Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
MS, what I am trying to get at here is this. The ‘oneness’ you speak of when you say ‘all things are one” can be interpreted a few different ways. EG. Are all things one because they share the same spiritual base in the sense that there is a spiritual essence from which their physical existence springs, in the sense that the existence of each individual living being is connected by this spiritual essence?
or
Is it because all things are empty? If empty, then in what way are they empty?
or
Is it because multiplicity is illusory? If phenomenal reality is not many but “one” then in what way is this so?
Now I understand that experience is one thing but we can try and make sense of our experiences for the sake of understanding. I think this is the point of declaring that ‘all is one’ in the first place.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
One
the looker looks
its not "you", "me", "animal" or "tree" (name it)
by dint of bodies looks out
yes! the looker looks
is looking (at this) right now
but recall
its not you
me, animal or tree
or anything
ah
by agency of eye looks, true!
at all motion-able things
but does not move
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Arhat Stare
it is not now thinking
thinking is for motion-able bodies
it is not movement
not even the moving eye
not even behind eye (inside)
no way to delineate it (don't try)
its always nowhere, yes, now-here
time does not contain it
no speed can apprehend
no stillness either
no birth
nor death for it
it is not being, for beings must be born...
you will never reach it, but why try
why?
its more real than that!
looking
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
realization
Let not emotion stop
the realization of the immovable
that cannot be disrupted.
For emotion, like all things of form--be they thought or otherwise
moves...let it.
emptiness remains unmoved, cannot be moved.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
...but what about YOU, Wei Shan?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
impermanent...
Wei Shan moves.
Think of clouds...we call them clouds but their shape is constantly changing. The naming of them clouds seems to imbue permanence, but movement prevents this from actually being the case. Even when there are no clouds in the sky we conjure up their memory. And the "we" doing this is moving too, so we forget that we did this.
What is called Wei Shan today may be called some other name tomorrow. All is such in relative experience.
move-able bodies.
the looker is not moving.
However, if you wish to discuss Wei Shan, we could discuss many things as move-able bodies have many aspects to explore. What did Wei Shan eat today? Well, so far a banana. What color is her shirt today? red. What are her hobbies? Not waterskiing.
Have you witnessed all this? There's more.
And (to be socially polite) I will extend the gesture...and what about YOU, Gonzo? How are you today? Is your 'today' the identical experience of 'yesterday'? Are you looking at this? Can I call you Frank instead of Gonzo?
Did you know Cary Grant's real name was Archibald Leach? But to his fans, he will always be Cary. As long as memory can allow. See it. He is a skeleton today but remember the flesh of yesteryear? Shirley he has a soul?! Must! Must! What will become of 'me' if not? Am I becoming? Has Elvis left the building? Looks. (haha forgot to italicize) Looks where? always where looks. To look away is to still look. To look with ear instead of eye? yes that too. By any means looks. Helen Keller. oops, another skeleton.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Yang, Wei Shan has now eaten a rice cake (of some sort).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Wei Shan Yang wrote:impermanent...
Wei Shan moves.
Think of clouds...we call them clouds but their shape is constantly changing. The naming of them clouds seems to imbue permanence, but movement prevents this from actually being the case. Even when there are no clouds in the sky we conjure up their memory. And the "we" doing this is moving too, so we forget that we did this.
What is called Wei Shan today may be called some other name tomorrow. All is such in relative experience.
move-able bodies.
the looker is not moving.
However, if you wish to discuss Wei Shan, we could discuss many things as move-able bodies have many aspects to explore. What did Wei Shan eat today? Well, so far a banana. What color is her shirt today? red. What are her hobbies? Not waterskiing.
Have you witnessed all this? There's more.
And (to be socially polite) I will extend the gesture...and what about YOU, Gonzo? How are you today? Is your 'today' the identical experience of 'yesterday'? Are you looking at this? Can I call you Frank instead of Gonzo?
Did you know Cary Grant's real name was Archibald Leach? But to his fans, he will always be Cary. As long as memory can allow. See it. He is a skeleton today but remember the flesh of yesteryear? Shirley he has a soul?! Must! Must! What will become of 'me' if not? Am I becoming? Has Elvis left the building? Looks. (haha forgot to italicize) Looks where? always where looks. To look away is to still look. To look with ear instead of eye? yes that too. By any means looks. Helen Keller. oops, another skeleton.
Moment to moment I'm something else, and even though there's a sameness to routine, each moment is uniquely different....I've never been here before, in this moment, even though all the pieces of it seem to be as I saw them yesterday.
and John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison and he graduated from the same high school I attended. And that refried bean and cheese burrito I had yesterday was sublimely tasty.
It does all come down to fetching water and carrying firewood.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
But, Frank, its the One we can't describe, that's the One I speak of here.
Why even speak of the One that can't be described? Well, its a worthy effort and even though we will fail at it, attention can grasp perhaps in a glimmer, its face.
"It does all come down to fetching water and carrying firewood."
Wheres I come from we calls them chores. I guess if you live in New York you'd say:
It all comes down to trading stocks and bonds.
