Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:nemo wrote:Tiff wrote:Identifying the absolute truth of interdependence enables me to let go of the false concept of "I" as being inherently existent as an independent thing when in truth it is not.Lol, My wife is reading that dwyer guys stuff and she asked me to point at myself, and I pointed all around at the trees, sky and then at my heart, she kinda just wanted me to point at my heart
Tiff I had this truth of yours realized before I went to see Lujan, he had more energy though, if you see what I mean.
My stand is that the Multiverse is much more multifaceted than any explanation can encompass, but I am sure Lex is going to try.
Maybe its not that Lujan had more energy than you, to me its not even about what some supposedly have and others don't. I would just take that entire focus and redirect it to examination of exisitence. Its nicer that way anyway
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:Nemo, what are individual entities?
If we cannot find an individual entity what would that mean for such Toltec themes?A personal furrow in time.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:The multiverse creates separate entities from itself Nemo.
Nemo could you qualify this and how you know those to be so?
You wont like this answer Lex, but I see it!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Reeves talked a bit about the philosophy of the Matrix. "What is reality, what is truth, what is fate, dealing with man and technology. What is AI? What is the real? And if real is just sensory perceptions why can't the matrix be as real and the whole aspect of finding authentic life."
[Reeves] begins to warm to his theme. "Those questions you have are also
strongly Neo's questions such as: Do you believe in fate? Why
not? I'm
not in control of my own life. That whole thing of asking those
questions
I think is Neo's journey and it was fun to ask them. I have a
feeling
about what Neo wants and the brothers had a feeling, so in the
second
one in an odd way I think they kind of invert what happened. In
the first
one, Thomas Anderson became Neo; his digital self became his
real self
and his fear of flying became him flying and there's a certain
aspect
in Reloaded where the hero gets inverted and we're back to Neo
as Thomas
Anderson. We see his fears, his personal kind of hopes
and his
vulnerabilities."
...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."
Anyone care to comment about this? This is the crux here, something we all face. Even though
Neo got out of the Matrix, he still had to deal with exisitence. So it
wasn't just about getting freed from one perception only to enter another (better one),
its about examining exisitence itself. And getting freed from perception. Otherwise, as we see Neo and Thomas Anderson are not all that different really.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Within Mahāyāna literature, the teachings of the historical Buddha Śākyamuni are categorized according to three distinct sets of sūtra discourses.[1] These sets of teachings are not determined by location or by the timing of their delivery but rather by their content and their intended audience. Utilizing the early Buddhist metaphor of a “dharma wheel,” each set is described as a "turning," "cycle," or perhaps more accurately as a "revolution."
As a schema for classifying the sūtras, these three turnings provide a conceptual framework for understanding the progressive unfolding of Buddhist philosophical schools of thought in India as well as for interpreting the vast body of literature attributed to the Buddha. Summarizing these three turnings, Tāranātha writes,
Nevertheless, the initial Wheel of Dharma comprises the set of sūtra discourses on the ordinary śrāvaka that teach about phenomena within relative reality. The middle Wheel of Dharma comprises the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras that teach how the intrinsic essence of all phenomena from form up through omniscience cannot be established, and how existence is said to be not even slightly existent. The final Wheel of Dharma teaches how one's own nature is regarded as exalted pristine awareness, the ultimate truth that is space and awareness indivisible.[2]
This ultimate nature of the 3rd revolution is often referred to as, "buddhanature" or tathāgatagarbha. Its understood to be an enlightened essence that is everlasting, stable, constant and insubstantial. It is said to encompass all of the tangibles, that which are known to the ordinary sense faculties and by the states of mind. Finally, it is explained as an expression of ultimate emptiness, a nature which has not arisen from the beginning of time and that appears "like reflected forms in a mirror."[3]
http://www.jonangpa.com/node/1325
3rd revolution
Matrix Revolutions (3rd in Trilogy)
"This ultimate nature of the 3rd revolution is often referred to as, "buddhanature" or tathāgatagarbha."
"the initial Wheel of Dharma comprises the set of sūtra discourses on the
ordinary śrāvaka that teach about phenomena within relative reality.
