Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:If you agree with me there was no first cause, you can only conclude all phenomena arises together, interdependently. Also if you agree no first cause, you cannot assign thought as the cause of everything else.
I didn't agree...I said I didn't know its origin, and further, if I did know its origin, it would have no relevance to me.
Tiff wrote:You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts"
To clarify, once again, I didn't say it...Gautama said it, or is reported to have said it, second line of the Dhammapada. I do, however, agree with it still.
Tiff wrote:..., but here in this post you are agreeing that there is no first cause (no independent creator), which I am glad you are agree and we have got to this juncture. So I have to point it out then, that you should not go back and make thought a first cause if you do not support the idea of first cause.(see above re agreement.)
In my opinion, there is no conclusive way to prove a first cause, despite Nargarjuna's logic (which I still fail to understand), nor to prove essence is empty, or perhaps that phenomena are empty of essence. Further, as I have said, even if those concepts could be proven, to me, they would have no relevance. On the other hand, I do have my own proof of the power of imagination, which I can equate with Gautama's statement.
You have implied earlier that understanding what Nagarjuna is talking about has practical applications in your life, and I presume in some way that equates with your own understanding of enlightenment. I've opined here and elsewhere that enlightenment is a personal notion, and further, that my own interpretation is that it is "genuine contentment". I continue to focus my own attention on the matters at hand, the juicy business of moment to moment existence, and therefore, my own notion of enlightenment functions within those confines.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Fool wrote:Gonzo said: "I presume that's a qualified "yes"."
It is unique to each individual in its display. In the absolute it is unmodified, unborn, like Padmasambhava explains.So, we have then, unique albeit unconditioned awareness. The key adjective remains unique, imo. If that is the case, then there is individuality; i.e. uniqueness. That is, each unconditioned awareness has specific qualities and aspects that make it uniquely identifiable. And further, it would appear, each awareness possibly has the capacity to recognize other unique awarenesses.
Is that reasonable?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo said: "So, we have then, unique albeit unconditioned awareness. The key adjective remains unique, imo. If that is the case, then there is individuality; i.e. uniqueness. That is, each unconditioned awareness has specific qualities and aspects that make it uniquely identifiable. And further, it would appear, each awareness possibly has the capacity to recognize other unique awarenesses.
Is that reasonable?"
Yes of course there is individuality, at least apparently! And in an impermanent way or a dreamlike way. What this unconditioned awareness allows is the full enjoyment of what you are in the moment because it is untouched by it. So just enjoy the cigar but don't get depressed if you can get no more! And yes as an individual you are not me but for this unconditioned awareness in its simplicity, we're on the same ground. As for being reasonable...i don't know...maybe i ingested too much crazy wisdom!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Fool wrote:Gonzo said: "So, we have then, unique albeit unconditioned awareness. The key adjective remains unique, imo. If that is the case, then there is individuality; i.e. uniqueness. That is, each unconditioned awareness has specific qualities and aspects that make it uniquely identifiable. And further, it would appear, each awareness possibly has the capacity to recognize other unique awarenesses.
Is that reasonable?"
Yes of course there is individuality, at least apparently! And in an impermanent way or a dreamlike way. What this unconditioned awareness allows is the full enjoyment of what you are in the moment because it is untouched by it. So just enjoy the cigar but don't get depressed if you can get no more! And yes as an individual you are not me but for this unconditioned awareness in its simplicity, we're on the same ground. As for being reasonable...i don't know...maybe i ingested too much crazy wisdom!Heh. Don't these notions have impact on some of the discussions here? That is, if there is such a thing as individuality, it flies in the face of non-dualism, for one thing...in addition, it seems to me, it also impacts the notion of essence being empty, or of there being no essence at all.
Ingested crazy wisdom, eh? I hesitate to ask.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo said: "Heh. Don't these notions have impact on some of the discussions here? That is, if there is such a thing as individuality, it flies in the face of non-dualism, for one thing...in addition, it seems to me, it also impacts the notion of essence being empty, or of there being no essence at all.
Ingested crazy wisdom, eh? I hesitate to ask."
Well, to me it's very simple : either one verifies through direct experience whatever teaching one is studying or it's just philosophy. And i warn again about the hypnotic power of words. As far as i'm concerned, i've been practicing meditation for 20 years as well as studying different spiritual teachings and the realization i came to during the last 10 years or so is the direct experience of seeing what i thought or felt myself to be was only an artificial and ephemeral construct maintained in memory. So of course a good amount of useless and non-essential burden in the form of suffering to different degrees is gone with it concomitent with the emergence of what i call unconditioned awareness, which also gives a totally different view of the so-called outer world. More objective i would say because non-judgmental and non-conceptual. More fluid or more energetic. More direct, unfiltered. But i'm far from feeling that i uncovered the mystery of life. As i see it, it seems a neverending journey.
