and attach  themselves to take on form or object. 
Please give a an example of how Nagarjuna works in reality.It  just appears as all talking in circles for now without any real example to see.
PS. I thought that the line about  the steak, wine and good cigar that Gonzo mentioned would make a good quotable quote for a movie line. It is obvious I don't watch too many movies to know the source of the quotes . lol, who cares anyway.

[lex icon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
I have just lit myself a nice stogie, Oliva V, rated 94 by Cigar Aficionado.
What we should remember about Cypher’s decision is that he was in a position to choose the way he did ONLY because he was first freed from the Matrix! For those who have not been freed from the Matrix no such choice exists.
Also we must consider what is Cypher really saying here, with his ignorance is bliss statement, as he chomps on that steak? Remember he can enter the Matrix whenever he wants. He can enjoy those fine steaks, wines and cigars at will. They can even write a sub program for those things without even having to face the danger of entering into the Matrix. So what is it really?
He seems to be fatigued with war weariness. He doesn’t see the point any more. He has lost hope because he was so attached to a successful out come. The brief excitement of his liberation has worn off as his selfishness slowly but surely overcomes him, probably as it did in the Matrix too. He hates his existence. He doesn’t care about liberating others, especially if it is to bring them into the reality of the Nebuchadnezar and Zion. He is not looking for the One (Neo). etc. So now all he wants is to forget reality. He doesn’t want to know the truth. He just wants to forget and not remember. He is really committing suicide. He does not wish to exist any longer unless it is as a thoughtless battery. The person he is will not translate back into the Matrix. Cypher will never be able to enjoy a good cigar or steak ever again. If we look at this way, ignorance is not bliss.....ignorance is just ignorance! See where this is going?
 One of Cypher’s demands as part of the deal was that he remember nothing! But it is the one making the demand that enjoys cigars and steaks.  Here’s the catch22. If he goes back with memory he will become dissatisfied with the steaks and cigars. Once his dissatisfaction maxes out he will seek a way out and be back in same position.
The parable of the movie only goes so far. It is an excellent device for considering liberation and a perceived parallel existence but it is just that another EXISTENCE! Once in that other existence one still has to deal with existence. Existence itself has still not been penetrated.

[Gonzo]

lex icon wrote:Everything is already empty. But....it did not originate from a void and via this is inherently connected to emptiness. Rather what is here and now is empty.  Tiffany
Perhaps those who think that void comes first and things originate from void would wish to step up and comment on this??? Or have you not examined your notions yet?
That's the beauty of a Nagarjuna. If you wish to understand what he says a firm conviction for truth is required. If you do not really care about truth you will not care about what he is drawing our attention to. He cares not whether you agree with him. In fact he would love it if you could muster an objection and engage. But what so often happens in discussions like this is that people are not that interested in what is true, not really believing there is such a thing anyway, and not wishing to be disabused of their most cherished ideas, choose instead not risk engaging for fear of appearing like a fool for believing false notions to begin with. But here's the kicker we are all full of the false ideas. It takes hard work to get through it. Just stepping forth with the Middle Way is an exercise in tackling our delusions and illusions.
Gonzo, Thank you for engaging man Please would you tell us why you find Nagarjuna so difficult to understand, perhaps with a few examples. You are not alone with this. I too find Nagarjuna difficult to understand. I am used to defining realty via the four propositions.
What I found difficult was Nagarjuna's commentaries.  I'm posting a link to an essay that may cure the difficulty.

[lex icon]

Since this is going well past #200 post, you or even Lex have not
demonstrated or actualized any new perception.  So it does appear as I
never understood a single word Nagarjuna said but I helped him drink his
wine. Ninth
I am not sure Nagarjuna or Buddhism is interested in perpetrating a new perception. In fact Nagarjuna somewhere considers what he is putting forth as a "viewless, view". It is really an examination of all views and showing that no matter how absolute such views appear in their apprehension and presentation, they are merely arbitrary and conditional, lacking substance. Somewhere Buddha was quoted as saying that he never taught anything to anyone.
Few can tolerate such an imageless landscape. We are so addicted to our cherished notions!

[lex icon]

Heh. It just seems to me being in human form is first and foremost a
sensual experience and we can enjoy it. Gonzo
What does it mean to you "being in human form"?