The middle Wheel of Dharma comprises the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras that
teach how the intrinsic essence of all phenomena from form up through
omniscience cannot be established, and how existence is said to be not
even slightly existent. "
The first two revolutions could be interpreted in the first two Matrix's as well. What is real? And how it can't be substantiated, and to try to only creates doubts.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:...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.Anyone care to comment about this? This is the crux here, something we all face. Even though Neo got out of the Matrix, he still had to deal with exisitence. So it wasn't just about getting freed from one perception only to enter another (better one), its about examining exisitence itself. And getting freed from perception. Otherwise, as we see Neo and Thomas Anderson are not all that different really
Odd you would pick that particular commentary. When I read it, I was going to reply, but decided to leave it be. However, since you've pointed it out again...
Existence itself has still not been penetrated. Indeed. and
...it's about examining existence itself. And getting freed from perception.
All is well until that last quote. Seems to me were we to get freed from perception, we would likewise become freed from existence. Cogito ergo sum, once again, and if I cease thinking (i.e. cease perceiving), I cease existing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The multiverse creates separate entities from itself Nemo.
Nemo could you qualify this and how you know those to be so?
lex icon wrote:The multiverse creates separate entities from itself Nemo.
Nemo could you qualify this and how you know those to be so?
You wont like this answer Lex, but I see it!
Nothing to like or dislike yet. This sounds very similar to Ninth and her faith in God. When pressed about God for qualification, at some point she will fall back to a faith, private and unassailable with a do not disturb sign posted as she deflects to other subjects.
So I am glad that you see because now you can explain to us what it is you see as you witness the event of a “multiverse creating separate entities.”
Implicit in the statement of yours is that there IS a multiverse...and I thought a universe was difficult to grasp, there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse you referred to. I am blind to this. I am looking for you to be more explicit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:Nemo, what are individual entities?
If we cannot find an individual entity what would that mean for such Toltec themes?A personal furrow in time. Nemo
Ok what is a personal furrow in time? Switching labels is not going to help. I am asking for you to be less vague and more explicit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
All is well until that last quote. Seems to me were we to get freed
from perception, we would likewise become freed from existence Cogito
ergo sum, once again, and if I cease thinking (i.e. cease perceiving), I
cease existing. Gonzo
Gonzo, That is closer! If you cease thinking you will cease to perceive objects as separate, individual, inherent, entities and the implied observer of these individual entities will vanish too! Then you will truly start to marvel at what it is you are really looking at.
Its not so much that we are trying to get free from perception it is just that perception is merely one of the five aggregates Buddhism refers to. It is more that we wish to temper our flare for defining reality with a heavy emphases on perception.
When the perception of an object as inherent takes place what is aware of this? When objects can no longer be perceived this way, again what is aware of this?
Again I just wanted to remind that according to Carlos, DJ thought the first truth about awareness had to do with objects. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps, Toltecians and sorcerers and shamans can weigh in on this. What was DJ talking about, what did he mean?
I have relentlessly been saying what I think he meant and how Buddhist thought relates to this. So come on its time to step up.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
We we look at the physical form of a person we are looking at what is perceived as matter. (Gross or dense).
When science looks at this matter they see it as energy and various technology allows for closer and closer examination of this in ever more minute detail.
When seers see the physical form they are also capable of seeing it as energy but the energy they see has a different appearance to what science sees. The energy that seers are capable of seeing is more “subtle” and refined in its appearance and patterns.
DJ related to Carlos that as a seer he was capable of seeing people as an “egg shaped energy field with various energetic compartments and that when a person moved this egg shaped energy field had a sort of tail that dragged in the energy field of the earth leaving a furrow.” Seers of this same tradition have also reported seeing the physical form instantly switch to a blob of light radiating intelligence.
Now you would think that seers would see the same energetic appearances if they were all looking at say people, but they don’t. In fact very few seers report seeing energy the way Carlos describes it according to DJ. In fact it is far more common for seers to see the energetics of peoples’ energy fields in the more traditional appearances such as different colored chakras and auras, reported by new agers.