As for my ingestion of crazy wisdom, it's not what you think even though i had my share in the past of magic brews.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Would you agree the unconditioned awareness is unique? Gonzo
What do you mean by this statement Gonzo? Why do you think unconditioned awareness might be unique?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:Tiff wrote:If you agree with me there was no first cause, you can only conclude all phenomena arises together, interdependently. Also if you agree no first cause, you cannot assign thought as the cause of everything else.
I didn't agree...I said I didn't know its origin, and further, if I did know its origin, it would have no relevance to me.
Gonzo, post #372:
Tiff wrote:Truly I
was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say
yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses
prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by
who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to
account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like
dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of
something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and
then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.I agree.
You wrote "I agree".
Tiff wrote:You said earlier "the world is created with our thoughts"
To clarify, once again, I didn't say it...Gautama said it, or is reported to have said it, second line of the Dhammapada. I do, however, agree with it still.
Yes, I know you stated it was Gautama, but I mean simply, you believe this.
Tiff wrote:..., but here in this post you are agreeing that there is no first cause (no independent creator), which I am glad you are agree and we have got to this juncture. So I have to point it out then, that you should not go back and make thought a first cause if you do not support the idea of first cause.(see above re agreement.)
In my opinion, there is no conclusive way to prove a first cause, despite Nargarjuna's logic (which I still fail to understand), nor to prove essence is empty, or perhaps that phenomena are empty of essence. Further, as I have said, even if those concepts could be proven, to me, they would have no relevance. On the other hand, I do have my own proof of the power of imagination, which I can equate with Gautama's statement.
You have implied earlier that understanding what Nagarjuna is talking about has practical applications in your life, and I presume in some way that equates with your own understanding of enlightenment. I've opined here and elsewhere that enlightenment is a personal notion, and further, that my own interpretation is that it is "genuine contentment". I continue to focus my own attention on the matters at hand, the juicy business of moment to moment existence, and therefore, my own notion of enlightenment functions within those confines.
Yes, there is no need to prove first cause. The best is to let it go and not support it in any way.
Emptiness is arrived at by negation, after all attempts at establishing essence fails, all that is left is emptiness.
There is something we can explore on your presentation of the quote "with our thoughts we create the world". First, you contend that Gautama said that, but we don't know that's true. Nothing was written down until 400 years after his death. So already the source is in question.
Ok, but there's more. Our thoughts cannot be this powerful. While writing this post I use thought. But when I fall asleep at night I forget my breathing, and even during the day I forget to notice breathing and heartbeat etc. So my personal thoughts are not always focused on phenomena, something that is not "personal" sustains continuity.
There is something that accounts for continuity, and its not our thinking mind, that is, not "our thoughts". Also, "thoughts" and "mind" are not the same thing. I said before thoughts are what reflect upon objects. Mind in Buddhist terms refers to "all-encompassing" phenomena and emptiness.
What part of you Gonzo is personal? Your body is not, it was created by your mother and father's DNA. Your thoughts were shaped by those who you had contact with you, so what part of you is untouched by surrounding phenomena? You cannot say your thoughts, because some people can read very clearly others thoughts and repeat them back, and also the imagination (imagery) of one can be seen by another. So where is this isolated "you" that makes you individual?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:"The nature of samsara is the essence of the mind,
Which is primordially unborn and enlightened,
So by seeing the Mind, realization of the nature of existence is attained.
"For the Buddhahood which is totally and naturally pure,
Do not search anywhere but in your own mind.
"For people who want enlightenment, the meaning of the unmodified absolute
Is to let the mind be at ease without effort."
Hmmm.
I thought you might read this and see that part "Do not search anywhere but in your own mind." and this to you confirms inherentness of individuality and essence. Am i right?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
We have heard CC’s view about recapitulation now hear mine. I hope this is not too offensive Nemo.
CC when speaking of re-capitulation he frames it in a specific way and directs our attention towards energy. He points out to us that because of events that “happened to us” in our past, our energy has been waylaid. Often these events are emotional or psychological. CC would have us re-visit all events of our past and examine them in minute detail and recapture the energy or release the energy. While these portions of energy are psychologically and emotionally trapped in the past they are not available to us in the present. If we are to make strides to regaining the totality of ourselves we need this energy. I think most psychologists would agree with this assessment to some extent.
