|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2019 18:23:30 GMT -5
The very idea that the Dao that can't be spoken "has" a fundamental nature, already sets up an object/thing that possesses something.
The reason it can't be spoken is because 'it' defies capture by concept...can only be pointed to. And surely if it defies capture by concept, then there is no realization by which it can be seen to have a specific, sensed quality/property. That would be a turning back of sorts...from pointing, to conceptualizing/experiencing.
Why does it? It implies that the Dao is something with a fundamental nature that for some reason can't be spoken.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2019 18:31:26 GMT -5
i still agree with what ZD says at times. The largest issue I have with his message at this point is that he insists he had a profound CC that was actually a Truth realization that showed him 'its all alive.'
In the past too though, there were a few things that raised my brow. For one, the way he says he arrived at firm answers for existential questions vs. seeing through them. (seeing them as misconceived).
Yeah. I think we all got that months back. Please raise your hand if you didn't think that this has been Faye's largest issue for months now. Gopal wondered where they started to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 21, 2019 19:49:18 GMT -5
It implies that the Dao is something with a fundamental nature that for some reason can't be spoken. When you put anything into words (concepts), that in and of itself is at least once removed from the actual. The very nature of words is to be symbolic/representational. (Incidentally, that's why koans have a more immediate answer).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 20:29:56 GMT -5
All experienced 'peacefulness, love' does come and go. As does all experienced happiness. (This is where I used to turn on E). I now see precisely why he stood his ground on the 'life-time of never ending, experiential happiness' bit. That which is experience, by virtue of being an arising to that which abides, always comes and goes, necessarily has a beginning and end...ebbs, flows. Experiential content has no permanence.
But yes, those terms can either be descriptors of a particular experience or they can be pointers to the absence behind the arising of unconditional Peace/Love...which again do arise in experience.
Love, peacefulnes, aliveness, intelligence though are not qualities of that which abide. The moment there is 'quality' there is mind.
I am talking about a love that doesn't come and go ('Love'). As I said, it's not experienced, because it's not 'an experience'. Best I would say is that it is known 'in' experience. Same is true for Aliveness, Peace, Intelligence etc. They are all prior to comparison and duality. If 'Being' denotes an 'Isness', then that would be on that list (though I guess you use 'Being' to denote an absence of all quality). So we will have to agree to disagree here. I see Aliveness, Peace, Intelligence, Love etc as without boundary, so they would have to be prior to mind. In my conception of 'mind', mind only knows what is finite and changing. Nevertheless I would still agree with you that there is an important realization of what is absent all quality. The logical mind rejects the idea that there can be fundamental 'quality' (parenthesis is note-worthy here) prior to mind, and there can't be, but I believe that what is not logical here, is also true. I think it's the opposite; Logical mind insists there has to be 'quality' to that which is fundamental to arising experience that is rife with quality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 20:31:59 GMT -5
That thingness is an illusion, the seeing through of all boundary, the seeing of all limitation to be appearance only, 'trumps' the seeing that things are 'actually' comprised of other things. They can't 'actually, absolutely' be comprised of specific stuff/things, because ultimately/absolutely, the bounds that appear and thus define thingness, have no substance.
Yes, thing DO appear and if they appear to be 'alive, sentient, feeling, thinking, energetic,' whatever, that too is an appearance and no one saying that any of that should be ignored, eschewed or rejected.
However, the seeing that it's all a transient appearance to/that which is not a transient appearance, that which abides, 'transcends' the appearance of energy or whatever it is we see 'in' an appearing thing.
The seeing that appearing things are comprised of specific quaities, substances, traits, whatever, could be called 'truth' (small t--which denotes it as a relative truth). Whereas the seeing that all appearance, those traits and qualities that are experientially known to inhabit appearing things, are themselves ephemeral arisings within/to that which abides, Is Truth (capital T...as it denotes that which is absolute).
