|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 18:05:22 GMT -5
Not correct. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness, means that if you stump your toe, it's gonna hurt. It doesn't mean that the non-dual dreamer stumped an imaginary toe that had an imaginary pain. Seung Sahn agrees and comments: "The Heart Sutra teaches that “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.” Many people don’t know what this means — even some long-time students of meditation. But there is a very easy way to see this in our everyday lives. For example, here is a wooden chair. It is brown. It is solid and heavy. It looks like it could last a long time. You sit in the chair, and it holds up your weight. You can place things on it. But then you light the chair on fire and leave. When you come back later, the chair is no longer there! This thing that seemed so solid and strong and real is now just a pile of cinder and ash which the wind blows around. This example shows how the chair is empty: it is not a permanent, abiding thing. It is always changing. It has no independent existence. Over a long or short time, the chair will eventually change and become something other than what it appears. So this brown chair is complete emptiness. But though it always has the quality of emptiness, this emptiness is form: you can sit in the chair, and it will still hold you up. “Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.”" Further, Sahn: " All dharmas are marked with emptiness..." ...In the true experience of emptiness, there are no words and no speech, so there is also no dharma. When you open your mouth to say “All dharmas are marked with emptiness,” that is already no longer emptiness. So be careful. The point of this is that if you just understand words and speech, and keep only an intellectual understanding, this sutra and any other sutra cannot help your life. Some actual attainment of what these words point to is necessary." 'some actual attainment' is something I've heard here too. "These words in the Heart Sutra are only wonderful speech and words. But however interesting or wonderful the speech and words are, if you just understand them conceptually, they cannot help your life. Again, you must truly attain something. You must attain that there is actually nothing to attain. Everything is already truth, exactly as it is. You are already complete. But be careful! Merely understanding these beautiful words is one thing, and attaining them is quite another." ... " Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha!"So there is yet one more step. If you attain emptiness, and then attain truth, how does this world’s truth function to help other beings? All Buddhas attain anuttara samyak sambodhi, or unexcelled perfect enlightenment. This means that they attain truth. They can see that the sky is blue, and the tree is green. At the end of the sutra we are told that there is a great transcendent mantra, a great bright mantra, an utmost mantra, a supreme mantra: Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha. It can be translated as “Gone, gone, gone to the other shore beyond.” So this mantra at the end of the Heart Sutra means only action. Up until this point, everything is just speech and words about attaining emptiness and truth. It is all a lot of very interesting description. But this mantra means you must just do it. Some kind of action is necessary if you want to help this world. For the bodhisattva, there is only bodhisattva action. When you attain unexcelled perfect enlightenment, you must attain the function of this enlightenment in the world. That is what we call moment world. From moment to moment, perceive suffering in this world and only help all beings. That is a very important point. "Attaining truth alone is not enough. If someone is thirsty, give them something to drink. If someone is hungry, give them food. When a suffering person appears before you, you only help, with no thinking or checking. The early part of this sutra has no “do-it,” just good speech about attainment and no-attainment. But if you attain something, you must do it. That is the meaning behind Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha. Step by step, we attain how to function compassionately for others, to use truth for others, spontaneously, from moment to moment. This is the whole point of the Heart Sutra." Thanks maxdprophet......
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 18:36:02 GMT -5
Not correct. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness, means that if you stump your toe, it's gonna hurt. It doesn't mean that the non-dual dreamer stumped an imaginary toe that had an imaginary pain. Emptiness doesn't mean that it won't hurt when you stub your toe. But the point is that according to E's "metaphysics", hitting your toe on a rock or a bedpost is not the cause of the pain. Toe, foot, leg, body, rock or bedpost mutually arise from non-dual-dreamer, unrelated to any history, any history. Much easier to just say that the mind-body-toe of "X", born on such-n-such date, now such-n-such years old, with such-n-such fingerprints, just wasn't paying attention on such-n-such date-time-place.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 16, 2014 19:16:40 GMT -5
If something is not what it appears to be, then what it appears to be is not real.. you really do try to twist every discussion into the illusion that you are 'right'.. peeps are hearing you, and seeing through that illusion.. In either case it is an appearance in consciousness, and one appearance is not more or less real than another. Form is empty, but that does not mean meaningless or useless or to be ignored, or whatever one imagines negation to imply, nor is it the opposite of whatever one imagines real to imply. There are appearances that are imagined, they are not real.. there are appearances that happen due to input from what is actually happening, those appearances represent what is actually happening.. awareness is the vehicle that informs consciousness, appearances aren't happening 'in' consciousness, they're just happening.. Form is energy behaving in a 'part'icular way, emptiness is the absence of form.. and, even that is a 'cut too deep'. what exists persists even in the absence of belief that it exists.. if you drive your automobile toward a tree, and refuse to believe the tree exists, the result will likely convince you that the tree does exist.. but, if you stop believing in oneness/nondulaity, nothing changes, you can have exactly the same Cosmic Consciousness Clarity without the illusion that it must be described to your satisfaction..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:30:42 GMT -5