I am suggesting that the world of “objects out there” if not assessed correctly will negatively impact the "perceived energetic totality". To put it crudely, as in unrefined, the objects out there will occupy our attention “in here”, ie; foreign installation....oops I did it again. When coming into contact with objects “out there” through perception, if we grasp at them in order to confirm their existence as inherent (imputing), we allow them access within. Once admitted this way they bewilder and confuse and even terrify. If we do not understand emptiness the we have no choice but to allow this kind of access. That is why our recapitulation must include phenomenal reality and the world of objects. Our recapitulation must examine the nature of objective reality and how it occupies mind, thoroughly.
When Gonzo stated that he did not know how Nagarjuna negated things, I stated that he used reason. So often when we read the likes of a Nargajuna it seems so intellectual doesn’t it? Even in this thread the charge of mere intellectualism has been leveled somewhere. And even Nemo has suggested that this is mere reason and he has been done with that for some time now...echoing the sentiment of DJ when discussing the poles of No Pity and Reason. (But it is better to mediate between each rather favor one over the other  ) Somehow we seem to imagine that the reality we assert and believe is something much more than reason and that what Nagarjuna offers is just mere reason.
But let me just comment on the correct use of reason with a simple example.
There was a time when men thought the earth was flat. That if one ventured too far one would eventually fall of the edge of the world. All sorts of reasoning developed around this ignorance making it even harder to get to the truth. Some believed that a benevolent God had populated the farthest reaches of the seas with sea monsters, huge leviathans, in order to warn and scare people aware so they would not fall off the edge. And so on and so on until the whole of perceived existence was penetrated with this initial kernel of ignorance, that the earth was flat so that false imaginings replicated ad infinitum.
For those who discovered that if you did venture beyond the horizon you did not fall into an abyss, all the previous reasonings built around the ignorance of a flat earth began to fall apart and new possibilities within began to be realized. However when they ventured back into an ignorant society still invested in the false imaginations it was not easy to share their discovery. In fact the superstitious environment was hostile at first.
What was now apparent was that the reason of yesterday (which turned out to be superstition) was resistant to reason based on truth. At some point the (relative) truth prevailed supported by reason. This was possible because the reason based on superstition was not supported by truth.
We are all familiar with the logic of individual objects out there inherently existing. We have all been inundated with this perceived reality of things for a very long time. The accumulation of these perceptions have been conditioning consciousness long before we were even born. Inventing religions and spiritual practices and philosophies from within the conditioned framework of these accumulations just adds to the confusion.
Nargajuna, has seen through the facade and invites us to do the same!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo this is in general response to your posts...
It would be impossible for you to be just you alone in a void from beginningless time. But try now to imagine it. You may ask, "why would I even want to do that?" Or even if you don't ask this, I'll ask it...
Why? To prove you are individual essence. Or, if you prefer, then to prove you can have personal notions.
First it cannot happen. Not in your body...which was composed by family DNA, not in mind which was shaped by friends, family, teachers, co-workers, partners. Not in perception which knows only interaction in phenomena (all your memories up till today that gives a sense of identity)...at no point can you be in a void alone, just you, as a personal entity without ever having been connected with everything else. If it can't be done, then it can't be so. In other words, there is no personal you that stands alone. And the criteria of individual essence (personal notions) is it must stand alone. No-thing stands alone. You cannot show me anything that does this.
There is a sense of "I" and that's not in contention here. I've stated it previously as the mere I, and this I is dependent, just look at how your body and thoughts are dependent ...so its by proper definition not truly an I, just the mere appearance of one. Not to say its valueless, on the contrary, I see it as a vehicle, just as you do, but you try to impute it with essence it does not have, cannot have, because it does not stand alone.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
From the associated Press:
Big Bang investigators want new atom smasher
By EMMA VANDORE
..."It's the future of our discipline."
Instead of crashing protons together, the new international collider will accelerate electrons and positrons, their antimatter equivalent, he said.
In March, the Large Hadron Collider produced its first bang, the most potent force on the tiny atomic level that humans have ever created.
Two beams of protons were sent hurtling in opposite directions toward each other in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel below the Swiss-French border — the coldest place in the universe at slightly above absolute zero.
CERN, or the European Organization for Nuclear Research, used powerful superconducting magnets to force the two beams to cross; two of the protons collided, producing 7 trillion electron volts.