Now why do different traditions see the energy field appearances differently. People of different traditions do not vary on how they see the appearance of the physical form of people. And even seers of different traditions see the physical form of people with the same consistency. So why the discrepancy when it come to energy fields and how seers perceive them?
If the seeing of energy by seers varies according to sensitivity of the seer say, then the energy appearances are not as immutable or as independent as they appear any more than the physical form is.
So it seems to me that an appeal to energetics as the essential nature of matter based on the ability to perceive energetically is just as unreliable as the visual perception, of the eyes, when seeing physical matter.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:The multiverse creates separate entities from itself Nemo.
Nemo could you qualify this and how you know those to be so?
lex icon wrote:The multiverse creates separate entities from itself Nemo.
Nemo could you qualify this and how you know those to be so?
You wont like this answer Lex, but I see it!
Nothing to like or dislike yet. This sounds very similar to Ninth and her faith in God. When pressed about God for qualification, at some point she will fall back to a faith, private and unassailable with a do not disturb sign posted as she deflects to other subjects.
So I am glad that you see because now you can explain to us what it is you see as you witness the event of a “multiverse creating separate entities.”
Implicit in the statement of yours is that there IS a multiverse...and I thought a universe was difficult to grasp, there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse you referred to. I am blind to this. I am looking for you to be more explicit.Lex, that's just a fancy way of saying you didn't like it . Try this and see if you can see the energy furrow in time that your personal energy can create. The next time you are walking amongst a crowd turn and stand facing the oncoming people/persons/personal furrows or however you view others, and start yelling we are all one.
I am not sure I can be more explicit though. I will let this percolate in me for a while and see if I can come up with anything.
If you are blind to this as you say then I must ask, what is it in you that is blind?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Elementary physics states...energy can neither be created or destroyed. Their is much to create and much to destroy with this SAME energy that is always moving like a river.So what if this unknown source entity is "God"? . God works throughout all the universes too. Energy is always ON.Do you have another name for God yet? No, because God is really a VERB. . lol. There was Energy even before the big bang to cause the BB. Only no one knows where or how this energy first came about. So what happened before the BB? . We humans just don't know where the beginning is or have never seen the end yet because everything appears to be in a constant state of flux since the BB. EVERYTHING is EXPANDING only maybe all in relative motion so we just don't really know how to use or read the measurement properly according to what or when.EXPANSION is ENDLESS and everything is expanding in unison. We know how the solar system runs like clockwork in circular motion creating the energy , the pull of gravity which makes our universe appear as we do in it. We play by the laws of physics so we can understand our Milky Way Galaxy. The" on" switch is forever on even as we sleep and dream. Our eyes are still forming and creating objects in dreaming because they have been infused with photons. Photons are God giving us the verb. lol.
You are still too full of your words Lex.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:
We we look at the physical form of a person we are looking at what is perceived as matter. (Gross or dense).
When science looks at this matter they see it as energy and various technology allows for closer and closer examination of this in ever more minute detail.
When seers see the physical form they are also capable of seeing it as energy but the energy they see has a different appearance to what science sees. The energy that seers are capable of seeing is more “subtle” and refined in its appearance and patterns.
DJ related to Carlos that as a seer he was capable of seeing people as an “egg shaped energy field with various energetic compartments and that when a person moved this egg shaped energy field had a sort of tail that dragged in the energy field of the earth leaving a furrow.” Seers of this same tradition have also reported seeing the physical form instantly switch to a blob of light radiating intelligence.
Now you would think that seers would see the same energetic appearances if they were all looking at say people, but they don’t. In fact very few seers report seeing energy the way Carlos describes it according to DJ. In fact it is far more common for seers to see the energetics of peoples’ energy fields in the more traditional appearances such as different colored chakras and auras, reported by new agers.
Now why do different traditions see the energy field appearances differently. People of different traditions do not vary on how they see the appearance of the physical form of people. And even seers of different traditions see the physical form of people with the same consistency. So why the discrepancy when it come to energy fields and how seers perceive them?
If the seeing of energy by seers varies according to sensitivity of the seer say, then the energy appearances are not as immutable or as independent as they appear any more than the physical form is.
