|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 5, 2023 17:35:30 GMT -5
inavalan, in the context of ZD's post. As far as I know you said you watched (only) 50 minutes, so how can you comment on the quote? I would say don't know mind means don't know the future, what's going to occur. Matsumoto uses know in the sense ZD does, in the present moment, which he goes into extensively, he means gnosis, that is, not an abstraction. From my last night post edit the context changed: I watched the full video. Matsumoto talks about "reasoning". I listened to the Japanese too. He talks about (not) adding one's reasoning (cat) to the perception (meow). He doesn't say to not-think (different verbs). He said that meow is a meow, not a cat. He said that "thought about something being good" is "thought about something being good", it doesn't mean that "that something is good". He says that you can't think about the present moment, but only about a past or future moment, and once the moment passed, it is gone, it is another moment. I don't subscribe to Matusmoto's views, just commented on what he said, and on your quotes and questions, and what they meant to me. This doesn't mean that Matsumoto meant, or believes on the same lines as I do.  Matsumoto said that meditation and zazen are two different hings (from the beginning of the video). That's a good point and I never understood how he distinguished between the two. Most Zen people use the two words interchangeably. Commonly, new Zen students are given an exhalation or inhalation breath counting practice because their minds are so talkative (monkey mind) that they can't do anything more difficult than that. After attaining a bit of mental spaciousness, so to speak, they are then given a breath-following practice during which one simply watches or feels the breathing process. Later still, they're introduced to shikan taza, which is maintaining a high level of mental alertness with no specific focus--something that beginning students are unable to do. All of these activities involve shifting attention away from thoughts to whatever the focus of attention is placed upon, and most people consider all of these exercises/activities/practices to be forms of meditation. I'd be curious to know if anyone who watched the video understood the distinction Matsumoto wanted to make between zazen and meditation because I'm too lazy to watch the whole thing again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 18:11:35 GMT -5
I had a feeling you would pick up on that. Matsumoto doesn't say that, and doesn't infer that. He says that you know that a meow is a meow, and don't assume there is a cat that meows. So it isn't about not-knowing. He says nowhere that it is something wonderful, as that is again imagining the cat. Obviously, people understand according to their biases. In this case zd missed Matsumoto's point: zd used cognition when he interpreted that "Living in a not-knowing state of mind is quite wonderful." He was just quoting what he said. I heard it too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 18:14:23 GMT -5
From my last night post edit the context changed: I watched the full video. Matsumoto talks about "reasoning". I listened to the Japanese too. He talks about (not) adding one's reasoning (cat) to the perception (meow). He doesn't say to not-think (different verbs). He said that meow is a meow, not a cat. He said that "thought about something being good" is "thought about something being good", it doesn't mean that "that something is good". He says that you can't think about the present moment, but only about a past or future moment, and once the moment passed, it is gone, it is another moment. I don't subscribe to Matusmoto's views, just commented on what he said, and on your quotes and questions, and what they meant to me. This doesn't mean that Matsumoto meant, or believes on the same lines as I do. Matsumoto said that meditation and zazen are two different hings (from the beginning of the video). That's a good point and I never understood how he distinguished between the two. Most Zen people use the two words interchangeably. Commonly, new Zen students are given an exhalation or inhalation breath counting practice because their minds are so talkative (monkey mind) that they can't do anything more difficult than that. After attaining a bit of mental spaciousness, so to speak, they are then given a breath-following practice during which one simply watches or feels the breathing process. Later still, they're introduced to shikan taza, which is maintaining a high level of mental alertness with no specific focus--something that beginning students are unable to do. All of these activities involve shifting attention away from thoughts to whatever the focus of attention is placed upon, and most people consider all of these exercises/activities/practices to be forms of meditation. I'd be curious to know if anyone who watched the video understood the distinction Matsumoto wanted to make between zazen and meditation because I'm too lazy to watch the whole thing again. He said that meditation and zazen are not the same thing but he didn't elaborate. I don't agree with him that knowing that meow is meow is enlightenment. And when he said that it wasn't about consciousness then that is going to be problematic for me. It was good to get an understanding about this brand of Zen but also a relief that Zen was never my path. I liked his systematic pointing towards what is the now which is not in time. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 5, 2023 22:09:50 GMT -5