Heuer said that CERN's experiments so far have "done an incredible job," locating the particles scientists already knew existed. Now their job is to find new ones.
The colliders also may help scientists see dark matter, the strange stuff that makes up more of the universe than normal matter but has not been seen on Earth.
"Your work represents the oldest dream of man since he tried to understand and transform what goes on around him," Sarkozy said. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Interestingly, Nagarjuna has already answered this. So to understand Nagarjuna, takes some effort (but not as much as maybe perceived), but once understood, one does not fall prey to such seemingly valid questions. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"is not valid in any way. Its the wrong line of questioning, only leads in circles. By try telling one of these scientists this. Imagine digging your whole life for a treasure only to come up with dirt. They may satisfy some of their questions, but not the ultimate one spoken of here...their true treasure-question.
The most amazing thing is that getting beyond this question is only a preliminary step, no big deal. A small feat. So they are creating an atom smasher, lol. Its like throwing a boulder to crush a gnat.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
@Tiff
Wait one. My agreement was limited to what was said in the following:
Tiff wrote:Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:Would you agree the unconditioned awareness is unique? Gonzo
What do you mean by this statement Gonzo? Why do you think unconditioned awareness might be unique?
First of all, The Fool said it was unique. I happen to agree with him. It seems to me every manifestation of energy, regardless of form, is unique. I haven't any proof other than that I am not it - I cut my finger, I bleed, not any other being in the universe at that moment bleeds from that cut.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The Fool wrote:Gonzo said: "Heh. Don't these notions have impact on some of the discussions here? That is, if there is such a thing as individuality, it flies in the face of non-dualism, for one thing...in addition, it seems to me, it also impacts the notion of essence being empty, or of there being no essence at all.
Ingested crazy wisdom, eh? I hesitate to ask."
Well, to me it's very simple : either one verifies through direct experience whatever teaching one is studying or it's just philosophy. And i warn again about the hypnotic power of words. As far as i'm concerned, i've been practicing meditation for 20 years as well as studying different spiritual teachings and the realization i came to during the last 10 years or so is the direct experience of seeing what i thought or felt myself to be was only an artificial and ephemeral construct maintained in memory. So of course a good amount of useless and non-essential burden in the form of suffering to different degrees is gone with it concomitent with the emergence of what i call unconditioned awareness, which also gives a totally different view of the so-called outer world. More objective i would say because non-judgmental and non-conceptual. More fluid or more energetic. More direct, unfiltered. But i'm far from feeling that i uncovered the mystery of life. As i see it, it seems a neverending journey.
As for my ingestion of crazy wisdom, it's not what you think even though i had my share in the past of magic brews.OK. My experience has been different, as well as my conclusions from that experience.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Gonzo wrote:"The nature of samsara is the essence of the mind,
Which is primordially unborn and enlightened,
So by seeing the Mind, realization of the nature of existence is attained.
"For the Buddhahood which is totally and naturally pure,
Do not search anywhere but in your own mind.
"For people who want enlightenment, the meaning of the unmodified absolute
Is to let the mind be at ease without effort."
Hmmm.
I thought you might read this and see that part "Do not search anywhere but in your own mind." and this to you confirms inherentness of individuality and essence. Am i right?
Heh. Well, one is certainly tempted to come to that conclusion.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Ok, but there's more. Our thoughts cannot be this powerful. While writing this post I use thought. But when I fall asleep at night I forget my breathing, and even during the day I forget to notice breathing and heartbeat etc. So my personal thoughts are not always focused on phenomena, something that is not "personal" sustains continuity. I already stated otherwise, that our thoughts ARE indeed that powerful, and for a minor example, I proved that to myself...the matter of creative imagining. I'm not the only one who has "created" things and situations using creative imagination.
Tiff wrote:What part of you Gonzo is personal? Your body is not, it was created by your mother and father's DNA. Your thoughts were shaped by those who you had contact with you, so what part of you is untouched by surrounding phenomena? You cannot say your thoughts, because some people can read very clearly others thoughts and repeat them back, and also the imagination (imagery) of one can be seen by another. So where is this isolated "you" that makes you individual?
That which thinks is personal, is unique...the "sum" part of Cogito, regardless of current physical manifestation, regardless of conditioning, regardless of influences...actually, those very things contribute to its uniqueness. No other being in the universe has experienced what I have, nor been influenced as I have at this particular moment. The same may be said of you, as well as every other being.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:To prove you are individual essence. Or, if you prefer, then to prove you can have personal notions.
