Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
that would depend which conception where...how many would that be
in this world incarnation is a controlled disconnection
Avatar is...nonetheless
hi Ninth!
hello Tiff [ Wei Shan Yang] !
good to see you both....for the longest time I thought the Inorganics had snatched you all in a dream, which, come to think of it could be a bit of a worry now that I am here...ah no probs! ;-)
I have a dear friend with me at the moment who is 'transitioning" with a brain tumour [ I hope you do not mind]. She will becoming with me for however long that is. A day...an hour...a few moments
not to become, yet everything is
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Yes I do believe you are right... we were snatched up in a dream chlor
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I was about to quote Yogananda's nearly-famous quote called " Wink" , but knowing of his particular "inorganic" agenda and 'bloodline' I resisted, though, as always with the sentiments inherant in collections of words, appreciation is always there
I mean...they turn up don't they
damn I love these post-apocalyptic times!...am I more Zen?...less magnetic? ....I do know I am more attractive to passionfruit sorbet
I read a sizzling piece in the magazine National Geographic [while waiting for xmas lunch] that meditation and being around children makes humans happy...with pictures of both to reinforce this enlightening and sobering investigation
let us keep ourselves bewildered in the obvious, sighed the collective
I looked around the forum here...very enjoyable as always...thank you all
there is always that feeling I should be somewhere else [oh gawd he's not gowing to stay is he!] ;-)
living in that feeling
besides , my bladder is strong and healthy and chances are it will last to 2012
"having uprooted"...how the hell does one do that
how will I know I have done this
will the effect be a change in the angular rotation and spin of my atomic structures...there is a feeling it might...which would be then I am somewhere else
signed...
crooked old husband
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
omg where oh where do you get these unusual configurations of words CHLORELLA?! they feel like energy formulas to read ....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hey Chlorella from the land down under!
"transition" = transplanted or having uprooted from this or that.
Lol, just talking yesterday over Xmas dinner about how the law of physics is applied when an ice skater extends his arms outward to suddenly break from his spinning rotation. This cuts the drag of the air current and centrifugal force appears to come to a halt because of earth's gravity field. In outer space there is absence of gravity. The energy of spinning keeps celestial bodies in orbit. Energy never ceases only disperses or takes on other formations! This law of the universe is a very soaring thought. Chlorella, do you think plants "feel" the disconnect when tansplanted to another soil?
"We are stardust, we are golden
and we got to get ourselves back to the garden."
"Left Behind is Rebirth, lived is the Best of Lives,Done is Duty and Doing, Crossed over Am I, No More It' and At' for Me! "
(thanks,A siris)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Turin
yes I read the minds of those who read the words...is this not what we all do, on some level
yes there are encryptions in the words I write...the base-line encryption, from which the others emerge, is...I love you
Ninth
yes...'they' feel the disconnect. If they are tap-rooted it very often kills them, so special care is required if one wants to move a tap-rooted plant and it is only possible when they are young
but you were talking about "transitions"...do you mean transfiguring and transmigration
for this we would have to build and maintain various 'energetic' structures...and we would have to know exactly where we wanted to be
gravity...do you mean the artificial pressure measured by "science" and felt by all here. Most of what we perceive is artificially generated
today I went to a "planet" that is/was one of my homes. I leapt off a balcony and soared into the sky, then flew down a steep valley, passing white buildings set gently into the hills amongst lush giant trees. I flew down low over an amazing-blue river that stretched into the horizon.
so joyful...to glide and sweep up higher and higher...the colours!
then I flew down and sat on a river edge rock, to talk to a large fish ;-)
so...gravity ain't what it used to be
I liked what you said about centrifugal force...the "arms" for balance
I'm sure the arms of the letter "t" were once evenly spaced, as if surrounded by a sphere/circle
keep going inward, sphere with sphere within sphere within sphere...said the fish
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Turin
yes I read the minds of those who read the words...is this not what we all do, on some level
yes there are encryptions in the words I write...the base-line encryption, from which the others emerge, is...I love you"
That is marvellous and heart warming to hear Chlorella that you do this consciously.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
chlorella...
two words ..transition { more to do with the meaning of a transfigured state} a here to there arrival or departure mode. Like the transfiguring or transmigration in a" beam me up Scottie"( only we would have to know exactly where we wanted to be).
And also the word gravity- why it isn't felt inside the mind during dreaming but transitions us into and out of sleep. Just thoughts.
