Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote: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.Ya got me. It doesn't. It is implied, however, imo, when it is stated frequently that all beings have Buddha Nature. So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is.
And, btw...someone somewhere stated that the proper translation of "Buddha" was "the awakened one". If there's no such thing as awakening, etc...easy syllogism.
There's a neat Haiku that's relevant here:
Not yet having become a Buddha
This ancient pine-tree
Idly dreaming.
Tiff wrote: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.Good point. Am I being hoist on me own petard here? Heh.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:"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?
Tough one. My teacher's wife once said nobody changes. Initially I argued with her, however, I've come to the conclusion she is right. In another discusion, this with the teacher, he was asked were we both to encounter one another as inorganic beings (assuming that state is our natural essence and it is returned to post physical death), would we recognize one another? His response was, "Yes. Instantly. And further, we would know one another in our entirety."
There are some major assumptions there I'll leave alone for the time being for the sake of discussion.
This implies a uniquely identifiable essence; i.e., permanent nature, which does not itself change...however, it does evolve, if evolution may be seen as a process of discovery. The process of discovery can be considered change.
I liked a comment by Joseph Campbell when he said the business of being human is just God trying to get to know himself.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The word change has been sticking in my craw throughout this discussion as well as discussions with others. It seems to me that the more I discover the more I become like I was as a child...therefore I have not changed but have released the **** that has either been forced on me or I have accepted for some reason. This releases the essence of the being, rather than changing...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
tiff wrote:I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort. ~Gonzo
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?Another tough one.
First, this requires a belief in the theory of reincarnation, that being essentially the wheel of death and rebirth. Of the sources I've read in re reincarnation, perhaps the most profound for me was (no laughing), "The Michael Book" by Chelsea Quinn Yarboro (and no, I didn't care for "Seth Speaks").
In conjunction with that, in a rather oblique manner, are also the works of Robert Monroe, sort of the father of astral travel.
The theory is we gradually evolve through various lifetimes, experiencing being both male and female, all the horrors, all the joys, all the business imaginable of being in human form. We each have a basic personality type that remains constant throughout, however, each existence is frought with different difficulties if you will...i.e., lessons to be learned. We progress through various soul levels - infant, baby, young, mature, old - and eventually, we "graduate", having learned all we can from being in human form.
According to Monroe's "trip reports", beyond the realm of human, lie at least seven more levels, and these really are what I was referring to. They have names and some description, but I would have to dig them up. The process, however, appears to be the same...more lessons, more learning, more experience.
In addition, in one of your posts you provide a link to "rebirth" in the quoted article in Wikipedia concerning Buddhism.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
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. ~Gonzo
How do you see it then?
Well, having just read the article you pointed to, I must recant. I especially enjoyed the analogy of lighting one candle with another.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
“The new seers seem to have been very abstract,” I commented. “They sound like modern day philosophers.”
“No. The new seers were terribly practical men,” he replied. “they weren’t involved in concocting rational theories.”
He said, (DJ) the the ancient seers were the ones who were the abstract thinkers. They built monumental edifices of abstractions proper to them and their time. And just like the modern day philosophers, they were not at all in control of their concatenations. The new seers on the other hand, were imbued with practicality, they were able to see a flux of emanations and to see how men and other living beings utilize them to construct their perceivable world.
Don Juan explained that the new seers discovered the transition period is the time when the deepest learning takes place, and that it is also the tie when warriors must be supervised and explanations must be given to them so that can evaluate them properly. If no explanations (rational)) are given to them before they enter into the left side, they will be great sorcerers but poor seers, as the ancient Toltecs were.
I am outlining the order in which the new seers arranged the truths about awareness, so it will serve you as a map, a map that you will have to corroborate with your seeing, but not with your eyes.”
“Everybody falls prey to the mistake that seeing is done with the eyes.”
When seers see, something explains (rational) everything as the new alignment takes place,” he continued. “ It’s a voice that tells them in their ear what’s what. If that voice is not present, what the seer is engaged in isn’t seeing.”
“Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of sobriety, and at the same time they must shy away from those qualities in order to be completely free and open to the wonders and mysteries of existence.” (DJ giving eg. of contradictions)
Excerpts from Fire From Within.