First it cannot happen. Not in your body...which was composed by family DNA, not in mind which was shaped by friends, family, teachers, co-workers, partners. Not in perception which knows only interaction in phenomena (all your memories up till today that gives a sense of identity)...at no point can you be in a void alone, just you, as a personal entity without ever having been connected with everything else. If it can't be done, then it can't be so. In other words, there is no personal you that stands alone. And the criteria of individual essence (personal notions) is it must stand alone. No-thing stands alone. You cannot show me anything that does this.I submit this is specious logic. That is, your conclusion that there is no personal you cannot follow merely from the standpoint that that personal being does not stand alone. Obviously, in order to have identity, there must be "other". In fact, quite the opposite conclusion is logical.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
The Fool wrote:
Ninth said : "This is the viewless view I would think in reality where there really is nothing happening here."
Yes, and would you return this view toward yourself, it's the youless you! In other words : nobody home. Just pure unconditioned awareness.Isn't pure unconditioned awareness some THING? If there is some THING, you might as well call it "me".
Isn't pure unconditioned awareness some THING? If there is some THING, you might as well call it "me"...Gonzo
Let's just say there is no borderline between what the inner self is experiencing and what the self is projecting to others outwardly. The thinker is absent in the moment because it detaches from any foreign elements to distract it from remaining close inside the now as it unfolds.. There is NO essence of a me/ self and there is no essence of the other self that projects outwardly to the coresponding object(s) or person(s) that would separate the moment from it's totality. ( two happeners don't exist here). This is response while sustaining unconditioned awareness . It depends upon what condition your condition is in to begin with since everything is subject to impermanence. Is nirvana subject to impermanence too?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
ninth octave wrote:Isn't pure unconditioned awareness some THING? If there is some THING, you might as well call it "me"...Gonzo
Let's just say there is no borderline between what the inner self is experiencing and what the self is projecting to others outwardly. The thinker is absent in the moment because it detaches from any foreign elements to distract it from remaining close inside the now as it unfolds.. There is NO essence of a me/ self and there is no essence of the other self that projects outwardly to the coresponding object(s) or person(s) that would separate the moment from it's totality. ( two happeners don't exist here). This is response while sustaining unconditioned awareness . It depends upon what condition your condition is in to begin with since everything is subject to impermanence. Is nirvana subject to impermanence too?
I'm not sure how you can say there are not two happeners here, since you wrote the above and I'm writing this.
re Nirvana...I liked a quip I posted earlier...the implication is, that like awakening, there is no such thing as Nirvana. In effect, all that is, is impermanent, since the essence of being is change.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:
ninth octave wrote:
Tiff wrote:
The Zen forum...a new thread has not been created in a while. To explore other aspects of Buddhism, and there are many. I know Lex created this thread to discuss dependent arising. So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol. Those that do not support or are not sure, I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with us about it in a discussion. That's makes it worthwhile for both involved.
Those who just don't agree but don't care to discuss it, why not start your own threads about what you believe Zen is? Zen being a school of Mahayana Buddhism, BTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana (see schools)
And if this topic comes to an end anytime soon, I don't think Lex minds, I know I don't, and he and I can just go back to emailing each other about dependent arising, and more importantly, beyond that basic understanding. So it matters not, really. Not to sound ungrateful. I really appreciate those who sincerely engaged here. But if after all this discussion you still don't see the point of Nagarjuna, ok, we will both get tired of the back and forth going no where, and thats ok too. Those who just are not engaging for sincere reasons...but still getting involved here, you just are showing this topic bothers you in some way that you want to change its direction. But, just to put the idea out there, again, the Zen forum is open for anyone wanting to start a new discussion heading in a different direction...stating the obvious because it seems it needs to be stated.
"So far I think only Lex and I support it, lol".
Do you mean really understand the nature of dependent arising? What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?
Lex and I are the only ones trying to explain it in our posts. You have more of an on again off again approach to it. So I believe you do not support it in its entirely because you have not stated support of its entirety, only the parts you like and in the manner you feel they are of use to you.
"What is beyond the basic understanding of dependent arising?"
Discussing true nature (as taught after teaching dependent arising to Buddhist students). But dependent arising is important to preceed that, otherwise delusions (on creator and essence) will remain intact.
And truly, everything is beyond dependent arising : ) I like exploring the Bodhisattvas. And Sutras. Buddhism is an enormously vast teaching. Dependent arising does not undermine other aspects of Buddhism, nor is it created to be an end-all, rather it supports other components in the teachings as the basic and direct understanding of emptiness and phenomena (objects).
