|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2018 9:45:04 GMT -5
I can't get the quotes to work on the above post
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2018 13:38:21 GMT -5
Basically, there's only attachment to experience, but impermanence makes that futile. It doesn't make it futile based upon impermanence . That's like saying loving your partner is futile based upon that they will not last forever as your partner . You have an attachment to that which you love .... but 'dream substance' is an oxymoron and what you're calling real has no substance - self-less, anatta, without 'identity' or enduring quality. I am present, though. What I am calling real is real and has substance . What comparison do you have to say otherwise?It's because of the deeper truth that all things are seen with purity of love. People who don't care are probably missing that awareness. Sure peeps that don't give a monkeys don't give a monkeys based upon not seeing themselves in a certain way that would encompass a caring nature . I don't necessarily see a natural occurrence happening when a peep cares or not, it's just a reflection of that missing awareness or not .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2018 22:06:49 GMT -5
I'm just starting a new dialogue box because something went wrong with the above one.
1) I make emotional attachments to ones I love, and that leads to a lot happiness along with the pain of loss, but loving relationships are defined by emotional attachments, or 'emotional investment', I prefer to say. When the loss comes, there is suffering, and that's the natural way of things. In a very superficial sense, when I watch a rom com I get involved in their movie-lives and I'm happy when all is great and cry when it all goes south. That example merely illustrates that life doesn't to be 'real' to be emotionally profound. In that sense, life is real in affect.
2) One has to practice a meditation to look deeply into the nature of things, and move from the gross hard levels of perception toward the subtle. As the mind becomes honed and acutely perceptive, the apparent impermanence starts to become clear, and there is a point at which 'impermanence becomes instantaneous, without endurance whatsoever. There is no evidence because there is nothing here which I can take from one moment to the next. There is analogical evidence, such as, yesterday is already gone, the experience of a minute ago has already passed, the experience of one second ago is no longer.
The mind, in which all perception occurs, is a function of division - not in the 'separation' sense, but in the sense that it divides the gross sensation into finer parts. So for example, you feel your hand is a lump of stuff, but you watch it and it starts to break down into more detailed feelings. You see how the initial lump feeling seemed to endure constantly, but the more detailed feelings come and go, changing quite rapidly - and they also occupy a very small area. Focusing on a such a subtle feeling, the mind divides it into even more detail, and those subtler feelings pass extremely rapidly and occupy a very tiny area. Soon enough one realises the hand has no continuity at all, of no enduring substance, and no part of it occupies any space... Strange as it may seem.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2018 4:29:06 GMT -5
I'm just starting a new dialogue box because something went wrong with the above one. 1) I make emotional attachments to ones I love, and that leads to a lot happiness along with the pain of loss, but loving relationships are defined by emotional attachments, or 'emotional investment', I prefer to say. When the loss comes, there is suffering, and that's the natural way of things. In a very superficial sense, when I watch a rom com I get involved in their movie-lives and I'm happy when all is great and cry when it all goes south. That example merely illustrates that life doesn't to be 'real' to be emotionally profound. In that sense, life is real in affect. ..I don't see a like for like reference for loving your wife and getting upset when bambi dies on the screen . From a point of knowing bambi is just a cartoon character one can say or not say it's futile to be upset with something that was never real to begin with . I have yet to hear any argument that sustains the fact that individuals of this reality are like bambi and not of any real substance . All I hear is that we are not permanent and such likes and this world is like a dream and this world may not exist so to speak . You speak about emotions, can bambi really feel pain?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2018 4:29:39 GMT -5
2) One has to practice a meditation to look deeply into the nature of things, and move from the gross hard levels of perception toward the subtle. As the mind becomes honed and acutely perceptive, the apparent impermanence starts to become clear, and there is a point at which 'impermanence becomes instantaneous, without endurance whatsoever. There is no evidence because there is nothing here which I can take from one moment to the next. There is analogical evidence, such as, yesterday is already gone, the experience of a minute ago has already passed, the experience of one second ago is no longer. The mind, in which all perception occurs, is a function of division - not in the 'separation' sense, but in the sense that it divides the gross sensation into finer parts. So for example, you feel your hand is a lump of stuff, but you watch it and it starts to break down into more detailed feelings. You see how the initial lump feeling seemed to endure constantly, but the more detailed feelings come and go, changing quite rapidly - and they also occupy a very small area. Focusing on a such a subtle feeling, the mind divides it into even more detail, and those subtler feelings pass extremely rapidly and occupy a very tiny area. Soon enough one realises the hand has no continuity at all, of no enduring substance, and no part of it occupies any space... Strange as it may seem. ..Firstly using your word/s, it will be futile to meditate if what you are has no real substance . It would be likened to a dream character believing that meditation has some real relevance . We have to get the foundations straight to begin with . This is why I said you can't have a real fish in an illusory pond . This is also why there is no headway with any conversations on this forum because no-one wants to address the foundations .. This is why you have empty appearances strutting their stuff supposedly knowing the truth of things while being of no real substance . So until you present a case for one's foundation there is no point speaking of meditational benefits that allude to no-one that is of any real substance . Clear seeing for example would mean nothing to anyone, it's all story based, dream based / illusory . This is why Self and the world is a united reality .. This is why I have no problemo with my foundation/s . It's so straightforward . I have had no realization that reflects I AM not real or this world is not real even though there is change / impermanence .