I watched the video in full, Jisho is very good (but it's kind of like watching paint dry [ ] ). Two things stuck out. It is impossible to think of the way it is now. That's very good, clear, accurate. Another is I think a mistranslation. This is curious too, in translating you have to trust the translator, obviously. "Life only exists when we think life". I'm pretty sure he didn't say that, it would contradict everything else he said. He didn't use the word think here. I'm going to go back and listen to that again. He answered the questions very well. Edit: I listened to the part in question about six times, went back some and forward some for a fuller context. It's at minute 1:30:00. I think I understand what he was saying, or what got left out in translation. Going back to the sentence just previous, and previous to that he was describing life as like learning to ride a bicycle. "In terms about the best way to live life, life only exists when we think life". What he meant. In terms about the best way to live life, meaning, in time as from A to B to C, past to present to future, that kind of life only exists when we think life. This part added for clarification. Comments welcome. Otherwise, he was very clear. Oh, another edit: There is something else that's obvious to sdp, I was waiting for him to mention, he had several easy opportunities. It's the basis for continuity, there is a basis for continuity. He didn't say. Oh I'm glad you watched it because I also had you in mind when I posted it. I'm not that familiar with Zen so when he said at the top of the video that he was going to tell you about Zen in a way that you might not have heard about before I had nothing to compare it with and I was hoping that you guys might have the answer. But the way he was pointing to what is was very clear and not unfamiliar to me so I'm wondering now what other ways you can explain Zen. He said a couple of interesting things. One of which that it has nothing to do with consciousness which was surprising, but unfortunately he didn't elaborate. He just kept pointing to whatever is happening is the way it is. And he also made a very emphatic statement about enlightenment. Using the example of when you hear the cat meow and he said there is only meow. When you hear the cat meow you might start having thoughts like oh that's a little cute cat, it's so cuddly etc but he said that Enlightenment is knowing that there is only meow. It's when cognition and memory completely subsides and there is only meow. So I might have some disagreements here but certainly he's pointing to the fact that the only thing that exists is what is happening now was very clear and precise. And he applied that to zazen as just being sitting because that's what it is. No going within to silent awareness in the way that Ramana would speak about, just sitting because that's what it is. It's all good stuff but it seems like there's a piece of the jigsaw missing somewhere. It was funny when that very confused looking woman asked him how she should live her life and he said, make whatever decisions you want because that's the way it is. sdp. This is the what he didn't say. And it's taken nine years to get here, and ChatGPT. And here is another version. Another version. The Tenth man version Of course, watching the breath is a form of these, an ~anchor~. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 5, 2023 22:54:18 GMT -5
I watched the video. I liked its frankness. Seemed a sort of sales pitch. My way is unique, better. You can all get some.
You can't explain Zen. Whatever you explain, it's not Zen.
It was a nice try. Some good points he made: if you're thinking, there's no awareness of thinking. You are aware of the thoughts after the fact. I think he's right zazen is THIS, NOW, unadulterated. Meow!!
But saying that is like saying the sun is bright. That's no substitute for the sun.
Btw, from my viewpoint, there are more similarities between zazen and other forms of meditation than differences. A key in all forms is noticing the transcience of thought. I believe he mentioned this as a feature of zazen. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 5, 2023 23:08:23 GMT -5
I watched the video. I liked its frankness. Seemed a sort of sales pitch. My way is unique, better. You can all get some. You can't explain Zen. Whatever you explain, it's not Zen. It was a nice try. Some good points he made: if you're thinking, there's no awareness of thinking. You are aware of the thoughts after the fact. I think he's right zazen is THIS, NOW, unadulterated. Meow!!But saying that is like saying the sun is bright. That's no substitute for the sun. Btw, from my viewpoint, there are more similarities between zazen and other forms of meditation than differences. A key in all forms is noticing the transcience of thought. I believe he mentioned this as a feature of zazen. Peace. It would probably be good to, while watching, be prepared to pause, and actually try, what his words are saying. It is not so easy. Mind's job is basically to spit out words, constantly, if-only inside one's head. Yes, on this. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 6, 2023 7:25:42 GMT -5
That's a good point and I never understood how he distinguished between the two. Most Zen people use the two words interchangeably. Commonly, new Zen students are given an exhalation or inhalation breath counting practice because their minds are so talkative (monkey mind) that they can't do anything more difficult than that. After attaining a bit of mental spaciousness, so to speak, they are then given a breath-following practice during which one simply watches or feels the breathing process. Later still, they're introduced to shikan taza, which is maintaining a high level of mental alertness with no specific focus--something that beginning students are unable to do. All of these activities involve shifting attention away from thoughts to whatever the focus of attention is placed upon, and most people consider all of these exercises/activities/practices to be forms of meditation. I'd be curious to know if anyone who watched the video understood the distinction Matsumoto wanted to make between zazen and meditation because I'm too lazy to watch the whole thing again. He said that meditation and zazen are not the same thing but he didn't elaborate. I don't agree with him that knowing that meow is meow is enlightenment. And when he said that it wasn't about consciousness then that is going to be problematic for me. It was good to get an understanding about this brand of Zen but also a relief that Zen was never my path. I liked his systematic pointing towards what is the now which is not in time. Agreed. I meant to make that point but forgot. "Meow is meow" is NOT enlightenment. There are many people who get to "meow is meow," but know that they are not free. There's a necessary realization beyond "meow is meow." I've met people who have learned to stop thinking, but they're still strongly attached to a lot of ideas, including the idea that they are SVP's. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 9, 2023 13:30:09 GMT -5