Castaneda thought of the New seers as philosophers but as can be seen from this DJ did not care too much for the abstract thinking of the ancient seers. When speaking with you Nemo about these things as I have been doing, it is as if I keep interrupting you as build rational edifices of theory. When I present rational that is not theoretical you take refuge in the abstract. Now I am not judging but it seems you have more in common with the ancient seers.
He said, (DJ) the the ancient seers were the ones who were the abstract thinkers. They built monumental edifices of abstractions ("there are also entities and these entities are separate and that these separate entities have been created by this multiverse"nemo) proper to them and their time. And just like the modern day philosophers, they were not at all in control of their concatenations. The new seers on the other hand, were imbued with practicality, they were able to see a flux of emanations and to see how men and other living beings utilize them to construct their perceivable world.
I personally do not care for the term emanations at all. But I do see this flux as does NJ and with the help of a NJ see how they are used to “construct the perceivable world”, what I am calling the notion of existence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
No-self is simply another observation about experience( since everything has impermanence /dependent arising), that it is possible to be liberated from the constriction of a life centered on "self" and to experience life more freely and joyfully.
Nonduality co-originates with no-self. The teaching that the things we ordinarily see as separate and distinct from each other or even as opposites are ultimately not two, not separate and distinct. You and I are not two, not separate and distinct( the candle analogy fits nicely here). Nirvana and samsara are not two. Everything in the universe or mutiverse is ultimately not two. Strickly speaking, nonduality does not mean that "all is one". Nonduality means only that ALL is NOT TWO, period. Nonduality means only that all is not two, but all is not one either. So nondual can be understood to mean "neither two nor one."
Zen / Toltic /Buddhism Middleway/Christianity/etc. all share common element in the experience of being human. For an example a Christian theologian David Tracy notes that while the Buddhist and Christian ways are clearly not the same, "neither are we two, in any easy way, merely other to one another." Borrowing the Buddhist notion of nonduality, Tracy suggests that perhaps "we are neither the same nor other, but not-two. Only the further dialogue will tell."
Got tea?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:No-self is simply another observation about experience( since everything has impermanence /dependent arising), that it is possible to be liberated from the constriction of a life centered on "self" and to experience life more freely and joyfully.
Nonduality co-originates with no-self. The teaching that the things we ordinarily see as separate and distinct from each other or even as opposites are ultimately not two, not separate and distinct. You and I are not two, not separate and distinct( the candle analogy fits nicely here). Nirvana and samsara are not two. Everything in the universe or mutiverse is ultimately not two. Strickly speaking, nonduality does not mean that "all is one". Nonduality means only that ALL is NOT TWO, period. Nonduality means only that all is not two, but all is not one either. So nondual can be understood to mean "neither two nor one."
Zen / Toltic /Buddhism Middleway/Christianity/etc. all share common element in the experience of being human. For an example a Christian theologian David Tracy notes that while the Buddhist and Christian ways are clearly not the same, "neither are we two, in any easy way, merely other to one another." Borrowing the Buddhist notion of nonduality, Tracy suggests that perhaps "we are neither the same nor other, but not-two. Only the further dialogue will tell."
Got tea?
I'm a bit short on tea, but I have a goodly supply of beer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Notice the thought,( hmm, beer..)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought, ( hmm, steak medium rare ..)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought, ( hmm, baked potatoe loaded with sour cream....)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought,( hmm, Movie, "Inception"....)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought,(hmm, on beach smoking some herb....)
return to the breathing....
All we are is dust in the wind ... playing on radio.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:Notice the thought,( hmm, beer..)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought, ( hmm, steak medium rare ..)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought, ( hmm, baked potatoe loaded with sour cream....)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought,( hmm, Movie, "Inception"....)
return to the breathing,
notice the thought,(hmm, on beach smoking some herb....)
return to the breathing....
All we are is dust in the wind ... playing on radio.Heh. Add this to it
This dewdrop world
It may be a dewdrop,
And yet - and yet...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:
Lex,
How did you convince your self you no longer had a soul or could no longer accept God's existence.Lex,
The thought occurred , how Buddhism was maybe ignorant of the "Trinity" or maybe how the "Melchizedek "type wandering Hebrew tribes spread down through out the Asian continent,
spreading teachings of Abraham's covenant to India. Maybe by the Essenes? Buddha would have known about the Old Testament Yahweh by the time he lived in 500-400 BC. The knowledge and mystery of the "Trinity " as God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, they are Three in One. Who can understand this? This demonstrates co-origination or dependent origination in the manifestation of creation story, the 3-in 1 Godhead.