So it seems to me that an appeal to energetics as the essential nature of matter based on the ability to perceive energetically is just as unreliable as the visual perception, of the eyes, when seeing physical matter.
To perceive energetically seers have used mind altering substances to artifically induce forgien entities into their field of awareness.This A.I .is the source of the self induced delusion. imo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
...it's about examining existence itself. And getting freed from perception.
All is well until that last quote. Seems to me were we to get freed from perception, we would likewise become freed from existence. Cogito ergo sum, once again, and if I cease thinking (i.e. cease perceiving), I cease existing.Gonzo,
First it must be clarified what perceiving is. So we are all on the same page, hopefully.
The Shurangama Sutra
The Buddha, Sakyamuni, once asked twenty five Bodhisattvas to explain enlightenment and how they arrived at it.The Bodhisattva of wisdom, Manjushri, was then asked to judge which one was most suitable for humans to use. He determined the perceiver of sounds has the most suitable practice (quickest way to enlightenment). The perciever of sounds is he who hears the cries of the world, notable in the Lotus Sutra. Avalokiteshvara (India), Kuan Yin (China).
Kuan Yin's Shurangama Sutra deals directly with perception as a non-constant experience and shows us directly what is constant and permanent. Its a meditative application but can be useful here as discussion.
The story of the practice tells that when Kuan Yin was human and practicing to attain enlightenment, she often meditated near the ocean. Many of you Zen purists should appreciate this. In other words, not words, lol, but dealing with hearing attachments.
Upon awaking one morning Kuan Yin heard the ocean surf breaking the silence, then she noticed the surf ceased and the silence resumed. Then came the surf again and thus the silence ended. Kuan Yin became aware then of hearing two things: the surf and the silence, but upon this she also realized it was impossible to hear both simultaneously, because the sound of surf made the silence cease and the silence was only perceived by the cessation of the surf.
Kuan Yin then understood that both of these sound objects had something in common, both arose and ceased. This is perception of objects, in this case sound-objects, a non-constants always in flux. Impermanence. Thomas Anderson in the Matrix, Neo out of the Matrix, the fears of Thomas Anderson giving way to become the fearless hero Neo, the fears returning to Neo to then take the form of Thomas Anderson again. Perceptual relocations that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Surf and silence.
Kuan Yin's ultimate realization was it was her sense of hearing consciousness that made it possible to detect both the sounds and the silence (because silence is a sound too). If silence were a true cessation of sounds then the returning of the surf would not have been possible. So in conclusion, Kuan Yin understood her sense of hearing was the constant, permanent and unchangeable aspect that enabled perception to occur. Furthermore, this ability was not dependent on the presence of or absence of sounds.
Now I realize alot of arguments can be rasied at this point such as, what if a person is deaf? Or what about when a person dies? etc. imo, the Shurangama Sutra should not be taken so literal. Kuan Yin's approach is a meditative application one can use. Also the discussion of it alone can be enlightening.
Aside from the direct application of, here is what the teachings are pointing to: that objects rise and fade, and we have learned to follow them and attach to them as absolutes. For example when I say Marilyn Monroe, most people will get an image of her in her 20's, maybe wearing that white dress and seductive smile to the camera. But what about her when she was 5, 10, 15 years old? The constant flux of her is not what is apparent, what is apparent is a snapshot view, this is the attachment aspect...failing to see the non-constant for what it is and in such ignorance assigning it with a permanence it has not. Things are perceived but then taken as constants in such perceptional apprehensions when they are absolutely not this way. So its just that we fail to see this is what we are doing all the time. We are making things permanent when they are not. Attachment to what is perceived is the cause of this.
Getting back to Kuan Yin's approach, hearing consciousness is what is permanent. Its not the same as what is heard. It is not dependent on the hearing of sound objects.
You, Gonzo, think of perception as the ultimate. But upon examination its seen that perception is the flux of objects reflected by thought. However, there is a constant that can account for reflection upon of sound and silence, light and darkness, large and small etc. Duality is not the end of the road, there is beyond this duality an experience not dependent on the dual equation. This constant is still part of dependent arising but it is permanent, whereas perception is impermanent. So what's being introduced now is consciousness. What Buddha achieved was he got beyond impermanent, cyclic existence, and accessed permanent nature, called the Buddha-nature.