"so...gravity ain't what it used to be" lol
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Having uprooted the craving that leads to becoming."
"having uprooted"...how the hell does one do that
how will I know I have done this. Chlorella
Chlorella,
That is what we have been exploring in this magnetic. We are more accustomed to the word craving in regard to strong desire towards something sensual and pleasurable. It takes us a little by surprise when used in regard to something more subtle such as "becoming" though it is not really any different.
You ask, about how to accomplish this "uprooting of craving", in this case in regards to "becoming" and how it could be confirmed. Before we can draw close to this we must first take a look at how the craving "got rooted" in the first place. After all that is what the phrase, "Having uprooted the craving that leads to becoming" is pointing us to.
To become, implies a movement, a transition, a transformation, change etc. from something or state to another thing or state etc. EG He ate too much and became fat. After not eating for awhile she became hungry. The caterpillar became a butterfly. The child became an adult. The law breaker became a felon etc.
Now notice the phrase we are exploring does not mention a craving for becoming or a craving to become although eventually THE craving we a are concerned with here may be expressed in such ways.
From a Buddhist perspective.... If we do not know the nature of reality then this ignorance will lead to craving. If we know the nature of reality the craving will cease. So why would this ignorance of reality produce the craving in question?
This is usually where the consideration/inquiry for most of us breaks down because the words we hear about this emerge when the craving has already ceased. Then the dialogue tends to be dialectic.
Let me try and put it in my own words again. When we experience ourselves as a subject "in here" surrounded by objects "out there", whether physical, mental, energetic etc. we will experience and impulsion even a compulsion to give account for not only the objects "out there" but also ourselves "in here". The extent to which we involve ourselves in this will vary. Science, existentialism, philosophy and religion offer fields of study. Whatever the case after a mild or acute assessment of our situation we arrive at a working knowledge of our situation and how to proceed within that situation. Some may never really give it a moments thought again after that.
The objects we encounter around us are usually considered "real", substantial and inherent. At the very least they are considered solid. It is only recently that science is showing us otherwise and even then the idea that things are not solid or as real as they appear is met with resistance.
When we do not see the objects around us for what they really are it is because we are craving. But what is it we are craving? We are craving inherent substantiality but are looking for it in all the wrong places. Take any object literally any object, we automatically impute an inherent substantiality to it. It "happens" so fast most are not aware of this impulse. It requires acute investigation as to why and how we do this.
As I have mentioned before a mirror is a great example. We do not impute inherent substantial existence to individual objects that appear in a mirror. We know they are reflections. Yet as soon as we look around at the objects that are being reflected imputation takes place even though what we take to be actual objects are as empty as their reflections in the mirror.
When we look closer at the mirror and the objects appearing. We seen that there is only one reflection. The objects of no actual substance appear to be multiple but in actuality there is just one reflection and the reflection is inseparable from the mirror. Primordial awareness is just so. We are looking at what Buddhists call Dharmadhatu (it is not a thing). Primordial awareness knows this dimension as the continual inconceivable expression in which the multiplicity appears. But these objects are not actually there as inherent. There is nothing distinct or individual about them other than an appearance. For example, it is not that I am in a car driving down the road at 30 mph. But rather all that only appears to be taking place within awareness.This is what primordial awareness knows or sees, this sameness.
This is not an intellectual apprehension. The absence of inherent objects is what is actually seen. When this reality is seen even a flash of it the craving to impute individual inherancy to objects that don't actually have any, ceases. Conceptual proliferation ceases and all accumulation spontaneously releases. My first taste of this was a relief! IT WAS A RELIEF! It all stopped! (The confirmation)
Primordial awareness knows this emptiness. Nothing actually happens in this sameness, how could it? This is not a void.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness, to the touch, no anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
Consider the classic example of the human body. All the separate chemical compounds, minerals and water which when piled together constitute the sum total of the actual physical matter of the human body- are not of themselves a human body, however much they may be physically compounded and mixed and rearranged in the laboratory, since they are still only a pile of organic chemicals, minerals and water in a particular complex configuration. If this has never been alive it is not a human body. If they are participant in the integral physical expression of a living human being who has absorbed and metabolized them, or if they are now the physical remains of a once- living human being, the substance of what they actually are is human, hence, a human body. The substantial reality of what is before us is human. The substance ( substantial reality) of what is seen is not solely that of a complex organization of organic chemical compounds, but is ( or has been) someone. The chemical elements of the food a person eats become in a few hours part of the person's human body and are no longer food but have been turned into the human flesh and blood and bone of that person, yet the physical chemical elements of what was once food remain the same ( calcium, copper, salt, protein, sugars, fats, water, etc.). The substance of any matter that has become an integral part of any human being has ceased to be the substance or reality of food and has become incorporated as an integral part of the physical manifestation or expression of that human person. To touch that matter now is not to touch a batch of chemical compounds or food but to touch that person.
