|
Post by question on Mar 29, 2011 23:28:36 GMT -5
Things are neither real, nor unreal. From the perspective of emptiness, form does not exist. From the perspective of form, emptiness does not exist. It's a game of perspective--this vs. that. If you drop both real and not real, what is left? When I'm washing my dishes, ideas about emptiness and suchness don't matter. There are only dishes being washed (unless I'm thinking about it, LOL). What exactly do you mean by "perspective of emptiness" and "perspective of form"? I can imagine how to construct a narrative told from the perspective of form. I can't see how there could be a perspective of emptiness, narrative or otherwise, except for a perpetual "nobody home, nothing is happening" (which is actually still a form-perspective, though). I suspect that you're simply saying that reality =/= language. Things are neither real, nor unreal. You'll have to elaborate, can't just throw a mystical sounding phrase at me. In what sense exactly are things (what kind of things?) not real, not unreal and neither real nor unreal? It might have to do with not being able to see yourself directly. That might be the direction. Hm, not sure what you mean by that in the context of what we're talking about here. (suchness, emptiness, form) But keep in mind, if the word suchness is sticky, chose whatever you'd like to call what is. No I do like the word suchness, it seems accurate. I just don't see how it can be said to be empty, unless we define it as a form... and I don't see on what grounds we could do that.
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 29, 2011 23:32:28 GMT -5
Here's my interpretation on the whole form/emptiness thing.
Form is actually a very interesting and complex concept, I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. My best guess is that "form" is just another word for "appearance". Appearance is always an appearance OF something. In that sense form is like a box that is supposed to contain something. In our context this somehing is essence, the self that gives existence to the appeaance, that by virtue of which the appearance exists and which the appearance represents.
We open the box and it turns out that it's empty. "Empty" doesn't mean that the box is full of a special substance called emptiness, it simply means that the box is empty of the content that it was thought to represent, cover or contain. Emptiness is therefore dependent exclusively on form, without form there is no emptiness and since all form is empty, there can be no emptiness. So in that sense I have no idea why people are worshipping emptiness like a God. I suppose they must have a different definition, but I can't figure out another definition that makes any sense at all.
Anyways, actually we don't even really open the box, because hey there is no box, which is why there is no content of any kind. We simply look at a form/arising/appearance and see that it arises from and depends on other arisings. This means that appearances are like empty boxes. Appearances aren't the appearance OF anything, they represent nothing actual, they represent nothing that is not a form and they are therefore without substance. Because forms are empty it cannot be said that there are any forms. Because emptiness can't exist without forms, it cannot be said that there is emptiness. The enitre structure collapses. So this emptiness/form thingy kinda behaves like a suicidal vitual particle because the seeing of the emptiness of form is the simultaneous seeing of the emptiness of emptiness. Both extinguish each other, and actually there simply is no form and no emptiness and what remains is suchness. End of story.
Did I make a wrong turn somewhere?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 8:34:45 GMT -5
So this emptiness/form thingy kinda behaves like a suicidal vitual particle because the seeing of the emptiness of form is the simultaneous seeing of the emptiness of emptiness. Both extinguish each other, and actually there simply is no form and no emptiness and what remains is suchness. End of story. Did I make a wrong turn somewhere? hey question, it’s not on the map, and i don’t know if you made a wrong turn, but i’m right there with you. methinks suchness is empty too, eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 8:47:37 GMT -5
zd,
i'm back in the mindfulness/attending the actual space. not that the two are the same. but I'm just wondering about moment to moment attending the actual. you gave as an example, sitting and becoming a giant ear.
in the day to day, moment to moment, clickety click click, is a.t.a. something always happening? walking to the car, unlocking it, opening the door, sitting, fastening seatbelt....walking up stairs, opening door, sitting.... listening to voicemail....
all those examples are things that mindfulness practice can happen during. but during listening to voicemail, seldom do i become a giant ear. that takes some extra time (for me) to develop focus and concentration. however just being mindful of all that sensory stuff can happen.
mdp
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 30, 2011 9:58:00 GMT -5
methinks suchness is empty too, eh? The reason why I'm hesitant to call suchness empty is because suchness doesn't refer to anything. Suchness is "just like this" and nothing more. Suchness never claims to be full of anything, so why call it empty unless one is attached to emptiness?