Does essential Zen talk about the Buddha-nature and if so what is its understanding of it?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote  oes essential Zen talk about the Buddha-nature and if so what is its understanding of it?
Heh. May as well start at the end and work backwards.
Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening. As the quote goes, these are both notions that arise and delude folk. Rather than paraphrase, here it is from "The Blue Cliff Record":
TBCR wrote: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 - then there isn't a single concern in one's heart. When hungry, one eats; when tired, one sleeps.
A thing of interest is, I suspect most folk have some vague notion of what Buddha Nature is, rather like they also have a similar notion of "Higher Self", and "Spiritual Adept". A point I like to make, is if you know what the attributes of these labels are, you already have them, in your own unique way, which is what Essential Zen continually emphasizes. That is, Gautama did Gautama...that's fine...you aren't Gautama...you are you...so DO you....in that regard, enlightenment becomes a purely personal thing. This is further emphasized by don Juan when he says the goal is to achieve the totality of oneself. Nisargadatta emphasizes the same thing...answer the question, "Who am I?" - who that I is, is the perceiver, is the one that thinks, is the unique being of energy in the entire universe...back to Gautama's statement: "I alone am the honored one."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo said : Seems to me were we to get freed from perception, we would likewise become freed from existence. Cogito ergo sum, once again, and if I cease thinking (i.e. cease perceiving), I cease existing.
How about deep sleep?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Lex, that's just a fancy way of saying you didn't like it . Try this and see if you can see the energy furrow in time that your personal energy can create. The next time you are walking amongst a crowd turn and stand facing the oncoming people/persons/personal furrows or however you view others, and start yelling we are all one. Nemo
Nemo, what happened when YOU tried this? .......(I must say that at times in this thread I feel like I am doing just that lol.)
I am not sure I can be more explicit though. I will let this percolate in me for a while and see if I can come up with anything. Nemo
If you are blind to this as you say then I must ask, what is it in you that is blind? Nemo
The same thing that allows you to see this.
I am not so interested in if you can prove something when challenged. I am inquiring as to what led you to the certain position you hold. In this case a multiverse that creates separate entities.
I do not see this, perhaps I am not blind and what you speak of is a figment of your imagination. So I wanted to explore this with you to ascertain the veracity of your statement and upon what you base your apprehension.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" I believe has direct bearing for this thread. By this statement you have claimed that there are entities, that these entities are separate and that they have been created. In order for you to do this you have to employ certain building blocks of perceived existence.
Now let’s look at this Multiverse you mentioned. You are presenting this idea as a cause, in this case, the cause of what is created ie; separate entities. So the Multiverse according to you existed before what it created. In order for something to be created there had to be a moment when it was not. Then by act of its creation it came into being, in this case created by the Multiverse (creator). So now there “is” a separate entity. Hmm. Separate. By this do you mean entities separate from each other or entities separate from the Multiverse or both? Did multiverse create entities one at a time or many all at once etc? Separation of creator and created. What distinguishes the separate “quality”? Are these things inherently different and distinct or are they distinguished by something else as being that way? Without getting into what created the multiverse and what created that ad infinitum can we just look at this.
Buddhism and DJ are saying that when we look at entities closely we cannot find any essence of that entity. I assume by now that when referring to entities in this manner it is understood that we are not referring to inorganic beings. A table is an entity, an idea an atom an abstract etc. So when we examine entities we find them devoid of any inherent essence. Many are not comfortable with this and due to ignorance of this start to invent and imagine in vain attempts to to substantiate what cannot be substantiated and grasp at reality where there is none. Now if someone can show an inherent existence of an entity, then let’s by all means have a look at it. If we cannot find the inherent existence of entities then we need to take a good look at the conclusions, the working conditions of all our previous assumptions regarding material and immaterial existence.
Now if something does not have any inherent existence, not even slightly, then in an absolute sense it does not exist as an individual, separate entity.