Just because we are what we are .. doesn't mean that there is the immediate realisation of this . There are billions that haven't realised what they are in this lifetime . So what are they to do? If they are ripe and ready to realise then perhaps there isn't much to do .. If they are unripe then there is lots to do . Whenever I encounter one of those silly non-dualists who say what's the point of practicing because there is no one here, there is no one existing who could practice then I simply say well just pretend you're a person. Pretend you're a doer and just do the damned practice and see what the heck happens. .. In a way there is not even the need to pretend you're a person .. it's self evident . For some reason there is the idea that everything mindful & personalised can't possible be real or true . Al this based upon that there is beyond that . For some reason on forums like these after millions of quotes and posts .. there still isn't the understanding of what constitutes the individual self that isn't separated from all that is . If we get rid of the argument of the SVP then there is an individual that exists, that can practice, that can go get a beer and wash the dishes . Beyond all that jazz there isn't an individual, there isn't a beer, nor dishes that require washing . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2023 19:05:35 GMT -5
Whenever I encounter one of those silly non-dualists who say what's the point of practicing because there is no one here, there is no one existing who could practice then I simply say well just pretend you're a person. Pretend you're a doer and just do the damned practice and see what the heck happens. .. In a way there is not even the need to pretend you're a person .. it's self evident . For some reason there is the idea that everything mindful & personalised can't possible be real or true . Al this based upon that there is beyond that . For some reason on forums like these after millions of quotes and posts .. there still isn't the understanding of what constitutes the individual self that isn't separated from all that is .If we get rid of the argument of the SVP then there is an individual that exists, that can practice, that can go get a beer and wash the dishes . Beyond all that jazz there isn't an individual, there isn't a beer, nor dishes that require washing . Too bad Woody Allen turned out to be a scum bag, I used to like him. He made some very good films, the Purple Rose of Cairo among them. One of the main characters of a film Mia Farrow likes, literally parts the curtains and steps out of the film and into real life. But I immediately knew Allen wasn't the genius he appeared to be, he stole the idea from the great Buster Keaton. I had already seen Sherlock Jr., a film by Keaton considered by many to be one of the 20 greatest films ever made. And I'd say Tron was a film very ahead of its time. Flynn, a computer programmer and game player, Jeff Bridges, accidentally escaped into a computer program, running from the bad guy, and was trapped there. He found programs who were very much alive as he was. There, he found there were rumors of an outside world, the ~real~ people, the programmers, were called Users. Eventually Flynn had to reveal that he himself was a User from the outside world. I've never know what separate could mean, it seems a superfluous word. Volition I understand, person I understand. I'll have to come back to this post, as I've had a foggy notion all day for a post that just will not emerge clearly. But it has to do precisely with your subject here, and it has to do with...I don't read much fiction, but I chanced upon Paul Auster some years ago. He can appear as a character in his books, so amongst fictional characters is a ~real~ person, so to speak. This is his earlier work, haven't read any of his later work, I like his nonfiction/essays even better. But I would imagine he has kept up his little tricks. But it kind of seems that we-all are characters in the story of All That Is, like fictional characters in novels who can't do anything, as their story has already been written by a greater intelligence-writer. That's getting closer to my foggy post, but it's still not clear. And "She's" now having "Paul Auster" fun with "Her" writing me speculating that I'm just a fictional character. No volition, not-a-person. Now, mind you, this is in a very real sense what Gurdjieff meant by realizing your nothingness, so I'm not being silly or pejorative. Basically, realizing your nothingness = no SVP. (From the Macrocosm Microcosm thread, page 6 Jul 7, 2023 at 7:56pm: It is at this point that the possibility of awakening comes to the rescue. To awaken means to realize one's nothingness, that is to realize one's complete and absolute mechanicalness and one's complete and absolute helplessness. And it is not sufficient to realize it philosophically in words. It is necessary to realize it in clear, simple, and concrete facts, in one's own facts. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2023 23:43:04 GMT -5
"The four limitless thoughts are all relative to bodhichitta. The relative and ultimate aspects of bodhichitta relate to dualism. Wanting to be enlightening for the benefit of all sentient beings is dualistic thinking. We fool ourselves if we think we are nondual right now. We are nondual for short periods of time at best. Everything we do in the way of learning about Dharma, meditation, or positive actions is dualistic. We don't have to feel bad about it, because we're using our dualistic condition. We do not cheat ourselves, we are not dreaming, we are not imagining. We are handling our present condition appropriately when we deal with dualism in this way.