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 30, 2011 10:43:25 GMT -5
zd, i'm back in the mindfulness/attending the actual space. not that the two are the same. but I'm just wondering about moment to moment attending the actual. you gave as an example, sitting and becoming a giant ear. in the day to day, moment to moment, clickety click click, is a.t.a. something always happening? walking to the car, unlocking it, opening the door, sitting, fastening seatbelt....walking up stairs, opening door, sitting.... listening to voicemail.... all those examples are things that mindfulness practice can happen during. but during listening to voicemail, seldom do i become a giant ear. that takes some extra time (for me) to develop focus and concentration. however just being mindful of all that sensory stuff can happen. mdp I try to focus on the subjectivity of the moment - and that there is nothing but subjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 30, 2011 10:45:15 GMT -5
Here's my interpretation on the whole form/emptiness thing. Form is actually a very interesting and complex concept, I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. My best guess is that "form" is just another word for "appearance". Appearance is always an appearance OF something. In that sense form is like a box that is supposed to contain something. In our context this somehing is essence, the self that gives existence to the appeaance, that by virtue of which the appearance exists and which the appearance represents. We open the box and it turns out that it's empty. "Empty" doesn't mean that the box is full of a special substance called emptiness, it simply means that the box is empty of the content that it was thought to represent, cover or contain. Emptiness is therefore dependent exclusively on form, without form there is no emptiness and since all form is empty, there can be no emptiness. So in that sense I have no idea why people are worshipping emptiness like a God. I suppose they must have a different definition, but I can't figure out another definition that makes any sense at all. Anyways, actually we don't even really open the box, because hey there is no box, which is why there is no content of any kind. We simply look at a form/arising/appearance and see that it arises from and depends on other arisings. This means that appearances are like empty boxes. Appearances aren't the appearance OF anything, they represent nothing actual, they represent nothing that is not a form and they are therefore without substance. Because forms are empty it cannot be said that there are any forms. Because emptiness can't exist without forms, it cannot be said that there is emptiness. The enitre structure collapses. So this emptiness/form thingy kinda behaves like a suicidal vitual particle because the seeing of the emptiness of form is the simultaneous seeing of the emptiness of emptiness. Both extinguish each other, and actually there simply is no form and no emptiness and what remains is suchness. End of story. Did I make a wrong turn somewhere? I'd say that's pretty good. This is ultimately the fate of all conceptual structures: "The entire structure collapses."
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Mar 30, 2011 11:13:24 GMT -5
You said that in a whole lot of confusing words, but the end sounds about right (assuming I'm understanding properly).
And sorry for using 'mystical-sounding' things... it's hard to talk about something words can't describe (or I can't describe with words) so I tried to use a metaphor.
Let me try asking another way: Does the earth revolve beneath the clouds, or do the clouds revolve around the earth? From the earth's "perspective" (i.e. - I am earth looking at cloud), the clouds appear to be moving around it. From the clouds' "perspective," the earth appears to revolve beneath it. Maybe I just suck at asking these questions, but it's supposed to work like that painting of a dog that Dali did where its' eye is a mountain-scape and its' body is a wine glass. The picture changes depending on how you look at it.
If it still doesn't make sense, stare at the top of a tree on a day when clouds are rolling by quickly. If you can switch between right brain / left brain easily, you can 'make the earth revolve' or 'make the clouds revolve.' Which view is right?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 30, 2011 11:37:02 GMT -5
Here's my interpretation on the whole form/emptiness thing. Form is actually a very interesting and complex concept, I'm not exactly sure how to interpret it. My best guess is that "form" is just another word for "appearance". Appearance is always an appearance OF something. In that sense form is like a box that is supposed to contain something. In our context this somehing is essence, the self that gives existence to the appeaance, that by virtue of which the appearance exists and which the appearance represents. We open the box and it turns out that it's empty. "Empty" doesn't mean that the box is full of a special substance called emptiness, it simply means that the box is empty of the content that it was thought to represent, cover or contain. Emptiness is therefore dependent exclusively on form, without form there is no emptiness and since all form is empty, there can be no emptiness. So in that sense I have no idea why people are worshipping emptiness like a God. I suppose they must have a different definition, but I can't figure out another definition that makes any sense at all. Anyways, actually we don't even really open the box, because hey there is no box, which is why there is no content of any kind. We simply look at a form/arising/appearance and see that it arises from and depends on other arisings. This means that appearances are like empty boxes. Appearances aren't the appearance OF anything, they represent nothing actual, they represent nothing that is not a form and they are therefore without substance. Because forms are empty it cannot be said that there are any forms. Because emptiness can't exist without