|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2021 5:57:38 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything.  Are you certain that was an offer to argue? -- totally serious question, not digging/poking. Is it possible you misinterpreted the tone/intention underlying what he wrote? .. no need to answer, and if you retort I'll just let it lie. As Rod Serling used to say .. "presented for your consideration". Yes, no argument; just curiosity. How does one know anything? Can one distinguish the difference between direct knowing (gnosis) and intellectual knowing (episteme)? What can be known for certain? Can one know for certain that one exists? Are there not other things that can be known without any doubt? We're not talking about opinions or ideas here; we're talking about something far more fundamental and direct. Can it be seen that the act of distinction must precede the act of symbolization? What remains in the absence of distinction, imagination, ideation, symbolization? And what is it that sees what remains or knows what remains? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 1, 2021 13:40:24 GMT -5
The way I see it, if you don't realize that your subconscious creates the physical reality that you perceive, that there is no objective physical reality that you observe and (could) "know", then anything else you "know" is distorted by that. I admit that I don't "know" that this is the case, but I highly believe it. To me, realizing that you don't and can't "know" was and is fundamental. Every one of those sages belonging to any of the religions and schools of thoughts may be honest in describing their views of the physical and / or other realities, but those descriptions are, and can be only subjective interpretations. When talking about the wider reality (not the physical that doesn't objectively exists), it is like how every tourist that visits New York has a story to tell, but that doesn't mean that any of those stories describes "thee" New York; they are just subjective narrow interpretations, and the only thing you can be sure is that all of them are distorted.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 1, 2021 13:57:42 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't want to seem impolite, but this kind of argumentation leads nowhere. It is a waste of time for both of us. Actually I'm not here to argue anything. Are you certain that was an offer to argue? -- totally serious question, not digging/poking. Is it possible you misinterpreted the tone/intention underlying what he wrote? .. no need to answer, and if you retort I'll just let it lie. As Rod Serling used to say .. "presented for your consideration". You focused, again, on the inconsequential. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2021 18:32:48 GMT -5
To be linguistically precise, we can say that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality." Reality, itself, is unimaginable and incomprehensible; it simply is what it is. If we look without imagining, we see "what is." "What is" is a synonym for 'reality," and that phrase, or word, is a pointer, only. The Diamond Sutra, essentially, is pointing to the difference between cognitive distinctions, which are acts of imaginary abstract severance, and that which is indivisible. A "chair" is a cartoon. What a chair IS, is not because "what is" has no boundary. The way I understand it, the ‘ You Create Your Own Reality’ doesn't mean 'that people imaginatively create their own "META-reality."' I disagree with the rest of your interpretations too. That is why I wrote that there are so 'many ways this idea is distorted to fit one's limiting beliefs'. "Limiting" here doesn't have a pejorative connotation. It applies as well to my interpretations as it applies to yours. I don't think there is essentially any difference between what zd wrote and what you wrote. And so, I don't think you understand what zd is saying. When zd writes about seeing ~What Is~, ~THAT~ completely bypasses the subconscious. IOW, there isn't in any sense filtering or interpreting by a self in any sense. But ATST, I think zd disregards your POV as far as ordinary life is concerned. Whether he likes it or not, there is a body, there is conditioning, and the conditioning does have a effect on ~how life comes to us~. zd gets up and goes to do construction work, he doesn't get out of bed and put on a tie and go to a cubicle and shuffle papers. In my view there isn't just the Undivided Whole, the unmanifest OTOH and then life as we experience it OToH. There is a hierarchy of energy exchanges ~from one to the other~. Subconscious processing occurs whether you call it a self or not. Subconscious processing has to be accounted for. If it isn't accounted for then your view of how reality works is lacking. If nothing else, we have to admit there is a "black box" of processing going on. Of course, this is an aspect of the conversation zd and sdp have been having for 10+ years. Most times we end up with no overlapping, so the conversation ends. And I agree, argument does zero good. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2021 18:35:59 GMT -5
Are you certain that was an offer to argue? -- totally serious question, not digging/poking. Is it possible you misinterpreted the tone/intention underlying what he wrote? .. no need to answer, and if you retort I'll just let it lie. As Rod Serling used to say .. "presented for your consideration". Yes, no argument; just curiosity. How does one know anything? Can one distinguish the difference between direct knowing (gnosis) and intellectual knowing (episteme)? What can be known for certain? Can one know for certain that one exists? Are there not other things that can be known without any doubt? We're not talking about opinions or ideas here; we're talking about something far more fundamental and direct. Can it be seen that the act of distinction must precede the act of symbolization? What remains in the absence of distinction, imagination, ideation, symbolization? And what is it that sees what remains or knows what remains? Spoke to this in the post above. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2021 0:24:15 GMT -5