Relative bodhichitta is the means by which we can positively relate to ourselves and others at the present level of development. That is our only possibility at this stage. Philosophically, theoretically, we can learn about many other levels, but how we understand those levels depends on our own inner development. We may learn about Buddha, talk about Buddha's qualities, about fully enlightened mind; we might even write books about it, but our depth of understanding depends on our own level of accomplishment. We cannot understand Buddha from Buddha's level. We have to be Buddhas ourselves to be able to do that. No matter what we do, learn, or think, we can only think from the level we are on. ...The duality, which begins from ego, causes ignorance and we must work by means of relative bodhichitta. It starts from where you are and it leads from where you are to the highest accomplishment, enlightenment.
Every situation, every environment, all phenomenon, even emptiness is buddha. ...Relatively, a person may be many terrible things, but because of buddha nature he or she may be helped. If a person were ultimately negative, there would be no way to help or improve, because there would be no potential. ...Every sentient being, because of innate buddha nature, has the potential to improve and eventually to manifest that buddha nature. That is the fundamental explanation of ultimate bodhichitta. Of course, there is much mor to ultimate bodhichitta, which can only be understood as we practice and apply it and as bodhichitta grows.
The way we practice bodhichitta at our present stage of development is to know that we can help other sentient beings because of their great potential--ultimate bodhichitta. ...The combination of relative and ultimate bodhichitta is the best way for us to practice bodhichitta now. It is where we can start Once we firmly establish the correct view, then follows meditation, contemplation, and action. That is the practice. Lord Buddha said contemplation is very important. ...There is a very fine line between contemplation and meditation, which in Tibetan is called gonpa". pages 36-38
Awakening the Sleeping Buddha by the Twelfth Tai Situpa, 1996 (Born in Tibet in 1954), Abbot of Sherab Ling Monastery in northern India. "The most basic, clear principles of Tibetan Buddhism are here lucidly presented...".
