|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 3:16:14 GMT -5
No separation, no path, no volition never becomes true again, or equally true/false, or any of that nonsense. It is seen as false, and may then be seen as irrelevant, but it never becomes true again, ever. False and irrelevant are very, very different things when it comes to all of this. That be what I'm sayin.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 3:25:05 GMT -5
If you had left your baggage on the mountain before coming down, you would find there is a mountain again, but no volition/path/doer. So from your position of 'mountain again', there would still be no volition/path/doer. Volition, doing and paths, do not actually disappear, they are simply not focused upon or attached to in the way they once were....as actualities of reality. But by the same token, nor are they focused upon or attached to as fully absent or false. The sense of being a volitional doer or engaging with a path, can be visited at any time, as an experience, without any danger of attaching to it as a belief about reality. Thus, there is no need to assert, "there is no this or no that" as though it were true and as though it were very, very important. AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary. I'm not framing reality with the idea that there is no volitional doer, and I'm also not visiting the sense of it as though it's still there to be experienced. If you see clearly that you're not a hippopotamus, you can't just visit that sense of being a hippopotamus anytime you want. Some things are lost, and they're lost for good. They're called illusions, and good riddance to them. The only way you can 'visit' the sense of being a volitional doer is if deep down you still believe you are one. That sense is entirely belief driven.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 3:39:10 GMT -5
So what is the 'no mountain' perspective? Seems to me to be contextual and it also seems to me figgles is referring to something different here than what you were referring to in what she found in the archive (** nods and smiles at figgles **). To start with, "no mountain" itself is a bit of a doggeral. It's obviously based on something from Zen: From here: Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.
Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters.(Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 24)Now I've never practiced Zen, but ... < >... obviously, speaking about Zen is not Zen. It seems to me that the Zen aphorism is a bit more nuanced than as we've used it, and that to reduce it to a meme based on the personal/impersonal dichotomy is reductive. </ > What I took you to mean in the quote by "people climbing the no-mountain mountain" would be an individual seeking to become an enlightened person. What I took figgles to mean by it is as you described to her, someone caught in Foster's trap. Essentially, she's using "mountain" as a place-holder for "person", which is incredibly reductive of the original Zen aphorism. Her response to focusing on the fate of the person during an abstraction of a path was interesting: From the vantage point of full circle, they are all one in the same. Taking each one the questions to consider, one at a time, happened back at 'no mountain.' Your suggestions suggests you don't fully understand what I"m talking about. in that she ventures the first thought, the first swing of the butcher's blade and comes up with 1) Person 2) Volition 3) Path ... and then protested that they are inseparable when I focused on the first and central idea, the person. That's just a mind-based re-integration of the original mind-based distinctions, and the fact is that most people probably go through life never considering whether or not they have free will, so obviously the idea of a person is completely independent from the idea of volition. Classic example of figgles using the idea of a path to put someone she's debating with behind her on it, which is a silly amount of ironic given that the path in question is circular. Also an example of diving into the river of thought, waving to someone on the shore "hey the water's fine!" and then exclaiming ... "look at you! you're all wet!" when they dive in to follow Yeah, well, I lost track of why we're even talking about mountains but I'm pretty sure we're making them out of mole hills. What IS interesting is the notion that once illusions are seen for what they are, they can be engaged and visited and played with and made equally true/false and such. That would be like riding a camel out to the oasis to get a drink after realizing it's a mirage, or pretending to be frightened by a snake that we already know is a rope, or bask in the beauty of a flower in a bush that we already know is a piece of plastic. **Gives a nod and a wink to Silver**
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 3:40:31 GMT -5
AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary. ... "2nd mountain"?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 3:40:46 GMT -5
Illusion?...What illusion? This is just a repeat of what they've been telling you you think for the past year now. Mercifully it only took to page four this time. Yeah, it's deja vu all over again.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 3:43:21 GMT -5
AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary. ... "2nd mountain"? Hey, they're self replicating mountains, okay?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 3:44:21 GMT -5
Nope. There's still experience in all it's glory...noisy and loud and colorful. Yes, experience in all it's glory, but no questions, no doubts, no actual disagreements about that experience. Just a silly light play of ephemeral ideas, and those can't dent what is really meant by the word silence. The term 'silence' is not used to indicate an absence of noise. That's taking the pointer literal. And then concluding a somehow diminished experience sounds like anti-advaita trap.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 3:49:05 GMT -5
Classic example of figgles using the idea of a path to put someone she's debating with behind her on it, which is a silly amount of ironic given that the path in question is circular. Also an example of diving into the river of thought, waving to someone on the shore "hey the water's fine!" and then exclaiming ... "look at you! you're all wet!" when they dive in to follow
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 3:56:10 GMT -5
Illusion?...What illusion? This is just a repeat of what they've been telling you you think for the past year now. Mercifully it only took to page four this time. Figs is on her own without Andy tag-teaming.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 3:59:50 GMT -5
Seems to me to be contextual and it also seems to me figgles is referring to something different here than what you were referring to in what she found in the archive (** nods and smiles at figgles **). To start with, "no mountain" itself is a bit of a doggeral. It's obviously based on something from Zen: From here: Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.
Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters.(Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 24)Now I've never practiced Zen, but ... < >... obviously, speaking about Zen is not Zen. It seems to me that the Zen aphorism is a bit more nuanced than as we've used it, and that to reduce it to a meme based on the personal/impersonal dichotomy is reductive. </ > What I took you to mean in the quote by "people climbing the no-mountain mountain" would be an individual seeking to become an enlightened person. What I took figgles to mean by it is as you described to her, someone caught in Foster's trap. Essentially, she's using "mountain" as a place-holder for "person", which is incredibly reductive of the original Zen aphorism. Her response to focusing on the fate of the person during an abstraction of a path was interesting: in that she ventures the first thought, the first swing of the butcher's blade and comes up with 1) Person 2) Volition 3) Path ... and then protested that they are inseparable when I focused on the first and central idea, the person. That's just a mind-based re-integration of the original mind-based distinctions, and the fact is that most people probably go through life never considering whether or not they have free will, so obviously the idea of a person is completely independent from the idea of volition. Classic example of figgles using the idea of a path to put someone she's debating with behind her on it, which is a silly amount of ironic given that the path in question is circular. Also an example of diving into the river of thought, waving to someone on the shore "hey the water's fine!" and then exclaiming ... "look at you! you're all wet!" when they dive in to follow Yeah, well, I lost track of why we're even talking about mountains but I'm pretty sure we're making them out of mole hills. What IS interesting is the notion that once illusions are seen for what they are, they can be engaged and visited and played with and made equally true/false and such. That would be like riding a camel out to the oasis to get a drink after realizing it's a mirage, or pretending to be frightened by a snake that we already know is a rope, or bask in the beauty of a flower in a bush that we already know is a piece of plastic. **Gives a nod and a wink to Silver** <---- Figs at the oasis
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 3:59:55 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I lost track of why we're even talking about mountains but I'm pretty sure we're making them out of mole hills. What IS interesting is the notion that once illusions are seen for what they are, they can be engaged and visited and played with and made equally true/false and such. That would be like riding a camel out to the oasis to get a drink after realizing it's a mirage, or pretending to be frightened by a snake that we already know is a rope, or bask in the beauty of a flower in a bush that we already know is a piece of plastic. **Gives a nod and a wink to Silver** Here's another good Zenny from out on the interwebs: If you meet on the way a man who knows, Don't speak a word -- Don't keep silent!
What seems to be at the root of the confusion, other than, as I've pointed out already, mistaking an absence for a presence, might be described in Zen terms as a misapprehension of Mu. On one hand she seems to have a hold of it here: False and irrelevant are very, very different things when it comes to all of this. That be what I'm sayin. ... but she contradicted herself to express it ... IOW, I don't think she meant what you thought she meant there: The question of true vs. false becomes irrelevant WHEN the whole concept of true/false becomes so. Truth/falsity don't have anything to do with attachment. Mu does not mean deliberately not settling on either yes or no. Mu is not a soft no. Mu is not irrelevance. Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. She's mistaking the abidance of innocence for a fear of carnal knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 4:03:19 GMT -5
Volition, doing and paths, do not actually disappear, they are simply not focused upon or attached to in the way they once were....as actualities of reality. But by the same token, nor are they focused upon or attached to as fully absent or false. The sense of being a volitional doer or engaging with a path, can be visited at any time, as an experience, without any danger of attaching to it as a belief about reality. Thus, there is no need to assert, "there is no this or no that" as though it were true and as though it were very, very important. AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary. I'm not framing reality with the idea that there is no volitional doer, and I'm also not visiting the sense of it as though it's still there to be experienced. If you see clearly that you're not a hippopotamus, you can't just visit that sense of being a hippopotamus anytime you want. Some things are lost, and they're lost for good. They're called illusions, and good riddance to them. The only way you can 'visit' the sense of being a volitional doer is if deep down you still believe you are one. That sense is entirely belief driven.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 4:11:05 GMT -5
AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary. ... "2nd mountain"? <--- pay attention to the mountains
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 4:34:51 GMT -5
... "2nd mountain"? <--- pay attention to the mountains It's a literal depiction of the appearance of the 2nd mountain from along the circular path. The question is, how can she not recognize that this rigid conceptual structure that involves a serious bit of hyperminding isn't one of these? our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value... no stories 'about' it necessary. This is a recursive self-contradiction. How anyone can't see this for what it is is simply beyond me man. She's telling a story about how stories aren't necessary and doesn't see that as a story.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2014 5:18:13 GMT -5
Right. But to, To see something as 'false' is to still be operating in the realm where true vs. false applies. In transcendence we move beyond true/false, into just being at one with the moment and what ever is happening. All labels and conceptualizations about what's happening, fall away. The question of true vs. false becomes irrelevant WHEN the whole concept of true/false becomes so. In "moving beyond true/false" there is no basis for debate, there are no questions, only silence. In pointing beyond what words can convey, it's said that: We never see something as true, but we stop seeing what is false as what is true.Rather than respond to all the messages here, I will focus on this one, because this is pretty close to the heart of the issue. What you said here is incorrect, and hints strongly at fundamentalism. Would you like me to try and explain why?
|
|