Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:41:49 GMT -5
I don't see him suggesting that any-thing HAS a mind.
Here's a longer quote that uses different wording, but says the same:
"You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz
It's important to note, the "you" he references there, is not a personal you....is not a tangible who/what/thing that can be defined nor conceptualized. Okay just read the full quote. As I've pointed out in the Niz thread, generally speaking, Niz talks on 3 levels: 1) consensus trance level (objectified perception, the realm of thought and knowledge - aka the personal), 2) the SR level (non-objectified perception, prior to intellect/mind - aka the impersonal) and 3) NS level (no perception, prior to consciousness - aka beyond personal or impersonal, being or not being). So this quote clearly is a level 3 quote. Well, So long as he's talking about 'a world' he's talking about perception. Absent all perception there is no world to even discuss. beyond impersonal, beyond being or not being, there is very little to say. If he were speaking prior to perception, prior to consciousness, beyond impersonal, being or not being, he wouldn't be talking about what you are or not, creation of the world, your independence from the world.
I do agree though that he speaks in and from varying contexts, but I don't think all of his quotes can be pigeon-holed or segregated to a particular level in the very precise way you've laid out above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:44:47 GMT -5
Doesn't the presence of the SVP generally mean that the world of things/percievables has been taken to have real substance....independent existence in it's own right?..anything really, BUT akin to a dream...? So how do you reconcile that with having admitted that you enjoy things and relationships in your life. How could you do that without the presence of an SVP?It's actually far more surprising that those things can be enjoyed "with" the presence of an SVP. It's the imagining that you are a separate thing, a some-thing/some-one that exists separate and apart from all else that is the root of suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:58:36 GMT -5
Seeing 'I am not the body,' is an integral facet of the sages "I am the body."
Seeing "I am not the body" = the end of identification with the body and all else.... The end of identification period.
It's that absence of identification (the seeing that thingness/all perceivables arises within that which I am, NOT the other way around) that makes the sages utterance of "I am the body," something completely and totally different than the seeker's.
The sages "I am the body" has at it helm, the realization that the world arises within/to that which I am, vs. I am an arising within the world.
One never goes back to "identification," to taking himself to be a perceivable thing that the world gives rise to.
The point is that the sage doesn't make such distinctions. In fact, trying to uphold that distinction at all times would be akin to the ignorant version of "I am the body" again. The sage doesn't hold to an idea in his mind that says "I am distinct from all limitation..from all thingness....all perceivables," no of course not, however, there is an abiding absence of the idea of being a limited thing/who/what, which makes the assertion 'I am the body,' an entirely different one than the seekers 'I am the body.'
The realization that "I am not a thing/who/what," is not a mind-derived distinction that one holds to, rather, as I said, it's the seeing through of identification itself.
The sage is indeed not holding any idea in his mind about what he is or what he is not, rather, he is absent all identification. Such an absence is not an idea held in mind. It truly is 'an absence' of taking oneself to be any-thing at all.
Third mountain 'I am the body,' is one of those quotes that is oft grossly misunderstood. What's really being stated is an absence; The absence of separation between that which lies fundamental/unchanging and that which arises within to it, and an absence of identification with any-thing, any concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 12:05:30 GMT -5
Not sure if I'm reading this bit right.
Doesn't the presence of the SVP generally mean that the world of things/percievables has been taken to have real substance....independent existence in it's own right?..anything really, BUT akin to a dream...?
In what I call 'awakening to the dream,' the separate volitional person is part and parcel, the foundation really, of the entire world of thingness that gets seen through. The mistake I see you making is equating things to perceivables. That's why you can't make much sense of what I am saying. To make sense of what I and some others are saying (re: it's all alive) you have to understand what we mean by 'thingness' as opposed to 'suchness'. I'm not sure you actually do. Do you understand what UG means when he says "You see nothing! You don't even see this (pointing at a table)..."? If you don't understand this, none of what I am saying is ever going to making any sense to you. Anyway, I'll post some quote in the Alan Watts thread, he tends to perfectly illustrate my point. Let's see. So to you, 'suchness' is a perceivable? And are you equating the 'aliveness' you say you've realized via your Kensho/CC, (by which you now say you 'know' appearing people to be perceiving/experiencing), with 'suchness'?