If something is not what it appears to be, then what it appears to be is not real.. you really do try to twist every discussion into the illusion that you are 'right'.. peeps are hearing you, and seeing through that illusion.. No, no, no.......E has walked up to this line several times, and then backed away. I think E has made a concession, although he says he hasn't. I've tried to explore lately the use of the word real. I've try to show the ordinary sense of the word, for example, when we get hit in the face with a 2x4. If it happened in a dream, no bloody nose. If it happens in >real< life, bloody nose. I've talked about history, 13.7 billion years back to the Big Bang, and then other historical people and events. E has always shot these down, all ~this~ is merely a non-dual dream. gopal also made similar points to E. Now at least he admits phenomena, that's something I can work with, how the world seems to operate. From your post: If something is not what it appears to be, the what it appears to be is not real. Previously, E has said (in effect), we can think we see a snake, but it turns out to be a rope, but in seeing the rope, it turns out to be a stick, but in seeing the stick, it turns out to be a shadow. And then we wake up and the shadow turns out to merely be a dream-shadow. At least now E agrees the rope is a phenomenon (for me, relatively real). I am surprised you (Tzu) don't see this is a concession on E's part.......(although he doesn't say it is). I'm not sure I see the difference between phenomena and appearance. Your glee at my 'conscession' is a bit worrisome. I'll say there are no external objects.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:34:15 GMT -5
In either case it is an appearance in consciousness, and one appearance is not more or less real than another. Form is empty, but that does not mean meaningless or useless or to be ignored, or whatever one imagines negation to imply, nor is it the opposite of whatever one imagines real to imply. Oops.......E backs away from the line again. The unreal snake is an unreal rope which is an unreal stick which is an unreal shadow. "one appearance is not more or less real than another" Because form is empty?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:43:36 GMT -5
If phenomena are empty then the only thing to be learned from investigating phenomena is that they are empty. Not correct. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness, means that if you stump your toe, it's gonna hurt. It doesn't mean that the non-dual dreamer stumped an imaginary toe that had an imaginary pain. It means both.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:53:55 GMT -5
Emptiness doesn't mean that it won't hurt when you stub your toe. But the point is that according to E's "metaphysics", hitting your toe on a rock or a bedpost is not the cause of the pain. Toe, foot, leg, body, rock or bedpost mutually arise from non-dual-dreamer, unrelated to any history, any history. Much easier to just say that the mind-body-toe of "X", born on such-n-such date, now such-n-such years old, with such-n-such fingerprints, just wasn't paying attention on such-n-such date-time-place. If what you want to say is the easy thing, then just say it. If you want to say something closer to WIBIGO, it may get more complex and frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 19:58:09 GMT -5
In either case it is an appearance in consciousness, and one appearance is not more or less real than another. Form is empty, but that does not mean meaningless or useless or to be ignored, or whatever one imagines negation to imply, nor is it the opposite of whatever one imagines real to imply. There are appearances that are imagined, they are not real.. there are appearances that happen due to input from what is actually happening, those appearances represent what is actually happening.. awareness is the vehicle that informs consciousness, appearances aren't happening 'in' consciousness, they're just happening.. Form is energy behaving in a 'part'icular way, emptiness is the absence of form.. and, even that is a 'cut too deep'. what exists persists even in the absence of belief that it exists.. if you drive your automobile toward a tree, and refuse to believe the tree exists, the result will likely convince you that the tree does exist.. but, if you stop believing in oneness/nondulaity, nothing changes, you can have exactly the same Cosmic Consciousness Clarity without the illusion that it must be described to your satisfaction.. All appearances are ultimately imagined, though some are collective imaginings. Imagination functions on multiple levels.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 16, 2014 20:14:53 GMT -5
There are appearances that are imagined, they are not real.. there are appearances that happen due to input from what is actually happening, those appearances represent what is actually happening.. awareness is the vehicle that informs consciousness, appearances aren't happening 'in' consciousness, they're just happening.. Form is energy behaving in a 'part'icular way, emptiness is the absence of form.. and, even that is a 'cut too deep'. what exists persists even in the absence of belief that it exists.. if you drive your automobile toward a tree, and refuse to believe the tree exists, the result will likely convince you that the tree does exist.. but, if you stop believing in oneness/nondulaity, nothing changes, you can have exactly the same Cosmic Consciousness Clarity without the illusion that it must be described to your satisfaction.. All appearances are ultimately imagined, though some are collective imaginings. Imagination functions on multiple levels. That's a great imagining, but.. let's stay on topic, you say that illusion can be seen through with absolute certainty, but you offer no explanation to back that up.. and, the more you are asked, the more you spin illusions to avoid answering..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 21:41:42 GMT -5