Somethings don't need explaining to get one to understand. Cause and effect is demonstrated to us in the mundane and can be avoided to its extremes with creative visualization.
Apparently you are already assuming you and Lex are the only ones who understand human nature and the true nature of things. lol . I well understand this by experiencing life in a a relatively different way and besides the fact I am older than you.. I don't agree with the with no first cause. So you assume that no one can follow NJ's teachings or Buddhism to a tee because of this not being in their field of awareness.. The Buddha told his disciples on his death bed to work out their own faith. It is stated that there is no first cause because first cause can not be fully understood period. Just because one believes in a first cause doesn't make them any less likely to be" empty "than the one that doesn't believe in first cause. First cause yeah or nay should not be the issue or a hinderence or the obstruction that blocks one to coming to their totality. Who or what can explain God? Certainly not you or I nor Buddha nor Nagarjuna. No man can fully explain gravity yet though we are constantly reminded of its cause and effects everyday of our life.
We all arise to Bodhisattv-aness whilst participating here.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I'm sure some of you already read the text i'm posting now but i feel it's relevant to the discussion. I leave it to the readers to see for themselves. It's the "Sermon on the poor" or "Beati pauperes spiritu" by Meister Eckhart. Enjoy!
Beati pauperes spiritu
Blessedness opened its mouth of wisdom and spoke: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Every angel and every saint and everything that was ever born must remain silent when the wisdom of the Father speaks; for all the wisdom of the angels and of all creatures is sheer nothingness before the groundless wisdom of God. And this wisdom has declared that the poor are blessed.
Now there exist two kinds of poverty: an external poverty, which is good and is praiseworthy in a person willing to take it upon himself or herself through the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, because he was himself poor on earth. Of this poverty I do not want to speak any further. For there is still another kind of poverty, an inner poverty, by which our Lord's word is to be understood when he says : "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
Now I beg you to be such poor to understand this speech. For I tell you by the eternal truth, if you are not equal to this truth of which we now want to speak, then you cannot understand me.
Various people have questioned me about what poverty is in itself and what a poor person is. That is what we want to answer. Bishop Albrecht says that a poor person is one who takes no satisfaction in any of the things that God ever created-and that is well said. But we say it better still and take poverty in a yet higher understanding: he is a poor person who wills nothing and knows nothing and has nothing. Of these three points we are going to speak and I beseech you for the love of God that you understand this truth if you can. But if you do not understand it, do not worry yourselves because of it, for the truth I want to talk about is of such a kind that only a few good people will understand it.
First, we say that one is a poor person who wills nothing. What this means, many people do not correctly understand. These are the people who in penitential exercise and external practices, of which they make a great deal, cling to their selfish I. The Lord have pity upon such people who know so little of the divine truth! Such people are called holy on account of external appearance, but inwardly they are asses, for they do not grasp the real meaning of divine truth. Indeed, these individuals too say that one is a poor person who wills nothing. However, they interpret this to mean that one should so live as to never fulfill one's own will in any way, but rather strive to fulfill the ever-beloved will of God. These people are right in their way, for their intention is good and for that we want to praise them. May God in his mercy grant them the kingdom of heaven. But in all divine truth, I say that these people are not poor people, nor do they resemble poor people. They are highly considered only in the eyes of those who know no better. I, however, say that they are asses who understand nothing of divine truth. Because of their good intentions, they may receive the kingdom of heaven. But of that poverty of which I now want to speak, they know nothing.
These days, if someone asks me what a poor person is who wills nothing, I answer and say: So long as a person has his own wish in him to fulfill even the ever-beloved will of God, if that is still a matter of his will, then this person does not yet possess the poverty of which we want to speak. Indeed, this person then still has a will with which he or she wants to satisfy God's will, and that is not the right poverty. For a human being to possess true poverty, he or she must be as free of his or her created will as they were when they did not yet exist. Thus I say to you in the name of divine truth, as long as you have the will, even the will to fulfill God's will, and as long as you have the desire for eternity and for God, to this very extent you are not properly poor, for the only one who is a poor person is one who wills nothing and desires nothing.
When I still stood in my first cause, there I had no God and was cause of myself. There I willed nothing, I desired nothing, for I was a pure being and a knower of myself in delight of the truth. There I willed myself and nothing else. What I willed, that I was; and what I was, that I willed. There I stood, free of God and of all things. But when I took leave from this state of free will and received my created being, then I had a God. Indeed, before creatures were, God was not yet "God"; rather, he was what he was. But when creatures came to be and when they received their created being, then God was no longer "God" in himself; rather, he was "God" in the creatures.