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size,
the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the
appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents,
are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. Ninth
Ninth,
Why would you think the hat itself is the substance? You seem to see the hat (a labeled term) as something different than its shape, size, softness and appearance, as if, in your words "distinct" from them. Can the hat be discerned apart from these "accidents" as you call them.
Is this not exactly what we do with this notion of self? We look at the aggregates, form, perception, mental formations, sensation and consciousness and concoct an idea of self as something "substantial" that is experiencing these aggregates. But if we look closer this, notion of self is merely implied.
We do the same with objects. This is what I was talking about. It happens so fast we are barely if at all aware of it. We attribute an individual inherent essence to a concoction of aggregates and circumstances. Craving. In this case you are "grasping" at the inherent essence of a hat. There is none.
What the size D hat can teach you = Dharmadhatu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I don't care about the hat's inherent existence. I can't grasp at the inherent essence of a hat. lol. It is the human being who seems more than just a concoction of aggregates that make this notion of a self. What I am grasping at is the needed connection to know that human beings are more than just empty spaces in between another empty space that quantum physics has suggested. When this example is given , "I am in a car driving down the road at 30 mph but rather all that only appears to be taking place within awareness.This is what primordial awareness knows or sees, this sameness."
I would begin to base this thought on the two kinds of presence- local and personal.
One can be locally present, as when driving in the car, but ones thoughts can be far away making one personally not present.
I suppose I am looking for the human element that gives humans their distinct substance.
A quote from John Locke who described a substance as,"something, I know not what."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Ninth,
It does not help our line of inquiry if you try to back track out of a position as if you never said it, when you did.
“I don't care about the hat's inherent existence. I can't grasp at the inherent essence of a hat.” Ninth
But you are grasping at the “inherent existence” of the hat.
You were specifically using the analogy of a hat, pointing out that it was similar to the physical body. You pointed out that the aggregates of the hat were not the hat itself, just as what is actually human is something more than the physical components of the body.
I thought this was a perfect example of the grasping due to craving that I had been alluding to.
The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. Ninth
You suggest that the hat itself is something other than the shape,color, size softness etc. that it is “distinct from them”. Is this something you can qualify? If so please do. Try not to react just stay with the inquiry.
----------------------
Now you were also talking about human bodies, chemicals and persons. When speaking of a hat it lacks some of the aggregates of what we consider human, ie; mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness and a hats form is different. So I in this respect what you say is obvious, what we consider human is far more than a hat and is far more than the chemical components of human physicality.
“It is the human being who seems more than just a concoction of aggregates that make this notion of a self.” Ninth
Again you don’t seem too sure. You say the human being “seems” to be more than just a concoction of aggregates, in this case, form, mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness.
I am saying that as these aggregates interact with each other the notion of self is nothing more than an implication, ie; it is implied. We are conscious of what may be implied but are usually not conscious that it is only an implication. The notion of this self is inferred and this inference then conceptually proliferates creating all kinds of fixed concepts that are held firm by attachment.
We do the same when we consider objects as something other than what they are. those who believe in creation infer a creator. Those who believe in a creator god infer creation and the act of being created.
I had mentioned earlier that “we crave inherent substantiality (essence) but are looking for it in all the wrong places.” I had hoped someone would pick up on this.
When we do not see the objects around us for what they really are it is because we are craving. But what is it we are craving? We are craving inherent substantiality but are looking for it in all the wrong places. Take any object literally any object, we automatically impute an inherent substantiality to it. It "happens" so fast most are not aware of this impulse. It requires acute investigation as to why and how we do this. Lex
So until we are able to talk about the intrinsic essence and primordial awareness I will continue loosely along the lines of Madhyamika in the hopes that we can more clearly see the empty nature of everything. Once we “get this under our belt” so to speak then we can leave all this talk of emptiness alone and get to the essence. But to do so prematurely would invite all kinds of confusion regarding the intrinsic essence, this primordial awareness and we would start investing this awareness with all kinds of spiritual notions and metaphysics making it even harder to recognize.
