|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 10, 2019 22:52:13 GMT -5
I have answered your question. Nah, "knowing the Absolute" is SR or enlightenment or whatever. You should spend less time on the answers and more time on working out what are the right questions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2019 22:55:18 GMT -5
Nah, "knowing the Absolute" is SR or enlightenment or whatever. You should spend less time on the answers and more time on working out what are the right questions. You are quite quick to tell people what they should or shouldn't do, and not very present to the existential questioning that you constantly plaster all over this forum.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2019 22:56:37 GMT -5
But in a seamless flow, nothing ceases to exist i.e there's never a discreet moment in which one thing can end and another begin. So what seems as if it 'was', still 'is'.... it just doesn't seem like that. Within the seamless flow of experience, discreet happenings, discreet things do in fact appear.
You are speaking from a vantage point of experience, what 'seems to be' and trying to milk Truth/actuality out of it. You must go beyond the experiential to see what is actually so.
Oh I get it. Thanks, I couldn't makes sense of why a seamless flow meant nothing ceases to exist (appear).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2019 23:00:59 GMT -5
So there is no 'real face'...it's all nominal....nothing that inherently exists as fundamental to that which appears as a reflection? Best to ask lolly this, I'm only going on a bit of Buddhist knowledge, but I don't think we are meant to assume a 'fundamental existence' (to that which appears), no. You're mixing contexts. The mirror thing is a metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2019 23:12:20 GMT -5
I don't see Pilgrim pointing anywhere. I see him affirming something that is obvious in his experience, and everyone's experience (that things have inherent (self) existence) This, in spite of the DL's assertion to the contrary in the quote that he posted. Some of us are saying that experience is not the arbiter of truth. If this were so, there would be no such thing as illusion, as how we interpret the world would in fact be how the world is. Most of us know that isn't so, and so I say experience cannot be trusted to reveal the truth. The video might be relevant in the sense that Pilgrim is concluding rather than simply observing. Observation reveals that things appear. That is all. It does not tell us what sort of existence they might have beyond that appearance. I have never said or maintained in any way ever here on ST's (10 years) that sdp or any thing has inherent existence. I have stated on occasion the very opposite, sdp does not have inherent existence (but not using that exact word). That even making a distinction between the false (sense of) self, personality/ego/cultural self and True Self, essence. I'm sure that can be found on the Microcosm-Microcosm thread in the teachers section. So what does it mean to you to exist, but not inherently? To exist as a reflection, an appearance? If so, you're saying the same thing we are. We could try to cut through all the BS started by the DL quote; Either something exists or it does not, period. There aren't different kinds of existing. BTW, nominal means existing in name only. Is that how you mean that form exists?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2019 23:39:29 GMT -5
Because it's appearance is dependent upon it's observation. If you can observe something for billions of years, without fail, it will appear for billions of years. Appearance is not dependent on observation, that's nonsense. That's why I distrust your realizations. Most physicists concerning quantum mechanics (all the What the Bleep Do We Know nonsense?) are not even going to agree with you, now. (Google decoherence). Perception is not creation. Oh, no, science doesn't agree with what I see beyond mind?! Now what? You still don't understand that you can't disprove a dream with dream evidence. It doesn't mean I'm right, it just means the evidence you bring to the table every single time this is discussed, is useless.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2019 0:05:13 GMT -5
So to destroy the mind means to make it function with excellence? Oh boy.....My daughter 'destroyed' the back bumper on my car when she drove into with hubby's van. It's cracked into about 87 pieces. Does that mean it's going to function with excellence next time I get rear ended? Sounds right to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2019 0:16:55 GMT -5
The mind is not the problem
The script writer is the problem! There is no script writer. Creation is spontaneous.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2019 0:24:55 GMT -5
"Although phenomenon do not have inherent existence, they have nominal existence" ... ".. phenomenon have a nonminal existence, although they have no existence independent of causes and conditions". To distinguish what the DL wrote from the positions that figs and E' are taking, you have to focus on the last sentence: "they do have nominal existence that produces results, is functional, and whose activities are infallible." There seems to be no conclusive evidence that DL claims there is an inherent existence to which he compares the nominal, and it would be unusual for a Buddhist teacher to support the view of a permanent unchanging inherent existence. In fact, the passage advocated against such an "extreme", and it is common that Buddhist philosophy never reaches a conclusion and ends up in the middle somewhere. Regardless of how or why the DL chooses his words, it would be absurd to conclude that you don't exist in some way, and I don't mean in name only. Also wacky to reference inherent existence while denying there is such a thing. If this is how the DL plays with words, I'm not interested in any more quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 0:44:05 GMT -5
There seems to be no conclusive evidence that DL claims there is an inherent existence to which he compares the nominal, and it would be unusual for a Buddhist teacher to support the view of a permanent unchanging inherent existence. In fact, the passage advocated against such an "extreme", and it is common that Buddhist philosophy never reaches a conclusion and ends up in the middle somewhere. Regardless of how or why the DL chooses his words, it would be absurd to conclude that you don't exist in some way, and I don't mean in name only. Also wacky to reference inherent existence while denying there is such a thing. If this is how the DL plays with words, I'm not interested in any more quotes. I was thinkin' the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 11, 2019 2:44:14 GMT -5
Regardless of how or why the DL chooses his words, it would be absurd to conclude that you don't exist in some way, and I don't mean in name only. Also wacky to reference inherent existence while denying there is such a thing. If this is how the DL plays with words, I'm not interested in any more quotes. I was thinkin' the same thing. As if you don't. 😀😃
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2019 3:12:51 GMT -5
Agree, the word 'container' isn't ideal. Better then just to say that every experience can be found in each experience. There's depth rather than weight, but this depth is bottomless so also gives way to emptiness. You can look into each experience and find both 'all' and 'nothingness'. You are looking for 'depth' in all the wrong places. Experience arises and falls....is ephemeral...it's what appears on the surface. There is no 'other' experience beyond a particular experience.