It makes no sense to say that essence arises from causes and conditions. If essence were caused or conditioned, it would not be essence. Nagarjuna
Essence cannot be created or otherwise come to be. Essence is not artificial, nor does it depend on another. Nagarjuna
If this is true the what we are seeing is a mere appearance, like a reflection in a mirror. If that is true then we need inquire into the appearance making. How are appearances made, what makes appearances appear? Why do appearances appear etc? We have no problem grasping (after we awake) that when we dream that which appears in a dream has been fabricated by our minds in some way. Yet for some reason in our waking everyday life our environment seems separate and independent, creating the illusion that it came from elsewhere other than mind that it is real in some way other than just an appearance and of course once this has been accepted imagination can just run wild with its inventions.
8. If only entities with essences [really] exist, then there is no non-existence, nor can anything change.
What is NJ saying here? Remember he is well capable of presenting assertions from all sides even if he does not hold them to be true. Look at the duality of what NJ is delving into here, the duality of existence and non-existence. You cannot have existence without non-existence! But if entities have essences then they “really” exist and are not just appearances. That which really exists would be essential. That which is essential is immutable and unchanging. There is no non-existence! So how can those who adhere to the notion of (real) entities with essences also entertain the non-existence or even the dissolution of entities?
Some will say, "If there are no essences, what is there to change?" We reply, "If there are essences, what is there to change?" Nargajuna.
At this point NJ’s detractors think they have him cornered. Asking him how he can possible account for change if there are no essences imagining him to be a nihilist, many today think of Buddhism as nihilistic, it is not. But if you look closer at Nagarjuna he has not been promoting the idea of no essences. He has been examining the illogical claims of those who think entities have essences. He has been exhausting the logic of entities with essences. Basically saying well if you say that what about this? It cannot be both ways. Ie; If things have essences how can they change, being immutable? There must be another explanation! But in order to see where NJ is coming from we need to be able to re-examine the framework of existence and non-existence.
"there are also entities and these entities are separate and the these separate entities have been created by this multiverse" Nemo
Now if you wish to examine this further using NJ logic, we will eventually get into topics of “Agent and Action” in this case the Multiverse acting as Agent, creating, being the action,
It cannot be that a real agent performs an unreal action. It cannot be that an unreal agent performs a real action. (From believing these things, all sorts of errors follow.)NJ
If we are assuming that Multiverse (or even God) is a real agent, in this case essential and existing before the action, (real) then how can such an agent create something unreal ie; entities without essences, which would be an unreal action? NJ has already shown the faulty logic of entities with essences. So if we can let go our idea of entities existing inherently then the notion of an agent creating such an unreal entity would no longer be plausible. If something does not really exist inherently, it was never created, because it does not exist! I am not referring to the appearance here.
So in order to maintain the notion of a Creator Multiverse (or God) it is encumbent upon the believer to maintain the notion of the reality of inherent entities created by creator through an act of creation. NJ makes it difficult to keep this up with any credibility because the logic of the essence of entities is unsustainable.
To go further we would get into events, acts as happenings and again NJ is exhaustive regarding this.
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? NJ
9. If things do not begin to exist, then they cannot cease to exist. If things do not begin to exist, how can they have precipitating conditions? If something has ceased to exist, how can it be a condition or cause of anything else?
10. If things have no substantial essences, then they have no real existence; and, in that case, the statement, "This is the cause or condition of that," is meaningless. NJ
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:The constant flux of her is not what is apparent, what is apparent is a snapshot view, this is the attachment aspect...failing to see the non-constant for what it is and in such ignorance assigning it with a permanence it has not. Things are perceived but then taken as constants in such perceptional apprehensions when they are absolutely not this way. So its just that we fail to see this is what we are doing all the time. We are making things permanent when they are not. Attachment to what is perceived is the cause of this.Perhaps what is being discussed is the attachment to perception, not perception itself. Nothing is permanent...the essence of being is change.
Tiff wrote:You, Gonzo, think of perception as the ultimate.I do? I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort.
Tiff wrote:But upon examination its seen that perception is the flux of objects reflected by thought.It is? I don't see it that way.
Tiff wrote: However, there is a constant that can account for reflection upon of sound and silence, light and darkness, large and small etc. Duality is not the end of the road, there is beyond this duality an experience not dependent on the dual equation. This constant is still part of dependent arising but it is permanent, whereas perception is impermanent.Says who?