In caveman days it all came down to fetching woman by hair and clubbing rival, I dunno, its endless is my point. Can you see anything besides all this is what I ask. I do agree the mundane as where its at, BTW.
Went to the same school as John Wayne, cool. I went to school with Neal Patrick Harris...he played Doogie Houser, MD.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Frankly, my dear...actually, my name is John.
I'll see your Doogie Houser and raise you a Debbie Reynolds...who, before she won the Miss Burbank beauty contest in the 40's, was my baby sitter.
The only point of the fetch and carry saying is a metaphorical one for the mundane.
Why even speak of the One that can't be described? Well, its a worthy effort and even though we will fail at it, attention can grasp perhaps in a glimmer, its face.
That brings to mind this little ditty:
He only studies the living phrase; he doesn't study the dead phrase.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hey John, the most I got is seeing Burl Ives in a Mall and...my uncle met Michael Douglas. I thought once I saw Jimmy Page in Taco Bell, but was not certain.
What does that mean to you, "he doesn't study the dead phrase?" That is, why did my words invoke that ditty?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Oh wait, I just pulled up a pair so I'll raise you a Robert Duvall and Mike Tyson (I think he counts as three of a kind?) anyway, there's also a political bald guy but I forget his name...James somebody.
Mike Tyson...I worked at the air port. Was staring at him one day as he went by with his ontourage. He looked back at me but I couldn't stop staring, I don't know why (no reason really), and then he turned and started to come at me (maybe to beat me up) and his entourage had to distract him.
Robert Duvall, again at airport with his son, someone shouted out to him "hey Robert loved you in such and such movie" and he seemed to acknowledged but went on hurriedly. His brow was a bit furrowed. Rather small and frail man.
When you see these people in person you realize what an illusion TV creates if you didn't already realize it before.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Well, I thought my trump was good, but obviously I've been grand slammed.
"He doesn't study the dead phrase" to me means the essential meaning does not lie in words...words being "the dead phrase"....the "living phrase" being the current moment of being sans words. Somehow I thought that related to what you posted.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Well, I dunno, Debbie Reynolds may very well be the trump card : ) If I had an absolute verification of Jimmy Page, then yes, I would beat you hands down.
Yes, you are correct in what I posted was like that, and my emphasis was more on using words to express anyway because there is a connection in how communication can shift consciousness and even though such experience cannot be precisely spoken of, there's the link between the act of expressing and the experience alluded to.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
lex icon wrote:MS, what I am trying to get at here is this. The ‘oneness’ you speak of when you say ‘all things are one” can be interpreted a few different ways. EG. Are all things one because they share the same spiritual base in the sense that there is a spiritual essence from which their physical existence springs, in the sense that the existence of each individual living being is connected by this spiritual essence?
Yes it can be seen so
or
Is it because all things are empty? If empty, then in what way are they empty?
As impermanent and by things comes from emptiness
or
Is it because multiplicity is illusory? If phenomenal reality is not many but “one” then in what way is this so?
The multitude all springs from One.
Now I understand that experience is one thing but we can try and make sense of our experiences for the sake of understanding. I think this is the point of declaring that ‘all is one’ in the first place.
Understanding is important but don't get attached to it.. The essence is to experience Oneness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
MS,
I am not attached to understanding. I wish to understand what it is you are talking about. But you seem to like being vague about it. Which leads to me to think you do not understand the distinctions I outlined. Which is ok. Many people have spiritual experiences but have trouble understanding them and putting them in context. It does not diminish the experience just renders it too personal to be of any help to others.
To just keep recycling the same old declarations like "all is one" without understanding what it means, might sound spiritual but is it?
When such declarations FIRST came forth they were an expression of something (deep experience). And the one uttering was trying to communicate it with words so that it might be indicated as clear as possible to others. Such a person would not be stumped by the distinctions I outlined.
So I keep pressing for clarity!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Many people have spiritual experiences but have trouble understanding
them and putting them in context. It does not diminish the experience
just renders it too personal to be of any help to others.I could really relate to this statement Lex! After my first few big "A-Ha" moments, I found myself utterly incapable of any sort of description and any attempt to do so would result in utter failure.. "Emptiness" seemed an inadequate description. It seemed more like a realization of the non-existence of phenomena, personal and otherwise.
It takes time for experiences to ripen, as much of our being has still not been touched by the light of realization. It takes a very long time to dissolve what Thoreau called the ego's "layers of concentric woodenness". This is a process and there is no quick way, or formula. It is is uncomfortable and happens gradually. It also cannot be sped up.
Difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to articulate ideas that are beyond conception. People have been articulating these ideas for thousands of years. It takes great skill, but this comes with time and experience.
The question is, how do I get out of my own way?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
dear Lex
Your distinctions seems to me to be seeing from different angle the same trancendental subject.
Yeah vague and poetry is good to describe what is outside of the box (of words and concepts)
Besides this I can follow you point in understanding the depth an all of spiritual experiences - Been there in trouble with understanding for years....
There is a great trouble with these experiences (for me) and that is selfimportance.
Who is understanding it? And does the understanding produce any practical and beneficial opening for actions. For me it all to easy became ego decorations rather than insights that made a difference for me and others.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
|