So look out your window look at it all! If all those objects of sight “out there” are not “out there” and have no intrinsic, inherent essence of their own, then.......
WHAT IS IT WE A LOOKING AT?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:
Ninth,
It does not help our line of inquiry if you try to back track out of a position as if you never said it, when you did.
“I don't care about the hat's inherent existence. I can't grasp at the inherent essence of a hat.” Ninth
But you are grasping at the “inherent existence” of the hat.
You were specifically using the analogy of a hat, pointing out that it was similar to the physical body. You pointed out that the aggregates of the hat were not the hat itself, just as what is actually human is something more than the physical components of the body.
I thought this was a perfect example of the grasping due to craving that I had been alluding to.
The hat itself ( the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the appearance, but is distinct form them. While the appearance, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. Ninth
You suggest that the hat itself is something other than the shape,color, size softness etc. that it is “distinct from them”. Is this something you can qualify? If so please do. Try not to react just stay with the inquiry.
Hey Lex, I qualify the substance of the hat is not memorable enough to keep. The way the hat could become" distinct from them" maybe if there is a devasting emotion connected to the hat. The idea that the a strong emotion or feeling had become attached to the hat more than likely keeps a conscious memory effective.
----------------------
Now you were also talking about human bodies, chemicals and persons. When speaking of a hat it lacks some of the aggregates of what we consider human, ie; mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness and a hats form is different. So I in this respect what you say is obvious, what we consider human is far more than a hat and is far more than the chemical components of human physicality.
“It is the human being who seems more than just a concoction of aggregates that make this notion of a self.” Ninth
Actually, I was trying to understand the metaphysical mystery behind the theology of transubstantiation. How this mystery allows the person to connect to Jesus and to THE BODY OF CHRIST. The self somehow becomes extinquished everytime the EUCHARIST is received and becomes a reality.
Again you don’t seem too sure. You say the human being “seems” to be more than just a concoction of aggregates, in this case, form, mental formations, perception, sensation and consciousness.
There are still many cobwebbs to be unraveled. lol
I am saying that as these aggregates interact with each other the notion of self is nothing more than an implication, ie; it is implied. We are conscious of what may be implied but are usually not conscious that it is only an implication. The notion of this self is inferred and this inference then conceptually proliferates creating all kinds of fixed concepts that are held firm by attachment.
We do the same when we consider objects as something other than what they are. those who believe in creation infer a creator. Those who believe in a creator god infer creation and the act of being created.
Well, I believe when we were all being formed in the womb we were all conscious of our aggregates but not of having a self. We were probably most enlightened before birth.
I had mentioned earlier that “we crave inherent substantiality (essence) but are looking for it in all the wrong places.” I had hoped someone would pick up on this.
When we do not see the objects around us for what they really are it is because we are craving. Bly abut what is it we are craving? We are craving inherent substantiality but are looking for it in all the wrong places. Take any object literally any object, we automatically impute an inherent substantiality to it. It "happens" so fast most are not aware of this impulse. It requires acute investigation as to why and how we do this. Lex
I just think once photons hit our skin or our eyes ( after birth) we start getting impressions from the all the words that are being heard throughout life. Infants sleep and go into REM and sleep 18 + hours in the first month or so of living. They must be gathering forms and images in these dreams. Then direct illumination from photons from sunlight, Vitamin D, DHA, etc. So what I am saying is while in the womb, we at one time knew how primordial awareness was ever pristine.
So until we are able to talk about the intrinsic essence and primordial awareness I will continue loosely along the lines of Madhyamika in the hopes that we can more clearly see the empty nature of everything. Once we “get this under our belt” so to speak then we can leave all this talk of emptiness alone and get to the essence. But to do so prematurely would invite all kinds of confusion regarding the intrinsic essence, this primordial awareness and we would start investing this awareness with all kinds of spiritual notions and metaphysics making it even harder to recognize.
So look out your window look at it all! If all those objects of sight “out there” are not “out there” and have no intrinsic, inherent essence of their own, then.......
WHAT IS IT WE A LOOKING AT?
ILLUSION minus LSD
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
|
