|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2019 20:51:40 GMT -5
Nothing is fundamentally existent. To say nothing existed five minutes ago is nonsense (and that fact makes such realizations suspect and anything else said also suspect). That which is prior to thingness is fundamentally existent or there would be no thingness. Ok...I should have said no thing is fundamentally existent.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 8, 2019 20:56:44 GMT -5
The world would vanish quicker than the blink of an eye. Agreed. So perhaps the issue between us is whether Being is in the world, somehow breathing life into it, or the world is in Being, as a literal expression of Being. Yes, that's a very complicated issue. Not sure I want to go into it, here. ...It's probably worth a whole book...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 9, 2019 9:56:26 GMT -5
All true. But none of that negates a space-time-matter-energy-information world. None of that negates the appearance of space-time-matter-energy-informational world. But none of those things are 'fundamentally existent." They arise and fall within/to that which is fundamental. Space-time-matter-energy is ephemeral, transient....no existence beyond the moment it appears. This is the Dalai Lama: Although phenomenon do not have inherent existence, they have nominal existence. When we see the reflection of our own face in the mirror, the reflection is not the face itself. In other words, 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. It was produced by causes and conditions and it will disintegrate due to causes and conditions. Similarly, phenomenon have a nominal existence, although they have no existence independent of causes and conditions. If you examine yourself or any other phenomenon carefully in the way, you will find...they do have nominal existence that produces results, is functional, and whose activities are infallible. (DL discusses dependent arising or emptiness of inherent existence as being the same thing), then: When you are not able to to find things through this mode of analysis, it does not mean they do not exist. That would contradict reason and your own experience. ... phenomenon have a conventional or nominal existence. ...if you are able to understand that all phenomenon exist conventionally, you will be able to eliminate the extreme of permanence, and by understanding that things do not have inherent existence, you will be able to eliminate the extreme of nihilism and annihilation. In other words, you will be able to understand the nature of phenomenon, that they exist conventionally and nominally but are empty of inherent existence. Because of their not existing inherently, things appear as causes and effects. If you are able to generate an understanding of such a mode of existence, you will not be overpowered or captivated by the wrong view of the two extremes--that is, permanence and nihilism. pages 74-78, The Essence of Tsongkhapa's Teachings, The Dalai Lama on the Three Principle Aspects of the Path, 2005, 2019 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would prefer DL's view over yours and E's, as he supports What Actually Is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 9, 2019 10:03:28 GMT -5
That which is prior to thingness is fundamentally existent or there would be no thingness. Ok...I should have said no thing is fundamentally existent. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 9, 2019 10:21:29 GMT -5
Agreed. So perhaps the issue between us is whether Being is in the world, somehow breathing life into it, or the world is in Being, as a literal expression of Being. Yes, that's a very complicated issue. Not sure I want to go into it, here. ...It's probably worth a whole book... I know that your ontology is very complicated, and I'm not sure I want you to go into it either. To me, it's absurdly simple. Radical oneness is the case. No thing or non-thing is ever separate from anything else. There cannot be a world of time, space and matter that is then imbued by spirit, or a dream that is dreamed by other than God. God is always here, always now. Pilgrim, however, is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 8:16:06 GMT -5
This vid by jiddhu is relevant I believe. It clarifies what I think sdp points to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 10, 2019 12:58:06 GMT -5
This vid by jiddhu is relevant I believe. It clarifies what I think sdp points to. Yes, this is very accurate concerning self-observation. In the observing there is impartiality, and no desire to change what is observed. There is no movement of time, the observing is simultaneous with observing thought (or movement or feeling or sensation).