"Melchizedek" appears briefly in the Old Testament scriptures. He was the pre-incarnate of Jesus almost 3,000 years before Jesus birth in 4 BC. This means Jesus IS the reincarnation of Melchizedek, his spirit, the same high priest and king of kings This means Jesus trans-figured from a few thousand years previously. Who can understand this without knowledge of reincarnation thanks to Hinduism and Buddhism.
Apparently not even the Jew of the day could know of Melchizedek/ Jesus re-link. Abraham , David. makes mention in the OT. In the Book of Hebrews, New Testament, Jesus transmitted through Paul the knowledge and mystery of "Melchizedek"
Jesus surprisingly admits this to the unbelieving Jews in John 8:31-58..
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am". After hearing this they tried to stone him.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
...or tried to get him stoned.....hm
Posts: 15
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2019
“Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of
sobriety, and at the same time they must shy away from those qualities in order
to be completely free and open to the wonders and mysteries of existence.” (DJ
giving eg. of contradictions) Lex
This may sum up the difference in us. I see what DJ is getting at here, for you to label it as a contradiction is easy, he was aware of that himself. What you seem to be missing is the functional middle ground.
When I present rational that is not theoretical you take refuge in the abstract.
I believe in Toltec knowledge as presented by DJ because of my personal confirmation of most of what he has presented. The perspective that I have come up with theories is wrong.
Secondly the time when rational explanations have had value for me has ended, you still find value in them, why?
"Encounters With The Nagual" - ©2004 by Armando Torres
Conceptual Saturation
I once told Carlos once how difficult it was for me to understand the postulates of sorcery, and asked him for some definitions which could guide my rationality. But he told me that this was neither possible nor useful, since he didn't live in a reality of ordinary consensus.
"Not even I understand myself," he assured me with absolute seriousness.
He maintained that 'to comprehend' is to fix our attention on a specific point, from where things can be explained. The more accepted that point is by people in general, the truer we find it.
"But the universe is not reasonable, its essence is beyond all description. Security and common sense are islands floating around in a bottomless sea, and we only cling to them out of fear.
"If you continue on the path of knowledge, you will soon discover that explanations are placebos, since they never fulfill what they promise. For each thing they clarify, they generate a trail of contradictions. In fact, we never understand anything; true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting. That is the nature of the lessons of the nagual.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote: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.Ya got me. It doesn't. It is implied, however, imo, when it is stated frequently that all beings have Buddha Nature. So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is.
Tiff wrote: I agree Buddha nature is our nature, I just think back to the analogy of the clouds obscuring the sun, the sun is ever-present, but the clouds represent all the obscurations to clear in order to directly experience Sun to the fullest.
And, btw...someone somewhere stated that the proper translation of "Buddha" was "the awakened one". If there's no such thing as awakening, etc...easy syllogism.
Tiff wrote: But we know there are very elating experiences we can have in waking or dreaming and these states are not continued indefinitely. Its said in Buddhism that entering into the experience of nirvana permanently is the ultimate goal, so to enter these states of ecstasy permanently. Do you feel we have no work to do? That reminds me of Communism. A Chinese friend told me it failed because when a doctor and a floor sweeper made the same money, got the same house and all, the people lost motivation and less wanted to be doctors. Its kinda the same with your view of enlightenment, isn't it? If you say you are "already there" in the form of experience, you do not seek anything that may be even more exquisite.
There's a neat Haiku that's relevant here:
Not yet having become a Buddha
This ancient pine-tree
Idly dreaming.
Tiff wrote: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.Good point. Am I being hoist on me own petard here? Heh.
Tiff wrote: No I think this just shows at times you agree with me yet perceive it was a disagree. So much has been entered into this discussion and it is getting rather complex in aspects to account for all the times it happens, and I see you at these times supporting what I'm saying but not acknowledging it directly and then going in the other direction afterwards so it appears as a disagree.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:"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?
Tough one. My teacher's wife once said nobody changes. Initially I argued with her, however, I've come to the conclusion she is right. In another discusion, this with the teacher, he was asked were we both to encounter one another as inorganic beings (assuming that state is our natural essence and it is returned to post physical death), would we recognize one another? His response was, "Yes. Instantly. And further, we would know one another in our entirety."