To me, 'suchness' is a very poetic pointer only. It should never arise in a discussion about knowing an appearance/perceivable to be experiencing/perceiving. Huge context mix there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 12:08:39 GMT -5
The point is that the sage doesn't make such distinctions. In fact, trying to uphold that distinction at all times would be akin to the ignorant version of "I am the body" again. Good point. In the Zen tradition Zen Masters continually zap every distinction that students come up with. If a monk says, "Life is just a dream" or "Nothing is real," a ZM would likely smack him with a Zen stick and say, "Is this a dream?" or "Do you feel this?" The ZM would do this because he/she is pointing the monk toward "non-abidance in mind" (intellect) where there's no attachment to fixed ideas. "Suchness" neither affirms nor denies the reality or unreality of things. The word "muchness" points to the simplicity and matter-of-factness of everyday life when the intellect ceases to be dominant. A non-abidance-in-mind (non-intellectual) way of life is pointed to in this classic exchange: Monk: What is the meaning of Zen (or life)? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. I often wonder if this is what Jesus was pointing to when he supposedly said, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." IOW, if there is non-abidance in mind, nothing is fixed; life is a flow of being. Perhaps in this quote he was pointing to SS, or what we call "the natural state."You are describing 'not knowing.'
I agree with what you say here about suchness and muchness. Very nice actually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 17:00:21 GMT -5
Not sure if I'm reading this bit right.
Doesn't the presence of the SVP generally mean that the world of things/percievables has been taken to have real substance....independent existence in it's own right?..anything really, BUT akin to a dream...?
In what I call 'awakening to the dream,' the separate volitional person is part and parcel, the foundation really, of the entire world of thingness that gets seen through. The mistake I see you making is equating things to perceivables. That's why you can't make much sense of what I am saying. To make sense of what I and some others are saying (re: it's all alive) you have to understand what we mean by 'thingness' as opposed to 'suchness'. I'm not sure you actually do. Do you understand what UG means when he says "You see nothing! You don't even see this (pointing at a table)..."? If you don't understand this, none of what I am saying is ever going to making any sense to you. Anyway, I'll post some quote in the Alan Watts thread, he tends to perfectly illustrate my point. Let's see. To be clear, the term 'perceivables' is a blanket term that indeed includes things, but it also includes thoughts, ideas, circumstance, feelings, senses, anything at all that arises ephemerally, not just mind defined objects/things. It includes the 'totality' of that which is perceived.
And regarding 'suchness.'
Is this what you are referencing?
Suchness: Buddhism : nameless and characterless reality in its ultimate nature — called also tathata, thusness
ta·tha·ta /ˈtədəˌtä/ noun Buddhism noun: tathata 1. the ultimate inexpressible nature of all things.
If so, I remain confused as to how the realization of the 'nameless and characterless reality, the ultimate inexpressible nature of things' resulted in an assertion of 'I do know' in counter to the assertion that when it comes to the appearing person before me, I do not know if he is experiencing/perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 21, 2019 3:57:19 GMT -5
This is why I spoke about qualities beyond mind previously .. When you hear about the dream world being realized and all that jazz it's a load of baloney .. If the natural state can be compared with what I call the realization itself then it is impossible to conclude this or that about it, especially in the name of Truthiness lol .. So the SVP world of things/objects/knowledge is indeed akin to a dream that lacks any real substance. In that sense, the dream metaphor has it's place. That's why I don't see it as a 'load of baloney' per se. My issue with statements made about the the dream state and there being a lack of substance is that the theory derives through that which is of the dream and lacks any real substance.. It's self defeating and it therefore holds no weight. It is simply something made up that tries to explain the unexplainable. There is nothing truthy about it and if we want to get to the nitty gritty, it's a waste of breath making it out to hold some weight .. We might as well get our colouring books out and pick out the pink crayon to colour in the elephant .. If a peep wants to lay down the law, then they have to abide by it ..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 21, 2019 6:35:33 GMT -5
The mistake I see you making is equating things to perceivables. That's why you can't make much sense of what I am saying. To make sense of what I and some others are saying (re: it's all alive) you have to understand what we mean by 'thingness' as opposed to 'suchness'. I'm not sure you actually do. Do you understand what UG means when he says "You see nothing! You don't even see this (pointing at a table)..."? If you don't understand this, none of what I am saying is ever going to making any sense to you. Anyway, I'll post some quote in the Alan Watts thread, he tends to perfectly illustrate my point. Let's see. So to you, 'suchness' is a perceivable? And are you equating the 'aliveness' you say you've realized via your Kensho/CC, (by which you now say you 'know' appearing people to be perceiving/experiencing), with 'suchness'?
To me, 'suchness' is a very poetic pointer only. It should never arise in a discussion about knowing an appearance/perceivable to be experiencing/perceiving. Huge context mix there.