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2023 6:53:56 GMT -5
"The four limitless thoughts are all relative to bodhichitta. The relative and ultimate aspects of bodhichitta relate to dualism. Wanting to be enlightening for the benefit of all sentient beings is dualistic thinking. We foo ourselves if we think we are nondual right now. We are nondual for short periods of time at best. Everything we do in the way of learning about Dharma, meditation, or positive actions is dualistic. We don't have to feel bad about it, because we're using our dualistic condition. We do not cheat ourselves, we are not dreaming, we are not imagining. We are handling our present condition appropriately when we deal with dualism in this way. Relative bodhichitta is the means by which we can positively relate to ourselves and others at the present level of development. That is our only possibility at this stage. Philosophically, theoretically, we can learn about many other levels, but how we understand those levels depends on our own inner development. We may learn about Buddha, talk about Buddha's qualities, about fully enlightened mind; we might even write books about it, but our depth of understanding depends on our own level of accomplishment. We cannot understand Buddha from Buddha's level. We have to be Buddhas ourselves to be able to do that. No matter what we do, learn, or think, we can only think from the level we are on. ...The duality, which begins from ego, causes ignorance and we must work by means of relative bodhichitta. It starts from where you are and it leads from where you are to the highest accomplishment, enlightenment. Every situation, every environment, all phenomenon, even emptiness is buddha. ...Relatively, a person may be many terrible things, but because of buddha nature he or she may be helped. If a person were ultimately negative, there would be no way to help or improve, because there would be no potential. ...Every sentient being, because of innate buddha nature, has the potential to improve and eventually to manifest that buddha nature. That is the fundamental explanation of ultimate bodhichitta. Of course, there is much mor to ultimate bodhichitta, which can only be understood as we practice and apply it and as bodhichitta grows. The way we practice bodhichitta at our present stage of development is to know that we can help other sentient beings because of their great potential--ultimate bodhichitta. ...The combination of relative and ultimate bodhichitta is the best way for us to practice bodhichitta now. It is where we can start Once we firmly establish the correct view, then follows meditation, contemplation, and action. That is the practice. Lord Buddha said contemplation is very important. ...There is a very fine line between contemplation and meditation, which in Tibetan is called gonpa". pages 36-38 Awakening the Sleeping Buddha by the Twelfth Tai Situpa, 1996 (Born in Tibet in 1954), Abbot of Sherab Ling Monastery in northern India. "The most basic, clear principles of Tibetan Buddhism are here lucidly presented...". There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 11, 2023 8:00:37 GMT -5
"The four limitless thoughts are all relative to bodhichitta. The relative and ultimate aspects of bodhichitta relate to dualism. Wanting to be enlightening for the benefit of all sentient beings is dualistic thinking. We foo ourselves if we think we are nondual right now. We are nondual for short periods of time at best. Everything we do in the way of learning about Dharma, meditation, or positive actions is dualistic. We don't have to feel bad about it, because we're using our dualistic condition. We do not cheat ourselves, we are not dreaming, we are not imagining. We are handling our present condition appropriately when we deal with dualism in this way. Relative bodhichitta is the means by which we can positively relate to ourselves and others at the present level of development. That is our only possibility at this stage. Philosophically, theoretically, we can learn about many other levels, but how we understand those levels depends on our own inner development. We may learn about Buddha, talk about Buddha's qualities, about fully enlightened mind; we might even write books about it, but our depth of understanding depends on our own level of accomplishment. We cannot understand Buddha from Buddha's level. We have to be Buddhas ourselves to be able to do that. No matter what we do, learn, or think, we can only think from the level we are on. ...The duality, which begins from ego, causes ignorance and we must work by means of relative bodhichitta. It starts from where you are and it leads from where you are to the highest accomplishment, enlightenment. Every situation, every environment, all phenomenon, even emptiness is buddha. ...Relatively, a person may be many terrible things, but because of buddha nature he or she may be helped. If a person were ultimately negative, there would be no way to help or improve, because there would be no potential. ...Every sentient being, because of innate buddha nature, has the potential to improve and eventually to manifest that buddha nature. That is the fundamental explanation of ultimate bodhichitta. Of course, there is much mor to ultimate bodhichitta, which can only be understood as we practice and apply it and as bodhichitta grows. The way we practice bodhichitta at our present stage of development is to know that we can help other sentient beings because of their great potential--ultimate bodhichitta. ...The combination of relative and ultimate bodhichitta is the best way for us to practice bodhichitta now. It is where we can start Once we firmly establish the correct view, then follows meditation, contemplation, and action. That is the practice. Lord Buddha said contemplation is very important. ...There is a very fine line between contemplation and meditation, which in Tibetan is called gonpa". pages 36-38 Awakening the Sleeping Buddha by the Twelfth Tai Situpa, 1996 (Born in Tibet in 1954), Abbot of Sherab Ling Monastery in northern India. "The most basic, clear principles of Tibetan Buddhism are here lucidly presented...". There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual. SDP your argument for duality reminds me of a sock puppet insisting on its own personal independent existence apart from the Hand that it really is.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 8:05:14 GMT -5