Are you certain that was an offer to argue? -- totally serious question, not digging/poking. Is it possible you misinterpreted the tone/intention underlying what he wrote? .. no need to answer, and if you retort I'll just let it lie. As Rod Serling used to say .. "presented for your consideration". Yes, no argument; just curiosity. How does one know anything? Can one distinguish the difference between direct knowing (gnosis) and intellectual knowing (episteme)? What can be known for certain? Can one know for certain that one exists? Are there not other things that can be known without any doubt? We're not talking about opinions or ideas here; we're talking about something far more fundamental and direct. Can it be seen that the act of distinction must precede the act of symbolization? What remains in the absence of distinction, imagination, ideation, symbolization? And what is it that sees what remains or knows what remains? Descarte wrote and Plato apparently spoke about this sort of fundamental questioning, but it seems to me that the crux of it is lost on almost all philosophers. At least, from what little philosophy I've read or otherwise encountered. The reasons this is overlooked seem obvious enough to me: this challenge is one that requires the end of philosophizing, attention to what's below the neck, and questioning the nature of the boundary of the skin.  And even that .. well ... I'd guess for many people, that's when things just start to get interesting. This is reflected in the extremity of the statements in the Diamond Sutra. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2021 7:02:10 GMT -5
Yes, no argument; just curiosity. How does one know anything? Can one distinguish the difference between direct knowing (gnosis) and intellectual knowing (episteme)? What can be known for certain? Can one know for certain that one exists? Are there not other things that can be known without any doubt? We're not talking about opinions or ideas here; we're talking about something far more fundamental and direct. Can it be seen that the act of distinction must precede the act of symbolization? What remains in the absence of distinction, imagination, ideation, symbolization? And what is it that sees what remains or knows what remains? Descarte wrote and Plato apparently spoke about this sort of fundamental questioning, but it seems to me that the crux of it is lost on almost all philosophers. At least, from what little philosophy I've read or otherwise encountered. The reasons this is overlooked seem obvious enough to me: this challenge is one that requires the end of philosophizing, attention to what's below the neck, and questioning the nature of the boundary of the skin. And even that .. well ... I'd guess for many people, that's when things just start to get interesting. This is reflected in the extremity of the statements in the Diamond Sutra. I agree, not many people get to the point of looking at the basis of knowing, on what basis can anything be known? The question of identity and what is self? has to be dealt with. Until that is dealt with, nothing can known, for sure. (I'm not sure inavalan gets this yet). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2021 7:32:16 GMT -5
Descarte wrote and Plato apparently spoke about this sort of fundamental questioning, but it seems to me that the crux of it is lost on almost all philosophers. At least, from what little philosophy I've read or otherwise encountered. The reasons this is overlooked seem obvious enough to me: this challenge is one that requires the end of philosophizing, attention to what's below the neck, and questioning the nature of the boundary of the skin. And even that .. well ... I'd guess for many people, that's when things just start to get interesting. This is reflected in the extremity of the statements in the Diamond Sutra. I agree, not many people get to the point of looking at the basis of knowing, on what basis can anything be known? The question of identity and what is self? has to be dealt with. Until that is dealt with, nothing can known, for sure. Well, it seems to me from reading and listening to other's that this is only one of many ways of seeking. It's not necessary to resort to it. Beyond that, I'm far too biased in my perspective - based on past experience - to comment on it much further in relation to other sorts of paths. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 2, 2021 8:43:36 GMT -5
Descarte wrote and Plato apparently spoke about this sort of fundamental questioning, but it seems to me that the crux of it is lost on almost all philosophers. At least, from what little philosophy I've read or otherwise encountered. The reasons this is overlooked seem obvious enough to me: this challenge is one that requires the end of philosophizing, attention to what's below the neck, and questioning the nature of the boundary of the skin. And even that .. well ... I'd guess for many people, that's when things just start to get interesting. This is reflected in the extremity of the statements in the Diamond Sutra. I agree, not many people get to the point of looking at the basis of knowing, on what basis can anything be known? The question of identity and what is self? has to be dealt with. Until that is dealt with, nothing can known, for sure. Like Laffy, I doubt that many people think about those particular issues until various other realizations have occurred. People have a wide variety of interests and begin seeking for a wide variety of reasons. The two primary reasons for seeking seem to be (1) curiosity and (2) a desire to escape from suffering. At one time I thought that curiosity was the main driver (simply because that was my path), but after listening to the stories of hundreds of seekers, it appears that a desire to escape suffering is probably far more dominant. As noted before, I could never make any headway with the "Who am I?" koan, and that was probably because I was so certain of who I thought I was. haha! Right up to the moment when "the little guy in the head" vanished, I was still primarily focused on ATA-T, and pondering the question, "How is it possible for a unity-conscious state of mind to become permanent?" Ironically, it is only when "the little guy in the head" disappears that it becomes possible for a unity-conscious state of mind to be realized as the only state of mind that ever exists. As long as there is a "me in here" and a "world out there," the illusion of separateness will persist. Fortunately, Zen deals with the "knowing" issue in a way that bypasses the intellect, so it seemed unquestionable to this character that the distinction between gnosis (body knowing) and episteme (head-knowing) was fundamental long before other realizations occurred. After my first Zen retreat, it became obvious that the task that all seekers confront is how to get out of their heads and back to a child-like way of directly interacting with the world. The Rinzai Zen format was extremely beneficial in this regard because koans and their resolution show the degree to which humans are attached to their ideas and how they thereby overlook the obvious. If nothing else, the Rinzai Zen approach reveals how attachment to ideas prevents existential clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 2, 2021 9:13:08 GMT -5
Debate reminds me of Ramana's words "you can't know God, you can only be God."