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 15, 2018 5:08:18 GMT -5
2) One has to practice a meditation to look deeply into the nature of things, and move from the gross hard levels of perception toward the subtle. As the mind becomes honed and acutely perceptive, the apparent impermanence starts to become clear, and there is a point at which 'impermanence becomes instantaneous, without endurance whatsoever. There is no evidence because there is nothing here which I can take from one moment to the next. There is analogical evidence, such as, yesterday is already gone, the experience of a minute ago has already passed, the experience of one second ago is no longer. The mind, in which all perception occurs, is a function of division - not in the 'separation' sense, but in the sense that it divides the gross sensation into finer parts. So for example, you feel your hand is a lump of stuff, but you watch it and it starts to break down into more detailed feelings. You see how the initial lump feeling seemed to endure constantly, but the more detailed feelings come and go, changing quite rapidly - and they also occupy a very small area. Focusing on a such a subtle feeling, the mind divides it into even more detail, and those subtler feelings pass extremely rapidly and occupy a very tiny area. Soon enough one realises the hand has no continuity at all, of no enduring substance, and no part of it occupies any space... Strange as it may seem. ..Firstly using your word/s, it will be futile to meditate if what you are has no real substance . It would be likened to a dream character believing that meditation has some real relevance . We have to get the foundations straight to begin with . This is why I said you can't have a real fish in an illusory pond . This is also why there is no headway with any conversations on this forum because no-one wants to address the foundations .. This is why you have empty appearances strutting their stuff supposedly knowing the truth of things while being of no real substance . So until you present a case for one's foundation there is no point speaking of meditational benefits that allude to no-one that is of any real substance . Clear seeing for example would mean nothing to anyone, it's all story based, dream based / illusory . Let's hypothetically suppose that there is nothing substantial that can be clung to and the universe is just fleeting momentarily without any fundamental substructure. If that were the case, clinging, grasping, and so forth, would be entirely futile. Just imagine if that were actually true, and you could directly discover it. In this way, meditation might end futility thorough seeing it 'as it is'.
When I say 'as it is' I don't mean a fact about it. I mean 'just watching', which is the cessation of volition, clinging, grasping, avoiding, resisting and so on.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 15, 2018 5:14:04 GMT -5
I'm just starting a new dialogue box because something went wrong with the above one. 1) I make emotional attachments to ones I love, and that leads to a lot happiness along with the pain of loss, but loving relationships are defined by emotional attachments, or 'emotional investment', I prefer to say. When the loss comes, there is suffering, and that's the natural way of things. In a very superficial sense, when I watch a rom com I get involved in their movie-lives and I'm happy when all is great and cry when it all goes south. That example merely illustrates that life doesn't to be 'real' to be emotionally profound. In that sense, life is real in affect. ..I don't see a like for like reference for loving your wife and getting upset when bambi dies on the screen . From a point of knowing bambi is just a cartoon character one can say or not say it's futile to be upset with something that was never real to begin with . I have yet to hear any argument that sustains the fact that individuals of this reality are like bambi and not of any real substance . I just used rom coms as an analogy to say that I become emotionally invested in things which are not real...
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2018 5:28:57 GMT -5
..Firstly using your word/s, it will be futile to meditate if what you are has no real substance . It would be likened to a dream character believing that meditation has some real relevance . We have to get the foundations straight to begin with . This is why I said you can't have a real fish in an illusory pond . This is also why there is no headway with any conversations on this forum because no-one wants to address the foundations .. This is why you have empty appearances strutting their stuff supposedly knowing the truth of things while being of no real substance . So until you present a case for one's foundation there is no point speaking of meditational benefits that allude to no-one that is of any real substance . Clear seeing for example would mean nothing to anyone, it's all story based, dream based / illusory . Let's hypothetically suppose that there is nothing substantial that can be clung to and the universe is just fleeting momentarily without any fundamental substructure. If that were the case, clinging, grasping, and so forth, would be entirely futile. Just imagine if that were actually true, and you could directly discover it. In this way, meditation might end futility thorough seeing it 'as it is'.