There are some major assumptions there I'll leave alone for the time being for the sake of discussion.
This implies a uniquely identifiable essence; i.e., permanent nature, which does not itself change...however, it does evolve, if evolution may be seen as a process of discovery. The process of discovery can be considered change.
I liked a comment by Joseph Campbell when he said the business of being human is just God trying to get to know himself.Yes, you are right, a lot of assumptions here.
You have presented inorganic beings as essence. And also God has been introduced again. Ok, how did this essence get created? If we are God, as you suggest here, then it could not have been us who created ourselves because then we need a time before creation in which we don't exist and thus cannot self-create if we don;t exisit to begin with. How did this essence begin? Who is the creator of essence? If essence is not created then what is essence? We can't call it God, because no creator. Do we call it human? Human essence? What about everything else, trees, animals, water, all phenomena? What is their essence? Does a tree always stay a tree because its inorganic essence is shaped like a tree, for example?
If you choose not to examine this, aren't you saying then that you believe things for reasons you are not even sure of why you believe them?
And Gonzo, just to make things simple (rather than respond to all the above questions if you like), I have truly just one question to this response to your post. The question I ask you is (and depending on your response will determine my reply) is this:
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:tiff wrote:I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort. ~Gonzo
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?Another tough one.
First, this requires a belief in the theory of reincarnation, that being essentially the wheel of death and rebirth. Of the sources I've read in re reincarnation, perhaps the most profound for me was (no laughing), "The Michael Book" by Chelsea Quinn Yarboro (and no, I didn't care for "Seth Speaks").
Tiff wrote: Not necessarily reincarnation but more specifically cyclic-existence in which the belief in reincarnation is included. This is in support of ignorance being the cause of such and hence we are not aware of being enlightened. So we have to work to clear obscurations. What you seem to state elsewhere is enlightenment "already is", ok, fine, I do not disagree, but I maintain we have work to do to get to this direct experience of full enlightenment, and now here you are agreeing with me (though you may not realize it) about getting off the wheel of death and rebirth, so you are agreeing here that we have work to do to "achieve" full enlightenment, even though you maybe don't like it worded that way (achieve).
In conjunction with that, in a rather oblique manner, are also the works of Robert Monroe, sort of the father of astral travel.
The theory is we gradually evolve through various lifetimes, experiencing being both male and female, all the horrors, all the joys, all the business imaginable of being in human form. We each have a basic personality type that remains constant throughout, however, each existence is frought with different difficulties if you will...i.e., lessons to be learned. We progress through various soul levels - infant, baby, young, mature, old - and eventually, we "graduate", having learned all we can from being in human form.
According to Monroe's "trip reports", beyond the realm of human, lie at least seven more levels, and these really are what I was referring to. They have names and some description, but I would have to dig them up. The process, however, appears to be the same...more lessons, more learning, more experience.
In addition, in one of your posts you provide a link to "rebirth" in the quoted article in Wikipedia concerning Buddhism.
Tiff wrote: Its not me who is contesting the idea of awakening (getting out of cyclic existence "death and rebirth"). Its you who has been saying all along that we have nothing to achieve in Buddha nature because we are already that. And I'm okay with your definition in terms I would not deny all are enlightened, but I believe we need to realize it (work to do) and again, here in your post above you are supporting this act of "awakening to" as a process, so you are contradicting yourself from previously when you said there is nothing to do or awaken to, don't you see?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote: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. ~Gonzo
How do you see it then?
Well, having just read the article you pointed to, I must recant. I especially enjoyed the analogy of lighting one candle with another.Gonzo, which article are you referring to?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nemo quoted : "He maintained that 'to comprehend' is to fix our attention on a specific point, from where things can be explained. The more accepted that point is by people in general, the truer we find it.
"But the universe is not reasonable, its essence is beyond all description. Security and common sense are islands floating around in a bottomless sea, and we only cling to them out of fear.
"If you continue on the path of knowledge, you will soon discover that explanations are placebos, since they never fulfill what they promise. For each thing they clarify, they generate a trail of contradictions. In fact, we never understand anything; true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting. That is the nature of the lessons of the nagual."
Nemo,
Know that even you yourself are not outside of this rationalization. What you present here in this thread is your rational and you use others acceptance to help reinforce it, such as this quote you give reinforces your own POV. It too is rational.