[Gonzo]

Tiff wrote:Gonzo, in all due respect, I don't think you tried too hard to understand Nagarjuna.
Perhaps not.  With that in mind, I located an interesting essay at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf.  Therein, I found, the following on page 137 which was surprising since it seems applicable to our discussion:
In tandem with the extensive discussion of causality in the context of origination, cause and the like is an illuminating discourse on the subject of actions (Karma). The subject of actions is of course very close to that of causality as it deals with the working of cause and effect in the context of intentional actions performed by an agent, call him a moral agent if one will. Again, the subject is treated in The Foundation Stanzas of the Middle Way and there it occupies a chapter.  In The Seventy Stanzas also it is given rather a lot of attention taking up, as it does, eleven stanzas.  The discussion follows that found in The Foundation Stanzas of the Middle Way very closely. Here also the gripping analogy of the illusory emanation of the Tathagata is found, and the creative role of imagination or mental fabrication is expounded. of imagination or mental fabrication is expounded. The picture which emerges from three striking stanzas which appear uninterrupted by any auto- commentary6 is one of a phenomenal world animated by imagination, the creative power of consciousness, through a series of projections or emanations. It is a fascinating
vision and one that comes pretty near the conception of the Mind Only school, or to look further a field, some of the Cabalistic developments in esoteric Judaism. Of course Nagarjuna does tell us very emphatically elsewhere in the text that consciousness like everything else is empty.
Tiff wrote:I say this based on your responses that are so off target of what I'm saying. Such as this quote above here. I have declared nothing null and void, in fact, I wrote many times about the importance of avoiding nihilism and of not referencing a void. I thought I spelled it out quite clearly what I meant by this, and now you conclude the very thing I said Nagarjuna helps one to avoid, which is this sense that "nothing matters because its not real" which is a nihilist perspective.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding.  If you read my statement entirely, I said, "It does not matter whether it is maya, insubstantial, empty, or void."  Note the word "empty"  From your prior post:
Tiff wrote:Because the person does the work themselves, the product is of their own effort. And it becomes a new dictum upon which all concepts that grasp at inherent exisitence (or nihilism) will fall flat upon the observer who realizes emptiness directly. One is liberated from grasping. Liberated from fear of the unknown. Liberated from the complexity born from ideas about individual essences. Liberated from the idea that one must change something about themselves in order to achieve enlightenment.
Still, there is nothing to change or achieve to realize emptiness and enlightenment in the sense that its erroneous to perceive we are not already that. Everything is already empty. But....it did not originate from a void and via this is inherently connected to emptiness. Rather what is here and now is empty. Absent as Lex said in last post.
Tiff wrote:Remember what happened to the guy who took the red wine, steak, and cigar though? hehe I prefer to learn, as much as I can about this extraordinary world, and to also unlearn what was incorrectly taught. If you say you are taking the steak, you are saying you are not curious and want to live in ignorance because its pleasurable to you. The guy's exact words in the movie "ignorance is bliss" then he died, lol. I say enlightenment is bliss!
Another way of looking at that scene is that the guy, given the choice of a stark grey-world exisitence eating food from a can, compared to being in the matrix and getting all the enjoyment out of life, chose the matrix and probably without regret even if his life was shorter, it was happier... ok, in the movie its understandable why this would be a choice (still not a good one imo, but makes some sense), but here, in our discussion, it's really does not correspond, because reading Nagarjuna does not put one in a stark grey world. One does not have to give anything up in terms of these life-expereinces, enjoying food, wine, cigars whatever. So again I think you are grossly misinterpreting things and its all within your own view and nothing new allowed into your field of perception.
The character "choosing" maya was also a traitor.  What I found of interest is what you mention, that "reality" was represented as gray and bland, to include gray, ragged "monks" robes, existing in the gray innards of a machine.  There were further depictions of "reality" vs "maya", in regard the choice of the red pill over the blue pill.  Regardless, even though I mentioned the analogy, it seems an improbable leap of logic to imply gross misinterpretations and a lack of allowing 'new' into my field of perception.
What we begin to approach is the age-old question of purpose.  That is, why are we here?  Which will also ask, what/who are we, really?  My own investigations have followed a different path than yours, yours more towards the intellectual, mine more towards the sensual.  Garrison Keelor once said something like, "We are juicy beings", as indeed we are...mostly water - the whole business of being human is a senuous experience and I suspect one of the reasons we are here is to enjoy that.  
Tiff wrote:Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way. Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in? Seems so to me. At the very least, try to let go of this null, blah, void thing. Its not even what I've been talking about.
I wasn't aware I saw empty as desolate, null or void.  I saw it as empty, and I continue to disagree with it.  Rather, the notion is of no value since I'm willing to accept what I perceive at face value and to enjoy it as it seems to be.
Tiff wrote:So order you a steak, pour some wine, and light up a stoogie and we can discuss Nagarjuna...or not...it matters not to me. Seems you are pretty much through with the discussion anyway. But I'm always willing to engage if you are.
Nah...I found the aforementioned essay on Nagarjuna, and I intend to spend some time with it.
Tiff wrote:When I was born, the three dog night tune was the top song that week...its in my bones, I love this world. Joy to it! So that much we have in common. Drama...I've had enough drama, can do without that...but will take adventure any day.
Heh.  Seems to me adventure=drama.  Drama usually has a bad name, since every family seems to have a drama queen of sorts, and most everyone else seems to be tired of it...but they aren't, really.