When I say 'as it is' I don't mean a fact about it. I mean 'just watching', which is the cessation of volition, clinging, grasping, avoiding, resisting and so on.
I can buy into hypotheticals but hypotheticals are based upon one's conclusions and one's conclusions are based upon structure / substance in reflection of their beliefs . It's the whole foundational issue again isn't it, this is something that is fundamental to the hypothetical premise presented . It's like saying hypothetically speaking there is no-one here saying there is no-one here . It doesn't work does it . The physical world has certain properties / structures, the physical body has, the etheric body has, the tree has, fire has and it's all real . Peeps get a little muddled because there is the knowing or the realization had that what you are is beyond all that I have just mentioned . It's a comparison that is not correct, it a conclusion that is not correct . This is why I spent quite a while speaking about environments and taking each environment into consideration . It seems to me as if peeps just wanna see Consciousness as the big blobby thing that is of no real substance that somehow manifests everything including you out of thin air without knowing how anything appears .. It's not a sound foundation ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2018 5:36:22 GMT -5
..I don't see a like for like reference for loving your wife and getting upset when bambi dies on the screen . From a point of knowing bambi is just a cartoon character one can say or not say it's futile to be upset with something that was never real to begin with . I have yet to hear any argument that sustains the fact that individuals of this reality are like bambi and not of any real substance . I just used rom coms as an analogy to say that I become emotionally invested in things which are not real... .. Yep I know but if we want to get straight the foundations we have to have something real to begin with in order to compare that which isn't of any real substance . The foundation of Self has to be real . The foundation of this reality has to be real in order to compare that which is not real . All I am hearing is that which manifests and that which speaks the truth is of no real real substance . This is why it's no good there being the suggestion that I AM of no real substance while pointing to bambi saying bambi is not real but I still cried when her mother got shot . . It is the blind leading the blind isn't it, it is the story character pointing to another story character . There is nothing of any real substance to anything .. I am saying there has to be something of real substance present as a foundation to start with otherwise it's a house of cards built on sand innit .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 15, 2018 6:32:41 GMT -5
Let's hypothetically suppose that there is nothing substantial that can be clung to and the universe is just fleeting momentarily without any fundamental substructure. If that were the case, clinging, grasping, and so forth, would be entirely futile. Just imagine if that were actually true, and you could directly discover it. In this way, meditation might end futility thorough seeing it 'as it is'.
When I say 'as it is' I don't mean a fact about it. I mean 'just watching', which is the cessation of volition, clinging, grasping, avoiding, resisting and so on.
I can buy into hypotheticals but hypotheticals are based upon one's conclusions and one's conclusions are based upon structure / substance in reflection of their beliefs . It's the whole foundational issue again isn't it, this is something that is fundamental to the hypothetical premise presented . It's like saying hypothetically speaking there is no-one here saying there is no-one here . It doesn't work does it . The physical world has certain properties / structures, the physical body has, the etheric body has, the tree has, fire has and it's all real . Peeps get a little muddled because there is the knowing or the realization had that what you are is beyond all that I have just mentioned . It's a comparison that is not correct, it a conclusion that is not correct . This is why I spent quite a while speaking about environments and taking each environment into consideration . It seems to me as if peeps just wanna see Consciousness as the big blobby thing that is of no real substance that somehow manifests everything including you out of thin air without knowing how anything appears .. It's not a sound foundation .. I didn't say that, though.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 15, 2018 6:41:39 GMT -5
I just used rom coms as an analogy to say that I become emotionally invested in things which are not real... .. Yep I know but if we want to get straight the foundations we have to have something real to begin with in order to compare that which isn't of any real substance . The foundation of Self has to be real . The foundation of this reality has to be real in order to compare that which is not real . All I am hearing is that which manifests and that which speaks the truth is of no real real substance . This is why it's no good there being the suggestion that I AM of no real substance while pointing to bambi saying bambi is not real but I still cried when her mother got shot . . It is the blind leading the blind isn't it, it is the story character pointing to another story character . There is nothing of any real substance to anything .. I am saying there has to be something of real substance present as a foundation to start with otherwise it's a house of cards built on sand innit . I said something about I am a couple of days ago, but not what you are implying here.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 15, 2018 7:00:27 GMT -5
