|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 4:37:21 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? It's a relative truth. There are no transcendent truths, because the word transcendent is a concept. yes, I think this is getting close to the centre of what I find strange about 'transcendent truth'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 6:03:56 GMT -5
It's a relative truth. There are no transcendent truths, because the word transcendent is a concept. yes, I think this is getting close to the centre of what I find strange about 'transcendent truth'. Yeah, E admitted recently that although he has used the word transcendent for years, he knows it's just another of his rewordings. Essentially he uses it to mean 'special'. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 22, 2018 8:28:09 GMT -5
Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." Sincerely, what are you writing this to? Like, how many of these posts are being written with a person in mind, while at the same time proclaiming there is 'no person'. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 22, 2018 8:37:54 GMT -5
I still remember realizing what all the Zen/Ch'an sayings were pointing to, and then further understanding why you had to be there at the moment they were said (rather than reading them hundreds of years later in a book) to potentially "get it". It seems that a lot of the more "confusing ones" were about having returned, but not so much about seeing, transcending self and other, or being source... prior to the return. Yeah. I believe it was Jed McKenna that said, those that return always bring something original back with them. Computer screen on Reading Decoding apparent meaning Impetus arising Typing happening Words appearing across the screen Creating meaning Watching it disappear What comes next? Just look So original, this oneness Always No them, per se, Here |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 22, 2018 8:57:15 GMT -5
Does the message 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth' appear in your experience? This could be considered a rhetorical question, but I'm asking you/anyone to sincerely consider and/or realize the immediacy of transcendent Truth. Don't just gloss over the pointers as some exercise in logic or righteousness; penetrate. "Throw a rock in a raging river, and you'll hardly notice its effect. Throw one in a still pond, and that pond is changed forever..." What it is, is that I am here to converse. I'm not here to be taught, let alone patronized. Learning happens just through participating here, and that's great, but I'm not here with the intent to learn, or grow, or become, or 'realize'. I come here for the craic, that's all. But in good spirit, I will answer your question. I grok what 'Truth' points to. I grok what 'Absolute Truth' points to (same 'thing'). I don't see anyone here TRYING to find 'Truth' in their experience or confirm 'Truth' in their experience, so when I se Enigma talking about that, I get interested in what what he is seeing and what he is thinking. Gotcha. That insincerity has been at the heart of your interactions explains a lot. Your "love" and "good spirit" are sounding more like self-indulgence. Agreed, it's not about learning or being taught. It's about the unlearning and the realizing. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 22, 2018 9:04:35 GMT -5
It's a relative truth. There are no transcendent truths, because the word transcendent is a concept. yes, I think this is getting close to the centre of what I find strange about 'transcendent truth'. Based on what you've expressed, you seem to be only interested in relative "truths" (i.e., concepts that fulfill your whimsical desires). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 9:11:02 GMT -5
What it is, is that I am here to converse. I'm not here to be taught, let alone patronized. Learning happens just through participating here, and that's great, but I'm not here with the intent to learn, or grow, or become, or 'realize'. I come here for the craic, that's all. But in good spirit, I will answer your question. I grok what 'Truth' points to. I grok what 'Absolute Truth' points to (same 'thing'). I don't see anyone here TRYING to find 'Truth' in their experience or confirm 'Truth' in their experience, so when I se Enigma talking about that, I get interested in what what he is seeing and what he is thinking. Gotcha. That insincerity has been at the heart of your interactions explains a lot. Your "love" and "good spirit" are sounding more like self-indulgence. Agreed, it's not about learning or being taught. It's about the unlearning and the realizing. Maybe you misinterpreted, but I didn't say that I was insincere. Oh....the word 'craic' may be misleading. I mean I'm here for the enjoyment of the conversation. I like the chat, the debate, the changing relations. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 9:23:02 GMT -5
yes, I think this is getting close to the centre of what I find strange about 'transcendent truth'. Based on what you've expressed, you seem to be only interested in relative "truths" (i.e., concepts that fulfill your whimsical desires). It's hard to know how to respond to this. The way I see what happens with you, is that every so often the movement arises to read some forum stuff. You don't read a whole lot of the conversation, you know you who resonate with, and you know what you want to see here. So in my perspective, when you come here, you really don't have a good sense of what is actually being discussed. The recent example was with Reefs. You launched in from a great height ignoring the actual discussion. What Reefs said was true....so true that Enigma can't even really argue it. ZD has agreed with Reefs key point. Laughter has agreed with Reefs in essence. There are others here too of course that agree. I would put a strong bet that you don't even know what it is you are defending in regards to E. You really just know that you have liked what he has said for years... 'Greasy spot'. 'Truth'. 'Oneness'. These are all concepts he routinely uses which I imagine are pleasing to someone who comes to the forum every now and then. Maybe YOU come here for a bit of 'brain washing' every now and then, and get irritable when you see that there is actual conceptual discussion here. I guess what you want to see are simple pointers to 'Truth'. It just doesn't work like that when you are here day to day. We like to talk but when it comes to 'Truth', there's nothing to say. So we embellish, expand, look at detail. No-one is here as a seeker. It's just the same old group, year in year out, having a discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 10:14:27 GMT -5
He's seeing a transcendent 'true self' as the one having the volition, if I'm understanding correctly. Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? What would be the point of offering a relative truth that says relative truths are not Truthy? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 10:29:14 GMT -5