forms, it cannot be said that there is emptiness. The enitre structure collapses. So this emptiness/form thingy kinda behaves like a suicidal vitual particle because the seeing of the emptiness of form is the simultaneous seeing of the emptiness of emptiness. Both extinguish each other, and actually there simply is no form and no emptiness and what remains is suchness. End of story. Did I make a wrong turn somewhere? Question: What you wrote sounds pretty good to me. Form and emptiness both disappear and only suchness remains, and suchness is just a word that we use to point to the dynamic nature of "what is." What I AM is alive, conscious, and intelligent. Whether I am conceptually reflecting or not, there is always and only one unified field of being--suchness. When I reflect, I conjure up an imaginative representation of what the eyes see. In the act of reflection/distinction, I and other both simultaneously and imaginatively arise, the observer and the observed. When there is no reflection/distinction, the imaginary observer and the imaginary observed both cease to exist (imaginatively). It is in this sense that all existence is an imaginary simulation of reality. The unified living truth--suchness--remains unaffected by what the mind does. It is what it is. I am that I am. When the mind is quiescent, suchness rules! And I AM that suchness. Everything that happens is a total mystery and there is no personal control of anything. This is why Jesus told the centurion, "Just as you are under orders (from his Roman superiors), so I am too (from God)." When the mind is quiescent, the body always knows what to do.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 30, 2011 11:56:04 GMT -5
methinks suchness is empty too, eh? The reason why I'm hesitant to call suchness empty is because suchness doesn't refer to anything. Suchness is "just like this" and nothing more. Suchness never claims to be full of anything, so why call it empty unless one is attached to emptiness? Suchness refers to&from that infiniteness between&within&beyond emptiness/nothing and form/everything. Suchness is used to point to-describe the indescribable, but mind wants it to be a concept to control, label, and internalize. Reason gives rise to the hesitance, the resistance to truth, which can only arise if the original belief of "you" is believed. Within the contextual theater of that crap reality based on the original false belief, plenty of other dualities exist based on the ever-so-impermanent substance of base desires&fears. You can stick around to label and categorize all of them, but I'd just keep going. More often than not, they become distractions. G'night!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 30, 2011 11:59:52 GMT -5
zd, i'm back in the mindfulness/attending the actual space. not that the two are the same. but I'm just wondering about moment to moment attending the actual. you gave as an example, sitting and becoming a giant ear. in the day to day, moment to moment, clickety click click, is a.t.a. something always happening? walking to the car, unlocking it, opening the door, sitting, fastening seatbelt....walking up stairs, opening door, sitting.... listening to voicemail.... all those examples are things that mindfulness practice can happen during. but during listening to voicemail, seldom do i become a giant ear. that takes some extra time (for me) to develop focus and concentration. however just being mindful of all that sensory stuff can happen. mdp Max, Most adults spend a small amount of time each day attending the actual, although they are unconscious of it. Birdwatchers, for example, when they're not naming or identifying a bird, are silently looking at "what is." Fishermen/women sit and look at "what is" while waiting for a fish to take the bait. Hunters often sit and listen to "what is" without any reflection. For everyone else there are small gaps between thoughts that occur throughout the day, but the habit of mindtalk is so powerful and the monologue is so incessant that it dominates their attention 99% of the time. Attending the actual, in the way that I described, is actually a practice that can lead to significant internal silence. Like most forms of meditation, there is a carryover effect, so anyone who spends a fair amount of time looking and listening will find that a large amount of internal dialogue will eventually fall away. IOW, consciously attending the actual eventually leads to a greater amount of unconsciously attending the actual. Mindfulness and a.t.a. both begin as conscious activities, and they create a certain amount of pscyhological "space." When we are not constantly being jerked around by the mind, there is more opportunity to see through the common illusions that make life so difficult for so many people. As the mind settles down and becomes more silent, the artificial nature of the mind's world becomes more obvious. If we become free of the mind, then thinking is no longer a problem. Thinking is a natural function of "what is," but it is a function that, for most adults, has run amok. Attending the actual shifts attention from what we might call "counterproductive or negative incessant mental habits" (judgmentalness, expectations, desires, self-centeredness, attachment to beliefs, etc) to the real world of "what is" where not-knowing becomes its own reward and leads to joy, compassion, good humor, contentment, love, etc.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Mar 30, 2011 12:59:47 GMT -5