[lex icon]

I must say I am now curious. This topic Emptiness and Objects has quickly grown to the "featured" topic with over 4000 views. It obviously is of great interest here. So what is that everyone is finding so interesting about this? Come on you lurkers contribute. How do you relate to all this?

[Gonzo]

lex icon wrote:Heh. It just seems to me being in human form is first and foremost a
sensual experience and we can enjoy it. Gonzo
What does it mean to you "being in human form"?

It means two things: one, the experience of sensual being; two, the opportunity to ponder the business of existing in human form.

[Tiff]

ninth octave wrote:".. So again I think you are grossly misinterpreting things and its all within your own view and nothing allowed into your field of perception." Tiff
Tiff,
Since this is going well past #200 post, you or even Lex have not demonstrated or actualized any new perception.  So it does appear as I never understood a single word Nagarjuna said but I helped him drink his wine. 
Perception is each of our expereinces ninth and we each have to do the "inner work" to alter our perception. My perception is being altering when I interact at this forum. Whether the people I intereact with agree or disagree with me, I gain the benefit of shift in perception...seeing new angles and also the act of communicating my own perception to them helps me see it clearly. 
"Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way." Tiff
 Contrast as in either full or empty are really the same thing, like off and on, like yin and yang. etc. The same truth is always equanimized
from both ends or views using counterpoint to extract truth.
"Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in?" Seems so to me." ...Tiff
Are you serious here even though you place a smiley face after the fact? Only  its your tone that suggest you have that old elitist edge that you had over at PP.
I'm never serious Nothing is so important to be so serious about. I do **** though. I do stupid things sometimes. Have emotion sometimes. But towards Gonzo I can say I have not had any serious emotions. Whenever I smile in person I put a smiley face in text I have not been analyzing what it means. Whether you see me as elitist or not (perhaps I'm an elitist parrot, lol), I still contend this is not PP, this is SW, so I'm more interested in the topics, if you want to get into elitism, remember that's more like PP's approach. So maybe its time you saw you are doing PP stuff in what you are choosing to focus your attention on. You don't have to focus on elitism, we can stay on discussing Nagarjuna, because truth is, realizing emptiness directly alleviates any and all afflictions eventually as long as the person stays with it. They don't need to do all that confrontation stuff we learned at PP. A person just needs to end the grasping, and this is done by understanding things are not as they are appearing to be, once this is seen, over and over again (don't by any means think its a one shot deal, it takes hard work and continuous effort, like anything else in life), so many things unravel and no longer bother. 
 
My question would be are people suppose to take words in their black and white literal sense the way they are presented to them and then analyze the death out of them till they no longer make sense or exist to the mind?  This is an emptying , void , null , zero processing. This could be like emptying the sieve of  unnecessary words and objects. This mimics the obsessive compulsive disorder  when words create and attach  themselves to take on form or object. 
Please give a an example of how Nagarjuna works in reality.It  just appears as all talking in circles for now without any real example to see.
In reality...if I were jealous of another person, what would be occurring is an identity with individual essences, grasping at that. After reading Nagarjuna and Agent and Action for example, I would see that an individual essence could not interact, it would be permanent and unable to, so I know from this there are no individual essences separately acting upon one another, so my grasping at the ideas of the other person being separate and independent and thus "having what I have not" would be false, and then I could drop the focus this way, because we in truth are interdependent without any essence. If you want to find this out for yourself first hand, my words can't take you there and I never claimed they would, you truly have to read Nagarjuna until the shift in perception occurs. This is totally your decision, I cannot make it happen for you. I can only talk about it and my own experience. I have another post I made a while ago, it talked about the advantages of realizing emptiness directly. I will fish it up and repost for you.  It's another example of how realizing emptiness (in Mahayana understanding) works in reality.
PS. I thought that the line about  the steak, wine and good cigar that Gonzo mentioned would make a good quotable quote for a movie line. It is obvious I don't watch too many movies to know the source of the quotes . lol, who cares anyway.

[Tiff]

From post #133 Directly realizing emptiness, the benefits in reality of...
"Because the "I" is empty of inherent existence, having genuine self-esteem is possible. If we meditate properly on emptiness, as our understanding of it deepens, our self-esteem will increase. It's the grasping at inherent existence that produces low self-esteem because our self-hatred, guilt and fears are founded upon grasping at a truly existent "I". Through analytical meditation, we discover that there is no fixed, inherently unlovable, disgusting person. Such a person cannot be found. He or she does not exist. Seeing this, we will no longer be weighted down by hating someone who doesn't exist. A tremendous feeling of freedom comes from realizing that there is no solid person here who is shameful and unworthy. Seeing this, our hearts will be light a joyful. The more we see the "I" as empty, the more we understand that we can become Buddhas and the more we progress on the path to Buddhahood. ~Tara the Liberator"
Ninth, don't expect these words alone to shift you. This just talks about what will occur if one applies themselves to the task of realizing emptiness directly. The actual work is up to each person. I personally can attest what is said here is true, in my own experience of.