I can buy into hypotheticals but hypotheticals are based upon one's conclusions and one's conclusions are based upon structure / substance in reflection of their beliefs . It's the whole foundational issue again isn't it, this is something that is fundamental to the hypothetical premise presented . It's like saying hypothetically speaking there is no-one here saying there is no-one here . It doesn't work does it . The physical world has certain properties / structures, the physical body has, the etheric body has, the tree has, fire has and it's all real . Peeps get a little muddled because there is the knowing or the realization had that what you are is beyond all that I have just mentioned . It's a comparison that is not correct, it a conclusion that is not correct . This is why I spent quite a while speaking about environments and taking each environment into consideration . It seems to me as if peeps just wanna see Consciousness as the big blobby thing that is of no real substance that somehow manifests everything including you out of thin air without knowing how anything appears .. It's not a sound foundation .. I didn't say that, though. I didn't refer to you as personally saying it but you do hold the opinion that the world might not exist and what was said earlier hinges on whether or not there is a world or not . I am trying to get to a sound foundation that's all, you said 'I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising'.This isn't a sound foundation, there has been a mixture of no-one lifting weights and knowing I AM and knowing what I AM not . Do you understand that there requires that which you are of real substance to know what isn't of real substance . It's no good any peep having an illusory / unreal footing and saying what is Truth about what is Self . It doesn't add up to me, does it to you? Do you think a real fish can live in an unreal pond?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 15, 2018 19:53:06 GMT -5
I didn't say that, though. I didn't refer to you as personally saying it but you do hold the opinion that the world might not exist and what was said earlier hinges on whether or not there is a world or not . I am trying to get to a sound foundation that's all, you said 'I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising'.This isn't a sound foundation, there has been a mixture of no-one lifting weights and knowing I AM and knowing what I AM not . Do you understand that there requires that which you are of real substance to know what isn't of real substance . It's no good any peep having an illusory / unreal footing and saying what is Truth about what is Self . It doesn't add up to me, does it to you? Do you think a real fish can live in an unreal pond? Yes. It basically hinges on if the world has any substance which changes, and I claim not.
True. I go with the illusion of dependent arising.
There is an imaginary self, self image, involved in lifting weights.
The distinction makes me aware of the mind as opposed to being tied to self image. That one who is aware is here, but has no property I can discern.
So, awareness is here but I don't know why or how and have no basis or foundation for that - but I know it is true in momentary awareness.
No, it doesn't add up.
To me, there is only experience of fish in pond, but there is no 'enduring substance', so nothing of a moment ago exists anymore. It looks like the same fish endures over time, but that's what call an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 16, 2018 1:47:57 GMT -5
I didn't refer to you as personally saying it but you do hold the opinion that the world might not exist and what was said earlier hinges on whether or not there is a world or not . I am trying to get to a sound foundation that's all, you said 'I am regardless of the world, it can mean that there is a world I am regardless of, or it can mean I am regardless because there isn't a world at all; only an illusion of dependent arising'.This isn't a sound foundation, there has been a mixture of no-one lifting weights and knowing I AM and knowing what I AM not . Do you understand that there requires that which you are of real substance to know what isn't of real substance . It's no good any peep having an illusory / unreal footing and saying what is Truth about what is Self . It doesn't add up to me, does it to you? Do you think a real fish can live in an unreal pond? To me, there is only experience of fish in pond, but there is no 'enduring substance', so nothing of a moment ago exists anymore. It looks like the same fish endures over time, but that's what call an illusion.
.. Okay, so you say there is only experience of fish and there is no enduring substance, but what is the substance? Is it real substance? You speak about the same fish endures over time which is of an illusory nature, what is not of an illusory nature of the mind that you have as your foundation and comparison? It seems that you have knowings of what is and what isn't, you seem to know what I AM is and what I AM isn't and yet there seem to be a lot of blanks, in your other posts you spoke about you don't know any answers, but now it seems as if your are more confident .. If you bypass the real fish in an unreal pond scenario you have to in the same vein bypass what you call an illusion . You see this doesn't add up . All there would be in this instance is experience, no illusion because you can't have these comparisons one minute and not the next just when it suits . You have comparisons for what is real and what is illusory and that has to have a foundation in reflection of yourself . This is why even saying the rope is illusory because it is really a snake has built in a knowing of what is real snake in reflection of what you believe you are .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2018 9:24:21 GMT -5
To me, there is only experience of fish in pond, but there is no 'enduring substance', so nothing of a moment ago exists anymore. It looks like the same fish endures over time, but that's what call an illusion.
.. Okay, so you say there is only experience of fish and there is no enduring substance, but what is the substance? Is it real substance? You speak about the same fish endures over time which is of an illusory nature, what is not of an illusory nature of the mind that you have as your foundation and comparison? I said the same fish does not endure over time.
|
|