Now we say that God, insofar as he is "God," is not a perfect goal for creatures. Indeed, even the lowliest creature in God possesses as high a rank. And if a fly possessed reason and could consciously seek the eternal abyss of divine being out of which it has come, then we would say that God, with all he is as God, would still be incapable of fulfilling and satisfying this fly. Therefore we pray God to rid us of "God" so that we may grasp and eternally enjoy the truth where the highest angel and the fly and the soul are equal. There is where I stood and willed what I was, and I was what I willed. So then we say, if people are to be poor in will, they must will and desire as little as they willed and desired when they were not yet. And in this way is a person poor who wills nothing.
Second, a poor person is one who knows nothing. We have said on other occasions that a person should live a life neither for himself, nor for the truth, nor for God. But now we say it differently and want to go further and say: Whoever achieves this poverty must so live that they not even know themselves to live, either for oneself or for truth or for God. One must be so free of all knowledge that he or she does not know or recognize or perceive that God lives in him or her; even more, one should be free of all knowledge that lives in him or her. For, when people still stood in God's eternal being, nothing else lived in them. What lived there was themselves. Hence we say that people should be as free of their own knowledge as when they were not yet, letting God accomplish whatever God wills. People should stand empty. Everything that ever came out of God once stood in pure activity. But the activity proper to people is to love and to know. It is a moot question, though, in which of these happiness primarily consists. Some authorities have said that it lies in knowing, some say it lies in loving, still others say that it lies in knowing and in loving. These are closer to the truth. We say, however, that it lies neither in knowing nor in loving. Rather, there is a something in the soul from which knowing and loving flow. It does not itself know and love as do the forces of the soul. Whoever comes to know this something knows what happiness consists in. It has neither before nor after, and it is in need of nothing additional, for it can neither gain nor lose. For this very reason it is deprived of understanding that God is acting within it. Moreover, it is that identical self which enjoys itself just as God does. Thus we say that people shall keep themselves free and void so that they neither understand nor know that God works in them. Only thus can people possess poverty. The masters say that God is a being, an intelligent being, and that he knows all things. We say, however: God is neither being nor intelligent nor does he know this or that. Thus God is free of all things, and therefore he is all things. Whoever is to be poor in spirit, then, must be poor of all his own understanding so that he knows nothing about God or creatures or himself. Therefore it is necessary that people desire not to understand or know anything at all of the works of God. In this way is a person able to be poor of one's own understanding.
Third, one is a poor person who has nothing. Many people have said that perfection consists in people possessing none of the material things of the earth. And indeed, that is certainly true in one sense: when one holds to it intentionally. But this is not the sense that I mean.
I have said before that one is a poor person who does not even will to fulfill God's will, that is, who so lives that he or she is empty both of his own will and of God's will, just as they were when they were not yet. About this poverty we say that it is the highest poverty . Second, we have said one is a poor person who himself understands nothing of God's activity in him or her. When one stands as free of understanding and knowing [as God stands void of all things], then that is the purest poverty. But the third kind of poverty of which we are now going to speak is the most difficult: that people have nothing.
Now give me your undivided attention. I have often said, and great masters say this too: people must be so empty of all things and all works, whether inward or outward, that they can become a proper home for God, wherein God may operate. But now we say it differently. If people stand free of all things, of all creatures, of God and of themselves, but if it still happens that God can find a place for acting in them, then we say: So long as that is so, these persons are not poor in the strictest poverty. For God does not desire that people reserve a place for him to work in. Rather, true poverty of spirit consists in keeping oneself so free of God and of all one's works that if God wants to act in the soul, God himself becomes the place wherein he wants to act-and this God likes to do. For when God finds a person as poor as this, God operates his own work and a person sustains God in him, and God is himself the place of his operation, since God is an agent who acts within himself. Here, in this poverty, people attain the eternal being that they once were, now are, and will eternally remain.
There is a saying of Saint Paul's which reads: "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (I Co. 15:10). My own saying, in contrast, seems to hold itself above grace and above being and above knowing and above willing and above desiring. How then can Saint Paul's word be true? To this one must respond that Saint Paul's words are true. God's grace was necessarily in him, and the grace of God accomplished in him the growth from accidental into essential being. When grace finished and had completed its work, Paul remained what he was.