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Aug 10, 2019 13:23:09 GMT -5
In the same way a night time dream is made up entirely of the fabric of mind, the universal condition of now literally is consciousness. What seems to be separate conditioned objects, people, are conditioned by the universal condition which is ultimately of the same fabric as the body. And all of this transpires within and happens to be, consciousness. As far as a sense of an individual, do you mean the experience of being a person? Of course that's allowed for in the aforementioned framework. OK, then maybe E is correct, then no, conditioning is not a good word or even an apt process. No conditioning takes place in "the universal condition of now literally is consciousness". If you don't see the problem (also discussed in post above) then I don't know how to make it clearer. If conditioned vessels comprise the universal condition, then of course consciousness can condition them, even if it so happens to be conditioning itself. Mind identification happens through the conditioning process. The formless dimension, which is essentially unconditioned, can wake up into its own creation only after identification happens through the human mind.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 10, 2019 13:33:11 GMT -5
OK, then maybe E is correct, then no, conditioning is not a good word or even an apt process. No conditioning takes place in "the universal condition of now literally is consciousness". If you don't see the problem (also discussed in post above) then I don't know how to make it clearer. If conditioned vessels comprise the universal condition, then of course consciousness can condition them, even if it so happens to be conditioning itself. Mind identification happens through the conditioning process. The formless dimension, which is essentially unconditioned, can wake up into its own creation only after identification happens through the human mind. I agree with you. All I'm saying is you can't have it both ways, Consciousness Dreaming the world into existence (in which case there is no conditioning taking place, just dreaming that there is conditioning) and an actual time-space-energy-matter-information world where conditioning takes place.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2019 18:27:13 GMT -5
This vid by jiddhu is relevant I believe. It clarifies what I think sdp points to. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 8:29:52 GMT -5
This vid by jiddhu is relevant I believe. It clarifies what I think sdp points to. 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. Whether we are real or unreal. Whether the world is real or imaginary. Whether there is an individuation versus an individual. Whether we claim freedom of self versus freedom from self are all examples of thinking about self. It is not relevant to Jiddhu, the only thing that's relevant is this silent observation of self. This is his path to freedom. This is what jiddhu is saying. It is the raft he offers to cross the rivers Styx. You offer thinking about self, the first step in Ramana's offering as well, an illuminated snap shot of the cave, but it doesn't work for most (though it does make the way across clearer) so he, Ramana, offers the raft of self-abidance which is hard to stay on.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2019 8:44:24 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. Whether we are real or unreal. Whether the world is real or imaginary. Whether there is an individuation versus an individual. Whether we claim freedom of self versus freedom from self are all examples of thinking about self. It is not relevant to Jiddhu, the only thing that's relevant is this silent observation of self. This is his path to freedom. This is what jiddhu is saying. It is the raft he offers to cross the rivers Styx. You offer thinking about self, the first step in Ramana's offering as well, an illuminated snap shot of the cave, but it doesn't work for most (though it does make the way across clearer) so he, Ramana, offers the raft of self-abidance which is hard to stay on. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2019 9:11:01 GMT -5
This vid by jiddhu is relevant I believe. It clarifies what I think sdp points to. 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. In a mustard seed: I have never maintained self or anything has inherent existence. The whole meaning of hierarchy of levels of being is that the lower only exists through the higher. Look around, this is the lower. The central aspect of the teaching is entropy. The word is not used but can be understood, whenever you see Merciless Heropass (time), that means increasing entropy. So we are born subject to entropy, increasing entropy, IOW, there is an expiration date. So the teaching is about how to overcome increasing entropy. Everybody dies, that is, the physical body wears out and dies. But essence, which we are as a seed of possibility, can grow and develop and can thus return from where it came, a higher level. This us via the interior practices using attention and awareness. We are born as essence, which is active. But personality/ego/cultural self forms from at early age through information collected and stored and covers over essence, which becomes passive as personality becomes active. But through inner practice essence can become active again. Thus energy can be saved and transformed, that is, a body of the finer energy of the higher dimensions can be formed, thus can death be defeated. This is a movement from the river of involution to the river of evolution. (Also started a thread in the teaching section, somewhat overlaps).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 9:23:40 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 9:59:46 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. "Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept.
|
|