1) You didn't answer my question: Do you understand what UG is saying there? 2) In order to detect an actual context mix in what someone is saying we need to have an actual reference for the context that's been referred to. Because, if we don't have an actual reference for what's been talked about, the context mix we are seeing would be only an apparent context mix, a context mix entirely of our own making. 3) Do you see Niz mixing contexts in the quote below as well?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 21, 2019 6:54:51 GMT -5
So the SVP world of things/objects/knowledge is indeed akin to a dream that lacks any real substance. In that sense, the dream metaphor has it's place. That's why I don't see it as a 'load of baloney' per se. My issue with statements made about the the dream state and there being a lack of substance is that the theory derives through that which is of the dream and lacks any real substance.. It's self defeating and it therefore holds no weight. It is simply something made up that tries to explain the unexplainable. There is nothing truthy about it and if we want to get to the nitty gritty, it's a waste of breath making it out to hold some weight .. We might as well get our colouring books out and pick out the pink crayon to colour in the elephant .. If a peep wants to lay down the law, then they have to abide by it .. As an intermediary step, it is of value and has its place. But as the final truth, the dream theory is eventually self-defeating. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 21, 2019 7:01:28 GMT -5
The point is that the sage doesn't make such distinctions. In fact, trying to uphold that distinction at all times would be akin to the ignorant version of "I am the body" again. Good point. In the Zen tradition Zen Masters continually zap every distinction that students come up with. If a monk says, "Life is just a dream" or "Nothing is real," a ZM would likely smack him with a Zen stick and say, "Is this a dream?" or "Do you feel this?" The ZM would do this because he/she is pointing the monk toward "non-abidance in mind" (intellect) where there's no attachment to fixed ideas. "Suchness" neither affirms nor denies the reality or unreality of things. The word "suchness" points to the simplicity and matter-of-factness of everyday life when the intellect ceases to be dominant. A non-abidance-in-mind (non-intellectual) way of life is pointed to in this classic exchange: Monk: What is the meaning of Zen (or life)? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. I often wonder if this is what Jesus was pointing to when he supposedly said, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." IOW, if there is non-abidance in mind, nothing is fixed; life is a flow of being. Perhaps in this quote he was pointing to SS, or what we call "the natural state." Lately, I've been reading the commentaries in the Blue Cliff Record and turns out that the first case (Emperor meets Bodhidharma) is actually about the Two Truths Doctrine. Are you familiar with this?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 21, 2019 7:21:08 GMT -5
My issue with statements made about the the dream state and there being a lack of substance is that the theory derives through that which is of the dream and lacks any real substance.. It's self defeating and it therefore holds no weight. It is simply something made up that tries to explain the unexplainable. There is nothing truthy about it and if we want to get to the nitty gritty, it's a waste of breath making it out to hold some weight .. We might as well get our colouring books out and pick out the pink crayon to colour in the elephant .. If a peep wants to lay down the law, then they have to abide by it .. As an intermediary step, it is of value and has its place. But as the final truth, the dream theory is eventually self-defeating. Agreed. But there is nothing of value. Values are of the dream and values hold no real substance. Pointers are meaningless, this is why we might as well get out the colouring book instead . What many see happening is that one can poo poo everything but forgets to poo poo their own evaluation because it doesn't out trump anything, for the evaluation is cut from the same cloth as the dream is. One reflection isn't any more real than another . This is why peeps can't have it both ways .. You can't even have a peep awakening to the dream, because dream characters can't fall asleep or awaken to begin with .. lol .. There has to be everything that is dreamy, including the thought of that and the thinker of that, or one is not dreamy at all in any shape or form .. Peeps that speak of self and the world in this way are still stuck on a kind of neti neti foundation .. If U.G. is an advocate of not being able to describe or know the indescribable or the unknowable then painting a dream world picture, isn't any closer than the notion that the world is a jammy doughnut. What possible help could a dream world notion be in this instance when it has no actual relevance. When the world stage is set as something without any real substance then one should stick to that on all levels .. Peeps don't unfortunately because there has to be something credible within their notion that holds weight, and this why we see at times one context merge with another in order to keep alive the paradoxes (which don't hold any relevance or credibility in the dream world either) lol .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2019 8:23:15 GMT -5
Good point. In the Zen tradition Zen Masters continually zap every distinction that students come up with. If a monk says, "Life is just a dream" or "Nothing is real," a ZM would likely smack him with a Zen stick and say, "Is this a dream?" or "Do you feel this?" The ZM would do this because he/she is pointing the monk toward "non-abidance in mind" (intellect) where there's no attachment to fixed ideas. "Suchness" neither affirms nor denies the reality or unreality of things. The word "suchness" points to the simplicity and matter-of-factness of everyday life when the intellect ceases to be dominant. A non-abidance-in-mind (non-intellectual) way of life is pointed to in this classic exchange: Monk: What is the meaning of Zen (or life)? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. I often wonder if this is what Jesus was pointing to when he supposedly said, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." IOW, if there is non-abidance in mind, nothing is fixed; life is a flow of being. Perhaps in this quote he was pointing to SS, or what we call "the natural state." Lately, I've been reading the commentaries in the Blue Cliff Record and turns out that the first case (Emperor meets Bodhidharma) is actually about the Two Truths Doctrine. Are you familiar with this? Yes, but I didn't know that the emperor/Bodhidharma exchange involved that, specifically, but I can see how it relates. For those who aren't familiar with the exchange, the emperor heard about "the wall-facing" hermit/sage, and called for him. After B arrived, the emperor, who was a devout new convert to Buddhism, told him about all of the various things he had done to promote Buddhism (building temples, translating sutras, making Buddhism the state religion, etc), and then asked, "What merit have I attained?" B responded, "No merit whatsoever." There's more to the dialogue than this, but this is the part that's usually talked about in introductions to Zen. The main point is that the emperor's actions had not been empty (sunyata); they had been based upon the idea of an SVP doing things in order to acquire merit. The motivation, alone, rendered the actions meritless. Toward the end of the dialogue the emperor asks B, "Who are you?" B responds, in essence, "It is not knowable," or "I don't know," although there are other variations of what the Chinese symbols representing his words mean. If B actually said this, then that would be considered a low-class answer in the Rinzai Zen tradition. Silence would have been better, but other words that pointed more directly would have been even better. In the world of B there is no pride in doing anything because there is no SVP at the center of any doing. Everything that one does is empty because the intellect is not involved. I often use the two truths doctrine in satsangs where I differentiate between relative meaning and absolute meaning, relative knowledge and absolute knowledge, relative importance and absolute importance, relative truth and absolute truth, etc. Zen teachers use the same approach during interviews. They may point to something or hold up something (such as a book) and ask, "What is this?" There can be an infinite number of relative answers to the question, but only one absolute answer to the question. Needless to say, perhaps, the focus of Zen is solely upon the absolute world.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 21, 2019 9:53:49 GMT -5
Lately, I've been reading the commentaries in the Blue Cliff Record and turns out that the first case (Emperor meets Bodhidharma) is actually about the Two Truths Doctrine. Are you familiar with this? Yes, but I didn't know that the emperor/Bodhidharma exchange involved that, specifically, but I can see how it relates. I didn't know that either. That's why these original commentaries are so fascinating to read. And there are two layers of commentary in the Blue Cliff Record: 1) by ZM Xuedou (11th century) who originally compiled these 100 koans and added a few comments in the form of poems and 2) by ZM Yuanwu (12th century) who wrote an extensive commentary on each koan and also on Xuedou's comments. I'll write more about that in the koan thread when I have a bit more time, because I think some koans can only be fully understood - or at least more appreciated - when the full background story is known (especially which doctrine or sutra in particular they are alluding to in their dharma combats). Re: The Two Truths dogma, I found this entry on wikipedia interesting and how it relates to Advaita: Maybe Satch or Sifty can comment on these Sanskrit terms and what they are supposed to mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:19:05 GMT -5
1) You didn't answer my question: Do you understand what UG is saying there? I do. Deeply. How about my questions now? Using pointers to argue for absolute knowledge about perceivables, cannot be anything BUT a context mix. Pointers point away from relative truths, away from what appears...away from knowledge about appearances. The evidence of a context mix is in the assertion/argument itself of 'absolute knowing' about the relative. Absent the appearing person, perceivable rock, sock, how would you 'know' there is perception/experience there? You cannot say the body/mind perceived before you is not really there and then also say, that you know 'it' to be perceiving without a context mix. I'd have to see more of the conversation to say. I am very confident though that he would never use the words above to counter an assertion of the realization that all perceivables are empty....an assertion of 'not knowing.' The seeing of all perceivables as inherently empty.
the realization that knowledge itself is empty, transcends all contexts where knowledge pertaining to perceivables is being asserted. "All perceivables are stains." Niz "All perceivables are in mind only." NIz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:27:24 GMT -5
My issue with statements made about the the dream state and there being a lack of substance is that the theory derives through that which is of the dream and lacks any real substance.. It's self defeating and it therefore holds no weight. It is simply something made up that tries to explain the unexplainable. There is nothing truthy about it and if we want to get to the nitty gritty, it's a waste of breath making it out to hold some weight .. We might as well get our colouring books out and pick out the pink crayon to colour in the elephant .. If a peep wants to lay down the law, then they have to abide by it .. As an intermediary step, it is of value and has its place. But as the final truth, the dream theory is eventually self-defeating. Agreed. To speak of life as a dream does not involve 'theorizing' at all. Rather, it's just a means of attempting to denote what life is like, once there is no longer identification with anything perceived.
In the absence of identification with all perceivables, the world/life in general, loses it's 'weightiness.' The term 'en-lightenment' is apt in that sense; When the entire world of perceivables is realized to be empty, the light becomes unobscured...the world loses it's heaviness...sense of limitation lifts.....attachments end....suffering ends.
And at no point does the world once again become heavy, substantive again. If that were the case, it would mean that identification enters back in. So long as SR abides, there is no identification with anything perceived. No-thing is identified with. That freedom.
|
|