The absolute always trumps the relative.
edit: I just re-read your post and see you DID use the term 'relative.' Yes, but relative truth is the world we live in daily. It does zero good to talk ONLY in absolutes. There is a point where the absolute, obviously, abides moment to moment, where that abiding is unobscured, right alongside, ordinary, daily life. Where the chopping wood, carry water happens alongside the seeing that it's all an appearance in consciousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 20:40:32 GMT -5
Well IF experience, (the arising world) didn't capture 'to some degree,' it would all simply get ignored. Obviously that doesn't happen. But the depth to which you get pulled in, only goes so far.
The waking dream doesn't come to a screeching halt just because it's seen to be a dream. There is nothing left to do BUT continue to engage what appears as it appears. It's simply with the knowing it's all an appearance in Consciousness.
You seem to be suggesting it's all or nothing. That IF there is any interest/engagement at all, that necessarily means a buying in, hook, line & sinker..? Interest can arise absent fully buying in.
It seems a lot of folks have difficulty understanding the subtlety of suffering, This is why I've talked about the 'point of suffering'; A point at which a simple experience, perhaps even a fun one, suddenly turns to suffering. Where that point is depends on the dynamics of the particular individual, and it relates to what you've been calling the 'depth to which one gets pulled in'. SR changes the dynamics in such a way that the point of suffering is never reached. There's no need to avoid getting angry or repulsed or frightened or non-plussed or whatever the next post is going to suggest as proof of not being there yet, if those reactions don't cause suffering for you. Yes.
That was so dammed good......I'm about to light up a ciggy and recline back on my pilla...(& I don't even smoke!)
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 21, 2019 21:32:28 GMT -5
SR changes the dynamics in such a way that the point of suffering is never reached. That is very insightful indeed but I can't find the words right now to explain why!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 0:37:44 GMT -5
Well IF experience, (the arising world) didn't capture 'to some degree,' it would all simply get ignored. Obviously that doesn't happen. But the depth to which you get pulled in, only goes so far.
The waking dream doesn't come to a screeching halt just because it's seen to be a dream. There is nothing left to do BUT continue to engage what appears as it appears. It's simply with the knowing it's all an appearance in Consciousness.
You seem to be suggesting it's all or nothing. That IF there is any interest/engagement at all, that necessarily means a buying in, hook, line & sinker..? Interest can arise absent fully buying in.
It seems a lot of folks have difficulty understanding the subtlety of suffering, This is why I've talked about the 'point of suffering'; A point at which a simple experience, perhaps even a fun one, suddenly turns to suffering. Where that point is depends on the dynamics of the particular individual, and it relates to what you've been calling the 'depth to which one gets pulled in'. SR changes the dynamics in such a way that the point of suffering is never reached.There's no need to avoid getting angry or repulsed or frightened or non-plussed or whatever the next post is going to suggest as proof of not being there yet, if those reactions don't cause suffering for you. Amazing post Enigma. Have read a good post after a long time. Look at the bolder where you say suffering is never reached, That means your unfolding story changes.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 22, 2019 0:53:28 GMT -5
It seems a lot of folks have difficulty understanding the subtlety of suffering, This is why I've talked about the 'point of suffering'; A point at which a simple experience, perhaps even a fun one, suddenly turns to suffering. Where that point is depends on the dynamics of the particular individual, and it relates to what you've been calling the 'depth to which one gets pulled in'. SR changes the dynamics in such a way that the point of suffering is never reached.There's no need to avoid getting angry or repulsed or frightened or non-plussed or whatever the next post is going to suggest as proof of not being there yet, if those reactions don't cause suffering for you. Amazing post Enigma. Have read a good post after a long time. Look at the bolder where you say suffering is never reached, That means your unfolding story changes. I know this is a common theme with you but no, the unfolding story doesn't change because there's no reference point to tell you whether it has. You wouldn't be able to make a judgment about whether the story has changed from one story to another story. The point of suffering is never reached because there is never a point where there is a sufferer. The mind is always in the past or the future. So even if the mind has an expectation of suffering due to circumstances, that point never comes because experience of the changing story is always superseded by presence if you are established in it, which is outside of space and time, therefore no suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 0:57:53 GMT -5