Tiff wrote:So what's being introduced now is consciousness. What Buddha achieved was he got beyond impermanent, cyclic existence, and accessed permanent nature, called the Buddha-nature.I continue to equate consciousness with awareness, with perception, with thought, essentially those attributes which define existence. To me, each of us has a permanent nature. For example, another quote from TBCR:
An ordinary man is Buddha; desire and passion is enlightenment. One thought of folly makes a man an ordinary man; the next enlightened thought and he is a Buddha.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Fool wrote:"Seems to me were we to get freed from perception, we would likewise become freed from existence. Cogito ergo sum, once again, and if I cease thinking (i.e. cease perceiving), I cease existing. ~Gonzo
How about deep sleep?
I don't know. So far, I have managed to waken from deep sleep and continue.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:Gonzo, That is closer! If you cease thinking you will cease to perceive objects as separate, individual, inherent, entities and the implied observer of these individual entities will vanish too! Then you will truly start to marvel at what it is you are really looking at.
I find nothing wrong with thinking...pondering is perhaps my most favorite activity. To me, if there is any "trick" at all, it is in suspending judgement and attachment. Nothing vanishes...it merely is what it is.
lex icon wrote:Its not so much that we are trying to get free from perception it is just that perception is merely one of the five aggregates Buddhism refers to. It is more that we wish to temper our flare for defining reality with a heavy emphases on perception.
When the perception of an object as inherent takes place what is aware of this? When objects can no longer be perceived this way, again what is aware of this?I am...the one who thinks, the one who perceives. If I observe without defining, whatever is, is. It does not go away.
lex icon wrote:Again I just wanted to remind that according to Carlos, DJ thought the first truth about awareness had to do with objects. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps, Toltecians and sorcerers and shamans can weigh in on this. What was DJ talking about, what did he mean?
I have relentlessly been saying what I think he meant and how Buddhist thought relates to this. So come on its time to step up.Seems to me rather obvious that in order to percieve, there must be something to percieve. I'm not interested in the chicken/egg controversy.
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
It cannot be both ways. Lex
This analysis is based on very sound logic, I have some but not absolute trust in logic, even if it is sound and from an entity I like lol. I operate from a different perspective on things than you it seems. You will label it faith and ignorance, i would not.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote oes essential Zen talk about the Buddha-nature and if so what is its understanding of it?
Heh. May as well start at the end and work backwards.
Essential Zen says there's no such thing as Buddha-nature, just as there's no such thing as awakening.
Gonzo, where does essential Zen text explicitly state there is no such thing as Buddha-nature? I doubt it does and rather this is merely your interpreted conclusion. Even upon reading what you quote here I see no negation of the Buddha-nature.
As the quote goes, these are both notions that arise and delude folk. Rather than paraphrase, here it is from "The Blue Cliff Record":
TBCR wrote: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 - then there isn't a single concern in one's heart. When hungry, one eats; when tired, one sleeps. "there's no false and no true"
This just supports what I was saying, that there is the permanent Buddha-nature that is not dependent on sound or silence, light or dark, large or small, "true or false".
"then there isn't a single concern in one's heart."
Non-attachment to objects, just as Kuan Yin's meditation reveals to the practitioner non-attachment to sound-objects, which is expanded to include all objects.
A thing of interest is, I suspect most folk have some vague notion of what Buddha Nature is, rather like they also have a similar notion of "Higher Self", and "Spiritual Adept". A point I like to make, is if you know what the attributes of these labels are, you already have them, in your own unique way, which is what Essential Zen continually emphasizes. That is, Gautama did Gautama...that's fine...you aren't Gautama...you are you...so DO you....in that regard, enlightenment becomes a purely personal thing. This is further emphasized by don Juan when he says the goal is to achieve the totality of oneself. Nisargadatta emphasizes the same thing...answer the question, "Who am I?" - who that I is, is the perceiver, is the one that thinks, is the unique being of energy in the entire universe...back to Gautama's statement: "I alone am the honored one."
"In clear illumination, there is no such thing as awakening."