Hunters often sit and listen to "what is" without any reflection. For everyone else there are small gaps between thoughts that occur throughout the day, but the habit of mindtalk is so powerful and the monologue is so incessant that it dominates their attention 99% of the time. Attending the actual, in the way that I described, is actually a practice that can lead to significant internal silence. Like most forms of meditation, there is a carryover effect, so anyone who spends a fair amount of time looking and listening will find that a large amount of internal dialogue will eventually fall away. IOW, consciously attending the actual eventually leads to a greater amount of unconsciously attending the actual. Mindfulness and a.t.a. both begin as conscious activities, and they create a certain amount of pscyhological "space." When we are not constantly being jerked around by the mind, there is more opportunity to see through the common illusions that make life so difficult for so many people. As the mind settles down and becomes more silent, the artificial nature of the mind's world becomes more obvious. If we become free of the mind, then thinking is no longer a problem. Thinking is a natural function of "what is," but it is a function that, for most adults, has run amok. Attending the actual shifts attention from what we might call "counterproductive or negative incessant mental habits" (judgmentalness, expectations, desires, self-centeredness, attachment to beliefs, etc) to the real world of "what is" where not-knowing becomes its own reward and leads to joy, compassion, good humor, contentment, love, etc. This is excellent ZD very insightful. You had me at Hunters. Though I seldom hunt anymore it was the one pleasure and bonding I had with my Dad who otherwise was very abusive to me. A hunters mind is always on the alert but is also always very calm and quiet. This is most true when it comes to hunting whitetail deer. Whitetails are very smart and they move almost silently through the woods. There eyesight is not that good but their sense of smell and hearing is amazing. When you are still hunting you are not making any sound, movement. You have become one with the woods and as ZD says with the what is. A good still hunter will notice immediately any change of the woods within a hundred yards or so. He has been so immerse into the what is that he is the what is. Any kind of intrusion into his world is picked up as a something else. This something else is at once spotted with little effort by the hunter. Most of my hunts were very meditative. I became one with everything. I doubt that I could ever shoot a deer again it's been over 30 years. The day of my last hunt I was still hunting on a cold winters day. I was so still that 3 deer actually came within 20 yards of me. On that day where I could have had my choice of 3 different deer I gave up hunting big game. Now only once in a while when I go on a solo retreat into the woods will I shoot a rabbit or squirrel(sorry E) for my food only. Michael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 14:11:07 GMT -5
I try to focus on the subjectivity of the moment - and that there is nothing but subjectivity. how? can you describe that a little more? the concept of subjectivity is a little bit abstract for this head. does. not. compute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 14:13:06 GMT -5
zd, i'm back in the mindfulness/attending the actual space. not that the two are the same. but I'm just wondering about moment to moment attending the actual. you gave as an example, sitting and becoming a giant ear. in the day to day, moment to moment, clickety click click, is a.t.a. something always happening? walking to the car, unlocking it, opening the door, sitting, fastening seatbelt....walking up stairs, opening door, sitting.... listening to voicemail.... all those examples are things that mindfulness practice can happen during. but during listening to voicemail, seldom do i become a giant ear. that takes some extra time (for me) to develop focus and concentration. however just being mindful of all that sensory stuff can happen. mdp Max, Most adults spend a small amount of time each day attending the actual, although they are unconscious of it. Birdwatchers, for example, when they're not naming or identifying a bird, are silently looking at "what is." Fishermen/women sit and look at "what is" while waiting for a fish to take the bait. Hunters often sit and listen to "what is" without any reflection. For everyone else there are small gaps between thoughts that occur throughout the day, but the habit of mindtalk is so powerful and the monologue is so incessant that it dominates their attention 99% of the time. Attending the actual, in the way that I described, is actually a practice that can lead to significant internal silence. Like most forms of meditation, there is a carryover effect, so anyone who spends a fair amount of time looking and listening will find that a large amount of internal dialogue will eventually fall away. IOW, consciously attending the actual eventually leads to a greater amount of unconsciously attending the actual. Mindfulness and a.t.a. both begin as conscious activities, and they create a certain amount of pscyhological "space." When we are not constantly being jerked around by the mind, there is more opportunity to see through the common illusions that make life so difficult for so many people. As the mind settles down and becomes more silent, the artificial nature of the mind's world becomes more obvious. If we become free of the mind, then thinking is no longer a problem. Thinking is a natural function of "what is," but it is a function that, for most adults, has run amok. Attending the actual shifts attention from what we might call "counterproductive or negative incessant mental habits" (judgmentalness, expectations, desires, self-centeredness, attachment to beliefs, etc) to the real world of "what is" where not-knowing becomes its own reward and leads to joy, compassion, good humor, contentment, love, etc. okay, thanks, gotcha. another way of creating space for non-abidance in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 14:14:05 GMT -5
methinks suchness is empty too, eh? The reason why I'm hesitant to call suchness empty is because suchness doesn't refer to anything. Suchness is "just like this" and nothing more. Suchness never claims to be full of anything, so why call it empty unless one is attached to emptiness? oh yea i see. i was thinking of the concept of suchness. SomeNothing addresses that well.
|
|