Other than the body knowing thingy or embodiment issue in general I'll buy that explanation. As I've noted before, Zen folks (and I subscribe to their general approach even though I lost interest in their institutional rigidity) neither affirm nor deny physical existence because either stance would strike them as an intellectual position, and they're not interested in that sort of thing. They're much more interested in direct action and the manifestation of understanding sans words and ideas. This is why if someone expresses an intellectual position as a statement of truth to a Zen Master, s/he is likely to get conked on the head with the famous Zen stick. They wouldn't use the words "gnosis" or "episteme," but their approach shows that they favor what the word "gnosis" points to. Examples: Monk: What is the meaning of Buddhism? ZM: Have you finished eating breakfast? Monk: Yes. ZM: Then go clean your bowls. The ZM answered the monk's question clearly and unequivocally. Monk: Who are you, really? ZM: I am that which is asking the question. The ZM's instant response shows that from his POV there is only THIS, undivided into abstract states. Monk: What is the most important thing to know? (asked while it is raining) ZM: When it rains, if we don't open our umbrellas, we get wet. The ZM is pointing to the simple and concrete truth of THIS. The Buddha spent a lot of time pointing to this same sort of thing. He said that if you get shot with an arrow, it isn't important who made the arrow, or its composition, or anything else you might think about the arrow (real, unreal, objective, subjective, appearance only, three dimensionally solid, essence, etc); the important thing is to remove it. What we might call "the hard facts of physical reality" supersede any ideas that we might have about them. This is why I don't think it matters very much how we point to THIS. All that really matters is discovering that we ARE THIS and that separation is a cognitive illusion. After this kind of understanding has been attained, the mind is put to rest. If we then leave speculative/existential ideas behind, life becomes pretty simple, and we become people of direct action. After we do what has to be done in this moment, then we do whatever needs to be done next. Easy! I still remember realizing what all the Zen/Ch'an sayings were pointing to, and then further understanding why you had to be there at the moment they were said (rather than reading them hundreds of years later in a book) to potentially "get it". It seems that a lot of the more "confusing ones" were about having returned, but not so much about seeing, transcending self and other, or being source... prior to the return. The Zen stories point away from speculation to the oridnary. It's like saying the most important part of playing football is listening to anecdotes from players. It's not. Some wise man once said: "no system of thought can give you access to reality." The nutshell for the novice is stay away from trying to figure it out, you can't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 10:38:07 GMT -5
I don't believe you. The comment was too preposterous. To me, concern looks like, 'I am worried about you'. That concern might be sincere or insincere. What I said is 'are you feeling out of sorts lately?'. What about that indicated to you a concern or a worry? Or was it the other bit I said that indicated to you a concern or worry? In order for concern to be insincere, first there has to be an expression OF concern. I'm not seeing that expression. What I am seeing is an expression of 'seeking understanding' aka curiosity. In which case, what you see as insincere is the 'seeking understanding/curiosity', and you are projecting concern onto what I said. The part where you inquired as to whether he was feeling out of sorts lately. You're parsing words and a discussion hasn't begun yet. Are you just warming up in the bullpen? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 10:51:30 GMT -5
I have no issue with talking about conditioning of the brain or body, and you don't have to talk to me differently. My point was the same as ZD's; You've equated the self with conditioning. Further, you've called that self actual based on the fact that conditioning really is happening. So through a bit of sleight of hand you've said the self is actual. By anyone else's standard of actual, the conditioned self is not actual, it's an illusion. So I commented on it. Don't worry so much about speaking to me in language I can understand and focus more on trying to understand what I'm saying. I've corrected my language in 3 different posts. I've never said the self that results from conditioning is an actual self, never. Essence-as-self is only potential in the sense an acorn is an oak tree in potential. If someone tries to put what I say in their own paradigm I can't help that. I have always called the cultural self a false sense of self, meaning, yes, illusory. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 10:55:22 GMT -5
Okay.So when you say, 'you can't look to experience to find transcendent Truth', is THAT a transcendent Truth or a relative truth? What would be the point of offering a relative truth that says relative truths are not Truthy? How does your question relate to my question? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2018 10:55:36 GMT -5
Is that something you understood yesterday when you lamented that you couldn't prove to me that you've experienced validation of the teachings? No, I've understood it for about 8 years. You've understood that I think experience is irrelevant for about 8 years? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 22, 2018 10:58:58 GMT -5
To me, concern looks like, 'I am worried about you'. That concern might be sincere or insincere. What I said is 'are you feeling out of sorts lately?'. What about that indicated to you a concern or a worry? Or was it the other bit I said that indicated to you a concern or worry? In order for concern to be insincere, first there has to be an expression OF concern. I'm not seeing that expression. What I am seeing is an expression of 'seeking understanding' aka curiosity. In which case, what you see as insincere is the 'seeking understanding/curiosity', and you are projecting concern onto what I said. The part where you inquired as to whether he was feeling out of sorts lately. You're parsing words and a discussion hasn't begun yet. Are you just warming up in the bullpen? I've noticed in the last year that you very often pick out a single line of discussion while ignoring the rest. Asking someone if they have been out of sorts lately could come with an energy of concern, but in this case I had no concern about sN, and didn't express concern. It was an expression of curiosity/seeking understanding. You may think that the curiosity was insincere (I wouldn't argue that point with you), but currently, you are projecting concern. |
|