"explanations are placebos"
Yet you provide via your own words...explanations of what you believe rationally.
"But the universe is not reasonable"
Yet here you are reasoning with us about this very point.
"its essence is beyond all description"
Yet you describe it to us (multiuniverse posts).
"In fact, we never understand anything"
Yet you feel you DO understand.
"true teaching is physical and we only get it after years of fighting."
How can there be a teaching then if, as you said, there's nothing to understand? Because even bodily knowledge would convey understanding.
Its one thing to frown upon rationalization, but to use the very vehicle of it to do this is simply contradictory and actually is an adherence to rationality itself.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo, just so your contradictions are crystal clear to you...
"So, as with awakening, it's not something to be accomplished since it already is."~ Gonzo
"I think of working towards getting off the wheel of death and rebirth and moving on to other levels of effort." ~Gonzo
"We progress through various soul levels - infant, baby, young, mature, old - and eventually, we "graduate", having learned all we can from being in human form." ~Gonzo
in other words, awaken to another level.
"According to Monroe's "trip reports", beyond the realm of human, lie at least seven more levels, and these really are what I was referring to. They have names and some description, but I would have to dig them up. The process, however, appears to be the same...more lessons, more learning, more experience." ~ Gonzo
more awakening to.
So in one breath you say nothing to awaken to, then in another you describe a very distinct process of evolution towards....realizing the buddha-nature because its is not heir apparent to us and thus we need to progress through stages to realize it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff, you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo very full of your words, opinions and explanations as you constantly take the mystery out of mystery.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
nine, under the mystery is more mystery, breaking down the present mysteries presents more mystery deeper, fuller, more profound. If we remain ignorant then the real profound mystery...the "new" mystery if you will remains unexplored.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
list of ascended masters... Carlos Castaneda and St. John of the Cross among the some http://www.greatdreams.com/masters/ascended-masters.htm
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:"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?
Tough one. My teacher's wife once said nobody changes. Initially I argued with her, however, I've come to the conclusion she is right. In another discusion, this with the teacher, he was asked were we both to encounter one another as inorganic beings (assuming that state is our natural essence and it is returned to post physical death), would we recognize one another? His response was, "Yes. Instantly. And further, we would know one another in our entirety."
There are some major assumptions there I'll leave alone for the time being for the sake of discussion.
This implies a uniquely identifiable essence; i.e., permanent nature, which does not itself change...however, it does evolve, if evolution may be seen as a process of discovery. The process of discovery can be considered change.
I liked a comment by Joseph Campbell when he said the business of being human is just God trying to get to know himself.Yes, you are right, a lot of assumptions here.
You have presented inorganic beings as essence. And also God has been introduced again. Ok, how did this essence get created? If we are God, as you suggest here, then it could not have been us who created ourselves because then we need a time before creation in which we don't exist and thus cannot self-create if we don;t exisit to begin with. How did this essence begin? Who is the creator of essence? If essence is not created then what is essence? We can't call it God, because no creator. Do we call it human? Human essence? What about everything else, trees, animals, water, all phenomena? What is their essence? Does a tree always stay a tree because its inorganic essence is shaped like a tree, for example?
If you choose not to examine this, aren't you saying then that you believe things for reasons you are not even sure of why you believe them?
And Gonzo, just to make things simple (rather than respond to all the above questions if you like), I have truly just one question to this response to your post. The question I ask you is (and depending on your response will determine my reply) is this:
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
Minor point of clarification here. I was not introducing God into the discussion. That was what I considered a rather whimsical statement by Campbell, and I liked the sentiment.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?I don't know, and I don't know if I DID know if it would make any substantial difference anywhere.
Perhaps it's simplistic but I prefer the notion presented by Richard Bach in "Illusions", when he says, "We are the otters of the universe." To me, that has great implications. Here's the full quote:
We are game-playing, fun-having creatures; we are the otters of the universe. We cannot die, we cannot hurt ourselves any more than illusions on the screen can be hurt."The Play's the thing", as Willie said.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Gonzo wrote: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. ~Gonzo
How do you see it then?
Well, having just read the article you pointed to, I must recant. I especially enjoyed the analogy of lighting one candle with another.Gonzo, which article are you referring to?
Your post http://sorcery.yuku.com/r...Objects.html#reply-25162 specifically the essay on rebirth.
|