Not correct. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness, means that if you stump your toe, it's gonna hurt. It doesn't mean that the non-dual dreamer stumped an imaginary toe that had an imaginary pain. It means both. That's good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 21:43:06 GMT -5
No, no, no.......E has walked up to this line several times, and then backed away. I think E has made a concession, although he says he hasn't. I've tried to explore lately the use of the word real. I've try to show the ordinary sense of the word, for example, when we get hit in the face with a 2x4. If it happened in a dream, no bloody nose. If it happens in >real< life, bloody nose. I've talked about history, 13.7 billion years back to the Big Bang, and then other historical people and events. E has always shot these down, all ~this~ is merely a non-dual dream. gopal also made similar points to E. Now at least he admits phenomena, that's something I can work with, how the world seems to operate. From your post: If something is not what it appears to be, the what it appears to be is not real. Previously, E has said (in effect), we can think we see a snake, but it turns out to be a rope, but in seeing the rope, it turns out to be a stick, but in seeing the stick, it turns out to be a shadow. And then we wake up and the shadow turns out to merely be a dream-shadow. At least now E agrees the rope is a phenomenon (for me, relatively real). I am surprised you (Tzu) don't see this is a concession on E's part.......(although he doesn't say it is). I'm not sure I see the difference between phenomena and appearance. Your glee at my 'conscession' is a bit worrisome. I'll say there are no external objects. If there are no external objects, then how can you stump your toe on the bedpost? .........IOW, it can't be both.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 21:47:52 GMT -5
But the point is that according to E's "metaphysics", hitting your toe on a rock or a bedpost is not the cause of the pain. Toe, foot, leg, body, rock or bedpost mutually arise from non-dual-dreamer, unrelated to any history, any history. Much easier to just say that the mind-body-toe of "X", born on such-n-such date, now such-n-such years old, with such-n-such fingerprints, just wasn't paying attention on such-n-such date-time-place. If what you want to say is the easy thing, then just say it. If you want to say something closer to WIBIGO, it may get more complex and frustrating. Non-dual dreaming seems the least complicated. I mean.....for example, one could climb Mt. Everest in a dream, without getting out of bed. To actually climb Mt. Everest, it takes months and months of planning, months and months of getting into shape, and weeks of actually climbing. In a dream you can do it all in one night.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 21:51:44 GMT -5
All appearances are ultimately imagined, though some are collective imaginings. Imagination functions on multiple levels. That's a great imagining, but.. let's stay on topic, you say that illusion can be seen through with absolute certainty, but you offer no explanation to back that up.. and, the more you are asked, the more you spin illusions to avoid answering.. E should just say that there is no explanation, one cannot demonstrate, to another, non-duality. period. That much I understand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 16, 2014 21:57:12 GMT -5
In either case it is an appearance in consciousness, and one appearance is not more or less real than another. Form is empty, but that does not mean meaningless or useless or to be ignored, or whatever one imagines negation to imply, nor is it the opposite of whatever one imagines real to imply. There are appearances that are imagined, they are not real.. there are appearances that happen due to input from what is actually happening, those appearances represent what is actually happening.. awareness is the vehicle that informs consciousness, appearances aren't happening 'in' consciousness, they're just happening.. Form is energy behaving in a 'part'icular way, emptiness is the absence of form.. and, even that is a 'cut too deep'. what exists persists even in the absence of belief that it exists.. if you drive your automobile toward a tree, and refuse to believe the tree exists, the result will likely convince you that the tree does exist.. but, if you stop believing in oneness/nondulaity, nothing changes, you can have exactly the same Cosmic Consciousness Clarity without the illusion that it must be described to your satisfaction.. Reminds me of a quote: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K D!ck
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 16, 2014 22:15:20 GMT -5
If what you want to say is the easy thing, then just say it. If you want to say something closer to WIBIGO, it may get more complex and frustrating. Non-dual dreaming seems the least complicated. I mean.....for example, one could climb Mt. Everest in a dream, without getting out of bed. To actually climb Mt. Everest, it takes months and months of planning, months and months of getting into shape, and weeks of actually climbing. In a dream you can do it all in one night. There's a difference between the 'you' that dreams, and the imagined 'you' in those dreams.. that there are similarities between the dream and the reality, does not manifest the dream's unmanifested imagery, the dream is an imagined illusion.. there is separation between the dreamer and the dreamed, hence SDP's 2X4/bloody-nosed dream illusion separate from the dreamer's undamaged nose, and.. there is unity, of one essence manifested as interconnected multiplicity, functioning as a single happening.. Distorting the experience of the happening as a function of advancing an ideological attachment to a personal belief, is an obstacle to clarity.. if the interest is in describing the experience, oneness/separation are not useful terms..
|
|