Thus we say that a person must be so poor that he or she is no place and has no place wherein God could act. Where people still preserve some place in themselves, they preserve distinction. This is why I pray God to rid me of God; for my essential being is above God insofar as we consider God as the origin of creatures, indeed, in God's own being, where God is raised above all being and all distinctions, there I was myself, there I willed myself, and I knew myself to create this person that I am. Therefore I am cause of myself according to my being, which is eternal, but not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore also I am unborn, and following the way of my unborn being I can never die. Following the way of my unborn being I have always been, I am now, and shall remain eternally. What I am by my [temporal] birth is destined to die and be annihilated, for it is mortal; therefore it must with time pass away. In my [eternal] birth all things were born, and I was cause of myself and of all things. If I had willed it, neither I nor any things would have come to be. And if I myself were not, God would not be either. That God is "God," of this I am the cause. If I were not, God would not be "God." It is not necessary, however, to understand this.
A great master says that his breakthrough is nobler than his flowing out, and this is true. When I flowed out from God, all things spoke: God is. But this cannot make me happy, for it makes me understand that I am a creature. In the breakthrough, on the other hand, where I stand free of my own will and of the will of God and of all his works and of God himself, there I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature. Rather, I am what I was and what I shall remain now and forever. Then I receive an impulse which shall bring me above all the angels. In this impulse I receive wealth so vast that God cannot be enough for me in all that makes him God, and with all his divine works. For in this breakthrough I discover that I and God are one. There I am what I was, and I grow neither smaller nor bigger, for there I am an immovable cause that moves all things. Here, then, God finds no place in people, for people achieve with this poverty what they were in eternity and will remain forever. Here God is one with the spirit, and that is the strictest poverty one can find.
If anyone cannot understand this discourse, let them not trouble their hearts about it. For, as long as people do not equal this truth, they will not understand this speech. For this is an unveiled truth that has come immediately from the heart of God. That we may so live as to experience it eternally, so help us God. Amen.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
He proves there can be no essence (no first cause and no beginning of "being"). Tiff speaking of NJ
When I read NJ I see that the emphasis is more on how illogical the reasoning is that claims such things as first cause or inherent essence of things. That is what is so fascinating because people do not see that they are depending on reasoning to make their claims and that such reasoning is illogical by even their own standards and on and on its goes.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:
He proves there can be no essence (no first cause and no beginning of "being"). Tiff speaking of NJ
When I read NJ I see that the emphasis is more on how illogical the reasoning is that claims such things as first cause or inherent essence of things. That is what is so fascinating because people do not see that they are depending on reasoning to make their claims and that such reasoning is illogical by even their own standards and on and on its goes.
What do you make of apparent unique being at this moment?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh? Gonzo.
When we say some Thing has an inherent separate individual essence, we have reasons for believing this to be so, whether we are conscious of them or not. What is being negated are those reasons, and they are reasons, and Nagarjuna is using reason to do so.
If reality is non-conceptual, then the reasons, the conceptual overlay must be blown away, if we are to come upon reality directly.
It is said in Buddhism that all have Buddha nature. We all have "seen" this many many many times, however we do no recognize it. This is why it usually takes an introduction.
Now if that's true then the question arises why do we not recognize our own nature?
Lex ,is this the the nature of nondualism? NJ's teaching is way to strip/ negate etc. all notions that would decide about essence , so direct realization of emptiness is arrived at. Is this the same as non-dualism. For the sake of not repeating myself I used Tiffany words here. Was NJ arriving at nonduality in the "What's Happening""? teaching. Yes , no, perhaps?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:
The Lion of Pride.
One value of dependent arising is it erases the notion (if repeatedly applied) of an I who has achieved. Because any perceived achievement came from a gathering of components. The right circumstances, the right people and the right emphasis on realizations to comprise any endeavor that resulted in successful outcome. One must beware of the pitfalls of creating a separate "me" apart from everything else that supported such, because there truly is no "individual" anything to promote.
Consequently, the Lion of Pride is one of the 8 dangers (traps).
Each of the eight dangers spoken about in Buddhism has an antidote. In the case of pride it is acknowledging interdependence and kindness from others. Another antidote is to bow, express humility to the teachings. To remember one does not possess a separate capability of anything (the teaching and knowing of are not separate), the teachings were bestowed by favorable convergence.
Instead of 8 variables there might be 11. This is similar teaching of Lujan also and what. "mutual enhancment"or non duality arrives at. Unconditioned awareness.
|