Cannot awaken because enlightenment IS, always was from beginningless time. However obscurations (ignorance) block this direct realization. "Clouds can obscure the ever-present Sun."
"I alone am the honored one."
And, according to TBCR (based on what you tell me), enlightenment is not awakened to, it just IS in all (sentient beings). So does this not point to no essential, individual and thus separate "I" if in each "I" are all that are enlightened? "I alone am the honored one" is reference to the permanent Buddha-nature. It has no essence to make it separate from anything. It is empty of essence and permanent in nature. No true, no false. Beyond dual perception.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Nothing is permanent...the essence of being is change." ~Gonzo
"To me, each of us has a permanent nature." ~Gonzo
Gonzo, in your belief are these "permanent natures" separate from each other? How does "essence of being" change from its essence to be still its essence of being?
Tiff wrote:You, Gonzo, think of perception as the ultimate.I do? I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort.
Can you be more specific about what this entails? How does one get of the wheel of death and rebirth, and what exactly are other levels of effort?
Tiff wrote:But upon examination its seen that perception is the flux of objects reflected by thought.It is? I don't see it that way.
How do you see it then?
Tiff wrote:
However, there is a constant that can account for reflection upon of
sound and silence, light and darkness, large and small etc. Duality is
not the end of the road, there is beyond this duality an experience not
dependent on the dual equation. This constant is still part of dependent
arising but it is permanent, whereas perception is impermanent.Says who?
Direct experience. This is a meditation practice anyone can do, so its not just "Kuan Yin discovered this", to try this the experience would be realized:
"Kuan Yin's ultimate realization was it was her sense of hearing consciousness
that made it possible to detect both the sounds and the silence
(because silence is a sound too). If silence were a true cessation of
sounds then the returning of the surf would not have been possible. So
in conclusion, Kuan Yin understood her sense of hearing was the
constant, permanent and unchangeable aspect that enabled perception to
occur. Furthermore, this ability was not dependent on the presence of or
absence of sounds."
If we depended on sounds, when sound ceased we would become deaf. If we depended on light, when utter darkness (in a cave for example) occurred, we would be blind thereafter. Thus there is a constant consciousness that accounts for both and is not dependent upon the sustainability of either one.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Since nothing was recorded in writing by Gautama himself during his lifetime, the task of narrowing down what is attributed to his teachings is an inscrutable one.
Nonetheless, here is the Wiki page on Buddhist Philosophy:
Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.
Some scholars assert that early Buddhist philosophy did not engage in ontological or metaphysical speculation, but was based instead on empirical evidence gained by the sense organs (ayatana).[1] Buddha is said to have assumed an unsympathetic attitude toward speculative thought in general.[2] A basic idea of the Buddha is that the world must be thought of in procedural terms, not in terms of things or substances.[3] The Buddha advised viewing reality as consisting of dependently originated phenomena; Buddhists view this approach to experience as avoiding the two extremes of reification and nihilism.[4] Nevertheless, Buddhist scholars have addressed ontological and metaphysical issues subsequently.
And later...
Early development
Certain basic teachings appear in many places throughout the early
texts, so most scholars conclude that the Buddha must at least have
taught something of the kind:[12]
the three characteristicsthe five aggregatesdependent arisingkarma and rebirththe four noble truthsthe eightfold pathnirvanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"I am...the one who thinks, the one who perceives.' ~Gonzo
Ok, I can see now you attribute this to a direct Guatama quote and this seems to give your concept of thought credibility. But Gautama did not write anything down! It took between 300-400 years to get recorded scriptures, and before was oral traditions from disciples of disciples of disciples.
That why scholars today look for repetition of early recorded texts, hence, when there is overlap, they believe this reveals the direct teachings of Gautama if these various disciples are saying something very similar to each other.
You quote here back in your post #204:
"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 [here you meant "our"] thoughts we make the world", I'm willing to take his word for it."
And yet Gonzo, we have no way of verifying this as Buddha's quote. He did not write anything down! Early texts are what we have to go by, and in early texts there are some commonalities they share so this is what comprises Buddha's original teachings to the best that can be compiled.
|