Rinzai folk always overstate its significance. Better to try to eat a rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 2, 2021 12:01:34 GMT -5
Debate reminds me of Ramana's words "you can't know God, you can only be God." Rinzai folk always overstate its significance. Better to try to eat a rock. I'm tempted to suggest that Soto folks UNDERstate the significance, but because they never say anything other than "Sit," such a comment would almost surely be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 2, 2021 23:16:46 GMT -5
Edward Conze's commented translation of the "Diamond Sutra": link(Can be read online, or downloaded in various formats)
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 3, 2021 5:42:15 GMT -5
In so many words the Diamond Sutra is simply pointing to what the Buddhists call "emptiness" (no self and no other). If, conventionally speaking, someone does something to help someone else, and subsequently feels good about it, that totally misses the mark. Only when help is given with no self-referential thought and no attachment to the act is the help given appropriately (because a Buddha does not see him/herself as separate from THIS). In this sense the giving of alms is a movement/unfoldment of the whole, and this also applies to anything else that a human might do.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 3, 2021 11:03:43 GMT -5
In so many words the Diamond Sutra is simply pointing to what the Buddhists call "emptiness" (no self and no other). If, conventionally speaking, someone does something to help someone else, and subsequently feels good about it, that totally misses the mark. Only when help is given with no self-referential thought and no attachment to the act is the help given appropriately (because a Buddha does not see him/herself as separate from THIS). In this sense the giving of alms is a movement/unfoldment of the whole, and this also applies to anything else that a human might do. Well said:"Effortless effort." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2021 21:00:54 GMT -5
I agree, not many people get to the point of looking at the basis of knowing, on what basis can anything be known? The question of identity and what is self? has to be dealt with. Until that is dealt with, nothing can known, for sure. Like Laffy, I doubt that many people think about those particular issues until various other realizations have occurred. People have a wide variety of interests and begin seeking for a wide variety of reasons. The two primary reasons for seeking seem to be (1) curiosity and (2) a desire to escape from suffering. At one time I thought that curiosity was the main driver (simply because that was my path), but after listening to the stories of hundreds of seekers, it appears that a desire to escape suffering is probably far more dominant. As noted before, I could never make any headway with the "Who am I?" koan, and that was probably because I was so certain of who I thought I was. haha! Right up to the moment when "the little guy in the head" vanished, I was still primarily focused on ATA-T, and pondering the question, "How is it possible for a unity-conscious state of mind to become permanent?" Ironically, it is only when "the little guy in the head" disappears that it becomes possible for a unity-conscious state of mind to be realized as the only state of mind that ever exists. As long as there is a "me in here" and a "world out there," the illusion of separateness will persist. Fortunately, Zen deals with the "knowing" issue in a way that bypasses the intellect, so it seemed unquestionable to this character that the distinction between gnosis (body knowing) and episteme (head-knowing) was fundamental long before other realizations occurred. After my first Zen retreat, it became obvious that the task that all seekers confront is how to get out of their heads and back to a child-like way of directly interacting with the world. The Rinzai Zen format was extremely beneficial in this regard because koans and their resolution show the degree to which humans are attached to their ideas and how they thereby overlook the obvious. If nothing else, the Rinzai Zen approach reveals how attachment to ideas prevents existential clarity. Yea, this was me. |
|
And even that .. well ... I'd guess for many people, that's when things just start to get interesting.