"The four limitless thoughts are all relative to bodhichitta. The relative and ultimate aspects of bodhichitta relate to dualism. Wanting to be enlightening for the benefit of all sentient beings is dualistic thinking. We fool ourselves if we think we are nondual right now. We are nondual for short periods of time at best. Everything we do in the way of learning about Dharma, meditation, or positive actions is dualistic. We don't have to feel bad about it, because we're using our dualistic condition. We do not cheat ourselves, we are not dreaming, we are not imagining. We are handling our present condition appropriately when we deal with dualism in this way. Relative bodhichitta is the means by which we can positively relate to ourselves and others at the present level of development. That is our only possibility at this stage. Philosophically, theoretically, we can learn about many other levels, but how we understand those levels depends on our own inner development. We may learn about Buddha, talk about Buddha's qualities, about fully enlightened mind; we might even write books about it, but our depth of understanding depends on our own level of accomplishment. We cannot understand Buddha from Buddha's level. We have to be Buddhas ourselves to be able to do that. No matter what we do, learn, or think, we can only think from the level we are on. ...The duality, which begins from ego, causes ignorance and we must work by means of relative bodhichitta. It starts from where you are and it leads from where you are to the highest accomplishment, enlightenment. Every situation, every environment, all phenomenon, even emptiness is buddha. ...Relatively, a person may be many terrible things, but because of buddha nature he or she may be helped. If a person were ultimately negative, there would be no way to help or improve, because there would be no potential. ...Every sentient being, because of innate buddha nature, has the potential to improve and eventually to manifest that buddha nature. That is the fundamental explanation of ultimate bodhichitta. Of course, there is much more to ultimate bodhichitta, which can only be understood as we practice and apply it and as bodhichitta grows. The way we practice bodhichitta at our present stage of development is to know that we can help other sentient beings because of their great potential--ultimate bodhichitta. .. .The combination of relative and ultimate bodhichitta is the best way for us to practice bodhichitta now. It is where we can start once we firmly establish the correct view, then follows meditation, contemplation, and action. That is the practice. Lord Buddha said contemplation is very important. ...There is a very fine line between contemplation and meditation, which in Tibetan is called gonpa". pages 36-38 Awakening the Sleeping Buddha by The Twelfth Tai Situpa, 1996 (Born in Tibet in 1954), Abbot of Sherab Ling Monastery in northern India. "The most basic, clear principles of Tibetan Buddhism are here lucidly presented...". There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual. I chanced on this book, it came from Gainesville, Fl, very nice used bookstore, Book Gallery West. A month ago my grandson broke his leg and I went down to help with him in High Springs. I read this yesterday in Taco Bell, and the thought came, ZD needs to see this.  I knew you'd like that. The next chapter is about and reincarnation and karma. But what we operate from now The Twelfth Tai Situpa calls relative. You have admitted previously you don't live continuously in ND, because your last question was, How can I live continuously in This? Then you arrived at, it doesn't matter. Correct me if this is incorrect. The TTS specifically says: " we are not imagining". So it seems to me to deny what is actually in operation right now, is imaginary. I could make this long but that's my basic point. I'm not questioning your SR or CC or anything, I'm just asking, what are you operating-from right now? I know when I am operating from ND (what I call simultaneity), most time I'm not there. When I'm not there I don't even know I'm not there, that's what Gurdjieff called sleep. So I don't imagine something that presently isn't. I gnosis when there is simultaneity. I know there is a deeperness to simultaneity also, because I remember being-there (know, because I'm not-there-now). See the distinction? The distinction is what TTTS calls relative and ultimate (the second sentence). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2023 8:11:44 GMT -5
There is no duality except in imagination. What we are is non-dual and has always been non-dual. SDP your argument for duality reminds me of a sock puppet insisting on its own personal independent existence apart from the Hand that it really is. I'm only recognizing what presently is, here, now, in sdp. And that's what the Twelfth Tai Situpa is doing also in Awakening the Sleeping Buddha. To deny what presently is, is in my view, imagination. I know very well I'm not a Buddha. I likewise know I have/am buddha nature. The path is the movement from knowing and sometimes temporary gnosis, to permanent gnosis. The Twelfth Tai Situpa explains this very well. I've never said anywhere there is independent existence, I don't even know what that would mean. Even The Dalai Lama admits there is a self, but not a permanent self. His current non-permanent self has had 14 incarnations as The Dalai Lama. He has made public statements speculating he might be done, he might not incarnate again. See post above for further explanation. I know and admit I'm a sock puppet (small s self, or cultural self), but with no independent existence. I likewise know, again, I'm not a Buddha. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 11, 2023 8:32:49 GMT -5
I'm only recognizing what presently is, here, now, in sdp. Nope. |
|
I knew you'd like that. The next chapter is about and reincarnation and karma.