What does that really mean to say 'every experience can be found in each experience'? All experience has the commonality of being an inseparable arising within/to Being, but that does not mean that all experiences can be found in each experience.
This reads as though you are trying to assign some kind of Truth/actuality to a particular experience. Are you?
There's only an apparent point at which an experience begins and ends....this 'apparency' is important, without it, there would be no experience. But there is no actual point at which an experience begins and ends, your experience right now isn't disconnected/divorced from any other experience you've ever had, or will have. There's apparent distinction, but no separation. Therefore, even though it necessarily seems that you are only experiencing what you are directly experiencing, indirectly, you are experiencing much much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2019 3:21:54 GMT -5
There seems to be no conclusive evidence that DL claims there is an inherent existence to which he compares the nominal, and it would be unusual for a Buddhist teacher to support the view of a permanent unchanging inherent existence. In fact, the passage advocated against such an "extreme", and it is common that Buddhist philosophy never reaches a conclusion and ends up in the middle somewhere. ...merely noting that DL did not say there is an inherent existence as some seem to be suggesting... There might be for all I know, it's just that DL doesn't say so. But, as has already been noted, he did use the term "inherent existence" to draw a distinction, and he also wrote: "the reflection is empty of the real face. Even though the reflection of the face is not the face, the reflection of the face arises. The reflection is completely empty of being the real face yet it is very much there". So you see, he contrasts relative, dependent arising using both the term "inherent existence" and goes on to use the metaphor of "the real face" to further emphasize the distinction. In my opinion, Buddhism goes beyond philosophy. Yes, I've already acknowledged that DL didn't describe an "inherent existence", and read the further quote where he goes on to deny any "true existence". But beyond that philosophy, is the ineffable. The philosophy can bring us up to the threshold of the gateless gate by way of describing emptiness in exquisite detail - and the DL quote does this in terms that are quite succinct. But that gate, has two sideless sides .. .. and the heart sutra is called the heart sutra. Not the "figure sh!t out and debate it sutra". I understand that the ultimate "teaching" of Buddhism is essentially referring to an absence. "Being" and "absolute" in the way that the terms have been used, are essentially the same as the emptiness of the heart sutra. Buddhism isn't non-duality, it's not into pointers into 'what you are'. I would class 'emptiness' as a pointer, but it doesn't actually say anything about 'you'. It goes beyond what I guess you mean by 'philosophy' for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2019 3:27:43 GMT -5
I read the quote, quite quickly, so I could have missed the relevant bit, but I think what satch is saying that DL never said there is an 'inherent' existence of any kind (i.e he never said there is prior or fundamental 'inherent' existence or anything like that). He just said that phenomena has no 'inherent' existence. So you figure the DL doesn't believe that the absolute inherently exists? I'm guessing but I don't think 'absolute' or 'inherent existence' is part of his model, except to say that there is no 'inherent existence'. I would guess 'emptiness' is a word he would use, and I would say that does point beyond form or nominal existence, but is still distinct in meaning from 'inherent existence, or 'absolute Being'. It's different to non-duality in that regard. Non-dual philosophy doesn't just negate, it also 'creates'. Buddhism seems to be more specifically about negation, but perhaps without denying the potential. Again, not an expert!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 11, 2019 3:28:40 GMT -5
I didn't thing that compared that with inherent existence with that with nominal existence - only implies phenomena have no inherent existence. If there is no inherent existence, the term is meaningless. I don't understand why everyone is parsing that quote to death instead of trying to understand what he was saying. Well, the point there is that the world seems to be inherently existing, so he's saying that's wrong.
|
|