Amazing post Enigma. Have read a good post after a long time. Look at the bolder where you say suffering is never reached, That means your unfolding story changes. I know this is a common theme with you but no, the unfolding story doesn't change because there's no reference point to tell you whether it has. You wouldn't be able to make a judgment about whether the story has changed from one story to another story. The point of suffering is never reached because there is never a point where there is a sufferer. The mind is always in the past or the future. So even if the mind has an expectation of suffering due to circumstances, that point never comes because experience of the changing story is always superseded by presence if you are established in it, which is outside of space and time, therefore no suffering. You say inner response changes after SR?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 22, 2019 1:05:13 GMT -5
I know this is a common theme with you but no, the unfolding story doesn't change because there's no reference point to tell you whether it has. You wouldn't be able to make a judgment about whether the story has changed from one story to another story. The point of suffering is never reached because there is never a point where there is a sufferer. The mind is always in the past or the future. So even if the mind has an expectation of suffering due to circumstances, that point never comes because experience of the changing story is always superseded by presence if you are established in it, which is outside of space and time, therefore no suffering. You say inner response changes after SR? By inner response do you mean mental response? I'm not in control of that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2019 2:56:44 GMT -5
I am talking about a love that doesn't come and go ('Love'). As I said, it's not experienced, because it's not 'an experience'. Best I would say is that it is known 'in' experience. Same is true for Aliveness, Peace, Intelligence etc. They are all prior to comparison and duality. If 'Being' denotes an 'Isness', then that would be on that list (though I guess you use 'Being' to denote an absence of all quality). So we will have to agree to disagree here. I see Aliveness, Peace, Intelligence, Love etc as without boundary, so they would have to be prior to mind. In my conception of 'mind', mind only knows what is finite and changing. Nevertheless I would still agree with you that there is an important realization of what is absent all quality. The logical mind rejects the idea that there can be fundamental 'quality' (parenthesis is note-worthy here) prior to mind, and there can't be, but I believe that what is not logical here, is also true. I think it's the opposite; Logical mind insists there has to be 'quality' to that which is fundamental to arising experience that is rife with quality. I'm not seeing the logical issue of there being a qualityless souce, and then all qualities are finite manifestations...? It seems quite 'cleanly' logical to me, it's just the basic idea of 'nothingness and somethingness' or 'ineffable and effable'. I think the confusion comes in when we throw words into the mix like Love, Intelligence, Peace, Aliveness, Consciousness, Presence, etc....though I think it's unavoidable that we throw those words in.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 22, 2019 2:59:28 GMT -5
This is the point I have always maintained in regards to what you are unmanifest and what you are manifest. There has to be a fundamental quality to unmanifest for there to manifest at all. Kinda obvious in my eyes .. Unless qualities are part of the manifestation, (They are) in which case prior to manifestation is qualityless. All that is necessary for everything to manifest is existence that is prior to manifestation. There you go. What is necessary for everything to manifest is existence. There has to be something that can be associated with what arises. Existence = what you are, for what else is there? You call it existence but as andy would say, it's not even that. Are your thoughts on existence based upon the experience of I AM existing of the mind? or are you speaking of existing beyond it. There is now the thought of existence of the mind and beyond, manifest and beyond, it's the same commonality as there is only what you are unmaninfest - manifest, of the mind and beyond. Just swapping references dat's all. It's easy for anyone to say something comes from nothing but do you know how or why something comes from nothing? I for the record don't consciously know the answer to that but peeps do lean towards God Godding and all that jazz, butt it would be guess work I would say.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 22, 2019 3:14:26 GMT -5
Unless qualities are part of the manifestation, (They are) in which case prior to manifestation is qualityless. All that is necessary for everything to manifest is existence that is prior to manifestation. It's easy for anyone to say something comes from nothing but do you know how or why something comes from nothing? You mean to say there's no evidence that something comes from nothing?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2019 3:14:42 GMT -5
This is the point I have always maintained in regards to what you are unmanifest and what you are manifest. There has to be a fundamental quality to unmanifest for there to manifest at all. Kinda obvious in my eyes .. Unless qualities are part of the manifestation, (They are) in which case prior to manifestation is qualityless. All that is necessary for everything to manifest is existence that is prior to manifestation. following tenka's questions, my question is.....does 'existence' have the quality of 'existing' here? Or is 'existing' a manifest quality only?
|
|